|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Well - I see the intent of "in the zone" to be safety, obvious-ness, and loading intent.
Has anyone suggested possibly making the 36" triangles a little bit larger on the field, so that it would help avoid the straddling concern, if they want to stick to "touching" the triangle? They made them a little larger for the HP side, why not make them a little larger for the field side? Is there any specific reason why 36" was chosen? Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"? I have got to believe that they will eventually accept the "obvious straddling" position as "in the zone". But if you open it up to "just being in the 3d space above the triangle", then you could have your robot body anywhere within 6 feet away from the zone, with it's arm sticking out "in the 3d space". That's a safety concern, and it would be difficult to enforce a "no interference" rule with that because you don't have any fixed space for the robot to be in - your arm would just need to dangle over the triangle, and the refs couldn't really judge your intent of retrieving a tetra, or if you're just swinging the arm about. And they want to try and enforce the "no interference", especially for safety. So there has to be SOME type of rule that states when you are in, and when you're not in, the zone. You have to have some "fixed" space that you can consider a no-interference zone. My opinion, is that if they increased the size of that triangle zone a little bit, and they allow the obvious straddling position, then we might minimize some of the major concerns. Plus, making it bigger, you have less of a chance of actually straddling it. I'm guessing with the size of some robot arms, it will be difficult to get some portion of the robot "in the zone", in an obvious manner, before touching the tetra. Some robots will have their wheel touch the very tippy corner of the triangle, and the driver will be able to see that, but a ref or someone else not at the right angle won't. So they may get penalized "unjustly". If you allow a little more space (bigger triangle) to make it obvious, you increase the safety for everyone and help the refs out a little to make calls. They're not going to make everyone happy, but I think with a few minor adjustments, it could alleviate a lot of the legitimate concerns/gripes people have. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In reality, the game would have been much more exciting and audience friendly if FIRST would have kept the "load bearing" rule instead of the "please put wire ties on the perimeter of your base" rule, simply because more people would be heading to the human player for tetras instead of the log-jam that will be created as FIRST makes being in the auto-loading zone easier. With that said, the human player will still be a key part of the game merely because of the congestion on the field. If you can't meet the requirements, change 'em, Lucien |
|
#4
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
I agree with you on this issue, and it is frustrating to see FIRST change at this point of the season. We have been practicing with the right-sized (but thinner) load triangles, and our driver has been training to put a wheel on the triangle while picking up the tetra. Will it be easier for us to grab a tetra if we straddle the load zone triangle? Sure. Will this be difficult for referees to see? Yes. Does changing the rule make it easier for all teams to pick up tetras? Yes. However, this greatly penalizes the teams who have been busting their butts, abiding by this rule. Because of this, I disagree with the recent change and I agree with you. Andy B. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
One thing I will be interested to see, is how many penalties (if many) get thrown for robots that were actually touching the zone, just barely, but the refs don't see it and therefore penalize them. There may be some butting heads of the "being obvious" and "touching the zone". Hopefully teams can do both to make it easy-to-see for themselves and the refs. I'm thinking to avoid interference 30pt penalties, if an opponent robot is anywhere near the loading zone, stay away, because you may not be able to tell if they're "just barely in" the zone. We shall see how it all plays out during matches and hopefully it proves not to be a huge issue afterall. Last edited by AmyPrib : 23-02-2005 at 16:38. |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Wait a minute!! The load bearing "Rule" was never a rule. It wasn't even in the Q&A forum until February 16th (see below).
This one (978) was asked and answered quite early (1/11/05) and the "blatantly obvious" quote made it clear to me that a robot whose drive base was completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching would be considered O.K. Quote:
Q&A #1617 (load bearing surface) wasn't answered until February 16th! Our drive base was already designed and driving around by then, but I guess we just ignored the perfectly clear rule. Quote:
How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon. You guys are being a bit harsh, aren't you? I don't like rule changes either, especially this one. I argue that without this rule change the referees would have interpreted "blatantly obvious" as a robot base (say, the kit bot) clearly over the loading triangle. I also think the "tie wrap hanging from the base" is a ludicrous proposal, but given the RECENT interpretation that is what my team will do. Also, look at the picture next to rule S07. It is clear that the original intent of this rule was a drive base had to be over the zone. Notice that the wheels are not touching. Also, here is the rule as written in the FIRST manual: Quote:
-Paul |
|
#7
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
1. The way we have been practicing is by touching the triangle with our wheel. Since this is how we have been practicing, then of course it is the way we would like to see it remain. This is for purely selfish reasons. 2. The rule is not clear, obviously, since many of us viewed this differently. 3. It is fun to see Copioil get all riled up about this. I can imagine the crazy Italian's face getting redder by the minute. (I am actually on the phone with him as this post is going out, and I can HEAR his blood pressure rise... fun stuff!) 4. For the big picture of FIRST, I think that it the rule should be "hovering over the zone" or "breaking the plane of the zone" in order to make things better for competitors and referees. However, this was not clear in the beginning at kickoff. Therefore the quandry exists. Do they modify this rule, or do they stick to their guns? For me and my team, we will go either way. We can straddle or we can put one wheel in the zone. Andy B. Last edited by Andy Baker : 23-02-2005 at 17:26. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something here? ![]() |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
![]() On this topic, I really don't have a problem with FIRST admitting that the February 16 clarification was "off base", I just don't want to see the Band-Aid be to increase the size of the loading zone as they did with the human player side. Base straddling should have been accepted, as you pointed out, and I think FIRST tried to correct a wrong with their "wire tie" clarification without admitting that "load bearing" was wrong. But, I can certainly see where FIRST is gun-shy because as soon as you allow "over", there will a handful of teams that say their arm is "over" the triangle and therefore they are "in the zone" ... and, sadly, they would have gotten away with it. In a broader sense, rules clarifying is a "process" problem that I would like FIRST to address. The Q&A system was a great advancement but I think they need a process where the rules interpreters have their finger on the pulse of the teams. With that said, I recognize that rules clarifying is a VERY, VERY, VERY difficult thing to do and I don't envy those who do it at FIRST. Think about it, other sports, such as golf, have volumes clarifying rules that don't change from year to year; FIRST must clarify a set of new rules every year ... at least for the game. Although very difficult, FIRST must recognize that participants are paying $6,000 and demand a high quality product. Have a nice day, Lucien |
|
#10
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
I was talking to a wise man (similar to a wise guy) last night, and I heard two points about this that have previously not been discussed:
1. If the rule is "hovering over the triangle", then the drive team (and coach) has a better view than the referee does. This does not bode well for a referee when a "discussion" takes place after the match. I can hear the coach saying "I had a better view of it than YOU did, and we were IN!!" This is not a good situation. A referee must do his/her job and be respected. 2. Having the robot touch the triangle is similar to making a base-runner in baseball touch the base. The base runner is not safe at home until he touches home plate - not hovers above it. From a referee's point of view, I am re-thinking my previous post about making things better for the referee if the rule was hovering. I tell ya, I would not want to be a referee in a position where the coach has a better view of a situation than I do. That situation stinks. I like the baseball analogy: touch the base. This makes it simple and clear. Andy B. Last edited by Andy Baker : 24-02-2005 at 08:51. |
|
#11
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
... but you can see the runners feet. On many robot designs, the feet (or wheels, treads, etc) can't be seen by anybody until the robot is on its back.
