View Full Version : How many people like bumpers?
I don't know why the Game Designers required bumpers. Well, I do, but I thing it is pointless. Let teams decide if they want bumpers.
But that's not what the GDC chose to do so you don't really have that option. Personally I do like them and am glad that the GDC decided to make them mandatory. Bumpers are safe and allow for less damage to the robots.
This year is a race format and just like NASCAR FIRST is requiring very strict bumper rules.
Remember: racin'isrubbin'
But that's not what the GDC chose to do so you don't really have that option. Personally I do like them and am glad that the GDC decided to make them mandatory. Bumpers are safe and allow for less damage to the robots.
I think the opposite is true. I think in 2006 and 2007 they encouraged aggressive and at times destructive play, under the guise of being "protected" from such play by bumpers.
wilsonmw04
18-01-2008, 16:54
I like the idea of bumpers but why make the bumpers part of the over all length of the robot for all intents and purposes? The 80" rules makes wrapping around a 40" ball nearly impossible with a KOP frame. (unless you drive it on the short axis)
Urban Hawk
18-01-2008, 16:54
I like the rule since it keeps all the robots more protected, besides.... we were planning to put them on anyway.
We used bumpers since FIRST allowed teams to use them. I don't understand why some teams don't use them. It's a free extra 15 pounds and protects your precious toy from those mean old competitors.
cziggy343
18-01-2008, 17:06
the only part of the rule that i dont like is that it is added into your total profile... if it wasn't, then it wouldn't be so bad... but we wouldn't use them b/c (at least last year) we made our robot pimped out and wanted to show it off:D
DarkJedi613
18-01-2008, 17:09
We used bumpers since FIRST allowed teams to use them. I don't understand why some teams don't use them. It's a free extra 15 pounds and protects your precious toy from those mean old competitors.
I agree 100%. Its an added 15 pounds to help lower your center of gravity. Only issue I ever had with it was that it made it kinda difficult to go up the ramp in 2006.
Overall I think bumpers are a good idea. Although I'm not positive they should be required.
Billfred
18-01-2008, 17:15
I've been of the position that teams should have the choice. Bumpers make sense in some occasions, and absolutely none in others.
That said, this year bumpers make sense for me. If I'm stopped on the track trying to hurdle, I neither want nor need a robot to plow into me at 16.18 feet per second without at least a modicum of protection. And since FIRST required them this year, I'm certainly not in a position to argue about it now!
I like the bumper rule personally. Yes it's a little annoying because of R16, but that's really the only downside I can find. Having bumpers on your robot not only allows you more weight down low but also protects you from the other robots that are going to be speeding around the track. They also protect the work you've done on the robot in case the your driver is going to fast and hits one of the walls.
Bumpers also allow you to add a splash of color onto your robot. I love how we have bright orange bumpers every year. If you get creative they can look really nice in addition to being helpful.
1086wulf
18-01-2008, 17:47
Bumpers encourage bumping. I think there should be no bumpers. They increase your footprint and really don't do that much. The robots are made out of metal I mean come on what's gonna happen?
JaneYoung
18-01-2008, 18:49
Bumpers encourage bumping. I think there should be no bumpers. They increase your footprint and really don't do that much. The robots are made out of metal I mean come on what's gonna happen?
It is what it is.
--
You may have joined FIRST post bumpers. I can remember games before bumpers and metal is not impervious to damage and rough treatment. Neither are the other parts of the robot that are attached to the metal. The GDC members are reflective of what young people on FRC teams aspire to be and they know what they are doing. If they make a rule that says the bumpers are mandatory this year, I would wager it is for good reason and we will begin to understand that reason more fully as the competition season begins to play out and we have 6 robots on the field along with those mammoth balls.
AdamHeard
18-01-2008, 19:05
I'm a fan of rough games with lots of interaction (one of the reasons I like this year). I don't like them for the sake of destruction, but for how much more difficult it makes the game objective. Now, I see bumpers as a way to increase the level of interaction without risking destruction.
Combined with the 15 pounds down low for CG, I'd say I'm a huge fan.
wilsonmw04
18-01-2008, 19:10
It is what it is.
--
You may have joined FIRST post bumpers. I can remember games before bumpers and metal is not impervious to damage and rough treatment. Neither are the other parts of the robot that are attached to the metal. The GDC members are reflective of what young people on FRC teams aspire to be and they know what they are doing. If they make a rule that says the bumpers are mandatory this year, I would wager it is for good reason and we will begin to understand that reason more fully as the competition season begins to play out and we have 6 robots on the field along with those mammoth balls.
