Tether rules?

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by drwisley

This game has officially jumped the shark.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The concept of hunks of plastic that passively direct totes tied to a robot being considered "tethered subcomponents" seems to violate much of the spirit of the game.

[Kevin Leonard]

For the record, "tethering" isn't an official term or a necessarily intended part of the rules. It is an extrapolation of the "no length/width" requirements rules about gameplay that haven't existed in years.

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Yeah, I know what you mean. The concept of hunks of plastic that passively direct totes tied to a robot being considered "tethered subcomponents" seems to violate much of the spirit of the game.

I think you're being too strict about this. In years past the rules prohibited you from detatching parts of your robot into the field. There were usually rules about how far outside your frame perimeter you could go as well. This year however, they removed those restrictions. They want to see teams be creative with what they can compact into that transport config. If a team detatches part of their robot onto the field, it still has to be attatched to their robot in some way. That limits their maneuverability to the limits of their teather. It also adds risk of their alliance partners running over the teather.

When it comes to leaving hunks of plastic on the field, I think that's entirely the spirit of the game.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Yeah, I know what you mean. The concept of hunks of plastic that passively direct totes tied to a robot being considered "tethered subcomponents" seems to violate much of the spirit of the game.

The game design committes designed a very difficult and complex game and relaxed robot design rules so teams can make risky and complex robots. I think this counts. It's no different than having a backfeeding robot.

[drwisley]

Just wait until litter deflectors show up, attached by 'tethers'.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by drwisley

Just wait until litter deflectors show up, attached by 'tethers'.

Unfortunately, they'd still be limited to 78" tall. Most of the well-thrown litter seems to hang up around 8 or 9 feet until it suddenly plummets.

See this thread

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by drwisley

This game has officially jumped the shark.

I have to disagree. Jumping the shark implies something flashy for the crowds that has nothing really to do with the general vision. RR is frankly going to be anything but flashy, except at the finals and championships.

As to following the FRC vision, I found this game to be a great design and strategy challenge, with some real engineering needed to pull off any speed in any of the tasks. Unlike last year, when the functional tasks consisted of:

• Drive
• Pick up ball
• throw ball to about 7' off the floor
• [optional]catch ball

This game has three utterly different game pieces, nonlinear scoring, multiple autonomous challenges, and a sizeable and achievable coopertition bonus. The landfill and step layout is genius. The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility. The only thing I would have changed was to make the ratio between processed and unprocessed litter 1:1 or 2:1 instead of 1:4, which would have led to more noodle manipulators and probably not have inspired the noodle agreement.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I have to disagree. Jumping the shark implies something flashy for the crowds that has nothing really to do with the general vision. RR is frankly going to be anything but flashy, except at the finals and championships.

As to following the FRC vision, I found this game to be a great design and strategy challenge, with some real engineering needed to pull off any speed in any of the tasks. Unlike last year, when the functional tasks consisted of:

• Drive
• Pick up ball
• throw ball to about 7' off the floor
• [optional]catch ball

This game has three utterly different game pieces, nonlinear scoring, multiple autonomous challenges, and a sizeable and achievable coopertition bonus. The landfill and step layout is genius. The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility. The only thing I would have changed was to make the ratio between processed and unprocessed litter 1:1 or 2:1 instead of 1:4, which would have led to more noodle manipulators and probably not have inspired the noodle agreement.

Agreed. We set our strategic goals on on day 1 and found them so challenging (from an engineering standpoint) that we did not truly accomplish our top priorities until we were tweaking our practice bot more than a week after Bag and Tag. At that point, we are generally tweaking secondary or tertiary goals on our team. The challenge was *hard.* At the same time, upon accomplishing our robot goals, the reward was very satisfying. I just hope it all works just as well tomorrow. Sure, from an uninvolved spectator's perspective, the game is lacking. I know that my team and I are very excited for our first match and we'll be cheering as loud as ever.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I have to disagree. Jumping the shark implies something flashy for the crowds that has nothing really to do with the general vision. RR is frankly going to be anything but flashy, except at the finals and championships.

As to following the FRC vision, I found this game to be a great design and strategy challenge, with some real engineering needed to pull off any speed in any of the tasks. Unlike last year, when the functional tasks consisted of:

• Drive
• Pick up ball
• throw ball to about 7' off the floor
• [optional]catch ball

This game has three utterly different game pieces, nonlinear scoring, multiple autonomous challenges, and a sizeable and achievable coopertition bonus. The landfill and step layout is genius. The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility. The only thing I would have changed was to make the ratio between processed and unprocessed litter 1:1 or 2:1 instead of 1:4, which would have led to more noodle manipulators and probably not have inspired the noodle agreement.

I've said it before (maybe not here): Recycle Rush is a fantastic engineering challenge and a terrible game. It's up to you whether this is a net positive or not.

[MVCI]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I've said it before (maybe not here): Recycle Rush is a fantastic engineering challenge and a terrible game. It's up to you whether this is a met positive or not.

In other words it inspires minds already engaged in the field and those we are trying to reach are left scratching their heads trying to figure out why robots have strings attached to ramps.

Are prospective students watching the game and thinking they want to try it out next year?

[Chinske4296]

So in summary, does that unpowered ramp have to be tethered?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chinske4296

So in summary, does that unpowered ramp have to be tethered?

Yes. G25 says, in essence: Thou Shalt NOT Intentionally Detach Parts From Thy Robot.

This rule has existed since 1998, and is also known as "Beatty Rule #1". Back in 1997, you didn't have to have a tether if you left something behind, so 71 (or whatever their number was back then) would make it impossible to score in a certain area once they'd scored by leaving a structure behind. (Beatty Rule #2? No metal on carpet, but that's another story.)

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by EricH

Yes. G25 says, in essence: Thou Shalt NOT Intentionally Detach Parts From Thy Robot.

This rule has existed since 1998, and is also known as "Beatty Rule #1". Back in 1997, you didn't have to have a tether if you left something behind, so 71 (or whatever their number was back then) would make it impossible to score in a certain area once they'd scored by leaving a structure behind. (Beatty Rule #2? No metal on carpet, but that's another story.)

Which brings up the question is an unpowered "tethered" component something that's left on the field. Or, does string qualify as a tether since it's impossible to command the subcomponent through it.

G25 ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.
VIOLATION: RED CARD

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Which brings up the question is an unpowered "tethered" component something that's left on the field. Or, does string qualify as a tether since it's impossible to command the subcomponent through it.

G25 ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.
VIOLATION: RED CARD

String qualifies. It attaches the part to the robot. Whether or not the part is powered is up to the team, and requires more engineering if it is.

[g_sawchuk]

When this game starts to move from just the robot to all these un-motorized appendages, I'm starting to think that a water game is a good idea...
I think that tethers to motorized appendages like 148's HP loader is cool, but stationary ramps? Just doesn't feel like robotics. I think a drop down ramp to the human player station attached to your robot would be much cooler.
And just like any other part like a motorized HP loader, I would say that you have to tether it.