Team Update 2012-02-14

FIRST General Forum
#54

People and teams were seriously thinking that sitting on the plastic under the bridge was actually claiming that they were “balancing the bridge”? I’ll try to apply this to the “grandma test”:

team member: OK, grandma, we shoot basketballs to score points, at the end of the game, we get more points for being on the bridge and balancing it.

grandma: But, your little robot just parks itself under the bridge and sits there, while all of the other robots are trying to balance the bridge by being on top of it.

team member: Yeah, but we still count as balancing on the bridge.

grandma: No, that’s silly, you don’t.

Andy B.

#55

put the grandma test in the manual, then okay

#56

I have a bridge with a lexan ball ramp, do you? I’ve stuck a robot under said ramp while not getting anywhere near breaking anything, have you?

Did you fire bullets at it while it was under the ramp?

We refer to it as bulletproof glass because that is the widely accepted term.

Just because you hear it on MythBusters or the CD community describes it as such does not mean it is a widely accepted term. It is not glass and it is not bulletproof. It is known in the military as transparent polycarbonate armor. Calling it bulletproof- you might as well say it is magic glass.

Furthermore, 3/8" is legally bulletproof for small arms (paraphrasing modern marvels).

Legally bulletproof for small arms? What is the legal definition of a small firearm? According to whom is it legal? Please show me where the law states this. I know in Canada we have no such laws stating what is bulletproof and what isn’t.

Keep in mind my job depends on building things that resist bullets among other fast moving projectiles…

Are you saying there are no situations in which the 1/4" lexan ramp can comfortably hold something defined as a robot by the 2012 rules, with an appropriate safety factor and the risk of field damage minimized?

Not at all. I am not contesting its durability when tromped on by robots, I am sure it is plenty durable, although I wouldn’t call it a bridge. I am contesting the statement that 1/4" lexan is bulletproof.

#57

put the grandma test in the manual, then okay

I for one will be including this when I fill out my FIRST survey this year!

#58

We know. Not sure why you keep talking about this. We’re not stupid.

#59

We’re not stupid.

Relax- Nobody here is stupid, just misinformed.

#60

It’s common sense.

#61

Aren,
I get you are upset that it wasn’t in black in white in the manual. It seems the main problem here is that teams have a bunch more time and motivation to think of creative solutions than the GDC does, combined with the fact that people try to disguise their intentions in the Q&A. If someone asked “Can we sit on the lexan and count as balanced?”, the clear answer would be no.

Best way to solve this? I don’t know. Perhaps a Q&A system that doesn’t incentivize trying to trick the rule makers?

On a side note: One of my favorite parts of this competition is seeing the cool way other people solve the problem. I hope someone will surprise me this year!

#62

I’ve witnessed tests: the lexan doesn’t break when its field-spec with a robot on it.
That question is now answered. Stop debating over which thicknesses are “bulletproof” for which guns: I don’t think you’re accomplishing anything in terms of this discussion.

Corey: You’re probably right. Teams that wanted to try troll bot should’ve clearly asked in the beginning.

#63

Several things come to mind…

Andy Baker is usually right. In this example, he is. “Balanced” and “Supported by the Bridge” strongly suggest (to any reasonable observer) that robots must be on the bridge, or hanging from whatever most people would call the bridge. The ball deflecting panel below the bridge is just that - BELOW the bridge. Simply because the Q & A answered a question about what is legal to touch on your opponent’s bridge doesn’t mean that you should redefine other elements of the game.

“It is often easier to ask forgiveness than permission”.

Hummm… often true, but not in this case. Teams asked if it was legal to use suction cups to adhere to the bridge surface. They got an answer. In FRC - ASK first.

This is NOT an unreasonable rule change. In Breakaway, balls were not allowed to go any further than 3" into the robot perimeter. It was in the Manual. It was in the animation. It was in the Inspection Checklist - there was even a special gauge that inspectors used to check for this. After the first week of regionals, there were so many penalties that the GDC changed the rules, allowing balls to roll completely under robots.

THAT was an unreasonable rule change. Basically the GDC said “we made the challenge too hard so we took away this requirement”.

The important thing here is why was the change made? Because Breakaway was problematic as a game when it came to scoring in the first week. Many, many matches ended in 0-0 because of penalties. The reason the requirements changed is because FIRST is about Inspiration. It is not inspiring to watch robots run around and play a good game (Breakaway) and then have the scores negated by penalties. In the same way, it is not inspiring to see a robot “balance a bridge” by parking under it.

  • Mr. Van
    Coach, Robodox
#64

I don’t even know that it is a rules change. It’s a clarification, and one I feel is unnecessary because of the word “balance”. Trollbots don’t balance, they wedge. 179’s robot balances.

If teams chose to ignore (or mistakenly ignored) the verbage that made their clever idea not work, that is an unfortunate mistake – but it’s no reason to be mad at anyone but themselves.

