Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?

[Katy]

As I am sure you all have noticed a specific build of bumpers are mandatory this year.

I would like to find out how many people here believe these bumpers are improving design and gameplay, increasing the spectator enjoyment of the game, preventing damage to robots or field components, preventing intentional tipping, making running a regional easier, or contributing to the events in another way I have not thought of.

Personally I do not believe bumpers are assisting the league at all.

From a spectator perspective they make the robots look more uniform. This I do not believe is a positive aspect because it makes it harder to tell simple box-like robots apart.

Bumpers do not improve design and gameplay. The 2/3rds covered rule means that generally objects can only be taken in from one side of the robot. This severely limits the design constraints and also forces the robots to become far more uniform.

Bumpers in practice do not prevent damage to robots. If for no other reason these bumpers add an additional 15 pounds of mass to the robot that now will ram full speed into other surfaces. Additionally, the bumpers appear to be giving a false sense of security to the drivers. After attending regionals (both in person and via webcast) it appears that drivers are driving more aggressively because they believe that bumpers will protect them and the field components. I know a team whose kitbot chassis was snapped by one of these aggressive drivers through both sets of bumpers. That is an incredible amount of force.

Damage situations to the field appear even worse because while other robots may have bumpers on them, the field components do not. This means that drivers can now ram rather hard into field walls without fearing damage to their robot but that the field walls may still sustain damage. Padding the walls would add weight that must be shipped from regional to regional, setup and takedown time and complexity, and make the overfall field far more expensive. I do not believe that is the solution to this problem.

Mandatory bumpers do not assist with preventing tipping.

In terms of physics mandatory bumpers should assist with intentional tipping a little bit but this is in reality a disservice to the students. The reason bumpers help is not because they prevent wedged-shaped robots particularly effectively. True wedged-shaped robots are few and far between. When was the last time you saw a robot that tipped another robot by getting under it? Instead most tipping happens by hitting a robot hard when it is most sensitive to a hit, for example while turning, reaching up high or descending a slope. Instead the additional fifteen pounds of mass is lowering the center of gravity of the robots and making them physically harder to tip. This is a disservice to the students because it is watering down one of the fundamental engineering challenges of building a good robot. Giving the students a false sense of a "rule of thumb" of "will that work" for center of gravity will only hurt them later and damage their ability to build future real-life solutions to complex problems.

Additionally, despite the physics, there is the fact that despite the extra fifteen pounds of mass to help out the CG a tremendous number of robots still wind up on their sides by the end of the match. This is probably because drivers are driving more aggressively and hitting harder.

Bumpers are an additional hassle to running a regional. Having bumpers adds time to the robot inspection process. This would be easier if they did not have to be weighed separately because then the problem could be solved with more volunteer inspectors. Instead, since there is generally only one scale at a regional it puts additional weight in what is already a bottleneck in the robot inspection process.

In short I do not not believe the mandatory bumpers are doing their job in preventing damage to the robot, other robots, or field components. Additionally they have many other negative effects. I am eager to hear other people's opinions on this topic.

[tanmaker]

I would like to see this years game played without bumpers. Then tell me that they don't prevent damage. I would rather wait 5 extra minutes during the inspection process and add 15 pounds, than have to do serious repairs after every single match.

You talked about the kitbot chassis being snapped in half even with bumpers. Imagine the damage to both robots had there not been bumpers. Even if bumpers were ruled as no longer mandatory, I would force our team to use them because I don't want my mechanical guys working their butts off after a simple practice match.

The bumpers do not have to make the robots look uniform, and they don't. If you look above the bumpers, robots are vastly different and can take many different shapes and forms. On our robot this year, we only covered the corners of the robot, while still covering 2/3rds of the robot. Our bot looks different than any other robot out there, and the bumpers help to make it stand out. All bumpers don't have to be the same color, and we used that to our advantage.

[Brandon Holley]

Honestly i cannot see how they are hurting.

Why I am not the biggest fan or advocate of bumpers, I do see where they help alot. Hearing those bangs of robot on robot, metal on metal contact were awesome in teh old days, but robots got BEAT UP. It was not uncommon to see teams rendered completely useless after an intense match.

Also a lot of the conclusions you draw come from the fact that this game is a lot different. How do you know bumpers aren't helping with tipping? I know that this is a crazy game where robots are hitting corners at top speed and going over, or they are getting caught up on an overpass with their arm and going over, but there is not really a way to say that tipping is more prevalent this year over previous years. Different game, different story.

[Ian Curtis]

From a spectator perspective they make the robots look more uniform. This I do not believe is a positive aspect because it makes it harder to tell simple box-like robots apart.

Bumpers come in a variety of colors, and many teams put their required team numbers on their bumpers. The difference in bumper color helps tell robots apart, and having the team number in a uniform easy to see place helps as well.