Jane,
Bet you are right, but why do they have to count in the size of the robot? They don't count in the starting box, why do they count when you are playing the game. Those 3.25-6.5 inches (depending on how many sides of an axis are covered) can make or break a design. My request is simple: if bumpers are going to count in the size restriction, make it count for the starting size too. It would make my head hurt less.
Daniel_LaFleur
18-01-2008, 19:10
Bumpers encourage bumping. I think there should be no bumpers. They increase your footprint and really don't do that much. The robots are made out of metal I mean come on what's gonna happen?
I have watched 2 robots, without bumbers, have a full speed head on collision during autonomous mode during the practice rounds of Thursday. 1 of those 2 never fully recovered all of it's functionality.
Bumpers are good. They allow for more robot-to-robot interaction with less damage. This makes for a more exciting match, IMHO.
David Guzman
18-01-2008, 19:26
I think it should be up to the team. If you don't want them, you know you have to make a stronger frame. If you like them and feel they are an asset to your robot then go for it. I like bumpers, but I don't think they should be mandatory.
thefro526
18-01-2008, 19:40
I like the mandatory bumper idea because as a driver one of my worries is getting hit to hard and hitting others to hard. This year are base is quicker than ever before so when we hit someone its gonna be hard. Also there's gonna be alot more inadvertent high speed robot to robot interaction this year and no one is ever really out to damage anyone else but it would be bound to happen with a weak frame.
flamefixed
18-01-2008, 20:19
im also a driver, and i go both ways.
last year (bumper-less) i managed to have two pieces of lexan, and one regulator that was attached to another piece of lexan behind the outermost, get smashed. Though it was kinda cool "battle scar" type kinda thing, its obvious why the GDC wouldnt want this. This is a faster game where experienced and inexperienced drivers may/will? lose control.
With that said, i did like having a solid, flat frame to do my pushing and other maneuvers.
Plus, nothing like that metal to metal smash sound in a collision that Daniel LaFleur described earlier.
But hey, this isnt battle bots.
There is going to be bumper material all over the field.
Is Shop Vac our new sponsor?
I personally think bumpers should be optional. I don't care to spend all that time fixing bumpers, removing them to work on the robot and getting inspected multiple times. This is an engineering problem and we should be able to design robots that don't need bumpers. Prior years I think teams used them for the weight advantage they gave, I don't think this year the weight will help, but will hinder you.
Sorry, if someone has heard me say this before, but I am very against the mandatory part of bumpers.
Francis-134
18-01-2008, 21:08
I think FIRST should let teams decide for themselves if they should have bumpers (and many other things for that matter). While they may be a good idea for some robots this year, they will probably be a problem for others. As with anything in engineering, there are trade offs in any decision. Why not let a team what's better for them?
Daniel_LaFleur
18-01-2008, 21:20
There is going to be bumper material all over the field.
Is Shop Vac our new sponsor?
I personally think bumpers should be optional. I don't care to spend all that time fixing bumpers, removing them to work on the robot and getting inspected multiple times. This is an engineering problem and we should be able to design robots that don't need bumpers. Prior years I think teams used them for the weight advantage they gave, I don't think this year the weight will help, but will hinder you.
Sorry, if someone has heard me say this before, but I am very against the mandatory part of bumpers.
I disagree.
Yes, this is an engineering problem ... but the problem is how to design the robot WITH bumpers.
1824s design would not work without the bumpers we are putting on. They are an integral part of the design. And we plan on using the weight as an advantage too ;)
Ive always been a fan of robots with a few gouges and scars in the aluminum, it gives it character. But I see the logic for this game, its very high speed. An out of control 120lbs hunk of metal will do much more less damage with bumpers... (I hope)
RTTComanche17
18-01-2008, 22:53
I HATE THAT RULE!!!:mad: Teams should be able to decide weather or not they want bumpers. If teams build sissy robots that cant handle being out on the track and getting hit, then i dont think they can build very effective robots. To me, bumpers are a sign of weakness in a robot. I love seeing robots with battle scars. Besides this year we're not even really supposed to hit. We can 'bump' to signal we want to pass. We're not supposed to plow through the field (although i'd love that. our robot has the strength to take any hits.) Anyone can make a something strong, but it takes and engineer to make something strong and light. and isn't that what we are supposed to be? Future Engineers!
