New robot rules at Peachtree

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Martin and Karthik, I think the pertinent sections of the Manual are 5.5.2, 5.5.3, and 3.2.1, rule <G3>. I agree that procedures to ensure safety should be used uniformly at all events.

Yup, understood; the LRI has final authority at events. I just would hope that if something is deemed a necessary safety addition for Georgia, it would be deemed so for all events. Along with this, I would hope the contrapositive also applies.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by JB987

Received from the LRI prior to San Diego regional...

Originally Posted by Karthik

Yup, understood; the LRI has final authority at events. I just would hope that if something is deemed a necessary safety addition for Georgia, it would be deemed so for all events.

Looks like this is not just for Georgia.

[BBray_T1296]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

Looks like this is not just for Georgia.

There was no such requirement at the Dallas Regional.



However we brought and used a 1 ton load chain to clip our shooter to the frame just in case, and also because it was a good iddea

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Martin,
Individual events should not have additional robot requirements that either supplement or contradict the FRC Manual / Q&A. If this ruling was created in conjunction with the GDC, then it needs to be publicized to all teams through an official form of communication (i.e. A Team Update).

I agree. Orlando had a similar issue where our inspector "made up" the pneumatics rules as he went along. We pulled up the diagram in the manual and asked him where we wrong and where told "its not on there but its not ok". So we fixed that problem and where then ordered to move our main breaker because he felt like telling us to move it.(no rule was violated whatsoever).

None of these "unofficial" updates where conveyed to us before the event.

[Nirvash]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

I agree. Orlando had a similar issue where our inspector "made up" the pneumatics rules as he went along. We pulled up the diagram in the manual and asked him where we wrong and where told "its not on there but its not ok". So we fixed that problem and where then ordered to move our main breaker because he felt like telling us to move it.(no rule was violated whatsoever).

None of these "unofficial" updates where conveyed to us before the event.

Out of curiosity, was was the issue with the pneumatic? And was your main breaker easy to reach before you had to move it?

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Nirvash

Out of curiosity, was was the issue with the pneumatic? And was your main breaker easy to reach before you had to move it?

We had our pneumatics done as the diagram had showed. however, the inspector required us to add a manual valve and pressure gauge to our off board setup despite both already being installed on the robot.

Our main breaker was installed about an inch in from our chassis perimeter out of reach of any moving mechanism. We where told to move it within 2 inches of our shooter arms.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

We had our pneumatics done as the diagram had showed. however, the inspector required us to add a manual valve and pressure gauge to our off board setup despite both already being installed on the robot.

R89 says the manual valve needs to be in both places for an offboard system. The stored pressure gauge can be in either place... but I think the inspector took a good idea and made it law.

FYI, if you disagree with an inspector, ask to see the LRI, and the copy of the Manual the LRI should have with him.

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by EricH

R89 says the manual valve needs to be in both places for an offboard system. The stored pressure gauge can be in either place... but I think the inspector took a good idea and made it law.

FYI, if you disagree with an inspector, ask to see the LRI, and the copy of the Manual the LRI should have with him.

Nope. It states that a pressure vent valve must be in both places. This is different from a ball valve. We had a pressure vent valve in place on both but where required to add a ball valve in addition to our vent valve on our off board setup.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

Nope. It states that a pressure vent valve must be in both places. This is different from a ball valve. We had a pressure vent valve in place on both but where required to add a ball valve in addition to our vent valve on our off board setup.

When you plugged in the compressor to the robot, did this go through your (at the time, one and only) manual ball valve? R85 (Figure 4-16) shows the ball valve as still be available to vent all pressure while an off board compressor is hooked up to the system. The intent is for the manual release to be available at all times - for those purposes, having two on the robot or one on the robot and one with the off board compressor satisfies that intent, and helps keep the entire system safe.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

We had a pressure vent valve in place on both but where required to add a ball valve in addition to our vent valve on our off board setup.

The compressor's vent valve (solid brass, trips automatically, also known as "Pressure Relief Valve") or the "Pressure Vent Plug" (better known as "dump valve" and activated manually)? The compressor's pressure relief valve, I'll buy. But R89 specifically calls for the pressure vent plug, NOT the relief valve. It's not shown on any diagram (in that part of the circuit, at least).

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by martin417

There is no governing body I know of to ask questions of, since this was not imposed by FIRST.

Your best bet is to e-mail our head inspector (bottom right of the doc). He has been very good about replying to such questions in the past. It would seem though that all this needs to be is a pin/bar/strap of some sort that you manually remove before and after matches. I think it may be a bit less complex than what you may be thinking. But that said I didn't write it so ask the inspector.

Like said above, this isn't technically a new rule it's a stated manner in which a rather ambiguous rule will be enforced at a particular regional. FIRST left R8 very open and this is our LRIs' interpretation of safe.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Martin,

It sounds like this ruling only applies to stored energy shooters. So something that stretches surgical tubing, compresses springs, etc. to develop the impulse to launch the ball. That is, it only applies to shooters that store energy in the shooter itself. Systems that use separately stored energy like the pneumatics tanks or battery shouldn't need interlocks. Otherwise, you'd have to interlock motor powered shooters, drive wheels, and basically every high powered system on the robot.

I can't tell from your TBA picture how your shooter works. Does your shooter actually work in a stored energy configuration? If it works by simply firing a piston, then I don't think this applies to you, as it will only fire under command of the robot. If it works by mechanically locking a pressurized piston halfway, then releasing the lock, then you would have the option of starting matches with the pneumatics charged, but the piston depressurized and safe. Your option for safe transport off the field with an armed shooter would then be to open your dump valve.

