OCCRA
Go to Post ...And thank goodness there are powerhouse teams out there... they set a great example and inspire the rest of us to greater heights. - dtengineering [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: Has this affected your design?
Yes 33 30.28%
No 76 69.72%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-05-2006, 11:52 PM
Sachiel7's Avatar
Sachiel7 Sachiel7 is offline
<Yes I managed to flip it
AKA: Shayne Helms
FRC #1132 (RAPTAR Robotics)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 541
Sachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really niceSachiel7 is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Sachiel7
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

On another note about the game anim.,
If you notice both the blue kick bot (who's foot goes back outside the robot's base) and the red "funnel" bot, whose barrel seems to go outside its repective base, at times...
I'm sure dave was just trying to convey the game's concept without checking how legal the bots were, but It's interesting to note that the game animation didn't display much damage with all those exposed mechanics. I know you wouldn't have added it in anyways. I just find it really difficult that the shooting mechanism now includes guiding components, such as barrels. For those of us with turrets (ie, us) this really complicates things with two weeks to go, just because our original design consisted of a guiding "rail" mechanism that would extend outside of the footprint. The spinwheels themselves are within the footprint well, and encased/covered. 2 weeks to go...time to find a completely new design solution...-sigh-
__________________
-=Sachiel7=-

There's no such thing as being too simple!
Look for Team #1132, RAPTAR Robotics at the VCU Regional this year!
Reply With Quote
  #47   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 12:54 AM
Nuttyman54's Avatar
Nuttyman54 Nuttyman54 is online now
Mentor, Tactician
AKA: Evan "Numbers" Morrison
FRC #5803 (Apex Robotics) and FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Seattle, WA/Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,289
Nuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Nuttyman54
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by GB330033
Edit: I believe it would be illegal because the robot is giving an impulse to the balls by moving the hopper. Seems absurd when the update from FIRST causes their animation to be illegal...
not really. The animation was created for the orignal rules set, and those 'bots were legal then (I think). Later, the GDC decided that it was unsafe, and changed the rule accordingly. It's unlikely that Dave ran his 'bots through a vigorus inspection to see if they were legal. afterall it's just meant to get the concept across.

On another note: We're unaffected by the changed, as we are not able to extend outside of our original footprint, and the collector mech. can't be easily reversed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 07:24 AM
meaubry meaubry is offline
volunteer helper
FRC #0047 (ChiefDelphi)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Shelby Twp, Mi
Posts: 814
meaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond reputemeaubry has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

The rule change may impact some of the teams, depending on the mechanism that provides the "final dynamic impulse", and any with aiming devices outside of the 28 x 38 footprint.
Ball collectors that could be run in reverse to deploy balls into the lower goals are now illegal, if the mechanism providing the "final dynamic impulse" is outside of the 28 x 38 footprint - If the thing that provides the "final dynamic impulse" remains within the footprint, it is legal to deploy using that mechanism into the lower goal.
Any aiming devices mounted outside of the 28 x 38 footprint, and used in conjunction with the aiming of the "lower goal shooter" (ball collector run in reverse), now makes deploying in the lower goal illegal per the definition released in update 6.
In addition, I assume that protecting the mechanism is now also required as it is considered a "shooter".
Since there are many design variations of ball collectors, each team will need to determine
1) what is the mechanism that provides the "final dynamic impulse"
2) Does it stay within the 28 x 38 footprint
3) Is it protected (except for the entrance/exit opening)

That's how I see this -
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #49   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 08:07 AM
Chris Hibner's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Chris Hibner Chris Hibner is offline
Eschewing Obfuscation Since 1990
AKA: Lars Kamen's Roadie
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire (on sabbatical))
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,507
Chris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

As much as the FIRST powers-that-be would like to tell everyone to "quit being lawyers with the rules" and "look at the rule intent", this clarification is a perfect example that lawyer-type scrutiny of the rules is a necessity unless you want to do a last minute redesign. I think a lot of teams looked at the intent of this rule and got burned.

Overall, I thought FIRST did a great job with the rules this year - very simple and very clear for the most part. However, something is always going to fall through the cracks (and I don't mean that in a bad way - people need to know that it's practically impossible to do something perfectly).
__________________
-
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure.
Reply With Quote
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 08:13 AM
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is online now
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 6,115
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

In Section 4 The Game, there's a new definition of SHOOTING MECHANISM. There is no definition of MECHANISM in this section, therefore the definition found in Section 5 The Robot applies.
Quote:
MECHANISM A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the robot. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.
The definition for SHOOTING MECHANISM is a subset of MECHANISM in general.

