Our team has a roller system that may breach rule [R02]
Here is a pic of our roller it is set 2 in in the frame
Does this device count as 1 appendage or if we use 1 piece of surgical tubing will it count as 1 appendage http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg823/scaled.php?server=823&filename=20120203171800.jpg&res=medium
As it is being called right now, every single piece of surgical tubing is a separate appendage, if you’re extending them beyond the frame perimeter.
Is that originated from this Q&A answer?
Q: Does an extension count as a single appendage if more than one extension originates from the same mechanism within the robot , or is connected within the frame perimeter?
A: There is no formal definition of appendage, however a colloquial definition is “a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition” (courtesy of disctionary.com). To elaborate, an appendage, when extended beyond the Frame Perimeter, is a contiguous assembly.
I really don’t know if that answer confirms or denies this.
No. You need to read later Q&A answers, or the ongoing discussion on the implications of those answers. Effectively, H-shaped appendages are out. It’s not “appendage” that’s in question anymore, it’s “contiguous” and “where does the contiguous portion have to be to not get called for two appendages?” Not fun to sort through.
I looked through all of the questions regarding <R02>, and didn’t see anything about that. Do you have a link or a suggestion what to look under?
Edit:
A lot of the Q&As ended up under G21 rather than R02. Just refresh the page and search the word “appendage” with the selection fields blank. I wish they’d let us link to specific answers.
No. From this one:
*Q: It seems the appendage definition Q&A started out innocently requesting clarity, but led to being over-scrutinized. I suspect the intent of G21 is that an appendage is simply “a contiguous assembly of parts originating from inside the frame and can extend beyond one frame edge 14”.” Please confirm.
A: There is no formal definition of appendage. All pieces of an appendage outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter.
*
And this one:
Q: Our question is similar to FRC1540. We want to put surgical tubing “whips” on a roller located at the frame perimeter. When this rotates the whips will extend beyond the frame perimeter. Is each “whip” its own apendage or is the assembly considered one appendage?
A: If multiple items exit the Frame Perimeter and are not contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter, they are considered multiple appendages.
Also this one:
Q: To prevent differing interpretations of G21 and the following Q&As on appendages could you address the legality of a appendage BRIEFLY crossing the frame perimeter in multiple places during deployment? For example, a “H” shaped appendage might cross in two places as it quickly folds out.
A: Any time the appendage is outside the Frame Perimeter, it must be a contiguous piece.
aka:
A: Yes, provided any part of the appendage that is outside the Frame Perimeter is contiguous.
and
A: Yes, but the contiguous part of the appendage must be outside the Frame Perimeter.
Since I’m not the GDC, I’ll comment on the design, too. I’d interpret this as meaning not only that the current photo constitutes multiple appendages (if extended outside the frame perimeter), but that using one piece of surgical tubing will not solve your problem if you weave it to achieve non-contiguous loops. However, if you extended the bar outside the perimeter (after the beginning of the match) with the tubing folding backward such that all the pieces only crossed after the bar and the holes in it did, you would have what amounts to a single legal, “E” shaped appendage that could then begin spinning. Just a thought; I can’t guarantee the GDC would agree, especially after the answers of late.
I really hope I don’t have to make this distinction while reffing.
Start reading later on, probably around page 4, for the discussion I mentioned.
It probably depends on your inspector. (I know, I hate subjectivity when it comes to thinks like inspection.) If I were an inspector, I would see the whole system as one appendage seeing as they all contribute to the same purpose.
This is not the case. If you read the Q&A responses and the link posted above, it is obvious that each piece of tubing would be considered one appendage, unless they were contiguous themselves.
Hmmm I see what you guys are saying, however what if you were to use one long piece of surgical tubing and did like a “weave” In and out of the roller, you would have loops of tubing (not single strands) whipping the ball into your robot for another mechanism to grab it. This would make the surgical tubing technically one appendage since they are linked am I right???
Each individual loop would probably be considered an appendage. The wording of the answers indicates that any part of an appendage that is outside the frame perimeter must be one contiguous piece. Since the loops are connected to one another within the frame perimeter, each loop is its own appendage.
if they say something at a regional run a loose string between all of the tubing
Does this mean that if an appendage has 2 protrusions but they’re connected in between, it’s allowed?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that surgical tubing would have to be one piece to be allowed?
As the rules are currently being interpreted, the answer is “yes” to both questions. Maybe we’re just being cautious, but we’re calling it like we see it.
Thanks! I was pretty sure I was right, but it’s great to have my decision reinforced by someone with such experience!
And as for the OP: You might wanna look into having that surgical tubing replaced by a single piece of longer tubing or an alternative. Time is running out!
Rubber flaps would work nicely. Similar affect, with a nice contiguous finish.
Guys,
The defining answer is…
A: If multiple items exit the Frame Perimeter and are not contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter, they are considered multiple appendages.
That defines it that what has been pictured is multiple appendages. It doesn’t take much thought though, to add a string that links all tips of the tubing together making this two appendages. Only one of which would exit that Frame Perimeter at a time making the illegal, legal.
I disagree, but I think it’s technically up to the individual inspectors at this point.
Dictionary.com states contiguous is
*touching; in contact, or
**in close proximity without actually touching; near. ***
So, since the tubing is all near each other, you should, technically, be contiguous. As to the string idea, if you do that, you might as well, make it rubber flaps, because stringed-up surgical tubing just looks silly. And flaps would probably be more effective, as well.
Nik,
Please look just to the right of my picture.
The picture does not show tubing that is in close proximity. In this case, “near” is not “contiguous” but string or other flexible binding that ties all ends together is contiguous.