Banging the driver station

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

And on top of that you can't give a team a yellow or red card because the field is setup wrong. That is grounds for a field fault and redo.

Can you tell me that the team sign and lights being moved caused a difference in the outcome of the match? T20 requires the Head Ref to determine if a replay is necessary based on a potential change in outcome. It is possible they were in a position to interfere with the view of the drivers, but if they were simply hanging from their wires (which I would expect to happen if the mechanical attachments that Wetzel referenced somehow failed) I doubt it would have a significant impact.

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by Wetzel

If the indicator light and team number flew off because a robot ran into the wall, they were not properly installed.

I'm pretty sure they were installed correctly, as those individuals have been doing this for 20+ years.

But seriously though, this robot hit the driver station wicked hard, much like the description Rick talked about in his original post.

Peace
-CBJ

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Can you tell me that the team sign and lights being moved caused a difference in the outcome of the match? T20 requires the Head Ref to determine if a replay is necessary based on a potential change in outcome. It is possible they were in a position to interfere with the view of the drivers, but if they were simply hanging from their wires (which I would expect to happen if the mechanical attachments that Wetzel referenced somehow failed) I doubt it would have a significant impact.

The field is no longer in spec. Displays that are supposed to be in a location are not can be both distracting and interfere with driver's focusing on driving a robot.

[Sperkowsky]

To all those using a c-clamp isn't that illegal? Wouldn't you be extending outside of the legal driver station size.

[Sohaib]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

To all those using a c-clamp isn't that illegal? Wouldn't you be extending outside of the legal driver station size.

Our whole driver station was within the 14" width specification - including the clamps. From what we have seen, there is no rule explicitly stating where your driver station must be positioned.

[matthewdenny]

Here's my suggestion: In the future lets modify the drive station such that the back edge closest to the playing field has a piece of 1x1 versa frame bolted welded to it. Then teams could have the option of having a couple holes on the back of their drive station to put a bolt and wing to attach to. I guess they could even use a thick zip tie if they wanted.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by matthewdenny

Here's my suggestion: In the future lets modify the drive station such that the back edge closest to the playing field has a piece of 1x1 versa frame bolted welded to it. Then teams could have the option of having a couple holes on the back of their drive station to put a bolt and wing to attach to. I guess they could even use a thick zip tie if they wanted.

This is what I like to refer to as "solving the wrong problem".

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

The field is no longer in spec. Displays that are supposed to be in a location are not can be both distracting and interfere with driver's focusing on driving a robot.

Also if the field isn't put together properly then it isn't safe. If it isn't safe we shouldn't be playing on it.

[68SS]

We were in Que directly behind the driver station where the the indicator light, e-stop, and team number read out flew off. just like Dancin103 said it was "wicked Hard". The head field setup person as well as the head FTA quickly came over picked up the pieces. FTA determined nothing was going to interfere with the drivers as the teleop period had already started and he quickly went and got the replacement parts and had them in place right after the match to so would not be delayed and could keep on moving.

Read the Manual, use the Velcro its there for a reason !

[ToddF]

I find this thread fascinating because it so beautifully illustrates the difference between the theoretically perfect world of academia and the real world in which engineers must design products to survive. I see so much angst being expressed by those who want to design for conditions they WANT instead of designing for the conditions that ARE.

The engineering challenge of designing and building a drivers station to survive harsh conditions is not particularly difficult. Boats, cars, airplanes, spacecraft, cell phones, digital cameras, and FRC robots are all examples of complex systems which must survive harsh shock and vibration environments to be successful. Elementary school students participate in competitions where raw eggs are dropped hundreds of feet and don't break.

The problem here isn't designing and building a robust driver's station. This is known technology. It's almost trivially easy. The problem is getting people to accept the fact that it's necessary. You can argue until you are blue in the face that robots shouldn't hit the wall hard. They do. You can argue that you've been in FRC for twenty years, and it's never been a problem before. Well, thank you for your years of service. That was then. This is now. You can lobby that the rules should be changed so robots that hit the wall are disqualified and matches are replayed. That will be small comfort to you as you contemplate the remains of your smashed drivers station.

It mystifies me how people can OBSERVE how harsh the conditions are, but still refuse to accept that it is necessary to build a robust driver station. It doesn't matter that you don't want it to be that way. It doesn't matter if the robots that hit the wall do so accidentally or on purpose. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. At some point in this game, you are going to have a robot slam into the wall in front of you. It's up to your team to decide if you want to be a team who picks their driver's station up off the floor and continues with the match, or are you going to be the team that comes on CD and posts about how their broken driver's station cost them their match.

