Go to Post I know what "finished" means, and I know what "robot" means, but what is this "finished robot" of which you speak? - Rick TYler [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 03:27
RRLedford RRLedford is offline
FTC 3507 Robo Theosis -- FRC 3135
AKA: Dick Ledford
FRC #3135 (Robotic Colonels)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 286
RRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond reputeRRLedford has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
I'm gonna have to disagree here... They changed <R19> in a big way. Not being able to intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone, while not POSESSING them is huge.



define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:
Code:
|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________
and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?
Yes, good question, and what if I climb the tower and TILT my robot's flat , previously vertical side in the line of balls falling from the return ramp? Where does the 3" get measured from now that the robot has tilted. Do I have to base this 3" penetration into robot space on my original on-the-floor size, shape and orientation? If I have a tall vertical 60" flat side, and I climb the tower such that I tilt and have returning balls hitting this flat side, if my tilting moves a spot on this flat side near the top more than three inches from a vertical line through the previous UN-TILTED location of this spot, then if a ball hits this spot while tilted, is it a violation. They always make rules with INCH LIMITS that DO NOT ACCOUNT for shifting frames of reference. Then when you ask questions, they dance around this major defect in the rules.

Last edited by RRLedford : 17-01-2010 at 03:31.
Reply With Quote
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 03:29
Travis Hoffman's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Travis Hoffman Travis Hoffman is offline
O-H
FRC #0048 (Delphi E.L.I.T.E.)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Warren, Ohio USA
Posts: 4,047
Travis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond reputeTravis Hoffman has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
I'm gonna have to disagree here... They changed <R19> in a big way. Not being able to intentionally affect balls above the bumper zone, while not POSESSING them is huge.



define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:
Code:
|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________
and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?
I believe your design as shown would be perfectly legal. Now, if the angle of that deflection was adjustable, and your deflector was in motion when a ball contacted it (say you're trying to "swat" the ball forward with the deflector by changing its angle relative to the robot), that would not be permitted per the <G45> blue box:

Code:
<G45> Blue Box 
MECHANISMS are considered "active" if they are in motion
relative to the ROBOT while in contact with the BALL.
Resetting or moving MECHANISMS while not in contact with
a BALL is permitted as the MECHANISMS are not considered
"active."
You are free to adjust the deflection angle when your deflector is not in contact with any balls. You are also free to drive your robot around with the deflector in a chosen, fixed angle.


As far as <R19-2> - let's be real here. How does a ball "extend 3" inside" a flat PLANE? It doesn't. A flat deflector above the bumper zone is legal, as long as it is not in motion relative to the robot any time it is in contact with a ball.

I believe the GDC is referring specifically to chutes, channels, funnels, diverters and other above-bumper zone structures designed to more precisely control the direction of ball movement. A diverter that can be pointed toward one goal or the other *would* be legal, as long as the diverter walls envelop 3" of the ball's height or less. Such designs are allowed, but the 3" limitation is in place to prevent *too* much control. Send a ball down a high-walled waterslide versus a typical playground slide with short rails. Which one keeps the ball down the intended path better? The waterslide. Which one is legal for competition use? The playground slide.
__________________

Travis Hoffman, Enginerd, FRC Team 48 Delphi E.L.I.T.E.
Encouraging Learning in Technology and Engineering - www.delphielite.com
NEOFRA - Northeast Ohio FIRST Robotics Alliance - www.neofra.com
NEOFRA / Delphi E.L.I.T.E. FLL Regional Partner

Last edited by Travis Hoffman : 17-01-2010 at 03:54.
Reply With Quote
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 03:37
Nuttyman54's Avatar
Nuttyman54 Nuttyman54 is online now
Mentor, Tactician
AKA: Evan "Numbers" Morrison
FRC #5803 (Apex Robotics) and FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Seattle, WA/Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,139
Nuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Nuttyman54
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1075guy View Post
define 'a specific manner'. If i design a robot that looks approximately like this:
Code:
|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
|     \
________
and park it in the direction that would deflect balls toward my end, have i violated this rule as updated in TU#2?
I would say yes, it is a violation. I think it's clear that by parking your robot in such a position, you have demonstrated that you intend to deflect balls, which you can consistently do in a controlled manner with the sloped feature on the robot. The rule update, however, does not mention intent at all, so even just having a sloped part that looks like it may have been designed to do such a thing is iffy (and an inspector's call).

My feeling is that if you can demonstrate that it fits around other robot geometry and is simply to keep the balls from getting stuck on top, they will accept it. A random wedge with no other visible purpose or necessity will probably invite serious scrutiny, and probably deemed illegal if it is used as such in any match.

