Based on my interpretation of G109, it seems like as long as an extension is supported over-the-bumpers (or frame perimeter) on one side, that extension can be whatever shape it wants, within 48" of the frame perimeter. This would allow for mechanisms to unfold into, for example, a very wide intake or defensive shield, as shown below.
Admittedly, with only one piece at a time, this wouldn’t be very useful for an intake. However, with a square chassis, a defensive robot could use this to become effectively 11’4" wide!
A robot could also use unfolding extensions to essentially wrap an extension all the way around itself, although at present I can’t imagine a reason for wanting to do that. In any case, these strategies seem to negate the intended purpose of including G109 in the first place.
Those rules say that if the over-extension or multi-direction extensions block field element, then the FOUL is combined with a RED CARD. However, based on my reading it seems that the mechanisms I’m describing would not incur any violation of G107 or G109, either FOUL or RED CARD.
Correct. But that 48" is measured from the frame perimeter, creating a rounded-rectangle–shaped zone in which a robot may extend according to G107. The total width of this zone is 96", plus the width of the robot.
G109 prevents you from using both sides of the extension limit by reaching over the frame perimeter on both sides, but it may be possible to use both sides of the extension limit by reaching over one side.
I can read G109 two ways. One prohibits crossing the infinite vertical plane created by each side of the frame perimeter. That would mean that the sideways extension couldn’t be longer than the robot width. (It would do weird stuff with non-rectangular robots though.) The other way to read it is that the rule prohibits crossing the vertical plane segment that defined by each line segment of the frame perimeter. That reading wouldn’t limit the sideways extension.
I think this is a good question for Q&A when it opens Tuesday.
That seems to be the case. Unless the rule was made specifically to outlaw circular frames and diagonal extensions, I think the intent of the rule would be much better served by requiring that all extensions fit in a 48" x 48" x 6’6" box (and potentially add to robot rules)
You couldn’t have it at a constant 45 degrees, but the blue box attached to G109 has a turret example in Robot G, deeming it legal so long as it’s Momentary.
@AriMB better said what I was attempting to put into words earlier in the thread (and eventually gave up, abandoning the reply). There’s two readings of G109, we’ll need a Q&A to know which is correct.
yes it would make sense, yes it would be possible if it was not a competition use robot (including offseason) but to make an extension that big would be a violation of a FOUL and if you are blocking a field element (which even if unintentional) would be portrayed as such and be a red card per G109 because you are extending in more than one direction, in a “MOMENTARILY” situation as described in G109 you can develop a singular intake that protrudes from one side of the base at a maximum of 48 inches and rotates on it’s base just so long as it extends from a flat portion of a robot, so to extend at a corner you would have to make the drivetrain flat at that corner (Look at the requirements for frame perimeter I haven’t read that far yet)