Bumpers do not improve design and gameplay. The 2/3rds covered rule means that generally objects can only be taken in from one side of the robot. This severely limits the design constraints and also forces the robots to become far more uniform.
Having a bumper over your frame didn't limit intake of this years game piece, or at the very least, shouldn't have. We lifted our ball over our bumper in the process of collecting. If they keep this rule in the future, and we move to smaller gamepieces, then teams will have to be more innovative in their design should they decide to collect over their bumpered sides.

Additionally, FIRST didn't limit frame design. By and large most robots you see look pretty darn similar, typically a box about an inch under the width and length limits. And, if teams want to build different frame designs, there is nothing stopping them. See 148's frame this year for example. I think what you're getting at though is frames with indents for ball collection, and while I can't remember seeing any this year, I'm sure there are some, but it also means that people found ways around it, or decided it wasn't necessary.


Bumpers in practice do not prevent damage to robots. If for no other reason these bumpers add an additional 15 pounds of mass to the robot that now will ram full speed into other surfaces. Additionally, the bumpers appear to be giving a false sense of security to the drivers. After attending regionals (both in person and via webcast) it appears that drivers are driving more aggressively because they believe that bumpers will protect them and the field components. I know a team whose kitbot chassis was snapped by one of these aggressive drivers through both sets of bumpers. That is an incredible amount of force.

Is there a picture of said KitBot? What do you mean by "snapped in half"? I'm willing to bet the team did not properly support it. Going from personal experience (yes, it's a fallacy, I know) bumpers do prevent damage. In 2006 three sides of our robot had bumpers, the forth was left open for ball collecting. We never had any problems with the other three sides but we had to replace the front rail 3 times! And each time it got stronger. To be fair, we started out with diamond plate, but we ended up with 1.5" C channel, supported with some 1" flat bar. It was not an essential frame component, but we knew it could be bent in, so we purposefully tried to avoid hitting anyone with it. And it still took a terrible beating.


Damage situations to the field appear even worse because while other robots may have bumpers on them, the field components do not. This means that drivers can now ram rather hard into field walls without fearing damage to their robot but that the field walls may still sustain damage. Padding the walls would add weight that must be shipped from regional to regional, setup and takedown time and complexity, and make the overfall field far more expensive. I do not believe that is the solution to this problem.

I've never worked on the field, but from the drive team's perspective the only typical damage to the field is to the carpet. I can see the point of bumpers making driver's drive more aggressively, but the carpet always gets ripped up. Was there more field damage at your regional?

Mandatory bumpers do not assist with preventing tipping.

In terms of physics mandatory bumpers should assist with intentional tipping a little bit but this is in reality a disservice to the students. The reason bumpers help is not because they prevent wedged-shaped robots particularly effectively. True wedged-shaped robots are few and far between. When was the last time you saw a robot that tipped another robot by getting under it? Instead most tipping happens by hitting a robot hard when it is most sensitive to a hit, for example while turning, reaching up high or descending a slope. Instead the additional fifteen pounds of mass is lowering the center of gravity of the robots and making them physically harder to tip. This is a disservice to the students because it is watering down one of the fundamental engineering challenges of building a good robot. Giving the students a false sense of a "rule of thumb" of "will that work" for center of gravity will only hurt them later and damage their ability to build future real-life solutions to complex problems.

Additionally, despite the physics, there is the fact that despite the extra fifteen pounds of mass to help out the CG a tremendous number of robots still wind up on their sides by the end of the match. This is probably because drivers are driving more aggressively and hitting harder.

Robots have tipped since the beginning. Robots will continue to tip. Bumpers don't really help much in this regard, but they weren't meant to. Because of the simple fact they are an extra 15 pounds on the bottom, they will help a little, as you say, but smart teams will build this into their CoG calculations, no rely exclusively on them to counter balance a 50 pound grabber 10 feet in the air. Additionally, you shouldn't have seen any wedge shaped robots on the field. They have been illegal since 2006. And, if 15 pounds of bumper weight is a disservice to learning about engineering, should we require teams to mount their battery 2 feet off the ground? No! That'd be silly. The 15 pound bumpers are just another requirement of the design, which is a real world constraint.


Bumpers are an additional hassle to running a regional. Having bumpers adds time to the robot inspection process. This would be easier if they did not have to be weighed separately because then the problem could be solved with more volunteer inspectors. Instead, since there is generally only one scale at a regional it puts additional weight in what is already a bottleneck in the robot inspection process.

I think they are much more of a hassle to the team than the inspectors. It's pretty easy to hop a set of bumpers on the scale between robots, and then all the inspectors need to do is say "Yup, under 15 pounds." Weighing and sizing with them on would definitely be a work saver for the team however. But the benefits they provide on the field outweigh this inconvenience on Thursday.

[Ali Ahmed]

I completely understand why FIRST wanted to make bumpers permanent in this game because they are needed. But really only for this game. I graduated from high school and then came to India in 2005 so I wasn't really able to see matches up close with bumpers but I think that bumpers kinda make FIRST games look slightly more nerdy and not so captivating, to an outside observer. Most people will look at Battlebots and will continue to watch it because you will see some metal on metal action and this is now not as prominent in FIRST, although I'm not saying that it should be. But if a complete stranger to FIRST glances at a match and sees some hardcore defense going on and gets into it then he will learn to true beauty of a FIRST game.