This is simply how I have interpreted the update, but by no means am I a certified robot inspector or a member of the GDC, so my opinion is only that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 03:58
Vikesrock's Avatar
Vikesrock Vikesrock is online now
Team 2175 Founder
AKA: Kevin O'Connor
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 3,305
Vikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond reputeVikesrock has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Vikesrock Send a message via MSN to Vikesrock Send a message via Yahoo to Vikesrock
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

I think the final thing that needs to be clarified to distinguish between Evan's interpretation and the interpretation adopted by Travis and I is what it means to be inside a feature.

I don't think that a ball can be inside a ramp. As a contrast I believe that a ball can be inside a playground slide shaped funneling feature. In my opinion such a feature complies with the rules if it is 3" deep or less.
__________________


2007 Wisconsin Regional Highest Rookie Seed & Regional Finalists (Thanks 930 & 2039)
2008 MN Regional Semifinalists (Thanks 2472 & 1756)
2009 Northstar Regional Semifinalists (Thanks 171 & 525)
Reply With Quote
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 10:44
joeweber's Avatar
joeweber joeweber is offline
Coach team 1322
FRC #1322 (G.R.A.Y.T. Leviathons)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Fenton, Michigan
Posts: 339
joeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant futurejoeweber has a brilliant future
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

No matter what the meaning of the rule it will be up to the inspectors to intrepid them. One set of inspectors may go a little one way and another set of inspectors could go the other way. How will they get a consistent interpretation at the competition? How far can we go with the design and be safe from major reconstruction?
__________________
If your not dirty than you must be just watching.
Thank's to http://weberelectric.biz/

FRC Team sitehttp://team1322.org/
2004 Great Lakes Xerox Creativity Award, 2008 Web Site Excellence Award, 2010 Kettering District and Western Michigan District Excellence in Engineering award, 2011 Kettering District Gracious Professionalism Award. 2011 Ann Arbor and State Cooperation Awards.2013 Kettering Xeroc Creativity Award.2015 Escanaba Chairman's Award.2015 Kettering Spirit Award.2016 Kettering Chairman's Award
FTC Lightining Boltz 5954, Thunder Botz 7032http://team1322.org/vex.htm

Last edited by joeweber : 17-01-2010 at 13:06.
Reply With Quote
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 11:11
Raul's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Raul Raul is offline
Somewhat Useful Person
no team (Formerly - Wildstang)
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Greenville, TX
Posts: 599
Raul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond reputeRaul has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuttyman54 View Post
I would say yes, it is a violation. I think it's clear that by parking your robot in such a position, you have demonstrated that you intend to deflect balls, which you can consistently do in a controlled manner with the sloped feature on the robot. The rule update, however, does not mention intent at all, so even just having a sloped part that looks like it may have been designed to do such a thing is iffy (and an inspector's call).

My feeling is that if you can demonstrate that it fits around other robot geometry and is simply to keep the balls from getting stuck on top, they will accept it. A random wedge with no other visible purpose or necessity will probably invite serious scrutiny, and probably deemed illegal if it is used as such in any match.

This is simply how I have interpreted the update, but by no means am I a certified robot inspector or a member of the GDC, so my opinion is only that.
Evan,

I disagree with you. Look carefully at G45 in update 2:

Quote:
<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.
MECHANISMS are considered "active" if they are in motion relative to the ROBOT while in contact with the BALL. Resetting or moving MECHANISMS while not in contact with a BALL is permitted as the MECHANISMS are not considered "active."
The key phrase is "relative" to the robot. So, as long as the slope is not changing relative to the robot when the ball makes contaact, it is legal. The robot is allowed to drive around all you want to influence the direction of the balls. The intent is to stop us from creating a slapper or kicker above the bumpers.
__________________
Warning: this reply is just an approximation of what I meant to convey - engineers cannot possibly use just written words to express what they are thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2010, 11:34
Nuttyman54's Avatar
Nuttyman54 Nuttyman54 is online now
Mentor, Tactician
AKA: Evan "Numbers" Morrison
FRC #5803 (Apex Robotics) and FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Seattle, WA/Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,139
Nuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Nuttyman54
Re: Official Team Update #2! 1/15/2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul View Post
Evan,

I disagree with you. Look carefully at G45 in update 2:


The key phrase is "relative" to the robot. So, as long as the slope is not changing relative to the robot when the ball makes contaact, it is legal. The robot is allowed to drive around all you want to influence the direction of the balls. The intent is to stop us from creating a slapper or kicker above the bumpers.
I went back and re-read the update and the two rules in combination, and I think you're right. I had glossed over the part before the updated R19 where they mention complete enclosure.
__________________
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
[OCCRA]: Official Update #1 Mike Martus OCCRA 0 12-09-2007 19:12
Official Unofficial Robotics Film Contest Update. BuddyB309 General Forum 0 11-02-2006 20:33
Official FIRST Team Update Jake Lewis Rules/Strategy 1 13-01-2004 20:03
Official update #1 - 9/13 - Mike Martus Mike Martus OCCRA 0 13-09-2003 21:48
Official - Materials update. Mike Martus OCCRA 0 26-09-2001 05:15


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:42.

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