|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#76
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
|
|
#77
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
With all this stuff happening in regards to bumpers, i'm really wondering how many teams are even keeping track. I can picture quite a few ignorant teams showing up with non legal bumpers simply for not checking the updates and QandA system. I hope inspectors will have those teams make the bot legal before they can play qualifiers, otherwise everyones headaches trying to figure out bumper rules had no point when they could've just ignored them and still played.
last year i saw a bot with 2 van door motors, 1 of them being from 2006 and duct tape quite evident in quite a few places, and the bot still played, i didn't mention anything to the inspectors. |
|
#78
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
(I saw one team show up with duct tape over pipe insulation wrap on the side of their bot one year thinking that would pass as a bumper. It didn't, so they just took them off.) The only reason I say this, is that a bumper is probably not the easiest thing to fabricate for teams with bad ones at a regional event. (Relatively speaking I guess. It's easier to make a set of bumpers than re-design a whole drivetrain, but you know what I mean... When in doubt, bring two (or more) pre-made configurations of your proposed bumper designs for your specific robot, & ask the inspectors which one is legal at your first competition if you have any questions. It will HAVE to be goverened on a case by case basis in that regard ONLY at the events in my opinion, unless the GDC starts taking submissions of pictures of every team's bumper designs & approving them on a case by case basis now (before shipping). I don't want to see the GDC have to nit-pick now & do that, as they have already spent enough time on this issue as it is. |
|
#79
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
I think we'll be bringing some plywood, some pool noodles, and some nice bright orange bumper fabric. Hell, maybe we'll even make some 6" sections to hand out; first 10 teams to fail get 6" free! |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Rule <R18> secion E states "The Trailer Hitch must be placed such that, as the TRAILER swings from side to side, the first contact between th TRAILER and ROBOT is BUMPER-to-BUMPER and not TRAILER-tongue-to-BUMPER."
Are there any other teams having a problem with this in their designs? With our hitch on a 28" side of our design which doesn't include 90 degree corners on the back, we can not seem to find a way to make our concept account for the trail bumpers hitting the robot before the tongue does. |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
But idk, the rules always seem this ambiguous to me anyway. My pov, it shouldn't have to come down to making two configs. But you gotta roll with the punches I guess. |
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
So, is this relevent? Yes - if it were possible to do a curved section (or round robot for that matter) then it leaves open more flexibility. Also, can someone please explain to me what is meant by "lawering" the rules? How can simply trying to understand the rules properly so that you know your appropriate limitations for your design be considered lawering? Anyway - just want to understand since I have seen it used in many different contexts. |
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
|
|
#84
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
So, in the case of the 6" long bumper rule - is the intent to allow for sufficient bumper to bumper contact to eliminate/reduce damage between the two contacted surfaces or is it to increase the design challenge? or something else? I think it's just a rule to dictate proper protection. If someone can come up with a good (although potentially complicated) design that will allow them a wider opening (>16") on the 28" wide side of the allowable robot design then I call that good engineering. I'm only saying this because that's what I want to do - engineer my way out of this 16" limitation if I can. I don't want to be called a cheat or something because others might think that I'm stretching the intent or letter of the rules. (BTW, I'm not saying that anyone will, but that is a fear that I have). Of course, part of a good design (particularly for this case with the bumpers) would be that, even though the design would be fresh and innovative, would be very clear that the rules were followed to the "T" without question. |
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
|
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #2
It's amazing how First is a microcosm of the real world. And as such it gives the students a chance to play the game of life without the threat of job loss or financial ruin. Team's don't have to like the rules, they don't have to make sense in you specific case. It doesn't matter what you think they should be or how they should be interpreted. The rules are the rules. You must follow Z RULES. You must be in compliance. Compliance is WHAT EVER THE RULE ENFORCERS SAY THEY ARE. PERIOD.
I'm in the construction business and a good part of my life is spent figuring out how to keep my jobs and business in compliance. It's a never ending battle to stay on top of all the rules and the interpretations of them. If I fail to to do it the financial repercussions could bankrupt me. So I would suggest teams take a conservative interpretation of the bumper rules and make your robot fit the bumper restrictions. Once again you don't have to like them. One the worst things that can happen is to show up practice day and not be in compliance. Been there, it's not fun. |
|
#87
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
![]() |
|
#88
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #2
Quote:
I'd much rather build something that plays the game well, thinks outside the box AND adheres to all of the existing rules (updates included). I always find those to be more inspiring... to everyone. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #2
The GDC has decided to expose the First community to bureaucratic double speak this year. Your lucky they didn't give it to us in the paragraph-sub paragraph 30 layers deep form that only lawyers can write. Compared to some of the regulatory documentation and insurance policies I have received this year, The Robot rules are clearly written.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Team Update 17 | ntroup | General Forum | 33 | 14-03-2007 16:58 |
| Team Update # 11 | Bcahn836 | Rumor Mill | 6 | 21-02-2004 07:33 |
| Team Update #3 | dez250 | General Forum | 4 | 21-01-2004 11:56 |
| Team Update 5 | archiver | 2001 | 4 | 23-06-2002 23:36 |