Minibot non-slip pad question

robotics1208 · January 12, 2011, 5:31pm

Are we allowed to use the non-slip pads and extend its use for a non-slip belt for grip on the wheels?

DonRotolo · January 12, 2011, 5:45pm

Do you see “non-slip pads” in <R92>? If yes, then yes, if no, then no. Go look. ::rtm::

foozie · January 14, 2011, 12:42pm

What exactly would the judges consider a non-slip pad? It doesn’t really seem clear.

JesseK · January 14, 2011, 1:31pm

In FTC, the non-slip pad example is drawer liner from Lowes. It’s not a solid rubber, but more like a meshy rubber soft foam.

Keep in mind that in FTC non-slip pad is an extra allowed material. It’s not actually on the TETRIX website. Thus, if it’s not in the MINIBOT allowed materials, non-slip pad is not allowed. Read the rules to see if it is.

foozie · January 14, 2011, 2:07pm

It is.

P. non-slip pad,

GM Sec. 3 “The Robot” 4.3.14 <R92>

Thanks for the insight.

mechE131 · January 14, 2011, 2:12pm

this is just like the use of “magnets”; it could be a whole range of magnet sizes, shapes and properties.

I take vagueness as sort of a blessing from FIRST.

foozie · January 14, 2011, 2:20pm

It’s a blessing until you can’t compete because the judges have a different opinion than you.

mechE131 · January 14, 2011, 2:45pm

yeah, well you can’t put lipstick on a pig, obviously. But 19 years into this thing, I’ve never seen anyone treated unfairly.

DonRotolo · January 15, 2011, 12:57am

Unlike lawyers, engineers (and judges) know what a non-slip pad is when they see it.

No offense to lawyers intended.

Use it, but be prepared to explain why you think it is non-slip pad. Judges are pretty good people. (Extra bonus if the packaging says “non-slip pad”)