New robot rules at Peachtree

[martin417]

I just received an email blast from the Peachtree regional commmitee. They are now adding a requirement for a "safety interlock", a device that will prevent accidental actuation of a firing system.

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!

The only issue I have here is that since this is not rule put in place by FRC, there is no Q&A, or any other method by which we can get clarification. I have no worries that the launching mechanism on our robot might accidentally fire. I am now worried that we will run into trouble with the inspectors because I do not see an easy way to add an interlock that will not violate the robot rules. Our mechanism is pneumatic in nature, and we must transport the robot with the pneumatic system pre-charged. since the pneumatic rules are very restrictive, most safety interlock systems would violate the pneumatic rules.

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

This year just keeps getting better.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by martin417

I just received an email blast from the Peachtree regional commmitee. They are now adding a requirement for a "safety interlock", a device that will prevent accidental actuation of a firing system.



The only issue I have here is that since this is not rule put in place by FRC, there is no Q&A, or any other method by which we can get clarification. I have no worries that the launching mechanism on our robot might accidentally fire. I am now worried that we will run into trouble with the inspectors because I do not see an easy way to add an interlock that will not violate the robot rules. Our mechanism is pneumatic in nature, and we must transport the robot with the pneumatic system pre-charged. since the pneumatic rules are very restrictive, most safety interlock systems would violate the pneumatic rules.

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

This year just keeps getting better.

We have a pneumatic firing system as well. We designed a mechanical lockout that does not violate any rules. It is simply a metal bar that goes through 2 eye bolts in the frame. The bar keep the arm from firing even if we hit the trigger while it is in place. We forgot a few times with the practice bot. It makes a dull thud when it's fired with the safety on.

I have had lockouts in all high energy devices after we were told by an inspector to add one in about 5 years ago.

[martin417]

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by martin417

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

a wire with a hook at the end that is attached to the frame?

[Brandon Holley]

Ours is simply a loop of high- strength sailing line with a carabiner on it. Loops around the catapult, frame of the robot and back on itself. Giant orange streamer attached to remind us to take it off.

I'm not familiar with your design, but I can't imagine doing something similar is much more difficult for you guys.

-Brando

[Electronica1]

After looking at the picture of your robot on the blue alliance, I would suggest asking if you could put a removable guard in place of a lock. By guard I mean a tube that would go on the end of the vacuum so even if it was to fire, it would not hit anything. I know this is not the perfect solution but it could be an option (I think).

[Kevin Leonard]

In general, this is a good idea anyway. Both us and our alliance partners (1126) this past weekend had ridiculously powerful shooters. Both also had a mechanical lock in place for carrying the robot in a stored energy configuration. Whether it's just a steel bar through two eyebolts holding back your catapult (20) or a thick metal pin that holds back a powerful slingshot (1126), the stored energy should be somehow contained for a worst-case scenario.

That being said I know exactly what you mean. Can the regional require this since it is not in the official rules? I'm not sure that's okay.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Thunder910

That being said I know exactly what you mean. Can the regional require this since it is not in the official rules? I'm not sure that's okay.

In my opinion, safety trumps all, so yes they could, rules or not. Just my opinion.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by martin417

Unfortunately, our design does not lend itself to a mechanical blocking device.

Small-picture: Ratcheting tow strap looped around? 4901 uses one to fine-tune its release point, but a second one could easily cinch down and prevent firing.

Big-picture: I'm not thrilled with regionals adding "rules" that are not in the competition manual. Many are well-intentioned, but they are infuriating to me as a competitor. (Don't get me started on labeling the main breaker.) Have you tried emailing FRC Team Support?

[JohnFogarty]

I'm almost positive that they shouldn't be allowed to enforce this "rule" as much as it makes sense to have such a safety feature.

Glad I won't have to worry about it. My original team might though.

The only way my teams mechanism would accidentally go off in transport from the pit to the field is if we had a catastrophic materials failure from extreme unprecedented stress. Which can be said of pneumatic based systems as well.

However it seems pretty clear to me that all you have to do to not have to add a whole new subsystem onto your robot is not do this.

if you plan to transport or operate your robot in a stored energy configuration

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by martin417

I just received an email blast from the Peachtree regional commmitee. They are now adding a requirement for a "safety interlock", a device that will prevent accidental actuation of a firing system.



The only issue I have here is that since this is not rule put in place by FRC, there is no Q&A, or any other method by which we can get clarification. I have no worries that the launching mechanism on our robot might accidentally fire. I am now worried that we will run into trouble with the inspectors because I do not see an easy way to add an interlock that will not violate the robot rules. Our mechanism is pneumatic in nature, and we must transport the robot with the pneumatic system pre-charged. since the pneumatic rules are very restrictive, most safety interlock systems would violate the pneumatic rules.

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

This year just keeps getting better.

would a ball valve inline work for you?

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

would a ball valve inline work for you?

I think it is illegal to do that. Here's R89:

The pressure vent plug must be:

A. connected to the pneumatic circuit such that, when manually operated, it will vent to the atmosphere to relieve all stored pressure, and
B. placed on the ROBOT so that it is visible and easily accessible.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I think it is illegal to do that. Here's R89:

What about a ball valve that can be locked open during matches and inspections (e.g. of the type used for lockout tags)?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I just saw this post but I am guessing that the email is in response to Team Update 2014-2-18

"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."


I am sure that the LRI is taking a proactive stance since more than one person has been injured by the unintentional release of stored energy at an FRC event this season. Of course this statement is simply a further reminder of the importance of following R8 and as listed T12 in your design.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I just saw this post but I am guessing that the email is in response to Team Update 2014-2-18

"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."


I am sure that the LRI is taking a proactive stance since more than one person has been injured by the unintentional release of stored energy at an FRC event this season. Of course this statement is simply a further reminder of the importance of following R8 and as listed T12 in your design.

Al,

I do NOT disagree with what is being proposed. Safety First.

My issue is whether a regional or district event has the authority to add requirements without an express grant from FIRST through the Team update process or the Q&A process. I believe this sets a bad precident and erodes the authority of the GDC and FIRST.