02-03-2016 11:16

JB987

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Great looking robot. Am I off base however by asking how this robot and others like it is legal per R9, specifically parts A and C ?

Examples of items that will violate R9 include (but are not limited to): A. Shields, curtains, or any other devices or materials designed or used to obstruct or limit the vision of any DRIVERS and/or COACHES and/ or interfere with their ability to safely control their ROBOT B. Speakers, sirens, air horns, or other audio devices that generate sound at a level sufficient to be a distraction C. Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery on your ROBOT that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the retro-reflective features of the TOWER described in Section 2.3.1.3 TOWER)

02-03-2016 11:18

marshall

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by rberglund loading photo ...

02-03-2016 11:34

The other Gabe

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

great defense at palmetto

02-03-2016 11:49

KMeyers

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB987 Great looking robot. Am I off base however by asking how this robot and others like it is legal per R9, specifically parts B and C ?

02-03-2016 13:52

Billfred

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB987 Great looking robot. Am I off base however by asking how this robot and others like it is legal per R9, specifically parts A and C ? Examples of items that will violate R9 include (but are not limited to): A. Shields, curtains, or any other devices or materials designed or used to obstruct or limit the vision of any DRIVERS and/or COACHES and/ or interfere with their ability to safely control their ROBOT B. Speakers, sirens, air horns, or other audio devices that generate sound at a level sufficient to be a distraction C. Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery on your ROBOT that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the retro-reflective features of the TOWER described in Section 2.3.1.3 TOWER)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMeyers I would assume it is legal because the shield/curtain was designed and is being used to block boulders, not to interfere with vision. Were they to park it in front of an opponents drive station, then it would likely constitute a violation of R9.

02-03-2016 14:25

D.Allred

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB987 Great looking robot. Am I off base however by asking how this robot and others like it is legal per R9, specifically parts A and C ? Examples of items that will violate R9 include (but are not limited to): A. Shields, curtains, or any other devices or materials designed or used to obstruct or limit the vision of any DRIVERS and/or COACHES and/ or interfere with their ability to safely control their ROBOT B. Speakers, sirens, air horns, or other audio devices that generate sound at a level sufficient to be a distraction C. Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery on your ROBOT that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the retro-reflective features of the TOWER described in Section 2.3.1.3 TOWER)

02-03-2016 15:10

JB987

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

I concede 9A isn't applicable to this example. But it's obvious that the shield/blocker does interfere with many vision systems, right? Of course you will have a hard time proving 'intent'.

03-03-2016 08:20

JesseK

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB987 I concede 9A isn't applicable to this example. But it's obvious that the shield/blocker does interfere with many vision systems, right? Of course you will have a hard time proving 'intent'.

31-03-2016 07:54

rberglund

Re: pic: FRC 1369's ASTERION 2016

Our modular defense apparatus was designed to block boulder shots. Frankly, we did not even consider attacking camera sensor systems. In our design, we had no intent to "jam or interfere" with another robot's sensing capability. "Jam or interfere" requires an offensive action by our robot, which it does not do. Our blocking sheet works as designed. An opposing robot's camera tracking system still works perfectly as designed. However, in some cases - depending on the mounting location of said camera - the picture the driver sees will not be what they intend. However, there is plenty of open space for a camera to see around or under.

As far as blocking driver's vision, we operate in our own courtyard, so only our alliance partners are close enough to impact, however it's no more than any tall shooter.

Palmetto was Version 1 of our Defensive Apparatus. We unveiled Version 2 at Orlando. We will unveil Version 3 at Championship.