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.
I can think of a dozen ways to use materials used on the field in a destructive manner. Aluminum has many uses!
More specifically with hook & loop, how you use it is just as important as what you use. If I wrap a wheel in hook tape and spin it very quickly, it could damage the hatch panels pretty easily. If I just press a stationary appendage with hook and loop tape onto the panel, it is not likely to damage it.
Generally the answer is to just test your mechanism. If you are consistently damaging hatch panels, you probably need a different design.
2 Likes
Can someone please explain the difference between the original and current versions?
In the corrected version, the 2nd yellow card of the match could be earned by the same team as the first, resulting in a red card. In the original version, the yellows would have to go to 2 different teams on the alliance.
1 Like
While Gary’s interpretation is also true, the big change is to clarify that an offense worth of a card committed by an ALLIANCE in the playoffs is only awarded once. Under the original wording, its hypothetically possible that two TEAMS on an ALLIANCE could both receive a yellow card for the same foul (say pinning, or blockading under previous year rules). Despite this being only a single yellow card foul, it left room for a head ref to interpret the rules in a fashion that led to both yellow cards stacking into a red card for that alliance. While this was certainly not the intended way for the rules to be interpreted, the update in language removes the possibility of that occurring.
1 Like