<R11> Craziness!!!

[Woody1458]

Does anyone else think this rule is as game changing as me? This rule scares me more then requiring us to use Rover Wheels. No playing position!!!! come on FIRST you already restricted our sizes with this giant control system, we don't need this. I'm sure there is a better way to prevent trailer defence!!

[Alex Dinsmoor]

I must say that I too hate this rule, although it is a necessary one. FIRST is probably limiting the size because they do not want any protruding parts from a robot that could get entangled with another bot in a high speed collision. An arm extending from your robot is more of a javelin at high speeds.

[Woody1458]

That is something I would atest to also. In the kickoff they "raced" the robots across the field and by the end of the entire length they were going no faster then a double Toughbox geared down robot on carpet. And form what I see in past years of FRC I don't think you can say that there have never been no-holds-bar collisions before. The collisions may be a little less expected and more frequent but I believe at a much lower speed.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

Does anyone else think this rule is as game changing as me? This rule scares me more then requiring us to use Rover Wheels. No playing position!!!! come on FIRST you already restricted our sizes with this giant control system, we don't need this. I'm sure there is a better way to prevent trailer defence!!

By "need this" I assume you mean you feel it's unfair? Every game is different. There seem to be parts of this one that are very different. So what? We're here for the collective challenge, right?

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Alex Dinsmoor

I must say that I too hate this rule, although it is a necessary one. FIRST is probably limiting the size because they do not want any protruding parts from a robot that could get entangled with another bot in a high speed collision. An arm extending from your robot is more of a javelin at high speeds.

That is a very good point, but I don't think anyone will stay untouched long enough to reach speeds that could even conceivably be considered dangerous.

R11 in my book falls right in line with G14, I at first enjoyed the idea of a near frictionless surface but knowing we can't have any arm to easily dump the balls or any expansion at all is just frustrating and stifling. This rule basically says everyone build a similar looking robot and see who has the best "payload specialist"...Who knows someone might come up with a crazy plan that works, just my initial thoughts.

[jackdawg]

R11...thats the one that says that the robot cannot extend out beyond the regulation dimensions of the bot at any time (not just at the start of the match)?
if so then yes i agree! total madness! no extendable arms or devices! that threw a wrench in the gears of several of our plans.

some of the rules this year seem to be a little too confining.
lets hope that next year is better

[dtengineering]

This is not a correct reading of the rule. Playing configurations ARE allowed, and may be different from the starting configuration.

They simply must stay within a 28"x38"x60" box. If you want to reach outside your robot, then the robot must be less than 28"x38"x60" to start with.

I seem to recall there was a similar rule in '06 and it worked out just fine. (Those who think all the robots end up "looking the same" with these restrictions should check out the Aim High -- Behind the Design book. If you think the '06 robots all "looked the same" then perhaps we were looking at different things. I saw a great deal of variety in those designs.)

Jason

[Dantvman27]

Or maybe its just uping your thinking level, i like the rule, it changes the game completely

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

By "need this" I assume you mean you feel it's unfair? Every game is different. There seem to be parts of this one that are very different. So what? We're here for the collective challenge, right?

Usually I do take this opinion on matters of rules that "Everyone has to follow it, therefore it is inherently a justified rule" However in this case the rule pretty much bogs you down to a single main pick up method of a ground roller. and a single expulsion method of a shooter.

In my mind's eye I see 80% of robots being some form of this:

http://team254.bcp.org/2006r.jpg

I hope they change this rule in a quick manner because as an integral rule effecting design if they wait a week or two then there is no point as most designs will be solidified.

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

This is not a correct reading of the rule. Playing configurations ARE allowed, and may be different from the starting configuration.

They simply must stay within a 28"x38"x60" box. If you want to reach outside your robot, then the robot must be less than 28"x38"x60" to start with.

I seem to recall there was a similar rule in '06 and it worked out just fine. (Those who think all the robots end up "looking the same" with these restrictions should check out the Aim High -- Behind the Design book. If you think the '06 robots all "looked the same" then perhaps we were looking at different things. I saw a great deal of variety in those designs.)

Jason

in 2006 my team had a drawbridge type design for dumping our hopper into the side goals, so we definatly exceeded the 28x39x60 legally.

And while it is just a small tidbit, because the sizes do not change from before the bell to after the bell there is no "Playing configuration" but yes you can design a smaller base that allows you to reach in front of it with a device. Although FIRST arguably put a requirement on our base sizing with they new larger control system.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

By "need this" I assume you mean you feel it's unfair? Every game is different. There seem to be parts of this one that are very different. So what? We're here for the collective challenge, right?

We're here for a challenge so we can create innovative solutions to the problems we're given. But this game eliminates anything that would attempt to give u a frictional advantage over others and therefore instead of challenging us DISCOURAGES us from thinking of ways to get around it. I've always thought there was a fine line between solving your challenges and breaking the intent of the rule that poses the challenge.

Originally Posted by jackdawg

R11...thats the one that says that the robot cannot extend out beyond the regulation dimensions of the bot at any time (not just at the start of the match)?
if so then yes i agree! total madness! no extendable arms or devices! that threw a wrench in the gears of several of our plans.

some of the rules this year seem to be a little too confining.
lets hope that next year is better

<R11>At the start of, and during, the MATCH the ROBOT shall fit within the dimensions listed below:
Maximum
Width
28 inches (71.12cm)
Maximum
Depth
38 inches (96.52cm)
Maximum
Height
60 inches (152.40cm)
Maximum
Weight
120 pounds (54.43Kg)

And yes I'm also looking forward to next year as I believe this game will be too slow and too constrained to be fun except in the high levels of competitive play such as Einstein or IRI.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

We're here for a challenge so we can create innovative solutions to the problems we're given. But this game eliminates anything that would attempt to give u a frictional advantage over others and therefore instead of challenging us DISCOURAGES us from thinking of ways to get around it. I've always thought there was a fine line between solving your challenges and breaking the intent of the rule that poses the challenge.

Just because you haven't thought of a way to get frictional advantages doesn't mean other teams aren't thinking about that very thing right now. FIRST gave some pretty strong clues by publishing the coefficients of friction... static inline is 20% higher than dynamic and transverse is almost twice that of the inline.

Go back to that first line of your post and apply that positive spirit to this challenge. You might be amazed what you can come up with.

Jason

[tubeheaD37]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

However in this case the rule pretty much bogs you down to a single main pick up method of a ground roller. and a single expulsion method of a shooter.

I am not so convinced about that. If you look at the dimensions of the trailer, it should be perfectly feasible to do some sort of a dump rather than a shoot for ball expulsion.
As for pickup, I was thinking about rollers even before I knew about this rule, so I don't have another solution in mind right now. I am sure it is out there somewhere though.

I do have to agree that this rule seems a little confining, and I am not a huge fan of the increased human player involvement. R11 does seem pretty crazy, but it is workable if you are creative.

[Lesman]

And the entanglement concern is a very real one. On the regolith two robots won't have the traction to pull themselves apart.

[midway78224]

I think this rule makes the game more exicting. I also think that your going to see alot robots like 2006 aim high robots. My team is think like a design of a aim high robot.