Grandma wouldn’t equate “wedged level” with “balanced”, and neither would anyone else on first blush.

#65

You’re arguing what people think/interpret (which unless you’re actually the GDC does not matter one bit, whether its you or a grandma) vs the manual and QandA, the only two sources of official rulings.

The GDC made a mistake, that is it. I am not a fan of how they chose to deal with it but I will be okay, what I can’t stand is the overall level of ignorance and hypocrisy being displayed in these threads.

And while I greatly respect Andy, I’m sure he knows grandma doesn’t make official rulings, grandma would’ve been confused by lots of things in the past that were competing.

Patrick,
The GDC gave the definition of “balanced” and that is the definition I was going by, in other instances they referred to the Dictionary, not in this one. You cannot in any instance tell me I am not allowed to be disgruntled by having specs changed this far into the game.

#66

Isn’t the grandmother just as likely to think that the bridge is balanced by virtue of being level, rather than inquire into the method?

After all, if the grandmother understands the scoring well enough to understand why the robot underneath would count, she’s probably not in the position of ignorance that the parable presupposes.

#67

Grandma: That guy ran that other guy into the ground. He should be kicked out of the game.

Not Grandma: This is football, its called a tackle. That’s their job.

Grandma: No, that’s silly. That’s not very nice.

Point: grandmas don’t get sports.

#68

You’re of course right, so lets stipulate that bullets are not of any consequence to the durability, and instead focus on whether the robot-induced deformation of the polycarbonate would be permanent.

I doubt it would be, because polycarbonate is strong stuff. By driving on top of it repeatedly (and bearing substantial loads due to the bridge and robots), you might scratch it significantly, but you’re unlikely to break it outright. Also, why would FIRST have picked such thick material if they hadn’t anticipated the possibility of robots making contact with it? (If it’s just balls you need to worry about, wouldn’t half or a quarter of that thickness have been sufficient?)

And typically, as long as the traction devices and edges on the robot have conformed to the specifications, FIRST has not made an issue of robots that scratch plastic field surfaces. (Look at the sides of the field border, or the plastic floor surfaces in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, etc. for example.)

GDLS?

#69

Katie / Aren / Andrew,

I’m just hoping you guys can still make our scrimmage on Saturday. I’ve been anxious to see your bot since early in the season. Regardless of the troll-bot status in the game, your robot sounds pretty impressive.

Tom

#70

Aren (and others) - you do have the right to be frustrated. FIRST is frustrating. There have been numerous reasons for being upset with things that FIRST, the GDC, the refs, the judges, teams as a whole, coaches, mentors, individual team members, the drayage company, etc, etc, have done. Many of us here on CD have been around long enough to have been personally burned in one way or another - some instances have been egregious enough to lead people to consider leaving the organization altogether. Most have stayed.

Believe me. Many of us have been there. We do feel your pain.

The real question is how will you and your team react to this situation.

Healthy expression of your frustration here on CD is all well and good. The question is what will you do as the next step?

  • Mr. Van
    Coach, Robodox
#71

Trollbot doesn’t need to be balanced. The bridge needs to be balanced. Trollbot only needs to be completely supported by a balanced bridge. Hense, the issue.

While I disagree with how the GDC handled it, its time to move on.

#72

In 2002 I read the Q&A and convinced our team to change the robot design based on the Q&A. There was no team update in the manual as the Q&A response was simply a clarification. This was what was known as the tape measure rule. We decided against a tape measure because of the Q&A. The tape measure was legal that year even thought the Q&A clearly made it illegal. My response to that lesson learned … don’t read the Q&A. If it is important enough then it will make it into a team update.

I have followed that rule until this year and it burned us again. Not with this rule, but with the whole contiguous appendage nonsense. We redesigned to be contiguous during deployment because of Q&A even though common sense told us not to. Then comes a team update that would have saved us time redesigning. I guess I will wait another 10 years to read the Q&A …

BTW, with respect to this argument, some of you are starting to get obnoxious (you should know who you are and if you don’t you have bigger problems) so please knock it off. We have students reading this forum so please keep it a little more professional.

Paul

#73

A few items:

First, am I the only one who finds it ironic we’re trolling about trolling? :smiley:

Secondly, while I believe the intent of the end game has always been clear, I think the GDC painted themselves into a corner on this one by trying to be clever and succinct in their response on the Q&A rather than being thorough and complete. Rather than saying “All items in GE-12017” originally, they could have drawn up a wordier answer that CLEARLY states their intent.

Last, if you’re in the unfortunate position of having designed a troll-only bot, move on and do the best redesign you can. No amount of hand-wringing and complaining on a forum or in person is going to help you build a viable alternative. Don’t waste your energy on indignant behavior – focus it and come up with a solution to be a great robot!