Ramps

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

BTW, 80LB power pro, does not snap unless you have a serious fish on the line, a 120 LB robot doesn't stand a chance.

The ability to withstand a pull without breaking is not an issue for something like a passive tether/leash. Getting cut is what I'd worry about. A piece of material that's less than a millimeter thick seems likely to be easily damaged by robot wheels and gearboxes.

Eric's caution appears sound to me. I agree with the basic idea that you should also avoid making it difficult for people to see that you are following the rules, and a .035 wide line is going to be difficult to see.

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

How does the tether being wrapped around anything make a difference in the score?

For one thing, a tote stack in autonomous only counts if it is not in contact with a robot.

[Fusion_Clint]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The ability to withstand a pull without breaking is not an issue for something like a passive tether/leash. Getting cut is what I'd worry about. A piece of material that's less than a millimeter thick seems likely to be easily damaged by robot wheels and gearboxes.

Eric's caution appears sound to me. I agree with the basic idea that you should also avoid making it difficult for people to see that you are following the rules, and a .035 wide line is going to be difficult to see.



For one thing, a tote stack in autonomous only counts if it is not in contact with a robot.

Again,

Don't worry about the effectiveness of a teams solution when it comes to whether it is within the rules or not. Again, anything that will cut a rope will also cut braided line.

"highly visible" is not a requirement in the rules. And the rule is supported by a robot, not touching a robot.

It is amazing to me that people with zero apparent experience with high visibility braided line are making such absolute statements about it.

I withdraw from this conversation on the basis that one should not argue with ....

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

And the rule is supported by a robot, not touching a robot.

All I will say to that is that if there is doubt as to support, the referees will not score the points--see the rules since Day 1. And touching is often enough to add in doubt.

[Fusion_Clint]

Originally Posted by EricH

All I will say to that is that if there is doubt as to support, the referees will not score the points--see the rules since Day 1. And touching is often enough to add in doubt.

If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

[Gregor]

The attached photo did not enhance my event experience.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Gregor

The attached photo did not enhance my event experience.

Did they not count it as a STACK? As far as I know, the only stack with limitations is for an RC that can only be supported by gray totes ("by only scored Gray TOTES" in 3.1.2.3).

In 3.1.2.2, the requirement is only "supported by the STEP". The blue box goes on to say that "support" is transitive through other TOTES, which implies that it can also be transitive through other items, such as LITTER, or even an RC.

I suppose that one could argue whether the LITTER somehow breaks the "single column" requirement. But, that would be pretty lame.

[ATannahill]

I do not see how saying support is transitive through totes implies that support is transitive through litter. Especially look at the Q&A response.

Please note, I am not saying I like the call, I am just saying this call is not surprising if you read the Q&A.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

I do not see how saying support is transitive through totes implies that support is transitive through litter. Especially look at the Q&A response.

Please note, I am not saying I like the call, I am just saying this call is not surprising if you read the Q&A.

QA439 is explicitly about RC's, which is what I said does not allow for transitivity through other items, and thus does not apply to this situation.

3.1.2.2 in the rule says "supported" without definition. In the blue box (which is a note) adds clarification that support is transitive. Since the clarification did not say transitive "only" through other TOTES, it can be reasonably implied that it is transitive through other items as well.

[pntbll1313]

Originally Posted by rich2202

QA439 is explicitly about RC's, which is what I said does not allow for transitivity through other items, and thus does not apply to this situation.

3.1.2.2 in the rule says "supported" without definition. In the blue box (which is a note) adds clarification that support is transitive. Since the clarification did not say transitive "only" through other TOTES, it can be reasonably implied that it is transitive through other items as well.

But it's not explicityly about RC's... "Gray TOTES 3,4,5 do not score because "support" is only transitive through TOTES and not LITTER."

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by pntbll1313

But it's not explicityly about RC's... "Gray TOTES 3,4,5 do not score because "support" is only transitive through TOTES and not LITTER."

Upon closer reading, I saw that. Odd ruling since no where in the manual does it say that for totes, support is transitive only through totes. I submitted a Q&A.

I suppose the intention may be to discourage the creation of unstable stacks.

[BeardyMentor]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

Calm down, they are just trying to help. The idea is that it *could* be interpreted that way. If you have two options, one that could be ruled in such a way that you do not get the points and the other where there is no question, you should go for the option where there is no question. In the end it is completely your and your team's choice. The people here are just giving you their opinion and some simple justifications for it.

I am not so worried about the Refs saying the tether is supporting the totes, but of entanglement. I know that these thin very flexible lines have a good chance of getting caught in the rollers on mecanum and omni wheels. There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.

[g_sawchuk]

Wow, this conversation has really "ramped up" into quite the argument.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by BeardyMentor

There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.

And with monofilament, by the time it is large enough to be visible, it does not lay flat on the carpet. This makes monofilament an entanglement hazard for rubber wheels as well.

(emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by BeardyMentor

There would have to be a lot of testing done before we were to put anything that might pose an entanglement hazard to another robot on our alliance on the field.

And this is also why I do not expect to see tethers in play again, until/unless we have another "Step" game, in which the alliances must occupy different spaces, or at least have large exclusive zones from which they can effectively play the game. This year you can only be an entanglement hazard to your own alliance.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

If you think a 1/32" line laying on the ground touching a tote is considered to be supporting a stack, you should not be in a position of trust. That is way past a realistic interpretation of the rules and you have missed the intent of Frank's message about team experience.

Frankly, you are part of the problem.

Just like the elevator hooks leaning on top can't support it?

FIRST has almost always had "contact implies supporting" rules. Because otherwise it's a judgement call and those are worse than illogical calls (like 1/32 cable supporting 60lbs of game pieces) because they are inconsistent.

What Eric is saying is don't even give them a reason to not count it because there's a chance it won't get counted just so they are consistent.

[Mr. Tatorscout]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

I withdraw from this conversation on the basis that one should not argue with ....

...says the man who couldn't resist making yet another snarkey comment later on! I don't think the word "withdraw" means what you think it means. Perhaps you have been tethered by this thread.