R6 upped to 3ft and Hatch panel grabbers that use velcro may of just gotten nerfed. 
Blue box on R6 is tripping me up, is it saying that the height of the bot doesnt matter when it was shot?
This is not going to be easy to police. I still see there being an issue.
No, I think stuff like Dual Lock just got nerfed. We noticed it left behind plastic parts when we ripped it off. If you use the hook they specify, it shouldnât âaccelerateâ the wear of the loop on the panel.
Yup, I think thatâs what itâs saying. It matters how far your robot shoots the panels. I think my team is going to request all inspections at the lowest level of our lifter. Hah!
Iâd argue that all hook type fasteners would fall under this because it does accelerate the normal wear of the loop fasteners on the hatch.
@RoboAlum But the rule update uses âAggressiveâ and not âaccelerateâ. I donât think Velcro would be anymore aggressive than the normal wear and tear they would go through.
Solution? Use the same hook tape that FIRST uses (conveniently added in this TU!)
Thereâs no way that they can argue that their own material is âaggressive.â
Sounds like a fun argument to have with the head ref.
I wouldnât read farther into the rule than what it says. I would interpret this as damaging velcro more than Velcro already damages Velcro. So things like dual lock, etc.
I feel like if they wanted to ban velcro they would be more clear - e.g. ban a robot from deliberately engaging the Velcro on the part.
I read it to say that the distance between the point where the hatch panel hits the ground (call it âaâ) and the closest point on your frame perimeter (âbâ) is measured as if your robot wasnât moving. So if at t = 0 you dropped a hatch panel from height y and simultaneously started driving away from it, (b) is considered to be as of t = 0, not as of t = <time hatch panel hits the ground>, lest you be penalized for being able to drop a hatch panel from too high while accelerating away from it quickly.
This is my reading as well, especially given the phrase âmay hinder the natural behavior
of the loop tape and thus violate G15.â
Iâm pretty sure hook tape does not hinder the natural behavior of loop tape, as that is what loop tape is designed to be used with.
When does accelerating the wear of a game piece become aggressive. Or when does any handling become aggressive rn this seems like itâs a head ref lead inspector call. Would two small colson wheels sucking in the hatch from the side be aggressive if the rate the wheels spin at is considered too fast
Depends on what you mean by âheight of the botâ. Basically, if you take your robot as-is and placed it on a flat carpet, it cannot shoot a hatch panel further than 3 feet. The blue box essentially prevents being on the HAB Platform or being tipped from penalizing your robot. Meaning:
This is incorrect. I would expect to demonstrate the maximum distance your robot can launch hatch panels during inspection, not any distance of your choosing.
I suspect theyâll have to redo this again - too ambiguous. Maybe say aggressive hook side like [list of some of the ones they mean] are illegal. Remember the endless 2017 rope rule and Velcro dialogs⌠ugh.
There will be some variability in how the RIâs enforce this. Some RIâs will be real sticklers and demand that your team demonstrate this in a number of different levels of your lifter.
I think the ruling update is pretty clear. Game pieces are expected to see some wear and tear (i.e. scratches/markings, normal Velcro wear over time), but mechanisms should not damage or alter the state of the game piece in such a way that its natural behavior is changed (e.g. destroying the velcro, causing cracks/breakages, etc.). The intent is to ensure that other teamsâ robots can still manipulate the game pieces as intended after your robot has interacted with it.
Then wheeled intakes would basically be ruled out because of the chance of peeling back the loop Velcro. I understand the update I know they mean dual lock and heavy duty as well as the silicone pads some teams asked about. But the answer they gave is ambiguous.
This TU effectively places the judgement of âshootâ firmly in the LRIâs hands. If the head ref suspects a team launched, then a quick re-inspect could be requested. This is great - it means that we have a clearly-defined, repeatable, objective, and enforceable way to determine whether a robot violates the first sentence of G15.
On paper, a hatch panel launched from a mechanism five feet in the air will land farther away from the robot than if the hatch panel was launched from the same mechanism but located at or near ground level, because it has more to travel with the same horizontal velocity.
Iâm curious to see how this rule will be evaluated for robots that score on the second and third rocket level. Will all mechanisms be evaluated at the same height? Or will the inspectors consider a âworst-caseâ scenario for every robot (ie. launched form as high as that particular robotâs mechanism could be located)? This could, as read, effectively decrease the maximum allowed hatch panel velocity (force, impulse, whatever) for robots that want to score high.
To me, it is obvious that the robot will be inspected at the âworst caseâ scenario for every robot. The intent of the inspection is to prove you cannot violate the requirement. Why would the inspection be done in any configuration other than the one most likely to violate the requirement?
Plan to meet the rule in any configuration.