Ri3D 1.0 Robot Reveal 2016

[dellagd]

Awesome work guys! That back mechanism is pretty sweet.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

This is my question as well. Since the rules tend to refer to the robot as it is when it is sitting flat on the ground, would this hang be considered an extension beyond 15"?

5254 was discussing similar hanging ideas and this is the part we got caught up on and ended up tabling the conversation until a Q&A clarification.

We were questioning the same rule extrapolation:

R3 The ROBOT must satisfy the following size constraints:

B. must not extend greater than 15 in. beyond the FRAME PERIMETER (see Figure 4-2 for examples) (see G18)

R2 The ROBOT must have a FRAME PERIMETER, contained within the BUMPER ZONE, that is comprised of fixed, non-articulated structural elements of the ROBOT. Minor protrusions no greater than ¼ in. such as bolt heads, fastener ends, and rivets are not considered part of the FRAME PERIMETER.

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.

As they are currently written it seems that if your robot tilts 90 degrees, your 15" extension limit also does, which would make it pretty tricky to climb if your robot loses 'normal' standing orientation.

[Dan Richardson]

Thanks for the kind words!

In regards to the G17 concerns:

The arm being above the 54" threshold was a slight oversight while filming the reveal video. In actuality this arm would be limited in software not to exceed 54" until the end game. The arm does not need to be above 54" for the robot to shoot. The angles of the arm and a majority of the trajectories of the shots are fine without it.

Some suggestions to eliminate all possible concerns were to make the arm extension an actuated function or to make the arms wider so the ball could fire through it. Either way would help but as it is the robot complies with G17.

In regards to the R3 rule:

Ironically the G17 illustration actually depicts what we believe to be the clearest illustration of how we interpreted the bumper rules.

Our interpretation is that during inspection R2 and R22 establish the robots normal direction with specific reference to the frame perimeter and bumpers. If the angle of the frame perimeter / bumper zone changes then the other allowable extensions change with it. These rules are similarly worded to past hanging games and they were similarly interpreted then.

If this were not the case then when the example 4' 6" robot in G17 were to attempt to climb the rock wall and tilted back he may also exceed the 15" extension rule. Notice that all measurements of the robots height are taken normal to (or aligned with) the new angled reference of his frame perimeter and bumpers.

[dellagd]

Originally Posted by Dan Richardson

If this were not the case then when the example 4' 6" robot in G17 were to attempt to climb the rock wall and tilted back he may also exceed the 15" extension rule. Notice that all measurements of the robots height are taken normal to (or aligned with) the new angled reference of his frame perimeter and bumpers.

I think there are two different possibilities for violation of this type here. The >15" tall upper structure of the robot and the >15" extension that grabs the bar to lift the robot.

If the extension rule stays parallel to the plane of the bumper zone, then when tilted at 90 degrees back the extensions that are grabbing the bar would have to be less than 15 inches. I wasn't there for them, but I thought this type of extension was legal in past seasons.

[Purpose]

Very nice robot, loved your reveal! I thought the Sally Port mechanism was especially ingenious. I'm curious as to how you guys would go about mounting bumpers onto your bot, do you think you could give some insight into that?

[mbshark]

I would also love to see bumpers as well! However, that might go under this thread: CD-Rhino Treads and Bumpers

[The other Gabe]

Loving this idea. interested to see how it will hold up against what teams come up with

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

How fast is this robot? It's ATV for sure, but looks on the slower side. Never saw it go wide open though.

[iLikePie]

What sized wheels are you using to fire the boulder?

[Dan Richardson]

Originally Posted by Purpose

Very nice robot, loved your reveal! I thought the Sally Port mechanism was especially ingenious. I'm curious as to how you guys would go about mounting bumpers onto your bot, do you think you could give some insight into that?

I think it would require creating a sheet metal bracket that spanned the rear and front gaps to create a flat surface for the bumper to mount. You may also need some standoffs to ensure that the bumpers are level to the ground. I believe a many teams will be working through this packaging challenge as the Rhino Tracks are fun to use.