Also I believe that teams understand that bashing into other robots isn't really going to get anything done and the real way to win a match is to play the game and score points.

So what I'm saying is that the bumpers should not be mandatory.

[Racer26]

Yeah, 2007 was the first year (besides primitive custom job in 2003) that 1075 has used bumpers... in 2004 we got hit by a robot in autonomous at the Wonderland Invitational so hard that they bent our frame several inches to wedge it against our drive wheel. We had another match less than 10 minutes away, so out came the sawzall.

[Lil' Lavery]

I will have to disagree with you here Katy.
Bumpers most definitely aid in preventing robot damage. It's clear even from just looking at robots with bumpers in 2006/2007 against those without. In a PRACTICE MATCH in 2006, 116 fielded our robot without bumpers (because we had them removed to work on the robot earlier). We left the field with a 1" dent in our box channel frame. In 2007 we added bumpers, and despite being the focus of much more defense than in 2006, we suffered no damage to our frame. Parts of the robot not covered by bumpers (such as our "hood") were significant dented.
The team I now mentor, 1712, didn't use bumpers in 2007. The '07 bot has significant denting to the corners of the frame that was already present after only one regional. I also noticed a much higher incidence of items such as wire ties breaking or bots coming loose while working with them at off-season competitions than was true with 116 during 2007.
Claiming that having a mandatory weight placed lower on the bot waters down engineering is questionable at best. It's still quite a challenge to deal with creating a robot to interact with tall field elements and game pieces in such a high pace environment, with or without the bumpers. Many smart teams would be adding optional bumpers (per rules of previous few years) to deal with this scenario anyway.
I've also seen definite proof that bumpers can aid with tipping, as their geometry often has them act as "wheelie bars" for teams slowly tipping over. In more than once instance I've seen team balance on their frame and bumpers while pushed against the Rack or Overpass.
Aggressive driving has existed since well before mandatory or even optional bumpers rules, and I really don't think drivers play more aggressively with or without them (ever watch the 2002 and 2003 games?).
After the 2006 game, I really don't want any team I'm involved with to field a bot without bumpers. I've seen first-hand the damage that can be caused by harsh defense and metal-on-metal contact. I've seen bots who have a 1" steel pipe serving as their "leading edge". I don't want that smacking directly into my robot at even mild speeds.

[Katy]

You talked about the kitbot chassis being snapped in half even with bumpers. Imagine the damage to both robots had there not been bumpers. Even if bumpers were ruled as no longer mandatory, I would force our team to use them because I don't want my mechanical guys working their butts off after a simple practice match.


The point I was trying to make is that drivers are driving more aggressively because they believe bumpers will shield them. I haven't heard of a kitbot side being snapped in previous years in such a manner. This indicates to me that people are hitting much harder this year.


Also a lot of the conclusions you draw come from the fact that this game is a lot different. How do you know bumpers aren't helping with tipping? I know that this is a crazy game where robots are hitting corners at top speed and going over, or they are getting caught up on an overpass with their arm and going over, but there is not really a way to say that tipping is more prevalent this year over previous years. Different game, different story.


Point acknowledged. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately I don't know) we will not have the opportunity to test this game without bumpers.

Robots have tipped since the beginning. Robots will continue to tip. Bumpers don't really help much in this regard, but they weren't meant to.

You are correct. I mentioned the tipping because I was trying to find some positive aspect to bumpers but then wound up finding that a negative aspect.


I've never worked on the field, but from the drive team's perspective the only typical damage to the field is to the carpet. I can see the point of bumpers making driver's drive more aggressively, but the carpet always gets ripped up. Was there more field damage at your regional?

The easiest example I can think of is a post on the Pittsburgh field. Additionally the issues of individuals ramming the drivers station occur not just on the first lap. I don't think they would ram as hard if they believed their robot would sustain damage. Additionally I don't think anything would hit anything else as hard if the robots were not approaching 145 pounds.

I've also seen definite proof that bumpers can aid with tipping, as their geometry often has them act as "wheelie bars" for teams slowly tipping over. In more than once instance I've seen team balance on their frame and bumpers while pushed against the Rack or Overpass.

You are correct on this.

[Billfred]

This year was our first with bumpers, and it cut both ways.

On the one hand, I don't know how our riveted frame would've held up with some of the hits we delivered. On the other hand, the width added to the frame did us no favors when trying to slip past robots, which proved frustrating at times.

The one thing I like about bumpers is that they're one pesky way of separating the well-designed robots from the not-so-well-designed. We didn't plan our bumper mounts quite as well as we could have, and we paid for it every time we had to put on or take off bumpers. A pain in the butt to be sure, but you'll bet we learned something from the exercise.

[tanmaker]

We didn't plan our bumper mounts quite as well as we could have, and we paid for it every time we had to put on or take off bumpers. A pain in the butt to be sure, but you'll bet we learned something from the exercise.

