|
#76
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Great Robot
Quote:
Consider these 3 scenario that involve the bar to block opponent robot: 1. Putting bins in front of the bar, so opponent robot can't go under because the bin is in the way, 2. Putting your 14"< robot in front of the bar, and even though the opponent robot could out push your robot, your robot will never fit under, thus blocking your opponent 3. extending an arm in front of the barrier and block the enemy robot because the bar is supporting it from behind. Now, obviously the first scenario is legal, because they intentionally design the bar so bins won't fit under, and FIRST should've taken into account that robots will be blocked because of that. For the 2nd scenario, it should be legal also, because the opponent robot will be pinning your robot against a wall if they keep pushing. As for the 3rd scenario, I agree with Paul that you may not use the 14" bar to make a part of your robot functional. If the bar isn't there, I doubt the arm will stop robot from going across. Sure, it is legal to use it when the arm isn't touching the barrier, which will happen when opponent robot sees that they can't go under when the arm is there. But as soon as the opponent robot touch the arm, and the arm use the 14" bar to react, then it will be illegal, at least that's the way I see it. So, unless FIRST change the rule regarding robots reacting against field barriers, I honestly believe it is illegal to deploy such a device to block enemy robot, imho. Otherwise, it is unfair for teams who strictly follow the rules. If it was legal, a lot of robots would've use the bar to flip themselves over, or use the side barrier to lock themselves in place. Please don’t take this the wrong way, because I believe this is one of the most creative idea I’ve ever seen this year… Please ask FIRST about this, and show them the picture. |
|
#77
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's a fine line interpretation of the rule. This isn't really much different from a tall and long robot parking itself in front of the bar. You couldn't push it out of the way, in fact, you would be guilty of pinning the bot against the bar. I am gonna side with T3 in this case. The rule isn't really clear, and I don't think T3's design is impenetrable. As someone pointed out, I can see them being tipped by a wedge or getting tangled up in the deployment process. Nonetheless, they look like a formidable opponent.
|
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That's a very poor analogy. The tall robot has no option of where to go, therefore it's pinning. T3 can simply lift its arms up. They are in that position by choice, not by chance. The question isn't whether they can be beat. Of course they can be beat. Nobody is unbeatable. That has been illustrated last year. The question at hand is whether or not they are in direct violation of the rules. I am sure many other teams have thought of this type of design, but went against it. Last edited by Jnadke : 21-02-2003 at 15:27. |
|
#80
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
No Need ...
O.K., there is no need to get nasty. I know a few of the engineers on team 68 and believe me, they have a conscience.
The fact of the matter is that rule GM31's first sentance states: "The outer field barriers are safety features of the playing field and robots should not be designed to react against them" It goes on to clarify that the midfield pipes are considered field barriers. We can argue over the wording, but the intent is clear - do not rely on the field borders to hold position. That said, see the previous posts about the outriggers and their ability to transfer weight. My guess is that they transfer their weight to the outriggers and don't rely on the midfield barrier at all. -Paul |
|
#81
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: No Need ...
