Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.

[StevenB]

On a side note, I do not think it will be that hard to referee this one. If you are designed to lift a ball, they will ask you to demonstrate it at inspection and they can measure then.

Until you do it on the field though, there isn't any penalty. They can't fail your inspection because of it, any more than they would be able to fail you for being able to violently ram another robot. The most they could do is make a list of robots to watch.
It's possible that FIRST would make a rule saying that your robot has to be mechanically incapable of exceeding the size limit, but I find that unlikely.
I can see them pulling out tape measures, but as I mentioned above, that isn't equivalent to making sure to robot fits in a cylinder.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by StevenB

They can't fail your inspection because of it, any more than they would be able to fail you for being able to violently ram another robot. The most they could do is make a list of robots to watch.

It would make refereeing a lot easier if the inspectors could determine if it is physically possible for a robot to exceed the 80" rule and mark it on the inspection sticker. If I know that a robot definitely can't break that rule, then I don't have to focus on supervising to see if it violates it.

[AndyB]

And even if the robot is mechanically capable of leaving the 80" cylinder area, code can allow for mechanisms to be in the right position at all times. (ie: a double jointed arm)

The manual does not outline a process for checking this violation and it is not in the inspection checklist. As I see it now the rule is way to vague to be able to follow correctly. Hopefully they will respond in the Q&A or in the next team update.

Does anybody recall any penalties handed out for this rule last year?

[emusteve]

I don't recall any being handed out at Great lakes.

For our part, after arriving at competition, we found that the process of deploying our gripper caused us to exceed the 72" rule albeit for less than 1 sec., so we tied up the gripper and in the name of GP (and not wanting to be the source of a penalty) didn't deploy it for the entire competition. We could still run defense, and climb on other bots, so we still did fine, and ended up with the Sportsmanship Award. Went home feeling good about ourselves and the competition.

We fixed it, and had fun at Kettering in the fall.

Steve

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

Bumpers (R08) are part of the robot (R13) and will be considered in the measurement if located on the robot where the 80" horizontal dimension (R16) maximizes. You can maximize the room available for your manipulator by leaving the bumpers off the opposite side. Right now you can do that without breaking any rules as long as any parts of your robot located within the bumper zone that are not covered by bumpers are within 10 degrees of vertical (R19). In addition, all bump to pass signals (G38) must be made with or against a standard bumper and inside the bumper zone. My guess is that when a team leaves the bumpers off to maximize the 80 inches, it will most likely be what becomes the rear of their robot. In order for another team to signal them to pass, the signaling team would only be able to signal if it had bumpers on the front of its' robot (doesn't make sense to signal from the side, you are all ready past them). At the same time, due to other types of manipulators, I can easily see teams that will leave bumpers off the front of their robots which will make it difficult to signal to pass a robot that does not have bumpers on its' rear. I realize that these are all design decisions and tradeoffs are necessary. You can build a succesful robot within these limits.

It seems like R16 (80" cylinder) and R08 (standard bumpers) are un-necessarily opposing eachother. R08 encourages teams to maximize their use of bumpers and R16 seems to discourage the use of bumpers and may make it more difficult to comply with signaling to pass. Another benefit to bumpers is the protection they provide. You could end up with a lot of exposed hard corners on the rear of many robots.

My ramblings have lead me to wonder whether or not R08, R13 or R16 should be modified to somehow leave standard bumpers out of the requirements of R16. Does anyone else see any wisdom in doing that? If a team has all ready decided to leave the bumpers off to maximize their 80 inches, what harm would changing the rules to allow them the opportunity to add bumpers be? I realize that there may be teams that designed to include bumpers and their manipulator to comply, but wouldn't they like to get another couple inches anyway?

I believe that ALL parts of the robot within the bumper zone must be within 10 degrees of vertical. (And the rule is 2/3 of the perimeter is required to be bumpered.) I don't see where you get that you must have bumper protection to signal to pass, just that you must contact within the bumper zone or with a Trackball.

There are ways to maximize coverage and still maximize the amount of cylinder still available...

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the bumpers excluded, but that makes the refs' job a bit harder. Bumpers can give a nice easy reference.

Originally Posted by AndyB

Does anybody recall any penalties handed out for this rule last year?

Yep. One or two teams at L.A. were measured post-match after accidental ramp deployment. At least one didn't pass.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't see where you get that you must have bumper protection to signal to pass, just that you must contact within the bumper zone or with a Trackball.

It's there - I had to look to be sure. I'm not sure if the requirement to bump with or against a bumper was added in the revised G38 or not.

<G38> Signal To Pass – During the Teleoperated Period, a ROBOT may indicate a desire to pass an IMPEDING ROBOT by approaching the opponent ROBOT and “bumping” the back of the opponent ROBOT (relative to the Direction of Traffic) .

• All “bump to pass” signals must be made with or against a STANDARD BUMPER and inside the BUMPER ZONE, or
• If in POSSESSION of a TRACKBALL, the ROBOT may “bump” the IMPEDING ROBOT with the TRACKBALL outside the BUMPER ZONE, providing the contact is made exclusively with the TRACKBALL.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

It's there - I had to look to be sure. I'm not sure if the requirement to bump with or against a bumper was added in the revised G38 or not.

Ah, OK. I couldn't remember the bumper contact being a requirement--no metal on metal this year, I guess.

