Safety inspection regarding open wheel shooters?

FIRST General Forum
#16

you are correct Gregor. We never had to put a shirld on ours. In fact we use to have a shield over it but took it off because there were more pinch points with the shield. If you just have a wheel then you are less likely to get hurt, if you have a shield over it you have 10X more pinch points. If you were to put your finger (please don’t do this!) into the shooter wheel at full speed your finger is likely to just bounce away, maybe get scraped. you may get your finger turned around the wheel a few times (as long as you don’t have something across the wheel stopping your finger). If you were to have a cover that has holes in it then if you were to put your finger in it your finger would get pinched and broken off (likely). If you were to put it in between the tread and outside of the guard you will get your finger pulling in and ripped off. I don’t see how putting a guard on your shooter wheel will protect you at all. Another reason we took it off was because while testing our tread ripped off from the guard and jammed up the shooter wheel, which if I left the shooter turned on the motor could have possibly burned, and possibly started a fire.

I don’t see how putting a guard on can possibly make the shooter wheel safer… The only thing it would help with is stopping tread from flying out, which while on the field won’t hit anyone because the field is enclosed.

#17

Nobody even mentioned it to us as a possible concern at FLR. Then again, with solid rubber 6" Colson wheels on our shooter, the probability of their experiencing some kind of structural failure approaches zero.

#18

I don’t know of any Hatboro Horsham robots that had to put on guards. We certainly did not.

I’ve Q&A’d a request for more guidance. (Not that I have overly high hopes) We’re squeezing ounces, but we certainly want to be safe (and legal). A “finger guard” is doable if useful, but if LRIs feel that shatter guards are necessary, that could be some serious practice night rework (and weight). What is the guard intended to actually do, and how can it best do so while avoiding pinch points?

#19

We were never told it either, and we were running the new Nylon VEXPro Traction Wheels

#20

I would like to see an official response/Q&A from FIRST on this.

#21

The field isn’t enclosed; that net would only stop a very big piece or something smaller by blind luck. There are plenty of people standing close enough to the field that they’re in danger if something big kicks off the field.

No guard will make these wheels 100% safe; that’s not the point. But if we prevent damage in even one case it’s worth it, imo.

It would be best if the GDC had actually codified this from the beginning. They didn’t, as we all know. It’d be good if they answer the Q&A, or if the LRIs come to a common agreement & publicize it. Hopefully that happens.

#22

You’re joking, right? A guard with holes you can put a finger through is not a guard.

Another reason we took it off was because while testing our tread ripped off from the guard and jammed up the shooter wheel, which if I left the shooter turned on the motor could have possibly burned, and possibly started a fire.

Again, I hope you’re joking. If the guard hadn’t been there, that tread would have gone flying in an indeterminate direction. Wouldn’t you agree that a fried motor is preferable to an injured student?

The only thing it would help with is stopping tread from flying out, which while on the field won’t hit anyone because the field is enclosed.

The field netting is sized to stop frisbees, not nuts and bolts and chunks of wheel tread. Note that the robot is only running on the field for a few minutes at a time, while it’s likely to see hours of use in the pit where no such netting exists anyway.

#23

We have been very worried about this recently, especially since our shooter has many reasons for possibly needing one. Our shooter wheel is one of the KOP wheels from last year with some tread bolted to the outside. It’s a 90 degree angle shooter with no top and a rather large belt above it that powers the wheel from the CIM. Our wheel has spokes and sticks out about 1.5-2 inches out from the front of our shooter plate. Unfortunately, the shooter is in the bag with the robot and there are virtually no mounting points for a guard. Even if we could mount a guard, much of the shooter wheel would still have to be exposed. Would you not pass us through inspection because of this? (I ask this as we are currently working hard on a shooter guard, but I need to know if we should start going into to overtime).

#24

@Inspectors

What would your ruling be on this mechanism?

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27736599/IMG_1263.JPG
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/27736599/IMG_1264.JPG

I get the feeling that I already know the answer, unfortunately…

#25

It’s hard to tell, exactly, from the photos what the rest of the mechanism looks like, but it does appear that you have high speed rotating equipment exposed. It also looks like it should be relatively easy to put a thin layer of polycarbonate around the exposed part of the wheels.

