Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Two teams showed up to FLR with 28x38 robots!

And those are presumably veteran teams... I worry about any rookie international teams, one mis-translation or mis-interpretation of a rule and they could show up with something totally unworkable...

[Steven Donow]

One thing I noticed Week 1 was how crowded the space in front of the pyramid and the space in between the pyramids seemed to get at some times. This could just be from streaming angles, but I can't imagine what it would have been like with larger robots, it would have been significantly more crowded, meaning more G30s.

[savage]

The size limit does not bother me its those bumpers that I dont like, But that might just be that I was so used to having not having them on the bots.

[themccannman]

I really like the idea of a maximum frame perimeter, much more room for customization, hexagonal, or even circular robots are do-able (and practical) this year whereas before every single one was the same 28x38 rectangle. Allows many more adaptations to better fit the requirements of the game such as if an extremely wide and skinny robot was for some reason advantageous.

[mott]

Originally Posted by savage

The size limit does not bother me its those bumpers that I dont like...

This.

With the new flexibility being granted in determining frame configurations, it would be nice to see similar flexibility in the frame perimeter bumper coverage rules.

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

This would allow you to create an extremely long or short frame edge and still NOT have to completely cover that side with bumpers.

[Mark Sheridan]

The perimeter rule created headaches for me this year, but I would imagine next year I would be better prepared for it. What drove me nuts was that the bumpers counted toward the 54" cylinder. Next year either don't count the bumpers or change the cylinder to a square prism. We kept changing our perimeter to better fit in the cylinder, it delayed our build by a week.

I would prefer if the perimeter was a little bit bigger next year at 120" but I think I could deal with the current dimensions.

[ablatner]

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

[Bill_B]

Originally Posted by ablatner

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

With bumpers on?

My first reaction to the smaller size was that the intent was to reduce the ease with which the pyramid to side wall passage could be blockaded. With a more open field, we may return to former robot sizing. I like the perimeter rule though. Just increase or decrease to fit the years' floorplan.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by ablatner

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

Thats the smartest thing I heard all day, that totally must be the reason.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ablatner

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

Only if you have a rectangular robot. A circular robot could be 35" in diameter. A triangular robot, if equilateral, could be 37" on a side.

If the perimeter were increased in the future, I think the answer to "How do you fit a robot through a doorway?" will be the same as the answer to "How do you fit a 6' robot in a 5.5' crate?" back in 2007: Plan ahead.

[MrForbes]

We shipped our robot to Champs today. A compact little crate, with everything needed to operate and maintain the robot included inside (tools, spare parts, cart, bumpers, operator console, batteries, chargers, etc) and it only weighed 370 pounds including the crate!

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by mott

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

Mike,
Could that allow a team to not have bumpers on the corners making that part of the frame a weapon? One of our tests for bumpers is being able to punch the corner and not feel anything hard. The whole point in bumpers is to prevent robot damage.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Mike,
Could that allow a team to not have bumpers on the corners making that part of the frame a weapon? One of our tests for bumpers is being able to punch the corner and not feel anything hard. The whole point in bumpers is to prevent robot damage.

I think that what he's trying to say could be better expressed as:

"Each side of each corner of the frame perimeter shall be covered by bumpers with a length at least 8" or 25% of the length of the side, whichever is less."

Example: A team has a 16" side, for whatever reason. It is next to a 36" side (I'm not assuming any particular bumper perimeter length). The 16" side, under current rules, needs to be entirely covered by bumpers; the 36" side is slightly less than half covered by bumpers. The rule change suggested would allow the 16" side to use 4" bumper lengths on each end, rather than 8". However, the 36" side would still be constrained to 8" minimum length bumpers, as 25% of 36" is 9". Any bumper less than 4" long on the 16" side, or less than 8" long on the 36" side, is a violation of the rule.

BTW, Al, if you have any input into this: I'd LOVE to see the frame perimeter measurement kept as the size rule. Changing the size is relatively simple, and it opens up a lot of odd frame shapes.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by mott

This.

With the new flexibility being granted in determining frame configurations, it would be nice to see similar flexibility in the frame perimeter bumper coverage rules.

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

This would allow you to create an extremely long or short frame edge and still NOT have to completely cover that side with bumpers.

... And what about a circular robot (has no 'end' or 'side')?

The difficulty in these rules is not with the standard shaped robots, but in the 'out of the box' designs.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Erik and Daniel,
Previous rules did not put a serious restriction on shape or really dimension. The 28" limit that all year's rules have included is simply to insure that robots can make it through a standard door opening. This is an issue many people forget. Many venues have large overhead doors but those are generally not open for use during the event. Some venues that have large openings require building staff to be present to operate the door. That is often cost prohibitive for the event. (imagine paying a building engineer overtime for 12 hours on a Saturday)