Go to Post Maybe FRC WILL casue world peace, who knows, eh ? - Tottanka [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > ChiefDelphi.com Website > Extra Discussion
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2009, 19:45
Gdeaver Gdeaver is online now
Registered User
FRC #1640
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: West Chester, Pa.
Posts: 1,367
Gdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond reputeGdeaver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

As I hope you can begin to see the easy way out is to square it off and move on to more critical aspects of the game.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2009, 23:06
Scott Hill Scott Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #1625 (Winnovation)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 23
Scott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to behold
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Take it step by step.

Initial paragraph relevant sentence..."If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall"...

Comply? Yes, assuming the corner on the opposite side of the hitch is similar the BUMPER will hit the wall first.

A. Comply? Yes, the segment appears to meet the 6" min. dim.
B. Comply? Yes, stacked pair of noodles.
c. Comply? Yes, assuming the solid board is a prototype stand-in for the required 3/4" plywood.
D. Comply? Yes, assuming the duct tape is a stand-in for the continuous fabric.
E. Comply? Yes, assuming final weight under 18 lbs, easily attainable.
F. Comply? Yes, assuming easy installation, relatively easy to accomplish.
G. Comply? Yes, assuming rigid robust connection, relatively easy to accomplish.
H. Comply? Yes, granted.
I. Comply? Yes, the exterior corner is protected by the BUMPERS. It passes the initial paragraph vertical wall test.
J. Not applicable to the left end of the BUMPER segment as this is the free end of one BUMPER segment, not a corner or joint between BUMPER segments. The corner/joint shown looks ok.
K. Comply? Yes, assuming 2/3 of BUMPER PERIMETER is protected.
N. Comply? Yes, assuming BUMPER cross section construction requirements met.
O. Comply? Yes, if you lose the miter on the BUMPER backing board at the junction of the segments.
P. Comply? Yes, assuming the BUMPERS are mounted at the correct height in the BUMPER ZONE.

I make several assumptions in this discussion but I think they are permissible in getting to the main point(s) of contention.

With respect to the Q&A reference above by dtengineering (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11257) which is the GDC's answer to my question, the GDC states "No. Figure 8-2 is intended to only illustrate the legality of some of the possible ways in which BUMPERS could be arranged on exterior corners. Please do not infer any other conclusions from that example." Fig 8-2 shows 5 different BUMPER-corner conditions, 3 labeled "ok", 1 labeled "not ok", and one not commented on. The GDC response also says "...some of the possible ways in which BUMPERS could be arranged..." which leads me to conclude that there may well be additional ways which are not commented on which may or may not be legal.

Since the condition in question has been shown as an example but has not been directly commented on in the MANUAL or the TEAM UPDATES I believe the prudent thing to do is apply the step by step as above. Having done that, as above, I believe the condition can clearly meet the intent of <R08>.

I sincerely welcome challenges/comments to my attempt at logic.

Thanks and apologies for the length,

Scott
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2009, 23:24
MrForbes's Avatar
MrForbes MrForbes is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jim
FRC #1726 (N.E.R.D.S.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 6,013
MrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Scott--

The one thing that shows that you might be wrong is the other link that Jason (dtengineering) provided

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11218

Quote:
The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of six inches" is correct. The requirement for both sides of the corner to be protected is independent of the angle of the corner.
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2009, 23:34
Scott Hill Scott Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #1625 (Winnovation)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 23
Scott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to behold
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Thanks Squirrel, for the comment.

Protected by BUMPERS doesn't necessarily mean having BUMPERS. I think each side with respect to that exterior corner is protected by bumpers because if you push each side into the vertical wall the bumpers will hit first.

thanks,

Scott
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2009, 23:35
dtengineering's Avatar
dtengineering dtengineering is offline
Teaching Teachers to Teach Tech
AKA: Jason Brett
no team (British Columbia FRC teams)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,830
dtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond reputedtengineering has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Scott makes a good point, and... let me be clear... I would be happier to see his interpretation be correct than mine. I believe that this design does meet the intent of the rules (to protect robots and the field), and even the wording of the rules. Were I an inspector at a competition and presented solely with this design and the rule book, I would probably declare it as compliant.