I HATE THAT RULE!!!:mad: Teams should be able to decide weather or not they want bumpers. If teams build sissy robots that cant handle being out on the track and getting hit, then i dont think they can build very effective robots. To me, bumpers are a sign of weakness in a robot. I love seeing robots with battle scars. Besides this year we're not even really supposed to hit. We can 'bump' to signal we want to pass. We're not supposed to plow through the field (although i'd love that. our robot has the strength to take any hits.) Anyone can make a something strong, but it takes and engineer to make something strong and light. and isn't that what we are supposed to be? Future Engineers!
I couldn't agree more. It seems that the team members that have been around a long time prefer not having bumpers. The old robots did fine without them and there where many games that had head-on full speed collisions every round.
In 2002 every one drove full speed across the field from both sides at (3) 120 lb movable goals and there opponents. There was always a big bang at the start of the match, it was a great crowd pleaser.
In 2004 again most came flying across the field at each other and a 100 lb movable goal at each side of the field.
I believe the time wasted on bumpers could be used so that the students learn more.
In general, I don't like the requirement. I understand why it's there, and what FIRST is trying to accomplish/prevent, but I still don't like it.
If bumpers were really as fantastic an idea as they are being made out to be then FIRST wouldn't have to make their use mandatory. The vast majority of teams last year choose not to use bumpers, and that's been true for every year since bumpers debuted, so there are clearly reasons to not use them. I imagine reasons range from lack of time, concerns about arrival and departure angles on ramps (albeit not an issue this year), and overall size.
Like I said, I get it. I know why bumpers are good. I just don't think they are good enough to have their use mandatory.
If teams build sissy robots that cant handle being out on the track and getting hit, then i dont think they can build very effective robots.
Anyone can make a something strong, but it takes and engineer to make something strong and light. and isn't that what we are supposed to be? Future Engineers!
I strongly disagree with both of these statements, just because you put bumpers on your robot doesn't mean you can't build an effective robot and in real world engineering you design to the customers specs not you own.
FIRST has given us specs and we design to them that's what real engineers do.
I believe the time wasted on bumpers could be used so that the students learn more.
How is the time spent on helping students design their robot with bumpers in mind waste time? I think it is valuable experience.
How is the time spent on helping students design their robot with bumpers in mind waste time? I think it is valuable experience.
Our design always works good for the bumpers, that is not the problem. The problem is we spend hours finding the right covering and ordering it, finding pool noodles, and taking them on and off to work on the robot and to get it inspected. They also are probably the thing that needs the most constant maintenance on the robot. And to top it all; man are they ugly and make the robot look wimpy.
This competition takes a lot of peoples time to work with the students and I would rather not spend my valuable time with them on bumpers. There is so much more I would like to teach them in that time like: Gear ratios, leverage, acceleration, vector forces, material strengths, motors speed and power, programming, pneumatics and so much more.
Thanks for your view though.
Edit "They also coverup the most important part of the robot, the drivetrain"
Personally, I really don't like bumpers at all. They require us to spend time and money on something that isn't really needed. Sure they add protection, but we've built plenty of robots able to withstand high-speed collisions without bumpers before. Certainly they add weight and help drop the CG, but in this game isn't more weight a hindrance? We're trying to be maneuverable at high speeds - the heavier the robot, the harder that is. And the larger size just makes it harder to squeeze through tight spaces on the track. They have their good side, but I'd much rather have a robot without bumpers this year.
And to top it all; man are they ugly and make the robot look wimpy.
Aww, I don't think bumpers look ugly. If you cover them right they can add a very nice patch of color to your robot. Ours are always bright orange. Even in the off season they help attract attention and stick in peoples mind. If you have bright, noticeable bumpers its one more thing a scout might see and remember. When you are searching your mind for a team to pick sometimes you remember a team for the strangest reasons.
I don't know why you'd think they make the robot look wimpy. If you have them it should show that you put a lot of work into this robot and that you want to protect it and the other teams you might be "bumping" when your on the field. I have never seen a robot with bumpers that looked wimpy.
It should be very obvious that I am highly in favor of the bumper rule.
Our design always works good for the bumpers, that is not the problem. The problem is we spend hours finding the right covering and ordering it, finding pool noodles, and taking them on and off to work on the robot and to get it inspected. They also are probably the thing that needs the most constant maintenance on the robot. And to top it all; man are they ugly and make the robot look wimpy.
