|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
Thanks for posting that, Yan Wang...
Well everyone can thank me for that update, considering my question was question #1721.... Anyways, I think that FIRST is doing an oustanding job with handling the rules and regulations for this years game. Unlike past years, the rules are clear and easy to understand (for the most part.) I think that their main focus is safety for the human player, field attendants, and referees. |
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
Quote:
My bet is that FIRST is trying to come up with a better way to word the rule than they have already. I'm not sure if there's really a good way to do it other than to say that you must "obviously" be in the loading area. I don't think it will be that difficult to determine. Either way my money's on them changing the rule (yet again). Matt |
|
#33
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
Quote:
You hit the nail on the head on this one. I was just coming here to post this, but you beat me to it. By the FIRST interpretation, many past robots would be useless. To further complicate the problem, the fact that you have to reach very high with a heavy object may have lead a lot of teams to do the fall-over thing in order to increase their footprint so they are less tippy. What do they do? It would have been nice to know this interpretation at the beginning of the design period, not after the robots have been built. The short answer as to why we don't retract our wheelie bars to load: it's becuase they don't retract - they're one-time deploy devices that lock in place once down. We'd add an actuator but that would put us overweight. We would have saved weight elsewhere, but it's a little late now. Lavery et. al. every year says that we should look at the intent of the rule, use common sense, and not be lawyers. That's what we did. The intent of the rule is twofold: 1) safety, 2) to prevent a robot from dropping an anchor on the triangle and then driving around the rest of the field with the protection of being "in the loading zone". Our design DOES NOT violate the "common sense" intent of this rule. They are simple wheelie bars that move with to robot wherever we go. They don't cause a safety issue and they don't stay behind in the loading zone on a tether while we drive around the field. Furthermore, rule <G12> states that devices that touch the loading zone must not be against the "spirit of the rule". I argue that our wheelie bars are well withing the spirit of the rule. Rule <G12> then states that these devices will then be ordered to be removed before playing in any match. So, does that mean since our wheelie bars are not within the 28x38 footprint and may touch the loading zone, we must remove them before we can play? That must be true since the "spirit of the rule" has now been interpreted to mean 28x38 footprint. In case anyone didn't catch it, that last paragraph was a bit facetious. My point is that this is getting ridiculous. I think the interpretation would be much better as: "Any device made solely to extend your reach toward the loading zone is against the spirit of rule <G12> . Any device that is ONLY used to reach out and touch the loading zone is against the spirit of rule <G12>. Any device that is part of the drivetrain, or extended stability mechanisms is okay, providing that the stability mechanisms are not only used at the loading station." |
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
Quote:
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
many people aren't reading this correctly the major problem is this...
you can be all the way to the wall at the loading zone... and not be in the loading zone(because you aren't physically touching the triangle).. it doesn't make sense.. People would interpret this rule to mean ''clearly be in the loading zone and you will be fine''. But as of right now one can not do that because FIRST has been very straight foward in saying you MUST be touching the surface.(so right now you can go to the boilermaker regional and possibly get penalized over and over... then go to peachtree and not be [depending on how interested the refs are int he rule]) The referees dont' have time to look for this, and the way FIRST has suggested to solve the problem doesn't make it any safer for the field crews. I think a good way to solve this problem would be " Once a team has stopped over the loading zone, and begin to deploy their arm to pick up a tetra - they may not be touched" But then I personally believe that there should be interference at the auto- loading zones - and the field attendednts should use common sense when replenishing the supply. Human player zone positive -- can't be touched negative - takes more time Auto loading zone positive -- takes less time -- can be touched |
|
#36
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
What I am fighting for is simple: If a robot base is straddling the loading zone (see Yan Wang's picture is post #10), then it is obviously in the loading zone and should be allowed regardless if it has a $399 tie wrap hanging down or not. If this rule is not changed, then I plan on putting a hanging piece of Lexan with the following saying in bright safety orange: "Look Ma, I'm touching the loading zone!"
-Paul If you can't tell, I am a little disturbed by this latest interpretation. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
hey why can't we access the regional events. Some of the site info (pittsburgh) won't open?
|
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 2005 FRC Team Update 13
Many people on our team were concerned that our extreme low rider chassis would get stuck on the triangle. As it turns out, we may be lucky in the fact that we "bottom out" on the triangle. We dont get stuck on it, but we do contact it when we drive up on it.
Anyone who is using the kitbot chassis could easily zip tie a skirt on to the front of their machine using the holes in the chassis. People with custom frames, good luck finding a solution at the events. I am sure there will be many people with good idea to help you out. As for the teams who flop over and increase your footprint, I am sure that FIRST will figure out your dilemma. Maybe it would be easiest if they simply said that "the base of the chassis must be over the triangle" and have the refs make judgement calls on what constitutes the chassis. I am sure this will be cleared up during the drivers/refs meeting on the morning of the first day. Good luck to everyone! Rob |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| East Coast Drivers Union | Corey Balint | FIRST-related Organizations | 153 | 10-04-2006 15:50 |
| 2005 FRC Team Update 02 | dez250 | General Forum | 4 | 14-01-2005 23:12 |
| Kettering University Rookie Robotics Team | Alexander McGee | General Forum | 23 | 22-12-2004 09:13 |
| How Many FIRST shirts do you own? | Joe Ross | General Forum | 81 | 31-08-2004 10:36 |
| Renovating a Team | av11d | Team Organization | 2 | 18-04-2004 20:06 |