We made sure that our bumpers were easily removed this year. That was the one thing we learned in 2007, was that easily removable bumpers will save your life. We used wing nuts to hold them on but they are still a little tricky to get on and off, but a ton better than last year. That was my only problem with them.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I am in favor of the use of bumpers. I feel they are a good means of protection, they allow you to put less frame reinforcement in (and save weight!), and the extra weight down low helps keep a low CG. I have used bumpers each year for the last 3, and I'm glad I did.

On the other hand, I am not in favor of making them mandatory. I am a firm believer in letting teams make design choices themselves, rather than being limited by the rules. The more restrictions FIRST puts on robot design, the more homogeneous the field of competitors gets. Something like bumpers should be left as an engineering decision for each individual team. If you want to use them, you can get a lot of benefit, but it may be a trade-off with other design considerations.

[sdcantrell56]

I like the bumpers but I would like to see them be an option. A lot of teams, mine included build robots that don't need bumpers to keep from being destroyed and without bumpers, our machines can do a lot more easier. I think the decision to use them should be up to the teams.

[Lil' Lavery]

Having bumpers not only means that robots take less damage, but that they deal less damage to other robots as well. I'd much rather be hit by a robot with bumpers than a robot without them. It's much like car insurance in a way.
Mandatory bumpers means that robots will be less capable of hurting another robot. Even if your robot won't get hurt in the collision, will the other robot survive?

[vhcook]

In my opinion, the mandatory bumpers were a good idea and appropriate for this year's game. Since we have no idea what the next game will be, there's no way to predict whether they should be required again, and I will be reasonably content either way.

It's just another customer requirement. You engineer around it and move on. I strongly disagree with those who feel bumpers take away from the engineering being done. If you do the analysis on needing less structure with the extra defensive padding vs. COG issues, it can result in doing more engineering, not less. So can integration with the chassis. (I really wish we'd spent more design time on quick bumper attachment and removal.)

Given the relative speeds in this game, I can see why the GDC would feel they're necessary. In recent history (I can't speak to pre-2006), the games have been designed such that it was unlikely a robot would spend the entire game moving at max speed on runs the full length of the field -- usually, there would be ore or two occassions for a max-speed dash, with most of the time spent jockeying for position and manipulating of game objects. In this game, extended high-speed runs are a scoring method. A robot can build up quite a bit of momentum if it's been geared for speed (momentum = mass * velocity). They're also a bit harder to steer around obstacles when they're going that fast (although driver practice certainly helps). That naturally results in a game in which speed-bots are bouncing off the field structures and other robots a lot. This might be perceived as more aggressive driving - although I've seen a lot fewer pushing contests than in recent years, so it all depends on what you call aggressive. Having some required ability to absorb impacts has likely reduced the damage to robots and field structures, and is therefore a good thing.

[wilsonmw04]

Having bumpers not only means that robots take less damage, but that they deal less damage to other robots as well. I'd much rather be hit by a robot with bumpers than a robot without them. It's much like car insurance in a way.
Mandatory bumpers means that robots will be less capable of hurting another robot. Even if your robot won't get hurt in the collision, will the other robot survive?

That an engineering question. Robustness should be incorporated into all designs. If your robot cannot handle a hard hit, put bumpers on it. If you build it to take a hit, you shouldn't have to add 6 inches to your robot's width.

A side note: If bumpers are mandatory next year, they should not count in the size of your playing configuration. By making them not count for your starting size but then make them count for your playing size effectively reduces the polygon of support of your robot and could indirectly lead to more tipping.

In summary: bummers are good, but they should be optional.

[Bob Steele]

I believe that most posters are missing an important aspect to bumpers.

They indicate the area of legal contact. If some robots have no bumpers and some do we have no real frame of reference as to where contact is made.

They make it easier for the referees to judge whether contact is made in a legal way rather than outside the bumper area....

I think this is a chief advantage for using them.... legal contact is made at the same or similar point on every robot. Deciding where the contact was initiated (high or low) is easier because that initial contact is not made up against someone's frame...

I like bumpers and my teams have used them from the very beginning.

I do think that different methods of attaching them should be allowed rather than the "t-nuts" and bolts method. The idea would be that externally they are all the same.... cloth covered pool noodles backed up by plywood.

Thickness defined.... weight defined...
method of attachment.... choose and engineer a good one...

thanks!!
have a safe and pleasant year!!!

[Jeff Pahl]

Bumpers are an additional hassle to running a regional. Having bumpers adds time to the robot inspection process. This would be easier if they did not have to be weighed separately because then the problem could be solved with more volunteer inspectors. Instead, since there is generally only one scale at a regional it puts additional weight in what is already a bottleneck in the robot inspection process.


As an inspector, the bumpers are not a big deal. Weighing them does not slow the process down significantly, as long as the team is paying attention and has them ready to put on the scale. Having them on the robot during the rest of the inspection sometimes makes it hard to see the things we want to see, so I like having them off during the inspection.

