Robot intentionally tipping over

[tstew]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

I think the "transportation configuration" rules of last season could hold precedent.

Last year's rules do not apply:

Originally Posted by 2016 FRC Game Manual Section 1.4;

The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.”

[jkelleyrtp]

I know you aren't supposed to disseminate the rules from pictures but...

[Chak]

Originally Posted by jkelleyrtp

I know you aren't supposed to disseminate the rules from pictures but...

Originally Posted by G1

ROBOTS whose operation or design is dangerous or unsafe are not permitted.

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chak

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

I think it COULD [Edit: NOT] be done, legally.

BUT, it's way way way too risky. You'd have to have two full sets of bumpers, one permanently mounted in each configuration. AND you'd have to be <120" perimeter in BOTH orientations. Not to mention having the ability to retract wheels for the start of the match. (And I'd use that within the match, too.)

An articulated Frame Perimeter is specifically banned.

It ain't worth it.

EDIT: I realized the problem here. The post-flop set has to be OUTSIDE the Frame Perimeter before the match, or the Frame Perimeter it's on is articulated. Either one of those is illegal.

Yep, illegal.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Chak

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match.

I believe it would be the Robot Inspectors that would have the problem, and not the Referees.

The second set of bumpers would be outside the bumper zone, and thus not "Bumpers". You would have to design it so that the 2nd set of bumpers were:
1) Entirely inside the Frame Perimeter; and
2) Within the 120# weight limit.

[DonShaw]

I believe this strategy would be in conflict with 1.1 Message from Woodie Flowers Award Recipients.

"We want to know they are playing with integrity and not using strategies based on questionable behaviors."

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I have to add to this discussion that your robot has to satisfy all rules not just certain rules. What comes to mind are those rules and definitions that discuss bumper zone, FRAME PERIMETER and dimensions, bumper mounting (covering all exterior vertices) and articulation. Depending on dimensions, I can see the possibility of changes in aperture that can still satisfy the rules.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by jkelleyrtp

While I agree that this picture should be in no way an official ruling on anything, it was more to demonstrate the that whatever is considered the frame perimeter and extension changes with robot angle to the ground. If the top of that robot is 15" past it's own bumpers, then it would be illegal if considered an extension. Instead, it seems legal according to the rules, and that even a robot at an angle perpendicular to the ground satisfies the constraints. Thus to say that tipped robots might not contribute to extension size and perimeter limitations as mentioned earlier in the thread.

The rule that picture is related to has nothing to do with the frame perimeter or extensions beyond it. It ONLY has to do with maximum robot height.

[nuclearnerd]

R22 says: BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floor and 12 in. above the floor, in reference to
the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor.

What defines "normally"? Starting configuration? Average position during the match? Where the robot lands if you were to pick it up and set it down again? Waived in the last 20s?

On a similar note, do the frame perimeter extension rules (R3, Fig. 4.2) rotate with the frame? If so, it would (awkwardly) prevent teams from going vertical while extending an arm to the rung (even if the height rules are waived).

Clarifying how these rules affect orientation changes will have a huge effect on teams attempt to scale the tower.

[AndyBare]

Usually when robots tip over [unintentionally] they aren't fouled for changing their orientation on the field, or having "sideways bumpers." just something to consider.

R22: BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floor and 12 in. above the floor, in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

This shown, I believe you can have sideways bumpers, as they do not have to be parallel with the ground; there are no rules stating that tipping changes any configuration of the robot. There is also no limit on horizontal extensions, so you can put wheels on that flick outside of the frame perimeter up to 15 inches, which you can fall onto. (Careful with those measurements though, as you still want to go under the lowbar)
I believe this is legal.

[edit: Also, remember that "normally on a flat floor" is simply how your bot sat during inspection, as "R" rules are primarily guaged as inspection rules. That being said, "normally" is in starting configuration, and also the bumper zone is applied to your robot in starting configuration. Your bumpers do not need to fall within the bumper zone after tipping. Literally speaking, there isn't even a penalty for violating R22 on the field.]

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

[edit: Also, remember that "normally on a flat floor" is simply how your bot sat during inspection, as "R" rules are primarily guaged as inspection rules. That being said, "normally" is in starting configuration, and also the bumper zone is applied to your robot in starting configuration. Your bumpers do not need to fall within the bumper zone after tipping. Literally speaking, there isn't even a penalty for violating R22 on the field.]

Hmmm, so what would happen if a robot raised it's ground clearance during a match, such that the bumpers exited the bumper zone? This would pass the "starting configuration" test, but would not pass "when you put the robot on the ground" test.

[Edit: because this: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...readid=141442]

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by Chak

I find it hard to believe that a referee will allow a robot to have sideways bumpers in a match. I believe bumpers were intended to protect the world from the robot and the robot from the world. Having the bumpers sideways like that would be unsafe imo. You may not even pass inspection if you intend to do this as part of the robot design.
But if you have a way to move your bumpers down... that looks so complicated, it's probably not worth it though imo.

R23. Bumpers aren't allowed to articulate as Eric mentioned. Just wanted to cite the rule.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

R22
BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between two virtual horizontal planes, 4 in. above the floorand 12 in. above the floor, in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

Emphasis mine

Originally Posted by Glossary

FRAME PERIMETER
the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE. To determine the FRAME PERIMETER, wrap a piece of string around the ROBOT at the level of the BUMPER ZONE - the string describes this polygon

When the robot "flops" the BUMPER ZONE does not change due to orientation of the robot (r22). Thus the FRAME PERIMETER does not change due to orientation change.

As long as you can extend wheels to the 'flopped' side (and keep it within the 15" extension rules) flopping looks legal to me.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
The intention is that any robot to robot contact occur only within the bumper zone to prevent damage to robots. The bumper zone is tested and evaluated when the robot wheels are on a level surface and bumpers may not be articulated (i.e. moving). If the robot changes robot frame to floor dimensions, I would expect the Q&A would respond that the bumper zone still has to be satisfied. As ruled in the past, if the bumpers are angled, they still had to satisfy the bumper zone requirement. That allows bumpers to be mounted higher on one side of the robot and lower on another side.
While the 2016 bumper rules are very close to those in the past, the only real answer can be obtained from the Q&A.

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Guys,
The intention is that any robot to robot contact occur only within the bumper zone to prevent damage to robots. The bumper zone is tested and evaluated when the robot wheels are on a level surface and bumpers may not be articulated (i.e. moving). If the robot changes robot frame to floor dimensions, I would expect the Q&A would respond that the bumper zone still has to be satisfied. As ruled in the past, if the bumpers are angled, they still had to satisfy the bumper zone requirement. That allows bumpers to be mounted higher on one side of the robot and lower on another side.
While the 2016 bumper rules are very close to those in the past, the only real answer can be obtained from the Q&A.

I agree, and I think that the simplest answer they could give would be changing "when the robot is standing normally on the floor" in R22 to "until the robot is scaling the tower" That would clean up a lot of this "creative thinking."

That being said, I think creative thinking is awesome, and it'd be totally cool if they allowed it. I want to see robots do the limbo.