Bumpers here to stay? [Archive]

Cory

09-05-2006, 20:06

xzvrw2

09-05-2006, 20:06

I see the bumper as an excuse to ram really hard.
I think that they need to go.
They saved some robots from damage, but thats because robots were just battering rams.
Thats no what FIRST is about.
Maybe its just me, but I think they need to go.

Stevie

(edit: ok so it isn't only me haha)

lukevanoort

09-05-2006, 20:09

I hope they do, but I'm not sure. It seems to me that a lot of the high speed high contact play that made this year's game so exciting would have been impossible without the bumpers. (Or at least unrealistic, by the Champs, I think something like a third the robots would have been quite damaged) So, I would really like to see another fast, exciting game, and if bumpers would help that happen, then I hope they stay forever. Given the concerns menitoned above, the ramming rules would have to tighten though...

Pavan Dave

09-05-2006, 20:20

I think they seemed to be a hit and will definitely return...but then again we won't need them if we're underwater, now will we? ;)
FIRST is not underwater...wrong organization mate... you are looking for MATE.
http://www.marinetech.org/

Pavan

travis48elite

09-05-2006, 20:23

I certainly hope so as long as keep the bumpers teams can play some hard defense unlike last year. Last was a dark year for our team, due to that the game was more in favor of offense not defense. Plus the bumpers reduce the damage that a robot would usually receive over the season. So believe me there are so many positives keeping bumpers.

Rohith Surampudi

09-05-2006, 20:24

...o wait we were supposed to use FOAM bumpers...i thought they were happy with the 80-20 from the frame :p

well i think alot of things from this year will be kept for next year, bumpers are probably one of them.

Billfred

09-05-2006, 20:26

Some of the rules about bumpers were annoying to me. If they were to allow some angled cuts (no obvious wedges, though), and also authorize a one-noodle version of the bumper for those times when you want more clearance, I could stand to see them return. Perhaps there was some feeling of "oh, they've got bumpers, we can ram 'em" with some drivers, but I never really saw anything to that effect in person. Your mileage can and will vary.

raiofsunshine

09-05-2006, 20:29

As much as I hated the idea of bummpers in the begining, they where useful to the game, since there was so much defence that was needed. (Personally, I didn't see a ton of ramming.) I think they will stay on for next year - regardless of the whole underwater thing.

Bongle

09-05-2006, 20:34

I think they're great. As a part of a team that played almost entirely defensively, we're obviously great fans. At our first regional, the front bar on our robot was bent quite badly from all the pushing we did. We also had a few instances where we rode up or under other robots, which is obviously no good. Once we installed bumpers, I'm pretty sure we never ended up on top of or below another robot.

Here's why I like bumpers
-Bumpers are not a slippery slope towards robot-fighting. They simply increase the degree of interaction between robots that already existed. Aggresive, robot-damaging strategies were still banned and penalized just like all the years in the past.
-Bumpers aren't new. The only new thing is that FIRST finally released a standard for them so that they would actually bump into each other, and thus actually be effective bumpers.
-High-speed ramming still draws a penalty on the offending team. If you get high-speed rammed and there is no penalty, pester the field officials, because they really should be looking out for these things.
-You are given a weight and space allowance for building the standard bumpers.
-If both rammer and rammee have bumpers, the rammer faces approximately the exact risks as your robot.
-Incidental damage to all robots is reduced. There will always be times due to driver error where robots collide with each other or the wall at high speeds. Foam absorbs such impacts much better than steel, aluminum, or plastic. Teams should use their bumper allowance for this reason alone.

The main anti-bumper argument I see (and agree with) is that the anti-ramming rules are not enforced strongly enough to keep things from degrading. If they could maybe get a single specialized ref on the lookout for high-speed rams, that might solve that problem.

