Go to Post You do know that totes are supposed to go through the chute right? Not humans? - themccannman [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: Has this affected your design?
Yes 33 30.28%
No 76 69.72%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 15:47
Madison's Avatar
Madison Madison is offline
Dancing through life...
FRC #0488 (Xbot)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,244
Madison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule R04
Devices deployed outside the robot's footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur depending on the severity of the infraction.
Emphasis is my own. Ball manipulation devices deployed outside the original footprint are exempt from this rule by default, though may be penalized if they are seen to be used as such.

I'm of the opinion that a ramp is not a 'shooting mechanism' and remains legal.

FIRST was doing great, but it seems like they actually try to architect bizarre responses to straightforward questions for fear of the potential, "but you said our specific design was legal on Q&A" event at the competitions. Instead of following through on their own common sense method of interpretation, they're the ones trying to act like lawyers.

I wonder what it'd take to implement some sort of pre-inspection process that would allow teams to share specific information about designs that FIRST then keeps on file and, in return, FIRST gives preliminary, conditional approval of the design.
__________________
--Madison--

...down at the Ozdust!

Like a grand and miraculous spaceship, our planet has sailed through the universe of time. And for a brief moment, we have been among its many passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #62   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 16:01
ChuckDickerson's Avatar
ChuckDickerson ChuckDickerson is offline
Mentor / Bayou & CMP Division LRI
FRC #0456 (Siege Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vicksburg, MS
Posts: 877
ChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Madison, this is exactly the discussion I was trying to start a week ago in this thread with this post and you were apparently the only person that took note of it. From early on our team was worried about the wedge rule and the definition of a "shooter". Unless I am not understanding something FIRST has not "changed" any rule. They have "clarified" that just because you are shooting at a lower velocity at the lower goals the "mechanism" is still considered a shooter. My origonal question still stands. Are ALL the bots going to be square boxes from 0 to 8.5" up???
Reply With Quote
  #63   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 16:30
Richard Wallace's Avatar
Richard Wallace Richard Wallace is offline
I live for the details.
FRC #3620 (Average Joes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 3,667
Richard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen P
Do you really think that FIRST would consider a ramped ball outlet a wedge? It might technically qualify as one according to their definition but if said ramp is only deployed to empty balls into the corner goals, and is not deployed in any other part of the arena, will this be allowed? It might be up to the refs to decide this, but it seems that many teams have been thinking of a ramped ball outlet and the wedge rule really changes the possibilities of emptying balls via gravity into the corner goals. Can someone QandA this?
I don't have specific direction on this from FIRST (yet). I was simply saying that, until I get another interpretation from FIRST, I would read <R04> as disallowing any surface in the bumper zone that is more than 10 degrees from vertical. So I would flag any such surface as an issue that the team would have to correct before their robot could pass inspection.

Of course, FIRST could direct me and other lead robot inspectors to use some judgment as to whether a particular surface that is more than 10 degrees from vertical 'might push against another robot'. I would not like to be in that position, since my judgment might differ from that of another lead robot inspector at another event. Uniform application of the rules at all events should be an important consideration in whatever FIRST decides to do about this.
__________________
Richard Wallace

Mentor since 2011 for FRC 3620 Average Joes (St. Joseph, Michigan)
Mentor 2002-10 for FRC 931 Perpetual Chaos (St. Louis, Missouri)
since 2003

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
(Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97)
Reply With Quote
  #64   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 17:22
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

I've got the same issue with <R04> as Richard; the much-vaunted common-sense approach suggests that we apply a reasonable interpretation of the rule, and yet, it requires us (as officials) to determine what "might push against another robot". If I were to take a literalist approach, it would be useless (encompassing far too much to be practical, e.g. the radii of the bumpers themselves); on the other hand, if I apply my judgement, it will inevitably be different from others' appraisal of the same design. Looking at my own team's robot, I can concieve of many possible opposing robots that might contact it at an angle greater than 10° from vertical. And yet, the robot is positively slab-sided, and can hardly be considered a wedging threat.

