Team Update 1

[RufflesRidge]

Originally Posted by Vyrotek

(The change being: full supported by tower > in contact with).

They changed the glossary definition to match what the manual text said. The bullet points for scale said nothing about "fully supported" now the glossary doesn't either.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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)

I'm telling my team you suggested this, since our running joke is designing for robots driving on top of us, even if it doesn't make sense.

Also with the in contact language, it seems like it might be possible for you to scale by doing a hand-stand with maybe something to touch the rung? Depends on how they want to interpret whatever you stick up through your now upside down base to touch the rung.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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)

My first-read-through thought on why they removed that language was maybe to make it clear that robots who hang on the RUNG but are not supported by the wall (or any other part of) of the tower still count?

My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone?

[Cal578]

Originally Posted by RufflesRidge

They changed the glossary definition to match what the manual text said. The bullet points for scale said nothing about "fully supported" now the glossary doesn't either.

This also means refs don't need to worry about what percentage of the robot's weight is supported by the rung. For example, it's almost guaranteed that a climbing robot will be touching the tower wall, and there's friction, so it could be argued that the tower (without the rung) is partly supporting the robot. With this wording, that's irrelevant (which is a good thing).

Originally Posted by Libby K

... My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone?

Yeah, a capture is much more valuable. But I suppose that if you know your alliance can't make the capture, and if the only way you can get any scale for your alliance is to help another robot by allowing it to climb on top, I guess you could try. Still, I can't imagine that would be a team's build strategy.

[rich2202]

B. A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS outside
the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This
violates R22.

SCALE: an act performed by a ROBOT, such that at the conclusion of the MATCH, it is in contact with a unique RUNG, and has all of its BUMPERS fully above the height of the low GOALS.

I just realized that the R22 change prevents you from making a robot that:
1) touches the Rung; and
2) Lifts its bumpers above the line (and leaves the rest of the robot behind).

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by Libby K

My question is, why would a team choose to SCALE by parking on another robot when CAPTURE needs each robot in its own zone?

Well, there's some good cheesecake for this year. Maybe a bit far fetched, but here's a scenario that gets 3 scales plus a CAPTURE with only 2 robots actually doing the lifting...

Team A cheesecakes Robot B to have a simple mechanism that dispatches a rare earth magnet and some string on an arm. Robot A (Team A's robot) is designed for another robot to drive on top of it and then lift both robots. Robot B drives on top of Robot A. Robot A lifts both so that both sets of bumpers are above the low goals. Robot B then extends the arm to bring the magnet close enough to the empty rung to touch it and "stick" to it via the magnetism. Robot C scales or has scaled the remaining side of the tower.

Originally Posted by 2016 FRC Game Manual, p.5

A ROBOT has SCALED or CHALLENGED a unique face of the TOWER if it is the only ROBOT in contact with the attached RUNG and/or associated third of the BATTER below (i.e. a ROBOT may extend over the divider into the space of another face as long as it is not in contact with the RUNG or BATTER in front of that face)

In the above scenario, Robot A is the only robot in contact with Rung 1. Robot B is the only robot in contact Rung 2. Robot C is the only robot in contact with Rung 3. But, the bumpers of all three robots are above the low goal and only two robots did the lifting.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by rich2202

I just realized that the R22 change prevents you from making a robot that:
1) touches the Rung; and
2) Lifts its bumpers above the line (and leaves the rest of the robot behind).

That was true in the first place--the bumpers have always had to stay in the robot's BUMPER ZONE.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

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.

Note that the 2010 rules specified a "finale configuration" volume that robots had to remain in. They specifically stated the the other rules about extending past the frame perimeter did not apply while the robot was touching the tower and in its finale configuration. IIRC, the finale configuration was a 82" diameter, 90" tall right cylinder, with respect to the floor.. Different rules this yearcheer is NOT working equicalent to 2010, so I don't think we can go with the assumption that it's the same.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Note that the 2010 rules specified a "finale configuration" volume that robots had to remain in. They specifically stated the the other rules about extending past the frame perimeter did not apply while the robot was touching the tower and in its finale configuration. IIRC, the finale configuration was a 82" diameter, 90" tall right cylinder, with respect to the floor.. Different rules this yearcheer is NOT working equicalent to 2010, so I don't think we can go with the assumption that it's the same.

