New Rules for 2006

[AmyPrib]

Here's one thing I'm glad to see cleared up from previous years (for similar concepts - 05 endzone)...

G09: If your robot is fully on a platform (i.e. not touching carpet), and is touching a robot on the carpet, your robot is STILL considered on the platform. You can get points for your opponent being on your platform also.

Also, if you decide to use bumpers, you must use the design in the manual. 2 pool noodles wrapped in nylon fabric.

G21: A robot can go inside the HP corner goal 3" (break the plane). However, you cannot have any part that is designed to go in that 3". It's incidental only. I imagine that will be at the discretion of inspectors and refs.

G17: Cannot score from a tipped over position even if you were "intentionally" or accidentally tipped over.

[Tristan Lall]

This has disturbing implications, depending on the clarification that I think is warranted (emphasis mine):

<R44> Specific items NOT allowed include:


• Batteries different from or in addition to those provided in the Kit.

We all agree on "different from", but "in addition to"? Is that meant to disallow battery farming? Can't it be reasonably assumed that there might be a lot of immovable robots (accumulating offside penalties...), due to bad design choices causing depletion of their only two legal batteries? At a small regional, where teams are sometimes only minutes removed from their last match, before having to rejoin the queuing line, that would be disastrous.


This is very much inconsistent with past practice, so I'm wondering if it's an error. Surely that's not what was intended by an "engineering trade-off".

As a note on the context, the rest of the rule also deals with no additional or different motors, and traditionally, that's to be expected. Is the same thing now required of our batteries—both quantity and type?

Edit: And this applies equally to backup and main batteries, apparently. Not much use for a backup, if you can't have another one charging.... This has to be an error.

[Winged Globe]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

This has disturbing implications, depending on the clarification that I think is warranted (emphasis mine):

<R44> Specific items NOT allowed include:


• Batteries different from or in addition to those provided in the Kit.

We all agree on "different from", but "in addition to"? Is that meant to disallow battery farming? Can't it be reasonably assumed that there might be a lot of immovable robots (accumulating offside penalties...), due to bad design choices causing depletion of their only two legal batteries? At a small regional, where teams are sometimes only minutes removed from their last match, before having to rejoin the queuing line, that would be disastrous.


This is very much inconsistent with past practice, so I'm wondering if it's an error. Surely that's not what was intended by an "engineering trade-off".

As a note on the context, the rest of the rule also deals with no additional or different motors, and traditionally, that's to be expected. Is the same thing now required of our batteries—both quantity and type?

Edit: And this applies equally to backup and main batteries, apparently. Not much use for a backup, if you can't have another one charging.... This has to be an error.

You might want to see R39 from last year, which reads exactly the same. I believe it regards the use of, for example, two exide batteries on the robot rather than the possession of 10 batteries to farm. No changes.

[Avarik]

I'm pretty sure this is a change from last year, though not totally:

<R82> 12 awg wire or bigger if its on a 40 amp breaker
<R83> 14 awg wire or bigger if its on a 30 amp breaker
<R84> 18 awg wire or bigger if its on a 20 amp breaker

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Winged Globe

You might want to see R39 from last year, which reads exactly the same. I believe it regards the use of, for example, two exide batteries on the robot rather than the possession of 10 batteries to farm. No changes.

You know, I was wondering the same thing, but didn't check last year's book (it was nearly 3 a.m. ).

But now that I RTFM, specifically <R51> which is the rule we all know and love, I think we're OK. I still maintain, however, that they should phrase <R44> differently, just because the words "in addition to those provided in the kit" could be easily interpreted as including identical COTS spares (<R51> notwithstanding, of course). Why not merely say "Batteries different from those provided in the kit"? Let the spares rules and <R51> handle the rest (since <R51> specifies the quantity limit of one at a time, as opposed to motors, where, apart from <R43> and the CIMs, the quantity limit is the number of motors from the kit, as properly specified in <R44>).

Sorry for the (minor) mess. I should have known better. I only got as far as <R46> last night, before getting some sleep.

[Joe Johnson]

FIX-IT-WINDOWS – Two 5-hour work periods following the deadline for shipping the robot, or following the close of a regional competition, in which ALL teams may manufacture parts in preparation for future competitions. During the FIX-IT WINDOWS, software for either the robot or operator interface may be developed without restriction. The FIX-IT WINDOWS are limited to single continuous time periods with a maximum duration of 5 hours each. Part or all of the team may participate in the work conducted during this period. The FIX-IT WINDOWS may not be subdivided into multiple work sessions of lesser duration.

<R17> During the “FIX-IT WINDOWS” following the shipment of the robot: During this period, all teams may utilize one or two 5-hour FIX-IT-WINDOWS to manufacture SPARE and REPLACEMENT PARTS and develop software for their robot at their home facility. Fabrication of UPGRADE PARTS is not permitted during this period. The timing of these “FIX-IT WINDOWS” is at the discretion of the team, but all work must be completed by 5:00pm on the Friday following the robot shipment deadline. Teams may manufacture all the SPARE and REPLACEMENT parts they want, but the amount of parts they can bring to the competition event is limited (as specified in Rule <R29>)

<R20> During the “FIX-IT WINDOW” following each Regional Competition weekend: During this period, all teams (not just those teams attending a Regional Competition) may utilize one or two 5-hour FIX-ITWINDOWS to manufacture SPARE, REPLACEMENT and UPGRADE PARTS and develop software for their robot at their home facility (not at the competition site). The timing of these “FIX-IT WINDOWS” is at the discretion of the team, but all work must be completed between the close of the Competition and 5:00pm on the Thursday following the Regional Competition weekend. At the conclusion of a regional competition event, teams may take a limited amount of broken or malfunctioning COMPONENTS or MECHANISMS back to their home facility to make SPARE or REPLACEMENT PARTS. The purpose of this rule is to allow teams to make critical repairs to existing parts to enable them to compete in following events. The intent of this rule is not to have teams take their entire robot back home and make large-scale revisions or upgrades to the robot. Teams may manufacture and/or repair all the parts they want, but the amount of parts they can bring to the competition event is limited (as specified in Rule <R29>).

This is different and significant.

The way I read it, since there are 5 weeks of regionals they are essentially giving each team up to 12 sessions of up to 5 hour each (Max of 60 hours) after ship to make spare parts (only 50 hours could be for upgraded parts).

Seems like a rule we all can live with. Thoughts?

Joe J.

[Joe Johnson]

<R71> Unaltered software modules developed during prior competitions may not be directly re-used. Just as designs for hardware COMPONENTS may be reused from one year to the next, software algorithms and designs may be reused. However, the specific lines of code must be customized for each robot each year.

Wow, this is a change. It seems pretty clear. But I am sure it will get murky by the time we are done.

It seems to require retyping of last year's code to read encoder pulses or to navigate using the encoders or whatever.

Could changing variable names count as altering?

I understand some of the concerns the rule is trying to address but I don't know how this rule will work out in practice.

What do others think?

WAIT DON'T ANSWER YET! Go here instead.

Joe J.