Update 19 has been released

[dachickindapit]

Team Update 19 has been posted by FIRST. It addresses "flop-down" robots and how they can touch the loading zone, and that additional people can be on the floor for robot support during the eliminations.

http://www2.usfirst.org/2005comp/Upd..._Update_19.pdf

[EricH]

Thanks for posting this. There aren't very many flopping robots this year, but there has been some discussion of their use and loading zone placement. This should end most of that discussion.

[eugenebrooks]

It is good to see the "three additional team member" access rule for the elimination rounds. This is great if repairs need to be made. It would be nice if this were the uniform operable rule for all regionals.

[Mark Garver]

Q: We designed and built a robot that would tip from 38x28 to 38x60. The “new” base and drive train is “blatantly obvious that our robot is in the LZ” and ”has a load bearing surface in contact with the HDPE”. Is our robot in the LZ?

Revised answer 4/11/2005: If we understand your question correctly, yes. Robots that "flop" must declare a 28" x 38" section of their robot to be the "robot base." The declared section must be a portion of a 60" long surface of the robot that was nominally vertical prior to the start of the match. This is the section that the referees will always use to determine if your robot is in the loading zone.

Original answer: If we understand your question correctly, yes. Robots that "flop" basically must declare a 28" x 38" of their robot to be the "robot base." This is the section that the referees will always use to determine if your robot is in the loading zone.

Well I am surprised that there hasn't been more discuss on this topic; this is a pretty big change in rulings over all of the regional competitions this season. Teams that had relied on whiskers now could possible need to rebuild their entire arm in order to reach the loading stations. This to me just doesn't sound at all right. Teams built robotics based on the rules they were given and now they may need to rebuild entire assemblies in the pits in order to compete at the Championship event. I believe that FIRST should have taken care of this way back in the beginning of the competition season as soon as it was observed, so that teams could possible take care of this problem during the "Fix-It" window. Just my two cents.

[Jim Meyer]

Let me see if I understand this right. I think rule is addressing our "wiskers" that in our starting position are considered part of the base, but stick out in front of the robot after we "flop". Now they're saying we have to define our base in a vertical plane, so our wiskers sticking out the front don't count. This really isn't a problem for us since at our first regional we changed the positioning of the arm so part of our base is above the loading zone when we get tetras from the auto loader, we just never changed the whiskers. If it aint broke don't fix it right?

Have I missed something about a "load bearing surface" having to contact the zone? Normal whiskers that go straight down from your base are still fine right?

How does this new version of the rule apply to teams with "wheelie bars" (portions of the robot that fold out to help stabilize themselves)? Apparently those "wheelie bars" shouldn't count as touching the loading zones? Is this how it's being enforced? If my memory is correct team 65 uses these very effectively.

I think this whole "touching the loading zone" thing is ridiculous to begin with. It seems this whole rediculous rule was designed around preventing people from using a weight on a string to gain a permanant "don't touch me" rule. They're currently not enforcing the rule unless you are trying to retrieve a tetra anyway. Why couldn't they just extend this loading zone up 3" above the ground and say you have to have a structural (rigidly attached) part of your robot in that zone?

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Jim Meyer

...<snip>...
I think this whole "touching the loading zone" thing is ridiculous to begin with. It seems this whole rediculous rule was designed around preventing people from using a weight on a string to gain a permanant "don't touch me" rule. They're currently not enforcing the rule unless you are trying to retrieve a tetra anyway. Why couldn't they just extend this loading zone up 3" above the ground and say you have to have a structural (rigidly attached) part of your robot in that zone?

We will have plenty of time to think about future rules for future years. But... ...I can't resist one more suggested way to implement what they wanted without some of the wiskier side affects.

If I were king (and I clearly am not) I would have had an IR transmitter (aka a beam of light) at the tip of the loading zone triangle and a receiver just above the fence line on the side of the field. When you break the beam a light goes on in the associated zone and you are IN. From that time, you get 6 seconds on the autozone, 10 seconds at the human zone load. After that, the light goes off and you're OUT. When the light is on you're safe. When it off, you're fair game. I think we'd still have to have something to make sure it is the robot base that is blocking the light and no an arm, but I think a manual override button and a ref watching could handle those cases. The visual light could make it simpler to judge and simpler for teams to know when a team is not to be touched.

Just another idea for next season...

Joe J.

[Dave Scheck]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I would have had an IR transmitter (aka a beam of light) at the tip of the loading zone triangle and a receiver just above the fence line on the side of the field.

Better yet, why not a pressure pad that is calibrated for a specific weight (to distinguish between a robot and a scoring object)?

[PURPLE!]

So has there been any news on the caution tape on the field being legal or not?...

[AIBob]

Well I have added update #19 to FIRSTsearch...

...I really need to add a cronjob for Updates too...

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Dave Scheck

Better yet, why not a pressure pad that is calibrated for a specific weight (to distinguish between a robot and a scoring object)?

That could work too. I have not had good experience with pressure pad switches period, yet alone calibrated ones, but if they exist and we can get them working, I'm all for it.

Joe J.

[DarkJedi613]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

That could work too. I have not had good experience with pressure pad switches period, yet alone calibrated ones, but if they exist and we can get them working, I'm all for it.

That'd be tough though, what do you calibrate it to? Different amounts of force are pushing down in different areas (or not at all in the case of "whiskers"). If I have one wheel w/ 130 lbs over it, it "weights" differently on the pad then 130 lbs spread over four wheels, no? The pad would have to be big enough to capture the entire base, etc. I think an IR beam would be better.

[Dave Scheck]

Originally Posted by DarkJedi613

That'd be tough though, what do you calibrate it to?

I thought about that after I originally posted. Calibrating it to any weight greater than a couple of scoring objects (but less than the weight of a robot) *should* work.

I think I agree with the statement about the weight distribution and that you would have to make the pad large enough...but you still might be able to make it work. As long as the size/weigh requirement was known up front, doesn't that just become a design criteria?