Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2015

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

James, while there is no pneumatic rule that this violates what you will have is essentially a device that moves on it's own without being enabled by the FMS. Potentially that could be a violation of R8.

If thats an issue with R8, wouldnt that mean that any mechanism that is run off of a single solenoid, or any mechanism that moves when air is vented be illegal at that point? We can't control gravity, which causes alot of devices to move when the robot is disabled.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

So everyone, I am in contact with HQ now over this question. Give me a day or so to straighten this out.

James, while there is no pneumatic rule that this violates what you will have is essentially a device that moves on it's own without being enabled by the FMS. Potentially that could be a violation of R8.

Al,

I have thought about this and I would suggest that it is no different from a typical air cylinder in most regards. It will not change state unless (a) the compressor kicks on and charges air, which only happens when enabled; or (b) the venting valve is opened, in which case ANY air cylinder could move. The only functional difference I can come up with is compared to 'one-way' solenoid valves, that default to a given state when disabled or de-powered, in which case the 'always connected' air cylinder is safer, because it doesn't change rapidly or without explicit input (venting air pressure or charging air pressure).

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

any excess pressure will be vented by the regulator.

I would confirm that if I were you. Some regulators block all air going in the reverse direction, and do not have a way to vent excess pressure.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I would confirm that if I were you. Some regulators block all air going in the reverse direction, and do not have a way to vent excess pressure.

The 'black Norgren' regulator specified by the pneumatic section of the manual vents excess pressure for exactly this reason.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I would confirm that if I were you. Some regulators block all air going in the reverse direction, and do not have a way to vent excess pressure.

Then that regulator is not a legal regulator. According to R71 the main regulator must be a relieving regulator.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

John and Rich,
It is my understanding, that bumpers, if used, are part of the robot, just like an arm, a pickup device or the control system. That means that the bumpers are not considered separate of the ROBOT and all rules apply. As such, the bumpers need to be mounted on the robot for weight and size. I suppose you can (for this year only) have bumpers on moveable parts that retract the bumpers into the robot for determining the TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION. Just as in the past, if you have multiple devices that can be used on your robot, all mechanisms must be weighed together, and the overall size will need to be determined for each configuration under R4. The change in the bumper rules applies to this season. There is no telling what next season will bring.

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

Al,

R3 allows for minor disassembly to be made to get the robot into its transportation configuration. This would allow them to take the bumpers off and place them somewhere on the robot inside the size constraints. Then when they get on the field they would be allowed to reattach them prior to the match.

I'm very confused here. On one hand we have the game manual saying that we're allowed to perform minor disassmembly to fit into the Transportation Configuration, while on the other hand the Chief Robot Inspector for FIRST is saying that it's illegal. Normally I'd just go with the manual, but as I've been told many times on this forum the Lead Robot Inspector is the final authority at events. If there's been a rule change from what's written in the manual to disallow minor disassembly I'd like to know as soon as possible and I also would like to know why this hasn't been addressed in a Team Update.

[jvriezen]

I can't see how the GDC could suddenly declare the optional non defined bumpers to be required to be attached AND within the Transport Config at this point. I suspect a fair number of teams have quick attach/detach bumpers outside the TC that might also have integrated into them other critical mechanisms/purposes.

But I'm guessing since Al is in contact with headquarters, we'll see something about it either way on Tuesday or Friday, if not before from Al on this thread.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

James, while there is no pneumatic rule that this violates what you will have is essentially a device that moves on it's own without being enabled by the FMS. Potentially that could be a violation of R8.

R78 (one valve to vent all pressure) essentially requires that cylinders always be ported to pressure (even if it is through a control valve) or atmosphere. enabled or disabled. Both ways would be the same violation of R8. A blocking control valve would potentially prevent this behavior but they are essentially prohibited by R78.,

[magnets]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm very confused here. On one hand we have the game manual saying that we're allowed to perform minor disassmembly to fit into the Transportation Configuration, while on the other hand the Chief Robot Inspector for FIRST is saying that it's illegal. Normally I'd just go with the manual, but as I've been told many times on this forum the Lead Robot Inspector is the final authority at events. If there's been a rule change from what's written in the manual to disallow minor disassembly I'd like to know as soon as possible and I also would like to know why this hasn't been addressed in a Team Update.

I have a really hard time believing that minor disassembly/assembly when on the field will be made illegal. My team, and many others (likely including yours) plan to take advantage of this unique rule this year, and have spent money/time designing and building robots that take require assembly on the field. I wouldn't say our whole strategy revolves on being able to manually install a mechanism that's considerably larger than the transport configuration, but we've spent over half our robot budget/time working on it.

We have also come in a little bit underweight, so we do plan on removable bumpers this year that are bungeed to the elevator tower when not in use, and dropped into place when the robot's on the field.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm very confused here. On one hand we have the game manual saying that we're allowed to perform minor disassmembly to fit into the Transportation Configuration, while on the other hand the Chief Robot Inspector for FIRST is saying that it's illegal. Normally I'd just go with the manual, but as I've been told many times on this forum the Lead Robot Inspector is the final authority at events. If there's been a rule change from what's written in the manual to disallow minor disassembly I'd like to know as soon as possible and I also would like to know why this hasn't been addressed in a Team Update.

I agree with Karthik. No inspector has the authority to override the Manual.*

Let me put it this way: Right now, my team is considering pinning an item or two onto our robot. Push item onto robot, push pin in, compete, remove pin, remove item and stick in robot, away we go. If minor disassembly is not allowed, we will have to add or modify a full subsystem to accomplish the same task. In one week. It would have been nice to know this, say, two weeks ago.

I also agree that we'll probably hear back either from Al or from an Update very shortly.

*If an inspector (or ref, or field staff) does override the Manual, we can usually expect a blog post in apology if it's anything like a major incident, and a Q&A clarifying if it's not a major incident.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by EricH

*If an inspector (or ref, or field staff) does override the Manual, we can usually expect a blog post in apology if it's anything like a major incident, and a Q&A clarifying if it's not a major incident.

One would hope. In some areas, however, this is not always the case. In particular last year I remember the rules regarding disabling robots temporarily outside their frame perimeters being somewhat liberally applied outside of the manual definitions, sometimes in ways that severely impacted match results.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

So everyone, I am in contact with HQ now over this question. Give me a day or so to straighten this out.

Al asked for a day or so to get an answer on the bumpers or as some call them the BUMPERS. Can we dial back the panic until he gets back?

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Foster

Al asked for a day or so to get an answer on the bumpers or as some call them the BUMPERS. Can we dial back the panic until he gets back?

There are 8 days left in the build season. If this rule has been changed teams will need as much time as possible to redesign their Robots to account for the change. I don't fault anyone for panicking.

[Sperkowsky]

There's a tiny ir reciever on our robot to control the leds. During matches do you think I will be allowed just to put electric tape over it.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

There's a tiny ir reciever on our robot to control the leds. During matches do you think I will be allowed just to put electric tape over it.

Electrical tape doesn't block IR very well. Visible light, yes. But IR isn't visible light.

I would suggest aluminum foil instead. But... I would also suggest, and probably more strongly, finding another way to control the LEDs in question.