What is clear, however, is what's going to come of this, absent a clearly worded and well-thought-out clarification: different teams will interpret this rule differently, and all but the most blatant violations will be permitted to play, either on the grounds that they were allowed at another event (which, technically, isn't relevant unless the inspectors want it to be, since there is no rule or universally accepted practice for applying precedents), or on compassionate grounds, because it would be rather impractical to make them all attach extraneous vertical surfaces to every exposed aspect of their robot.
Reply With Quote
  #65   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2006, 22:04
Steve S.'s Avatar
Steve S. Steve S. is offline
2008 FIRST Volunteer =D
FRC #1591 (Greece Gladiators)
Team Role: Webmaster
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Rochester,NY
Posts: 311
Steve S. is a jewel in the roughSteve S. is a jewel in the roughSteve S. is a jewel in the roughSteve S. is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to Steve S. Send a message via MSN to Steve S. Send a message via Yahoo to Steve S.
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Krass
Emphasis is my own. Ball manipulation devices deployed outside the original footprint are exempt from this rule by default, though may be penalized if they are seen to be used as such.
If they are outside the original footprint, they are illegal
Reply With Quote
  #66   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 02:36
Rombus's Avatar
Rombus Rombus is offline
Registered User
AKA: Rick Kosbab
FRC #4188 (Columbus Space Program)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Opelika, AL
Posts: 346
Rombus is a jewel in the roughRombus is a jewel in the roughRombus is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via AIM to Rombus
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV1188
In Section 4 The Game, there's a new definition of SHOOTING MECHANISM. There is no definition of MECHANISM in this section, therefore the definition found in Section 5 The Robot applies. The definition for SHOOTING MECHANISM is a subset of MECHANISM in general.

Clearly this applies to rollers, belts, etc used to pick up the balls that could be reversed to release the balls - they impart a dynamic impulse to the ball, so they are a shooter.

However, this would not apply to a trap door MECHANISM. That does not impart any force to the ball - gravity does that. Gravity doesn't qualify as a MECHANISM under Section 5 because it is not a COTS or assembly of COMPONENTS. So any aiming extension (fold down door, etc) that directs the balls toward the corner goal should be allowed, provided that the balls are only rolling downward.

This is supported in Q&A http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=429 (previously quoted in this thread) because of the warning about becoming a wedge. In answering this question, the GDC implied that the ramp might be outside the original footprint, thus the warning about <R04>. If the ramp MECHANISM had to stay entirely within the original footprint, there would be no wedging possible, unless the ramp was designed as a leading edge with no bumper.

Even a dumper hopper, as shown at kickoff, does not fall into this category. While the MECHANISM moves, it is gravity that imparts the final impulse, not the hopper. The raising of the hopper is no different than any other MECHANISM that lifts balls from the floor - it imparts potential energy to the balls in raising them, but does not deliver a final dynamic impulse.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Let me counter your nitpicking with more nitpicking (I mean no offense by saying your “nitpicking”, but that’s what we are all doing here)

Here is my take on the whole hopper with door thing:
Ok, so let’s say the door is within the bounding box, but your hopper is a big V that at its top is much wider than the bounding box. Without that hopper, the ball would not be funneled down towards the door, and the balls would be on the floor, and the point becomes moot.

Remember the shooter mechanism is the mechanism that delivers the final dynamic impulse that ejects the ball from the robot, and any parts of the robot that contact the ball while and/or after this impulse is delivered.

So, since gravity may be the final impulse that drops the ball out of the hopper, the hopper is still imparting a force and touches the ball while that force is being applied.
So in my eyes, a hopper with a door would be a shooter mechanism and must stay in the bounding box.

