Go to Post If we succeed, we succeed as a team if we fail, we fail as a team but either way, we are a team - we go home together and celebrate our accomplishments, whatever they are and try to learn from our mistakes. - KenWittlief [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 4.50 average. Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:16 PM
Commandman7 Commandman7 is offline
Registered User
FRC #4362 (Gems Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Howell, Michigan
Posts: 8
Commandman7 is an unknown quantity at this point
Possible Climb Loophole?

What if your robot just flipped over while parked on the platform, therefore raising your bumpers above the blocks? the platform is part of the scale so it would technically count. This doesn't violate the bumper rules:

Rule R24: BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between the floor and a virtual horizontal plane 7 in. (~17 cm) above the floor in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

They say specifically in reference to when the robot is normal side up
so technically fipping it would be ok, as i understand that rule.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:26 PM
Brian M's Avatar
Brian M Brian M is offline
Design Lead
FRC #1360 (Orbit Robotics)
Team Role: CAD
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 191
Brian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond reputeBrian M has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

https://gyazo.com/78ac14e6a3cd59c97db826a8802cc8fe

Climbing is defined by being fully supported by the Scale, I dont believe that allows for you to still be touching the ground.
__________________
2016 - Rah Cha Cha Ruckus Winners
2017 - Industrial Design (Durham), Entrepreneurship (McMaster), Quality Award (Ontario DCMPS)
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:27 PM
jcraftHOC3534's Avatar
jcraftHOC3534 jcraftHOC3534 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jason Craft
FRC #3534 (House Of Cards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Rookie Year: 2016
Location: Davison MI
Posts: 1
jcraftHOC3534 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Check the glossary on in the back of the manual. Look at the definition of climbing, "Robot fully supported by the scale"
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:28 PM
Joey Jordan's Avatar
Joey Jordan Joey Jordan is offline
A Kangaroo
FRC #4967 (That ONE Team)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Grand Rapids Michigan
Posts: 49
Joey Jordan is just really niceJoey Jordan is just really niceJoey Jordan is just really niceJoey Jordan is just really nice
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
https://gyazo.com/78ac14e6a3cd59c97db826a8802cc8fe

Climbing is defined by being fully supported by the Scale, I dont believe that allows for you to still be touching the ground.
My team has noted that the Scale is defined as the entire mechanism, not just the bar. You'll see that the definition for being on the platform is almost the same as the definition for climbing, just aside from being in the air.

Therefore, based on just this, it could be a viable option.
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:29 PM
Commandman7 Commandman7 is offline
Registered User
FRC #4362 (Gems Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Howell, Michigan
Posts: 8
Commandman7 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
https://gyazo.com/78ac14e6a3cd59c97db826a8802cc8fe

Climbing is defined by being fully supported by the Scale, I dont believe that allows for you to still be touching the ground.
The platform is part of the Scale. See Figure 3-4 on page 18.
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:32 PM
engunneer's Avatar
engunneer engunneer is offline
Alumni turned Mentor
AKA: Branden Gunn
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 996
engunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond reputeengunneer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

I suspect this will be interpreted as a violation of the bumper zone. If you transport your robot onto the floor and your bumpers are not in the zone, then you are not legal. Tipped robots often are not considered to be violating bumper zone, so there will definitely be a Q&A and update about this.
__________________
Student FRC23 (1996-1999), Mentor FRC246 (2000), Mentor FRC1318 (2007-2009), Mentor FRC93 (2011), Mentor FRC2151 (2012), Mentor FRC23 (2013), Mentor FRC4761 (2014-2017)
1998 - National Chairman's Award and Woodie Flowers Award (FRC23, Mike Bastoni ) | 2007 - PNW SF (488, 1595) | 2008 - Oregon RCA - Seattle #2 Seed, SF (488, 1696) | 2009 - Oregon #1 Seed, Winners (1983, 2635) - Seattle SF (945, 2865) - Galileo #2 Seed, SF (973, 25) | 2012 Midwest F (111, 71) | 2014 RIDE Winners (78, 125), Inspector - NEU #24, QF (3479, 3958) - NECMP #35 | 2015 Reading #11, SF (1058, 190), Inspector - RIDE #17, QF(4055, 5494), Inspector - NECMP #57 | 2016 Reading #4, SF (133, 4474), DCA, Inspector - Ride #22, SF (1735, 2067), Creativity, Inspector - NECMP #48, RCA - Archimedes | 2017 SE Mass #7, QF, Inspector - Reading #4, Winners (1071, 5556), EI, Inspector - NECMP #TBD
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 02:37 PM
Commandman7 Commandman7 is offline
Registered User
FRC #4362 (Gems Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Howell, Michigan
Posts: 8
Commandman7 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by engunneer View Post
I suspect this will be interpreted as a violation of the bumper zone. If you transport your robot onto the floor and your bumpers are not in the zone, then you are not legal. Tipped robots often are not considered to be violating bumper zone, so there will definitely be a Q&A and update about this.

