Team Update #15

Prepopulated gears are marked with alliance tape.
S12 - use of ladder clarified
C08 & placing gears on robots expressly forbidden
G20-1 addition - Robots have to climb the rope to trigger touchpad (Seems obvious?, but I guess not)
G26 clarification; pilots can now legally hand gears to each other
District Advancement changed

It has to be asked… who’s strategy just got nerf’d by G20-1?

If my math is correct:
The size 36x40x24 maximum diagonal is 4’ 10.9".
The size 30x32x36 maximum diagonal is 4’ 8.7".

The touchpad is 4’ 10" off the ground, and needs to be depressed by 1/2" to activate. So technically short robots could reach it without actually climbing the rope.

900’s harpoons?

A robot climbing on another robot?

Continuous stream of fuel shot at the touch pad???

Since the max height of the robot is 36", and the touchpad is 58" from the floor, there is no way for a robot itself to activate a touchpad without climbing.

However, you can design a shooter to shoot fuel straight up. Most of the fuel would fall back into the robot. If you could keep that up for 1 second …

See G14. “Don’t climb on each other”

See G21. “GAME PIECES: use as directed”

Plus the blue box in the update specifically mentions “Use of FIELD geometry to signal a ROBOT is “Ready for Takeoff” without climbing the ROPE is an example of a violation of G20-1.”

It’s hard to tell without access to a real touchpad, but I could believe that a legally knotted rope could be made which could trigger the touchpad in basically the method pictured in the blue box, being yanked real hard sideways instead of being climbed.

I wouldn’t be worried about the max height if I were the GDC, but rather the max diagonal within a robot…

That would be tricky without violating the bumper rules. You could use the rope to rotate the robot without the robot ever getting airborne. At that point, it would be easier to just climb.

FYI: Putting a Gear in the corner of the Bot would give you another 10 inches or so. (that would violate G21 too).


Hang on, why isn’t New England sending the max number of Dean’s List Finalists?

This totally makes sense!

Basel asking the hard-hitting questions. Don’t invite him to your press conferences, folks.

I wonder if a team planned it that way, or if it happened by accident at a week .5 event.

Now that they mention it, it actually seems easy for a pilot to trigger the touchpad by pulling the rope into the airship.

That would violate S07.D.: “the PILOT may neither … contact any part of a deployed (i.e. any part of the ROPE is below the deck of the AIRSHIP) ROPE.”

They wouldn’t be touching a deployed rope if they were pulling up on the rope from above the airship railing, which could pinch the touchpad enough to register. As you quoted, they only can’t touch parts of the rope that are below the deck of the airship.

Great question! I can’t say I like awarding fewer Dean’s List Finalists, particularly when you consider we’d be awarding 10-20 Dean’s List Finalists under a regional system, compared to the 5 that was chosen.

I can understand the logic for awarding fewer than the max for Chairmans’, EI, or RAS, as it then reduces the number of teams awarded by the point system (a more balanced approach)… but I don’t see any downside to awarding the maximum number allocated for the Dean’s List Finalists.

Let’s start a riot.