This competition takes a lot of peoples time to work with the students and I would rather not spend my valuable time with them on bumpers. There is so much more I would like to teach them in that time like: Gear ratios, leverage, acceleration, vector forces, material strengths, motors speed and power, programming, pneumatics and so much more.
Thanks for your view though.
It's a good lesson to learn how to source and research materials.
In two years I have never seen any problems with maintenance or extra time removing our bumpers. The bumpers we have used were easily removed and installed in seconds because we designed them that way.
Figuring out how to make them work and last is a valuable learning experience.
I understand the ugly factor and I can understand people being upset when they are forced to use them but this is the hand we are given lets make the best of it.
I don't think this year the weight will help, but will hinder you.
Exactly! This year, if speed is the name of the game, robots will want to weigh as little as possible and bumpers just add weight. I'm planning on drilling lots of holes into the plywood of the bumpers.
Exactly! This year, if speed is the name of the game, robots will want to weigh as little as possible and bumpers just add weight. I'm planning on drilling lots of holes into the plywood of the bumpers.
Before you do that, you might want to take a look at this Q&A answer (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8343). I would hate to see you spend Thursday at the competition rebuilding your bumpers because they were rejected during inspection.
-dave
.
Tom Line
22-01-2008, 10:36
I like the bumper rule.
We had bumpers on last year - unfortunately many robots did not. Those without bumpers had some incredibly sharp corners that they were slamming around - I saw aluminum shielding punctured by the corners of some of the robots.
We spent a decent amount of time sewing bumpers back together because those same robots literally "shredded" the material - and that isn't easy material to shred.
With all robots having bumpers on the same level, racing should be reasonable good this year.
I just hope they penalize "wheelie" bots for popping wheelies which move the bumpers out of position. One of those wheelie bots spent a great deal of time "landing" on top of our bot last year and really did a number on it.
I thought bumpers were suppose to be soft, squishy things so a robot doesn't hit another robot with as much force.
synth3tk
22-01-2008, 11:45
Where's the "in the middle" option here? You're forcing me to say yes or no, and I'm stuck on the fence here.
feliks_rosenber
22-01-2008, 12:27
I think bumpers are redundant. Well yes robots do hit each other with force but I don't see the reason why bumpers should be mandatory. Let teams decide :)
I have mixed feelings about it. Last year was our first year using the bumpers, but they helped a ton and we love them now. However, I think teams should have freedom of choice. If they want to take a chance without them, they should be allowed.
Capt. Quirk
22-01-2008, 15:26
I think the bumpers will prevent bots from running over a slower bots wheels and drive train.
Bad things happen fast when you get wheel on top of wheel contact between 2 racers on a track.
Here are some quotes from the robot manual
STANDARD BUMPERS – Bumper assemblies designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT within
the BUMPER ZONE, and constructed as specified in Rule <R08>. STANDARD BUMPERS may weigh
up to 15 pounds, and are excluded from the weight and volume calculations specified in Rule <R11>.
<R08> Teams are required to use STANDARD BUMPERS on their ROBOTS. Bumpers can
reduce damage to ROBOTS when they contact another ROBOT or field elements.
STANDARD BUMPERS have several advantages, such as being excluded from the
calculation of the ROBOT weight and volume limitations specified in Rule <R11>.
STANDARD BUMPERS must be constructed as described below.
<R13> For the purposes of determining compliance with the weight and volume limitations
specified in Rule <R11>, these items are NOT considered part of the ROBOT and are NOT
included in the weight and volume assessment of the ROBOT:
The 12V battery and its associated half of the Anderson cable quick
connect/disconnect pair (including no more than 12 inches of cable per leg, the
associated cable lugs, connecting bolts, and insulating electrical tape) on board the
ROBOT,
Any STANDARD BUMPER assemblies included on the ROBOT that are in
compliance with Rule <R08>, up to a maximum of 15 pounds,
Not sure what you are looking at.
Bruce
The bumpers don't count for starting size (R11) because they're specifically exempted. However, they are not exempted from the measurement for max horizontal dimension (R16). It's confirmed in Q&A that the bumpers count against your 80 inches.
That I can understand but it seems most folks on this thread (unless I missunderstood) think they count in the starting config measurements.
Just wanted to make sure that was not the case.
Bruce
(Read with sarcasm)
Yes, of course we should have the freedom of choice. We should not have to have a bumpers. We should not have to be under 120 pounds. We should be able to put chainsaws on our bot.
