So, my team had been thinking a lot about what we want to high hang with, but we really have not come up with a good idea. We have though of something like a dump bot, 2-bar, 4-bar, the list goes on. We figured out how to use four motors on a basic catapult bot, like FRC973’s designs. But we have a full two extra motors and we want a way to use them for high hanging.
If you want to check out Sankeydd’s event from yesterday, there are a few good ideas for high hangers in there. However, it is very difficult to design a high hanger until the question on the Q&A from 2 MONTHS AGO is answered. It essentially asks whether or not the sizebox rotates with the robot. This information is crucial to designing a high climber, so until they answer it, I would suggest holding off on it because chances are that your high climber would be legal if they ruled one way, but illegal if they ruled they other way.
As more and more people virtually max out the field, they will be looking more and more into ways of high climbing. I can tell you that I have put a fair share of time and effort into a high climber, but have not released anything yet because it is unclear whether or not it is legal. For now, the best option would be to design a high climber that fits if they rule either way (that is, if you are doing a high climber now).
One thing that is important to take note of though is the rule that says that your robot has to be above the bottom of the low bar, not the top. This is very helpful as it is incredibly hard to climb reliably on just the top bar and the plastic sheet. So I would suggest reacting off of both bars. But in the end, it might just be better to hold off on the high climber until they clarify the rule. I’d love to hear what you come up with, and I’d be happy to give you feedback on it.
Sorry I can’t be more helpful. Good luck!
Yeah, I defined agree with that, but I meant this thread to be less arguing about whether or not the size box rotates, and more talking about actual mechanisms. I know tons of new teams would love to see these theory’s and gain the mechanical experience. So moving forward, let’s just assume vex has done there job responsibly and said yes to the q&a question. So what would you do from that point?
(Just my individual effort to reduce the need for the Q&A)
I know the manual quotes “ it should be able to fit within an 11” x 19” x 19””, which feels like it would imply the box rotates with the robot, but as I see it this is not the case.
Take VRC’s limits, a robot that’s 50” tall that falls over is now breaking the 36” point to point expansion rule, the box didn’t rotate with it to accommodate its top which is now on the side. In IQ here, the bottom of the robot would simply be the definable lowest point of the robot, and the top the highest point, just as a VRC’s robots sides would simply be the lengths and widths of the robot regardless of its orientation.
In an extreme example to thoroughly paint the picture:
I have a robot that is one giant wheel, no way to tell which end is the top, bottom, or which are the sides, just a giant wheel. As this wheel rolls around, the “lowest point” changes, and any inspection would base off that lowest point because there is no definable bottom of the robot, even though it quite clearly started the match with some specific radian touching the ground. When measuring this wheel while it magically hangs, the best thing you can do is measure from the lowest point to the highest.
Our conception that the drive base is the bottom has been the skew to these rules for many years. Look at the robots as if there is no bottom, but rather a lowest point, as you would a 36” point to point instead of a 36” square.
I have more examples tucked in my brain but it wasn’t worth making this post any longer, but I’d be happy to explain them if needed. While an official answer would be great, I hope this insight propels the process a bit.
Thanks for the example. I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I like your argument, and I definitely see your point. Until it is clarified, I think that your example makes the most sense for what the current ruling is.
Going off Golf’s example of the giant wheel with the undefinable “bottom” as a reference for sizebox, I would begin by thinking about different kinds of lifting mechanisms. For me, the top two contenders were a 4-bar and a single jointed arm. Personally, I went with the single jointed arm because we’d had more success with that in past iterations of the high climber, but I believe that a 4-bar also has potential. The single jointed arm is a bit of an odd concept, and I’m thinking about the best way to describe it without giving instructions on how to build the climber. But in case you were wondering, it is possible, and it does work consistently.
Match videos are here:
Scores and team numbers are in the video titles.
Anyone know of a good mic I can buy that will just capture the room audio? I do not want to mic each field.
I have no idea why this is taking so long… Some questions (like the one in squared away where you could move everything around) would take a little time to ponder… In this case I just want to know how to size the bot… ??? !!!
Capturing room audio, without picking up specific sounds, would be mostly about mic placement. A good small-diaphragm condenser mic would be my recommendation. Here’s a good workhorse mic: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/P170--akg-p170-small-diaphragm-condenser-microphone
My best guess is that VEX has seen the question, and has not given an answer because they don’t have one yet.
I would speculate that it is either because they are still discussing it, or waiting for more tournaments to happen and videos to come out so they can see what is the better option.
There are presumably some pretty great minds on this, and given the amount of time they’ve had to discuss, I’d venture to guess the latter, but to me that seems a bit of a flimsy reason because although one ruling is easier to work with, they are both possible and doable.
However, as events are happening more and more, there needs to be a ruling on this for those events that will happen before it is clarified. Going off of the usual game manual interpretation, if it doesn’t say it in the manual, it is legal. So for events that I’m reffing, I’m going to let the teams choose because since it doesn’t say one way or anther, neither one is illegal.
I firmly believe they will place a robot on an inspection area, perhaps using the sizing tool.
Move the robot through it’s range of motion (while sitting on all 4 wheels in the inspection station). If it doesn’t violate the sizing box, it passes, simple as that.
Doing anything beyond this would be an extreme burden to EPs and would be impossible to enforce evenly.
Yes, I definitely agree with this. The reason I said that I’d be so lenient on the rule is because the wheels of the robot may not always be the bottom. It can be more efficient to have little wheels pop out of the bottom of the robot when it is hanging in order to adjust the rotation of the sizebox. You can’t really measure this on the ground.
For most robots, yes I believe this will be a valid way to inspect, and I will do this.