pic: Team 1942-Cinderella Week 3 . . .

[EricH]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Eric, do you have a link to this response?

Too busy building a robot to look it up, eh?

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=14011

Based on <R08> specifically referring to traction devices and not referring to any other component of the robot, and the fact that that is the only rule covering field damage due to robot parts (other than the general "don't cause damage to the field" rules), I would actually say that provided the frame doesn't damage the field, this design is fully legal, with two exceptions, which I'll cover later.

To clear up a little bit more on the frame perimeter/articulated drive question:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13951
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13809
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13956
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=13955 (read whole thread or last answer, your choice)

The first thing that is probably illegal so far is that in the current configuration, the frame perimeter is changing as the lift moves.

The second thing that is illegal is the fact that the entire drivetrain is outside the current frame perimeter (see <R16>).

Both of these issues are easily fixed by putting a rigid frame for the bumpers out beyond the sliding scissors lift bars at about the same level. Make sure that 1) it fits in the sizing box with its fasteners and 2) the drivetrain fasteners are all on the inside of the vertical projection of that frame. (Big discussion here, multiple Q&A's, and the long and the short is that <R16> only has one exception--fasteners inside the bumper zone.)

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by EricH

Too busy building a robot to look it up, eh?

Oh you have no idea. Anyhow, the language of <R08> reads

“traction devices” include all parts of the ROBOT that are designed to transmit any propulsive and/or braking forces between the ROBOT and the FIELD

(emphasis mine) It would seem so long as something was not designed/inteded to provide traction, then in the event contact happened by accident, it would not be in violation, so long as it didn't damage anything.

[EricH]

I'd have to agree with that, save for the chains (specifically ruled traction devices if contact is made). I can see why--they're mainly for providing rotary motion to traction devices, making them usable.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

It would seem so long as something was not designed/inteded to provide traction, then in the event contact happened by accident, it would not be in violation, so long as it didn't damage anything.

That's what a reasonable observer would probably conclude if they saw a chain hit a bump during a match. The chain/bump issue would have been a nice thing to let slip by and not worry too much about.

But since someone asked, and the GDC specified in the Q&A that such contact is not allowed, it looks like another pesky little design constraint that we need to follow.

I haven't seen a ruling yet that calls frame members traction devices (and so I think coincidental contact would be permitted), but I'd be a bit irritated if one showed up.