|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| 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 | |||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#61
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
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. |
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
|
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???
|
|
#63
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
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. |
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
|
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
(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:
|
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
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)
|
|
#68
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
Sorry, but you're wrong. |
|
#69
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
|
#70
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
|
|
#71
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
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 |
|
#72
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
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. |
|
#73
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
|
|
#74
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
|
|
#75
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |