01-04-2012 11:47

MattC9

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Does 118 now have a triple balance mechanism?

01-04-2012 11:49

bam-bam

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

I'm pretty sure they do now.

If you check below 118, you can see part of its bridge mechanism blocked by a head.

And something tells me that this is the first time there was two stingers in a triple balance.

01-04-2012 11:54

EagleEngineer

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

So when i was watching the CT regional they said that 228 could not have their stinger depolyed in the back court, because it would be taller than 60". Does this mean that in this photo 2168 is taller than 60" meaning that would be a penalty?

01-04-2012 12:06

AcesJames

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

118 does in fact use a stinger. A lot of us at CT huddled around their pit on Thursday as we watched them re-attach their shooter, add 2 speed transmissions, swap their bridge mechanism, and add their stinger. It was quite a site to see (although I'm sure they can elaborate on that better than I can).

2168 (as far as I know) in their starting configuration is short enough to be able to drop their stinger on the opposite side of the field and still not reach the full 60". I believe that the 228 machine is a fair bit taller.

01-04-2012 12:17

Clinton Bolinger

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Sorry, Michigan did had a triple balance with two stingers in Week 2 at Waterford (67 and 469).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniele...7629560227229/

-Clinton-

01-04-2012 12:45

bam-bam

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear- I meant both stingers deployed at the same time. From what I can remember at Waterford, only 67 deployed their stinger.

01-04-2012 12:47

s_forbes

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

2168 looks like they may exceed 60" total height in this picture. In the linked image of 67/469 above it appears that 469 would definitely be taller than 60" if their stinger was deployed.

If you have a stinger that makes the entire vertical height of your robot greater than 60", can you deploy it on the lane-side of your bridge without incurring a foul? Manual seems to say no.

01-04-2012 12:57

Lil' Lavery

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

469 didn't have their "peg leg" at that point in time. They built it after seeing the success team 67 had.

01-04-2012 13:22

davepowers

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

228 and 177 both used their stingers in the first match of their elimination round. After our second triple, Dancing Dave asked to take a look at our height, we happened to be 64 inches tall. We had already deployed a strategy to just feed 177 balls in hybrid and teleop, so removing our shooter hood was an easy fix to put us within the 60 inch limit. I was very glad to be able to pull off the triple so quickly, with the double stingers it was almost easier than a single or double.

-D

01-04-2012 13:57

thefro526

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Sigh, 2168 has to be one of the best machines to not win a trip to the CMP this year. Gotta feel for those guys.

Also, if memory serves me, 2168's robot is under 4' tall in the starting config so assuming their stinger is 12" or less, they are still within the 60" height parameter. *Edit, see Josh's post below*

01-04-2012 14:37

lnex1357

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

To clarify the discussion: After our first successful triple balance in QF 1-2, one of the referees called our total height with the stinger down into question and had the lead inspector measure us between QFs and SFs. It turns out we were beyond the 60" height restriction. Something we never thought to check and the inspector overlooked during a re-inspection, after the addition of our stinger during the practice day on Thursday. Hence you will notice during our second Triple Balance in SF 1-1 we balanced from our offensive zone side of the field. Fortunately for us it was just a simple adjustment to strategy and our whole alliance adjusted perfectly ... a great testament to all the teams and their drivers on the #1 seed alliance ... you guys are stars

01-04-2012 14:55

Clinton Bolinger

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

469 had their peg leg/stinger since Waterford but never had a need to use it. The redesigned it for Detroit, so that it would go out the back.

-Clinton-

01-04-2012 15:07

nikeairmancurry

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

469 had it off to the side at waterford and used it a few times going up the co-op bridge.

01-04-2012 19:06

cj3958

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

I believe the "transitional stage" allows you to be taller than 60" when you have a 'stinger' deployed. The head ref at boston talked to us about that and we were able to convince him otherwise; however its only a 3pt penalty even if you do violate the 60" rule.

01-04-2012 19:34

MarcD79

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Be careful of the Stingers. If you enter the ramp from the opposing side, you can't exceed the 5' rule, you are in violation. The 5' rule will be measured from the top of your robot to the lowest part of your robot...the bottom of the stinger. There was a 3 point penalty in CT on Saturday, but wasn't the 1st one to be a penalty at a regional. You CAN exceed the 5' rule on your own side of the field.

01-04-2012 19:36

davepowers

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

I don't believe there was a disqualification because of the stingers, just a pair of fouls handed out to us and 2168.

-D

01-04-2012 19:39

dsmoker

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Dave is right, there was no disqualification, but I believe the refs said a second violation would result in a yellow card and a third a DQ, so that in future matches it would not just a 3-point penalty, as someone earlier in this thread stated.

01-04-2012 19:41

MarcD79

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

I realized my mistake, it has been corrected 3 point penalty.

01-04-2012 19:51

davepowers

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

This is true, we were told it would be a yellow card the next time, and a DQ the time after that, which I was a little confused with because the manual states it would only be a Technical for repeated use.

-D

01-04-2012 21:17

cj3958

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Now wouldn't that also make it illegal to go over the bumb if you were exactly 60" tall? If you think about it you could be potentiallt 64" tall and be on the opposite side of the feild, no? Also the intention of the 60" while on d-fence was that you weren't blocking shots, so if you dont block any shots because of your stinger then they should just not call the penalty.

01-04-2012 21:37

slijin

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

The Q&A makes this answer very clear:

Regardless of the "spirit" of the rule, a rule means what it says. Until the GDC says otherwise, the 60" restriction stays.

02-04-2012 13:08

jwfoss

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

look at all those colson wheels.

02-04-2012 15:08

nasamen3728

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

hey guy just asking who won CT Regional ???

02-04-2012 15:14

EricH

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

Well, if you look at http://www2.usfirst.org/2012comp/Events/CT/awards.html (accessed by going to the FIRST site, FRC, Events->Regional/District Events, and choosing Connecticut), 195, 181, and 20 won the robot competition and 694 won the most prestigious award.

04-04-2012 14:54

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Triple Balance 2 of 3: CT Regional

What an epic picture. All three such clean bots. Love it!