Where it may fall short is in the definitition of "protected", as the GDC has stated:
Quote:
"The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of six inches" is correct. The requirement for both sides of the corner to be protected is independent of the angle of the corner.
"
Taking this definitition of "protected" as specifically requiring bumper segments on both sides of an exterior corner, and given that this is clearly a corner on the bumper perimeter (exterior) of the robot, I believe that as an inspector I would be compelled to declare these bumpers as "non-compliant" (whether I wanted to or not... inspectors cannot overrule the Q&A) without further official clarification from the GDC.

Don't get me wrong... I would be happy to see this be legal, but as it stands right now, I don't think it is.

Jason

Edit... Jim and Scott both posted while I was composing this reply... I have gone back to highlight in bold what I consider the crucial part of the Q&A ruling. I believe the use of "bumpers" in the plural, indicates a corner requires more than one bumper... but don't take my word for it.... put it up on Q&A!

Last edited by dtengineering : 25-01-2009 at 23:38.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2009, 23:45
Mike8519's Avatar
Mike8519 Mike8519 is offline
Registered User
FRC #0303 (TEST Team)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Raritan, New Jersey
Posts: 220
Mike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really nice
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

I will also have to say that this configuration is illegal due to the requirement of both sides requiring protection and that protection required to be 6" long BUMPERS.
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-01-2009, 08:32
Unsung FIRST Hero
Al Skierkiewicz Al Skierkiewicz is offline
Broadcast Eng/Chief Robot Inspector
AKA: Big Al WFFA 2005
FRC #0111 (WildStang)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Wheeling, IL
Posts: 10,792
Al Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Scott,
In looking at the picture and visualizing certain field elements, I think it is entirely possible for an unprotected/non bumper portion of the robot to contact a field element or another robot. Certainly, the angle of the trailer tongue shown in the photo would allow a wide variety of possiblities, my robot included. In my mind, the rule that states in part...
R08 The BUMPER location and design have been specified so that ROBOTS will make BUMPER-to-BUMPER contact during any collisions. If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall.
I would be hard pressed, from this photo, to be able to prove to myself that your robot design would be able to meet this specification.
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2009, 00:31
Kyler's Avatar
Kyler Kyler is offline
Registered User
FRC #1625 (Winnovation)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Winnebago
Posts: 20
Kyler has a spectacular aura aboutKyler has a spectacular aura about
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

curiously enough, the GDC never actually says in http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600 that the configuration is illegal, only that figure 8-2 is meant to be an example. Just to point that out.
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2009, 01:59
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyler View Post
curiously enough, the GDC never actually says in http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600 that the configuration is illegal, only that figure 8-2 is meant to be an example. Just to point that out.
The question in that Q&A post never asked if the configuration on their robot was illegal or not. So of course they did not get a determination of the legality of the configuration.


.
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2009, 10:45
Joe Ross's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Ross Joe Ross is offline
Registered User
FRC #0330 (Beachbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,574
Joe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
The question in that Q&A post never asked if the configuration on their robot was illegal or not. So of course they did not get a determination of the legality of the configuration.
Had they asked about that specific robot, they would have been referred to team update 6 and still not get the answer they wanted.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2009, 20:33
5n1p3r's Avatar
5n1p3r 5n1p3r is offline
IM 5n1p3r
AKA: Matthew
FRC #0714 (Team Panthera)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Newark, NJ
Posts: 82
5n1p3r will become famous soon enough5n1p3r will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to 5n1p3r
Talking Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

technically you only need to cover 3 sides lol, im jk but really i would consider this well over the range of legal. The trailer aint bumpin so it seems perfectly fine lol
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2009, 20:45
Mike8519's Avatar
Mike8519 Mike8519 is offline
Registered User
FRC #0303 (TEST Team)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Raritan, New Jersey
Posts: 220
Mike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really niceMike8519 is just really nice
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5n1p3r View Post
technically you only need to cover 3 sides lol, im jk but really i would consider this well over the range of legal. The trailer aint bumpin so it seems perfectly fine lol
But the rear corner is not protected on both sides
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-01-2009, 21:00
Mike Martus's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Mike Martus Mike Martus is offline
Registered User
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Pontiac Michigan
Posts: 1,187
Mike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond reputeMike Martus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

