So, similar to my thread from last year, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53331
What are your least favorite rules for this year, and why?
The 80" rule kinda bums me out, espescially with such a huge ball, makes the engineering just a bit more difficult 
. I also dislike the power distribution block, seems like a waste of space to me.
Let it out, but use GP!
oh man, a place to boil 
*Distribution block
*80āā rule
*IR limitations (only 4 commands)
other then that, i love the game 
Thatās strange, I donāt have any issues with any of the rules at all.
Itās pretty obvious that some of them are there simply to make the whole thing more challenging for us! The 80" rule comes to mindā¦
<R40> No reason.
The flag rule is the only one that comes to mind. Most designs that we developed outside of the 80" rule would have also had issues holding the trackball out that far anyways. The distribution block is kind of a pain, but we can live with it. And as for 4 ir commands, any more would be just as good as operator control, really.
I donāt like having to ship the OI with the robot.
It probably wouldnāt be such a big deal if we traditionally put some priority on building a nice-looking operator console early in the build season.
I was wondering is the LAP indicator the same as the LED Flasher?
No, the LED flasher is something you got in the Kit Of Parts, that you need to mount on your robot now. The lap counter is something that they have at the competitions, you need to leave a clear area halfway around the top of your flagholder tube, and run a PWM cable to it, and they will put it on your robot at the beginning of each match along with the flag (as best I can tell)
Well, I started out disliking the 80" rule and the lap counter ruleā¦ but really, once we learned to embrace those rules and build to them we actually came up with a much better robot as a result. After two weeks we ditched our arm design because of the 80" rule and built a shooter instead, and while it will be several weeks before the efficacy of lifters vs. shooters will be decided on the competition floor, we really like being able to launch the ball. Itās just fun! We wouldnāt have done that without the 80" rule, and we probably wouldnāt have done it as well if we hadnāt had to build to the lap counter rule.
One of the rules that does bug me, even though it doesnāt affect us, is the rule prohibiting the lamination of curved bumpers from thin sheets of plywood. That is a pretty standard construction technique and it would allow some of the teams with the more creative robot bases to achieve a really high quality of fit and finish while not providing any unfair competitive advantage. I guess I dislike it because lamination is good construction/engineering practice and the rule, as written and interpreted, seems to make it more difficult for teams to display creativity in their drive base designs.
I also canāt see why, exactly, the 2006 KOP gearbox needs to be banned when functionally equivalent gearbox options are available. Again, this doesnāt affect us, and although I appreciate the limitation of COTS parts to those available to everyone in order to create a level playing field, and recognize the simplicity in enforcing that rule uniformly, everyone in FRC has had enough experience with gearboxes to realize that there is no unfair advantage gained from using an old gearbox (or gear tooth sensor for that matter.) On the other hand, I am glad that the 2007 KOP gearboxes were specifically allowed.
I have posted, elsewhere on CD, my belief that multiple spikes attached only to low-load devices (pneumatic solenoids, for instance) should be able to be attached to a single 20A breaker, but the GDC has provided rationale for this ruling in a Q&A and I am not overly torn up by it. I do appreciate it when GDC provides rationale for decisions on technical issues.
We also are finding it awkward to set up a playing field that will sufficiently mimic the real field so that we will be able to develop and debug autnomous/hybrid code. Subtle differences between diamond plate and plywood (plywood is easy to detect with IR rangefindersā¦ diamond plate is quite tricky) and figuring out how the chainlink will respond to sonar makes things difficult. In some ways it would be nice to have āstandard bumpersā attached to the playing field borders and dividerā¦ but, yesā¦ itās all part of the challenge. This is *supposed *to be difficult.
You knowā¦ Iām really pushing it here to find something to complain about, and only post these thoughts because game and rule design is an iterative process that requires feedback. Iāve been part of FRC for five years now, and have to say that overall I am extremely pleased with the rules, interpretations and enforcement. No, itās not perfect (and yes, some of the rules bug me a bit), but it is getting about as close to perfect as humanly possible for an international event featuring 1,500 teams. I have great respect for those teams who have provided constructive feedback over the years to help refine the rulesā¦ and the GDC members who have listened attentively and addressed serious concerns in a meaningful manner.
