I think the real point here is that if you break the rule during the game it is a red card. As tempting as a powerful release is, the risk is just not worth it.
It is obvious that the GDC is aware of the danger to volunteers and students if certain mechanisms are allowed and they have gone to great lengths to make dangerous mechanisms illegal. I would not be even a little surprised if we inspectors are instructed to pay close attention to the release of these panels.
I will predict that attempts to language lawyer these rules will result in team updates making them stricter or getting shutdown in Q&A, not you finding a loophole.
As much as I like when the questions are thorough and not open to interpretation, I donāt know that they will bother to answer this unless they get through all the other questions with time left over. Not unless thereās a big argument a brewing like the frame size discussion from last year.
Not giving a height to me means any height. If they said āmax heightā, for whatever reason a team could have a design that launches slightly backwards from the max but then four feet out at the lowest.
It will do well at this point to assume the inspectors will be looking for worst case scenario and refs will not be on the field with a measuring tape. If they say it got launched, it got launched.
I canāt imagine why R6 compliance would be measured in anything but the worst case scenario, which for 90% of robots is going to be at their max height. If you are asked to demonstrate it is not possible to break a rule, why would they give you leeway?
I had the same thought. Also robots that utilize a rotating arm to get to the top of the rocket - accidentally release while rotating, and watch how far it can go! I certainly donāt think thatās the intent of the ruleā¦ but I also am at a loss as to how to properly word such a rule. It almost makes me wish the robot rules were worded a little more conversationally, like the game rules are now - I think that would make writing this rule simpler.
The updated rule seems pretty clear. "The distance is measured with a stationary ROBOT relative to the ground and from the ROBOTāS FRAME PERIMETER to where the HATCH PANEL first contacts the ground. "
Spinning in high gear is not stationary. So, your robot may pass inspection under R6. If, however, you accidentally fling the hatch off your spinning robot and it lands more than 3 feet away, expect to be red carded.
Which rule states this? The rules and updates say that you get measured as if your robot is stationary and the only way to launch them through the air is with purpose. If you are spinning or get hit and the panels gets ejected from your robot unintentionally, I donāt see how they can Red Card you.
To force technical solutions to the placement problem which rely on precise positioning rather than sloppily launching a hatch at the port from an imprecisely positioned robot.
Similar to bumper-related rules, I would expect referees to defer hatch throwing to the LRI.
We donāt yet know if the kinetic energy of the drive train was considered in Q113. At the same time, if a panel flings off of a robot into the face of a ref, is that any better?
G6: ROBOTS may not shoot HATCH PANELS into the air in a way
thatās prohibited in R6.
R6: A ROBOT may not be designed to shoot a HATCH PANEL such that it travels more than 3
horizontal ft. (~91 cm) beyond its FRAME PERIMETER (reference G6).
So no, if you are spinning and the panel unintentionally leaves control of your robot, you would not get a Red Card.
