Could a ramp be lowered on the back side, opposite from rung facing side, touch the carpet for an other robot to climb onto? Assume that both robot will then climb above brick mark…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It should be counted, but only if the neither of the robots are then contacting the carpet at T=0. The situation I think you’re describing is one where a robot drives onto a ramp which is contacting the carpet (which would NOT count for a CLIMB or PARK), then is lifted by the robot supporting the ramp past the bricks (which WOULD count for two CLIMBS). The rules don’t care if you touch the carpet during your climbing process, only that you aren’t touching it when the game ends.
As long as your robot stays entirely within the Platform zone it should be all legal.
Due note that if you’re planning on having another robot climb on top of you then lifting you and the robot pair via a more traditional climb you are going to have to produce a mechanism that will be unquestionably reliable. You’ll have to convince other teams to put the life of their robot in your hands.
It could be very frustrating to pass the engineering challenge only to fail a diplomatic one.
The concern is the bumper zone. If you’re lowering things from the platform to the ground, then those things are going to affect where bumpers are relative to the robot. The GDC seems to be settling on a “virtual transposition test”](https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/88).
This. If your robot lowers a ramp while on the platform to the ground, then is transposed to a flat surface, it is likely your bumpers are now out of your bumper zone and you are now illegal.
The virtual transposition test IMO is moving the bot to flat ground carefully without any adjustments…would the bumpers be in the bumper zone once set on flat ground?
Yes then its legit IMO
No =fail IMO
And Q39 seems to be readable your way: https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/qa/39
I’m hoping they’ll settle all this once and for all in a team update this week. The impact of gravity along with the “people are only moving it” is just too close to the edge for my liking.
So in theory it should be possible to implement 2017 style climbers according to Q4?
I think the statement “of course, you can also do this test in reality” makes it pretty clear myself, but I’m not an LRI.
In theory yes its possible IMO and may be a thing considering many teams remember the velcro err hook and loop as long as on flat floor your bumpers are in the zone
Part of your robot can actually stick outside of the platform zone as part of a credited climb as long as that part isn’t in contact with the floor during the end game…note that nothing states that all of the robot must stay within the plane of the zone border… Doh!!, except for G05 as referenced below. Be sure what sticks out is still within the zone completely
For each ROBOT fully supported by the SCALE
(either directly or transitively) with BUMPERS fully
above the BRICKS at T=0, not in direct contact with
their PLATFORM, and not at all in the opponent’s
PLATFORM ZONE
The best way to think about the articulating down past your bumpers is to think about what would happen if you were to “cut the rope” or magically make the platform disappear.
If after you cut said rope and your robot were to land flat is your robot still legal? If it is that you are fine.
If after you make the platform magically disappear does your appendage/extension return to a legal configuration purely as a result of settling back into place? If it is, you are fine.
I believe G05 applies here.
It does not. As long as the robot stays inside the platform zone you are fine. Note that the platform zone is the area between the side of the scale and the side of the switch, which is quite a bit larger than the platform. The person you quoted just worded it in a confusing manner by referring to the platform itself as the platform zone.