OK,
I will bring this up but consider that rotating devices do come under the Safety Rule
R08
ROBOT parts shall not be made from hazardous materials,** be unsafe, cause an unsafe condition**, or interfere with the
operation of other ROBOTS.
A greater concern is materials used for friction on the rotating device. Please be sure that you have chosen wisely when you assembled your spinner/wheel/tire. Some of the wheels used in the past are not meant for the high RPM you may be running on your shooter.
We built a curved 1/8" thick aluminum guard for our high speed pneumatic wheel so we wouldn’t have problems during inspection because this had been mentioned in another thread.
Is there any rule that can actually make our robot illegal if our shooter is not shielded? We are going to Lake Superior next week and the attached image is what it looks like (Our robot is slightly upgraded since then but the shooter is pretty much the same)
Adding a shield to our robot would be difficult since it is extremely close to the weight limit and we cannot mount it very securely. We have tested our shooter rigorously in the 2 weeks leading to the stop build day and never had an issue with it or the bolts loosening once setup properly.
If inspectors would require us to not use our shooter or shield it, it would be devastating.
The TechnoKats ran unshielded high-RPM wheels on the disc shooter for weeks with no failures. The practice 'bot still lacks a shield at the moment. But the robot in the bag right now has a guard in place to keep it safe in case something comes apart at speed.
If the shooter is securely mounted, and lock tight is used would that really cause a more unsafe condition than the Frisbee which is being shot? It will be interesting to see if an open shooter will pass inspection…but if not:
Would a simple shield over the wheels suffice, or would it have to be over the entire top if inspectors claim it to be unsafe? We will probably have to prepare a piece of metal to be mounted just in-case inspectors deem our robot unsafe.
Pretty much questioning if you were inspecting this robot, would you pass it?
Specifics:
8" Andymark pneumatics balanced by stacked washers on two bolts per wheel, with locknuts. The wheels are directly mounted to the CIM shafts by retaining rings (two stacked on one another to ensure it doesn’t come out). The CIM mounts are VERY sturdy 1/4" thick aluminum and everything is securely bolted in/nylock nut secured.
Brandon et al,
I look at exposed wheels and get scared. The reason is many years ago when open reel tape recorders were still in use, one of my co-workers was fast winding 2" audio tape and just before the end of the reel he started slowing the reels in prep for removing the tape from the machine. He lost his attention for just a second and his fingers got caught in the open reel. He was lucky, some deep cuts but nothing broken or torn off. His bandage/splint stayed with him for almost 6 months. I still think of that day when I look at shooters.
What you have to think to yourself is “what safety issue does this cause when I run up the motors in the pit or practice field?” If you are scared, perhaps you need to do something. The GDC is thinking about this I am sure. In the past we were directed that high speed rotating devices need some form of cover. If asked for my opinion today, I would recommend a cover.
The 4 biggest issues I saw as an inspector at Hub City were:
Unshielded shooter wheels. I don’t have an exact count but I’d be surprised to find out that fewer than 75% of teams had to add shields.
R86 violations. I personally saw at least 10 pneumatic systems; 9 of them had plastic tubing between the compressor & pressure relief valve & had to do rework to become legal. The good news was that I only had to help one team calibrate theirs.
Frame perimeter excursions. Way too many robots had to move things so they weren’t sticking out past the frame in starting position.
Unshielded shooter wheels. I’d be amazed if more than 25% of the teams actually came in with proper shielding.
We also had the “normal” kinds of issues – like sharp edges and battery terminals that weren’t properly insulated – that are easy fixes and should have never been seen by inspectors. We also had lots of poorly constructed bumpers. I spent most of Friday on the field; along with the things I was finding in queuing the head ref kept asking me to talk with teams about their bumpers falling off or sagging.
Yep. I put this in twice for emphasis; I’m pretty sure that adding shielding took well over 50% of the total time teams put in fixing inspection issues.
We had a number of discussions with teams (fortunately, almost all were actual discussions instead of arguments) about the necessity for this. R08 (and a LRI that stuck to his guns) won every time.
If you knew me, you’d have been looking for a smart-aleck comment. :rolleyes:
Do robots who never intend to climb the pyramid require belay points. The rules seem to be pretty adamant that all robots need them, but I am note sure why this would be a requirement for a robot that never is going to climb?
Q194
Q.R10 If you don’t plan on climbing above zone 1, do you still need to provide fasteners/mounting points
for the belay system on your robot? If you don’t will this violate R10?
A.Yes, [R10] requires all ROBOTS to have attachment points for the belay system.
The 2 teams we started allied with Friday hadn’t been inspected and didn’t have bumpers yet. I had to keep going back and forth making sure they’d finish on time and that they had paint/Velcro/whatever. I can understand non compliant bumpers…but when your robot is just a drivetrain how do you not have bumpers at all @-@
I will be inspecting at BMR and CRR this year
I will definetly call the teams on guarding of any high speed spinning devices ::safety::
As for the belaying points on ALL robot, the GDC probably felt it was better to say all bots had to have them then have someone lawyering the rule.
Sorry I have been away from this column for a while but after some reports this weekend I have to add something on bumpers.
Everyone, we really tried to improve the bumper rules and make them easy and understandable. There are some nice drawings that are part of the rule, in particular Figure 4-4. However, please note, the pool noodles and the bumper rules do not allow for the addition of weight to increase the overall weight of the robot. You may not add steel rod, brass, shot or other high mass material to the interior of the pool noodles. Also note that the optional angle stock shown in Figure 4-4 is specified as aluminum. If your bumpers are modified in a such a way, please be prepared to remove the additional weight at your event.
As a reminder, any time you make modifications to your robot during competition, it is required to be reinspected. This includes changes you might make while in the queue waiting for a match. To compete without inspection puts you and your alliance at risk. Inspectors are happy to check your robot anytime during the weekend. I recommend that everyone checks with the LRI prior to making modifications to be sure you are planning something legal and within weight for your robot.
I might be reading “between the lines” a bit here, Al… but I think your post is perhaps more restrained, positive and polite than something I might have been tempted to post.
Kudos to the inspector who found the steel rod inside the pool noodles for not immediately using said foam-covered rods to deliver a brief and brutal lesson on bumpers! :yikes:
I mean, I’m having a hard time believing that a team really didn’t know what was going on here. I remember being a clueless rookie, but this year’s bumper rules are pretty hard to miss… or misunderstand.
We had an issue at a week 3 regional with our non-relieving regulator being deemed illegal by the LRI. Obviously, it was news to us as we had passed inspection at our week 1 regional. Also, I saw several other robots with the “illegal” type (evidenced by the yellow locking ring). Fortunately, we had a relieving style on our practice robot and we were able to change it out. I’ve found nothing in the rules that precludes a non-relieving regulator. Care to comment?
