This thread is to suggest minor suggestions for next year’s game manual for VRC.
For starters: I would suggest modifying <R7> e from
to
I am going to recommend we do NOT bother proposing major structural changes to the rules (yes, I am thinking of the aluminum screw debate).
Hopefully we can help them avoid things like forgetting to include thread-locking compound in the list of legal products.
So in theory I’d like to see this. In practice, the corner pins don’t have enough grip to attach to the metal. You need to put the corner connector through the metal and then capture the pins with either a 1x2, the thicker plastic washers/bushings or a paid of the rubber shaft collars.
I’d argue the corner connectors are already legal – since license plates are considered non-functional decorations per R24b, you can attach them using any parts you want, VEX IQ or otherwise.
I would agree with you. That is part of why I am suggesting the change (to remove any ambiguity).
What my students have done (very successfully) is to screw the corner connector to some of their VEX metal through the holes, then use the pins to anchor the plates.
When they need to change color, they pop off one set of plates and pop on the other…
better idea: blanket allow IQ structural parts in VRC
Honestly IQ omni wheels and gears would be pretty nice.
I don’t think that would work until the 5.5W motors are allowed (too fragile)…
That’s a good observation, but…
I think that allowing full catalog of IQ legal parts in VRC will give builders a very nice engineering challenge at the minimal cost. It could be a win-win situation for everyone, including students considering transitioning from IQ into VRC.
I would rather see nimble lightweight robots presenting strong competition via careful design and strategy, rather than everybody gravitating to bulky designs maxing out on all available sources of power!
Also, while we are at it, please, bring back motor penalty for pneumatics (i.e. minus one motor per each air tank).
The primary goal of the game is always to challenge students with meaningful tradeoffs so they could develop their engineering design skills, and introduction of (fragile) lightweight IQ parts gives it one more interesting dimension.
The plastic allowance already does that. With careful cutting, you can cut polycarbonate into most structural pieces.
For more tradeoffs, I feel like a maximum weight would be more realistic. You could have a powerful, but not very complex robot, or you could have a robot that has many systems but as a result can’t use as much structure.
I don’t actually think a maximum weight is that important.
A heavy robot already suffers a real maneuverability penalty (due to physics).
A max weight limit would also primarily hit new teams (who don’t yet know how to build efficiently or haven’t acquired aluminum structure).
I think those teams are already under a sufficient handicap.
I would also like to propose a change to <R22> d.
Currently it reads:
I would recommend changing it to the following:
This would allow melting the ends of legal synthetic rope (other than nylon) to limit fraying.
As the rules are currently written, the other traditional solution to avoid fraying (whipping) is prohibited because whipping twine is too thin to be legal.
And EPs need to buy a weighing scale that can accommodate an 18" by 18" robot… As well as the requirement to have a brain for the smart control system. Inspection takes long enough as it is. Don’t add an unnecessary element
Not exactly the game manual…
I’d like to see the inspection checklist include a version of the “Field Control Check” again. Here is a screen shot of what is was a few years ago.
No sg3 or any subsidiary of it
-remove 1/8 min thickness of string
-nylon/aluminum screws back
-3d printing (well maybe not next year, preferably the year after that as that would let teams take time to prepare- buying 3d printers, etc)
-5.5w smart motors
You are probably in luck on this one.
VRC only uses a net for shooting games. They are unlikely to do another shooting game right after Spin-Up.
When there is a net, there is always a rule like SG3 prohibiting contact with the net.
I wasn’t referring to spin up…
Q&A said this was on purpose so I doubt that they will change it in the future. In my opinion, they should follow the suggestions of that Q&A with the added clause that the process used to seal the rope must solely prevent fraying.
Fair point. This is why I specifically mentioned thermoplastic ropes (even if they want to specify the common thermoplastic ropes that are commonly heat-sealed). An easy way to avoid ‘strategic’ melting would be to limit melting to a length of 1 diameter at each end.