As soon as we realized our prime strategy was defense, our driver was given very specific orders to not ram. We have several instances on video where he would approach a robot at full throttle, then stop so hard the robot nearly tips over. Once stopped, he would approach the other robot slowly, then being pushing.

xzvrw2

09-05-2006, 20:40

Because my team turned out to be one of those teams that could score 20 balls (inconsistantly bhut nevertheless we did) we seen alot more ramming then the teams that can only score 10 the whole match.
Teams like:
217
1114
469
70
79
121
All smashed because they were good. They seen alot of high speed hits. I think that because of the bumpers teams rammed. thats fine, just if its too hard the refs need to call it. and thats one thing i did not see at all, a rammin flag. alot of teams broke that rule, no flags were thrown. Ithink that the refs need to call them.

Donut

09-05-2006, 20:45

Bumpers saved our robot from destruction; end of story. We suffered more damage to our conveyor belt in just 2 practice matches on Thursday (when we weren't using bumpers) than we did the entire rest of competition combined (when we were using them). They gave a weight advantage this year (obviously that will disappear if all teams begin using them) but also kept I think a number of balls out from under our robot.

The only thing I ask for if they return is what has already been suggested; some more flexibility when it comes to bumper use. Allow them to be mounted a little higher or lower than they could be this year, and allow for half-height or partial bumpers.

I honestly think the increase of defense from last year was due to this year's game, not due to bumpers. I remember just as much pushing when we competed in 2004.

EricH

09-05-2006, 21:06

Another con that nobody mentioned: corner intrusion. You have a perfectly legal robot, designed to flood the corner goal, and you have measures not to go in at all, but you have bumpers. You go to the corner and start flooding it, but then somebody shoves you in. You get DQ'd, just because the bumpers are 3.5" max and the rule is 3". Now, that was about the only game design issue, but it was serious. I'd like to see bumpers next year (again, nothing prohibiting teams from using ones other than the design, as long as those stay in the box), but with the field designed to allow for them.

Ken Leedle

09-05-2006, 21:12

The only disadvantage of bumpers is that the robot no longer will fit through most doors with them on.

They made this game playable. Without them, fast shooting teams would probably have been rammed just as much, and incurred much more damage. Besides, who wouldn't want an extra 15 lbs of weight at the bottom of the robot? I agree that they should have more flexibility in position. I do not think that one noodle bumpers would work as well because it would be possible for teams to have bumpers at different heights, negating the reason for having them.

Pavan Dave

09-05-2006, 21:29

I think they saves A LOT of robots and that it was a great idea, i just done like the ramming rules...

Pavan

Dan Petrovic

09-05-2006, 21:38

Bumpers kept us from tipping... multiple times. I like the idea of bumpers.

I just don't like the strict rules defining which noodles you MUST use and which material you MUST use and all that.

spears312

09-05-2006, 21:47

I definitely see the bumpers coming back next year. They really helped prevent frame damage for frames. It's also nice to have the weight advantage. With them though, there aren't as many head on metal to metal collisions as there used to be, and they may start giving reason to weaken the frame. Overall they are pretty good add on and provide for some interesting new strategy.

sciencenerd

09-05-2006, 22:32

I believe that whether bumpers come back another year or not depends on how much contact has been designed into the game next year. I think the main reason the GDC allowed them this year was because they were able to see that there would be a lot of robot collisions one way or another (compared, for example to last year) and knew something had to be done to minimize damage. If next year's game is anywhere close to as big on defense, the bumpers will probably be back. If not, I doubt they will be kept.

TopRamen1138

09-05-2006, 22:40

Yeah, Kaneo, you know that the one time we ran into that ramp, and broke the frigggin' lexan, it hit us right where there was no bumper; and it killed our collectorwheelthingy... Plus, if the robot got out of control, I wouldn't hesitate as much to stick my leg in its way if it were going to hit something/body because bumpers are squishy. Aluminum, not so.

BBnum3

09-05-2006, 22:50

I really liked the bumpers this year and I hope they come back next year. I think that a lot of "ramming" with bumpers would cause less damage than a little "ramming" without them. My team used them as we were a defensive robot and they worked out nicely. They also help to absorb some of the shock caused by collisions.

