Would the following work as a 3 climb possibility? Robot one deploys a ramp (12" tall) for robot 2 to climb, then robot 1 lifts itself using the rung to climb, Robot 3 uses Levitate, or climbs the rung also. Would this be a 3 robot legal climb?
Robot 1 is illegal.
Remember that the bumper zone is dependent on the lowest point of your robot.
If you deploy a ramp and then lift your wheels, your wheels are no longer the lowest point on your robot and therefore you are violating bumper zone rules.
Good Call. I will leave this post incase anyone else finds it useful, but it sounds like the situation is settled.
I’m not so sure about that, actually… I think it would need to be Q&A’d.
Specifically, consider this scenario: A robot (without a ramp) climbs from the rung, but has something like a piece of string that dangles down and touches the floor. Is that robot violating R24?
Extending from that scenario, if the connection between the ramp and the rest of the robot is flexible, the ramp wouldn’t prevent the bumpers from being within the zone if the robot was lowered to the floor (depending on design specifics, of course). I would give it a 50/50 chance of being ruled, in concept, legal on the Q&A.
Only downside to asking this in Q&A is you’ll get the classic and really stupid response of “we don’t respond to robot designs”
“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.”
This would suggest that the measurement is made in that freeze frame of time, in the robots normal orientation (vertical facing robots can be rotated to their standard horizontal position without moving any parts of the robot).
If you lower the robot to the floor before taking the measurement you are changing it’s configuration (string tight config / string loose config).
So take the robot off the rung and measure it… oops, the robot just fell to the ground before you could get the tape measure out. Now what do you do?
As I said, 50/50 on what the Q&A will say. If you don’t ask, then all you’re doing is making assumptions.
I thought we weren’t supposed to interpret the intent of a rule
The intent of this manual is that the text means exactly, and only, what it says. Please avoid interpreting
the text based on assumptions about intent, implementation of past rules, or how a situation might be in
“real life.” There are no hidden requirements or restrictions. If you’ve read everything, you know
everything.
He’s not.
He’s using the Blue Box which gives the official intent of said rule. That’s “passing it on” not “interpreting”.
This is more awesome than our off-the-wall idea of chessecaking our 2017 climber onto another bot and letting it climb a rope we drop for it.
(i.e. this was already going to q&a)
R24 as-worded seems to have a lot of unintended consequences w.r.t. nifty robot designs and strategies. Hopefully it gets updated.
Im definitely not saying “you shouldnt ask”. If you feel like you dont understand the rule as written then thats exactly what the Q&A is there for.
This question is brought up EVERY year there is climbing. In one form or another.
I get the confusion however.
The way I think of it best is to take a picture of the robot and make a cut out. If you can make the cut out follow r24 without altering it’s shape in anyway then it’s legal. I can rotate the cut out in any orenitation I want but I cant change the cut out in any way. The cut out is the way it is when I took the picture.
You are free to ask the Q&A and I will be quite happy to hear if I’m wrong as it would open up more out of the box solutions. 
I personally expect the platform to become “not part of the scale” for purposes of the climb, that the intention of “fully supported by the scale” really means “fully supported by the rung and the side face of the scale”.
However, assuming I’m wrong and the platform remains part of the scale for a climb:
What about two (or three) robots, each of which have such a ramp. All robots deploy their ramps and climb another robot’s ramp.
What about a robot climbing its own ramp?
If you leave a ramp on the ground, then the height of your bumpers will be counted from there … Plus you’d have to tether to the ramp as ‘detaching’ things is against the rules
I’m actually expecting it to be made explicitly clear that a ramp-bot on the platform is a legal way to get climb points. It comes to interpreting G17
Don’t climb on each other until the end. Unless during the ENDGAME, or attempting to right a fallen (i.e. tipped over) ALLIANCE partner, ROBOTS may neither fully nor partially strategically support the weight of partner ROBOTS.
The phrase “climb on each other” to me implies a ramp, not deploying a bar another robot can grab and lift on. The wording of the rule makes both methods legal in the ENDGAME. Of course, an update to section 3.3 that makes the platform not part of the scale would let this rule still be legal, but remove the climb points for it.
I love that this design concept is cropping us elsewhere.
Although I prefer the other version. Have the 2017-style climber on our robot and cheesecake the rope onto other climbers. It’s a lot easier to cheesecake a passive rope than something motorized.
We’re considering having a structural 1-1/2" diameter bar (perhaps two) which will be horizontal as we climb. Then, some robots can just latch on with their climber. All we’d have to cheesecake on to a partner would be a couple of hooks rigidly attached to structural components.
Where are the bumpers in the picture ? If not on the ramp I don’t see how that flies. Ramp is part of bot 1 correct?
I don’t understand the thought process behind posting a potential competitive advantage on a forum that thousands read. Another avenue might have been that you could have submitted a Q&A that 99% of folks in FRC would never have read.
One of the reasons that teams like 71 and 469 obtained legendary status was largely that they showed up with a concept that few others considered or had the courage to attempt.
I love openness in design… but I don’t understand sharing something that might have helped you win.
It’s a philosophical choice. Some teams chose to operate in complete secrecy, prioritizing winning themselves above helping others be better. Other teams share everything they do, prioritizing helping the community be better above any competitive advantage they gain by being secretive. Most teams operate somewhere between those two extremes. Where your (the general you, not you personally) team chooses to operate is much like the classic mentor/student balance question. It’s up for each team to decide for themselves, there is no one “right” answer, and there will always be people who can’t understand why other teams make different choices than their own team.
I guess it depends on what your goal is.
If your goal is to inspire your team to win on the field, then I understand your confusion.
I would rather choose to inspire as many kids, around the world, to think differently … and consider options that they may not have considered before.
FIRST uses the sports competition model to hook the kids and inspire them to do what most believe they cannot. I believe that as long as the kids are inspired, it does not matter if they won on the field.
I’ve see kids inspired by winning regionals, I’ve also seen kids inspired by the robot just moving. If an idea I posted here inspires 1 kid in another part of the world, I have succeeded for that year.
JM(ns)HO