The teams I have been involved with have used the bumpers every year they have been an option. Personally, I like them. They have saved us from a lot of damage, not only during matches, but during testing at the school and during demos, where walls and posts just seem to like to jump in front of the robot. Figuring out how to attach them so that they can be removed and installed quickly is part of the engineering challenge. This year 1379 used quick release hitch pins, and can remove / replace all the bumpers in less than a minute.

When I don't like the bumpers is when I have to help carry the robot on and off the field. 120# for the robot, 13# for the battery, 15# for the bumpers, and all of a sudden you are asking two people to pick up and move a 150 lb object that is pretty awkward to handle, and to do it quickly and safely.

One thing I noticed last year when inspecting at the Championships was that the robots that didn't use bumpers tended to be more beat up and had a lot more trouble at inspection fitting in the sizing box due to things being bent. I hope that there will be less of that this year due to everyone having bumpers.

[Alan Anderson]

This year 1379 used quick release hitch pins,...

I thought the GDC clarified that bumpers must be firmly attached to the robot frame using bolts.

[robochick1319]

I actually am starting to like the bumpers!

With the bumpers none of our pretty yellow paint has scratched off! :p

But seriously I have seen some hard hits by robots rounding the corners for the turns and I think the bumpers help the situation. I never thought this game would resemble bumper cars so much.

I think they are appropriate for 2008 but I wonder if the 2009 game will include such fierce bumping as would require said bumpers. :)

[Richard Wallace]

... Figuring out how to attach them so that they can be removed and installed quickly is part of the engineering challenge. This year 1379 used quick release hitch pins, and can remove / replace all the bumpers in less than a minute. ...I thought the GDC clarified that bumpers must be firmly attached to the robot frame using bolts.Alan is correct. The GDC did clarify that, here (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8511), here (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8521), and here (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8551).

The inspection checklist (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/FRC_Documents_and_Updates/2008_Assets/Manual/2008%20Robot%20Inspection%20Checklist,%20RevF.pdf) (Rev F, line item 30) doesn't included a specific reference to allowable fastening systems, and first mention of bumpers in the inspection reference materials (http://first.wpi.edu/2008VOL_Robot_Inspection_Reference_Materials_RevD. pdf) (Rev D, page 4) don't cover fastening systems, either. The reference materials do summarize several important Q&A responses (pages 10 thru 15) including those that deal with bumper mounting (items 50, 60, 71, and 79 of the Q&A summary).

So even though Alan is right, it is not hard to see why some inspectors might have missed this point. Inspection standards are higher at the Championship, so teams whose robots passed inspection at a regional despite having a non-conforming bumper fastening system should anticipate being required to correct that when they get to Atlanta.

[EricH]

I'm torn on this. Here's why:

Previous to the "standard" bumpers' debut in 2006, teams had the option of using their own designs, but they had to fit in the size and weight constraints with the rest of the robot. Not many took advantage of this, and I've heard of a "lifting bumper" in 2005 or so that would lift an opponent slightly. Preferred methods of keeping defenders off you included a) avoid them or b) wedges. Wedges were a fairly effective method of keeping defenders from damaging or moving you, but they did have a tendency to tip robots that came up them. They could also be used to tip other robots (a red-card offense, at least after 2007; before that, a DQ.)

So, in 2006, FIRST threw everyone a change-up. Wedges were outlawed; contact could only be in the bumper zone, and there was a "standard" bumper that would give you extra size and weight. You could still use your own, but it had to fit in the box and on the scale with the rest of the robot. Many teams used them because 2006 was expected to be a physical game. Others didn't.

The same thing happened in 2007, except that more teams used bumpers. ("Wedges" were only allowed in the home zone. There were limits on their use, though--opponents couldn't intentionally tip on them; they'd get the penalty instead.) Again, 2007 was a very physical game.

Now we have entered 2008, and the game is slightly less physical (only slightly...), yet bumpers are now required. Not only that, but they absolutely have to be of the "standard" design, no holes other than mounting holes in the backing, no alternate materials in the backing. Some teams have trouble with bumper weight, due to aluminum angle being suggested to hold the fabric on. So they want to put lightening/mounting holes (axles sometimes stick out of frames...) but can't. Innovative mounting methods are rejected because they aren't "bolt and fastener".

So here's what I think: bumpers are a good idea. They protect robots fairly well and define a contact zone. But the design is the issue. I would like to see: 1) If bumpers are optional, any area in the bumper zone without them should be colored or marked so that bumper-zone contact can be seen. 2) Slightly looser attachment/backing requirements. Questions about various mounting methods in Q&A made up the bulk of the questions in their section, and many of those got a "we can't evaluate individual designs for compliance" and a "you must use a bolt-and-fastener system". 3) Freedom to use other designs under the old rules of "fit in the box with them".

[octothorpe]

Having a bumper over your frame didn't limit intake of this years game piece, or at the very least, shouldn't have. We lifted our ball over our bumper in the process of collecting.