Some of the rules about bumpers were
annoying to me. If they were to allow some angled cuts (no obvious wedges, though), and also authorize a one-noodle version of the bumper for those times when you want more clearance, I could stand to see them return.

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/24517) of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.

Jonathan Norris

09-05-2006, 22:50

I believe that bumpers are here to stay, they provided much needed protection in this years game. Without bumpers I believe that this years game would have played very differently if bumpers were not widely used and the wedge rule had not been put in place. The defense would have been overwhelming otherwise. If defense is a key part of the game bumpers are needed.

The only downside I can see to the implementation of bumpers is how it hurts creativity in the design of a robot. Over the years one of the most innovative parts of the robots has been the many amazing defense and protection innovations by teams. This year the bumpers and mainly the wedge rule eliminated that part the creativity of robot designs. I hope to see the reinstatement of wedges and defensive components in the future. Some of the best matches I have ever seen happen between a defensive and offensive powerhouse.

=Martin=Taylor=

09-05-2006, 23:52

I think it really depends on the game.

I personally found the bumpers a little bit of a nuisance when it came to getting up the ramp and collecting balls. If next year's game requires climbing something steep I don't see them as an advantage.

I don't think they really protected our robot that much, seeing how we only had them on the sides and we only got hit on the front and back. Which oddly wound up being the only parts of the frame that didn't get bent...http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

Billfred

10-05-2006, 00:26

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/24517) of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.
Going from what I can tell from the picture, such angled cuts are the ones that are currently disallowed (source (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=383)) but should be permitted.

Nita

10-05-2006, 00:56

The only disadvantage of bumpers is that the robot no longer will fit through most doors with them on. My team had a little trouble with that and had to remake the bumpers 3 times in order to get a set that was easy to put on and take off...

I liked the bumpers because it added more mass towards the bottom of the robot and also kept most things from getting under the robot.

Gabe

10-05-2006, 01:04

Wouldn't bumpers be a hindrance when trying to get across obstacles like a 4" by 4" on the ground or some stairs? Next year there has to be rougher terrain as part of the challenge (no, not water :rolleyes: ). It seems that bumpers would not be so good in those situations.

We did not use any bumpers this year because we decided that instead we should reinforce the chassis some more, which we think helped us by having one less thing to worry about on the field. :]

Cactus_Robotics

10-05-2006, 02:56

Yea w/o bumpers our team didn't have enough weight to get on the ramp and they definitely help in the ways of pushing and protection from the frame bending. So bumpers = good idea

Tim Arnold

10-05-2006, 06:22

I hope not--having bumpers practically invited teams to ram the heck out of each other.

contact that would never have been allowed last year was practically encouraged this year. At every one of our events we ended up with robots driving on top of the insides of our robot, and ramming our subframe.

Obviously we chose to lose some protection by not using bumpers, and we fully expected for the outside of our robot to be brutalized. We never planned on part of that loss of protection to mean the inside of our robot could legally be torn up.

Although I like bumpers (ours went through SEVERAL attachment processes as they kept breaking... I think the final way to hold them on was drywall screws (we tried concrete anchors, zip ties, bolts, wood screws, etc.)), there is a very interesting read about this subject on D*mn Interesting (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=494) called "The Balance of Risk":
What’s happening is a process known as risk compensation. It’s a tendency in humans to increase risky behavior proportionately as safeguards are introduced, and it’s very common. So common, in fact, as to render predictions of how well any given piece of safety equipment will work almost useless...
The article goes much more in depth. Good read.

xzvrw2

10-05-2006, 07:37

What ever happened to building a robot that can withstand a beating?
Our team didn't use them this year and we got beat up so bad, only one think happened to our drive train and that was a screw came loose.
I think that if you need bumpers to save your robot, you need to go back and re-engineer your 'bot to be able to withstand the illegal ramming that went on all year this year.

