My comments on shooters

[Woody1458]

I personally dont like the idea of a launching robot and I think it is unsafe. There were some issues at some 2006 regionals where balls were shot at the tech guys knocking over things. This was with small nerf balls. 8lb balls hurled with enough force to conciderably clear the 78" overpass could do worse. Some rambunctious members of my school have clearly proved that a seemingly lightly thrown trackball could injure a person no problem. Even with the victim expecting the blow. My convern is that if this is proven to be a saftey concern does any regional inspection team have the cajones to start disabling the ten plus shooting robots that will attend each competition. I think teams might get by just based upon sheer numbers of people the inspectors would have to DQ to declare this stratagy unsafe. Thoughts? Comments? Maybe I'm way off and bing a total idiot

[Guy Davidson]

In my opinion, the GDC deemed launching robots safe enough to allow for their constrcution, and to alleviate some concerns in this manner, even released an entire update dedicated to shooter safety. While of course, arms are safer, the fact there are no rules explicity prohibiting launching the balls make it clear that unless done extremley carelessly, the GDC believes that shooting robots can be safe. Add to that the wall around the playing field, and I don't think it will be as dangerous are you describe it to be.

Disclaimer: I am not, and I have not spoken with any member of the GDC on this issue. I'm just providing my interpretation of the matter.

Originally Posted by Woody1458

I personally dont like the idea of a launching robot and I think it is unsafe. There were some issues at some 2006 regionals where balls were shot at the tech guys knocking over things. This was with small nerf balls. 8lb balls hurled with enough force to conciderably clear the 78" overpass could do worse. Some rambunctious members of my school have clearly proved that a seemingly lightly thrown trackball could injure a person no problem. Even with the victim expecting the blow. My convern is that if this is proven to be a saftey concern does any regional inspection team have the cajones to start disabling the ten plus shooting robots that will attend each competition. I think teams might get by just based upon sheer numbers of people the inspectors would have to DQ to declare this stratagy unsafe. Thoughts? Comments? Maybe I'm way off and bing a total idiot

It's a very valid point. However, rather than disable a very larger percentage of the playing field, it seems that FIRST would be more likely to put a very large penalty in place if a ball is fired out of the field.

FIRST doesn't seem like the type of competition where they would willingly and knowingly screw over a large group of teams without a second thought.

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

FIRST doesn't seem like the type of competition where they would willingly and knowingly screw over a large group of teams without a second thought.

This is exactly my point. Because so many teams went with this approach FIRST might sacrafice a decision they would make normally due to not wanting to DQ a lot of teams.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

This is exactly my point. Because so many teams went with this approach FIRST might sacrafice a decision they would make normally due to not wanting to DQ a lot of teams.

I doubt it. Though not everyone likes their decisions, or games, the GDC is a smart group of people. They knew in advance when they made this game that people would shoot/launch the ball if they didn't put in a rule preventing it, and they didn't put in such a rule. This tells us that if they didn't outright want teams to shoot the ball, they at least weren't opposed to the idea.

If teams have unsafe robots of any kind--shooter, arm bots, herders, etc, I'm sure they will be handled as best as possible during inspection for things like pinch points, unsafe release of energy, etc, and through penalties/yellow/red cards by referees during gameplay.

[Rick]

My comment/question is how many 'shooter' robots will fail inspection because they do not indicate they are 'loaded' like it said in the team update. The team update stated that teams need to have a visible warning as to when the device to launch a trackball was ready. It could be a flag or a light, just something to warn people. Some very interesting solutions will be thought up on Thursday's at regionals as I believe teams have overlooked this update.

I started a poll about launcher 'armed' indicators: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=65125

[ALIBI]

Everything is relative. A 145lb robot traveling at 18fps can do far more damage than any trackball that has been launched. 2007's arms coming up in the wrong place (you know what I mean) could easily cause intense pain. Airborn flags from years past became projectiles. Arms getting tubes over the alliance station walls aways got a little bit too close to players heads for my comfort level. My point is that you can always find something that is dangerous. It is how you deal with that danger that is important.

Most shooters will not find it necessary to arm themselves except while on the playing field or when testing with whatever necessary precautions are needed (i.e. not in the pits). All the kids on my team are well aware of the dangers when their robot is armed (we did several dry launches). What concerns me is what will happen when the match is over. While we plan to release any stored energy before the end of the match, I am sure that there will be times when we or other teams will not release. That means that people will be scrambling to get their robots off the field with an armed launcher waiting to attack. We drove the robot around knocking ito things, bumped the launcher itself etc etc. while it was loaded to make sure that it only fires when commanded and we were never successful in getting it to accidentally launch. While the kids on my team are trained in what to do/what not to do when the robot is armed, no one else is. The first thing we will do when approaching the robot is insert a foot long pin that prevents the robot from firing or if the conditions allow, manually release the energy.

