Robot intentionally tipping over

[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.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by jkelleyrtp

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

That picture has virtually nothing to do with this discussion.

A) It's referring the maximum height of the robot.
B) It's in reference to the robot being on a flat floor or not, not the orientation of the robot.


Please be careful not to post non-relevant information in these threads regarding rules questions. While nobody should take CD's opinion as a ruling, we must be careful to avoid spreading false information.

[jkelleyrtp]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

That picture has virtually nothing to do with this discussion.

A) It's referring the maximum height of the robot.
B) It's in reference to the robot being on a flat floor or not, not the orientation of the robot.


Please be careful not to post non-relevant information in these threads regarding rules questions. While nobody should take CD's opinion as a ruling, we must be careful to avoid spreading false information.

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.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by John Retkowski

Why would you want to tip over? If you mean tipping over to block a goal or a defense, I would consider those to be impeding the flow of the match.

A. intentionally tipping over

RI3D is intentionally tipping theirs over in the act of Scaling the Tower (more like an "L"), Tank Treads & Pullies out (like saying at the end of each match....Here you knave, now kiss the soles of my robot), in the attempt of blocking their opponents from scoring the win by Capturing the Tower and the points.

[Chak]

Originally Posted by cglrcng

A. intentionally tipping over

RI3D is intentionally tipping theirs over in the act of Scaling the Tower (more like an "L"), Tank Treads & Pullies out (like saying at the end of each match....Here you knave, now kiss the soles of my robot), in the attempt of blocking their opponents from scoring the win by Capturing the Tower and the points.

Which Ri3D team? I want to see this.

[cglrcng]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaGnaYYfiB8

The above addy gets you to the Ri3D youtube channel....Watch the Day 2 Stream 2 (or scan through until you see them gather around for the scaling test).....Of course they don't yet have any front or rear frame members on that AM Tank Drive or Bumpers on it yet so it is very hard to tell when it is hanging in the "L" position whether it is officially outside of the frame more than 15" or not. But they have it driving, collecting, shooting, and hanging. (The start of scaling test is around 2:52:10, full hang at 3:01 or so). That vid is 6 hrs. + long).

Hmmm, run that video out to the last 10 minutes and you will see the bot in shooter mode in front of the Defense Ramp (Either all the builders are midgets/dwarves, or that bot is well over the 4'-6" in height and would be illegal on field in this years game outside of the last 20 seconds of a match (no robot can exceed that height until then correct?)

[Koko Ed]

I remember the oddest robot that ever made it to Einstein was 1218 in 2004. To get up onto the platform it would lay down on ti's side and drag itself up onto the platform. You can see it start to do it in the first semifinal match.. FIRST was very different back then . No more two team alliances. No more wedge bots. And bumpers exist now so these bots wouldn't be as effective.

[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.