Whoops, forgot about that. I was just skimming the 2010 rules for frame perimeter stuff. So unsurprisingly, 254 was legal that year, but probably wouldn't be this year.

Originally Posted by jee7s

Well, there's some good cheesecake for this year. Maybe a bit far fetched, but here's a scenario that gets 3 scales plus a CAPTURE with only 2 robots actually doing the lifting...

Team A cheesecakes Robot B to have a simple mechanism that dispatches a rare earth magnet and some string on an arm. Robot A (Team A's robot) is designed for another robot to drive on top of it and then lift both robots. Robot B drives on top of Robot A. Robot A lifts both so that both sets of bumpers are above the low goals. Robot B then extends the arm to bring the magnet close enough to the empty rung to touch it and "stick" to it via the magnetism. Robot C scales or has scaled the remaining side of the tower.



In the above scenario, Robot A is the only robot in contact with Rung 1. Robot B is the only robot in contact Rung 2. Robot C is the only robot in contact with Rung 3. But, the bumpers of all three robots are above the low goal and only two robots did the lifting.

This is a concept worthy of the team that designed a ramp robot in 2010 so robots could drive on top of us, and we could lift ourselves and them at the same time for the bonus points of our robot supporting another hanging robot. You should totally come mentor the Leopards, sir.

[pfreivald]

This worries me that any robot that can't maintain a near-perfect center of gravity would be illegal if it tipped overmuch while scaling the tower....

Because if you only pay attention to the definition of the BUMPER ZONE a winch-bot is safe, and if you only pay attention to the 15" outside from a horizontal plane a winch-bot is safe, but if you must satisfy both then you're pretty much going to have to keep your bumpers level as if you were on solid ground if you want any hope of scaling the tower.

"Think it'll work?"
"It'd take a miracle."

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

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.

I'm fairly confident that this would not be legal. Although I'd be willing to be proven wrong.

The ROBOT's BUMPER ZONE moves as the ROBOT moves. If the ROBOT tips over, then the BUMPER ZONE tips too. See the picture in the blue box under G17. While this is demonstrating that a tipped ROBOT doesn't violate the height limit, it would also apply to the BUMPER ZONE. If that's to scale, the BUMPERS are 5" wide, and on the tipping ROBOT the top of the BUMPER is about 16-18" off the floor. That can't be a violation.

It follows that since your BUMPER ZONE is defined by your FRAME PERIMETER, then as your ROBOT tips the FRAME PERIMETER tips too.

When the ROBOT tips in an attempt to SCALE, all parts must be within 15" of [the projection of] the tipped FRAME PERIMETER. That sure looks to be farther than 15" on the video.

Nice try guys, but I think it's time for version 2.0, or at least 1.5.

(Aside: How were they going to put BUMPERS on the front end of that thing anyway? Sure, they could attach a frame section to do it, but that might interfere with the treads.)

EDIT:
Regarding the jacking device, this would change the location of the BUMPER ZONE, because the jack pushes the ROBOT and the attached BUMPERS upward. While the FRAME PERIMETER doesn't change size, the BUMPERS are jacked up so they are outside the BUMPER ZONE. Because the jacking device is still on the ground. Or if on the BATTER, then figure out where the BUMPER ZONE would be if the ROBOT was on flat ground.

EDIT 2: There's a blue box following R22 that states (more succinctly) what I've expounded above regarding the BUMPER ZONE of a tipped ROBOT.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

When the ROBOT tips in an attempt to SCALE, all parts must be within 15" of [the projection of] the tipped FRAME PERIMETER. That sure looks to be farther than 15" on the video.

I submitted a Q&A that I hope will clarify things. I think it depends on whether you have to project the frame perimeter down to the floor like you're talking about, or whether to approach things like the new R22 Blue Box and "virtually transpose the robot to a flat floor". The latter interpretation makes Ri3D likely legal, because it sure doesn't look like the arm sticks out too far when the lift is complete. Of course, the latter interpretation makes winch bots tricky, because if you tip backwards, your winch cable is suddenly 30" outside your frame perimeter. The projection method you're considering pretty much reverses the situation.

[riverdrake250]

Originally Posted by Hallry

New, but awesome. Here are the direct links:

Blue End: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...BlueEnd.vr.jpg
Center: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...6Center.vr.jpg
Red End https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...6RedEnd.vr.jpg
Spy Box: https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.n...6SpyBox.vr.jpg

What's with the missing flap on the blue low bar?