Stevie

Not2B

10-05-2006, 08:39

I think that if you need bumpers to save your robot, you need to go back and re-engineer your 'bot to be able to withstand the illegal ramming that went on all year this year.

Or you could use the bummers, as allowed, as part of your engineering assumptions and use them to your advantage, allowing for a different frame. They weren't just foam - there was one heck of a chuck of wood there too, that could be used for stiffening - and it was FREE in the weight budget.

I like the bummers - why? Because they allow more "robot interaction". So? People don't want to watch co-operation FIRST or Triple Play (And I loved Triple play) - a bunch of robots doing a task mostly un-bothered. No one is going to watch offence alone. If basketball was offence alone, then it would be an NBA version of HORSE. Football would just be a game of catch. And baseball would be a grand slam challenge. NASCAR would only be time trials. And as a Michigander, I don't even want to know what Hockey would become.

All that's from a team that was an offence bot this year. (In theory)

Daniel_LaFleur

10-05-2006, 08:45

Here's why I like bumpers
-High-speed ramming still draws a penalty on the offending team. If you get high-speed rammed and there is no penalty, pester the field officials, because they really should be looking out for these things.

After scoring 10 balls in a row from the bottom of the ramp we were highspeed rammed by a robot that started its run from 1/2 court. No foul was called. It is my belief that they allowed this type of contact due to the bumpers.

Rules are only rules when they are enforced. FIRST made an effort NOT to enforce high speed ramming. When we approached the refs asking for a ruling on high speed ramming against us, they said they didnt see it. When we offered the video (yes, we have video) they refused to look at it.

The only thing positive I can say about the bumpers is that the officials were consistant. They called no highspeed ramming at all. Battlebots, here we come :(

GaryVoshol

10-05-2006, 08:49

I just don't like the strict rules defining which noodles you MUST useThe only strict rule was on the diameter of the noodle, which makes obvious sense.
and which material you MUST use and all that.Cordura was the recommended fabric - you could use anything similar. And even if Cordura was made the sole fabric allowed, it's not that expensive and is readily available online - presuming you're planning ahead, and not making your bumpers just before ship.

Alex Cormier

10-05-2006, 09:42

After scoring 10 balls in a row from the bottom of the ramp we were highspeed rammed by a robot that started its run from 1/2 court. No foul was called. It is my belief that they allowed this type of contact due to the bumpers. If your robot was at all on the ramp it was totally legal of any kind while robot is not fully on the carpet.

When we approached the refs asking for a ruling on high speed ramming against us, they said they didnt see it. When we offered the video (yes, we have video) they refused to look at it.
It is not the NFL, you don't get time to challenge a play and have the head ref take time out of the next match to watch a video.

Qbranch

10-05-2006, 10:19

pushing/shoving/ramming/defending was major in this year's game.

i can't see how a robot can hold together without bumpers.

-Q

Tristan Lall

10-05-2006, 13:04

If your robot was at all on the ramp it was totally legal of any kind while robot is not fully on the carpet.You're thinking of <G24>, the pinning rule, not <G22> the robot contact rule.

There was no specific exception for ramming robots on the ramp.

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/24517) of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.Going from what I can tell from the picture, such angled cuts are the ones that are currently disallowed (source (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=383)) but should be permitted.With regard to the bumper cuts, let me back up Billfred's assessment of the situation. <R35> specified that bumpers must be designed per the figure drawn; Q&As were issued for clarification of just how stringently that had to be followed. They stated: "The only cuts allowed in bumpers are vertical cuts, completely through the bumper, and perpendicular to the plywood. Bumpers may have gaps as shown in Figure 5-1 in <R35>." (from here (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=193)), and reiterated this position quite clearly on several occasions.

