Team Update #5 Posted

[Madison]

I didn't see this posted anywhere yet.

http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/Upd...pdate%2005.pdf

[Conor Ryan]

This is big

Originally Posted by Update 5

3.3.4 NEW: Mandatory Safety Glasses - They aren’t forehead protectors
NEW: FIRST requires all teams to bring and supply, for each competition, ANSI approved non-shaded safety glasses for its team members, mentors, and guests.

For our purposes, amber lenses that allow for better/brighter vision are considered tinted, not shaded, and their use is allowed at FIRST events. Sunglasses or deeply shaded safety glasses used in our indoor event environment are not acceptable.

[Cory]

Uh, don't they have their wording backwards?

I agree with the rule... But if "tinted" is ok, then aren't some reflective lens ok?

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Cory

Uh, don't they have their wording backwards?

I agree with the rule... But if "tinted" is ok, then aren't some reflective lens ok?

that is what i am wondering. i have some mirrored saftey glasses.

[Andrew Blair]

If I might hijack this thread, these two rules appear to be in confliction. Does anyone have a more clear interpretation?



Under Rule<R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to
the Bimba Custom Cylinder Order form found on the last page of the Pneumatics Manual.



<R106> The following pneumatics items may be added to the ROBOT:
 -Prior year FIRST Kit Of Parts pneumatic cylinders, solenoid valves, and pneumatic tubing may be used in addition to those items in the 2007 Kit Of Parts. Their costs must be
accounted for explained in Section 8.3.4.3 Additional Parts - Cost Limits and
Accounting.


Now, while Rule 105 states that the only cylinders that may be used are the ones available on the order form, Rule 106 goes ahead and allows cylinders that may not be available on the Bimba form- including rodless actuators- not simply cylinders with slightly different stroke lengths.

Have I missed an update somewhere, or is this a question for Q&A?

[Tristan Lall]

<R105> as amended and <R106> are potentially in conflict.

Originally, with respect to the old KOP Parker cylinders, <R105> prevented them from being purchased and used (since they're not the same as the Bimbas), but <R106> specifically allowed them to be used if not purchased (they came in a previous KOP). <R48> supports this notion, with a "YES" entry for previous years' cylinders.

Now for the interpretation business. The update states that "[u]nder <R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to the [ones on the form]". Does that mean "the only cylinders allowed are the ones on the form", or does it mean "cylinders governed by <R105> may only be the ones on the form"? The former is a direct conflict with <R106>, which currently allows the old Parker KOP cylinder. Note that there is a distinction, because <R105> does not address non-purchased cylinders (other than to say that there is no numerical limit, and that they must be rated for 125 psi). If the latter was intended, then clearer wording would be appropriate, because it's easy to interpret the update too broadly.

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

Now, while Rule 105 states that the only cylinders that may be used are the ones available on the order form, Rule 106 goes ahead and allows cylinders that may not be available on the Bimba form- including rodless actuators- not simply cylinders with slightly different stroke lengths.

<R106> doesn't concern cylinders in general—only those in old kits. So rodless cylinders aren't allowed (unless we received one in a kit at some point).

On another note, it's a little unlikely that a Parker Hannifan dealer would have Bimba cylinders, and not be a Bimba dealer. Indeed, by definition, selling a Bimba cylinder pretty much makes them a Bimba dealer (though not necessarily a factory-authorized one). Since no Parker products have ever existed on the Bimba free cylinders form (that should hardly be a surprise), it doesn't make much sense to talk about Parker dealers in the rule. I know it's a holdover from an old rule, but it should probably be edited out of <R105>, one of these years.

[Lil' Lavery]

GOOD


BAD


BAD


The latter two actually dull your vision, while the tinted goggles are designed to brighten it. The darker goggles are designed for working in very bright environments, and are not suitable for a FIRST competition. (Note, this was the 116 shop training, and we warned those team members with inappropriate goggles then to purchase new ones).

[dlavery]

From this thread in the FIRST Q&A:

Please remember that rules from prior FIRST Robotic Competitions do not apply to the 2007 competition. Under Rule <R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to those shown in the table on the Custom Cylinder Order Form. Rule <R106> and availability listed on Bimba's website do not override this. Therefore, any parts scavenged from prior year robots, as permitted by Rule <R106>, must still be in compliance with Rule <R105>.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

From this thread in the FIRST Q&A:

That GDC answer leaves out the word "purchased", which is found in <R105>, and which is the basis of the omission that I referred to. <R106> is not in a position to override <R105> on the specific issue of non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders, and as a result, this answer is not consistent with the rule as it is actually written.

