The bigger question is how was the red robot on the platform not disqualified as well. They kept from falling off by going over 18" and went over 18" getting on the platform.
Does anyone have a video of this ramp? I’m not sure waht to picture in my head
Using the gdc’s ruling of
opens up a lot of ambiguity on how the flat floor measurement works
say you deploy something straight down that covers the lip of the robot like this
on a flat floor they are now tilted and over 18
but there was a tournament where a team was dqed because their cap intake drooped down from the weight of the cap, expanding their height to over 18", while they were on the center platform
but according to the gdc’s “measured on a flat floor”, the mechanism that drooped down would simply be laying on the ground and keep the robot under 18"
So when it comes to ramps, does that make rigid ramps illegal but ramps that would be pushed up on a flat floor legal?
I am really confused what people are finding ambiguous about this…
The robot is measured vertically from a flat plane, in what ever way the robot would rest on it if it were completely rigid in its moment by moment configuration.
You don’t get to stand on a platform with a tail hanging down below your wheels, and still claim your wheels as the datum of the measurement. If your tail were rigid, it would prop you up at an angle and you would be tilted, and over 18".
The only reason they added any wording of a horizontal plane is because of the platform and other instances where the field causes you to tip while still being effectively up right. You get a little leeway climbing up the platform so that a perfect 18" cube is still legal even as it climbs an incline.
If you are flat on the top of the platform, you get no leeway. Any extension that increases your vertical distance from lowest point to highest point is counted against you. And even if you are still on an incline climbing the platform, the leeway is not intended to allow projected limbs in any direction, only to keep a legal robot from being ruled illegal due to the incline of the field components.
I was confused at first as to the points described. But now I’m very intrigued. Clearly, the intended perception of the rules is as you say. Still, the GDC could be intentionally leaving us a loophole. Either way, the given definition does not exactly cover this scenario. Therefore, clarification is needed.