[Retired Starman]

Just a little background and reasoning behind this announcement.

As Big Al has pointed out. Team update gives power to the LRI to require an interlock on robots which are moved in a state where accidental firing of a mechanism is a possibility. Safety is our prime concern. We don't want to see fingers cut off or heads bashed by these kickers. Accidents have already happened at other regionals, and FIRST does learn from its mistakes. Hence the announcement three weeks into the season.

The Peachtree Planning Committee discussed the pros and cons of this requirement this past week before issuing this announcement. In the announcement, we indicated that the interlock is to be used during transport or when when the robot is charged in the pit area. We expect the interlock to be removed once the robot is placed on the field, at which time the robot should be in compliance with all other rules. The interlock needs to be a safety feature, not a permanent part of the robot. If removable, it will not count against the weight of the robot.

As an example, a team might be using a pneumatic system which has actuators charged with large air supplies and held in the cocked position only be a gate latch. In a case like this, we would like to see a physical lock (a bolt, zip tie, or carabiner) on that gate latch to keep it from snapping open during transport. The safety can be removed once the robot is safely on the field.

Since the original Chief Delphi post did not quote the entire announcement, interested parties might like to read the entire announcement in order to make informed comments. The original is posted on the gaFIRST.org site at the link on email blasts. I think once you read it, you will understand more about how we arrived at this decision.

Robot inspectors will work with teams to see that their robots are safe, as is our charge. We will try to do this without undue stress on teams or unreasonable requirements.

Anyone wanting more information or to discuss this will the inspectors can use the email/phone contact information in the announcement.

See you at the Peachteree, and let's all keep it safe.

Dr. Bob, Robot Inspector
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

[martin417]

I should clarify that I am not complaining, just hoping for clarification. I didn't see the email address at the bottom of the attachment (my bad). I will send my question directly to Jeff.

Thanks
For completeness, here is the entire announcement concerning the safety inerlock:

From the Peachtree LRI - Notice To Teams – Safety Interlock Requirement
Hello Teams,
This is an important Safety message from your Lead Robot Inspector for the Peachtree Regional. As observed at our scrimmage and the first two weeks of competition, many teams are incorporating high powered launching mechanisms for Aerial Assist. They are planning to have those mechanisms in the loaded state (stored energy) prior to the start of the match. This is all perfectly legal and expected per the rules. However, handling and transporting robots in this state has the potential for unsafe conditions. R8 is the governing rule here and from R8, ROBOT parts shall not be made from hazardous materials, be unsafe, cause an unsafe condition, or interfere with the operation of other ROBOTS.
The FIRST Team Update, dated 2-18-2014, emphasized FIRST’s concern for this and included this notice:
Game Manual
General Updates
As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams to prioritize safety when transporting their ROBOT on and off the FIELD, to include transporting the ROBOT in its lowest potential energy state and/or including lockouts to help mitigate unexpected release of stored energy. Inspectors will ensure ROBOTS comply with R8 and do not create unsafe conditions. If inspectors feel your ROBOT is unsafe to be transported while storing energy, they will work with you to add lockouts to help mitigate the unexpected release of stored energy. If you are unsure as to whether or not you need lockouts, it’s best to be on the safe side and assume you do. Per T12, the Team should be able to safely release stored energy and be able to demonstrate this during Inspection. If the ROBOT creates an unsafe condition for people to be around it, on-FIELD troubleshooting prior to the MATCH will be limited to that which can be achieved safely.
In the spirit of R8 and FIRST’s guidance from this update and as a result of other events having experienced accidental deployments of robot mechanisms and injuries while handling robots, Peachtree Inspectors will be requiring a couple of items if you plan to transport or operate your robot in a stored energy configuration :
1) The presence and engagement of a "safety interlock mechanism," independent of the firing system that prevents accidental release of the mechanism while in the pit, queuing line, field placement, field removal or any other non-match time the robot mechanism is "armed."
2) Demonstration to the inspector of effective operation of this interlock and the proper and safe placement and removal of the interlock. This may, at the inspector's discretion, include the demonstration of this interlock device through an attempted "dry fire" of your mechanism.
3) A description to the inspector of your plan for safe field removal if the robot is not upright and the mechanism is armed.
Understanding that this requirement comes after the official Stop Work time for construction of your robot, this interlock does not have to be a permanent part of your robot indeed, the expectation is that it will be removed from the machine when placed on the field, and as such, would not be counted as part of the robot’s official weight, unless significant components are permanently attached to your robot. Inspectors are prepared to be reasonable in accommodating teams’ responses to this requirement - the goal here is safety for all involved.
The Peachtree Committee doesn't want anyone getting hurt while these mechanisms are armed. I trust everyone will see the wisdom of operating this way and compliance will not be a major issue.
I look forward to an exciting Peachtree Regional Competition and to seeing all of you at the event!

[Steve W]

If FIRST was concerned about this why did they not make it a requirement at season start. I understand the reasoning behind it but would be more concerned this year about exploding tanks.

I have seen quite a few different shooters and to try and "restrain" them could be very difficult. This would but major stress on a team at the regional as they cannot do anything while the robot is bagged. I also believe that there were games in past years without this new rule that were more powerful than this year yet there was nothing said then.