Clearly this applies to rollers, belts, etc used to pick up the balls that could be reversed to release the balls - they impart a dynamic impulse to the ball, so they are a shooter.

However, this would not apply to a trap door MECHANISM. That does not impart any force to the ball - gravity does that. Gravity doesn't qualify as a MECHANISM under Section 5 because it is not a COTS or assembly of COMPONENTS. So any aiming extension (fold down door, etc) that directs the balls toward the corner goal should be allowed, provided that the balls are only rolling downward.

This is supported in Q&A http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=429 (previously quoted in this thread) because of the warning about becoming a wedge. In answering this question, the GDC implied that the ramp might be outside the original footprint, thus the warning about <R04>. If the ramp MECHANISM had to stay entirely within the original footprint, there would be no wedging possible, unless the ramp was designed as a leading edge with no bumper.

Even a dumper hopper, as shown at kickoff, does not fall into this category. While the MECHANISM moves, it is gravity that imparts the final impulse, not the hopper. The raising of the hopper is no different than any other MECHANISM that lifts balls from the floor - it imparts potential energy to the balls in raising them, but does not deliver a final dynamic impulse.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 08:32 AM
Peter Matteson's Avatar
Peter Matteson Peter Matteson is offline
Ambitious but rubbish!
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: South Windsor, CT
Posts: 1,666
Peter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond reputePeter Matteson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri
I totally agree with this. I believe including the real definition of what is shooting and what isnt shooting in a Team Update this late in the build should be further discussed by the entire GDC. It was very unclear what 'shooting' actually was in the begining of the build, and I'm sure not many (beside team 177, thank you so much..) teams thought rolling the balls at a very low speed (< 3 ft/s) would be considered shooting. So far, ~30% of the people that voted designs have been affected.

Week 2, big deal. Week 5, something needs to happen.
We weren't the only ones. The linked post contains a Q&A posted prior to the one that inspired this thread. We as with several other teams saw items in the Q&A headed in a certain direction and ASKED QUESTIONS to get legitimate answers from the GDC rather than go with something that might violate the rule. Be glad you learned about this now rather than at your first regional and where you would be prevented from competing. In the real world requirements change and you have to adapt, that's all this is. You should have reached the same conclusions we did if you read the Q&A. All 177 did was to ask the question and propse what we thought was a reasonable solution. The GDC disagreed with us so we changed our design to meet their requirements. The difference is we (and about 5 other teams if read the Q&A) asked and wanted it in a team update, because there are people who don't read the Q&A and will miss something this significant.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...2&postcount=52
Reply With Quote
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 08:35 AM
BoyWithCape195 BoyWithCape195 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Gagne
FRC #0195
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 410
BoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to BoyWithCape195
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

I feel that there is more of an impact than the GDC expected by this new "definition". There still is a chance for a change imo. If you look back to the 2002 game, the rules about the "tether" changed hourly...
__________________
#16
2007 UTC New England Regional Champions (1124 and 558)
2007 UTC GM Industrial Design
2006 International Championship Finalist (25 and 968)
2006 Newton Division Champions (25 and 968)
2006 Championship Innovation in Control Award
2006 UTC Quarterfinalist (236 and 230)
2006 UTC Innovation in Control Award
2005 Curie Division Quarterfinalists (703 and 234)
2005 UTC Semifinalist (228 and 236)
2004 UTC Entrepreneurship Award
2004 New Jersey Semifinalists (173 and 11)
2004 New Jersey Sportsmanship Award
Reply With Quote
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 09:08 AM
Kevin Kolodziej's Avatar
Kevin Kolodziej Kevin Kolodziej is offline
Operator in 100+ matches
AKA: Yngwie Kamen's roadie
FRC #1675 (Ultimate Protection Squad)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 647
Kevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Kolodziej has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Kolodziej
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

While I'm still bothered by the fact that they are defining rolling as throwing, I'll get over it. This did cause us to change our design, but a new solution was reached within 30-45 minutes. It helps that we are behind and have not begun to install any of this mechanism yet, but the parts that are made can be adapted.

Everyone has now been in FIRST for a minimum of 4 weeks. Everyone has been given an interesting challenge that requires interesting and innovative solutions. This little problem should be viewed no differently. Think of it as a microcosm of the entire FIRST build season. If you have a finished robot, do not view this problem as a reason to have to start all over. It affects ONE area of your robot and while it will likely require at least some parts to be remade, there is plenty of time to do so.