You won't believe how many teams had issues with this. FIRST should have definitely made this stipulation in an update, and not just in a Q&A, but the teams have to realize that they're responsible for following <R35> in the first place—all the Q&A did was suggest how much leeway they ought to have at inspection, in terms of minor deviations from the rule. In this case, it was absolutely clear: vertical cuts only (i.e. beveled ends to clear the floor when climbing the ramp, horizontal cutouts to clear the crest of the ramp, etc. were illegal).

I have many more bumper horror stories to tell...maybe I'll get to listing them later.

Daniel_LaFleur

10-05-2006, 13:15

If your robot was at all on the ramp it was totally legal of any kind while robot is not fully on the carpet.

Incorrect.
<G22> [snip] • Rule <R35> in Section 5.3.4 establishes ROBOT bumper zones. Any contact within this zone is
generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed long distance ramming.

It is not the NFL, you don't get time to challenge a play and have the head ref take time out of the next match to watch a video.

Please do not get me wrong, I was not complaining. All I was doing was pointing out to the previous poster that asking a referee to review a play was tried and was not allowed.

And as I said before, all was fair since the refs called the game the same for all matches (no broken robot, no foul).

Taylor

10-05-2006, 14:50

I think that regardless of high-speed ramming rules, games are physical. Robots hit each other - they did last year, too; they just got penalized for it - and it's not always intentional. Robots must be built robustly to keep them safe from harm - if a robot gets mauled and is unusable, I would consider that a design flaw.
If next year's game is as physical as this, I would not be surprised to see an elevated driver's station. It was hard to see exactly what was happening 50' away from ground level - I think giving the operators a birds-eye-view would make the game a bit safer. Plus, I'm convinced that next year's game will include some definite topography (stairs, ramps, seesaws, etc.).

Mike Nawrot

10-05-2006, 15:21

Bumpers have many benefits and pitfalls. Personally, bumpers saved our robot this year, considering it was a little top heavy. I cannot begin to count the number of times our robot balanced on two wheels and a bumper after being hit from the side by another robot. We won those matches because we balanced on the bumper enough for one of our alliance partners to tip us back and allow us to score. There were even ocasions where we were still shooting while balancing on our bumper. On the other hand, bumpers eliminate alot of design aspects, such as designing with CG in mind from the get-go, to material choice and such, because the students that design the robot no longer have to worry about how they'll make their drivetrain/robot withstand the abuse an FRC robot endures. This has a negative result in some situations, since the students may learn less than they would otherwise. Also, bumpers are more prone to aggressive play on the feild, resulting in more robots flipping and breaking. Bumpers are a great idea if robot contact and aggressive play are still called to a degree, and if structural integrity is still taken into mind during the design, there is almost no disadvantage. But like I said, aggressive contact has to be more closely monitored.

dhitchco

10-05-2006, 15:26

If nothing else, the usage of bumpers will likely help exdend the lifetime of the field elements! yes, in 2006, there were incidents of cracked sheets of acrylic, but all-in-all, the side rails will be be in better shape with the usage of bumpers.

Also, the usage of bumbers may be a safety benefit to the robots in the pits since it cuts down (no pun intended) onthe number of sharp edges that a team member can get impaled upon.

For the matches themselves, the use or non-use of bumpers won't make too much of a difference. Our battery cable came out (no Zip-tie) and would have done so with or without bumpers. Rules are already in place to minimize ramming and pinning, so bumpers won't change (and should NOT change) those rules.

They do add some imagery though!

Starke

10-05-2006, 15:35

pushing/shoving/ramming/defending was major in this year's game.

i can't see how a robot can hold together without bumpers.

-Q

i agree with what you are saying. however, this makes it seem like robots without bumpers got destroyed beyond recognition. to some extent this is true. our robot did not use bumpers this year, and the frame held up very well. no major cracks or dents.

i guess what i am saying that almost all of the robots in the past games have not been destroyed when no one used bumpers. bumpers are nice to have, no doubt. but they also prohibit some cool features on robots from being made.

