Posted by Dan.
Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 1/18/2000 4:37 PM MST
So far FIRST has made it very clear that robots can not be designed to interact with the field.
I interpret this to mean that your robot cannot be dependent on the field to perform a function.
But let’s say that when a team drops balls in the trough they butt up against the trough just to make sure their balls will drop properly–and besides it’s quicker to just run into the trough instead of slowing down beforehand.
Let’s also say that this robot could perform this function without the field there (ie a robot could still line itself up with the trough without running into it.)
Is this a case of a team improperly interacting with the field or just some healthy nudging?
I’m really not going to like this problem if the answer to this question is ‘No.’
:-Dan
Posted by Mike Kulibaba. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.
Posted on 1/18/2000 9:33 PM MST
In Reply to: Interacting w/ the Field posted by Dan on 1/18/2000 4:37 PM MST:
Dan,
Running into the goal has never been a problem before, I would be surprised if that made it so you couldn’t hit the goal. I’d be very shocked. Hitting it hard to score puts more wear and tear on the robot then the goal. I’m sure some gentle nudging won’t be counted against you.
Kuli Team 88 TJ²
Posted by Dan.
Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 1/18/2000 9:51 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Interacting w/ the Field posted by Mike Kulibaba on 1/18/2000 9:33 PM MST:
Perhaps I should word my question better . .
With regards to rule GM23:
GM23.Robots should not be designed to attach or climb on to the goal structure. Robots may only attach to the center cross bar connecting the goals directly above the ramp. Incidental contact with the other sections of the field pipe is acceptable. See Figure
1.3
If a team ‘runs into’ the trough in order to line itself up to drop balls, is it considered ‘incidental contact’ as per rule GM23?
I really hope so.
:-Dan
Posted by Quentin Lewis.
Engineer on team #42, P.A.R.T.S - Prececision Alvirne Robotics Technology Systems, from Alvirne, Hudson NH.
Posted on 1/19/2000 6:22 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: Interacting w/ the Field posted by Mike Kulibaba on 1/18/2000 9:33 PM MST:
> Running into the goal has never been a problem before,
> I would be surprised if that made it so you couldn’t hit the
> goal. I’d be very shocked. Hitting it hard to score puts
> more wear and tear on the robot then the goal. I’m sure
> some gentle nudging won’t be counted against you.
I thought I read in Update #3 (or somewhere) that it would NOT be allowed if the robot were ‘designed’ to use the touching of the goal in some way to perform a function…like to push against it to dump open a hopper to release balls.
It would be fine if the robot hit the goal in its normal activity of dumping balls…but it would not be allowed if the robot actually used the pushing on the goal in order to open a mechanism to unload the balls.
It is all sort of confusing to me…but I think this is how I read it. (Please advise me if I am dreaming about reading this somewhere.)
Posted by Jerry Eckert.
Engineer from Looking for a team in Raleigh, NC sponsored by .
Posted on 1/19/2000 8:39 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: Interacting w/ the Field (by design) posted by Quentin Lewis on 1/19/2000 6:22 AM MST:
: I thought I read in Update #3 (or somewhere) that it would NOT be allowed if the robot were ‘designed’ to use the touching of the goal in some way to perform a function…like to push against it to dump open a hopper to release balls.
: It would be fine if the robot hit the goal in its normal activity of dumping balls…but it would not be allowed if the robot actually used the pushing on the goal in order to open a mechanism to unload the balls.
: It is all sort of confusing to me…but I think this is how I read it. (Please advise me if I am dreaming about reading this somewhere.)
Your interpretations looks right on the money. See Q81 and Q83 in Team Update #3.
I remember reading the same question/answer. I don’t see it in the Update, so it must have been a response from Eric someone posted on this site.
Jerry