Q: If a mechanism is deployed while the robot is on the platform and extends to the floor, but does not effect the height of the Bumpers in relation to the plane upon which the robot is supported, but would extend below the horizontal plane upon which the robot is located. If the Bumper height is not altered (the Bumpers have not been lifted as in EX. 2) by the deployment of mechanism, nor will the wheels leave the surface of the platform, has R24 been broken?
A: If a ROBOT’s BUMPERS are outside the BUMPER ZONE when it’s placed on a flat floor (think, single plane), then yes, R24 is violated. R24 does not accommodate multiple flat floors at various altitudes.
The ruling makes it pretty clear that R24 will not allow multiple flat floors for consideration of the bumper zone. However, what is not clear is which plane would be considered the ‘floor’ for a robot on the platform - is it the platform, or the actual field carpet? I also know that Q&A questions have to be vague out of necessity, so I will rephrase my question; is it legal to have a ramp that deploys all the way down to the carpet from a robot on the ramp?
If your robot is on the platform, that plane is the platform. If your robot is on the carpet, that plane is the carpet.
If your robot is on the platform reaching down, you’re violating R24. If you’re on the carpet reaching up onto the platform, there’s no violation (at least of R24).
How do you reconcile this answer with Question 4 since a flexible object below the robot is allowed and moves up when the robot is placed on the floor. How does this work if the ramp is not static, but rather is on pivot. Without any reconfiguration by a driver the ramp would rotate up to be even with the tires/platforms if there is only level. Waiting for answers to Questions 39 & 40.
In whatever configuration your robot is in, consider the lowest points defining a single plane (the lowest 3 points). This is typically your wheels/treads/whatevers. If your BUMPERS are not fully contained, in the volume between that plane and a second virtual plane, parallel to the first plane, that is 7" higher, you are violating R.24.
Basically you take the configuration your robot is in and transpose it onto a virtual flat floor and apply the rule. From what you describe, I think your virtual flat floor would extend from the leading edge of the ramp to the wheels furthest away from the ramp. You would have to do the math and see if you can keep your BUMPERS low enough to not violate the 7" rule.
I don’t see how you can be on the platform and unfold a ramp that reaches down to the carpet. The platform is 3.5" above the carpet. Even if your bumpers were all the way down as far as they could go ( 0" - 5"), meaning they are essentially being dragged around (not sure how you’d get onto the platform in the first place), the top of your bumpers, when on the platform, with a ramp’s leading edge resting on the carpet, would be 8.5" above the lowest plane.
Q8 was poorly worded. Their followup Q40 reveals they meant a hinged ramp sort of mechanism. I’m nearly certain the GDC was answering as if you extended a rigid mechanism below the edge of the platform. The answer to Q8 is compatible with Q4 in that light.
If that’s the case, the inspection process would involve propping the robot up 4 inches, deploying ramps, and then dropping it to the floor. If the ramps move/flex and the wheels hit the ground, you’re good.
Yeah; I did mean a sort of hinged mechanism. I will make my question as well-defined as possible by providing an image that depicts exactly what I am asking about. The ramp (in green) starts in frame perimeter, and folds down during the endgame. I hope this will make the discussion clearer.
Ii think R.24 depends on the understanding of “normally on the floor”.
If the test is to actually see if the lowered pieces would move back into compliance with R.24 when actually placed on a flat surface, a hinged ramp would be legal. If you apply the stricter test of freezing the current configuration of the robot and transposing it onto a flat floor, it becomes much more difficult, as the bottom plane (the virtual flat floor) becomes the lowest three points of the robot. Potentially this is further complicated by whether the mechanism ending up below the wheels is just “falling to the lowest point”, or being powered to it (such that it would be lifting the robot if placed on a flat surface).
I have been considering the worse case so far. Example 2 is somewhat ambiguous in resolving this as one could argue that “lifts” implies powered.
In the strict case, the interpretation is; the robot deploys a ramp, virtually transpose this robot geometry onto a flat surface (which does not allow the ramp to move back up into compliance), do the measurement.
It seems the answer to Question 4 should allow a ramp that can pivot freely, after falling under it own weight should be allowed.
Q4 allows a flexible material (i.e. velcro rope) to be dropped from the bottom of the robot. The measurement as to where the horizontal plane is not a virtual line from the bottom of the rope to the lowest wheel and then take a measurement to the height of the bumper. The rule seems to allow the rope to be reconfigured by placing the robot on a flat surface and then remeasuring.
I would not understand why the measurement would be taken at a virtual horizontal plane for one (velco to wheel) and not the other (ramp to wheel).
I like Kevin Sevcik’s test to see if the mechanism is legal. You want to be the inspector at our regional.
I believe Q4 allows a ramp that pivot freely and falls to the carpet under its own weight.
Q4 allows a flexible material (i.e. velcro rope) to be dropped from the bottom of the robot. The measurement to the bumper height is taken after the rope bends when the robot is placed back on the flat surface. The rule does not seem to provide for drawing a virtual line from one of the wheels and then to the bottom of the rope and taking the measurement at that time.
“Freezing” all movement of ramp to create a virtual line between the front wheel of the robot and the ramp to take a measurement in one case and allowing a rope to bend before taking a bumper height measurement in the other seems inconsistent.
The test proposed by Kevin Sevcik seems like a great proposal. Do you want to inspect at our regional.
IMO the key is that your bumper zone does not change to outside the bumper zone by an extension of some sort when placed on a flat plane from what I read.
So hinged or flexible should be some ways to do that, mainly trying to avoid elevating the bots bumpers on a flat plane with other parts of your own bot extension on flat planes if it was placed on one.
I disagree with this interpretation. if your on the platform and have something that hangs down but when everything is on the same plane and your bumpers are in the bumper zone your good.
So to go on the ramp thought that everyone on CD seems to be on if your ramp deploys down off the platform onto the carpet and then you move your robot to that same plane as the carpet and your bumpers are still in the bumper zone you should be OK. SO basically don’t make your ramps be held in place when down, allow them to “float” up when upwards force is applied.
Some of the GDC’s Q&A answers this year have been very specific:
when the robot is placed on the floor
While it may be in the game manual, there is nothing about “normally on the floor” in the Q&A answers (yet). A team could easily point to one of Q&A posts and say “let me place it on the floor now that I’ve deployed all of this craziness”.
To me, that means dropping a rope for others to climb is not a violation of R24. Some of the other scenarios are a little fuzzy to me at the moment.
I can see multiple interpretations of the answer, and some of those interpretations have been discussed on this thread. I personally feel that the answer given is too ambiguous and should have been phrased differently.
Agreed. The rope invalidates the first climb if it touches the platform at T=0. Alternatively, the rope doesn’t need to be that long. 2nd bot’s climb is still only 12+" though.
The GDC pulled out the “virtually transposed” card.
There is no listed answer to Q39.
Sounds like Billfred is right. Not sure why it took the GDC 3 questions to get here. I feel the GDC is just as vague in answering these questions as they have always been in the past.
The GDC pulled out the “virtually transposed” card…Sounds like Billfred is right. Not sure why it took the GDC 3 questions to get here. I feel the GDC is just as vague in answering these questions as they have always been in the past.
I disagree. To me, I can interpret this as “if you put your robot on a single plane (ramp extended), does it break R24? If not, then you’re good.” I guess it depends on how you and your LRI/Referee define transposition. Are you moving the robot or the floor?
BTW, the QA number is 70, not 71. We missed the privilege of being the beast by 2 hours.
