|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Quote:
|
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Quote:
Know the rules before you act on them/publish misinformation. |
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Am I the only one confused as to the dispute over the bumper legality? Didn't the GDC specifically say that the bumper configuration is illegal? And wouldn't you knowing this and still trying to dispute with your inspector be a little immoral?
|
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Angled bumper debate aside, wouldn't a design of this type be illegal IF the roller (or parts of it like the pneumatic tubes in this example) touched a trailer? It is my understanding that the ONLY thing the robot is allowed to touch on the trailer is the BUMPER and then ONLY with the BUMPERS of the robot. If an intake roller mounted near the front edge of a robot intake opening touches the trailer (BUMPER or not) isn't it illegal? Due to the height of the BUMPERS (7") and diameter of the balls (~8.5") doesn't this severly limit the placement and design of intake rollers placed near the edge of a robot?
|
|
#36
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Yes, it sound like the intake rollers would need to be more than 7" high, at the lowest point. Pokey grippy thingys might be a problem, if they're too long.
|
|
#37
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
We're using <R32> "ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction" to describe ROBOT to Trailer interaction, but that seems to also be the way the GDC is doing it.
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore one could argue that contact between 1 and 7 inches off the floor should be considered incidental. |
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
I have re-read the rules and agree that <G32> defines what is and isn't allowed concerning ROBOT-to-ROBOT and ROBOT-to-TRAILER interactions. For reference this is the whole rule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote:
I have bolded the parts I am using to draw my conclusions below: 1) Even though the rule is titled "ROBOT to ROBOT Interaction" by including the bolded "ROBOT-to-TRAILER" it is clear from the beginning that they are including robot to trailer interactions in this rule, however, robot to robot and robot to trailer interactions are somehow different since they specifically list them separately. 2) Section "E" clearly states that contact outside the BUMPER ZONE is not acceptable. There is no distinction made between ROBOTs and TRAILERs thus, since the rule is discussing the interactions of both, I have to assume that contact outside the BUMPER ZONE of the TRAILER is not allowed. This seems to be supported by this Q&A as well. 3) Section "C": "If a portion of the BUMPER PERIMETER polygon is unprotected by BUMPERS, any contact by another ROBOT" would imply ROBOT-to-ROBOT since TRAILERS have BUMPERS all the way around. There is no mention of TRAILER in section C. "another ROBOT" must mean that there is a one ROBOT to begin with, thus 2 ROBOTs, NOT a ROBOT and a TRAILER. Therefor section "C" does not define any "incidental contact" between ROBOTs and TRAILERs. 4) Section "D": Again only refers to ROBOTS. There is no mention of TRAILERS anywhere in "D". We better not run into a tipped over trailer and contact anything other than the (now semi vertical) bumpers. By the combination of these parts of <G32> I have to come to the conclusion that the intent of this rule is to restrict ROBOT contact with the TRAILERs to BUMPER-to-BUMPER only. The rule is very careful to refer to ROBOTs and TRAILERs separately where desired. It is thus a false assumption that ROBOTs = TRAILERs as far as the "rules of engagement" go. FIRST cannot control or even conceive of how every team will construct their robots. It is perfectly logical to think that there may be two "U shaped"/"Open Front" robots on the field at the same time. It is also conceivable that the two "U shaped fronts" may come in contact with each other such that the legal bumpers of one robot protrude inside the legal width front "gap" of the other robot and make contact inside the robot with something other than a bumper. I conclude this to be the "incidental contact" referred to in section "C". Basically, if you build a robot with a gap within the BUMPER ZONE and another robot enters that area that is your problem, not FIRST's. However, we are all given detailed dimensional drawings of the trailer so we can't claim we didn't know what it looked like, how big it was, or how it was built. What I BELIEVE the GDC intent is to limit all contact with the trailer to the bumper only. I would even be willing to bet that at inspection there will be a legal TRAILER that will be pushed into and around your ROBOT and you better have designed it such that nothing but the BUMPERS of the trailer can touch your ROBOT inside and out. In other words, if you have an opening on the front of your robot such that the trailer can partially go inside your robot there is no such thing as "incidental contact" outside the bumper zone. The whole point of the drawings in Update #2 was to make sure we understood that the trailer bumper couldn't touch anything inside/under/etc. our robots, only the legal front minimum 6" bumpers. If you have an intake roller near the front of your robot with protrusions on it designed to grab the balls and pull them into your robot you better be careful that they can't touch the bumpers (or any other part) of the trailers. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the rules. If others feel my logic is flawed in this interpretation please correct me. |
|
#39
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Quote:
I first look at each section of <G32> individually. Where appropriate, I comment on the above interpretations. <G32>: General contact rule; all sub-rules are specific cases of this rule. I would argue that they specify robot-trailer to specifically include the trailer, so that teams are without excuse if they beat up the trailers, not to differentiate between robot-robot and robot-trailer contact. <G32-A>: general expectation. It is NOT specific to either robot or trailer. <G32-B>: general permissible contact volume. Again, not specific. <G32-C>: Regarding unprotected areas of the bumper perimeter. Trailers have none, as they will be close enough to the towing robot to protect the tongue. Robots may. What's to stop an opponent from attempting to give a penalty by backing or swinging a trailer into an opening in the bumper perimeter, or worse, doing damage that way, if read as you interpret it? I would argue that the GDC wrote this for robot-robot interaction and overlooked it for robot-trailer interaction. They anticipated that the spirit of the rule would be understood. <G32-D>: tilted/tipped robots. See my response on <G32-C>. <G32-E>: outside of bumper zone contact. Not specific to either robot or trailer. Your interpretation is correct. <G32-F>: climbing on robots/trailers. The first one to specifically instead of generally include the trailer. <G32-G>: wedging robots/trailers. Also specifies both. Only two sub-rules specify both robots and trailers, but the overall rule covers both. Three of the seven are general, mentioning neither. The other two rules are in spirit covering both, though not necessarily by letter. This has been known to happen before. As for your conclusions, I separate them out piecemeal, to discuss them more easily. 