Controlling balls above the bumper

[Vikesrock]

The Q&A post you quoted in your first post seems to imply that the coordinate frame does not flip.

The quoted text suggests that a device that is physically below the bumpers while the robot is inverted would still be considered above the bumpers in the coordinate frame of the robot and thus would incur a penalty under <G45> if used to control the balls direction.

[Locke64]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

The Q&A post you quoted in your first post seems to imply that the coordinate frame does not flip.

The quoted text suggests that a device that is physically below the bumpers while the robot is inverted would still be considered above the bumpers in the coordinate frame of the robot and thus would incur a penalty under <G45> if used to control the balls direction.

...and a device that is physically above the bumpers while the robot is inverted would still be considered below the bumpers in the coordinate frame of the robot. They're saying down is up and up is down, thus the coordinate plane of the robot has flipped in relation to the field.

So if you're flipped, you can't control balls from under the bumper (because it would be "above" relative to the robot), but (logically) can control them above the bumpers (as long as it doesn't satisfy the definition of POSSESSION).

A very interesting response indeed. Teams building flippable robots may want to consider adapting their mechanism so it can still work while flipped, without POSSESSING the balls. However, they should avoid building a mechanism on both the top and bottom.

[Matt C]

If that is the case, it seems having a robot that can flip probably isn't the best strategy.