If your bot were a car it would be like standing your car on its headlights (on the platform) with your wheels and the bottom of your chassis vertical. You could build a frame that extends the permitted 16" in front of the “headlights” (i.e. front bumpers) on which the whole bot would rest. Bricks 12", Bumper thickness ~3", leaves about 1" for clearing the bricks. with this configuration three bots lined up like Texan Cadillacs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Cadillac_Ranch.jpg could meet the requirements of a “climb” without ever using either the pole or the vault. Is this possible?
Possible? Yes.
Legal? Ask R24. I just did. Emphasis mine in the blue section.
R24. BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between the floor and a virtual horizontal plane 7 in. (~17 cm) above the floor in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.
This measurement is intended to be made as if the ROBOT is resting on a flat floor (without changing the ROBOT configuration), not relative to the height of the ROBOT from the FIELD carpet. Examples include:
Example 1: A ROBOT that is at an angle while navigating the FIELD has its BUMPERS outside the BUMPER ZONE. If this ROBOT were virtually transposed onto a flat floor, and its BUMPERS are in the BUMPER ZONE, it meets the requirements of R24.
Example 2: A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS outside the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This violates R24.
Thanks EricH, It reminds me of the situation in 2016 with Stronghold and the dead lift vs folding lift. If a folding lift is allowed (as it was in 2016) wouldn’t this be just a variation of that? Since it doesn’t extend the bot structure downward (past the wheels) does it “lift the bumpers outside of the bumper zone”?
No, and yes, in that order.
When the robot is tipped on its front with your method, it’s on a flat surface. You can even argue that it’s normally on the flat surface. R24, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
The key difference between this particular move and 2016 is that in 2016, the robots were in the air when they curled, AND they had to remain within the allowed extension from the bumpers. This year, there isn’t that limit, and you’re proposing that it stay on the floor and do a handstand.
Oh, and you’re missing something else important. Take a look at G05 again, and tell me what the maximum extension is when you’re in the platform zone during the endgame.
…
X
…
…$$$$$
…$
X… $
…$
…YYYY
If X are the wheels and the are the bumpers and the Y is the structure that would rotate “down” at the end game (with $ being the arm that rotates into position after auton): the complete length of Y would be the allowed 16", which at the end game would “lift” the bumper above the 12" brick through rotation rather than physical “lifting”. Rotating my graphic 90 degrees ccw would make the bot look like a front-loader with the Ys being the bucket. Would that config work? (Ignore the periods . I had to add them as place-holders since it truncated my blank spaces)
No. I don’t know how to make this clearer, your configuration will. not. be. legal.
First, I suggest that you check how much room you actually have (hint, it’s not 16", give yourself some room above the 12" mark and make your Ys longer). G05.
But before you do that…
When the Ys are down, your robot is standing on a flat floor, correct? (The platform is flat, so the answer is “Yes.”)
And you planned to do this, so your robot is standing normally on a flat floor, correct? (See previous parenthetical comment.)
Therefore, with your robot standing normally on a flat floor, your bumpers are at least 5" out of the bumper zone. You are in violation of R24. Because you are in violation of R24, you may be called for a violation of G07 (you’re not in compliance with bumper rules).
Look, if you don’t believe me, do a search for “flipped”. A bunch of people already suggested flipping their robots over, as in turning turtle. They all got the same response from multiple people: R24 prohibits such an action, as currently read. You bet your behind somebody’s going to ask Q&A, and I’m betting that they’ll say the same thing (and then I’m betting that 3 or 4 other people try asking the same thing in different ways and get the same response).
I am not sure R24 specifically prohibits a flipped ROBOT. Nor if a flipped ROBOT will count as a CLIMB. We shall wait and see if any Q&A or rule changes come out.
But I’m not sure how anyone plans for their tipper mechanism to work without violating R24. I’m thinking it would be very hard to get a ROBOT to flip without pushing down on the floor, thus moving the BUMPERS out of the BUMPER ZONE during the tipping motion. That clearly would be a violation of R24, per the Blue Box.