Jason
P.S. Ironically my favorite rule is also, often, my least favorite. Ship date! It combines the bad of āOh, I wish we had more timeā with the good of āHi, Honeyā¦ Iām your husband, remember me?ā
The mandatory bumper rule. We have wasted so mush time on them.We built them exactly to the drawings and they are overweight and have to be taken apart now. I was much happier when we could decide if we wanted to use them.
All the rules are fine, it just makes it more challenging
Amen. We spend a week waiting for the GDC to tell us how to interpret the 2/3 perimeter rule on the bumpers, hoping that we could glean just a little more space based on our drive train layout. I understand wanting to protect your robot, but shouldnāt we be able to choose how much protection we want? Itās not 100% coverage so there will still be hard spots and jarring collisions, and the big, bulky bumpers are just design constraints with the current rules. Our entire drive train is 3 inches high, so the bumpers protect 0.5 inches of actual robot and 4.5 inches of empty space that we would have preferred to leave empty.
</rant>
I guess Iāll have to recant all of this when that extra bumper saves our robot from being bashed in half at a regional, but until thenā¦
The rule stating the ball must touch another robot or the floor after being hurdled, before you can touch it.
Though not because we wanted to catch the ball on the way downāitād just be way easier for us if incidental contact was allowed.
After mocking up the playing field tonight and going for a drive on itā¦ then picturing it with five other robots and three other balls on itā¦ Iāve got a feeling that my least favorite rule by the end of the season might be the size of the playing field. It is going to be crowded out there.
Jason
P.S. Please note disclaimer at the end of my earlier post.
Definitely the IR restrictions. Some of us are pretty innovativeā¦Iām sure the Mars rovers get encoded packets, so why canāt we send them?
I imagine they are trying to keep the code from needing to be too complex. New teams have difficulty getting commands from the IR board, let alone decoding packets.
But still, I hope this restriction, along with the 80" rule, are lifted at IRI. By then, no team will need them, thoughā¦
JBot
Rules 38 and 41. The idea behind it was that the rules complete each other.
However, if there is a general restriction according to which you cannot impede other robots passing, then you are not supposed to ābumpā them so that they give you space to pass.
The robots should not block for more than 6 seconds and that is about it.
Otherwise, if you do not āsignal to passā, the blocking robot would not be considered as such by the judges.
Having written that does not mean I dislike the game.
Actually it is more challenging than that of last year, yet it is easier for rookie teams to be more productive.
My biggest disappointment in the rules is the same ones Iāve had for the last few years. I feel that the pneumatic rules are too restrictive (only allowing, basically, whats in the KoP).
I believe that they remove a lot of creativity with pneumatics by not allowing teams to use things like Electronic pressure controllers, cylinders with feedback potentiometers, pneumatic actuators (other than the one allowed), Different pneumatic compressors, valves with different CVs and pneumatic motors.
I believe that, instead of only allowing specific cylinders and such, they should require teams to prove that their pneumatic system is safe by showing specification sheets for their pneumatic devices. I also believe that instead of telling teams they can only use 4 clippard volumes, they should limit the volume of the entire system (this is easily checked by putting a known volume of air into a system and looking at the pressure).
The kids (and most of us mentors ) are pretty smart. As such, instead of limiting their options, we should require them to prove that their (pneumatic) designs are safe. Lets see what wild ideas they come up with.
JMHO
Iām disappointed in the 51" flag post rule. Itās a restriction that is both an annoyance and a tragegy all at once.
Definitely the 80 inch rule in unfavorable. If it wasnāt for this rule the game would be a battle of the cranes.
Not like its a new rule, but I would love if for once they would let us try 2 batteries and/or 2 compressors.