Team Update 2012-02-14

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Cory

Because the intent is clearly to be on top the bridge. If they dont want people hanging from the bridge why would they want you to drive under it to balance?

Its obviously a loophole that they mistakenly opened with their Q&A response.

Obviously you shouldnt have to judge intent and the Q&A needs massive improvement but nobody should be surprised at this update.

Remember when people were honestly surprised that they weren't allowed to launch the minibots up the pole? And then they designed an elegant solution that did precisely that without doing that?

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Cory

Because the intent is clearly to be on top the bridge. If they dont want people hanging from the bridge why would they want you to drive under it to balance?

Based on this statement, do you think that 179's robot will soon be illegal, also?

[Swampdude]

We only touch the top of the bridge, so this has no impact to our strategy. However we were ready to troll if necessary...

[372 lives on]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

We only touch the top of the bridge, so this has no impact to our strategy. However we were ready to troll if necessary...

bad plan this trolling will only get you penalties and stop your team from getting balancing points D:

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

We only touch the top of the bridge, so this has no impact to our strategy. However we were ready to troll if necessary...

Well this certainly allows you guys to become the troll under the bridge.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Swampdude

We only touch the top of the bridge, so this has no impact to our strategy. However we were ready to troll if necessary...

I was going to write some angry and long winded post about this update, but I'm in too good of a mood after watching this video.

Thanks 179.

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Based on this statement, do you think that 179's robot will soon be illegal, also?

No, since it's still supported 100% by the bridge. It is still touching the bridge part itself, and no other part of it. If what 179 did turns our illegal, I'm sending an angry email to FIRST, with a bunch of frowny faces.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

No, since it's still supported 100% by the bridge. It is still touching the bridge part itself, and no other part of it. If what 179 did turns our illegal, I'm sending an angry email to FIRST, with a bunch of frowny faces.

You're missing his implicit point. FIRST apparently can just change perfectly clear rules at any time, so there is no logical reason to believe any design or aspect of the game will remain the same at all.

All we have is "common sense"... But common sense to one is not common sense to another.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Based on this statement, do you think that 179's robot will soon be illegal, also?

My belief is that there are numerous ways to hang from the bridge, either on the end or side, without grabbing, grasping, or grappling. Since the GDC has refused to define what that means some are more suspect than others.

I think 179's is clearly not grabbing, grappling, or grasping. That being said, the end of the bridge is pretty non-rigid (it's nothing but unsupported polycarb/HDPE at that point. I have no idea how the GDC intends to handle that, or if "grab, grapple, or grasp" will be up to the judgement of the referees at each event.

[GW Kalrod]

Anytime you go for a strategy that everyone is aware is essentially a loophole based on rules, you risk the rules changing and being out of luck.

[lemiant]

In my opinion the GDC's decision was based on nothing but a desire to manipulate gameplay to suit them, kind of like the "random twists" in reality tv. The reason they banned trolling was not because there was some rule that needed clarification, but because they thought it was too many points for something too easy and would anger teams who spent hundreds of hours building shooters. The reason they left the uprights in breakaway was because it was cool-looking and it wouldn't make anyone mad.

Should an innovative team be beholden to what the other teams think of their innovations, or whether they fit in the rules they were given?

[fox46]

A sheet of 1/4" lexan that lays flat, its also around the thickness where it starts becoming bulletproof....

1/4" Oh really eh? And what experience/data is this based on? Because I can assure you that it does not. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "bulletproof".

It also does not lay flat- it deflects balls.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by fox46

1/4" Oh really eh? And what experience/data is this based on? Because I can assure you that it does not. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "bulletproof".

Are you saying there are no situations in which the 1/4" lexan ramp can comfortably hold something defined as a robot by the 2012 rules, with an appropriate safety factor and the risk of field damage minimized? To be frank, that simply is not the case. That's the whole reason people are upset - not just publicly on Chief Delphi.

I can't post experience or data - I may or may not have any, but I can only comfortably post about my own team's tests, which we didn't do. My main personal motivation for posting is because I'd like to defend the very engineering-y idea that building creative solutions within specifications is inspiring.

[TrevorJ]

The GDC isn't a perfect entity and that is why you have to read their rules and decisions with intent rather then literal meaning. The GDC is also a small group of people. The FRC community is a massive group of people. I don't think it's all that fair to blame the GDC or be angry with the GDC when they are many orders of magnitude smaller then the group of people they design the game for. Granted, they did take back something they said nearly a month ago, but you always have to be careful when even the remote possibility exists that the grey areas may be closed up later on with FRC.

[Squeakypig]

A team who spent the last 5 weeks designing, testing, and building a robot for this purpose definitely has a right to be mad. Maybe nothing will come of it, but by all means, they do have the right to be mad.