[FTC]: Looking for a registered FTC Team to do us a favor

[BlackBoxFTC]

Hello all,

We are a soon to be FTC team, but we have not yet registered due to a multitude of reasons. However, we have a question for the GDC that we would really like to ask, but we can't post in the Q&A because we aren't yet registered. Is there anyone that would be willing to ask the question for us? We would really appreciate it. The question is:

Could you please define what an “unnecessary risk of entanglement” would entail? For example, would it be an risk of entanglement if we had a thin and flexible mechanism extending out from our robot at 30inches above the playing field? We are sure that we are not violating any other rules, and we believe that it would be nearly impossible for another robot to become entangled in it, but we wanted to make sure.

Please respond to this thread if you've asked for us. We don't want it to get posted twice.

Thank you so much.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Blackbox,
From a playing standpoint (and an inspection standpoint), entanglement refers to anything on your robot that could become entangled with another robot or the playing field. This could be stray wiring, rope, twine, netting, or something flexible enough to get caught in another robot's mechanism(s) that would prevent either you or the other team from playing effectively in a match. The GDC is of course the final say on this but I am betting they won't be able to render a decision (those of us here either) simply on the statement of the question above. We all want you to play the entire match.

[BlackBoxFTC]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Blackbox,
From a playing standpoint (and an inspection standpoint), entanglement refers to anything on your robot that could become entangled with another robot or the playing field. This could be stray wiring, rope, twine, netting, or something flexible enough to get caught in another robot's mechanism(s) that would prevent either you or the other team from playing effectively in a match. The GDC is of course the final say on this but I am betting they won't be able to render a decision (those of us here either) simply on the statement of the question above. We all want you to play the entire match.

Thanks for your quick response! We just thought it would be cool to try to separate our drive base into two parts for things like balancing, ect. The parts could be connected by a strongly re-enforced cable above 30 inches, not just a piece of twine or something. Think that could be legal?

[normalmutant]

Probably. Although last year there was a size-extending limit. You might want to check if they kept it.
A robot that can separate would be very impressive. I say go for it.

[BlackBoxFTC]

Originally Posted by normalmutant

Probably. Although last year there was a size-extending limit. You might want to check if they kept it.
A robot that can separate would be very impressive. I say go for it.

No size extending limit this year. It's certainly a cool but slightly crazy idea. Thanks for the encouragement!

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Blackbox,
I haven't read through all the rules yet. From what you are describing, I am thinking cool but probably entanglement. Have you been able to get a response from anyone who is submitting the question?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Blackbox,
You are going to have to evaluate the various rules that mention entanglement for your design specifically G8, R3, and the inspection sheet.

Take a close look at G7 and SG3 as well.

Since the penalty is disablement or DQ, this could be a risky design. Aslo remember that the mechanism must be fully self supporting when inside the robot sizing box.

[JesseK]

Just a small anecdote from coaching on field: historically, entanglement blame has gone to the robot that has the offending mechanism, not the robot that interacted with it. For example, if BotA has an arm that gets entangled on the frame of BotB, it is BotA's fault for having the arm sticking out rather than BotB's fault for driving into it. If the arm gets entangled in an extended appendage of BotB, the faults offset.

I agree with Al that the GDC will probably not answer the question since it directly requests approval of a specific design. However, as stated, this is a risky design. Consider the implications of another robot pushing on the flexible point with their drive train frame (not an arm or anything else). Or, consider another robot driving over any cable in the middle (not all robots are typical 18" box drive trains). If it's too high a risk yet you still want the balancing flexibility, perhaps consider alternative derivatives to the strategy: does your robot need to be separated throughout the entire match?

Good design adage: design your robot to withstand abuse by the environment rather than expecting the environment to conform to your design.