This was not true for our team. We found ourselves butting heads with the mandatory 2/3 bumper rule, because we wanted to make a low-profile robot with a fork-lift style front that the ball could roll into. Even when we pushed our bumpers as far back as possible, the 2/3 rule prevented us from allowing the ball to slide as far into the robot as we had wanted. We specifically asked the GDC about rules regarding this design and it took them an entire week to respond about how the 2/3 perimeter rule would be interpreted – and then this was never checked at inspection.

I think a major point missed in this discussion is that teams could leave more than an entire side of their robot uncovered by bumpers. While many teams chose to add bumpers on four sides, those who did not can still inflict the same metal-on-metal damage to each other and to the playing field. So even though bumpers may reduce the potential for damage, they cannot prevent it unless they are required around the entire robot perimeter. With this in mind, it is clear to me that the "illusion of safety" inducing drivers to behave more recklessly is an especially serious concern.

I do think that bumpers are generally good for protecting robots, and I support teams who use bumpers to their fullest extent. For the past three years, my team has used bumpers covering the left and right sides of our robot for protection. But when we didn't put bumpers on the front or back, that was also for a reason – we designed the robot to be sturdy enough without them, and chose to prioritize other aspects of the design.

To echo the other posters: bumpers are good, but they should NOT be mandatory. If you want to protect your robot, use bumpers. If you want to achieve greater design flexibility, then don't. It's not hard.

[Koko Ed]

Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!

[razor95kds]

Mandatory bumpers are really unnecessary because not all teams need them. I know many posts in this thread address the robot-crushing hits they witnessed that bumpers helped prevent major damage in, but my team builds our robots to withstand those big hits. We usually only add bumpers to increase our weight, thus lowering our CG and increasing our traction.

I feel that mandatory bumpers do not reduce the high-speed collisions or the effects of high-speed collisions. If FIRST really wants to cut down on battlebot-like games and to improve safety, they should impose some sort of speed limit or actually use the yellow card. I'm sure every driver will tone their driving down once they get that yellow card.

[Molten]

I don't think that bumpers should be necessary as long as teams build for some big hits. However, teams are not building for heavy bot to bot interaction. Before anyone complains, I understand that beating on the bots is not in the spirit of FIRST. I am just saying, that whether or not it should happen or not, it is going to happen eventually. If I recall correctly, there was a team that had its arm broke off in practice. The other team did not try to break it off, it just happened. Due to the lack of structural integrity of some bots, I do think that the bumpers are necessary. I would almost be interested in a year where bumpers are not allowed. That will be something to design around. Just my thoughts. But to apply what I said above to this thread. Both. It helps some teams and hurts others. But that is life. When they make a new regulation they help one company and hurt another.

[Nawaid Ladak]

I don't like the bumpers one bit. they give FIRST a finesse look, like "oh, i don't want to get hit, i don't want my robot's paint coming off...(insert excuse here)". I remember back in 2004 and 2005, robots would get hit hard ALL the time and they would come back onto the field for another beating. That was because they could, the robot's now can't seem to do that for some odd reason, Kate is right as teams are using the bumpers as a false since of security. with the bumpers, first has turned a strong defensive approach to what defenses are forced to do in the pro bowl (no blitzes, cover 2 all the time). Kate is absolutely right that the robots are uniform.


Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!

I saw 108's hybrid and it was DESIGNED to go stright and stop just short of their opponiants driver station, i've seen it hit the drivers statin... so here is my question. if 108 didn't have bumpers, do you think they might have programmed their hybrid diffrently?

I like the bumpers but I would like to see them be an option. A lot of teams, mine included build robots that don't need bumpers to keep from being destroyed and without bumpers, our machines can do a lot more easier. I think the decision to use them should be up to the teams.

Thats the same philosophy my old team (1402) used to employ, if you can't play with the big boys, then get off. if your team can't handle high speed hits, then teams won't pick you in eliminations.

seince we do have split sides, let us all unite and come to a proper compromise that could work. maybe go back to optional bumpers, like in 2006. it would coun't aginest your weight and size, but if you really wanted it, you would be able to protect your robot...

I would also like one more thing brought back... WEDGES.

I loved wedges, i remember on 1402's 2005 bot, we had a nice steep wedge. wedges are a tough lesson to teams that think they can play defense taht can't. i think wedges used to separate the contenders from the pretenders.

so in other words, give teams the option to have Wedges, Bumpers, or none, maybe even a combination of both...

I'm a big advocate of hard nose, black and blue defense.... Offense brings the crowds, but DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

my honest opinion: putting bumpers on robots is like buying a poor mans warranty for that robot. Building a durable, strong and consistent robot is a true warranty in itself.

[Lil' Lavery]

seince we do have split sides, let us all unite and come to a proper compromise that could work. maybe go back to optional bumpers, like in 2006. it would coun't aginest your weight and size, but if you really wanted it, you would be able to protect your robot...

The poll seems to show one side is clearly the majority. EIGHT times as many people say bumpers help FRC as hurt, and nearly three times as many want them to return next year as want them gone.