BBnum3

10-05-2006, 17:18

With regard to the bumper cuts, let me back up Billfred's assessment of the situation. <R35> specified that bumpers must be designed per the figure drawn; Q&As were issued for clarification of just how stringently that had to be followed. They stated: "The only cuts allowed in bumpers are vertical cuts, completely through the bumper, and perpendicular to the plywood. Bumpers may have gaps as shown in Figure 5-1 in <R35>." (from here (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=193)), and reiterated this position quite clearly on several occasions.

You won't believe how many teams had issues with this. FIRST should have definitely made this stipulation in an update, and not just in a Q&A, but the teams have to realize that they're responsible for following <R35> in the first place—all the Q&A did was suggest how much leeway they ought to have at inspection, in terms of minor deviations from the rule. In this case, it was absolutely clear: vertical cuts only (i.e. beveled ends to clear the floor when climbing the ramp, horizontal cutouts to clear the crest of the ramp, etc. were illegal).

My team read and knew that rule in the manual, but we decided to just cut away that part of the bumper anyway. At Wisconsin and and the Championship we had no issues with judges commenting on the bumper design. I thought it was really interesting that nobody said anything about it. I'm not trying to brag about getting around a rule, but I am happy that we did, as the rule, like I said before, didn't really affect gameplay at all.

Nica F.

10-05-2006, 17:45

like people have said earlier in this thread there isnt really a reason to not keep the bumpers. but then again.. it really does depend on what theyre planning to do for future games right?

Kate00

10-05-2006, 17:58

My team read and knew that rule in the manual, but we decided to just cut away that part of the bumper anyway.

So you knew about the rule, and decided to break it? Knowing that other teams would follow the rule, putting them at a disadvantage against you, as they cut off their bumpers vertically?

The effect that it had on gameplay was that some teams could not climb the ramp because of their bumpers. As you say here, (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/24517) you could. 25 points is a lot in a game - that angled cut in the bumpers could have made a huge difference in the success of some teams.

The season is over and done with, I know that this doesn't really matter much right now, but it still makes me cringe to see teams that don't follow the rules, don't let the playing field be level.

As to the issue of bumpers themselves, I would like to see them return. I feel that, as driver, it made me have to worry less about keeping the robot intact and more about actually defending against other robots. It made for a more exciting game, as well as making the robots more robust. As well, they are a nice way to display your team colours, and some teams really capitalised on that. My team referred to Waldo's robot as "the one with the red and white striped bumpers" - it made for easy identification. I know that my team wanted to make our bumpers out of kilt fabric, but then realised that it wasn't exactly strong nor polyester. We're working on getting some strong polyester in our tartan ordered for next year.

Some modifications to the rules may be in order, but I think that all in all, the bumpers were successful, and hope to see them make a triumphant return.

Karthik

10-05-2006, 18:49

My team read and knew that rule in the manual, but we decided to just cut away that part of the bumper anyway.

So you knew it was a rule, but you decided to violate it anyways? This is what we call "cheating".

I'm not trying to brag about getting around a rule, but I am happy that we did, as the rule, like I said before, didn't really affect gameplay at all.

This is what we call "someone being happy about cheating".

I'm sorry to be harsh, but this is ridiculous. FIRST has a lot of rules that people don't like. Just because we don't like them, we still have to obey them. If not, we're punishing teams for taking the time to stay within compliance. Examples this year include the fix-it windows. Many teams disagreed with the logistics of these, and could have violated them easily. Despite their disagreement with the rule, they obeyed them.

Let's face it, most of the rules in our competition can be broken very easily. We rely on the gracious professionalism of our participants, to ensure these rules are adhered to. When a team decides to break a rule that is hard to enforce the only group that suffers are the honest teams who upheld the rules. Do you really want to be a part of that?

chrisinmd

10-05-2006, 19:38

I had mixed feelings about bumpers when we shipped, I didn't think we would need them, but at Pittsburgh (our first regional) during practice matches we got hit pretty hard. Luckily we brought the stuff to make them so we frantically worked to get them finished for qualifying matches. They helped so much and also helped to keep the balls out from under the bot. In a practice match we didn't have bumpers and a ball got under our gears and we were stuck, the only thing we could do was shred the heck out of the ball (oops!). I thought they were a good thing, but they are definitely not an excuse to ram.

