pic: In the Loading zone?

[rees2001]

loading photo ...

[Stephen Kowski]

Even though I have not affiliation with FIRST so whatever I say is only an opinion I think that you all are in the loading zone at that point (it is a fairly large triange)....

Oh and billfred I think you've found a new picture for the caption contest (look at all those ppl in the back, they need captions)

[John Lesnik]

The FIRST Q&A SYSTEM, answer ID numbers 978, 1617, 1698, 1757 all attempt to clarify. However the one which should make it easy for most everyone to comply is; #1715
"Q: Regarding the answer to ID 1617, do vertical "fingers" (skirt, wire ties, etc.) strategically placed around a base for the sole purpose of touching the loading zone HDPE "make" the robot in the loading zone.

A: Yes. After attending and receiving feedback from several scrimmages this past weekend (2/19), we will allow robot-base appendages that are within and remain within the 28" x 38" dimensions to contact the loading zone and be legal."

Also see #1409.

John Lesnik

[Greg Needel]

i think what he is asking is that since their robot is so large that there is nothing actully touching the loading zone even though they are covering it all. rees i would say ad some fabric that just hangs down to make sure you are good

[pakrat]

I think they are concerned that their robot starts with the end farthest from the loading zone sitting on the ground, then it drives and falls down to make a larger base. their problem is the part that, i assume, is touching the loading zone's theoretical location, is not part of the original 28"x38" footprint.

THerein lies the problem.

I think that using FIRST Q&A is the only way to slove it. THey might say, noone gets to do that, which would be disastrous (hope that you can grab from the other side). Or, FIRST will say that they meant something else (which very well could be the case.

I just dont think that asking people on CD is the way to go about it. FIRST won't get swayed by people saying, i think it is or i think it isn't.

[AJunx]

In my opinion, you are DEFINITELY IN. However, it would seem as if there is currently no way to know if FIRST considers you IN.

I've always wanted to quote myself , and I think this presents a great opportunity.

Originally posted by AJunx in response to FRC Team Update 13:

"What about teams who start the match by dropping onto their "side" or "front" as many teams have done in past years? In doing so, they increase their base dimensions to a potential 60 inches by 38 inches. How on earth are the referees going to know if a wheel that is under a 60 X 38 inch frame is within the 28 X 38 inch dimensions??"

This aside, your robot is just plain awesome. Good luck in your competitions (even if you have to back up to the loading zone to make it legal...) I hope to see y'all at Nationals.

-Andrew

[rees2001]

Originally Posted by pakrat

I think they are concerned that their robot starts with the end farthest from the loading zone sitting on the ground, then it drives and falls down to make a larger base. their problem is the part that, i assume, is touching the loading zone's theoretical location, is not part of the original 28"x38" footprint.

THerein lies the problem.

I think that using FIRST Q&A is the only way to slove it. THey might say, noone gets to do that, which would be disastrous (hope that you can grab from the other side). Or, FIRST will say that they meant something else (which very well could be the case.

I just dont think that asking people on CD is the way to go about it. FIRST won't get swayed by people saying, i think it is or i think it isn't.

I agree that using CD to answer my question is not the way to get the "ALL-BINDING FIRST ANSWER." I have posed the question to the Q&A system and will await thier ruling.

FIRST has indicated all season in the Q&A system that they do not promote any designs, through comments such as "Sorry, but we do not get involved in robot design." The 28x38 base would seem to be pushing a design and limiting creativity.

Just think of "the" rule (978); The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

[Alex Cormier]

just ask the ref's or try it on the practice day at Finger Lakes, thats the best way to find out if something is illegal.


my opinion only

[MasonMM]

Q&A says that as long as your base and / or drive train is touching the HDPE triangle then you are "in" the loading zone in an early answer. I would be suprised if there isn't more wheels hidden by the picture towards the front of the bot that makes it legally "in" the loading zone.

so it looks like you have a tetrahedron shape on your base where you can store and make your own stack of tetra. How many can you hold and stack at once? let me say it looks like a very nice bot.

[Cory]

The problem is, it looks like you can't see under your robot. How is a ref going to be able to see if something is touching the triangle when the base is completely covering it?

[rees2001]

Originally Posted by Cory

The problem is, it looks like you can't see under your robot. How is a ref going to be able to see if something is touching the triangle when the base is completely covering it?

From the other direction she's pretty much open. We have redesigned our front signs to be clear with just numbers. There are ball transfers on the front to support the frame.

As for Mason's question we can hold as many as we want, we can knock 4 off the loading station onto our frame and grab a 5th.

[rachakate]

I think the big issue lies in the fact that there was no mention of the 28" x 38" base needing to be in contact with the loading zone for the majority of this season.

I hope the intent of the rule remains.

[Madison]

According to the Q&A responses listed here and what I know about the rules and rule changes, you are not on the HDPE loading zone in front of the automatic loading station.

The loading station triangles extend approximately 31 3/16" from the field border toward the middle of the playing field. The only parts of your robot that start within the 28 x 38" limit and remainthere are your back wheels and what appears as your back wall in the included photo. These are clearly not close enough to the field border to be in contact with the triangle.

What may be your saving grace -- and I hope it is -- is the descriptor "robot-base and / or drive train" that is included with Q&A ID 978. If your drivetrain extends closer to the field border, starting a match in the upright position, you may be okay as far as "touching" the loading zone goes.

Because of a spring-loaded third arm segment (visible in their stowed position here), we had a lot of concerns regarding the "clarification" of this rule and whether our reach was too long to place our chassis squarely into the loading zone. Thankfully, we can begrudgingly shorten that third segment if it's a problem for us, but other teams don't have that flexibility.

In any case, I hope things work out for the best for your team, but it'll probably take another six volumes of "definitions" and "clarifications" before we're certain, if we're ever certain. In the meantime, FIRST needs to hire a writer.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by rees2001

From the other direction she's pretty much open. We have redesigned our front signs to be clear with just numbers. There are ball transfers on the front to support the frame.

You should definetly ask if the ball casters are considered part of the drivetrain. I wouldn't think so based on the fact that they aren't considered traction devices:

ID: 1366 Section: 5.3.4 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/8/2005
Q: <R27> states "Traction devices may not have surface features such as metal" We would like to use a roller ball castor with at metal ball and do not consider this a traction device since it is a castor, may we use such a device?
A: Yes. We define / clarify traction devices as those which provide a driving force or restraining force. The intent of this rule is to attempt to avoid carpet damage. The metal castor ball would not be considered a traction device and would be allowed.

[Ben Lauer]

From what I understand, I believe that you can have an appendage that hangs down and touched the loading zone as long as it stays with in the orginal foot print of the robot. Because this robot falls down at the beginning and an appendage that would be touching the zone wouldn't be with in the orginal area because that part became vertical. So, to answer the question, i would count it as legal, but i am unsure.


EDIT: See next post: yeah, your right, i feel like a idiot now :-)
I have been out of practice for a year.