1) "...intent of this rule is to restrict ROBOT contact with the TRAILERs to BUMPER-to-BUMPER only." The intent of the rule is to govern the entire contact between robots and either other robots or trailers, not to specify one particular type of contact between robot and trailer. 2) "It is thus a false assumption that ROBOTs = TRAILERs as far as the "rules of engagement" go." Where do you get this? As I said above, three rules are general, not counting the primary rule, and two more cover both the same. 3) "It is also conceivable that the two "U shaped fronts" may come in contact with each other such that the legal bumpers of one robot protrude inside the legal width front "gap" of the other robot and make contact inside the robot with something other than a bumper. I conclude this to be the "incidental contact" referred to in section "C"." This is part of the incidental contact. It is also conciveable that a team has no bumpers on one side of their robot, save at the corners, and a trailer accidentally, through no fault of either team, jams in there. I have a hard time thinking that that would be penalized. If it is, so be it, but in the past, it wouldn't be. 4) "What I BELIEVE the GDC intent is to limit all contact with the trailer to the bumper only." Remember that the trailer has bumpers all the way around. Which bumper, the one on the robot or the one on the trailer? If a trailer contacts a side of the robot that isn't protected, is that a penalty? I BELIEVE that the GDC's intent is to limit all contact to the bumper zone only. 5) "I would even be willing to bet that at inspection there will be a legal TRAILER that will be pushed into and around your ROBOT and you better have designed it such that nothing but the BUMPERS of the trailer can touch your ROBOT inside and out." I am equally willing to bet that there won't be one. Why? Extra weight to haul around, one more thing to be assembled at competition, and if anything other than bumpers can contact your robot, then I would suspect that you're awful close to an <R11> or <R08> violation anyway. 6) "In other words, if you have an opening on the front of your robot such that the trailer can partially go inside your robot there is no such thing as "incidental contact" outside the bumper zone." Where do you draw this from? The other rules, for example <G29>, don't say anything about this. You can push or react against any arena elements, and the trailer is an arena element. 7) "The whole point of the drawings in Update #2 was to make sure we understood that the trailer bumper couldn't touch anything inside/under/etc. our robots, only the legal front minimum 6" bumpers." The GDC has said repeatedly that those drawings are for illustrative purposes only. Attempts to draw anything more from them are frowned upon. 8) "If you have an intake roller near the front of your robot with protrusions on it designed to grab the balls and pull them into your robot you better be careful that they can't touch the bumpers (or any other part) of the trailers." This is more correct, as this could be construed as gabbing a trailer. In short, I think that you're close, but a miss is as good as a mile. I think that <G32> covers both robot-robot and robot-trailer contact and treats them equally. My apologies for the long post. |
|
#40
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
OK, we have beaten to death. We will change our bot's front to have a six inch flat side on each side of our harvester's opening. It looks like it will not make too much of a difference , only ball's a ball width. We will just have to drive better! It was great watching all you debate the issue though, but if we stay with our design, we will loose the argument. We will bring our old angled side however in case we see the inspectors change their interpretation. Thanks all.
|
|
#41
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Eric, thanks for the great post in direct response to mine. Our two posts clearly show how two people can read the same words (rules) and come to two different conclusions. After reading your thoughtful and detailed response I can see how you arrived at your conclusions. However, not being able to read the minds of the GDC our team is opting to play it safe and is continuing to design and build our robot such that any contact between our robot and the trailer is bumper to bumper only (as long as the trailer is in it’s normal playing configuration). Does this limit our design possibilities? Probably, but we would rather be safe than sorry.
We think we have a pretty good plan though. ![]() |
|
#42
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Quote:
I also saw how you came to your conclusions. As it is written, both interpretations are valid without further clarification from above. |
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Just seeing that frame tells me that this belongs to the falcons. Light weight and sturdy. Same style from when we where allied with you in Phoenix the 2005 regional. Love it. lol
Kyle Team 624 2007 Pit captain 2008 Build Captain 2008 Driver |
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
To put Eric's comments into a nutshell -
a) a trailer is field equipment b) thou shalt not damage field equipment c) it has been so since the beginning of time. I'd say that is the root cause of the GDC reasoning, rules and decisions on the matter. |
|
#45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Here's a tidbit we've found:
We've found that while on a slick surface, about half the time the orbit balls run away when they're hit wrong by the harvester fingers ... so having the roller edge @ 9" off the floor with the fingers extending down to 7.5" is our best solution. The harvester roller edge is 8" from the opposite conveyor side though, so the ball is under slight compression while in the conveyor. Are you guys integrating tubing/belting in between the fingers for the conveyor? If so, have you solved the issue of the belting getting caught on the harvester fingers? That's our next thing to tackle. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| pic: CD 7 ball harvester | BlazinFire47 | Extra Discussion | 21 | 14-05-2012 09:56 |
| Knocking off a ball while possesing a ball | Joe Ross | Rules/Strategy | 25 | 10-03-2008 18:49 |
| WHere do you get Ball Casters/ BAll Transfers for FRC?!?!?!? | leehyungjin4u | General Forum | 3 | 15-01-2008 23:27 |
| Chief 47 ball harvester 2002 pics | ajlapp | Robot Showcase | 6 | 11-01-2006 15:34 |
| 2X Ball Into the Ball Release | MikeDubreuil | Rules/Strategy | 23 | 28-03-2004 19:31 |