This should be the first YMTC of the season! XD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Murphy
yeah i really think that this should have been done earlier because it does affect our design and considering there are only 2 weeks left they should have just left it as it was
This is exactly like 2005 games and the robot touching the triangle before using a human or auto loading station. Throughout the season, it was never changed, everyone assumed breaking the plane would count, but that’s not what the rule said, it never changed from day one. FIRST simply reiterated what they meant in the QA
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #67   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 12:45
BoyWithCape195 BoyWithCape195 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Gagne
FRC #0195
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 410
BoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to BoyWithCape195
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Yes, that did happen in 2005, but that was a very simple change for almost every team. All it included (for the most part) was adding zip ties to the bottom of your robot. This new "definition" actually effects a WHOLE design or a large part of it rather than a small addition. When you've already started building, it is not something you can *easily* change. (such as the zip ties)
__________________
#16
2007 UTC New England Regional Champions (1124 and 558)
2007 UTC GM Industrial Design
2006 International Championship Finalist (25 and 968)
2006 Newton Division Champions (25 and 968)
2006 Championship Innovation in Control Award
2006 UTC Quarterfinalist (236 and 230)
2006 UTC Innovation in Control Award
2005 Curie Division Quarterfinalists (703 and 234)
2005 UTC Semifinalist (228 and 236)
2004 UTC Entrepreneurship Award
2004 New Jersey Semifinalists (173 and 11)
2004 New Jersey Sportsmanship Award
Reply With Quote
  #68   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 14:25
Madison's Avatar
Madison Madison is offline
Dancing through life...
FRC #0488 (Xbot)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,244
Madison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by team1591
If they are outside the original footprint, they are illegal
Prove it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
__________________
--Madison--

...down at the Ozdust!

Like a grand and miraculous spaceship, our planet has sailed through the universe of time. And for a brief moment, we have been among its many passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #69   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 14:43
ChuckDickerson's Avatar
ChuckDickerson ChuckDickerson is offline
Mentor / Bayou & CMP Division LRI
FRC #0456 (Siege Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vicksburg, MS
Posts: 877
ChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond reputeChuckDickerson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=292

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=501

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=482

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=547

It is pretty simple. If there are parts inside or outside of the 28" x 38" starting foot print of the robot that are between the floor and 8.5" up that are not within 10 degrees of vertical and can touch another robot it is in violation of the wedge rule <R04>. Flop down doors that can come in contact with another bot are illegal unless they are somehow shielded so that other bots can't contact the non-vertical part of the door/ramp. There is no stipulation in the rules about the "wedges" orientation. Inverted angles not within 10 degrees of vertical are still wedges.
Reply With Quote
  #70   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 14:44
Peter Matteson's Avatar
Peter Matteson Peter Matteson is offline
Ambitious but rubbish!
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: South Windsor, CT
Posts: 1,653
Peter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Krass
Prove it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
I agree with your interpretation Madison. I had missed that caveat when I first read through the rules that exempts ball harvesters. If the ball harvester is also designed to be compliant when contacted I don't think that a referee would be able to defend penalizing based on the way <R04> is written.
Reply With Quote
  #71   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 14:55
Peter Matteson's Avatar
Peter Matteson Peter Matteson is offline
Ambitious but rubbish!
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: South Windsor, CT
Posts: 1,653
Peter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Pretty much every device in those Q&A's already violates <S03> already and that is why they are disallowed.

The question comes into play when a ball harvester, like the picture of Team 33's 2004 robot from the Q&A this thread started with, is interacted with. At that point it comes down to the referee's interpretation of <S04>, and the various robot interaction rules.

Based on the direct answer from the GDC in the original Q&A a harvester is legal to be angled, a dump ramp is not per <R03>.

Re: <S03> - Definition of a Shooter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The mechanism as shown would be a legal ball collector, but not a legal shooting mechanism because it is outside of the 28 x 38 inch allowable starting envelope. We understand your concern, but there are no exceptions to <S03>.


