Ramps

[cglrcng]

I appreciate the back and forth conversation...Though, I probably should have taken it to PM long ago.

As I try hard to leave this alone, my brain just won't let me...Someone explain to my brain how...IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

Let me break that down into both word & spirit of rules segments AS I PERSONALLY SEE THEM; not everybody has to though....

The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required...
...to be an active participant in the game -...
...power, communications, control, and movement.

So, the intent is that the robot have the parts required, the robot be assembled, to be able to be powered, communicate, be controlled, & move or cause movement....A BOX of parts placed on the field does not work and is specifically exempted. (My addition; So, ergo, let them show their stuff).

Then, why was/is it necessary for The Human Player to trigger the movement of the ramp into downward motion by pushing with a litter through the litter chute? (And I am not saying it is illegal to do so, as I know about the contact w/ a robot from outside the field, "is exempt" as long as it is litter through the chute...Yes, Litter Chute)....I'm referring to Robot Rule R1 only. I fully understand tethering or leashing...but a dumber leash or tether you cannot possibly find in this game. That 1547 robot controlled those ramps in no real way whatsoever, nor moved them, or even itself, an inch in that entire match. (How hard to add to the ramp, 1 motor, 1 long PWM cable to the bright orange tether, a little programming code, and hook it up to their actual 3rd partner bot, and make it a true partner in the game. (IF actually deemed legal & proper to continue to do so in the future).

I feel a bit sorry for that team, and all the hard work, time, dedication, & expense involved in building their robot (not to mention the per event large entry fee)...I hope they have a pretty Blue Banner, a title & a Champs invite & an invite to play with you at "THE BIG SHOW TOO" (and I'm definitely sure they do have at least some of that, by now...though nobody could plan that last part to actually happen ;-), too many variables there, & variables are actually doubled this year), to show for it.

If they aren't complaining...Then who am I to? (Personally though, I'd be working on at least a robot set w/ the other suggestions above, so they actually feel as though they contributed to actual points scored in matches played). I just don't subscribe to the "well if it is advantageous to us, then go for it" part of the party. On the other hand...I'm sure they agreed to those parameters, and will assume, before the actual pick too. It is the nature of the beast...But, I'll also encourage a bit more inclusion, as others repeatedly have here too. I do agree with showing all your individual talents...But, they don't call it a "3 Robot Alliance" for nothing.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

This rule has always bugged me a little bit. Most rules are designed to constrain what you're allowed to do during a match. This one tries to set a lower limit on what you must be able to do. I would think that a simple passive slide that moves totes from the loading station to the near platform would fit the intent of the game, but fails according to R1. Regardless of the year, it doesn't seem that having a completely passive mechanism gives an unfair advantage or breaks the game, so what's the point of R1?


As far as ramps go, I expect to see a plethora of them at champs this year.

[cglrcng]

I expect to see a plethora of them from now on (starting this week), if it is deemed "still legal for all teams to do" and not just "Subjective Officiating" at a single event for a single Alliance. (I have no proof that is the current case, the jury is still out BTW). Only questions and very curious minds remain.

Anything that helps faster, high powered stackers get those totes closer to the scoring zone, and gets more off field totes on the field, faster without the inconvienence of the fast stacker being tethered/leashed to their other Actual Robot Portion, and unclutters the HP Stations (should save some time), and make it easier on the Elite high powered teams to score higher....And a lot harder for the lower qualified, mainly lighter 3rd. picks willing to sit still and "get tethered or leashed" for the "Good of the Alliance" and a possible Pretty Blue Banner, and so much more.

For that matter, I'll throw my original idea weeks ago in the trash, of building a pair of on-site community provided, built, and owned clamp or bolt on, Auto RC Collectors (not from the shelf), similar to 148's only clamped on many lesser capable Robot(s), or those that just want the added capabillity, and have room for the added wt.. (all each volunteer community robot would need is an avail. motor speed controller, pre-wired to accept a common plug in, and the approx. 5lb. avail. added wt. space, able to be fitted to bolt or clamp it on in a reasonable period of time, and be able to drive forward 5', and a willingness to participate).

The idea came to me long before I saw 148's bot (for gaining the RC Set for those that can only drive straight into the zone, & opening up that 3 Yellow Tote Stacking Set to more possibillities in Auto since the RC's would be gone, but out of the way possibly scoring both sets & stacks much more often, thereby raising many of the PA's higher across the board).

The "build a pr. idea" was so both Alliances could use 1 each per match on at least 1 bot each side. I was trying to see if it would even fly in the existing ruleset, then attempt to actually do it as a community at possibly a single event (East Phoenix)....Lots of time to "community build it" on Thursday in Phoenix since there are no practice matches until at least Noon on Thursday. Nobody bit, so I dropped it.