I agree, but as the rule stand today I believe this is legal. What i'm saying is you can start out normally with your bumpers and robot right side up, and only flip at the end.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 03:15 PM
bsmo bsmo is offline
Registered User
AKA: Bailey Smoorenburg
FRC #2992 (The S.S. Prometheus)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: May 2017
Rookie Year: 2016
Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 10
bsmo is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

I believe rule R24 (stating that bumpers can only be 7in off the floor) might rule this strategy illegal

Love the idea though
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 03:22 PM
Raymond Zhang Raymond Zhang is offline
Registered User
FRC #4334 (ATA)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Rookie Year: 2017
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3
Raymond Zhang is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

The manual states that the bumper rule is "in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor" so as it stands I believe that this idea is legal
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 04:27 PM
garyflick's Avatar
garyflick garyflick is offline
Registered User
FRC #5099
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: New York
Posts: 6
garyflick is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Could you technically set your robot on top of a Power Cube and then meet the requirement? Supposing your bumpers would then be over the climb line.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 04:29 PM
Brandon_L Brandon_L is offline
Go fast; Turn left
AKA: Brandon Liatys
FRC #2180 (Zero Gravity)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Hamilton, NJ
Posts: 1,293
Brandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond reputeBrandon_L has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsmo View Post
I believe rule R24 (stating that bumpers can only be 7in off the floor) might rule this strategy illegal

Love the idea though
Check the rule wording again. If bumpers could not leave that zone, climbing at all would be illegal.
__________________

FRC 2495 - Hamilton West Robotics [2007-2014] - 2013 Lenape Winner; 2014 Lenape Quality Award, MAR DCMP alliance captain, H.E.R.E. Captain & Winner
FRC 2180 - Zero Gravity [2017-]
- 2017 Hatboro Spirit Award

frclocks.com
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 04:54 PM
Daniel Griffin Daniel Griffin is offline
Registered User
FRC #1732 (Hilltopper Robotics)
Team Role: Tactician
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Rookie Year: 2016
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 3
Daniel Griffin will become famous soon enough
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyflick View Post
Could you technically set your robot on top of a Power Cube and then meet the requirement? Supposing your bumpers would then be over the climb line.
As per rule G20, climbing on power cubes is not permitted.
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 04:58 PM
gcush gcush is offline
Registered User
FRC #4143
Team Role: Electrical
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Metamora, IL
Posts: 1
gcush is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyflick View Post
Could you technically set your robot on top of a Power Cube and then meet the requirement? Supposing your bumpers would then be over the climb line.
Rule G20 states that your robot cannot climb on top of the power cubes.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 05:05 PM
Hadi379's Avatar
Hadi379 Hadi379 is online now
Registered User
FRC #0379
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Girard
Posts: 198
Hadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant futureHadi379 has a brilliant future
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon_L View Post
Check the rule wording again. If bumpers could not leave that zone, climbing at all would be illegal.
We ran into a similar issue in 2016, we had stingers that tilted us back, therefore articulating our bumpers out of the bumper zone, it got ruled illegal causing us to redesign our hanging mechanism. I believe its an imaginary plane representing the floor that is always in contact with your wheels or lowest part of your robot.. So when you hang/climb, that imaginary plane follows you up, so hanging wouldn't be affected.
__________________
Ash Hadi, Mentor/Coach, FRC Team 379, The Aptiv Robocats, 2006 - Present
Team Website: www.team379.com
NEOFRA - Northeast Ohio FIRST Robotics Alliance - www.neofra.com
2017 Buckeye Regional Finalist
2017 Buckeye Regional Judges Award
2017 Miami Valley Regional Entrepreneurship Award
2016 World Championship - Curie Division - Winner
2016 Midwest Regional Engineering Inspiration
2016 Buckeye Regional Finalist
2016 Ohio State Champions
2015 World Championships - Curie -#6 Alliance
2015 Greater Pittsburgh Regional Finalists
2015 Buckeye Regional Winners
2015 Buckeye Regional Engineering Inspiration
2015 Ohio State Finalist
2014 Buckeye Regional Finalist
2013 World Championships - Archimedes - #7 Alliance
2013 Queen City Regional Winner
2013 Queen City Innovation and Control Award
2013 Washington D.C. Regional Winner
2013 Washington D.C. Quality Award
2012 Greater Pittsburgh Regional Finalist
2012 Greater Pittsburgh Engineering Excellence Award
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-06-2018, 05:05 PM
bobbysq bobbysq is offline
Registered User
FRC #4646 (Team ASAP)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Rookie Year: 2015
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 683
bobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond reputebobbysq has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Possible Climb Loophole?

I also think that a theoretical jumping robot could "climb" if timed perfectly (and engineered in such a way to not violate the bumper zone rules)

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadi379 View Post
We ran into a similar issue in 2016, we had stingers that tilted us back, therefore articulating our bumpers out of the bumper zone, it got ruled illegal causing us to redesign our hanging mechanism. I believe its an imaginary plane representing the floor that is always in contact with your wheels or lowest part of your robot.. So when you hang/climb, that imaginary plane follows you up, so hanging wouldn't be affected.
I'm fairly certain this would have been a frame perimeter violation if designed incorrectly rather than a bumper rule violation. I saw plenty of climbing robots in 2016 that went sideways and we're legal.

Last edited by bobbysq : 01-06-2018 at 05:10 PM.
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.

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