Our vendor thought the intent with the HIGH GOALS was to have the outside corners powder coated red or blue to match the rest of the HIGH GOAL. This is contrary to the instructions we provided the vendor, but we feel the schedule risk to correct this issue is not worth the potential benefit. We have updated the images throughout the manual to reflect the current situation. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience teams experience because of this change.
I’m not sure what it means…
It just means their manufacturer messed up. Not really a big deal, the high goals just are aesthetically slightly different.
The images in the manual previously showed parts of the high goal(specifically, the square around the arcs on the ends) not having their corners powdercoated. That was FIRST’s intention in the design. The vender they contracted to make them did not due that, and instead powdercoated the entire thing. They modified the manual to reflect that.
If you compare these two pictures, you can see the difference at the corners of the HIGH GOALS. The updated game manual specifications now include the colored corners, whereas the field shown was how the GDC originally intended the field to look.
Compare Fig. 2-12 in the Arena section of the manual to all the (new) field renders.
Probably not a game impacting difference.
http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term%20158
That’s very interesting. I don’t see it as a big deal.
Just use black duct tape, no one will notice it and no one will complain about it!
Or just leave it as is. No one will notice and no one will complain about it!
Yeah. I really hope nobody’s design solely relied on not having powder coating on the corners.
Well, there goes our bare aluminum corner tracking full field navigation system…
Made my day!
All that off-season, “just in case it happens this year”, work for nothing!
The kicker here is, we initially had someone suggest that but was rejected for being extremely too unreliable and difficult-to-control. We don’t usually reject ideas without at least trying it, but this did kinda hit one of the exception clauses for that almost on the mark…