I’d also like to recast your final sentence… “fortunately it looks like it will be relatively easy to improve our shooter’s safety”. I know you don’t really consider it unfortunate that your robot should be as safe as reasonably possible.

And I think that’s what I’d be looking for… FRC robots are large, powerful machines. There is an inherent danger in working on and around devices such as these. It would be impossible to remove all risk from a shooter… I think what we all want to do is reduce the risk as much as possible. Having a needlessly dangerous machine is not particularly good engineering practice.

Jason

#26

So if a team has ran their wheel and shot roughly over 500 frisbees with mentors and students by a semi covered wheel (meaning that it can not fly off its motor shaft) then will it require sheilding. I understand the need for safety, but if it has been proven safe during testing then why would their be a need for a fully covered wheel? I understand the reason behind it, but I personally believe my robot to be safe even though it has an expossed opening. I wish first would set a rule update to R08 to set a standard on the issue.

#27

image.jpg
image.jpg960×720 228 KB


image.jpg
image.jpg960×720 228 KB



image.jpg
image.jpg960×720 228 KB

#28

image.jpg
image.jpg960×720 200 KB


image.jpg
image.jpg960×720 200 KB



image.jpg
image.jpg960×720 200 KB

#29

I’m sorry, but there’s no possible way for anyone to prove shooters are 100% safe. Any of these could occur when your shooter happens to be pointing towards the crowd or a volunteer next to the field:

  1. A bolt comes off another robot & falls into your shooter.
  2. The wheel decides to come apart due to the forces imparted on it by a frisbee.
  3. A student is feeding a frisbee into the shooter on the practice field at your event. Another robot is mis-aimed & fires a frisbee into the back of your student’s head, startling him or her. He or she flinches and puts fingers where they shouldn’t have been put.

You can come up with other scenarios, I’m sure. Although we can’t shield to prevent ALL possible problems, it behooves us to add shielding to limit the issues.

I agree with you; it’d be best if the rules gave us more specificity. Hopefully an update is coming.

#30

Unprotected/unshielded shooters, team balanced wheels, flying parts and injury to participants are a concern for everyone. This is currently in discussion as to how to proceed in the future. The LRI will make the decision based on direction from FRC HQ and your actual implementation of parts.

#31

My only other issue with this is that uncovered wheels last year did not come under as much scrutiny as this year even though the same rule is in place. Also many freak accidents can occur at a regional and I would like to caution teams to focus on proper safety measures when they are testing their robots. Teams should make sure that they have total control of their robots when they are on the practice field whether the robot is shooting, using pneumatics, or climbing. I would like to add to this that the new 888’s fans can draw blood quite easily. ::safety::

#32

In light of the current discussion, we took off the wheel & are using our tee shirt cannon. Not sure what the rules say about sticking the barrel up the feeder.

20130306_215220.jpg


20130306_215220.jpg

#33

Here is what Q&A has to say.

Q. Would FIRST be willing to publish further guidance on the guard/protection requirements for open-wheeled shooters, in order to help teams operate safely and prepare for smooth and consistent inspection processes?
FRC1640 on 2013-03-05 | 4 Followers
A. Due to the large number of design parameters which affect the safety of a particular ROBOT MECHANISM it is not possible to provide absolute guidelines regarding compliance with [R08]. When considering MECHANISM safety, teams are advised to consider factors such as velocity, exposure, and material ratings. The Lead Robot Inspector at each event has final authority on any ROBOT’S compliance with [R08].

#34

We just completed the Central Valley Regional in Medara, CA. Upon arrival there was a lot of concern from Inspection. But as we talked further, the biggest concern was regarding those Robots with riveted on threads that could have a rivet or rivets fail and fly off the Robot. They were also looking for Robots that had balanced their Shooter Wheels. This was a plus with Inspectors. We did balance our wheels. Our Team did not bring material to make a cover. So, we were at the mercy of Inspection. But after further review they passed our Robot. I suspect this issue is not dead and when we go to the Silicon Valley Regional, in San Jose, Ca we will “face the music” again. Our Shooter is a two Wheel Linear Shooter with two Pneumatic Wheels.

#35

I’d be surprised if anyone questioned 1551’s shooter wheels. We chose 6" x 2" solid rubber Colson wheels for two reasons, and one of them was that the chances of their causing harm to a person (who didn’t try to, like, lick them at speed or something) was vanishingly small.