When does accelerating the wear of a game piece become aggressive. Or when does any handling become aggressive rn this seems like it’s 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 ‘height of the bot’. 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 they’ll 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.
1 Like
There will be some variability in how the RI’s enforce this. Some RI’s 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 teams’ robots can still manipulate the game pieces as intended after your robot has interacted with it.
1 Like
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 “shoot” firmly in the LRI’s 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.
1 Like
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.
I’m 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 “worst-case” scenario for every robot (ie. launched form as high as that particular robot’s 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 “worst case” 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.
3 Likes
G14 update has some pretty meaningful impacts.
I would agree, I just hope teams take that into consideration.
Yup, there goes the strategy for two short robots to stack one on top of another to score the top of the rocket.
1 Like
They changed it to say what it means. The HAB ZONE is a volume, not a (floor and platform) surface. So “contact with” that volume in the original is exactly the same as “at least partially in” in the current version. And it removes the ambiguity of “over but not touching” that might have arisen for anyone who forgot the rule referred to a volume.
I particularly like the update to R84 that says
Check and quick exhaust valves, provided that the requirements of Error! Reference source not found. are still met.
It should be
Keep in mind - the hatch panel rule is largely a safety rule for the field staff standing near the field.
The update to SECTION 12.2.1 seems to be an attempt to prevent a Cheesy Champs situation from happening again. Under this version of the rule, 254’s alliance would only have received a yellow card.
It also clarifies an ambiguity in the rules regarding whether or not an alliance yellow card in playoffs is applied to individual teams. As applied in official competition, precedent was that it was not. (Obviously useless year-to-year and going to offseason.)
I think another update is required to clear up the disambiguity of that rule.