[The Lucas]

I don't wish to reiterate the points in favor of bumpers in regards to robot interaction, robustness and safety. I could argue for a while on those points, complete with nerf and metal baseball bat analogies :ahh:. My views on the how bumpers could have prevented the tip on Einstein last year are in this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=622214&postcount=7) and at the end I call for mandatory bumpers. Instead, I will bring up how they reduce field damage.

The bumpers are soft and not likely to pop a trackball. Contact with a metal robot chassis at the speeds of this game is much more likely. To make matters worse your metal chassis is likely to be sharp. Why is it sharp? Because it is damaged from all the robot collisions that would be absorbed by the bumpers (if you had them). This is very noticeable when reinspecting robots for elims, the sides without bumpers always need filing. Popping a trackball is a major disruption to game play since there are only 2 per side (unlike tubes last year where popping was minor, expected and there were more tubes). We now have a famous popped trackball from the SVR finals but I haven't heard of many other incidents (partially thanks to mandatory bumpers).

I would like to see the mandatory bumper rule back next year regardless of the game. I don't think they restrict robot design much at all in this game since the track balls are giant. I could see them changing the required percentage to allow for different mechanisms in future games. I would also like to see a standard bumper covering with a lower friction coefficient than the current cloth (so it can slip out of pins easier).

[Mihai]

thread killer :(

:p

bumpers = good
although our sides still need a bashing after every match, but we've come to expect our driver, Mr. Cox, to hit anything in range (including the track balls which he has popped multiple times :) )

[CraigHickman]

Woo, Big post time!


I believe that most posters are missing an important aspect to bumpers.

They indicate the area of legal contact. If some robots have no bumpers and some do we have no real frame of reference as to where contact is made.

They make it easier for the referees to judge whether contact is made in a legal way rather than outside the bumper area....

Absolutely, I agree that this makes it easier. Oh wait, that would mean that refs would be calling more out of contact zone penalties, from arm to arm hits, and so on. But they haven't. Sure, it's a nice idea to think that it would make it easier, and conceptually, it does. However, I have yet to see enough out-of contact zone penalties for this to really make sense to me...

One thing I noticed last year when inspecting at the Championships was that the robots that didn't use bumpers tended to be more beat up and had a lot more trouble at inspection fitting in the sizing box due to things being bent. I hope that there will be less of that this year due to everyone having bumpers.


Hm. See, I've always seen two classes of bots that didn't have bumpers: We've got the ones who are broken and wished they used bumpers, or wished that their frame was more robust, and then you have the teams that designed a strong frame, and don't need bumpers either way. I've always made sure to design my frames to be strong enough to not need bumpers. The only year I had a chassis break was after the bot tipped, and was rammed repeatedly by another bot with no bumpers. Basically, I'm trying to say that not having bumpers teaches teams to design a stronger chassis, or reap the consequences.

To echo the other posters: bumpers are good, but they should NOT be mandatory. If you want to protect your robot, use bumpers. If you want to achieve greater design flexibility, then don't. It's not hard.

I totally agree. Bumpers are nice and all, for some designs, but should not be required in any way. Honestly, you're taking a lot of really stylish designs, and covering them up. What ever happened to the "wow!" factor of a nicely crafted drive base? Now it seems all we have is box-bots that look the same, with the only difference being the color of the fabric on the bumpers.

I'm all for the free choice of teams to use or not use bumpers.

Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!

See, now I've been standing behind a barrier that was hit by team 254 at high speed last year. They didn't have bumpers. The collision knocked the alliance station back a good foot, and shut down the entire side of the field. Their robot: fine, and in good operational ability. What this comes down to is intelligent design: make it strong or break it. FIRST shouldn't have to enforce teams into a weak state.

my honest opinion: putting bumpers on robots is like buying a poor mans warranty for that robot. Building a durable, strong and consistent robot is a true warranty in itself.

Yes! I agree totally! If your bot can't handle impact, and can't handle the heavy defense and contact that FIRST requires, you'll have a broken chassis. On hand, this sucks for a team, as it can often mean the end of a regional. However, i've been that team that's stripped the bot down, taken it out to the welder, and had our chassis repaired before the finals, and STILL brought it to the other alliance, when our bot was practically in half an hour before. It may suck for many, but even more will learn a VERY valuable lesson in structural integrity: Design strong or deal with a broken bot.

The poll seems to show one side is clearly the majority. EIGHT times as many people say bumpers help FRC as hurt, and nearly three times as many want them to return next year as want them gone.

Aye, that it does. However, I voted oddly: I voted that bumpers are helping. I said this because we aren't seeing as many crippled robots this year. At the same time, I also voted that bumpers should be optional. I think the team should have the choice whether or not to build a large (and fairly ugly) construction that doesn't always lend a useful capacity to the bot. There are always cases where bumpers are necessary, and most of them involve a poorly designed frame.

[note: that was a lot for me to track. I may have missed something/misphrased something. Feel free to ask for clarification on my views if I mangled something and didn't notice on my edit...]

