New robot rules at Peachtree

[GeorgePBurdell]

OK - as the LRI who "started" this, some background.

When I saw the designs of a number of teams at our scrimmage, I became concerned about the potential for injury due to the potential for the "stored energy" mechanisms to accidentally deploy while being handled. In discussions among the LRI's, it became apparent that I was not alone. Week 1 events announced the "requirement" for a safety interlock if the robot was to be moved in a stored energy state. I proposed this to my Regional Committee who decided to await further developments before announcing the policy. As results of injuries - even minor ones - began to come in, and bolstered by the GDC's Team Update - we decided to emphasise the need for a safety device. As noted previously by Dr. Bob, who worked with me to develop the wording of the announcement, this was not a decision taken lightly. His post accurately describes the thinking behind the process

It is not my nor the Peachtree Committee's intention to place an undue burden on teams, but as noted earlier, the intent was merely to inform teams that the inspection team would be looking for safe operation of the teams' robots - particularly when being transported. As stated in the notice to the teams, recognizing the implications after Stop Work day, the implementation of a "safety device" - probably better wording in hind sight than "safety interlock" - the weight of the device wouldn't be counted in the 45 pound limit for fabricated parts and as long as it was "removed" from the robot in the starting configuration, would not be counted in the robot weight. I also noted that the inspection team would be open and receptive to innovative safety devices.

As has been noted, the expectation is that the device would be as simple as a bolt through a rod, a strap or tie-down to restrain the mechanism, or any equivalent simple device - not to require some elaborate device that would place a burden on teams. Also, as has been noted, my intent was to get the word to the teams prior to the event so they could think about it and develop a simple, basic device to assure the safety of their mechanism and to meet the intent of this policy. Suggestions in this thread alone are basic, easily implemented devices for many designs. If a team's device is inherently "safe," the inspection team will require nothing more.

I trust that teams will agree with the intent of the policy. My and the Committee's only intent is the safety of the participants.

Jeff Rees
LRI Peachtree Regional