Example 2:** A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS **outside the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This violates R24.
Seems pretty clear am I missing something?
IMO 16 inch extensions to headlights seems to be this very example
We were thinking of a wheel on the “front” of the bot that with forward driving of the drive wheels on the platform would “drive” up the wall keeping nothing extending **under **the bot (preserving R24). As the bot drives up the Scale wall the bot rolls back on a quarter circular cage-frame that will “lift the whole bot above the 12” tall brick height. The cage is configured so that the bot will roll onto it but stop at 90 degrees (i.e. with the plane of the bottom of the bot chassis parallel to and about 10" away from the vertical wall of the scale. Would this be legal?
Um… just put your lift or arm in the highest position and gun the motors (or take a running start and hit the brakes). This is something one usually designs NOT to happen.
Or you could push off the wall surface of the scale.
Yes, the wall push-off is a good idea. Since the mechanism of tilting occurs well above the bumper zone (while the bot is on the platform in a normal position), do you see anything in the rules that make rocking back and coming to rest in a vertical position on a 16 inch cage unacceptable as long as, in the vertical orientation, the lowest bumper is above the 12 inch brick AND there is nothing “under” the bot (Now vertical against the scale wall) other than the tires used throughout the competition?
This is what we have been thinking as well. If we were to drive up the wall until our robot was verticle (parallel to the wall), and then extend a jack, piston etc, lifting us ~16in or so off the ground, I feel that this would be compliant with the rules.
EDIT
This, exactly this. In my interpretation of the rules, that is completely legal.
No, it will 100% NOT be legal.
I am getting really tired of repeating myself. When the robot is in it’s 90 degree configuration, it is now sitting normally on a flat floor. R24 enforced.
Think about it this way: If you’re going up the platform, the bumpers will leave the 7" right? But you’re still legal, because if the ramp suddenly disappeared, landing your robot on the floor, you’ll end up with the bumpers in the zone and thus legal (after some bouncing to recover stability and all that). Same if you’re tipped up by another robot. Same if you climb up via the Rung.
But with this device, I need a very convincing explanation as to how a robot that is designed to stand there, on a flat floor, with bumpers out of the zone, is not in violation of R24. And it’s not me you’ll need to convince, it’s your Lead Robot Inspector, and they’re pickier than I am.
Or just drive up the wall
Thanks for explaining one more time.
So if I understand this better… once rotated the mere fact that it is supported by the “floor” creates a **new **“normal” for **that **bot whose bumpers are now well out of the bumper zone.
And, if that is correct, then being **suspended **from above and vertical is totally different for the rules even though the robots may end up looking exactly the same (i.e. vertical, with the wheels touching the vertical scale wall.)
Am I getting close?
You are not the GDC nor the Q&A. I think your interpretation of “normally on a flat floor” may be correct, but it may not be. To me personally “(when virtually transposed onto a flat floor)” means that you need to transpose a robot in this orientation to apply the rule. To me, a robot on it’s nose is not the same as a robot who spends the entire match driving on their wheels.
I not so sure. If you look in the blue box in G05. The bumper zone is defined by the way the robot is normally oriented to the ground, So something like a jack to raise the robot up and the bumpers out of the bumper zone would not be legal. Clearly. Now if you had a device that turned the robot upside down. The bumpers would high enough for a climb. The bumper would be inside the bumper zone as defined by the robot’s normal ground plane. As shown in the blue box. The robot is fully supported by the scale as it is currently defined. Climb accomplished. The question is worthy of Q&A if you could word it in such a way that they would actually answer it.
Now if you designed the robot to flip over and run around outside of the end game R24 would require the bumpers to be in the bumper zone regardless on robot orientation.
Why do you believe that endgame … or having wheels on the top of your ‘bot’" makes a difference?
Check the blue box and the explanation the one with the bot hanging with a big green check.
If said device flips via pushing off the ground, then for an instant, no matter how brief, I don’t see how you’re avoiding violating the bumper rules as the device pushes down on the ground and lifts your bumpers in the air.