Despite that, judging by these two Q&A responses and the update, it seems that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders. To keep things consistent, <R106> therefore ought to also be amended to include something similar to the last sentence of <R105> (stating that even non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders need to be the same as the ones in the current Bimba form). If that amendment is made to <R106>, the inconsistency will disappear, because the non-purchased ex-KOP Parkers will become explicitly illegal.

Is a team ever going to try to read the rules in that depth, and take advantage of what seems to have been an accidental oversight? How many teams even have those old Parkers lying around, available for use? I don't know, but leaving even minor discrepancies around serves nobody's interests.

[Jeffrafa]

The latter two actually dull your vision, while the tinted goggles are designed to brighten it. The darker goggles are designed for working in very bright environments, and are not suitable for a FIRST competition. (Note, this was the 116 shop training, and we warned those team members with inappropriate goggles then to purchase new ones).

I'd be tempted to argue that a FIRST competition is a fairly bright environment for the drive teams down on the field under the stage lights. Glare off of the plexiglas and various shiny field elements can be quite bright and distracting at times, spurring our drive team to switch to polarized, 'shaded' saftey glasses two years ago - we found it did help noticeably with the glare.

I can understand the pits are by no means a similar lighting setting, and non-shaded safety glasses could be deemed more appropriate - but I know I'll be missing having my polarized glasses as a driver this year.

[KTorak]

Originally Posted by Jeffrafa

I'd be tempted to argue that a FIRST competition is a fairly bright environment for the drive teams down on the field under the stage lights. Glare off of the plexiglas and various shiny field elements can be quite bright and distracting at times, spurring our drive team to switch to polarized, 'shaded' saftey glasses two years ago - we found it did help noticeably with the glare.

I can understand the pits are by no means a similar lighting setting, and non-shaded safety glasses could be deemed more appropriate - but I know I'll be missing having my polarized glasses as a driver this year.

You beat me to it. Being down on the competition field is a completely different environment**. You get a lot of glare off the plexiglass and the diamond plate reflects light back at you as well. Also, the stage lights are very bright and one at the wrong angle can be very annoying while trying to operate your robot. I definitely think this is gonna cause alot of debate.

As for being in the pits, I understand that one. Being in a area with poor lighting as it is, and then having shaded glasses can be an issue. I, myself, don't have that much of a problem, but i'm sure other people do too.

** The different environment while being on the field also has prompted our driver team, coach, and human player to wear shorts. While it may be 20F outside, it's VERY warm down on the field and you definitely want to be comfortable.

[Corey Balint]

I always wore the Tinted ones. I loved them. I had a pair of sunglass safety glasses a few years ago, which I thought only made things worse. But to echo what everyone else has been saying, being on the field is completely different then the pits, so I could see how people would be upset by it. However, it is just safety glasses, who cares. Wear a pair that feels comfortable and that are okay to wear according to the rules. It really is not that big of a deal.

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by KTorak

You beat me to it. Being down on the competition field is a completely different environment**. You get a lot of glare off the plexiglass and the diamond plate reflects light back at you as well. Also, the stage lights are very bright and one at the wrong angle can be very annoying while trying to operate your robot. I definitely think this is gonna cause alot of debate.

I plan on carrying three sets of glasses on to the field then this year. Clear, Amber Tinted, and Shaded.

Originally Posted by KTorak

As for being in the pits, I understand that one. Being in a area with poor lighting as it is, and then having shaded glasses can be an issue. I, myself, don't have that much of a problem, but i'm sure other people do too.

Agreed, especially when the power went out to the secondary pits at UCF. Some parts of that tent were somewhat dim if you were away from the doors.

Originally Posted by KTorak

** The different environment while being on the field also has prompted our driver team, coach, and human player to wear shorts. While it may be 20F outside, it's VERY warm down on the field and you definitely want to be comfortable.

20F outside? In Florida? *glances at thermometer that reads 70F* I wish.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Despite that, judging by these two Q&A responses and the update, it seems that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders. To keep things consistent, <R106> therefore ought to also be amended to include something similar to the last sentence of <R105> (stating that even non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders need to be the same as the ones in the current Bimba form). If that amendment is made to <R106>, the inconsistency will disappear, because the non-purchased ex-KOP Parkers will become explicitly illegal.

Is that the intent here? No Parker cylinders from previous years? If that is the intent, then the first bullet of <R106> is completely redundant since any of the items listed there would be covered by <R24>.

We have nearly all of the pneumatics components that were in any of the previous year's kits - and we use 'em. (We used a 2001 cylinder on our 2005 robot.) We just want to be sure that we are within the rules!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
The RoboDox

[JohnBoucher]

I like the scoring simulator. Nice to give us a tool like that.