|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Field Damage/Safety Issues
At the end of last match we were advised that our team was now on a
"Watch List" for damaging the field in FLR match 68. After investigating a bit further what we found was that our PVC "hand", made of 1" Capped Schedule 80, was able to pentrate the grating of the robocoach station. While pulling back to disengage, the hand was caught on the grating and our 4 CIM drive was enough to pull the grating out from it's welds, although there is some doubt that it was actually welded. It appears that this grating is 1.5 x 1.5 inch steel mesh. This has an open area of about 2.25 square inches. Rule <R04> raises a flag for projections with areas under 1 inch and we easily exceed this with the CAP on our PVC. However, we are smaller than the 2.25 square inch opening in the grate, which by the way, we cannot find on the specs for the field. Like most teams, we take great care to meet all rules. However, it seems that the 2008 field design is not exactly complementary to <R04>. It seems to me that if grating is relied upon, the openings should be smaller than the smallest allowed projection. Furthermore, this contact occurred in the bumper zone. It seems that the bumper zones on the field, especially those on the crash wall (otherwise known as the robo-coach station) should be plate. Additionally, it seems that since there are students behind the robocoach station, the grate should actually be the support for a polycarbonate plate. There is, I think, a bit of a safety hazard in the present design of the Robotcoach stations which IMHO should be more like the driver stations and offer better protection from both robots and flying parts. While we did get a few laughs over the prospects of becoming known as the yellow impaler, this is perhaps a potential safety area that should be looked at. We are having trouble finding fault with our design. If 1.5 x 1.5 steel grate is going to be used for protection, <R04> should require that no part of the robot be able to pass through the opening in the grate. At the very minimum, a piece of this grate ought to be used during inspection to flag teams (and Robocoaches) of the potential hazard. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Floor Damage? | BHS Bucs | General Forum | 8 | 09-02-2008 07:25 |
| Damage to Innertubes | macwhoo | Technical Discussion | 14 | 17-01-2007 16:26 |
| Ball Damage | MaddyW | Rules/Strategy | 4 | 29-01-2006 13:36 |
| Ball Damage | cbolin | Technical Discussion | 30 | 26-01-2006 01:45 |
| Question about rules: Does ball damage count as field damage? | Jevin H | Rules/Strategy | 11 | 17-01-2006 14:21 |