Go to Post We were all rookies once. Some of us still are... - Wayne C. [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 13:12
Yan Wang's Avatar
Yan Wang Yan Wang is offline
Ithaca is Gorges
AKA: John Wayne
FRC #0639 (Code Red Robotics)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 1,910
Yan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud ofYan Wang has much to be proud of
Send a message via ICQ to Yan Wang Send a message via AIM to Yan Wang Send a message via MSN to Yan Wang Send a message via Yahoo to Yan Wang
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtful
This is bizzare, i think they should change the triangles to rectangles or squares. Look at this picture from the manual, although its specifically mentioning to the human player requirements; it gives a big O.K to the loading process. Now look closely the robot is stradling the trianlge. This is a big blunder by FIRST, they should have never used this picture, our team might be able to add a load bearing surface but what about the other teams do. FIRST should be more considerate about this. Even till now its not crystal clear as to what the rules are regarding stradling. I know FIRST has done a great job creating a spectacular game, but i think they should make it better by changing or atleast not conflicting with their own diagrams.
I think this just hit the nail in the head with a sledgehammer. FIRST should definitely change the rule from "touching" to "vertically covering" the loading zone as it clearly depicts in its own images. That was a very keen observation, thoughtful.
__________________
Code Red Robotics Team 639 Alumnus | www.team639.org
<Patrician|Away> what does your robot do, sam
<bovril> it collects data about the surrounding environment, then discards it and drives into walls
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 15:06
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 15:49
Natchez Natchez is offline
Registered User
#0118 (Robonauts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 189
Natchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyPrib
why not make them a little larger for the field side?
Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship. If teams are having problems meeting the requirement thus getting penalized, they might want to consider using the human player side where FIRST changed the requirements a few hours before ship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyPrib
Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"?
Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement ... not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be "convinced" to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from "feedback".


Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyPrib
and they allow the obvious straddling position,
FIRST does allow straddling if you have enough weight margin to put 40 wire ties on your robot.

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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 16:04
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,412
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natchez
If you can't meet the requirements, change 'em,
Lucien
Lucien,

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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 16:31
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natchez
Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship.

Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement ... not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be "convinced" to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from "feedback".
Ok. I agree. I don't think teams simply "ignored" the requirements, and I would hope people didn't think they could "convince" FIRST to change their minds about things.. Maybe some did, who knows. I think a lot of people were legitimately confused as to the intent of the rule and the interpretation of the rule. Yes - the questions and clarifications should have been asked earlier. Yes - we should have gotten clear and unchanging answers earlier. I agree - it wouldn't be fair to those who understood the rule and designed to it.

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.
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker

Last edited by AmyPrib : 23-02-2005 at 16:38.
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 17:01
Paul Copioli's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero Woodie Flowers Award
Paul Copioli Paul Copioli is offline
President, VEX Robotics, Inc.
FRC #3310 (Black Hawk Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,382
Paul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond repute
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: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

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:
Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered "in" the loading zone if it isn't touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.
Andy & Lucien,

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:
<G12> The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS
without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return
to play. The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction
with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices
intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15>
while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be
permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

-Paul
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-02-2005, 17:20
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,412
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
Wait a minute!! (yada yada)

Andy & Lucien,

How can you say this rule was clear? Having the robot base over the loading triangle isn't blatantly obvious? C'mon.
A couple of thoughts here:

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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 01:38
jgannon's Avatar
jgannon jgannon is offline
I ᐸ3 Robots
AKA: Joey Gannon
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,467
jgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
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.
Let's take one more look at 978:
Quote:
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being "in" a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.
When I see the phrase "must be touching", I don't think that "completely covering the triangle, but not necessarily having wheels touching" is a reasonable inference. As Billfred mentioned, remember Dean's discussion last year of the definition of "straddling". Touching means touching, not straddling, because we're engineers, not lawyers. Unless I'm way off-base, I don't think that FIRST has really changed the rule all that much; 1617 just reinforces that you must be touching the triangle, consistent with 978, and clarifies what constitutes the "base", consistent with the stipulations of G12.

Am I missing something here?
__________________
Team 1743 - The Short Circuits
2010 Pittsburgh Excellence in Design & Team Spirit Awards
2009 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 222 and 1218)
2007 Pittsburgh Website Award
2006 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 395 and 1038)
2006 Pittsburgh Rookie Inspiration & Highest Rookie Seed

Team 1388 - Eagle Robotics
2005 Sacramento Engineering Inspiration
2004 Curie Division Champions (thanks to 1038 and 175)
2004 Sacramento Rookie All-Star

_
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 08:25
Natchez Natchez is offline
Registered User
#0118 (Robonauts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 189
Natchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond reputeNatchez has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
Andy & Lucien,

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?
Paul, I'm sorry if I implied that the "in the loading zone" rule was clear; it is about as clear as the Mississippi River around New Orleans. As you pointed out, many teams, including us, were surprised at the February 16th clarification about "load bearing" ... almost jaw dropping ... certainly design altering. Without saying that you are "exactly right" in your rule interpretation and how you design and train your drivers, you are 99.9999% right

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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 08:49
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,412
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 08:58
Paul Copioli's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero Woodie Flowers Award
Paul Copioli Paul Copioli is offline
President, VEX Robotics, Inc.
FRC #3310 (Black Hawk Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,382
Paul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond repute
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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 09:24
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,412
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
... 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 ...
Notice that FIRST said this in update 13:

"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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 09:27
Paul Copioli's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero Woodie Flowers Award
Paul Copioli Paul Copioli is offline
President, VEX Robotics, Inc.
FRC #3310 (Black Hawk Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 1,382
Paul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond reputePaul Copioli has a reputation beyond repute
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   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 09:43
Chris Hibner's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Chris Hibner Chris Hibner is offline
Eschewing Obfuscation Since 1990
AKA: Lars Kamen's Roadie
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,488
Chris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker

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.

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.
__________________
-
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure.
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-02-2005, 17:29
Maestro PK's Avatar
Maestro PK Maestro PK is offline
Registered User
AKA: Peter Klein
#0217 (ThunderChickens)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Macomb, MI
Posts: 5
Maestro PK is on a distinguished road
Re: "Load Bearing Surface"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Copioli
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.
....and there it is. I can't see how FIRST can ultimately come to any conclusion other than what Paul has suggested. Given the fact that many bots have heavily obscurred wheels, telling refs that they must determine each time a tetra is picked up whether or not a part of the bot is actually touching the triangle is just ridiculous. Even Dan Swando, who has the super-human ability to slow down time and zoom in with his telescoping eyes, has admitted that this would be a tough judgement for any ref to make. The drive base should have to clearly cover the triangle, not neccessarily touch it. As far as some concerns I've heard regarding bots that fold out and cover a larger space, I think a fair ruling would be to say that what constitutes the "drive base" can only be as large as the original 28 x 38 in. starting size. Any part of the bot that subsequently folds out or expands would not count and would not be able to "cover" the loading zone.

Gotta show a little support for the Copiolster ;-)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:13.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi