The Barker Redbacks are proud to present one of our 7 FTC robots for 2024
In this Video we are showcasing Chilli our Barker Redbacks Robot (11146)
22 Likes
I have to say, wow that is elegant.
However, if I see that climber correctly, does that not violate G209? “A ROBOT may not intentionally detach or leave a part on the FIELD. Tethered elements of the ROBOT are considered detached if either can move independently of the other.” They’re a pair of hooks attached by string/rope i.e. a tether?
3 Likes
I dont do FTC so i dont have other background knowledge.
Based on this wording alone, the hooks cant move independently of the robot, so it should be legal in my interpretation.
1 Like
I think there is some concern over the use of either (bold emphasis is mine).
“Tethered elements of the ROBOT are considered detached if either can move independently of the other.”
1 Like
I was the one that inspected the 11146 bot at the Wollongong Qualifier, and I decided it was legal, as the movement of the hooks is fully dependant on the motion of the robot from which it was detached.
I believe the intent of this rule is to prevent fully manoeuvrable multibots and the stacking and scoring multibots from Recycle Rush, where the “detached” parts of the robot are able to move independantly of the motion of the robot they were detached from.
2 Likes
I don’t disagree on intent but i wouldn’t read intent for a rule.
From the manual “The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in “real life.” There are no hidden requirements or restrictions. If you’ve read everything, you know everything.”
Worth a Q&A anyway.
2 Likes
Q88 was asked regarding launching hooks on tethers (ruled a violation of G209), Q217 asked a couple days ago (and not yet answered) is about basically this design
1 Like
Certainly worth a Q&A, hopefully they answer Q217 before the National comp here in Australia.
Regardless of the intent, I hadn’t used it to rule on the legality of the mechanism.
I figured that since the hooks motion was dependant on the robots motion, than it wasn’t a violation of G209.
i.e. the hooks cannot move unless the robot does, therefore they do not move independently.
Q88, certainly brings my ruling into question, however the answer to Q217 will definitively determine the legality of the mechanism.
I think that the launching causes it to be illegal as the act of propelling the hook makes them move independently of the robots motion.
However, depositing them as 11146 do, means that their movement is fully dependant on the robots movement at all times.
For me, the iffy part of this, is that technically if a hook didn’t fully latch onto the rung, but detached from the arm and fell off, it is then moving due to gravity, independently of the robot. But ruling it illegal due to gravity just feels bad.
1 Like
Ruling for Q217 just dropped…
It is indeed a violation of G209 
2 Likes
Im sad.
In FRC we woud get a “we can’t comment on robot designs” response…
6 Likes
Why do they do this, if anyone knows?
Ok, so the answer to Q217 has now been edited and it is going to be re-evaluated and updated next week.
I did not know this was a thing they did.
2 Likes
Lots of really cool design details on this robot. Love the passive specimen grabber, the little roller sample intake, and the carbon fiber and 3D printed arm. Great job and good luck!
1 Like
It’s rare across FTC and FRC (maybe one or two every couple years in FRC), but there are multiple people that answer Q&As. Sometimes an answer makes someone else’s ears perk up and they need to huddle up.
3 Likes
some big enginerds 2023 feels here, super impressive!!