If memory serves me right, in 2008 the inspectors at some events, if not all, used a large hoop to determine that the robot stayed with in the correct operating volume. Considering how quickly the process went, I would imagine that FIRST would use the same system this year.
That being said, the clarification on this rule will be the deciding factor between or two prospective manipulator designs… I hope it comes soon.
AS we all are Paul. Guess the GDC may need to get new calculators.
David
Yet another implication of this rule is that many/most teams are going to need to retract whatever manipulator they have before DEPLOYING the MINIBOT, else they’ll be in violation of the rule.
Here is a quick pdf of a power point slide (my favorite design tool 
).
Assuming the rule is 60" and the metric equivalent:
For a “long” oriented robot any arm can only extend about 18" from the front of the robot (not simply 22 = 60 - 38, due to the “cylinder”).
For a “wide” oriented robot, any arm can only extend about 23" (again, not simply 32" = 60-28).
Add the bumpers and it is even more of a challenge.
60 inch cylinder.pdf (11.2 KB)
60 inch cylinder.pdf (11.2 KB)
Unlike previous years’ cylinder rules, the BUMPERS are excluded from the measurement this year - thank goodness if the measurement is really 60 inches. See <R11-B>.
We hosted a 23 team FLL tournament this weekend (it was the only date we could get a venue) and everyone (and more importantly I) was pretty beat by Saturday evening. (I was setting up the kick-off course on Saturday morning early so I was gone pretty much from 6:30 to 7:30.) So we gave the kids time off until our meeting this evening. Now I have to wonder tonight whether we should really have two design tracks, one for the 60" and one for the 213.4 cm dimensions?
The design implications are pretty significant depending on which rule is correct. If it is 60", I think it makes mecanum and swerve drive much more likely, because there will not be a lot of room to use reach to get tubes onto racks. If it is 213.4 cm then more designs are possible.
Because the front bumper is in the way of your mechanism, it effectively counts (while the back bumper does not)
My point was that having the bumpers on the front side means the manipulator has to accomodate that as well - it most likely means a longer arm to get to the ground.
In 2007 - the last tube game, the bumper requirements were different.
These limitations also affect your thinking about how big the drive base should be. If you go for a smaller base, you’ll get more room to extend your manipulator. No wonder they say the minibot cannot go after the game pieces. 
Mini, mini, Mini, go fetch!
Minibot deployment mechanisms could be built to help get a little more room out of this restriction because the minibot itself (The portion that detaches from the hostbot) is not considered in volume limitations.
From <R11>
For the purposes of determining compliance with the weight and volume limitations, the items listed below are NOT considered part of the ROBOT and are NOT included in the weight and volume assessment:
A. the 12V battery and its associated half of the Anderson cable quick connect/disconnect pair (including no more than 12” of cable per leg, the associated cable lugs, connecting bolts, and insulating electrical tape),
B. BUMPER assemblies (including BUMPER covers, if appropriate) that are in compliance with Rules <R07> and <R08>,
C. the OPERATOR CONSOLE, and
D. the MINIBOT.
So if we were to only touch the minibot from the back you could extend it past the 60" mark(or whatever the dimension truly is).
By my reading, the MINIBOT is not even included in the STARTING CONFIGURATION. Wow.
Cool, all my team has to do is Velcro a minibot to a swing-out PVC stick. A drawer-like design reaches less far because of the circle.
I definitely agree with your point. No cutouts in the bumpers definitely hurts compared to the 07 bots. The bumper zone this year does begin at 1" though, so theres some consolation.
-Brando
Well I hope that the official answer comes quick.
Hard to come up with potential designs at this point, but my guess is that they will stick with the 60" rule.:mad:
Could you tell me the rule which specifies the bumper zone this year? I haven’t been able to find this dimension in “The Robot Rev -” or “The Game Rev -” Thanks
Mc,
The dimension is in the definitions for Bumper Zone. I have asked to include it in the bumper rules in the future.
Um, thanks to all for showing me that square robots don’t (easily) fit into round holes. While this doesn’t prevent an arm, it certainly adds to the challenge of using one.
Deploying minibots won’t be as much of an issue: If I have an 8" square minibot, I have about 3" between the edge of the minibot and the pole (assuming minibot is centered on the 1.75" pole). 18+3=21, I only need 15-3=12. Maybe a 24" stroke pneumatic piston to whack the minibot onto the pole…
Inspection: I propose that we supply 60" I.D. right cylinders of infinite height to each venue for inspection. OK, even 30 feet tall would be impressive…
Absolutely agree, this is causing our team to branch into 2 separate design pathways waiting to hear an update from FIRST. I do hope that they stick with the metric rule for this 
The rule gives you two possible diameters that your robot must stay within, 60" or 213.4 cm. I know which one we’re using.
Seriously, I have a strong hunch the correction will turn out to be 84". Looking at the table, it is easy to imagine how the 60" could have been a typo, mixed up with the 60" in the starting height box. How likely is it that you would accidentally pull the number 213.4 out of the air as a typo?
It’s not that I’m worried about. It’s the cylinder starting at 84" and the GDC revising it to 60" to give us all headaches then leaving the conversion that worries me.