New robot rules at Peachtree

FIRST General Forum
#41

Team Update 2014-2-18

“General Updates
As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams to prioritize safety when transporting their ROBOT on and off the FIELD, to include transporting the ROBOT in its lowest potential energy state and/or including lockouts to help mitigate unexpected release of stored energy. Inspectors will ensure ROBOTS comply with R8 and do not create unsafe conditions. If inspectors feel your ROBOT is unsafe to be transported while storing energy, they will work with you to add lockouts to help mitigate the unexpected release of stored energy. If you are unsure as to whether or not you need lockouts, it’s best to be on the safe side and assume you do. Per T12, the Team should be able to safely release stored energy and be able to demonstrate this during Inspection. If the ROBOT creates an unsafe condition for people to be around it, on-FIELD troubleshooting prior to the MATCH will be limited to that which can be achieved safely.”

FIRST does want this so the LRI is inside the rules. To me the only debatable thing is should FIRST have made this a part of the rules at release or at least earlier on in the season (like week 1 or 2). I’d guess a safety devise designed into a system from the beginning would be a bit better than one hastily attached at a regional.

#42

In the spirit of debate, I can give an answer.

Pinch points are usually small well-defined locations. They a problem for people who are putting body parts into those locations, and are generally safe if the robot is disabled*. If you aren’t touching the robot, you’re not in danger. However, stored-energy catapult mechanisms can be a problem for people who are merely nearby. They pose a danger over a relatively large space, and it’s often possible for such a mechanism to be fired even when the robot is completely powered off.

  • If a pinch point can cause injury without the robot being enabled, I’m all for guarding it well.
#43

Perhaps a little history and experience here would help…
The nature of the game has led to some teams using unusual designs to launch the ball. While most teams design in some form of safety locks or other actuation devices, when needed, other teams do not**. ** This year, far more teams are using pneumatics than in past years. Many of those teams have no experience with pneumatics and have no mentors who use them in daily work. The same is true for springs and other deformed robot parts and yes chains and sprockets. While many of you do not remember the safety warnings of past years, I can tell you they were there. Robot inspectors find unusual mechanisms every week so it is not possible to make a statement about one that covers all mechanisms. Most teams that have experience with the actuating parts they are using, know how to design in safety to prevent any harm to participants and to volunteers. If you are one of those teams that has been unable to design a mechanism that can be safely carried to the field and will not accidentally release when touched by a student or volunteer or by a robot inspector, then plan to be asked to add something to prevent this occurring. There are a number of ways to accomplish this and the Inspectors will assist you. I am sorry if this produces a little stress for you or your team. There have been minor injuries this season and at least one unexpected release where the lock prevented an injury.
Even the team may not be aware of the danger that lurks within. If you have never been in the queue waiting to take the field, then don’t ask me to explain how dangerous it can be.

Please remember that boy and girl scouts, FLL and FTC students, parents and grand parents, little children and non-technical folks will be roaming the pits and assisting with the field in every venue including the Championship. They have to be protected as well.

#44

I’m perfectly fine with inspectors expecting this at events. Anything spring-loaded or pneumatically actuated can be much more dangerous then people expect.

Because of the frame perimeter rules, our robot has to start a match with the catapult cocked because otherwise it sticks out of the perimeter. What we do while it i like this is we run a tie-down across the catapult to a few eyehooks on each side. It was very easy to put in, and any team that moves with lots of stored energy should do this. Now if they would let us start outside the frame perimeter in the name of safety, we could solve a decent amount of these problems, but they will never do that.

#45

My team actually had a very clever implementation on how they keep the catapult safe. If you click the link, you see that they’re running a surgical tubing powered catapult, which they’ll load after they’ve placed the robot on the field. However, they still keep the winch for the catapult ready by running the line for the winch to a carabiner, which they’ll unhook while in transit.

#46

OK - as the LRI who “started” this, some background.

When I saw the designs of a number of teams at our scrimmage, I became concerned about the potential for injury due to the potential for the “stored energy” mechanisms to accidentally deploy while being handled. In discussions among the LRI’s, it became apparent that I was not alone. Week 1 events announced the “requirement” for a safety interlock if the robot was to be moved in a stored energy state. I proposed this to my Regional Committee who decided to await further developments before announcing the policy. As results of injuries - even minor ones - began to come in, and bolstered by the GDC’s Team Update - we decided to emphasise the need for a safety device. As noted previously by Dr. Bob, who worked with me to develop the wording of the announcement, this was not a decision taken lightly. His post accurately describes the thinking behind the process

It is not my nor the Peachtree Committee’s intention to place an undue burden on teams, but as noted earlier, the intent was merely to inform teams that the inspection team would be looking for safe operation of the teams’ robots - particularly when being transported. As stated in the notice to the teams, recognizing the implications after Stop Work day, the implementation of a “safety device” - probably better wording in hind sight than “safety interlock” - the weight of the device wouldn’t be counted in the 45 pound limit for fabricated parts and as long as it was “removed” from the robot in the starting configuration, would not be counted in the robot weight. I also noted that the inspection team would be open and receptive to innovative safety devices.