(end of sarcasm)
Sorry, if that was in the least bit rude but from what I gather, people would rather have freedom then a challenge. The challenge is why I want to be an engineer. If I could go out and make anything I want with no specifications or restrictions then it just wouldn't be engineering. If you don't agree with me refer to the design process. One of these steps specifically states that we should identify the problem. This year the problem includes a bumper requirement. Plain and simple, design for that and it won't matter.
My only concession: It is mighty hard to find pool noodles in Indiana at this time of year.
Alan Anderson
23-01-2008, 11:54
Bumpers are good. We'd design for protected wheels even if they weren't mandatory. Having the extra size and weight to work with is double good.
My only concession: It is mighty hard to find pool noodles in Indiana at this time of year.
That's why I bought a pile of them last July. ;)
JaneYoung
23-01-2008, 12:03
That's why I bought a pile of them last July. ;)
Y'all have 'piles' in Indiana? Wonder if you have messes, too - as in, I bought a mess of them last July. mess = pile. But I digress...
go bumpers!
GaryVoshol
23-01-2008, 12:23
My only concession: It is mighty hard to find pool noodles in Indiana at this time of year.
That's why I bought a pile of them last July. ;)We thought of that. Actually we thought of going out in late Sept or Oct and getting them on closeout special. Somehow that just didn't happen.
That's why I bought a pile of them last July. ;)
Well, now we know where to get them in the future.;)
A quick drive to Kokomo and we're set.
Mike@1023
23-01-2008, 14:03
well they DO help protect robots from very agressive driving, but they also promote the same violent behavior. so keep them and we have brutality, loose them and we have no protection.
I like the bumper rule. It forces you to further engineer your robot to meet specs laid out by a pseudo-customer. And since our bot will be going roughly 15ft/s this year, I honestly want the impact force of ~.015 seconds spread out over a pool noodle instead of the frame. Bumpers are cheap (time-wise) to replace at the competition; aluminum framing is not.
Anyone can make a something strong, but it takes and engineer to make something strong and light. and isn't that what we are supposed to be? Future Engineers!
Engineering is not solely experimentation. Engineering really is about solving problems, and problems ALWAYS have constraints or things that you CANNOT assume or modify.
In the real world, if you don't like the constraints put onto you by Nature, you can, simply put, get over it.
In the real world, if you don't like the constraints put onto you by your engineering employer, you can find a new job or go it alone.
However, in the real world if you go it alone as an engineer and don't conform to the constraints of your customer, you won't make any products/designs that actually solve someone's problem. You also won't make any money.
Even as a theorist or scientist, you will have constraints you knew about and pull your hair out trying to find the ones you don't know about. The difference is that as an engineer at least most of your restrictions, regulations, and requirements are straightforward.
Now, to engineer something strong and light for your bot, you can make a 2x2x2' cube. Your bumpers are only 6' long, which is roughly 8lbs, and 8 outta 15 ain't bad. Put a hemispherical dome on top of the cube and BAM you can run around with flare like R2D2.
Installing bumpers on a robot that are predefined and have specific requirements involve NO engineering. It is completely and absolutely construction. The bumpers we use in FIRST are about as far from engineering as you can get, the engineering was already done by FIRST's GDC. If I thought that was what engineering was about I wouldn't have become an engineer. Cheers.
I don't want to say that because of the spirit of FIRST.
Installing bumpers on a robot that are predefined and have specific requirements involve NO engineering. It is completely and absolutely construction. The bumpers we use in FIRST are about as far from engineering as you can get, the engineering was already done by FIRST's GDC. If I thought that was what engineering was about I wouldn't have become an engineer. Cheers.
I don't want to say that because of the spirit of FIRST, but I am ready for the responses.
It's not the bumpers that are being engineered. Not at all! They are one of the constraints that we have to design around. You have to engineer your robot to:
support the bumpers in the zone,
fit in the 80" with the bumpers on, and
have the bumpers easy to remove with whatever mounting system is used.All of which require engineering and creativity to do.
You have to engineer your robot to:
fit in the cylinder with the bumpers on
that is not a rule... :) it's 80" max for the longest measurement in the horizontal plane.
-Leav
that is not a rule... :) it's 80" max for the longest measurement in the horizontal plane.
-LeavI fixed my post. Can't have people getting confused even worse...
Thanks for all the comments, and a special thanks to dlavery for setting my straight on bumper design.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.