Scaling via jack up legs instead of "hanging"?

[FrankJ]

Really a Q&A question, but my thought is you would meet the definition of SCALED and red carded for violation of the robot rules regarding the bumper zone assuming you passed inspection in the first place. Otherwise interesting idea.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Really a Q&A question, but my thought is you would meet the definition of SCALED and red carded for violation of the robot rules regarding the bumper zone assuming you passed inspection in the first place. Otherwise interesting idea.

Yes I think the problem one would run onto is that the jacks are still part of the robot, so if the bumper moves up two feet and the robot is still in contact with the batter, then the bumpers have exceeded the range at which they are allowed to be in relation to the bottom of the robot, which in the case of the jack, is at the contact point between jack and batter.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

the bumpers have exceeded the range at which they are allowed to be in relation to the bottom of the robot, which in the case of the jack, is at the contact point between jack and batter.

The bumper rule R22 is not defined wrt the bottom of the robot, but wrt the "ground when the robot is standing normally on the floor". It comes down to what "normally" means in this context.

[bEdhEd]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

The bumper rule R22 is not defined wrt the bottom of the robot, but wrt the "ground when the robot is standing normally on the floor". It comes down to what "normally" means in this context.

Perhaps I should have been more precise. "Bottom" of the robot to me means where the robot stands on the floor normally. Do some people see the "bottom" of the robot as the lowest point of their chassis frame?

[msonnier]

Discussion echoing my thoughts around what does "standing normally" mean. My guess is Q&A will clarify that this will NOT be allowed.

To push the envelope a bit more -- what if I don't actually use legs but what if instead my basic drive train stays on the ground -- but my "perimeter frame" and the attached bumpers is the only part that rises up? How much of the robot is "enough" to raise and not cause issues with an R22 violation?

The liberal definition of "normally standing" would open up all sorts of very grey to egregious interpretations that would potentially allow me to play most of the match with no bumpers in a place where they are useful. For example, could I use my lifting jacks not on the batter to complete a SCALE but instead during a match to lift my robot and allow a ball acquisition mechanism to suck in a ball UNDER my bumpers?

[AndyBare]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

Yes I think the problem one would run onto is that the jacks are still part of the robot, so if the bumper moves up two feet and the robot is still in contact with the batter, then the bumpers have exceeded the range at which they are allowed to be in relation to the bottom of the robot, which in the case of the jack, is at the contact point between jack and batter.

Interesting, but I still think "normally" perhaps is more vital to - (the configuration in which you were inspected), so if you weren't inspected while standing on jacks, then standing on jacks wouldn't be "standing normally on the floor." If you would normally "stand" on wheels, and your wheels no longer have contact with the floor, are you still "standing normally on the floor?"

I agree though. Something to be taken to Q and A for sure. Definitely needs some clarification.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by AndyBare

Interesting, but I still think "normally" perhaps is more vital to - (the configuration in which you were inspected), so if you weren't inspected while standing on jacks, then standing on jacks wouldn't be "standing normally on the floor." If you would normally "stand" on wheels, and your wheels no longer have contact with the floor, are you still "standing normally on the floor?"

Don't over think "normal". You take your robot in whatever operating configurations it might have and set it on level ground. If your bumpers are not in the bumper zone, your robot is not legal. So anything extending to the ground raising the bumpers out of the zone would be illegal. It is up to the team to show all operating configurations to the inspector.

While not specific to this question, if you have an illegal configuration during a match, and it is noticed by the referee, the best result you can hope for is being told to fix it and have your robot reinspected.

[nightpool]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Don't over think "normal". You take your robot in whatever operating configurations it might have and set it on level ground. If your bumpers are not in the bumper zone, your robot is not legal. So anything extending to the ground raising the bumpers out of the zone would be illegal. It is up to the team to show all operating configurations to the inspector.

While not specific to this question, if you have an illegal configuration during a match, and it is noticed by the referee, the best result you can hope for is being told to fix it and have your robot reinspected.

I don't think this is an "illegal configuration" though—the bumper rules only talk about the "normal" configuration. For a concrete example, in 2013 some teams had a jack that tilted them up 6 or so inches so they could start climbing the tower. Would you say they were violating the bumper rules as well? The theory is the same.

Anyway, I don't believe this is violating the spirit of the bumper rules either. Bumpers are designed to protect the robot from any rough collisions during the game, but during the last 20 seconds there are already heavy penalties again being contacted in any way by an opposing robot while attempting to scale.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by nightpool

I don't think this is an "illegal configuration" though—the bumper rules only talk about the "normal" configuration. For a concrete example, in 2013 some teams had a jack that tilted them up 6 or so inches so they could start climbing the tower. Would you say they were violating the bumper rules as well? The theory is the same.

I would have to go back and review the 2013 rules to have an opinion. But this isn't 2013 so that really doesn't matter. The 2016 rules do not reference an "normal configuration". R22 refers to the robot standing normally on a flat floor with configuration unspecified. As opposed to standing on a batten or other obstacle.

[mrnoble]

*sigh*

Some things don't change

[m1tche11d]

Originally Posted by nightpool

For a concrete example, in 2013 some teams had a jack that tilted them up 6 or so inches so they could start climbing the tower. Would you say they were violating the bumper rules as well? The theory is the same.

Do you know the team numbers of any of these teams, so I can find the archived match videos?

Thanks

[nightpool]

Originally Posted by m1tche11d

Do you know the team numbers of any of these teams, so I can find the archived match videos?

Thanks

I know our team built one, but I don't think we ever used it outside of practice matches because the rest of our climbing system was just completely broken. It wasn't an original idea, but I can't think of any offhand, and the few teams I did search didn't turn up any interesting videos.

I did check the 2013 manual though, and there aren't any special exceptions to the bumper rules related to climbing or anything.

the rule in question is almost completely identical:

Originally Posted by Ultimate Ascent R25

BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is between 2 and 10 in. from the floor, in
reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor.

[FrankJ]

The Team update (3.4.5 G19-1 & 4.7-R22 blue box) makes it pretty clear that it is not legal for 2016.

My interpretation of the 2013 rules is that it wasn't legal then, but then I was neither your robot inspector or your referee. The climbing rule was your robot could not be in contact with the floor & get credit so the bumper interpretation was less of an issue.

[MisterG]

Today's team update makes it pretty clear that jack up legs are not legal.

This topic is getting covered pretty thoroughly on the team update thread.

Additions include:

G19-1
ROBOTS must be in compliance with
Section 4.7: BUMPER Rules
throughout the MATCH.
Violation: DISABLED

R22 Blue box added.

This measurement is intended to be made as if the ROBOT is resting
on a flat floor (without changing the ROBOT configuration), not relative
to the height of the ROBOT from the FIELD carpet.
Examples include:
A.
A ROBOT that is at an angle while traversing a DEFENSE has its
BUMPERS outside the BUMPER ZONE. If this ROBOT were virtually
transposed onto a flat floor, and its BUMPERS are in the BUMPER
ZONE, it meets the requirements of R22.
B.
A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS outside
the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This
violates R22.

The second part of the R22 blue box seems to be a direct ruling on jack up scaling.

Re-Edit. Dagnabit. Sniped.
Edit: 100th post; woohoo. Only took me 5 years.

[nightpool]

Yep today's team update certainly clears this up. I feel like this is to the detriment of a lot of the more unusual/interesting strategies for navigating defenses (I expected them just to update the way a scale was scored) but at least its unambiguous now.