Building onsite Ramps (as long as you didn't design one already into your robot, and not everyone designed a Robin or a conveyer belt in like a few I've seen already), is the smart deal if you all want higher personal PA's (and who doesn't). 1 would promote more robot & team participation, the other just a wee bit less.

Forget that...Just Do Both! Every team can spare just a few bucks, and at least 1 team member on Thursday. What is built at the event, is just considered free shop time, w/ fewer controls. (All that is necessary is willingness, split cost of resources, split cost of time, and a little design work, a small area to work, mentor/student participation, community desire & teamwork, and a wee bit of massive organization). The payoffs can be community huge though. Raffle off the pcs. for charity (Winners get to add it to their bagged bot before leaving the event), and do it again next event if there are again willing attendees. (What is a 1-3 hr. build season compared to 6Weeks+?)

[Sperkowsky]

I wonder if making a bunch of simple lexan ramps (5) and bring them to the competition with us is a good idea. We can give them away to teams in need.


OK this thread has gone off track but it's still a good discussion.

I'm thinking the best easy design is 50-75 feet of mason line and a bent lexan ramp. Any thoughts?

[Fusion_Clint]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

I wonder if making a bunch of simple lexan ramps (5) and bring them to the competition with us is a good idea. We can give them away to teams in need.


OK this thread has gone off track but it's still a good discussion.

I'm thinking the best easy design is 50-75 feet of mason line and a bent lexan ramp. Any thoughts?

I'm not sure how useful it be will be unless you have a robot that is willing to not move. The tether touching a stack, eliminating it from scoring, is a serious problem for a passive tether and a mobile robot.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

This rule has always bugged me a little bit. Most rules are designed to constrain what you're allowed to do during a match. This one tries to set a lower limit on what you must be able to do. I would think that a simple passive slide that moves totes from the loading station to the near platform would fit the intent of the game, but fails according to R1. Regardless of the year, it doesn't seem that having a completely passive mechanism gives an unfair advantage or breaks the game, so what's the point of R1?


As far as ramps go, I expect to see a plethora of them at champs this year.

Hey Steve...It says movement (nothing about driving at all), have you not seen our amazing Israeli friends bot (sry, I don't have the Team # handy right now, Team name starts w/ an "H"...Hassam something I believe, my sincere apologies to the team), but it is a conveyer belt from HP station to the closest Scoring Platform, and a killer stacker there, w/ mini bot RC Collector delivering the RC's to the stacker too on the other side, a real fast tight 6 stacker RC capper and solid wall creator, now w/ litter fed from the floor or litter chute into the RC's via the mini bot. A real gem of a robot (it appears to possibly give 148, 1114, 254 and many others a possible real run for the money too), and the only part that actually drives is the minibot...But tons of other movement is involved in that true unbelievable Rube Goldberg Contraption. As they build stacks, they push the previous stacks completed down the scoring platform...actual solid wall like.

I guess the point is that it is a robot competition...Build a robot and you can compete, build nothing, you cannot compete. R1 is just the basic minimums to be able to compete. Anyone (who tries at least), can build a basic robot that satisfies R1 w/ just the basic kit bot pcs. and a minimal bit more expended on parts to accomplish those minimal items listed in R1.

Some can build miraculous ones also w/ a bit more effort, money, time, energy, and ideas. NHRA won't let you competitive drag race without an automobile, truck, or motorcycle....Try to enter foot racing or on a pedal powered bike....Nope.

(Though I once won a bike doing so, and the 2 of us that won the bikes were allowed...no, actually required (for the Popular Hotrodding Mag photos), to race once w/ the bikes through the 1/4...exceptions to every rule I guess...But, the race was over at that point also).

I won....I was young, he was old & slow...Though, he certainly had more insurance! And drove a much faster car. And we were racing heads up. If it was a bracket race we would have had to write our dial-in's on our chests in shoe polish. (Nowhere on the bikes to put the E.T. Dial in).

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint

I'm not sure how useful it be will be unless you have a robot that is willing to not move. The tether touching a stack, eliminating it from scoring, is a serious problem for a passive tether and a mobile robot.

It certainly is, just watching a vid of a Bot stacking on their own powered end of a tether made me cringe for them. A dangerous & possibly self defeating act. Reminded me of "Here, hold my yeast flavored adult beverage....And, Watch This!"

[cglrcng]

I am not one to ever delete anything posted (add to as an edit yes, subtract from after it was posted to and read / responded to), is to take the post "out of context" and possibly make it (or replies from others), possibly appear dishonest.