http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=508

Last edited by Peter Matteson : 07-02-2006 at 15:01. Reason: added Q&A quote
Reply With Quote
  #72   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 14:58
Madison's Avatar
Madison Madison is offline
Dancing through life...
FRC #0488 (Xbot)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,244
Madison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepWater
It is pretty simple. If there are parts inside or outside of the 28" x 38" starting foot print of the robot that are between the floor and 8.5" up that are not within 10 degrees of vertical and can touch another robot it is in violation of the wedge rule <R04>. Flop down doors that can come in contact with another bot are illegal unless they are somehow shielded so that other bots can't contact the non-vertical part of the door/ramp. There is no stipulation in the rules about the "wedges" orientation. Inverted angles not within 10 degrees of vertical are still wedges.
The nice folks at FIRST need to read their own rules because that's simply not what they say. The original rule is simply chock full of really important conditional statements that they're ignoring, so I'd expect for them to change their answers to those questions or to strike out and rewrite rule R04 in the next team update. I've changed our design somewhat to ensure that the leading face of the robot is vertical or, at worst, inaccessible to other machines. Our ball dumping ramp is horizontal at 8.5" above the floor which is a bit absurd with respect to its function, but a necessary evil.

In any case, that still does not prove Team1591's assertion that ball manipulation devices deployed outside the starting footprint are illegal. Not all ball manipulation devices are wedge shaped and rule R04 is wholly separate from rules regarding the use and location of a ball manipulation device as a shooting mechanism.

I'm starting to get curious about when FIRST needed to start shoving gracious professionalism down our throats in the form of rules -- it seems to be a bit contrary to all that they've ever said about how things work.
__________________
--Madison--

...down at the Ozdust!

Like a grand and miraculous spaceship, our planet has sailed through the universe of time. And for a brief moment, we have been among its many passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #73   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 14:58
Richard Wallace's Avatar
Richard Wallace Richard Wallace is offline
I live for the details.
FRC #3620 (Average Joes)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 3,667
Richard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond reputeRichard Wallace has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
... I had missed that caveat when I first read through the rules that exempts ball harvesters....
I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?
__________________
Richard Wallace

Mentor since 2011 for FRC 3620 Average Joes (St. Joseph, Michigan)
Mentor 2002-10 for FRC 931 Perpetual Chaos (St. Louis, Missouri)
since 2003

I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
(Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97)
Reply With Quote
  #74   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 15:06
Madison's Avatar
Madison Madison is offline
Dancing through life...
FRC #0488 (Xbot)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,244
Madison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?
In my post above, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=61, I highlighted the conditional statements in the latter half of rule R04 that indicate to me that any devices deployed outside the original footprint should be cognizant of potentially violating this rule but it is the referee's ultimate discretion as to whether such device is actually being used in violation of the rule. It reads to me as though a deployed device would need to actively engage in offensive or defensive wedging before some penalty would be assessed and that it is not illegal by its mere existence alone.
__________________
--Madison--

...down at the Ozdust!

Like a grand and miraculous spaceship, our planet has sailed through the universe of time. And for a brief moment, we have been among its many passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #75   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-02-2006, 15:07
Peter Matteson's Avatar
Peter Matteson Peter Matteson is offline
Ambitious but rubbish!
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: South Windsor, CT
Posts: 1,653
Peter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I missed it, too. Can you please tell me where to look for the exemption you are referring to?
Note the word should in the below quote. If it was a must like in codes and standards the would have used the word shall or must. This allows you to have an angled deployed device AT YOUR OWN RISK of penalty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 5 The Robot
<R04> "Wedge” robots are not allowed. Robots must be designed so that interaction with other robots results in
pushing rather than tipping or lifting. Neither offensive nor defensive wedges are allowed. All parts of a
robot between 0 and 8.5 inches from the ground (the top of the bumper zone – see Rule <R35>) that might
push against another robot must be within 10 degrees of vertical. Devices deployed outside the robot's
footprint should be designed to avoid wedging. If a mechanism or an appendage (a ball harvester, for
example) becomes a wedge that interferes with other robots, penalties, disabling, or disqualification can occur
depending on the severity of the infraction.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
[OCCRA]: Rule Clarification Viking(redneck) OCCRA 3 24-11-2004 09:41
Rule Changes at off season competitions Ken Leung Off-Season Events 23 11-05-2004 22:39
Very Important Rule Clarification!!! Mr. Mac OCCRA 0 17-10-2002 23:35
IMPORTANT RULE ADDITION AND CLARIFICATION Mike McIntyre OCCRA 0 03-12-2001 22:17


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:11.

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