Team Update 1

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by jee7s

Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

I don't believe this rule update cleared up the questions about Ri3D 1.0's climb where their robot tilted entirely making their bumpers vertical and whether or not that violated the 15" Extension rule.

Although with the emphasis on measuring the robot as it would be flat on the ground, I'd assume that Ri3D 1.0's climb would indeed be illegal.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by dieDoktor

So, and I think I already know the answer, if a robot was made so that, in the last 20 seconds, the frame supporting the bumpers(not the bumpers alone) was raised the two feet to be above the goal BUT the wheels remained on the ground, this would be a violation correct?

As I read it, correct. That would be a violation.

The intent seems to be that your robot can't get into a configuration so the bumpers are out of the zone that would cause you to miss another robot's bumpers in a collision.

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by dieDoktor

So, and I think I already know the answer, if a robot was made so that, in the last 20 seconds, the frame supporting the bumpers(not the bumpers alone) was raised the two feet to be above the goal BUT the wheels remained on the ground, this would be a violation correct?

That's the basic picture. But, it's also where the contradiction comes in. If I'm not fully supported by the tower, what else am I supported by? By the new G19-1, it seems I can't lift myself from below (be supported by the floor), or do anything to change the bumper height relative to the floor such that the bumpers leave the bumper zone. I could be supported by another robot on my alliance, so long as I am touching the rung. So that opens a possibility. But, barring that, the combination of rules says that I need to lift my robot from above, not jack it up from below.

Also, I second Kevin Leonard's point. This calls into question the legality of the Ri3D 1.0 robot's scaling mechanism. That design either violates the new G19-1, since the bumpers are vertical, or it may violate the 15 inch rule for extensions beyond the frame perimeter. If I consider the floor to be the plane at the robot's wheels when it's folded up, then does that mechanism extend 15 inches beyond the bumpers? I can't tell from the video.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

That's a good followup Q&A since it's not clear. I'd lean towards that being a G11.....So yeah, chasing boulders in an enemy secret passage is an extremely dangerous activity with enemy robots nearby.

I also believe that it would be a G11: It is clear that robots are supposed to, effectively, have the right-of-way in their own secret passage. If a robot is already actively playing defense and its opponent goes into the defender's secret passage, I would think that the defender would still be permitted to play defense. Forcing the defender to back-off would undermine the purpose of the passage...

From the looks of it, even if there is no defense being actively played, going into the opposing secret passage will be dicey... It seems that there are going to be more than a few short robots about and one could, very unexpectedly, go racing through the low bar after the same boulder the daring offensive robot might be chasing...

[dieDoktor]

Also, I second Kevin Leonard's point. This calls into question the legality of the Ri3D 1.0 robot's scaling mechanism. That design either violates the new G19-1, since the bumpers are vertical, or it may violate the 15 inch rule for extensions beyond the frame perimeter. If I consider the floor to be the plane at the robot's wheels when it's folded up, then does that mechanism extend 15 inches beyond the bumpers? I can't tell from the video.

Bear with me here while I try to make sure I understand the issue. So because the robot rotates during its scale, it would violate R22 as it being transposed would have the entire assemblage vertical and now very tall, but not in the zone correct?
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please?

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by dieDoktor

Bear with me here while I try to make sure I understand the issue. So because the robot rotates during its scale, it would violate R22 as it being transposed would have the entire assemblage vertical and now very tall, but not in the zone correct?
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please?

If the top of the mechanism that grips the bar is more than 15" above the frame perimeter in the folded state, then the Ri3D 1.0 Robot violates G18.

[JesseK]

Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.

What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)? Disabling for popping a wheelie could be a huge swing in a match...

As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.

What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)?

As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection.

I agree with your assessment Jesse. I would expect that a wheelie would not be an issue because it is not a normal orientation for the robot to be sitting in.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

I agree with your assessment Jesse. I would expect that a wheelie would not be an issue because it is not a normal orientation for the robot to be sitting in.