As a Lead Inspector in many Michigan Events I can see a headache in the making. I hope many of the bumper issues stated here are not typical.... bottom line is.... the rules rule!
__________________
Mike Martus
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-01-2009, 00:06
Scott Hill Scott Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #1625 (Winnovation)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 23
Scott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to behold
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?




the drawing shows a ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER with BUMPERS (blue) and corner fillers (red) which I think reasonably represents the ROBOT and CORNER in question.

The BUMPER PERIMETER is a polygon. The polygon has 6 corners; A,B,C,D,E,F. 2 of the corners, D,E, have right angles. 4 of the corners, A,B,C,F, have obtuse oblique angles. The polygon has 6 sides; AB,BC,CD,DE,EF,FA.

The corner in question with respect to this thread is corner A. There are 2 sides "of corner A", side AB and side FA.

Each side of the corner, side AB and side FA, is protected by BUMPERS. Each sides protection clearly meets the intent of <R08> ..."If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall."... . Side AB has no BUMPERS on it yet the BUMPER configuration clearly meets the intent of the rule, which is clearly stated.

EricH, I enjoy reading your may posts in these fora. I think you do a lot to contribute positively with your comments. However I must take issue with your position on this question. What I believe are the relative sentences from your referenced sources follow, with my comments appended:

Reference #1: "Both sides of the corner must be protected." Comment: they are, see above.

Reference #2: "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments." Comment: they are, see above. "Rule <R08-i> requires BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER." There is obviously BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER, see above drawing.

Reference #3: This reference is not on point because the answer is given with respect to a rectangular ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER, not the BUMPER PERIMETER in question.

Reference #4: "The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of 6 inches" is correct." Comment: both sides of the corner are protected, see above, and the bumper segments in the example can be easily made to meet the 6" minimum dimension requirement.

Mike8519: You state ..."those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side"..... I think if you read carefully the requirements typically state ..."both sides of the corner must be protected"... not, corners must be protected on each side. They do not mean the same thing.

Thanks to all for contributing to the discussion,

Scott

Last edited by Scott Hill : 28-01-2009 at 00:10.
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-01-2009, 00:20
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,807
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Is this corner considered protected?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hill View Post

[edited for brevity]

Reference #2: "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments." Comment: they are, see above. "Rule <R08-i> requires BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER." There is obviously BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER, see above drawing.
Please note the plural form. The GDC has been quite clear on this. There is bumper protection, yes. It is protected by a bumper segment. I'm nit-picking here, but it seems that this would be illegal.

Quote:
Reference #4: "The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of 6 inches" is correct." Comment: both sides of the corner are protected, see above, and the bumper segments in the example can be easily made to meet the 6" minimum dimension requirement.
Again, plural form is used.

Quote:
Mike8519: You state ..."those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side"..... I think if you read carefully the requirements typically state ..."both sides of the corner must be protected"... not, corners must be protected on each side. They do not mean the same thing.
While the words don't mean the same thing, the first is a subcase of the second. The first is also what the GDC seems to be saying.

I know how we can settle this once and for all. Submit the picture to Q&A. Ask: "Are corners A and B adequately protected under <R08>? If not, why not?" If they don't refer you back to the rule, they will hopefully give a straight answer.

The other option is that they say, "we cannot comment on specific robot designs", in which case I would advise having a more conservative route available at the event or just plain installed on the robot.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is this considered a hurdle? chaineezee Rules/Strategy 10 07-01-2008 19:12
Ballast considered extra parts? Gabe Rules/Strategy 9 12-02-2007 10:47
useing Copyright protected music. [527]phil Website Design/Showcase 15 22-10-2006 20:26
pic: Is this currently legal or considered exotic? CD47-Bot Robot Showcase 10 13-05-2003 01:09
Are Grommets considered fasteners? kmcclary Off-Season Events 1 04-11-2001 17:26


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi