Fasteners extending outside the FRAME PERIMETER

[Don Wright]

I can't help but wonder how this will really be checked and enforced at the competitions (especially for really small protrusions like rivets...)

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

P.S. - JVN says 148 will be bringing lots of extra shim strips with us to Dallas and Houston. 217 will be bringing the same to Finger Lakes, Cass Tech, and Troy. There will be many teams that are totally blind sided by this because they do not have as much "common sense" as some people on CD and they don't check CD.

Thanks for the idea Paul. I will try to make sure our team does the same for teams up here in MN.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

I can't help but wonder how this will really be checked and enforced at the competitions (especially for really small protrusions like rivets...)

As it says in the explanation, if they push the robot against a wall, only the frame perimeter would touch the wall. If you run your hand down the side of the robot and feel a bump then you violate the rule.

A mentor and RWFA winner says that the rule is "stupid". If the robot has bolt heads (or whatever) that protrude from the frame perimeter hold the bumper off of the frame, small holes can be drilled to "encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER".This makes so much sense and last year they finally got it right. NOW......

From the update:
Note: to permit a simplified definition of the FRAME PERIMETER and encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER, minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER.

So bolt heads are not part of the perimeter except that the robot perimeter has to fit flush against the wall. I don't understand now for sure.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Steve W

As it says in the explanation, if they push the robot against a wall, only the frame perimeter would touch the wall. If you run your hand down the side of the robot and feel a bump then you violate the rule.
<snip>

I am getting old, but I just now really read that bit about the wall. I know I read it 10 times but I didn't READ it.

Suppose I have a cube bot, perfectly flat sides of whatever dimension, is this robot legal (assuming I put bumpers on it at the right height and it is within the size limits, etc...)?

I had assumed yes, but now I think no because the entire robot side will hit the wall.

Wait, no, this doesn't say anything about the bumper zone only hitting the the wall, just the FRAME PERIMETER. But wait didn't the definition of the FRAME PERIMETER include the BUMPER ZONE...

FRAME PERIMETER – the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE

Yes, it does.... But then, that push against the wall bit was in a blue box so perhaps it doesn't really apply... ...except there is another blue box that says something about No Mushroom bots -- which is crazy because, to me, a short robot with the FRAME PERIMETER extending out beyond the edges of the lower robot is almost exactly what I would think of when you say "Mushroom bot" but it is in a rule saying that this is NOT what you want...

....I am totally confused.

It is late, I will see things clearly in the morning.

Joe J.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

except there is another blue box tha says something about No Mushroom bots -- which is crazy because to me a short robot with the FRAME PERIMETER extending out beyond the edges of the lower robot is almost exactly what I would think of when you say "Mushroom bot" but it is in a rule saying that this is NOT what you want...

Glad I'm not the only one confused. All along, I had no idea what they meant by "no mushroom bots", and yes, to me it seems this is exactly what you would want in order to satisfy the rule. Does FIRST know about some rare inverted mushroom that I do not?

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I am getting old, but I just now really read that bit about the wall. I know I read it 10 times but I didn't READ it.

Suppose I have a cube bot, perfectly flat sides of whatever dimension, is this robot legal (assuming I put bumpers on it at the right height and it is within the size limits, etc...)?

I had assumed yes, but now I think no because the entire robot side will hit the wall.

Wait, no, this doesn't say anything about the bumper zone only hitting the the wall, just the FRAME PERIMETER. But wait didn't the definition of the FRAME PERIMETER include the BUMPER ZONE...

FRAME PERIMETER – the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE

Yes, it does.... But then, that push against the wall bit was in a blue box so perhaps it doesn't really apply... ...except there is another blue box tha says something about No Mushroom bots -- which is crazy because to me a short robot with the FRAME PERIMETER extending out beyond the edges of the lower robot is almost exactly what I would think of when you say "Mushroom bot" but it is in a rule saying that this is NOT what you want...

....I am totally confused.

It is late, I will see things clearly in the morning.

Joe J.

Perhaps the GDC is taking a lesson from the ancient Chinese. Inscrutability lends the impression of wisdom, and disguises folly.

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Glad I'm not the only one confused. All along, I had no idea what they meant by "no mushroom bots", and yes, to me it seems this is exactly what you would want in order to satisfy the rule. Does FIRST know about some rare inverted mushroom that I do not?

They want a mushroom bot, except they don't... The thing is, the mushroom pileus (cap) HAS to be the frame perimeter, not something above. Either way, you have a mushroom bot, only one of them being legal. Anyway, that fungal reference is in a blue warning box and, as stated at the top of the manual, they don't have the weight of a rule and, whenever contradicting a rule, are void.