|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#34
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Ball Harvester
Quote:
I first look at each section of <G32> individually. Where appropriate, I comment on the above interpretations. <G32>: General contact rule; all sub-rules are specific cases of this rule. I would argue that they specify robot-trailer to specifically include the trailer, so that teams are without excuse if they beat up the trailers, not to differentiate between robot-robot and robot-trailer contact. <G32-A>: general expectation. It is NOT specific to either robot or trailer. <G32-B>: general permissible contact volume. Again, not specific. <G32-C>: Regarding unprotected areas of the bumper perimeter. Trailers have none, as they will be close enough to the towing robot to protect the tongue. Robots may. What's to stop an opponent from attempting to give a penalty by backing or swinging a trailer into an opening in the bumper perimeter, or worse, doing damage that way, if read as you interpret it? I would argue that the GDC wrote this for robot-robot interaction and overlooked it for robot-trailer interaction. They anticipated that the spirit of the rule would be understood. <G32-D>: tilted/tipped robots. See my response on <G32-C>. <G32-E>: outside of bumper zone contact. Not specific to either robot or trailer. Your interpretation is correct. <G32-F>: climbing on robots/trailers. The first one to specifically instead of generally include the trailer. <G32-G>: wedging robots/trailers. Also specifies both. Only two sub-rules specify both robots and trailers, but the overall rule covers both. Three of the seven are general, mentioning neither. The other two rules are in spirit covering both, though not necessarily by letter. This has been known to happen before. As for your conclusions, I separate them out piecemeal, to discuss them more easily. 1) "...intent of this rule is to restrict ROBOT contact with the TRAILERs to BUMPER-to-BUMPER only." The intent of the rule is to govern the entire contact between robots and either other robots or trailers, not to specify one particular type of contact between robot and trailer. 2) "It is thus a false assumption that ROBOTs = TRAILERs as far as the "rules of engagement" go." Where do you get this? As I said above, three rules are general, not counting the primary rule, and two more cover both the same. 3) "It is also conceivable that the two "U shaped fronts" may come in contact with each other such that the legal bumpers of one robot protrude inside the legal width front "gap" of the other robot and make contact inside the robot with something other than a bumper. I conclude this to be the "incidental contact" referred to in section "C"." This is part of the incidental contact. It is also conciveable that a team has no bumpers on one side of their robot, save at the corners, and a trailer accidentally, through no fault of either team, jams in there. I have a hard time thinking that that would be penalized. If it is, so be it, but in the past, it wouldn't be. 4) "What I BELIEVE the GDC intent is to limit all contact with the trailer to the bumper only." Remember that the trailer has bumpers all the way around. Which bumper, the one on the robot or the one on the trailer? If a trailer contacts a side of the robot that isn't protected, is that a penalty? I BELIEVE that the GDC's intent is to limit all contact to the bumper zone only. 5) "I would even be willing to bet that at inspection there will be a legal TRAILER that will be pushed into and around your ROBOT and you better have designed it such that nothing but the BUMPERS of the trailer can touch your ROBOT inside and out." I am equally willing to bet that there won't be one. Why? Extra weight to haul around, one more thing to be assembled at competition, and if anything other than bumpers can contact your robot, then I would suspect that you're awful close to an <R11> or <R08> violation anyway. 6) "In other words, if you have an opening on the front of your robot such that the trailer can partially go inside your robot there is no such thing as "incidental contact" outside the bumper zone." Where do you draw this from? The other rules, for example <G29>, don't say anything about this. You can push or react against any arena elements, and the trailer is an arena element. 7) "The whole point of the drawings in Update #2 was to make sure we understood that the trailer bumper couldn't touch anything inside/under/etc. our robots, only the legal front minimum 6" bumpers." The GDC has said repeatedly that those drawings are for illustrative purposes only. Attempts to draw anything more from them are frowned upon. 8) "If you have an intake roller near the front of your robot with protrusions on it designed to grab the balls and pull them into your robot you better be careful that they can't touch the bumpers (or any other part) of the trailers." This is more correct, as this could be construed as gabbing a trailer. In short, I think that you're close, but a miss is as good as a mile. I think that <G32> covers both robot-robot and robot-trailer contact and treats them equally. My apologies for the long post. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| pic: CD 7 ball harvester | BlazinFire47 | Extra Discussion | 21 | 14-05-2012 09:56 |
| Knocking off a ball while possesing a ball | Joe Ross | Rules/Strategy | 25 | 10-03-2008 18:49 |
| WHere do you get Ball Casters/ BAll Transfers for FRC?!?!?!? | leehyungjin4u | General Forum | 3 | 15-01-2008 23:27 |
| Chief 47 ball harvester 2002 pics | ajlapp | Robot Showcase | 6 | 11-01-2006 15:34 |
| 2X Ball Into the Ball Release | MikeDubreuil | Rules/Strategy | 23 | 28-03-2004 19:31 |