Pic: Flippable robot

[star_lancer]

You might be wary of using this design. If your robot is upside down it may start the ten second grace period stated in rule <G32>. This will mostly be up to the ref. And that opens up a cornicopia of weird situations. Rules about touching balls, interacting with other robots, etc. Really, to cleare this up though, you have to go to Q&A. It opens at noon EST tomorrow.

[butinz]

my team number is 1001 so we dont have this issue

[Leav]

Originally Posted by butinz

my team number is 1001 so we dont have this issue

I think it would be awesome if only teams with rotationally symmetric team numbers are allowed build flippable robots...

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by afowl

Can you tell me where that rule is because I can't find what you are referencing?

Originally Posted by FRC2010 Manual, Section 7.3.5.3

<G45> Active BALL control - ROBOTS may not control BALL direction with active MECHANISMS above the BUMPER ZONE. Violation: PENALTY.

My question here, is that obviously the INTENT of this rule is to not have a mechanism on the top of your robot, such as a conveyor belt, to push the ball toward your end. But the letter of the rule seems to make designing an invertable robot difficult.

also; here's another interesting way to interpret it: looking at the definition of a MECHANISM:

Originally Posted by FRC2010 Manual, Section 8

MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.

My take on this is that the specific INTENDED functionality of those wheels was to DRIVE the robot, as opposed to them being there with the purpose of modifying the trajectory of a ball that happens to land there.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

My question here, is that obviously the INTENT of this rule is to not have a mechanism on the top of your robot, such as a conveyor belt, to push the ball toward your end. But the letter of the rule seems to make designing an invertable robot difficult.

also; here's another interesting way to interpret it: looking at the definition of a MECHANISM:



My take on this is that the specific INTENDED functionality of those wheels was to DRIVE the robot, as opposed to them being there with the purpose of modifying the trajectory of a ball that happens to land there.

The wheels above your robot are a mechanism because they provide specific functionality (drive power during inversion).

That said, the rules state that the mechanism must be active for it to be a penalty, so as long as the wheels are not active thats not an issue.

Also there is no rule that he numbers on your bumper need to be upright ... just a minimum height, stroke, and readable .

[kjolana1124]

We were talking about similar ideas on our team as well. I feel like that design might distribute the weight too evenly. But maybe that's just because it's a simple idea of your design and not the actual thing. I feel that a lot of people are going to be working with these ideas, which I'm really looking forward to seeing. I also think a configuration like this would make going through the tunnell faster. But again, I also feel like it would be more effective if one end had larger wheels than the other. Like this toy:



But again, I'm not 100% sure.

On another note, I think writing your number like an ambigram would be really cool to see!