But, after reading Franks Blog post tonight about the Resolution concerning The Dallas Regional Final matches (a great resolution and a really great post, actions, and thoughts), I wish to ammend all my posts in this thread, wherein I typed the phrase "Subjective Officiating" to (without actually changing each post for the reason given above), "less than proper consideration for the rules to ensure fairness", as I never believed it was actually intentional on anyones direct part to provide any advantage. And, I now believe that they have (conducted a review of similar instances), plans & proper action are in place to change the situation in the near future.

Proper and fair resolution of problems (along with better training), when things do eventually go haywire (and they will), is all we can ever ask for. FIRST has some of the very best employees & volunteers in the world....My thanks to each and every one of them.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

As I try hard to leave this alone, my brain just won't let me...Someone explain to my brain how...IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

I don't understand how you're interpreting this rule to mean "every part of every robot must be able to move", and how this makes a tethered ramp illegal.

Also worth keeping in mind is that in 2013, several teams did not have the ability to drive at all - they just hung from the bar.

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I don't understand how you're interpreting this rule to mean "every part of every robot must be able to move", and how this makes a tethered ramp illegal.

Or how about a robot like Stretchy & Fetchy? The main part of the robot is the non-driving bit.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Christopher149

Or how about a robot like Stretchy & Fetchy? The main part of the robot is the non-driving bit.

For the record, movement in a robot isn't necessarily interpreted as driving around the field, it's just movement relative to the robot.

And I don't see how this conversation relates to ramps.

Team 78 had a tethered piece of their robot by the human player station. It looked like a tote with their numbers on the sides from the webcast, but I can't be sure. Thats a relatively simple solution that can turn any robot with a forklift into a decent HP stacker.

[dkavanagh]

We were at the Toronto East Regional yesterday and decided we also needed a tethered ramp. We decided to cut a grey tote and it worked out exceptionally well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdb_uN4r8_Q

That is in the practice field. In competition, if we lined up with the end of the ramp, we could sit still and feed an internal stacker our robot employs. We're stacking at the speed of the human feed station! Once we sorted out some robot issues, our day turned out pretty well.

We used a braided nylon line for our tether. So far, no issues with it getting caught in the wheels.

David

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

IF under R1 (a portion says in part)..."...The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game –power, communications, control, and movement."

Originally Posted by s_forbes

This rule has always bugged me a little bit. Most rules are designed to constrain what you're allowed to do during a match. This one tries to set a lower limit on what you must be able to do. I would think that a simple passive slide that moves totes from the loading station to the near platform would fit the intent of the game, but fails according to R1. Regardless of the year, it doesn't seem that having a completely passive mechanism gives an unfair advantage or breaks the game, so what's the point of R1?

I don't believe that the goal of the GDC was ever to eliminate passive components of robots, especially as an assist to one or more actuators of the "main" robot. Examples would include spring-loaded grippers, passive rollers on elevators and ramps, and all those "ramp-lock" 10-point climbers for Ultimate Ascent which converted robot kinetic energy into potential energy. On the other hand, one of the clear design goals that persists through the years is to allow the referees, through the FMS, to disable the robot. Otherwise, why the requirement for certification of active MXP devices, among others? If an active robot function is allowed to continue after the electronics is shut down, this appears to be outside of the GDCs intent, even if they have not put adequate rules in place to make it so.

Honestly, the GDC's (ok, maybe FRC legal's) worst nightmare would be a robot that was entirely spring loaded and ran about the field operating autonomously. They just plain couldn't stop it, even though it was destroying field elements and tossing game pieces at passing volunteers and spectators. Even the GDC has to have a bit of a Frankenstein complex in these litigious days. If you think I'm just getting silly with the possibilities of mechanical robots, look up Heron of Alexandria.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Honestly, the GDC's (ok, maybe FRC legal's) worst nightmare would be a robot that was entirely spring loaded and ran about the field operating autonomously.

But.... that sounds like the greatest thing imaginable!

I would still argue that if a team designed a completely passive robot (no stored energy, no actuators, no battery, just a structure that you put on the field that helps an alliance) it should be permissible. The challenge that we were given at the beginning of build season requires that we score lots of points. If you can solve this challenge without using electrically stored energy or actuators, then you should be able to take that approach.

[engunneer]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

But.... that sounds like the greatest thing imaginable!

I would still argue that if a team designed a completely passive robot (no stored energy, no actuators, no battery, just a structure that you put on the field that helps an alliance) it should be permissible. The challenge that we were given at the beginning of build season requires that we score lots of points. If you can solve this challenge without using electrically stored energy or actuators, then you should be able to take that approach.

If you can make that machine, I'm sure you can find room for a minimal control system to make it legal. You don't have to use any wago terminals from the PDP.