-Chris

Dylan

10-05-2006, 20:14

I certainly hope that bumpers are here to stay, they probably saved alot of robots from being smashed this year. And whatever the game, there will always be robots smashing into each other. If bumpers are not featured next year, I'll bet some teams will be building their robots to allow for bumper space, and still be within the size specs.

Zoheb N

10-05-2006, 21:08

i admit the bumpers were helpful to protect your robot from being smashed up from being hit, but i believed it sort of said it is fine to go ram a robot as long as you use a bumper. Now I am not trying to shoot down bumpers, but when you get robots who's sole goal is to ram you with their bumpers and try to tip your bot that is not really accomplishing the game.

MikeJ675

10-05-2006, 21:28

I don't mind the bumpers, but I dislike the 15lb weight advantage for using them.

If bonuses are given for them, why not for using the camera or one of the other special parts we get each year?

The weight limit should be steady. The max weight + battery(due to inconsistant weights between batteries)

The weight bonus is the main problem I have.

If you'll excuse the use of a robot combat related example, here I go-

Spining weapon robot A faces fast wedge B. Due to the rules, B was able to add 15lbs of armor to their robot, while due to the nature of A, it is impracticle. B has gained 15lbs more worth of pushing power and protection. It is also now going to react to the impact different. When A hits B, roughly 50% of the energy goes into each on a horizontal impact. A will now move farther and faster than B due to B's weight advantage.

To go on to another kinda off kilter point-
Why not give weight bonuses or penalties for certain types of scoring mechanisms? Obviously some are heavier than others as well as sometimes more difficult to make. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for their extra effort?

To close-
If you can't build it to survive the game within the normal weight restrictions, you aren't trying hard enough.

JackN

10-05-2006, 21:55

I could see bumpers staying on as a part of FIRST, but if FIRST gets rid of the wedge rule, I could see them disapering again.

Aaron D.

10-05-2006, 22:28

well I hope that FIRST allows bumpers to stay, they really are helpful and I sure hope the wedge rule stays had that been in effect in 2003 houston might have been a different story for us on einstein

eugenebrooks

10-05-2006, 23:05

I don't mind the bumpers, but I dislike the 15lb weight advantage for using them.

The weight advantage was explicitly indicated at our kickoff as encouragement for using bumpers. FIRST's goal with the bumper specification was to define contact points between robots in a manner that would minimize damage, and to use the weight advantage as an inducement for teams to include bumpers in their design. If we had to include the weight of the bumpers in our weight budget, we would never had included them and FIRST's goal of a well defined contact point between robots that minimizes the chances of damage due to robot interaction would not have been served.

I think that the shock of high speed ramming can damage the internals of a robot, even with the bumpers, and I think that the rule against high speed ramming should be enforced regardless of whether or not a robot has bumpers. We had the drive shaft of our turret pan motor bent by an impact, in spite of bumpers, although it did not take our turrent out of operation. It easly could have.

It is easy to see that aggressive robot contact between robots without bumpers has a greater chance of causing damage, and I can understand a higher degree of sensitivity on the part of referees in this instance. Their goal is to prevent robot damage during play...

I think that the bumpers were a smashing success this year! :-)

I have enough experience without bumpers to look forward to seeing "weightless" bumpers in the robot rules next year.

Eugene

Jeremiah Johnson

11-05-2006, 00:59

The bumpers saved our robot in WMR... lowering our CG and being able to take some beating. But I only think they should be available in games where there is a wide open field like this year. Last year there really wasn't a use for them. It was much harder to ram at high speeds in 2004 + 2005. 2003 would have been nice to have bumpers though. But the robustness of the robots would probably have been compromised.

