PowerUp Rules Query: Lifting Instead of Climbing

Would lifting your robot the 12 inches using say pnematic pistons to lit the robot the 12 inches while maintaing contact with the platform? Would this count as a climb because the bumpers are above the line?


You need to read Team Update #1 (and 2, which is also in there). There are also multiple Q&As.

If you aren’t aware, the Team Updates come out on Tuesdays and Fridays, and change things about the game. Team Update 1 very specifically addressed this type of question.

You should also read rule R24, which even before Team Update 1 made the action you are describing a great way to find yourself in a discussion with the Lead Robot Inspector, if not the Head Referee.

Chief Delphi, though a great resource, is not a place for any official rulings.

The proper spot is to check is the FRC Q&A page where you can search for already answered questions and if not yet addressed ask a new one. Unclear rules often get addressed in later revisions of the rules which are updated semi-weekly.

I believe you will find the answer you were looking for was asked multiple times and already addressed in page 4 of Team Update #1.

I have read rule R24 before and I am asking this question due to discussion it was modified when on scale platform. I didn’t see anything about the scale platform other than the details of the cable protectors. Am I missing something or are you joking about the vague questions bit?


I am dumb I missed the page 4 and my couch wouldn’t enable official question answering from our team account so I cant ask one.

If your robot is touching the platform you do not get points for a climb.

If you move your bumpers above the 12" mark while touching the platform you have violated R24 and will be penalized accordingly.

TL;DR: Don’t do this.

R24 wasn’t modified. You are very specifically asking about raising your robot, by means of a mechanism extending below the bumpers, correct? Read R24, including the blue box, very carefully. The answer you are looking for is in the blue box.

Now, the part that WAS modified in Team Update 1 (as noted, it’s on Page 4) changed the definition of a Climb, just slightly. But that slight change had a major effect on what you want to do.

Still not clear to me…can the robot lift itself using an actuator pushing down on the scale platform ? Bumpers will stay attached to the frame…

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you do that, your bumpers will be moved out of the bumper zone by virtue of them being pushed out by an actuator. For the purpose of R24, refs don’t care what your bumpers are attached to, so long as they are between floor level (the bottom-most point on your robot) and 7.5 in. above.

TheRe is confusion in what R24 attempts to clarify in the blue box. It says:

This measurement is intended to be made as if the ROBOT is resting on a flat floor (without changing the ROBOT configuration), not relative to the height of the ROBOT from the FIELD carpet. Examples include:

Example 1: A ROBOT that is at an angle while navigating the FIELD has its BUMPERS outside the BUMPER ZONE. If this ROBOT were virtually transposed onto a flat floor, and its BUMPERS are in the BUMPER ZONE, it meets the requirements of R24.

Example 2: A ROBOT deploys a MECHANISM which lifts the BUMPERS outside the BUMPER ZONE (when virtually transposed onto a flat floor). This violates R24.

There are two issues:

1: It seems to suggest it is only taking the bumper zone volume to be a volume where the bumper can be ascertained to legally reside within the volume BEFORE the robot itself has changed configuration. In other words the volume seems to be defined by a stow volume configuration that does not necessarily invalidate any articulation below a bumper zone volume prior to configuration changes.

  1. It further suggests, by example 2, alteration to Bumper position, not robot position. I took this to mean that it was illegal to move the bumper position upward in direct relation to the chassis. Not that elevating the chassis is illegal.

If it had said “lift the robot such that the bumpers height exceeds…” it would have made more sense.

The confusion here is warranted. It seems to suggest that self elevation is possible because it doesnt explicitly forbid it. The language is unclear and inconcise.

Piston bots were pretty much invalidated for climbs in Update 1 as they all seemingly touch the platform to piston up PLUS most piston bots would violate bumper zone as well to elevate the bumpers to +12", the way I read that update.

If they don’t touch the platform nor violate bumper zone , then perhaps there is a way.

I’ve bolded the mistake I keep seeing people make in the many threads asking the same question. Nowhere in R24 does it specify the bumpers in relation to the frame, or the chassis, or the wheels, or anything else but the flat floor that you are using to measure the height at which the bumpers are. Nor does it rule out other parts of the robot (chassis included) moving with the bumpers.

If you set your robot on the floor with nothing but the laws of physics acting on it, are the bumpers higher than 7.5 inches up? If so, you are violating R24.

R24 would have been completely unambiguous if not for one word.

R24. BUMPERS must be located entirely within the BUMPER ZONE, which is the volume contained between the floor and a virtual horizontal plane 7 in. (~17 cm) 7½ in. (~19 cm) above the floor in reference to the ROBOT standing normally on a flat floor. BUMPERS do not have to be parallel to the floor.

What constitutes a difference between normal and not normal? Again, the rule, like the qualifications to the rule, introduce ambiguity. Does that mean it can extend past this volume in a not normal or not normalized configuration? By distinguishing normal you admit there are not normal possibilities and these possibilities are not addressed. Rather than just saying that the robot may not extend beyond the bottom plane of the robot’s volume, except for … it speaks in unclear ambiguous language.

And as everyone who has been in FRC for years knows, when First does that, there are loopholes to potentially be found…

To me IMO “normally” means from reading every Q and A so far…

IF you were to move the robot without physically altering or adjusting it “in any way” other than moving it to a flat floor to settle in … would the bumpers be in the bumper zone below 7.5" after it settled itself on the flat floor???

If so good
If not then no good

conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.


I would argue your wording is even less clear.

That explanation is clear and unambiguous. And well written in plain language. I struggle sometimes to understand why that seems so difficult a task for these game manuals

Welcome to the world of engineering. I’ve had to distill requirements before. It’s not particularly fun to run through a document and figure out what people want.

Seems like most people figure that if you want to make it bulletproof, use the most precise (and usually unintelligible) wording you can.

Here’s the way I think most people read it (or should read it)
R25 bans “articulated” bumpers. Therefore, bumpers must stay with the Frame Perimeter.
R24 says that the robot bumpers must be within a particular zone, when the robot is “standing normally on a flat surface”. Now, as we’re all aware, robots can change orientation when going over “stuff” or even starting or stopping hard. That phrase is in there to make it so that you aren’t illegal if you catch major air off a defense or get tipped up by another robot, because that would suck majorly for pretty much all teams. The idea is that if the robot was suddenly moved to somewhat of a stable position (and ideally on its wheels) it would still satisfy R24. Tipped-over robots are often considered “exempt” because if they were back in a normal orientation (like, on their wheels), they’d be fine.

But once you intentionally move your bumpers out of the zone, ouch.