I challenge the point that covering can be seen better by the drive team. How does one come to that conclusion? I can see the robot BASE covering from 20 to 30 feet away. A ref will be right there. During drive practice last night, we parcticed touching with our wheels. While the drive team had no problem touching, I had a heck of a time seeing if they touched. It was much, much, much, much (you get the point) easier to see if the drive base was over. I wonder if the "wise guy" was from the West coast ... |
|
#12
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
"The referees will consider any item contacting the loading zone triangle, that is clearly visible and within the original 28” x 38” starting footprint, as part of the robot base. It is very important, however, that it be clearly visible to a referee standing 5 or 10 feet away. An encoder wheel or caster that is under the chassis may not be visible, and as a result, may not prevent the team from receiving a penalty." CLEARLY VISIBLE is mentioned two times in there. When teams put on these curb-feelers, then the feeler needs to be on the perimeter of the drive base, not on the inside. If the ref does not "clearly" see the touch, then they should throw the flag. I think that this rule is made to make things more cut and dry for the referees. As for the coach's view vs. the ref's view, I was referring to the occasion when a team is barely passing over the apex of the load zone triangle. Even though the coach is farther away from the robot, he/she has a better angle to see if the robot "broke the plane" compared to the ref. The ref needs to have the better view, not the coach. What this "touching" rule is trying to eliminate is post-match arguements between drive teams and referees. coach: "We were in! We broke the plane! I saw us break the plane!!!" ref: "You did not look in from my view." coach: "We have it on video!!!" ref: "I can't look at video, you know that, this is not the NFL." coach: "Well, come over to the driver's station and I can show you that I had a clear view of this... I tell ya - we broke the plane!!!!" ref: "The decision stands. I am not going to change my mind on this." coach: "Aaaaaah. You audibly inhale." ...as opposed to... coach: "We were in! We touched the loading zone!" ref: "No you weren't in. I saw space between your feeler (or wheel) and the triangle. I was only 3 feet away. I had a much better view of this than you did from 20 feet away." coach: "OK, if you saw it better, we can handle that. You are a brilliant referee. Can I have an autograph?" Referees... gotta love 'em. Andy B. |
|
#13
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
No arguement that "Clearly Visible" was mentioned two times in an update that came out the day before ship.
Referees .... I can probably find something I love about 'em ![]() |
|
#14
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Getting back to our wheelie bar design... There is NO WAY for us to make a tie-wrap clearly visible to the referees: our wheelie bars cover up the front of our robot. Here is what makes me really upset about this whole deal: If it was so "clear" that rule <G12> meant that something within the 38x28 footprint needed to touch the loading station, then WHY WASN'T THE RULE WRITTEN THAT WAY?????? Why didn't <G12> say: <G12> Something within the 38x28 footprint of your robot must be touching the loading zone to grab a Tetra. Isn't that simple? If it was that simple to write the rule that way, then why wasn't it? To me, it wasn't written that way in order to allow teams to a) fall over at the start of the match, b) allow their drivetrain to expand, or c) use outriggers or wheelie bars. The rule was pretty clear to say that you shouldn't violate the spirit of the rule by dropping a tether so you can gain "loading zone protection". Why was all of this "spirit of the rule" stuff included if they could've just written the rule as I have it above? Someone asked, "where do you draw the line on how long wheelie bars can be?" Why do you need to draw a line? These things tend to govern themselves: if your footprint is too big, you're not going to be able to drive around the field due to the congestion and you'll lose anyway. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"
Quote:
Gotta show a little support for the Copiolster ;-) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ratchet/slip bearing? | Ianworld | Technical Discussion | 6 | 20-01-2005 13:04 |
| Looking for 1/2" id flanged bearing .25" thick or less (with flange) | Travis Covington | Technical Discussion | 17 | 12-12-2004 21:26 |
| bearing help | jimfortytwo | Technical Discussion | 9 | 01-05-2004 06:20 |
| Need A 0.75" ID bearing .DWG | Tytus Gerrish | Inventor | 6 | 22-10-2003 11:23 |
| Bearing support - Official | Mike Martus | OCCRA | 0 | 24-09-2002 05:26 |