GaryVoshol

11-05-2006, 08:01

So you knew it was a rule, but you decided to violate it anyways? This is what we call "cheating".

I'm sorry to be harsh, but this is ridiculous. FIRST has a lot of rules that people don't like. Just because we don't like them, we still have to obey them. If not, we're punishing teams for taking the time to stay within compliance.
Precisely. Other teams, like 1188, measured and designed for bumpers. We kept our wheelbase short to allow the bumper to clear the breakover at the top of the ramp. We knew our measurements were close, and sure enough, when we tried to go up the ramp the rear bumper caused the robot to get stuck. We had to remove that bumper, and only go with 3. If we could have made the bumper only 1.5 noodles high, we could have used it - but that wasn't allowed within the rules.

Tetraman

11-05-2006, 08:23

Bumpers were needed in this game because half of the game was defence. Thats why your robots were saved from damage, thats why your robot did so well in defence.

Other games didn't depend on so much defence, so the need for bumpers will go away with the less need for defence. How much chassis-to-chassis defence was there in tripple play? I don't think I would want teams to have to build a robot that includes bumpers every year. I wouldn't want it to be a "So lets get started on building a chassis with bumpers." I would want it to be a "Lets work on a robust chassis."

If bumpers stay, it will limit the imagination of chassis design. It will force to work within the bumpers just to save it from being pushed around.

Donut

11-05-2006, 08:50

Dylan

11-05-2006, 16:44

Now I am not trying to shoot down bumpers, but when you get robots who's sole goal is to ram you with their bumpers and try to tip your bot that is not really accomplishing the game.
You can be penalized for intensionally tipping over a robot, so I'm not sure that this issue ^ is caused by bumpers too much.

BBnum3

11-05-2006, 17:24

This is for all those who read my earlier post and had any thoughts or comments on my team's bumper design.

Please don't worry. We didn't cheat. It was because of my lousy writing that I gave that impression.

I completely understand the outrage felt by many at my misrepresentation of the facts. If I read that post I would have thought that a team was proud of cheating and would've felt the same way. The way I clumsily wrote, it sounded like I said that we deliberately broke a rule in order to gain an advantage for our robot. We didn't. I want to relay the whole story of how my team arrived at our bumper design, because I feel that it is necessary that I clear up this whole issue.

Here's the story:

One of our mentors decided to cut the bumpers with a cut that ended up not being perfectly vertical. With the Cordura fabric wrapping the cut, the bumpers looked vertical to all of us, and apparently the inspectors thought so, too. There was no intentional deception. Our robot passed inspection with those cuts on the bumpers. I thought that if our robot passed inspection with those bumpers that they could not possibly be illegal. After this my team pretty much forgot any issue with our bumpers. At the Championship event our team again passed inspection with the same bumpers. The topic of bumpers never once came up at the Championship, no mention (as far as i know) by any inspectors or any other teams.

I'm not that great of a writer. I was trying to go too fast in my original post, and disgraced myself and my team. When I said we knew and had read the rule I was wrong. The whole issue with cheating is entirely due to my poor wording, and not to anything my teammates did. I feel really bad about this whole thing, and hope that I can learn from this experience, because, plain and simple, I did something stupid.

team222badbrad

11-05-2006, 18:51

222 has gone without bumpers Oh, since we started in 1997 and we have not needed them yet so why start using them now?

We have gone to over 45 competitions over the years and have been in many rough matches; beat on us, ram us, push us, tip us over we don't care.

If any rule should apply to building a robot frame it would be KISS.

I have seen many complex or weak frames get bent and every year we have built box frames from various sizes aluminum angle because we know it works!

This year I also saw many teams with bumpers get caught up on the field, especially the ramp.

In the future we will most likely not use bumpers unless forced or we see a good reason to use them, for example if we needed to increase our weight.