The hopper/dumper issue is a tricky one...while the ball is relying on gravity to get to the goal, gravity is not allowed to act unless the hopper is tilted or a door is open. Therefore, IMHO, if you have a door that opens UP and never touches the ball on its way out, you'd be fine...but if you have a door that opens down and the ball rolls over the door on its way out or the hopper itself tips (like in the animation), it would be deemed illegal.

Kev
__________________
Team 71: 1999, 2000 (Driver), 2001-2002 (Driver, Animator) // Team 1064: 2003 (Co-founder, Coach), 2004 (Coach) // Team 1714: 2006-2007 (Mentor, Coach)
Team 1675: 2005-2007 (Mentor, Coach), 2008 (Mentor), 2009-2017 (Mentor, Coach)
FLL: '04 (Judge), '05 (Ref), '06 (Ref), '07 (Ref), '08 (Judge, Ref), '09 (Judge), '10 (Ref), '16 (Judge Advisor) // Ref: '05 (IN, IRI), '06 (IN, IRI), '07 (IN, IRI), '08 (WMR, Curie)
WI RPC: 2006 - 2016 // FRC Inspector: '07 (WI), '08 (WI, IL), '09 (WI, IL), '10 (WI, CMP), '11 (WI, IL, CMP), '12 (WI), '13 (Northern Lights)
2007 WI Woodie Flowers Award Finalist // 2011 Wisconsin Regional Outstanding Volunteer // 2011/2013 Midwest Regional Chairman's Award
Reply With Quote
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 10:36 AM
Josh Murphy's Avatar
Josh Murphy Josh Murphy is offline
Registered User
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Clarkston, Mi
Posts: 404
Josh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond reputeJosh Murphy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

yeah i really think that this should have been done earlier because it does affect our design and considering there are only 2 weeks left they should have just left it as it was
Reply With Quote
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 11:01 AM
Andy Brockway Andy Brockway is offline
Engineer
FRC #0716 (Who'sCTEKS)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Falls Village, CT
Posts: 463
Andy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Brockway has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyWithCape195
I feel that there is more of an impact than the GDC expected by this new "definition". There still is a chance for a change imo. If you look back to the 2002 game, the rules about the "tether" changed hourly...
I caution everyone not to expect the same change in definition as in 2002. The rules committee has a couple more years of experience and I would hope that they have an answer ready for the first questionable mechanism. It was unfortunate that the tether rule caused such a ruckus in 2002 but others soon copied the tape rule tether and the competition continued. If the answer this year is that your mechanism is illegal, will you be able to bring it back to within the rules?
__________________
Andy Brockway
Team 716, The Who'sCTEKS
Reply With Quote
  #56   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 12:20 PM
BoyWithCape195 BoyWithCape195 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ben Gagne
FRC #0195
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 410
BoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant futureBoyWithCape195 has a brilliant future
Send a message via AIM to BoyWithCape195
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

With our current design, which we were almost done with, we would not be able to make it legal without HIGHLY modifying the design. With these modifications, the robot will become less effective and more complex. We originally had a simple and highly effective design that did not break any rules, but yesterday, we find out that the GDC considered what we have illegal. We were well ahead of where we usually where, but now we must go back to the drawing board unless the definition in team update #6 is modified (which I sure hope it is)
__________________
#16
2007 UTC New England Regional Champions (1124 and 558)
2007 UTC GM Industrial Design
2006 International Championship Finalist (25 and 968)
2006 Newton Division Champions (25 and 968)
2006 Championship Innovation in Control Award
2006 UTC Quarterfinalist (236 and 230)
2006 UTC Innovation in Control Award
2005 Curie Division Quarterfinalists (703 and 234)
2005 UTC Semifinalist (228 and 236)
2004 UTC Entrepreneurship Award
2004 New Jersey Semifinalists (173 and 11)
2004 New Jersey Sportsmanship Award
Reply With Quote
  #57   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 12:28 PM
Erin Rapacki's Avatar
Erin Rapacki Erin Rapacki is offline
General Manager
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 884
Erin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond reputeErin Rapacki has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Erin Rapacki
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

*Breathes sigh of relief!"

