Beware of R16 your robot design may be too big.

[RoboGeek99]

We are a Rookie Team this year and actually had a pretty good idea(at least I think so) to grab the ball with 2 rings but they will probably be outside the R16 rule so once again we're back to drawing board. Im really wondering how we could come up with a design that wouldn't cost us penalties for the new rule and so far I got nothing

[MrForbes]

see if you can contact the ball above and below, with some type of (safe) prongs about 26" apart, and tilt it up and back.

[GaryVoshol]

Certainly 72x72 was called last year, mostly for when a bot's ramps lowered prematurely.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by StevenB

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.

Very true; it is not on the inspection checklist. But this is:
Team Compliance Statement
We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team’s robot was built after the 2008 Kickoff on January 5, 2008 and in accordance with all of the 2008 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules (reference Section 8.3.3). We have conducted our own inspection and determined that our robot satisfies all of the 2008 FRC rules for robot design.

Last year when I noticed some a couples of team that looked like they were exceeding the allowable envelope, I pointed it out to them. They were not aware of it, and made the appropriate corrections to stay within the envelope. From my experience, no one in this competition wants to cheat or try to get away with an obvious violation of the rules that everyone else had followed, so usually it's a team that was unaware of the requirement or who misunderstood the requirement and they want to make it right when it is pointed out.

[OZ_341]

Our machine will be capable of exceeding the envelope, but will be programmed to stay within it, using potentiometers. We should be well within the cylinder.
However, I do worry about being over scrutinized, just because of the physical possibility.

Also, last year we were tipped over twice during the season by a collision, while scoring tubes. Since we were fully extended when we were hit. We were called for a 72" violation, while lying there helpless on our backs. (ouch!) I saw this happen to other teams as well. So if you get tipped you may be in violation of the cylinder rule.

And finally, I really hope that FIRST can make a definitive statement about how this rule will be enforced. Many teams are still in the early design stage and it will make a huge difference.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Cory]

Originally Posted by AndyB

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

Yup, quite often, too.

It was far more obvious that I would imagine R16 violations to be, this year.

[Gary Dillard]

ATTENTION!!! New interpretation of R16 posted in Q&A responses, discussed here

[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.

[65_Xero_Huskie]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

This rule is very, very restrictive to robots trying to hurdle. This will be THE rule that has the most attention during the first week. We plan on bringing a 80" cylinder to St. Louis to show our robot fits in the volumne at all times .... that is if we can make a mechanism that actually works AND fits in the 80". Right now we can do one or the other, but not both.

I think you guys got called for the penalty at nationals last year for this didnt you? I didnt think it was a fair call because you were getting pushed and your robot was out of your hands during the time but yea, i think the refs are going to being something thats 80" so that any tall bot can be warned that they could go out of the box