Due to an increase of spam on the FIRST Tech Challenge forums, new user accounts must contain:
1. a valid email address
2. a reference to a valid FTC team number
3. a valid location (city, state/province)
New accounts will be manually verified before users are able to post to forums.
Please Note: Game Q&A forum posts must be made using the forum login and password assigned to your team. The main contact for your team will find your team credentials in their dashboard, near the bottom of the page.
We are very sorry for the unavoidable delays that manual verification creates. Thank you for your patience.
Posts created to sell a product or a service are not permitted and will be deleted!
Our team's current plan is to push the batons out through the top of the dispensor. Our goal is to insert a rod on the bottom most batton and push it up until 5 battons fall out of the top. Even though the robot will only recieve 5 battons does the fact that we are moving all the battons in the dispensor at once count as posession?
A: No, it does not count as possession. See Q19 in this thread.
The GDC has received several emails regarding specific robot designs and scenarios asking for legality of certain rules. While we would love to be able answer each and every one of these, it is physically impossible to do so. Rather than doing that, please read the rules carefully and understand the spirit of the rules. Rolling Goal and Baton possession is clearly defined and will be interpreted appropriately by the referees. The Head Referee will be trained and certified for each of the competitions and will train his/her referees as well.
If the Rolling Goals or Batons are contained and controlled on all sides by a robot at any time they will be considered "possessed". A robot that has the appearance of possessing the rolling goal will be watched closely by the referees, so please be careful in your designs.
Also know that the Head Referee's decision is FINAL for all match-related rules. Please remember your Gracious Professionalism and treat all volunteers and officials with respect at your competitions.
Sorry to continue to bother you guys (Game Definition - post #21). If Game Definition - post #14 was definitively answered with a "yes, as long as the pulling test was satisfied", instead of "see #5", this would address the concerns. We used a design that constrains the goal on three sides. It rolls easily out of the fourth side. That allows us to turn the goal. The head referree came over to us at the qualifying tournament that we played on Sunday, and said they did not know whether the design was legal. The team showed them the posts we relied on, including the pulling test #15, and they said they still were not sure because we were able to spin the rolling goal (albeit by turning slowly and driving forward as we did it). They agreed that the pulling test was satisfied, but said that the manual said we could not spin the goal and so there seemed to be a contradiction because we were able to spin the goal without fully constraining it. I think that you can spin a goal with a 1-sided simple plow, by virtue of how you push, which is why there is so much confusion. If you eliminate the specific prohibition against spinning and instead add the pull test in the manual, I think it solves the issue.
I just need to know whether to tell the kids to redesign the robot. If we need to, then we will, but if we wait until later in the season, it will severely impact us. If there is not a definitive post (like #14) then we may get ruled illegal at a subsequent event. Please help.
Thanks.
The attached diagram of examples possession scenarios is a taken from the referee training materials and demonstrates the principals that apply to Rolling Goal possession. It is not an enumeration of all of the possible legal configurations.
Be aware, even if the Rolling Goal is only constrained on three sides, if there is excessive friction that holds/squeezes the Rolling Goal, the robot would still be in violation of the possession rule.
Last edited by Wil Wheaton; 11-02-2010 at 10:37 PM.
You say "if there is excessive friction." What constitutes "excessive friction"? Would something that allows the goal to be pulled out, but doesn't allow the goal to roll out freely be allowed?
This will be a judgement call by the referee. In general, the Rolling Goal must roll out freely. Robot designs that may cause the Rolling Goal to bind, stick, become wedged, trapped, etc. risk violating the possession rule and should be avoided.
We have a 60 inch strip of non slip pad material that is 4 3/8 inches wide- total area is 262.5 square inches.
Q1: Does the 60 inch strip violate the 24 in max rule?
Q2: I assume that we can cut the 60 in strip into smaller pieces and connect them if we are violating the 24 inch rule.
A1: Yes, the 60 inch strip violates the 24 inch maximum rule.
A2: Yes, so long as the each segment does not exceed the 24 inch maximum dimension rule and the total area used is less than the 576 square inch area limit.
Ruling #7, #9, and #15 affirm that the pull test is the primary method of determining goal possession. For clarity, is the pull test still satisfied when the rolling goal freely separates from the robot by changing directions two times? Keep in mind that in this situation the rolling goal is still removed cleanly without moving the robot. Ex. The rolling goal is constrained on three sides and the fourth side has a tab with a remaining opening larger than the rolling goal such that it rolls out freely.
A: No, this is not allowed. The robot or rolling goal must be pulled on a single vector. The fourth side tab should fail inspection.
We have a question about one of the rules, section 4.2 R5 a #4. It is as follows:
4. Exactly one (1) 12V Rechargeable NiMH Battery Pack. This battery pack may only be used to power the Samantha WiFi Communications module, the HiTechnic DC Motor Controllers, and the HiTechnic Servo Controllers. This batter pack must be identical to those supplied in the kit of parts. (Note: the TETRIX(tm) battery pack is custom designed with an internal 20 amp protection circuit. Use of any other battery could result in permanent damage to the NXT components and is not allowed). Battery packs are NOT allowed to be used as ballast.
We would like to use the one and only battery powering the robot as a moving ballast, however, does this rule prevent us from doing so? Or does the rule pertain to using multiple battery packs on the robot for ballast?
A: Batteries have weight and since, they are required, will also serve as a ballast. The intent of the rule is to disallow EXTRA battery packs to be used as ballast. So you're okay with using the one battery as both ballast and power.
Can you have an object(i.e. a rod coming down) that touches the moving goal inside the goal to direct the baton inward?
A: Probably not, as this will be seen as a method for possessing the goal. See ruling #16 for more details because the referees will determine if the robot is pushing/pulling the rolling goal at the same time as directing the baton inward.
We are still rather puzzled about how the definition of possessing a rolling goal will impact our robot. We have constructed a robot that will drive over the top of a rolling goal and push it while covering it. The image included in post #24 looks very similar to what we have constructed, however the three-sided pushing device is under the robot itself. The only contact that the robot has with the goal are flat tetrix beams on the wooden base of the goal. We do not have any grasping mechanisms and the goal freely rolls out the front of the robot. I understand that it is impossible for you to give us a definite answer to this question, but it would really help to have a okay for pushing the goal around with such a three-sided device under the robot itself. Thanks.
Pushing a rolling goal is allowed. See post #8 in this thread. There is no rule specifying the part of the robot that must be in contact with the rolling goal while pushing. A rolling goal inside a "U" shaped robot can be pushed around the field provided that the robot isn't possessing the rolling goal as determined by the possession test discussed in many posts to this forum.
Originally Posted by 2010ftc3888
Reply With Quote