Few, I thought my team was in trouble... now I'm glad we had that argument when designing the "shooter" two weeks ago (I lost the argument, good thing too!)
__________________
http://www.linkedin.com/in/erapacki
BUZZ 175 (01, 02) - NUTRONS 125 (03, 04) - QUEEN 1975 (06)
Beantown Blitz Founder (04) - FIRST Robotics Conferences (04) - Boston Regional Volunteer Coordinator (06)
Reply With Quote
  #58   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 01:49 PM
Steve W Steve W is offline
Grow Up? Why?
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Huntsville, Ontario Canada
Posts: 2,523
Steve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond reputeSteve W has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV1188
In Section 4 The Game, there's a new definition of SHOOTING MECHANISM. There is no definition of MECHANISM in this section, therefore the definition found in Section 5 The Robot applies. The definition for SHOOTING MECHANISM is a subset of MECHANISM in general.

Clearly this applies to rollers, belts, etc used to pick up the balls that could be reversed to release the balls - they impart a dynamic impulse to the ball, so they are a shooter.

However, this would not apply to a trap door MECHANISM. That does not impart any force to the ball - gravity does that. Gravity doesn't qualify as a MECHANISM under Section 5 because it is not a COTS or assembly of COMPONENTS. So any aiming extension (fold down door, etc) that directs the balls toward the corner goal should be allowed, provided that the balls are only rolling downward.

This is supported in Q&A http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=429 (previously quoted in this thread) because of the warning about becoming a wedge. In answering this question, the GDC implied that the ramp might be outside the original footprint, thus the warning about <R04>. If the ramp MECHANISM had to stay entirely within the original footprint, there would be no wedging possible, unless the ramp was designed as a leading edge with no bumper.

Even a dumper hopper, as shown at kickoff, does not fall into this category. While the MECHANISM moves, it is gravity that imparts the final impulse, not the hopper. The raising of the hopper is no different than any other MECHANISM that lifts balls from the floor - it imparts potential energy to the balls in raising them, but does not deliver a final dynamic impulse.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

If the balls fall straight down I see no problem. If however they change direction to move horizontal to the ground, a mechanism (ramp) was use to move the balls. Also if you have a conveyor belt that when it rounds the top or eventually goes slower than the force of gravity, does this now become legal.

Everything can come into question. Legally every point can be debated. I sat with Tristan Lall one night and we got into debating the meaning of one word and how it completely changes the meaning. I hope that we have not come down to that.Let's follow the rules and stop trying to find a way around then to justify ourselves.
__________________
We do not stop playing because we grow old;
we grow old because we stop playing.
Reply With Quote
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 02:13 PM
Tom Bottiglieri Tom Bottiglieri is offline
Registered User
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,305
Tom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond repute
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve W
Let's follow the rules and stop trying to find a way around then to justify ourselves.
I don't think anyone is trying to get around the rules, necessarily. I think the discussion and debates over the meaning of words and rules was from more of a defensive standpoint. I would much rather try and find an easy, legal fix to the legality of our design rather than try to lawyer our way out of it, or have to go through a total redesign.
Reply With Quote
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-06-2006, 02:26 PM
Stephen P's Avatar
Stephen P Stephen P is offline
Registered User
#1093
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 113
Stephen P has a spectacular aura aboutStephen P has a spectacular aura about
Re: New rule Clarification changes plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I'd read this to mean that a flipper, ramp, or other mechanism that can be in the bumper zone and might contact another robot must always remain within 10 degrees of vertical.

As written, the rule provides referees a method to deal with infractions that they observe during a match.

Since this is a robot rule, it may also be policed during robot inspection. I hope that FIRST will provide some clarification to teams and to volunteers so that this rule is interpreted and enforced uniformly at all events.
Do you really think that FIRST would consider a ramped ball outlet a wedge? It might technically qualify as one according to their definition but if said ramp is only deployed to empty balls into the corner goals, and is not deployed in any other part of the arena, will this be allowed? It might be up to the refs to decide this, but it seems that many teams have been thinking of a ramped ball outlet and the wedge rule really changes the possibilities of emptying balls via gravity into the corner goals. Can someone QandA this?
__________________
You know you are an electrical engineer when you can determine voltage relative to pain with a 5% error.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[OCCRA]: Rule Clarification Viking(redneck) OCCRA 3 11-24-2004 08:41 AM
Rule Changes at off season competitions Ken Leung Off-Season Events 23 05-11-2004 09:39 PM
Very Important Rule Clarification!!! Mr. Mac OCCRA 0 10-17-2002 10:35 PM
IMPORTANT RULE ADDITION AND CLARIFICATION Mike McIntyre OCCRA 0 12-03-2001 09:17 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 PM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi