"Load Bearing Surface"

Competition Rules/Strategy
1

Who is needing to make design changes to address the Answer to Question 1617?

Q&A 1617
Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered “in” the loading zone if it isn’t touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.

Q&A 978
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being “in” a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

We spent all last night trying to ensure that we would not incur a penalty for just touching the loading zone with a “feeler”. Just a few of the comments that were lobbed about were

“You’ve gotta be joking?”
“Looks like we will not be able to cap the center goal with that solution.”
“Let’s just wait to see if FIRST calls it!”
“It will probably be another one of those ‘damage the carpet’ rules.”
“Do you think our outriggers are considered load bearing if they rub the floor?”

Our team will never intentionally break a rule expecting that the ref will not call it but we also acknowledge that this strategy is commonly utilized in today’s society. As the football announcers put it, “If you don’t get caught, it’s not illegal.” Wrong! Breaking a rule expecting the ref not to call it is CHEATING.

Personally, I sure hope that straddling the zone does not turn into another, “They didn’t call it during the first regional week so it is okay to do” rule.

Are you in the same boat as we are in?
Lucien

2

Yes. And what is this nonsense about how it has to be the size of the original robot base. I know for a fact that the manual says the robot may get bigger once the match starts, but if you want to be able to score points I guess not.

3

It would appear as if using a flip-down tailgate on the long end of your robot to stow tetras is almost completely thrown out the window.

You could probably redesign such a tailgate so that it works from the side of your robot, if you had another 6 weeks…

4

I’m with you on this one, though most of my team leaders are planning to take this approach. Fortunately, we have been able to change our approach to the autoloader and get teras without changing our design. We just have to make sure a front wheel is on the tip of the triangle.

So our approach is “if they are penalizing the “straddle” we do the “toe touch”, if not we go in straight and “straddle””. If it gets to be a real issue then we will make changes at the event. We currently have weight to play with so adding a “load bearing surface” in a convenient place shouldn’t be a problem.

I regard the rule as it stands as difficult to enforce at best. Reverting to just having to be in the three dimensional space above the tetra would be a better option. I personally think it will devolve to this in practice if not in the rule book. Every year there are rules that are functionally changed during the course of the season, even if the change never makes it to the rule book. Our team leaders regard this rule as this year’s version.

The other rule they feel falls into this catagory is the high speed ramming rule. We are expecting to get hit repeatedly and hard and are designing protective measures. Even if this rule is enforced during the qualification rounds, we are expecting that it will be relaxed in the Eliminations.

If FIRST is serious about these rules, they need to be enforced rigorously at ALL Week 1 competitions. The refs, especially the head refs, need to be experienced and know the intentions of the rules. This goes double for any events that are broadcast or webcast.

5

Well, regarding the “load bearing surface” comment, I think FIRST taught the lesson very well last year that ANY part of your robot which is in contact with the floor is a load-bearing surface. After all, if it’s touching at least some amount of weight is being trasferred to the floor, right? I recall losing a few matches last year because we had a string hanging down from our robot when we were suspended from the bar, and of course the rule last year was that you had to be completely suspended - even a piece of string couldn’t touch because part of the weight of that string was being supported by the floor! :wink:

6

I will tell you FIRST enforced this rule vigorously at the UTC scrimmage (the usual official field shakedown event). We where getting penalized early on because the officials could not see our wheels through CLEAR lexan.

The intent of this rule has become murky to me. It does not do anything to better warn a field worker if the robot is straddling the triangle with its wheels rather than touching it directly. The fact that they waited to week four to create this and came up with this because of people who wanted to use mouse bots or dangle strings over the zone is ridiculous. This was a more significant change to the rules than they realized.

I hope to see some modification of the rule this week. The intent of this rule appeared to be protection of field attendents. However if you have wheels on either side of the zone the attendent should see you coming and you are still following the spirit of the rule.

Back to my point this rule will probably be enforced and the penalties involved will be significant in the the outcome of the matches.

7

I’m reminded of Dean’s mention during the 2004 kickoff of what is straddling and what is touching. (Before anyone stones me to death, I know that 2004 means diddly for 2005. Yet it remains true.)

I fully expect ghettofab during the regionals in order to meet however FIRST (and to a greater extent, the refs) intends to regulate it.

8

It doesn’t say it has to be as big as the base. It says that the load-bearing surface must be within the 28"x38" base. I think the intent of the rule is to reenforce <G12>

**<G12> **The purpose of the LOADING ZONE is to allow ROBOTS to quickly and safely receive TETRAS without interference while HUMAN PLAYERS and/or field attendants are in close proximity, and then return to play. The LOADING ZONE is not intended to serve as a “perpetual safety zone” to prevent interaction with opponent ROBOTS for the entire match. Tethers, tape measures, long extension arms, and other devices intended to contact the LOADING ZONE to maintain the “non-interference constraint” defined in <G15> while the ROBOT drives around the remainder of the field are against the spirit of the rule and will not be permitted. Such devices must be removed before the ROBOT will be permitted to play in the match.

So yes, your robot can get bigger after the start of the match. And yes, you can still score points; but you have to have a load-bearing surface (like a wheel) that lies inside your original base touching the loading zone to receive a tetra.

9

Why a wheel? From a simple physics standpoint, even a thread would be a load bearing surface. By gravity, the thread is pushing on the ground, and by Newton’s third law, the ground is pushing on the thread. Because the thread is mounted to the robot, it is applying some or all (I won’t get into complex physics) of the “equal and opposite” force to the robot. You wouldn’t even have to explain it this far, since the thread is part of the robot and it is applying force to itself. Since the thread has dimension, it has surface. And because load is being applied on this surface, it is a load bearing surface.

However minuscule, a load is a load and IMHO even a hanging thread would satisfy the rule.

EDIT: However I’m not sure that this will satisfy the “blatantly obvious” rule/suggestion. Also, what is the difference between “in” the loading zone and “touching” the loading zone. It should be blatantly obvious that you are in, but does it have to be blatantly obvious that you touch?

I think FIRST should eliminate the touching rule and keep the blatantly obvious one to eliminate all the “hoola skirt” ghettofab people will be putting on their fine quality machines.

10

For purpose of example. shrug

I agree with you; technically anything inside the (28"x38") base, that touches the loading zone is a load-bearing surface … be it a string, wheel, lexan ‘tail’, PWN cable that came loose in the match, etc etc. :slight_smile:

11

if the triangle was a box instead this would not be a problem. They got cute with the design and now it is bitting them in the butt. this issue will be up there with tethers

12

Prediction: After Looking at the Q&A’s from today, I expect Update 13 to address this issue. No more of this “Load Baring Surface” Junk.

ID:1728 Section:4.1 Status:Answered Date Answered:2/22/2005
**Q:**Can the automatic loading zone triangle be made larger or inverted so the robots can pick up tetras easier? Many 10 pt penalties at the UTC scrimmage made for very low scores. Robot base dims and triangle dims should be similar.
**A:**The loading zone triangles will remain at 36" on a side, however, because of various scrimmage results this weekend, we will increase the human player loading box from 36" on a side to 48" on a side.

ID:1715 Section:4.3.3 Status:Answered Date Answered:2/22/2005 **
Q:**Regarding the answer to ID 1617, do vertical “fingers” (skirt, wire ties, etc.) strategically placed around a base for the sole purpose of touching the loading zone HDPE “make” the robot in the loading zone. **
A:**Yes. After attending and receiving feedback from several scrimmages this past weekend (2/19), we will allow robot-base appendages that are within and remain within the 28" x 38" dimensions to contact the loading zone and be legal.

13

Get your loading-zone-feelers here. For the low price of $399, you can forget all of those, “Oh, we got a penalty because we were straddling the loading zone” headaches. With our advanced design, installation is a zip. With our advanced distribution, you can have your loading-zone-feelers TODAY! Please send $390 to

Mississippi Curb Feelers, Inc.
PO Box 55555
The Great Sate of Mississippi

and then with the remaining $9, please go to Home Depot and pick up some wire “zip” ties. As soon as we receive your $390, we’ll fax you instructions as to how to properly install the wire ties so they touch the floor :D. Please include your favorite charity with your payment and we’ll send some money to them so we’ll get a tax break and will not feel so guilty for gouging you.

ID: 1715
Section: 4.3.3
Status: Answered
Date Answered: 2/22/2005 (hours before ship)
Q: Regarding the answer to ID 1617, do vertical “fingers” (skirt, wire ties, etc.) strategically placed around a base for the sole purpose of touching the loading zone HDPE “make” the robot in the loading zone.

A: Yes. After attending and receiving feedback from several scrimmages this past weekend (2/19), we will allow robot-base appendages that are within and remain within the 28" x 38" dimensions to contact the loading zone and be legal.

**What! :confused: ** I’m very disappointed in the rules folks at FIRST. I’m not saying that the ruling soon after kickoff

ID: 978 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/11/2005
Q: Regarding <G17>: What are the parameters for being “in” a loading zone? (i.e., must some part of the robot be touching the yellow triangle, et cetera)

A: There are no yellow triangles in the loading zones. The robot base and / or drive train must be touching the loading zone. The intent of this rule is that you must be in the loading zone. By making it blatantly obvious that you are in the loading zone, you will draw far less attention from the referees.

and subsequently, the ruling on February 16th,

ID: 1617 Section: 4.3.3 Status: Answered Date Answered: 2/16/2005
Q: As related to answer 978, Is a robot base considered “in” the loading zone if it isn’t touching the hdpe 36" equilateral triangle? If so, What is considered part of the robot base?

A: No. The robot base is considered to be any load-bearing surface within the maximum 28" x 38" robot base size.

were what I wanted to see BUT this is getting ridiculous.

First of all, it is becoming far to common that when teams don’t like a rule, they whine about it until FIRST changes it in their favor. The “put-your-tools-down … oh, we-mean-put-your-tools-down-then-pick-them-right-back-up” and “no-software-development … oh, we-mean-that-you-just-have-to-type-it-in-at-the-regional” rulings come to mind for this year.

Second, it sure would be nice for other teams to be part of this magical “feedback” loop so the other teams could express their displeasure about drastically changing a rule. We probably would have said something like, “you know FIRST, we did CHOP A FOOT OFF OF OUR ARM to meet your rule; why should the teams that decided upon the strategy of let’s-whine-alot or they’ll-never-call-it be rewarded and we end up with a stubby arm.”

Third, does FIRST Q&A system work on Saturday? It sure would have been nice for them to change the rule on Saturday night instead of a few hours before ship. I’d guess that the folks that were part of the “feedback” knew that FIRST was going to address the loading zone rule in their favor.

Fourth, even though I disagreed with the initial ruling (had to be touching versus having to be in the 3D space created by some-reasonable-height-vertically-projected-zone [6" high for example]), I was giving FIRST GENIUS points for instantly making the human player very, very valuable with their rulings. Now with the super-duper loading-zone-feelers (just $399 from Mississippi Curb Feelers, Inc.), the human player becomes much less valuable and thus, FIRST loses all of their genius points.

Finally, as I tell Casey, “it’s just another problem … don’t whine about it, just solve it.” Even though the short-term solution is to make a robot that meets the new rules, part of the long-term solution is expressing displeasure to FIRST about their actions.

Congratulations on making it through the build season … and my whining,
Lucien

14

This is bizzare, i think they should change the triangles to rectangles or squares. Look at this picture from the manual, although its specifically mentioning to the human player requirements; it gives a big O.K to the loading process. Now look closely the robot is stradling the trianlge. This is a big blunder by FIRST, they should have never used this picture, our team might be able to add a load bearing surface but what about the other teams do. FIRST should be more considerate about this. Even till now its not crystal clear as to what the rules are regarding stradling. I know FIRST has done a great job creating a spectacular game, but i think they should make it better by changing or atleast not conflicting with their own diagrams. :slight_smile:

Loading.jpg
Loading.jpg875×226 57.4 KB



Loading.jpg
Loading.jpg875×226 57.4 KB

15

This may be slightly off topic, but does this requirement apply to the automatic loading station? I read through the rules and the only thing I could find was that robot A may not interefere with robot B while B is in contact with an auto. loading station. It did not explicitly mention that it was illegal to load from an automatic station unless you were in contact with the triangle did it? Is the automatic loading zone being treated exactly like the human zone, or is it different because safety issues do no apply?

16

I think this just hit the nail in the head with a sledgehammer. FIRST should definitely change the rule from “touching” to “vertically covering” the loading zone as it clearly depicts in its own images. That was a very keen observation, thoughtful.

17

Well - I see the intent of “in the zone” to be safety, obvious-ness, and loading intent.

Has anyone suggested possibly making the 36" triangles a little bit larger on the field, so that it would help avoid the straddling concern, if they want to stick to “touching” the triangle? They made them a little larger for the HP side, why not make them a little larger for the field side? Is there any specific reason why 36" was chosen? Would it be a detrimental impact to the game and rules if they made it 40", or 42", or even 46"?

I have got to believe that they will eventually accept the “obvious straddling” position as “in the zone”. But if you open it up to “just being in the 3d space above the triangle”, then you could have your robot body anywhere within 6 feet away from the zone, with it’s arm sticking out “in the 3d space”. That’s a safety concern, and it would be difficult to enforce a “no interference” rule with that because you don’t have any fixed space for the **robot ** to be in - your arm would just need to dangle over the triangle, and the refs couldn’t really judge your intent of retrieving a tetra, or if you’re just swinging the arm about.
And they want to try and enforce the “no interference”, especially for safety. So there has to be SOME type of rule that states when you are in, and when you’re not in, the zone. You have to have some “fixed” space that you can consider a no-interference zone.

My opinion, is that if they increased the size of that triangle zone a little bit, and they allow the obvious straddling position, then we might minimize some of the major concerns. Plus, making it bigger, you have less of a chance of actually straddling it. I’m guessing with the size of some robot arms, it will be difficult to get some portion of the robot “in the zone”, in an obvious manner, before touching the tetra. Some robots will have their wheel touch the very tippy corner of the triangle, and the driver will be able to see that, but a ref or someone else not at the right angle won’t. So they may get penalized “unjustly”. If you allow a little more space (bigger triangle) to make it obvious, you increase the safety for everyone and help the refs out a little to make calls.
They’re not going to make everyone happy, but I think with a few minor adjustments, it could alleviate a lot of the legitimate concerns/gripes people have.

18

Because many teams met the design requirement and it simply is not fair to change the requirements after ship. If teams are having problems meeting the requirement thus getting penalized, they might want to consider using the human player side where FIRST changed the requirements a few hours before ship.

Only a detriment to those who met the design requirement … not for those who ignored the requirement knowing that FIRST could be “convinced” to change the rules which they already have on the human player side from “feedback”.

FIRST does allow straddling if you have enough weight margin to put 40 wire ties on your robot.

In reality, the game would have been much more exciting and audience friendly if FIRST would have kept the “load bearing” rule instead of the “please put wire ties on the perimeter of your base” rule, simply because more people would be heading to the human player for tetras instead of the log-jam that will be created as FIRST makes being in the auto-loading zone easier. With that said, the human player will still be a key part of the game merely because of the congestion on the field.

If you can’t meet the requirements, change 'em,
Lucien

19

Lucien,

I agree with you on this issue, and it is frustrating to see FIRST change at this point of the season. We have been practicing with the right-sized (but thinner) load triangles, and our driver has been training to put a wheel on the triangle while picking up the tetra. Will it be easier for us to grab a tetra if we straddle the load zone triangle? Sure. Will this be difficult for referees to see? Yes. Does changing the rule make it easier for all teams to pick up tetras? Yes. However, this greatly penalizes the teams who have been busting their butts, abiding by this rule. Because of this, I disagree with the recent change and I agree with you.

Andy B.

20

Ok. I agree. I don’t think teams simply “ignored” the requirements, and I would hope people didn’t think they could “convince” FIRST to change their minds about things… Maybe some did, who knows. I think a lot of people were legitimately confused as to the intent of the rule and the interpretation of the rule. Yes - the questions and clarifications should have been asked earlier. Yes - we should have gotten clear and unchanging answers earlier. I agree - it wouldn’t be fair to those who understood the rule and designed to it.

One thing I will be interested to see, is how many penalties (if many) get thrown for robots that were actually touching the zone, just barely, but the refs don’t see it and therefore penalize them. There may be some butting heads of the “being obvious” and “touching the zone”. Hopefully teams can do both to make it easy-to-see for themselves and the refs. I’m thinking to avoid interference 30pt penalties, if an opponent robot is anywhere near the loading zone, stay away, because you may not be able to tell if they’re “just barely in” the zone.
We shall see how it all plays out during matches and hopefully it proves not to be a huge issue afterall.