<R11> Craziness!!!

[Booksy]

Originally Posted by Dantvman27

Or maybe its just uping your thinking level, i like the rule, it changes the game completely

I have to agree with you.

At first I thought of all these arms and things to pickup, shoot. throw, dump, etc. and almost all involved things that left the "box". This forces you to think outside ("inside"?) the box, because the obvious way is impossible. You have 2 choices: make a square herding bot or rethink how you have done things in the past (especially different from last year, for people who haven't been around since those other games, as I personally have only been through Overdrive).

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

By "need this" I assume you mean you feel it's unfair? Every game is different. There seem to be parts of this one that are very different. So what? We're here for the collective challenge, right?

We're here for a challenge so we can create innovative solutions to the problems we're given. But this game eliminates anything that would attempt to give u a frictional advantage over others and therefore instead of challenging us DISCOURAGES us from thinking of ways to get around it. I've always thought there was a fine line between solving your challenges and breaking the intent of the rule that poses the challenge.

Originally Posted by jackdawg

R11...thats the one that says that the robot cannot extend out beyond the regulation dimensions of the bot at any time (not just at the start of the match)?
if so then yes i agree! total madness! no extendable arms or devices! that threw a wrench in the gears of several of our plans.

some of the rules this year seem to be a little too confining.
lets hope that next year is better

<R11>At the start of, and during, the MATCH the ROBOT shall fit within the dimensions listed below:
Maximum
Width
28 inches (71.12cm)
Maximum
Depth
38 inches (96.52cm)
Maximum
Height
60 inches (152.40cm)
Maximum
Weight
120 pounds (54.43Kg)

And yes I'm also looking forward to next year as I believe this game will be too slow and too constrained to be fun except in the high levels of competitive play such as Einstein or IRI.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

We're here for a challenge so we can create innovative solutions to the problems we're given. But this game eliminates anything that would attempt to give u a frictional advantage over others and therefore instead of challenging us DISCOURAGES us from thinking of ways to get around it. I've always thought there was a fine line between solving your challenges and breaking the intent of the rule that poses the challenge.

Just because you haven't thought of a way to get frictional advantages doesn't mean other teams aren't thinking about that very thing right now. FIRST gave some pretty strong clues by publishing the coefficients of friction... static inline is 20% higher than dynamic and transverse is almost twice that of the inline.

Go back to that first line of your post and apply that positive spirit to this challenge. You might be amazed what you can come up with.

Jason

[Lesman]

And the entanglement concern is a very real one. On the regolith two robots won't have the traction to pull themselves apart.

[Bryan Herbst]

I believe a good part of this is the fact that they expect teams to lose control of their robots every now and then.

Do you want a robot sliding out of control towards the edge of the field with a 5-foot long manipulator sticking off of it?

[bduddy]

Didn't a similar rule exist with Aim High, a game which also had a somewhat similar goal? Wasn't there quite a bit of robot diversity that year?

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Didn't a similar rule exist with Aim High, a game which also had a somewhat similar goal? Wasn't there quite a bit of robot diversity that year?

You are the second one to bring this up so I went and found the 2006 rule.

The shooter mechanism must remain within the original starting dimensions of 28 in (711 mm) by 38 in (965 mm) by 60 in (1,524 mm) tall.

AND

No part of the robot may ever extend more than 60 in (1,524 mm) above the floor. If a robot is more than 60 in (1,524 mm) high, and it shoots a ball or blocks a ball from being shot, a 5 point penalty per ball will be assessed.

so you still had outside the 28x38 with anything except a shooting device. I would be ok with a rule like this.

[Taylor]

Preface: Imagine me being contrary!

Personally, I think <R11> is the single best rule in the manual. This creates a challenge we haven't really seen before (Aim High had a little wiggle room) that I believe will create a plethora of designs and functions. This forces teams to create elegant and efficient designs, and pushes the inventive envelope.
Think of 2007. That game was the antithesis of 2009 - teams created huge, delicate manipulators that were protected (overbearingly so - ?) by the rules. Most of the robots there were carbon copies of each other, with only a few exceptions.
Every offseason, FIRST participants clamor for a new game, one with new and distinct challenges, the likes of which they have not seen. Well, here it is! (At least they're not making us climb Regolith ramps! )

[midway78224]

I think this rule makes the game more exicting. I also think that your going to see alot robots like 2006 aim high robots. My team is think like a design of a aim high robot.

[ShadowNinja]

r 11 is not correctly read..in their video it shows a robot with an arm...

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Didn't a similar rule exist with Aim High, a game which also had a somewhat similar goal? Wasn't there quite a bit of robot diversity that year?

Last year the video also showed a robot breaking the height barrier in the opponent's home stretch which was against the rules. Don't read too much into the video, it's meant to show the game not to show you every rule.

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by ShadowNinja

r 11 is not correctly read..in their video it shows a robot with an arm...

We are definitely reading the rule properly. If you re-watch the video I assure you that none of the robots break the volume.

After a comb-through closest situation I could find to a <R11> penalty would be in this picture

http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?i...icture3mj1.png

Here a robot swings its arm to launch a ball and the arm swings outside it's base area. However as you can see throughout the movie this robot has a square base meaning that it left extra room along its front to allow for this motion.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

We are definitely reading the rule properly. If you re-watch the video I assure you that none of the robots break the volume.

After a comb-through closest situation I could find to a <R11> penalty would be in this picture

http://img380.imageshack.us/my.php?i...icture3mj1.png

Here a robot swings its arm to launch a ball and the arm swings outside it's base area. However as you can see throughout the movie this robot has a square base meaning that it left extra room along its front to allow for this motion.

Actually, that is not quite correct. The arm on the robot in question in the animation never extends beyond the vertical projection of the Bumper Perimeter Polygon of the robot. There is a wrist on the arm that allows the hand to rotate up, thereby shortening the effective total tip length of the arm as it swings through the vertical arc. The base of the robot is also not square - it extends to the permitted 28 x 38 inches. I am quite certain of this.

-dave



.

[megaman_22201]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

Does anyone else think this rule is as game changing as me? This rule scares me more then requiring us to use Rover Wheels. No playing position!!!! come on FIRST you already restricted our sizes with this giant control system, we don't need this. I'm sure there is a better way to prevent trailer defence!!

i really dont believe that the demention perameters are unreasonable. i mean, come on really!? just keep your designs simple and elegant and you will see that the demention perameters are not constranining.

[Woody1458]

Originally Posted by megaman_22201

i really dont believe that the demention perameters are unreasonable. i mean, come on really!? just keep your designs simple and elegant and you will see that the demention perameters are not constranining.

This is not a matter of me being unable to think of legal ideas, or using the larger playing configuration of the past as a crutch, rather that it does removes several designs that implement this feature and cuts down to the few that don't. Just to throw out a few that would use a larger playing config:

A tube which when filed with balls is extended like an arm to quickly drop all balls directly over an opponent's trailer

A Hungry Hungry Hippo style ball pickup

A javelin type pickup

A javelin type disposal

A simple claw and arm

and many more.