Quote:
68 - Great bot again! As a member of another ramp-domination team I'm impressed with they way you guys accomplished it. To tell you the truth, we thought this was illegal during our brainstorming. I hope it works out for you guys... See you in Houston. |
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Robot 1: Is 25 inches high due to it's design and function, the team couldn't make it any lower. They decided going under the bar wasn't a big deal to them. The contact with the bar is not by design and it is incidental. Robot 2: Is 25 inches high, with arms that extend out making a barrier. Their design has nothing that grabs onto the bar, but due to their height, you can't push them under it. The contact with the bar is intentional but incidental. Robot 3: Is 13 inches high, but has a cylinder that extends to increase it's height. The cylinder has no other purpose but to prevent another robot from pushing it under the bar. The contact with the bar is by design AND intentional. Robot 4: Is 13 inches high and has an arm used to pick up boxes. When the arm is extended it increases the height of the robot and prevents it from being pushed under the bar. If the arm is lowered, the robot is free to move under the bar. The contact with the bar is not by design and is incidental. Robot 5: Is 13 inches high and has nothing to contact the bar at any time. Robot 1 is a legal design. FIRST can't DQ a team because they chose not to go under the bar. Robot 1, isn't necessarily designed to block another robot, but in a match, it may have to. Robot 2 is also legal. The robot was designed to block other robots. Because of it's height, the robot can not be pushed under the bar. It is not illegal to make a robot that can not clear the bar. Robot 3 is illegal. The cylinder was designed to interact with the bar. Robot 4 is not illegal, but if the arm is up, it can not be pushed under the bar. Does a team HAVE to let another robot push it around? My guess is this team will not be DQ if it used it's box picking arm to prevent it from being pushed under the bar. That is unless the arm itself had some kind of lip or hook to help it hold on. Then that would be illegal. Robot 5 is of course legal. I think T3's robot falls into the gray area between Robot 2 and Robot 3. If the bar didn't exist, then T3's design would be perfectly legal, but not quite as effective. This is definitely one for the judges. I understand those teams that see this as a violation. But even though T3 knows another robot will push them into the bar. Their contact is intended by design, but incidental. If nobody pushes them, then they are not interacting with the field. I think the rule is put in place to prevent damage to the field. I don't see T3's design as posing any particular kind of damage threat. T3's strategy is no different than building a robot 13 inches high and then welding a 5 inch bar on top just so another robot can't push it under. The only difference is T3 blocks the entire play field. Last edited by Rook : 21-02-2003 at 16:38. |
|
#83
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Your Examples
Your examples do not highlight the biggest part of the intent of the rule. Getting pushed around on the playing field and designing a robot to be immovable on the ramp (one big key this year) are 2 entirely different things. If a King of the Hill Bot uses the field borders to gain its immovability, then it is in violation of GM31. This is NOT incidental. It is intentional. 25 points and complete positional domination is gained by a method prohibited by rule GM31. I am inspector at 2 regionals this year and if I run across a robot designed like this, I will notify the head referee and get his or her opinion on the issue citing GM31.
However, I say again that I am willing to bet team 68 is pushing hard enough against the floor to make this a non-issue for them. Time will tell... |
|
#84
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Can we just let it go and say "nice robot?" The rules are there for the Judges/Refs to interpret, not us!
Nice robot from team 5!!!! ![]() |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Your Examples
I agree with Paul, while I think your design is interesting and will probably be effective, I also feel it violates the rules about field interaction. If your legs only had 1 pole one 1 side of the bar, I could say "While interaction with the field is likely, it doesn't look like it is central to their design". As it is now, it sure looks like all your strength will come from the bar...
Only time will tell and I do admire the design.Greg |
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
|
I just saw the thread where they say they can transfer weight to the arms. I don't know. Like I said, it's one for the judges. I hope they let it go. I want to see if our robot can beat it somehow.
![]() |
|
#88
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
So, that's why I suggest Team 68 ask FIRST staff about this, because they know the rules the best. Why risk having the change out the device when you can think about it if you ask them now? I am not saying you will be asked to take it off, but its just much better to get a clarification as soon as possible. I think FIRST better have a solid clarification about this, or it might develope into this year's "tether/mouse bot" issue. I would hate to see teams getting answers saying "no you are not allowed to..." and at National everyone put on a new arm (which I think will be unlikely) and block the ramp with it. And even if they managed to lift up the whole robot onto those arms, they are still bounded to be pushed against the 14" bar when the opponent robot are stronger than they are... I think people are worry about this not because they thing the 68 will be undefeatable... Its just because everyone put so many times chewing on the rules, figuring what's the best thing they can do while following the fules. Remember last year when FIRST change the rules regarding tethers? Its not something that can be easily forgetten. Last edited by Ken Leung : 21-02-2003 at 17:29. |
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Now, I know not to let this kind of stuff get on my nerves. 68 has a nice design, but it's not going to be too effective against our design. That is, we hope. |
|
#90
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
maybe its just me, but it seems like there's just enough space under those arms to let a robot with a low profile slip under them. Will the arms be useless against under-bar bots?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The Death of FIRST | Anton Abaya | General Forum | 23 | 03-05-2006 17:18 |
| pic: Here is the real robot from Team 1313! | CD47-Bot | Extra Discussion | 6 | 04-03-2003 12:45 |
| Team 68's Robot | Alexander McGee | Robot Showcase | 25 | 16-02-2003 14:32 |
| More 'Best' Robots (a well thought list) | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 23:11 |
| Disqualifications | archiver | 1999 | 13 | 23-06-2002 21:53 |