As has been noted, the expectation is that the device would be as simple as a bolt through a rod, a strap or tie-down to restrain the mechanism, or any equivalent simple device - not to require some elaborate device that would place a burden on teams. Also, as has been noted, my intent was to get the word to the teams prior to the event so they could think about it and develop a simple, basic device to assure the safety of their mechanism and to meet the intent of this policy. Suggestions in this thread alone are basic, easily implemented devices for many designs. If a team’s device is inherently “safe,” the inspection team will require nothing more.

I trust that teams will agree with the intent of the policy. My and the Committee’s only intent is the safety of the participants.

Jeff Rees
LRI Peachtree Regional

#47

I agree. Orlando had a similar issue where our inspector “made up” the pneumatics rules as he went along. We pulled up the diagram in the manual and asked him where we wrong and where told “its not on there but its not ok”. So we fixed that problem and where then ordered to move our main breaker because he felt like telling us to move it.(no rule was violated whatsoever).

None of these “unofficial” updates where conveyed to us before the event.

#48

Out of curiosity, was was the issue with the pneumatic? And was your main breaker easy to reach before you had to move it?

#49

I applaud everyone involved in this decision for pushing for changes to help ensure the safety of all participants. Considering the inherent risks of transporting a loaded stored energy device, in the interest of safety wouldn’t the best solution be to not allow these devices to be transported in a loaded state at all? Especially considering the concerns expressed by some regarding the safety of actually applying the lockout device to a loaded stored energy device, it seems that the safest solution would be to transport your robot to the field while the device is not loaded, then tether up and load the device once on the field.

#50

We had our pneumatics done as the diagram had showed. however, the inspector required us to add a manual valve and pressure gauge to our off board setup despite both already being installed on the robot.

Our main breaker was installed about an inch in from our chassis perimeter out of reach of any moving mechanism. We where told to move it within 2 inches of our shooter arms.

#51

R89 says the manual valve needs to be in both places for an offboard system. The stored pressure gauge can be in either place… but I think the inspector took a good idea and made it law.

FYI, if you disagree with an inspector, ask to see the LRI, and the copy of the Manual the LRI should have with him.

#52

Nope. It states that a pressure vent valve must be in both places. This is different from a ball valve. We had a pressure vent valve in place on both but where required to add a ball valve in addition to our vent valve on our off board setup.

#53

When you plugged in the compressor to the robot, did this go through your (at the time, one and only) manual ball valve? R85 (Figure 4-16) shows the ball valve as still be available to vent all pressure while an off board compressor is hooked up to the system. The intent is for the manual release to be available at all times - for those purposes, having two on the robot or one on the robot and one with the off board compressor satisfies that intent, and helps keep the entire system safe.

#54

The compressor’s vent valve (solid brass, trips automatically, also known as “Pressure Relief Valve”) or the “Pressure Vent Plug” (better known as “dump valve” and activated manually)? The compressor’s pressure relief valve, I’ll buy. But R89 specifically calls for the pressure vent plug, NOT the relief valve. It’s not shown on any diagram (in that part of the circuit, at least).

#55

There needs to be a sense of reasonableness about this. Sure, hauling the robot to the field in its lowest energy state would certainly be safer, but there are safe ways to move the robot in a high energy state. We have allowed pneumatic systems to be moved in a charged state for a number of years, and if the system is designed and built properly, there should be no danger. For instance, if the pneumatic system only has air stored in approved tanks, and this air is isolated from actuators with approved valves, everything should be OK, and there is no real need for interlocks. If, however, the air valves are in an open state so the stored air is being fed to actuators which are PHYSICALLY restrained from firing by some mechanical latch, then inspectors are going to look long and hard at that robot.

On the practical side, there is not enough setup time on the field to allow some robot designs to fully charge their air systems. Charging while in the queue line doesn’t help since the most dangerous time, in my opinion, is between removing the robot from the cart and placing it on the field; here is where kids are in close contact with the robot. Likewise for some spring systems.

The compromise is to design the robot so it can’t accidentally deploy while being moved.

#56

Sorry for being so unreasonable. :frowning:

Shouldn’t safety trump match timing. If this is that big of an issue and risk to participants, shouldn’t we sacrifice a few matches to ensure the robots are as safe as possible? At what point does safety become a secondary concern behind cycle times?

#57

Can you confirm whether the underlying authority to implement this restriction stems from the robot rules (2014 game manual, section 4), or some other authority, like the inherent responsibility of the event organizers to conduct the event in a safe manner? (Please specify the exact rationale and supporting rules/principles.)

#58

I agree with this decision. Once our team started to test our shooter I told them I wanted a safety installed back in January. I would not want to be the LRI that let this go by to make people happy about the rules and a student gets hurt. He also has to live with his decisions.

#59

R8

ROBOT parts shall not be made from hazardous materials, be unsafe, cause an unsafe condition, or interfere with the
operation of other ROBOTS

If the in LRIs view the robot is unsafe, it is in violation of R8. This is not new. Not unheard of or even infrequent that robots have been modified to meet this rule. Even even when at other competitions. the robot met this rule.

#60

And Tristan - isn’t it nice to know how a rule as vague and all encompassing as R08 is going to be handled before you actually get to the venue?

The LRI here could have just kept quiet until the event, then walked around telling teams they needed to rig something at the event, and there would have been no room for complaining. Instead, a pro-active approach to the issue is raising complaints here.