Great looking robot. Am I off base however by asking how this robot and others like it is legal per R9, specifically parts A and C ?
Examples of items that will violate R9 include (but are not limited to): A. Shields, curtains, or any other devices or materials designed or used to obstruct or limit the vision of any DRIVERS and/or COACHES and/ or interfere with their ability to safely control their ROBOT B. Speakers, sirens, air horns, or other audio devices that generate sound at a level sufficient to be a distraction C. Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another ROBOT, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infrared proximity detectors, etc. (e.g. including imagery on your ROBOT that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the retro-reflective features of the TOWER described in Section 126.96.36.199 TOWER)
I know I enjoyed watching this robot play in Palmetto and seeing the work that went into it across the pits! Solid little robot!
great defense at palmetto
I would assume it is legal because the shield/curtain was designed and is being used to block boulders, not to interfere with vision. Were they to park it in front of an opponents drive station, then it would likely constitute a violation of R9.
I’ve been next to the robot, and given the height limitations this year it comes up to about mid-torso on me. Being a defending robot, it would be in the courtyard nearest the opposing drivers–and it just can’t get tall enough or big enough to block vision. (Even if your short robot was over on the far end of the field, a coach could take a couple steps left or right and be fine.) If it’s doing anything resembling standard defensive tactics, you’d have a hard time selling me on an R9 violation.
That said: Fantastic driving last weekend!
I’ve always interpreted R9.A to be building a robot or mechanism to face guard the opponent drive team at the driver station. 1369 in this case was on the other end of the field guarding an opponent robot.
R9.C - Other than being opaque, a plain panel is not designed to trick a sensor into believing something is there that is not.
I believe it is completely legal to build a defensive robot from a low drive base and a box on top of it less than 4’6". (That was plan “B”.)
By the way, thank you 1369 for the awesome job on defense!
I concede 9A isn’t applicable to this example. But it’s obvious that the shield/blocker does interfere with many vision systems, right? Of course you will have a hard time proving ‘intent’.
Why are you being so salty and pedantic? If an opponent bumps your robot, they’re also interfering with your vision system under that line of thinking. If the opposing drivers happen to have huge grins on their faces, they may also be considered attempting to interfere with your vision system under that line of thinking.
At that point we may as well go back to 2015’s split field. :rolleyes:
Our modular defense apparatus was designed to block boulder shots. Frankly, we did not even consider attacking camera sensor systems. In our design, we had no intent to “jam or interfere” with another robot’s sensing capability. “Jam or interfere” requires an offensive action by our robot, which it does not do. Our blocking sheet works as designed. An opposing robot’s camera tracking system still works perfectly as designed. However, in some cases - depending on the mounting location of said camera - the picture the driver sees will not be what they intend. However, there is plenty of open space for a camera to see around or under.
As far as blocking driver’s vision, we operate in our own courtyard, so only our alliance partners are close enough to impact, however it’s no more than any tall shooter.
Palmetto was Version 1 of our Defensive Apparatus. We unveiled Version 2 at Orlando. We will unveil Version 3 at Championship.