During our game analysis, we noticed a subtlety in the rules that should not be overlooked. Most years, a specific action might be illegal. This year, a specific action (throwing hatch panels), even inadvertently, is against the rules. Notice that the penalty is a RED CARD.
G6. No throwing HATCH PANELS. ROBOTS may not shoot HATCH PANELS into the air, kick them
across the floor using an active MECHANISM, or eject them across the floor in a forceful way (i.e.
HATCH PANEL is propelled a significant distance).
Violation: RED CARD.
Not only is this action prohibited, but even having the ABILITY to do so violates the robot rules, making your robot illegal.
R6. A ROBOT may not be designed to launch a HATCH PANEL more than 2 ft. (~60 cm) beyond its
FRAME PERIMETER (reference G6).
Before your robot can pass inspection, I would expect it should be able to pass the following simple function test:
Load a panel in your robot.
Configure robot so hatch is at maximum height from floor, and extended to furthest distance past bumpers.
Eject hatch.
Does hatch land on floor further than 24 inches from frame perimeter? >> Illegal design does not pass inspection.
Teams should keep both G6 and R6 in mind when evaluating hatch placement methodologies and mechanism designs, so they 1) can pass inspection, and 2) don’t get red carded.
And Ri3D Team FIRST Capital’s design was looking so nice. But it can launch panels like 5-10 inches with no loss in height, so it can probably get >2ft of range if the hatch didn’t stop it.
Designed to and ability to are different things I suspect. A robot having the unintentional side effect of launching a hatch panel shouldn’t be declared as designed to achieve this goal.
If I could demonstrate that we had a software interlock to prevent firing if we were more than say 12" from the rocket/cargo ship, I wold also think that would qualify.
Similar to building an arm that can exceed the frame perimeter, but developing a control system that keeps it legal. Inspectors are rightfully likely to make you demonstrate these behaviors, but if properly implemented (either by well trained drivers or code), then there is no reason to not pass inspection.
In my opinion seems like a very good place for a Q&A to fully clarify.
<Mode=Old Grey Haired Grump>
Hatch panels are dangerous. I’m for any reasonable measures to keep them from becoming projectiles. Rules with teeth, that arm our Head Referees and Lead Robot Inspectors to keep the field area safe, are necessary. We all need to trust those key volunteers to make the right call, case by case. I wouldn’t count on Q&A to say much more than this. <Mode=Normal>
To a point, yes. Just about any robot that picks up a panel, starts spinning in place and lets go of it is going to launch it a good distance. But I wouldn’t call that “designing to launch”.
A mechanism like Ri3D Team FIRST Capital’s design could easily fall afoul of this rule. Even if the intention is to just launch it a few inches to help with alignment issues… if it goes off accidentally, it may launch it quite a bit further. That’s what the rule is trying to avoid. Teams that go with a design like this should consider decreasing the force and piston distance significantly, and paying close attention to this rule as they implement and test.
The issue I see here is that if a team, for example, has a hatch panel on an elevator going for the top of the shuttle, it does not take much for a hatch panel to travel 2 ft from this height with a little velocity if deployed by accident.
Exactly. I believe this is an intentional constraint by the GDC to steer teams to use software routines to precisely dock with the port before placing the hatches. They have intentionally placed the highest penalties (red card, not passing inspection) on designs which allow flexibility in misalignment between robots and ports.
R6 implies that hatch panels can be launched as long as the launching occurs within 2ft of the frame perimeter.
Launch away! Just don’t do any of the other ambiguously worded things in G6. /s
I appreciate the attempt to fix the arbitrary penalties of what was launching last year, but this implementation is just as bad. A rule that caries a red card penalty should be obvious in how you violate it.
I expect a rules update tomorrow on this or I will be emailing Kevin and Al since I need to know how to inspect this.
Also, the launch distance is measured from the frame perimeter regardless of if the launch starts inside or outside the perimeter.
" You are correct that because R6 is measured from the FRAME PERIMETER, designs which extend outside the FRAME PERIMETER will not be permitted to launch a HATCH PANEL as far (from the mechanism) as designs that do not."
There are two open questions relating to whether R6 compliance will be measured at max launch height. No answers yet, though the answer may be inferred from the previous QA responses.