Yea, the [G19-1] penalty is huge. Hope they clarify it, and the clarification errs on the side of better gameplay rather than strictness.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Effectively, [G19-1] and [R22]'s blue box stipulate that a robot which has bumpers at the lowest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the entire robot more than 3" without incurring a [G19-1] penalty. Robots which have bumpers at the highest legal point may not use a manipulator to raise the front of the robot at all.

What about if a robot pops a wheelie (intentionally or not)? Disabling for popping a wheelie could be a huge swing in a match...

As a side note, I expect this to need to be demonstrated at inspection.

The way I read it is if your robot has a mechanism that raises the whole chassis (including bumper) the only way it would pass inspection is if at its lowest point the bumpers are in the BUMPER ZONE, and at its highest point the bumpers are still in the BUMPER ZONE.

Wheelies and a like are not included in this rule. Flipping sideways is not included in this rule. the flipping Ri3D bot seems to break the 15" outside of FRAME rule though. In my opinion.

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by jee7s

Actually, I think the rule is more related to having a robot that articulates the drivetrain. Nothing would prohibit a robot that raises and lowers so long as the bumpers stay within the bumper zone. Under that logic, it seems that jacking up your robot from below with a scissor lift to scale the tower is a disabling offense, where pulling yourself up to the rung is not. That's where the clarity needs to be made.

I am thinking that jacking up to clear defenses would be a problem. Jacking up for climbing tower purposes should not be.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by dieDoktor

Bear with me here while I try to make sure I understand the issue. So because the robot rotates during its scale, it would violate R22 as it being transposed would have the entire assemblage vertical and now very tall, but not in the zone correct?
I do not understand how it violates the 15 in rule however. Could you explain that please?

The question is whether the 15" is always measured from the bumpered frame perimeter:
A. projected onto the plane of the floor.
B. projected onto the plane defined by the original frame perimeter/bumpers/wheels.
C. some other dynamically determined frame perimeter.

I don't think C is a valid interpretation, thanks to the repeated declarations that the FP is fixed and not articulated. Given the updated bumper ruling and the robot height ruling with everything relative to robot orientation instead of world orientation, A is unlikely. I think the most likely interpretation is B.

For Ri3D 1.0, the bot is clearly illegal if the measurement is A. It's so tall that the bumpers are well beyond 15" away from the mechanism. I don't think this is the likely interpretation, though. In the B case, I'd have to get a tape measure to determine the legality. It looks borderline-ish, but it's a rigid mechanism, so it's easy to put the robot on the ground and measure.

No, my real concern is going to be short bots with tape measure/single point winch lifts. If the robot tilts over sideways during the lift, it seems highly likely that the tape measure will be outside the 15" envelope until the robot completes its lift. I'm going to pose that one to the GDC as soon as the Q&A opens, since I don't think it's been consistently called or even thought about in the past. In 2010, for instance, the cheesy poofs' tape measure lift would've been illegal under this interpretation. Although in this game, the penalty is a 5 pt foul and eventual disabling, which is still a net 5 pt gain.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I am thinking that jacking up to clear defenses would be a problem. Jacking up for climbing tower purposes should not be.

What do you have to support this?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I am thinking that jacking up to clear defenses would be a problem. Jacking up for climbing tower purposes should not be.

There's no exception to the bumper or frame perimeter rules that states they're not applicable in the last 20 seconds or when a team is attempting a scale, so I'm going to say jacking up is still illegal even for climbing purposes.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Vyrotek

The first thing that came to mind when seeing the SCALE verbiage change was that there must be another way to scale above the line without putting weight on the rung. (The change being: full supported by tower > in contact with).

But you seem to believe that lifting your entire bot from the bottom (stilts or whatever) violates the bumper rules (even if the wheels go up). Is that correct?

That leaves me puzzled as to what other legal options exist to raise your bot above the goal line that aren't supported by the tower.

Yes, the update is completely unambiguous. You can't raise your bumpers up in the air while keeping your robot on the ground, regardless of any other things that you raise up in the air that aren't your bumpers (frame, wheels, etc) without breaking this rule. You'll have to find another way to climb the tower.

A possible intent for them not using "fully supported by" language would be to allow teams to score points even if, for example, they were parked on top of another robot. (Not saying that's a good idea)