Tether rules?

[tcjinaz]

Originally Posted by crake

Hey now, this is not a 2016 game discussion thread.

You just had to start that water game thing, didn't you

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by drwisley

This game has officially jumped the shark.

Yeah, I know what you mean. The concept of hunks of plastic that passively direct totes tied to a robot being considered "tethered subcomponents" seems to violate much of the spirit of the game.

[Loose Screw]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Yeah, I know what you mean. The concept of hunks of plastic that passively direct totes tied to a robot being considered "tethered subcomponents" seems to violate much of the spirit of the game.

I think you're being too strict about this. In years past the rules prohibited you from detatching parts of your robot into the field. There were usually rules about how far outside your frame perimeter you could go as well. This year however, they removed those restrictions. They want to see teams be creative with what they can compact into that transport config. If a team detatches part of their robot onto the field, it still has to be attatched to their robot in some way. That limits their maneuverability to the limits of their teather. It also adds risk of their alliance partners running over the teather.

When it comes to leaving hunks of plastic on the field, I think that's entirely the spirit of the game.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Yeah, I know what you mean. The concept of hunks of plastic that passively direct totes tied to a robot being considered "tethered subcomponents" seems to violate much of the spirit of the game.

The game design committes designed a very difficult and complex game and relaxed robot design rules so teams can make risky and complex robots. I think this counts. It's no different than having a backfeeding robot.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by drwisley

This game has officially jumped the shark.

I have to disagree. Jumping the shark implies something flashy for the crowds that has nothing really to do with the general vision. RR is frankly going to be anything but flashy, except at the finals and championships.

As to following the FRC vision, I found this game to be a great design and strategy challenge, with some real engineering needed to pull off any speed in any of the tasks. Unlike last year, when the functional tasks consisted of:

• Drive
• Pick up ball
• throw ball to about 7' off the floor
• [optional]catch ball

This game has three utterly different game pieces, nonlinear scoring, multiple autonomous challenges, and a sizeable and achievable coopertition bonus. The landfill and step layout is genius. The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility. The only thing I would have changed was to make the ratio between processed and unprocessed litter 1:1 or 2:1 instead of 1:4, which would have led to more noodle manipulators and probably not have inspired the noodle agreement.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I have to disagree. Jumping the shark implies something flashy for the crowds that has nothing really to do with the general vision. RR is frankly going to be anything but flashy, except at the finals and championships.

As to following the FRC vision, I found this game to be a great design and strategy challenge, with some real engineering needed to pull off any speed in any of the tasks. Unlike last year, when the functional tasks consisted of:

• Drive
• Pick up ball
• throw ball to about 7' off the floor
• [optional]catch ball

This game has three utterly different game pieces, nonlinear scoring, multiple autonomous challenges, and a sizeable and achievable coopertition bonus. The landfill and step layout is genius. The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility. The only thing I would have changed was to make the ratio between processed and unprocessed litter 1:1 or 2:1 instead of 1:4, which would have led to more noodle manipulators and probably not have inspired the noodle agreement.

Agreed. We set our strategic goals on on day 1 and found them so challenging (from an engineering standpoint) that we did not truly accomplish our top priorities until we were tweaking our practice bot more than a week after Bag and Tag. At that point, we are generally tweaking secondary or tertiary goals on our team. The challenge was *hard.* At the same time, upon accomplishing our robot goals, the reward was very satisfying. I just hope it all works just as well tomorrow. Sure, from an uninvolved spectator's perspective, the game is lacking. I know that my team and I are very excited for our first match and we'll be cheering as loud as ever.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

I have to disagree. Jumping the shark implies something flashy for the crowds that has nothing really to do with the general vision. RR is frankly going to be anything but flashy, except at the finals and championships.

As to following the FRC vision, I found this game to be a great design and strategy challenge, with some real engineering needed to pull off any speed in any of the tasks. Unlike last year, when the functional tasks consisted of:

• Drive
• Pick up ball
• throw ball to about 7' off the floor
• [optional]catch ball

This game has three utterly different game pieces, nonlinear scoring, multiple autonomous challenges, and a sizeable and achievable coopertition bonus. The landfill and step layout is genius. The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility. The only thing I would have changed was to make the ratio between processed and unprocessed litter 1:1 or 2:1 instead of 1:4, which would have led to more noodle manipulators and probably not have inspired the noodle agreement.

I've said it before (maybe not here): Recycle Rush is a fantastic engineering challenge and a terrible game. It's up to you whether this is a net positive or not.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

The design and strategy combinations on this game are far broader than average, certainly the best in my four years of FIRST, at a cost of spectator accessibility.

After being at a regional, I have to modify my remarks. The game was fully accessible to spectators. Sure, you had to explain the oddball scoring, but has there been an FRC game (at least recently) where you didn't? It was obvious that people were watching matches on the edge of their seat, even those whose team was not on the field. Every tall stack formed, and every item dropped, drew cheers or gasps from all over the audience. I believe also that this game has inspired more complete overhauls and total redesigns after stop build day than any other. Hearing the audience reaction to the "mosquito netting" noodle defense in Bayou Semi #2 was priceless, even though it proved of little value.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by cjl2625

So does that mean 1114's ramp at the human player station would need to be tethered to be legal?

At Northern Lights one of the robots tethered to a ramp with 30 feet of string.

[DanielPlotas]

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

Nope. As long as it's attached (regardless of power supply), it's considered part of the robot, but all other rules still apply. It has to fit within the transport config, be under 120 pounds, and it might require a re-inspection, depending on the scenario.

It still needs to be powered by the robot battery, unless the power source is internal to a COTS device.

[Chinske4296]

So in summary, does that unpowered ramp have to be tethered?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chinske4296

So in summary, does that unpowered ramp have to be tethered?

Yes. G25 says, in essence: Thou Shalt NOT Intentionally Detach Parts From Thy Robot.

This rule has existed since 1998, and is also known as "Beatty Rule #1". Back in 1997, you didn't have to have a tether if you left something behind, so 71 (or whatever their number was back then) would make it impossible to score in a certain area once they'd scored by leaving a structure behind. (Beatty Rule #2? No metal on carpet, but that's another story.)

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by EricH

Yes. G25 says, in essence: Thou Shalt NOT Intentionally Detach Parts From Thy Robot.

This rule has existed since 1998, and is also known as "Beatty Rule #1". Back in 1997, you didn't have to have a tether if you left something behind, so 71 (or whatever their number was back then) would make it impossible to score in a certain area once they'd scored by leaving a structure behind. (Beatty Rule #2? No metal on carpet, but that's another story.)

Which brings up the question is an unpowered "tethered" component something that's left on the field. Or, does string qualify as a tether since it's impossible to command the subcomponent through it.

G25 ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.
VIOLATION: RED CARD

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Which brings up the question is an unpowered "tethered" component something that's left on the field. Or, does string qualify as a tether since it's impossible to command the subcomponent through it.

G25 ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD.
VIOLATION: RED CARD

String qualifies. It attaches the part to the robot. Whether or not the part is powered is up to the team, and requires more engineering if it is.