In the specs sheet, the tunnel dimensions are said to be 32.5" by 16.5". However, under section 6.2.4, the dimensions are 36" by 18".
Does anyone know which of the dimensions are correct?
In Update #3, the GDC ruled that the drawings take precedence over the Manual for determining dimensions of field components.
I find it highly inexcusable to have different measurements in different documents. I would have hoped FIRST actually read and looked over that kind of stuff.
If you read the manual you will find no contradicting dimensions.
What we’re talking about is the fact that the Manual says one thing and the drawings say another thing. The ruling from the GDC is that in this case, the drawings take precedence over the Manual.
It’s too bad because the drawings are pretty poor
OK. I just read a bunch of drawings and here’s what I think. First, you may have misread DWG FE-10043-01, the side panel is 16.5x32.5. The 32.5" is the dimension that goes in the direction of the length of the tunnel (but not the total length), not the width. 16.5" is indeed the height of the tunnel before it is installed onto the base of the tower. The base of the tower has a 1.5x3.0" Aluminum U-channel that the tunnel sits on top of. Therefore, 16.5+1.5=18" total height. The width is easier. The top panel of the tunnel is 37" wide and sits on top of the 2 side panels (which are 1/2" plywood). Therefore, total width is 37-1=36". Thus giving the final dimension of !8" high by 36" wide for the opening of the tunnel.
Hope this helps. Rookie Mentor for Potential Energy Team #3323.
+1 to this sentiment. I always have had difficulty determining measurements on the FRC Field Drawings.
When we do drawings of our drive units and such we always dimension each thing back to 1 edge of the item in the X direction and likewise for the Y. It makes it easy to determine things. The FRC field drawings often leave you doing math to figure out where stuff is supposed to be.
When you do Ordinal dimensions (back to a single edge in X and Y) you are implying a different set of tolerances than the typical dimensioning you will get from FIRST drawings. I do wish they would give us higher resolution PDFs, or even better DWG/DXF or solid files. I wonder how many people simultaneously recreated the fields in various cad packages this year.
Also note that PTC was planning on releasing Pro/E models of the field, so you can always take measurements from that.
If you want to know way too much about dimensions, pick up a copy of ANSI/ASME Y14.5-2009 (I have a copy of the 1978 version that I got for a buck).
To be honest, I would be happy if they just put more dimensions on. They put so few on that they leave us guessing and doing math on alot of things when they could have easily stuck a dimension in.
I have yet to see a single drawing from FIRST that does not suck. I’ve seen high school kids produce more complete and easier to read drawings. It’s not as though the field has a lot of (or any) complex geometry to dimension…
It’s the lack of dimensions (or dimensioning that is stupid like to the edge of a hole) that is the frustrating part. When you have to spend 2 hours going through all the drawings adding the length of all the pieces up just to get some very basic, critical dimensions of the field pieces, it’s quite frustrating.
And then you do all that and you build a ball return chute that is to “spec” (even though the specs are not really available on the actual positioning of the chute on the field) to the best you can do to their “competition field” drawings and the returned balls continually bounce off the tower top bar…it’s quite frustrating…
And then the field you had parents and students work a week building per the “low cost” field drawings and you find that parts of it are off not by fractions of an inch, but by inches (because the drawings are wrong), FIRST quickly becomes the low bar by telling students “Your drawings for parts at least must be better than FIRST drawings…”
It’s quite sad actually… Oh well…at least they got the KOP right…oh…wait…
Same in the ‘real world’… I deal almost daily with house plans & missing dimensions, or dimensions that don’t add up.
Speaking of which, the TRIDENT, GE-10010. Page one - Item#5 (part GE-10011), is dimensioned as 1" x 48, but on page 2 it is 1" x 36"
Has anyone seen a revision or update to correct this?
It is, unfortunately, pretty much the norm in any industry.
Consider any document from FIRST to be uncontrolled, and always keep an eye out for clarifications. If the hard copy is more then a week old, it’s probably out of date and needs to be replaced. You can always make corrections by hand, but I’d rather just redownload and reprint. Corrections and errata sheets should be placed before the body of the document.
Welcome to industry.
Yeah, I am in the Industry where we use documents to build and of course, we are humans and make errors. But, in this case I still feel it is highly inexcusable. FIRST pays some engineers to design the game and documents. They know, 1800+ teams need those documents to build what FIRST has designed. How is it possible that there can be different dimensions in different documents, AND have totally WRONG dimensions in the documents at first then update the later after a week in a team update? It is embarrassing.
And why can’t they just give us the field model they made all the drawings from…
Possibly one of the most massively misinformed posts I have seen so far this year.
Either that, or someone has been stealing a bunch of checks from several GDC members…
,
Are you saying, there is not ONE paid engineer on the FIRST staff?
LOL. How many members on GDC? Less than 20 I guess? Generate hundreds of pages of documentation, which is then proof read & scrutinized by thousands of mentors and dozens of thousands of students, all looking for loopholes…
I’d like to say great Job GDC, IMHO more loopholes were closed this year prior to kickoff than in prior years.
Oh, I am quite sure that there are several paid engineers on the FIRST staff. But that is irrelevant to your original comment.
I am sure the entire GDC would thank you for the comments. There are actually only 8 formal members, not 20.
.