2012 Team Update 4

[buildmaster5000]

It is online here.

It does not look like any major changes, but the alternate bridge thing might get tricky. The other clarifications are quite helpful.

[Chris is me]

Interesting - the rule allows for Wildstang style ramps, but doesn't allow you to put a partner on your back if you're not already touching the bridge. Useful to know.

I sure hope anyone ramping has made accomodations for us wide bots.

[Mk.32]

"Operation Bondé"
That I like...
If FIRST can pull it off smoothly, it sounds like an life saver.

[Cory]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but if the current bridge is inferior, why are we using it?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Cory

Maybe this is a stupid question, but if the current bridge is inferior, why are we using it?

'cause.

[Paul Copioli]

This update is actually pretty important. The blue box at the end has really clarified the "stick something out the bottom of your robot to help balancing" as being perfectly legal. The Q&A responses this week made it look like it would be illegal.

Now, if you are on the bridge and you stick something down to the carpet it can be argued via the blue box clarification that your bumpers are perfectly legal as measured from the bridge that you are sitting on. Big clarification.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

This update is actually pretty important. The blue box at the end has really clarified the "stick something out the bottom of your robot to help balancing" as being perfectly legal. The Q&A responses this week made it look like it would be illegal.

Now, if you are on the bridge and you stick something down to the carpet it can be argued via the blue box clarification that your bumpers are perfectly legal as measured from the bridge that you are sitting on. Big clarification.

But if you are on the bridge and stick something down to the carpet, touching the carpet, wouldn't you not be balanced based off the rule that you must be fully supported by the bridge? Unless you mean putting something down that is not touching the carpet.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

But if you are on the bridge and stick something down to the carpet, touching the carpet, wouldn't you not be balanced based off the rule that you must be fully supported by the bridge? Unless you mean putting something down that is not touching the carpet.

one would retract it at the buzzer presumably.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

one would retract it at the buzzer presumably.

but then the bridge would likely tip and no longer be within 5 degrees of horizontal.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

but then the bridge would likely tip and no longer be within 5 degrees of horizontal.

Not necessarily, depends on when it's used and what other actions are performed.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

This update is actually pretty important. The blue box at the end has really clarified the "stick something out the bottom of your robot to help balancing" as being perfectly legal. The Q&A responses this week made it look like it would be illegal.

Now, if you are on the bridge and you stick something down to the carpet it can be argued via the blue box clarification that your bumpers are perfectly legal as measured from the bridge that you are sitting on. Big clarification.

I think you're misreading that. I think your configuration would be illegal because if the bot were placed flat on the bridge or carpet your bumpers would not be entirely in the zone.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think you're misreading that. I think your configuration would be illegal because if the bot were placed flat on the bridge or carpet your bumpers would not be entirely in the zone.

But I think his point is that the robot is already flat on the bridge, the or only requiring one of them to make it legal. And of course what is "flat?"

[Greg McKaskle]

Not that I know all of the details on the radio issue, but it sounds to me like they have identified a firmware issue with the model that they were using. It sounds like working with the radio providers, they have identified a model without the issue. Rather than replace all the radios for a rare complication, they have a plan to deal with a known issue if and when it occurs.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I assume that proprietary radio bands, especially ones with lots of bandwidth are susceptible to implementations issues in firmware and logistical surprises too.

There is nothing about the new system that precludes a special band or radio, but using off-the-shelf products, teams can pretty easily have their own N speed setups in their school or shop.

I'm also curious what you mean by FPGA overhead?

Greg McKaskle

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Greg McKaskle

I'm also curious what you mean by FPGA overhead?

me too, inquiring minds want to know !

[cgmv123]

They should just put big sheets of lead all around the field to stop all the arena wireless signals.