In one of our practice matches we went over the rock wall and our robot died. It turns out the battery strap broke, the battery jiggled around, and the connector came unplugged. I asked if the connector was zip tied and got blank looks. After fixing the strap, the students asked if they really needed to zip tie the battery connector, as it would slow down battery swaps. I told them that we wanted that connector so secure that if the battery came completely loose and was dragging on the ground behind the robot, it couldn't possibly come unplugged. We never lost power again in a match.

We use PS4 controllers for our driver and operator. Before the season started, we recognized there was a risk the USB cable could come unplugged from the controller and discussed possible mitigations. The students shrugged this off and never did anything about it. Predictably, in one of our early matches a robot banged the wall in auto, the controller fell off the shelf and came unplugged. The operator immediately plugged it back in, but the match was halfway over before it reconnected and he regained control. This would have been a disaster if we had not included buttons on the driver controller to lower and raise our ball intake, for just such an eventuality. Back in the pit, we used electrical tape to secure the cable to the controller. To test the security of the connection, we hold the controller overhead and drop it. It stops just short of hitting the floor by jerking on the USB cable. Repeat 3 times. If the connector disconnects, it's not good enough and the tape needs redone. We have had no problems with disconnected controllers since.

So, is it possible that you could design your drivers station so you could go on the roof of your school, toss it over the side, and have it survive? I say yes. Would this drivers station survive getting knocked off the shelf when a robot hit the wall hard? You bet it would. The ENGINEERING problem is a solvable one. So, accept that the operating conditions are harsher than you would like them to be. Define an operating environment that bounds the worst case, apply a safety factor, and design to that. Hope for the best, but DESIGN for the worst.

[GreyingJay]

ToddF,

I don't disagree with anything you have said.

However, the goalposts have now been moved. The official word from FIRST, and the opinion of those who share your view, is essentially: "It's going to happen. Deal with it. There's velcro on the operator console for a reason."

But how many posts in this thread were from teams claiming they've used the velcro, and it still didn't help?

Use more velcro, you say. Use C-clamps. Do whatever it takes, anything, to secure that driver station. Zip ties. Bolts. Aluminum channel. Tape your cables together. Perform drop tests. Build a driver station capable of being dropped from the roof of your school.

This is all good advice and certainly I would expect every team to design for conditions much worse than they actually expect to see. But now we're seeing stories of impacts that have been so hard that they are literally damaging the field itself, causing lights, e-stops, and displays to fall off.

Are we just going to keep saying "hey, it'll happen" and tell teams to continue the arms race of build bigger and stronger driver stations? And, while we're at it, maybe redesign the fields so they can withstand stronger impacts? Those lights and e-stops really shouldn't be falling off that easily...

Or, you know, maybe an official ruling that says "hey guys, maybe there's a better way".

Overdesigning is always a good idea. Dealing with real-world conditions is always a good idea. But this is one set of real world conditions that could be changed for the better, and all it would take is a team update.

[BigRickT]

FIRST kind of designed this game with the driver station wall very much a strategy of the game, so it would be kind of difficult to penalize teams for using it... Plus I am one of those people that think crying for penalties makes the game weak. (Like flopping in Soccer or Basketball). Engineer a more rugged driver station so that this problem is moot and lets the robots play!

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by BigRickT

FIRST kind of designed this game with the driver station wall very much a strategy of the game

I am aware of teams who use the driver station wall as an alignment guide by gently driving the robot into the wall, guaranteeing that it ends up square against it so they can then back up from a known position. I am even aware of a team that won an Innovation in Control award some years ago for this simple and, at the time, unique, tactic.

Driving ahead at full speed as an alternative to using sensors or smarter code isn't strategy, in my book.

Would it have been OK last year if robots got the 3-tote auto stack but continued to shove their way through the landfill at full speed? If not, what's the difference here?

[FrankJ]

If field elements such as light boxes flew off... A reasonable argument for a field fault is that is a distraction for the drivers at that drive station. Certainly if they are dangling over their heads by the wires. If the estop got dislodged and was not in the right place. (poster mentioned that it was dislodged as well), that is grounds for an immediate field fault if you are concerned about safety.

While you are specifying your new driver station, keep in mind the likely hood of next year being a water game.

[Maria S]

In one of the matches we played one of our alliance's robots lost connection after a robot slammed into their driver station. Their computer and stuff were fine, but the internals of the driver station were not. We didn't get to replay the match.