Contradicting dimensions?

[Jordan2389Diaz]

If you read the manual you will find no contradicting dimensions.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jordan2389Diaz

If you read the manual you will find no contradicting dimensions.

What we're talking about is the fact that the Manual says one thing and the drawings say another thing. The ruling from the GDC is that in this case, the drawings take precedence over the Manual.

[Don Wright]

It's too bad because the drawings are pretty poor

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

It's too bad because the drawings are pretty poor

+1 to this sentiment. I always have had difficulty determining measurements on the FRC Field Drawings.

When we do drawings of our drive units and such we always dimension each thing back to 1 edge of the item in the X direction and likewise for the Y. It makes it easy to determine things. The FRC field drawings often leave you doing math to figure out where stuff is supposed to be.

[engunneer]

When you do Ordinal dimensions (back to a single edge in X and Y) you are implying a different set of tolerances than the typical dimensioning you will get from FIRST drawings. I do wish they would give us higher resolution PDFs, or even better DWG/DXF or solid files. I wonder how many people simultaneously recreated the fields in various cad packages this year.

Also note that PTC was planning on releasing Pro/E models of the field, so you can always take measurements from that.


If you want to know way too much about dimensions, pick up a copy of ANSI/ASME Y14.5-2009 (I have a copy of the 1978 version that I got for a buck).

[Racer26]

To be honest, I would be happy if they just put more dimensions on. They put so few on that they leave us guessing and doing math on alot of things when they could have easily stuck a dimension in.

[Jon Jack]

I have yet to see a single drawing from FIRST that does not suck. I've seen high school kids produce more complete and easier to read drawings. It's not as though the field has a lot of (or any) complex geometry to dimension...

[Don Wright]

It's the lack of dimensions (or dimensioning that is stupid like to the edge of a hole) that is the frustrating part. When you have to spend 2 hours going through all the drawings adding the length of all the pieces up just to get some very basic, critical dimensions of the field pieces, it's quite frustrating.

And then you do all that and you build a ball return chute that is to "spec" (even though the specs are not really available on the actual positioning of the chute on the field) to the best you can do to their "competition field" drawings and the returned balls continually bounce off the tower top bar...it's quite frustrating...

And then the field you had parents and students work a week building per the "low cost" field drawings and you find that parts of it are off not by fractions of an inch, but by inches (because the drawings are wrong), FIRST quickly becomes the low bar by telling students "Your drawings for parts at least must be better than FIRST drawings..."

It's quite sad actually... Oh well...at least they got the KOP right...oh...wait...

[Dad1279]

Same in the 'real world'... I deal almost daily with house plans & missing dimensions, or dimensions that don't add up.

Speaking of which, the TRIDENT, GE-10010. Page one - Item#5 (part GE-10011), is dimensioned as 1" x 48, but on page 2 it is 1" x 36"

Has anyone seen a revision or update to correct this?