[ALIBI]

Originally Posted by EricH

Ah, OK. I couldn't remember the bumper contact being a requirement--no metal on metal this year, I guess.

At least when bumping to pass per G38.

Per EricH: I believe that ALL parts of the robot within the bumper zone must be within 10 degrees of vertical. (And the rule is 2/3 of the perimeter is required to be bumpered.)

Correct, I just assumed that the bumpers would be vertical.


Per EricH: It wouldn't be a bad idea to have the bumpers excluded, but that makes the refs' job a bit harder. Bumpers can give a nice easy reference.

Maybe it would make the job easier since the bumpers typically are not attached at weigh-in/sizing. The inspectors could make this determination before the robot ever hits the track. I could easily see two vertical poles 80 inches apart with the robot on a flat cart. The team would to have physically move anything that goes beyond the starting envelope through its full range of motion. If at anytime the robot and manipulator or whatever can not pass between the post the robot it is not constructed "in accordance with all of the 2008 FRC rules" (quote from Inspection Checklist) and would not pass inspection. You would not have to attach your bumpers which are usually off the robot at this time to prove compliance with R16. It almost makes R16 obsolete. However, if you were using more than 80 inches of your infinite height in the playing configuration and tipped over before retracting you could still get the penalty on the field. That is the only time the refs would have to worry about R16. The top of the overpass will be approximately 80", within an inch or two anyway, and could easily be used as a visual reference when a robot is tipping (i.e. was it taller than the overpass when it fell or not) and my guess is that near the overpass is where most teams will be going higher than 80 inches to begin with. I could see that this would become a pain if you have to power up your robot to have it move through the range of motions during weigh-in. However, for those teams that are using programing vs hard stops to limit motion it would be an ideal time to prove out their software.

Per GaryV: It's there - I had to look to be sure. I'm not sure if the requirement to bump with or against a bumper was added in the revised G38 or not.

They only added: during teleoperated period, in revision #2

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by AndyB

Does anybody recall any penalties handed out for this rule last year?

I recall it happening at every competition I attended (VCU, Chesapeake, and Championship). The reason every time was a ramp deploying early and outside the home zone. I do not know of any time where it was called for an arm extending beyond the size limits.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I do not know of any time where it was called for an arm extending beyond the size limits.

I know that this was called a number of times. One that sticks in my mind was 45 being flagged at IRI because their gripper got snagged on the rack, and while backing out they went nearly horizontal. I remember robots with long arms being flagged after tipping at regionals, too, and I expect that to continue this year if a team doesn't e-stop first.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I do not know of any time where it was called for an arm extending beyond the size limits.

Originally Posted by jgannon

I know that this was called a number of times. One that sticks in my mind was 45 being flagged at IRI because their gripper got snagged on the rack, and while backing out they went nearly horizontal.

Recognizing that IRI is not an official event and has it's own set of rules, but you recall correctly. Also Team 1 Juggernauts were called for their arm being extended outside the box after they fell over.

In this year's rules it is written that a robot cannot cause another robot to
be penalized. So in my opinion if one robot knocks another over and that robot is now outside the mythical cylinder, there should be no penalty.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

In this year's rules it is written that a robot cannot cause another robot to be penalized. So in my opinion if one robot knocks another over and that robot is now outside the mythical cylinder, there should be no penalty.

This is an interesting interpretation that I haven't heard before. I can envision some scenarios where a robot could violate <R16> due to contact with another robot and not be penalized. I wouldn't say that this is a blanket rule... even if the other team tipped you, breaking <R16> might have been avoidable (much in the same way that you could potentially avoid a clockwise crossing, even if you were bumped). There are going to be some very interesting judgment calls for the referees this year.

[meaubry]

If, based on the explanation in the FIRST Q&A, the parenthetic example is NOT the rule.

The rule is the part of the sentence prior to the cylinder example.


Measured horizontally includes all orientations of the robot - upright and fallen over.

Some infractions during the game will be obvious (fallen over while fully extended) - while some will be very difficult to determine without replicating the exact orientation after the match.

While the geometry I have been working on, is capable of reaching beyond the 80 inches - we will not allow that to occur by limiting the rotation of the joints using pots and mechanical stops.

If you have a similar situation, would you demonstrate your maximum reach to the head ref during the practice matches - in order to avoid any issues later during the matches or would you be afraid to bring additional attention to your robot? Meaning, the ref then tells the other refs to "keep an eye on that one".

Mike

[ALIBI]

Mike,

Your robot would probably draw attention on the track anyway if it looks like it was approaching 80 inches. In that case, if the head ref. had prior knowledge he/she could immediately say, I looked at that robot in the pits and they demonstrated their hard stops and programing to me and it does not exceed 80 inches, let's move on. Getting a quick definative answer would probably end any suspicions on the spot. I would like to see a range of motion test done while being inspected. That way the only dimensional rule that the refs. would have to worry about would be when a robot tips over. Not sure how practical implementing a test like that would be though.

EDIT: In the pits or during the practice matches.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

I would like to see a range of motion test done while being inspected.

How about if it was enforced in the same way that the ball velocity rule was in 2006? Assume that everyone is following the rules, but if a referee has doubts as to whether a team is complying, they can request a demonstration before the robot is allowed to compete again. I'd restrict it to just refs being allowed to request this (as opposed to 2006, where anyone was allowed to complain), but this seems like a much more time-efficient way to examine only the borderline cases and flagrant violators.