To me, the most dangerous time is when people unfamiliar with our robot are going near it to get their own robot or resetting the field. Perhaps they should take ten seconds after a match is complete to get a thumbs up/thumbs down signal from the launchers on the field that either their robot is safe (thumbs up), go ahead and clear the field or they need to lock out the launcher (thumbs down). Or have a simple, do not go within five feet of a launcher after a match until the team is there and gives their OK.

[GaryVoshol]

Arms are not inherently safer than launchers. In Triple Play, a human player was hit in the head by another robot's arm while she was loading the robot. I don't recall whether the other team got a penalty or not. Sarah was on the ground, the match was continuing, and she had to scramble back to her touch-pad so the robot would run again.

[Dad1279]

There are only 4 balls in play. I would imagine that the refs(or spotters), probably 2 per side, could easily keep track of and stop or deflect the out of bounds balls.

[ALIBI]

We would love to be able to add a pressure switch, second back up battery and a flashing red light, strob, LEDS, or whatever on a totaly independent circut to indicate when we are armed. The current rules do not allow us to do that. Even better would be if we were able to draw directly off the main battery (for teams with possible weight issues). By doing this, while the field is being reset, everyone will know we are armed. I can just see a well meaning field volunteer grabing the trackball off our robot and having it accidentally fire. Please read my previous post for a further explainatiuon of my concerns.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

There are only 4 balls in play. I would imagine that the refs(or spotters), probably 2 per side, could easily keep track of and stop or deflect the out of bounds balls.

I tend to agree with this view, and I was under the impression that most of the sides of the field (read: except the gates) have a ~6' polycarb wall for ball containment... granted, we'll be launching balls ~7+' in the air.

I'm not too worried about throwing it over the opposing driver station... the physics makes it difficult to impart the kind of energy into the ball required to do that.

And while there are no physical lockouts built into our design (besides simply releasing the pressure from our pneumatics), the code has been written with several lockouts to prevent launching when our mechanism isn't in the proper position (read: we have a 'pickup' position, a 'carry/armed' position, and a 'just launched' position, and its the transition from carry->launch that imparts all of our force into the ball... and its all pneumatic. Although, unlike some of 1075's previous 'multi-position' pneumatic designs, like our 2007 arm, it's not a 'stop-anywhere' pneumatic setup.) It is impossible (read: the code doesn't allow it) for the robot to attempt to launch from the 'pickup' position.

[Sunshine]

The original comments are valid.

The flip side answer is for ALL teams to assume that ALL robots are armed when entering the playing field. I will assume that comment like this will be made at the drivers meeting. I know that this will be something my drivers will hear over and over again.

"While entering the playing field please assume that ALL robots are armed and loaded at all times".

[waialua359]

From the point made here, perhaps with all the prediction of penalties during week 1 regionals, an update will come out with some concerns and possible game rule changes to address potential unsafe and ungracious play that the original rules have not addressed.
For example, in 2006, shooter speeds had a maximum "speed limit" placed. Maybe they may have teams adjust shooter speed mechanisms that are potentially dangerous. The difference being in 2006, the rule came out before regional action, while rule(s) changes may occur after week 1 regionals are played out.
Personally, I hope nothing bad really happens, very few penalties occur, and no one gets frustrated and has a grand old time!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

I personally dont like the idea of a launching robot and I think it is unsafe. There were some issues at some 2006 regionals where balls were shot at the tech guys knocking over things. This was with small nerf balls. 8lb balls hurled with enough force to conciderably clear the 78" overpass could do worse. Some rambunctious members of my school have clearly proved that a seemingly lightly thrown trackball could injure a person no problem. Even with the victim expecting the blow. My convern is that if this is proven to be a saftey concern does any regional inspection team have the cajones to start disabling the ten plus shooting robots that will attend each competition. I think teams might get by just based upon sheer numbers of people the inspectors would have to DQ to declare this stratagy unsafe. Thoughts? Comments? Maybe I'm way off and bing a total idiot

There is definitely a safety issue, yes. Will the inspectors/refs DQ teams due to safety? Possibly. Remember, it's not the inspector's job to issue a DQ, it's the ref's. The inspector makes sure the robot is safe and legal, and can keep a robot from competing if there is a safety issue.

I think that, provided the launching only goes over the overpass, there should be no issue. If it starts going over field side "walls", then there would be an big issue.

[kevin.li.rit]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

I personally dont like the idea of a launching robot and I think it is unsafe. There were some issues at some 2006 regionals where balls were shot at the tech guys knocking over things. This was with small nerf balls. 8lb balls hurled with enough force to conciderably clear the 78" overpass could do worse. Some rambunctious members of my school have clearly proved that a seemingly lightly thrown trackball could injure a person no problem. Even with the victim expecting the blow. My convern is that if this is proven to be a saftey concern does any regional inspection team have the cajones to start disabling the ten plus shooting robots that will attend each competition. I think teams might get by just based upon sheer numbers of people the inspectors would have to DQ to declare this stratagy unsafe. Thoughts? Comments? Maybe I'm way off and bing a total idiot

We'll have to see how it turns out this year. But I definitely thought there were some speed issues for the launchers in 06. I also thought there was a little too much ramming that year too.