Robo-Cross B

[jander14indoor]

Official responses to some of the questions we've been discussing now posted to FAQs on the soinc.org website.

The latest scoring sheet should be up shortly.

Regards,
Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[bearasauras]

A quick note on the scoresheet, the Robo Cross scoresheet v2 posted back in December is correct. The only difference between v2 and the one that was just posted today (v3) is that I've added columns on the right (in orange) which lists all the teams in ranking order so that tournament scoring officials can cross check easier.

tl;dr You're fine if you downloaded the version 2 of the Robo Cross scoresheet (posted in Dec)

[RR]

As usual, this is not official forum, not official answer, contact national, etc...

Are you setting them on the board next to the robot or asking if the measurement box can hold things in?

Relevant paragraphs seem to be:
2.d. The Robot in the ready to run position must fit entirely inside an imaginary 28.0 cm cube
2.e. The Robot may drop passive components, but must not separate into two or more active components.

To me, the first paragraph is clear everything must fit inside the cube without expecting whatever physical device is used to measure it to hold things in. I could imagine an ES using a laser device for example to determine if things are in our out of the cube.
The second paragraph clearly considers any passive components to be part of the robot so they must be in the imaginary box too. Now, supported. 2.e. certainly allows passive components to be dropped, not so clear if you can pick them up. But usually SO operates under the principal, if it isn't forbidden, it is allowed. Of course that is diametrically opposed to the "spirit of the competition" principal that SO also uses.

Now, as an ES, I might not sweat that, but another ES might.
As a coach talking to competitors, seems like that would fall into the category of, what do you gain and is it worth being second tiered? Seems like it would be easy enough to support any passive components on the robot until needed instead of setting them on the ground and avoiding the whole issue.
As a competitor, I wouldn't do it unless there was a VERY large gain to be made.

My 2 cents,
Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

Thanks Jeff. We figured out a way to support the passive parts on the robot. Your tradeoff comment is very accurate.

[Sidvin]

Lol...my "robot" is a remote control car with a scooper at the front...and I got 3rd out of 40 schools?!?!?
idek how?!?!

[hscmom]

Lol...my "robot" is a remote control car with a scooper at the front...and I got 3rd out of 40 schools?!?!?
idek how?!?!

Let me guess... you practiced a lot?

[RR]

As usual, this is not official forum, not official answer, contact national, etc...

Are you setting them on the board next to the robot or asking if the measurement box can hold things in?

Relevant paragraphs seem to be:
2.d. The Robot in the ready to run position must fit entirely inside an imaginary 28.0 cm cube
2.e. The Robot may drop passive components, but must not separate into two or more active components.

To me, the first paragraph is clear everything must fit inside the cube without expecting whatever physical device is used to measure it to hold things in. I could imagine an ES using a laser device for example to determine if things are in our out of the cube.
The second paragraph clearly considers any passive components to be part of the robot so they must be in the imaginary box too. Now, supported. 2.e. certainly allows passive components to be dropped, not so clear if you can pick them up. But usually SO operates under the principal, if it isn't forbidden, it is allowed. Of course that is diametrically opposed to the "spirit of the competition" principal that SO also uses.

Now, as an ES, I might not sweat that, but another ES might.
As a coach talking to competitors, seems like that would fall into the category of, what do you gain and is it worth being second tiered? Seems like it would be easy enough to support any passive components on the robot until needed instead of setting them on the ground and avoiding the whole issue.
As a competitor, I wouldn't do it unless there was a VERY large gain to be made.

My 2 cents,
Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

Thanks Jeff. We figured out a way to support the passive parts on the robot. Your tradeoff comment is very accurate.

After doing the modifications for mounting the passive components on the robot the students started practicing. To our surprise there was design impact because of how the arm support was rearranged to make space for a platform to put passive components. Our practice scores were not looking good. A deterioration of 25% in scores. We still went with this new modification to an invitational last weekend where the ES asked the students to mount the passive parts on the robot before starting the run. The students obeyed. The scores achieved last weekend invitation were 25% less compared to our previous invitational. "Why would Event Supervisors persist with mounting passive parts on the robot at the start of the run?". The way I read the rules if passive components can seperate during the run of the robot, there is no rule preventing the seperation of passive and active components at the BEGINGING of the run inside the 28 cm cube. I did ask another question along these lines in the soinc:FAQ section. I didn't complain to the ES at the invitational or file an appeal either as these are merely to help teams fine tune their robot design which we are greatlful for. But now our Regionals is on Feb 28. It would be really good for our team (may be others) to get an answer from soinc:FAQ on this before our Regionals.
ps - Last year we had passive components NOT supported by robot at the begining of run (inside 30 cm cube) and we were allowed in Invitational or Regional or State. No Event Supervisor raised any issue with this.

[Sidvin]

Lol...my "robot" is a remote control car with a scooper at the front...and I got 3rd out of 40 schools?!?!?
idek how?!?!

Let me guess... you practiced a lot?

Lol Yeah...pretty much...like an hour a day for like......2 weeks I guess?

[computers4fun]

Lol...my "robot" is a remote control car with a scooper at the front...and I got 3rd out of 40 schools?!?!?
idek how?!?!

Just curious, what were the scores of the top 3?

[treeling]

Can anyone reply with the average score your getting on the runs?

[mineturtle314]

Can anyone reply with the average score your getting on the runs?

About 468 out of 480 points. We usually miss 1 penny.