<S03> - Definition of a Shooter
Regarding your response to http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=327, we would like FIRST to reconsider the definition of a “shooter”.
Rule <S02> makes common sense for any ball leaving a robot. No arguments.
Rule <S03> makes sense for any high inertial and/or potential energy device capable of accelerating and expelling a ball at 12 m/s. It is obvious that, if any part of another robot were to contact this high energy device, it could cause shrapnel to be ejected from one of the two robots and pose a severe personnel hazard. No arguments.
However, to categorize a low energy roller mechanism as a “shooter” precludes almost any ball pickup system from being reversed and delivering balls into a corner goal. This is largely due to the fact that any ball pickup mechanism can not be “shielded” or that shielding will interfere with the ball pickup.
If any such device poses a safety hazard during ball delivery, wouldn’t it also pose a safety hazard on ball pickup?
As an example, we have attached a picture of a robot from Team 33 in the 2004 FRC. The pickup roller on the front of this robot breaks both <S03> criteria if the roller is reversed to deliver balls and is now defined as a “shooter”. As such, this mechanism would be deemed unsafe.
We think that defining this type of mechanism as a “shooter” is not what the game designers intended.
As a suggestion, you might redefine “shooter” as a “high energy delivery device” (3 to 12 m/sec) as opposed to a “low energy delivery device” (0 to 3 m/sec).
Whatever your decision, we encourage FIRST to post the result in the next team update to ensure a wide dissemination as we feel that many teams will be affected.
Regards,
Mike Betts on behalf of Team 177
Reply With Quote
