I double checked the official game animation from Breakaway just to make sure… there were two robots - one red, one blue - that were sitting on the platform, not hanging from the bars during the end game. In fact, it clearly showed one of the robots driving up there from the bump!
A sheet of 1/4" lexan that lays flat, its also around the thickness where it starts becoming bulletproof…
We’ve got a sheet of it, under the ramp, we wouldn’t damage it at all
In my opinion the GDC’s decision was based on nothing but a desire to manipulate gameplay to suit them, kind of like the “random twists” in reality tv. The reason they banned trolling was not because there was some rule that needed clarification, but because they thought it was too many points for something too easy and would anger teams who spent hundreds of hours building shooters. The reason they left the uprights in breakaway was because it was cool-looking and it wouldn’t make anyone mad.
Should an innovative team be beholden to what the other teams think of their innovations, or whether they fit in the rules they were given?
A sheet of 1/4" lexan that lays flat, its also around the thickness where it starts becoming bulletproof…
1/4" Oh really eh? And what experience/data is this based on? Because I can assure you that it does not. Furthermore, there is no such thing as “bulletproof”.
It also does not lay flat- it deflects balls.
You were required to be in contact with the Tower in 2010.
*2010:
ELEVATED: A ROBOT that is completely above the plane of the PLATFORM and in contact with the TOWER shall be considered ELEVATED.
2012:
A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it.*
In 2010, most teams thought that rule meant you needed to be on the horizontal bars. In 2012, most teams thought you needed to be on the top surface of the bridge. In 2010, they were wrong; in 2012, they were right. In 2010, the definition of tower was never asked on the Q&A. (Whereas sitting on the platform was asked numerous times and fully approved.) In 2012, it was asked twice, once in direct reference to G40, before the definition was changed.
Also in 2010, the rules were deliberately changed to legalize ball deflection (Team Update #2: 15 Jan and #9: 9 Feb). In 2012, the rules were deliberately changed to illegalize trolling (14 Feb). In 2012, the GDC stated their intent on an 18 Jan Q&A after TU2: “Thus, a ROBOT that required a BALL to travel through a funnel or tube would be a violation of Rule <R19> (as amended in Team Update #2)”, leaving deflectors with a calculated risk–but the GDC didn’t re-change the rule to match their intent. In 2012, the GDC ignored the question of intent on the 17 Jan Q&A, and reversed their literal ruling on 14 Feb.
Whose common sense are we using here? I don’t understand how two are lauded and commonsensical solutions (deflection and vertical hanging) and the other is a ridiculous thing to assume. Sure, it’s a risk if to accept that the GDC can do whatever it wants, but what makes trolling less of an intelligent risk than the other two?
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? To be frank, that simply is not the case. That’s the whole reason people are upset - not just publicly on Chief Delphi.
I can’t post experience or data - I may or may not have any, but I can only comfortably post about my own team’s tests, which we didn’t do. My main personal motivation for posting is because I’d like to defend the very engineering-y idea that building creative solutions within specifications is inspiring.
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?
Furthermore, 3/8" is legally bulletproof for small arms (paraphrasing modern marvels).
The GDC isn’t a perfect entity and that is why you have to read their rules and decisions with intent rather then literal meaning. The GDC is also a small group of people. The FRC community is a massive group of people. I don’t think it’s all that fair to blame the GDC or be angry with the GDC when they are many orders of magnitude smaller then the group of people they design the game for. Granted, they did take back something they said nearly a month ago, but you always have to be careful when even the remote possibility exists that the grey areas may be closed up later on with FRC.
A team who spent the last 5 weeks designing, testing, and building a robot for this purpose definitely has a right to be mad. Maybe nothing will come of it, but by all means, they do have the right to be mad.
To add on: I’m pretty sure we all know that it is bullet resistant, not bulletproof. We refer to it as bulletproof glass because that is the widely accepted term.
The thing I’d like to know is how many teams this affected. Being righteously angry at something that affects no one is a wasted effort.
Bullet proof or not, the lexan sheet ball deflector under what is now defined as the “bridge” is not a viable place to park for endgame points. I would love to hear/see how any team that was going to use the “troll” strategy is dealing with this update and what kind of viable changes in their design might transpire. Seeing how a team faces this adversity in a one week time frame would indeed be inspiring. A community pulling together to offer suggestions and perhaps assistance to a team affected by this update would also be inspirational.
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.
put the grandma test in the manual, then okay
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.
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!
We know. Not sure why you keep talking about this. We’re not stupid.
We’re not stupid.
Relax- Nobody here is stupid, just misinformed.
It’s common sense.