Originally Posted by michchinn

What motors and reductions were you running on the shooter?

We used 2 mini cims to drive 4 x 4" Kit Wheels through Modulox Channel and Lunchbox kits. We used a 1:1.14 gear ratio from a 32 (driving) to 28 (driven) flex hub gears.

This design was inspired by the Modulox basketball launcher from a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO0XzkthMUs

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by dellagd

I think there are two different possibilities for violation of this type here. The >15" tall upper structure of the robot and the >15" extension that grabs the bar to lift the robot.

If the extension rule stays parallel to the plane of the bumper zone, then when tilted at 90 degrees back the extensions that are grabbing the bar would have to be less than 15 inches. I wasn't there for them, but I thought this type of extension was legal in past seasons.

Remember, past season rules and interpretations do not apply this season!

The most recent time I can think with anything similar was Breakaway (2010). In that game, you were not allowed to extend past your frame perimeter, except in specific situations. For climbing, the rules specifically stated that you were allowed to exteond utwards into a specific volume defined by the finale configuration (90" tall, 82" diameter right cylinder) while touching the tower. There's no such similar rule this year to apply while climbing - it appears that, as it's written now, the 15" limit applies while climbing. Now, how that's interpreted is anyone's guess, and certainly will lead to the Q&A before anyone build something that might be illegal!

[michchinn]

What motors and reductions were you running on the shooter?

[team1512]

First of all, nice job in the robot! It looks great.
We saw that you used flashlights to direct your shots, and I know the rules for this year doesn't say anything about this, but last year's checklist says that you can't direct/focus any lights in any way.
Does anyone know if this would be a problem this year?

[apm4242]

FYI - The GDC just ruled on the 15" extension reorientation while scaling issue -


Extensions outside the FRAME PERIMETER are measured in the same plane as the FRAME PERIMETER. As the FRAME PERIMETER is re-oriented (e.g. when a ROBOT drives up the BATTER), the plane of measurement is similarly re-oriented.

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Que...ng-hook-to-cli

[jdaming]

I believe that with some small modifications this scaling method could still be legal. Making the tower that the arm rotates from taller (so the point it contacts on the wall is up closer to the bar and the arm doesn't need to be as long) or using a long oriented chassis (so that the arm could be longer and the longer frame perimeter would keep more of it inside the robot) would both seem to fix this issue.

[Dan Richardson]

Originally Posted by apm4242

FYI - The GDC just ruled on the 15" extension reorientation while scaling issue -


Extensions outside the FRAME PERIMETER are measured in the same plane as the FRAME PERIMETER. As the FRAME PERIMETER is re-oriented (e.g. when a ROBOT drives up the BATTER), the plane of measurement is similarly re-oriented.

https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Que...ng-hook-to-cli

We saw the clarification this morning.

If I'm interpreting this correctly then our configuration is legal as our arm never extends further than 15" outside the robots frame perimeter. This works because the entire robot revolves around the arm pivot and thus we never violate that configuration.

We designed the arm with the specific length in mind so we could manipulate the defenses during game play as well as hang. I'm happy our design remains within the rules for now, however it is odd to be so restrictive on a more difficult task.

Originally Posted by jdaming

I believe that with some small modifications this scaling method could still be legal. Making the tower that the arm rotates from taller (so the point it contacts on the wall is up closer to the bar and the arm doesn't need to be as long) or using a long oriented chassis (so that the arm could be longer and the longer frame perimeter would keep more of it inside the robot) would both seem to fix this issue.

I think the assumption is that our arm is very long but it is indeed only 15" longer than the frame perimeter. If it were not then we would not be able to use it to manipulate the defenses.

/Edit***** I should say close enough to prove a point. If our bot is an 1" or so out of spec. we don't typically rectify. We only ever seek to be mostly FIRST legal :-)