Hello everyone, we planned to deploy a mechanism from under the robot while on the chains but were unsure if any rules prevent this. What will the robot’s inspection look like when ensuring it fits within the 4ft height limit? Thanks!
1 Like
They will likely have a piece of aluminum with a crossbar at the limit for inspection. With regard to your rules question, if it’s not outlawed in the manual you can do it. I would examine the bumper rules section, because that’s likely where you’d have issues if at all.
1 Like
You had to pick a tough one…
Rules that govern this type of action are: G412, G413, R402.
G412 is the on-field enforcement of R402, so those two overlap. Violations are Fouls for both G412 and G413, but if you’re in violation of G413 and you’re helping your scoring, it becomes a Tech Foul.
Here’s why it’s tough: The Bumper Zone is in reference to the robot “resting normally on a flat floor”. In other words: If the chain vanishes and your robot lands on the floor, how it would come to rest is what governs whether there’s a violation. R402’s Blue Box includes an example of an extension lifting bumpers out of the Bumper Zone, which according to that is a violation.
How would you get it inspected? Simple: Deploy it. Work with your inspector to do a measurement with it deployed, and I would do both a “accidental while driving” deploy scenario (robot on a flat floor, deploy mechanism, measure) and a “fell off the chain” scenario (pick the robot up, deploy mechanism, set robot down). The results of those will inform the inspectors, who are likely to inform the referees as to what’s up with your device.
A consideration: You may want to make sure that if the mechanism is landed on, it folds up enough to keep your bumpers in the zone and the height under 4’. This would also help protect the mechanism.
2 Likes
By the logic of R402, would this violate the rule if the mechanism folds in when landing on the ground? Thanks for the in-depth response!
I will give you a slight heads-up, nothing to do with the rule per se–but please consider the consequences of an accidental deployment as well. I can think of at least one case that I’ve seen where an under-bumper device deployed accidentally, and due to its use case it wasn’t a soft fold. Bumper violations hurt worse when you also can’t move, and it’s F3 (er, F5–but shown as F4 because replays).
So yeah, having it able to fold in if it’s landed on is quite a good ability to design in, not just for rules reasons.
2 Likes
I believe this rule means that no matter what, your bumpers cannot be more than 7.5 inches higher than the lowest point of your robot, making under the robot extensions non-viable unless the bumper moves with them. There is always considered to be a virtual floor under your robot, even when suspended, and the bumpers have to be in the bumper zone relative to that virtual floor. A good example of this would be the 4907’s jump climb in 2022. The bumpers are always the lowest part of the robot.
Edit:
Looking at it further: That is definitely the case as defined by the examples under rule R402.
4 Likes
Thanks for clarifying the rules. We’ll keep this in mind from now on.
I’m going to suggest re-checking your phrasing.
Because bumpers CAN be more than 7.5 inches higher than the lowest point of your robot, in cases where the robot is at an angle. If the rule meant what your initial assertion says, every single robot out there would be illegal at one point or another. Given Example 1, that’s obviously incorrect.
That said: If you read Example 2 of R402 again, you’ll find that if an under-robot extension does not lift the bumpers outside the bumper zone, it’s actually going to be legal. The illegal part is the “lift the bumpers out of the zone” part. So an under-robot extension MAY be a viable option. It’s going to depend a lot on the design and use. Under-bumper horizontal extensions, for example, could be an interesting solution to a problem or two… or not.
1 Like
PSA for those considering this type of mechanism:
How will inspectors and/or refs (because it’s in both R and G rules) determine that? If the robot is moved back to a flat floor, will that mechanism support the robot and thus cause the bumpers to be more than 7.5 inches above the floor? Or would the mechanism collapse and the robot would settle back into it’s normal playing configuration? Do you want to put that question to the test?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.