[Nawaid Ladak]

The poll seems to show one side is clearly the majority. EIGHT times as many people say bumpers help FRC as hurt, and nearly three times as many want them to return next year as want them gone.

your forgetting that there are MANY people who do not bother looking at chiefdelphi... from what i know, it's because of what katy has stated in her other thread that she published last week.http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65668

taht count is sort of crippled, i know teams that don't even have accounts, or if they do, the next to NEVER check them or log on to CD.

I think if you were to do a poll in the pits at championship you would get more even numbers...

[thefro526]

I think bumpers are great. They have saved out bots in 06 and 08. In 07 we chose not to use bumpers because our decorations protected out frame. This year though i think bumpers help alot. Our robot is much more stable with the bumper than with out.

IMO Bumpers = Win!

[Josh Murphy]

Although they are a pain, I am game on the mandatory bumpers.:) They provide protection to the robot and help keep damage down. The only downside is being confined to the "standard" rules. I wish we could mount them however we want. The other thing that gets me is that I see bumpers that other teams have(not standard or have a different fastening system other than what is allowed) and I wonder how they pass inspection. I had to read these rules a couple of times to make sure they were constructed correctly and mounted to the robot correctly. Figuring out how to Mount them was one of the biggest headaches for me. I got over it and I love the bumper system:)

[TVwazhere]

This being my first year, i cant contribute to as much as others could, but judging by videos and being to a regional(and winning =) ) For this game i think the manditory bumpers are a good idea,but for future games should be optional.

But just because you have bumpers dosent mean your 100% safe from major damage to somthing, like, your control board on your robot.

I think it was the last qualifying rounds of the matches before the semi finals. Our team (20) had just scored when another robot came from behind and somehow, with its gripper, went around our lexan cover and snaged onto one of the most important plugs you dont want to rip out: the radio transmitter.

We were left dead for the last 1:30. After we asessed the damage, we found it unreparible because the robot had ripped the female(or male, i forget which) plug out onthe Controler side. The only thing left was a few loose wires out the end of it.

Thank god to team 2053 who came out of nowhere to lend us a spare!

Anyway, the point is: Bumpers can decrease the amount of overall damage that a robot sustains, but that dosent mean there invincible, or the "false security" disease.(At least, thats the way i see it)

[Lil' Lavery]

Absolutely, I agree that this makes it easier. Oh wait, that would mean that refs would be calling more out of contact zone penalties, from arm to arm hits, and so on. But they haven't. Sure, it's a nice idea to think that it would make it easier, and conceptually, it does. However, I have yet to see enough out-of contact zone penalties for this to really make sense to me...


Interesting, I've seen a number of these, especially in 2007. I've seen a handful get missed, but that's the case with any rule (let's not get into the ref debate here as well).


Hm. See, I've always seen two classes of bots that didn't have bumpers: We've got the ones who are broken and wished they used bumpers, or wished that their frame was more robust, and then you have the teams that designed a strong frame, and don't need bumpers either way. I've always made sure to design my frames to be strong enough to not need bumpers. The only year I had a chassis break was after the bot tipped, and was rammed repeatedly by another bot with no bumpers. Basically, I'm trying to say that not having bumpers teaches teams to design a stronger chassis, or reap the consequences.

The wonderful thing about mandating bumpers is that these strong framed bots won't snap the weaker framed bots in half. I've seen extrusion, box channel, c-channel, kitbot, and virtually every frame type suffer damage at one point. I've also seen various robot components (mainly manipulators) "impale" frames and drive components not shielded by bumpers.


I totally agree. Bumpers are nice and all, for some designs, but should not be required in any way. Honestly, you're taking a lot of really stylish designs, and covering them up. What ever happened to the "wow!" factor of a nicely crafted drive base? Now it seems all we have is box-bots that look the same, with the only difference being the color of the fabric on the bumpers.

Really? I think someone forgot to tell 1986 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/31027), 179 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/30620), 1098 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/30888), and 148 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/30600).

your forgetting that there are MANY people who do not bother looking at chiefdelphi... from what i know, it's because of what katy has stated in her other thread that she published last week.http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65668

taht count is sort of crippled, i know teams that don't even have accounts, or if they do, the next to NEVER check them or log on to CD.

I think if you were to do a poll in the pits at championship you would get more even numbers...

If you are willing to put together a poll at Championship, I'd be very eager to see the results. If anything, given the high-profile teams on CD, I'd think that the teams not on it would actually fall more into the category of teams that use bumpers to protect their often lower-budget frames.

[Viper37]

Bumpers used to drive me crazy as a driver. They made the robot wider then it needed to be, and got caught up on the slightest obstructions. With a well designed and constructed frame, damage should not even be an issue. With the GM Ind Design Award for example, robustness was something they were looking for. We won it last year, using bumpers only once we were in Atlanta.


Just me 2 cents.

[Wetzel]

I would like to find out how many people here believe these bumpers are improving design and gameplay, increasing the spectator enjoyment of the game, preventing damage to robots or field components, preventing intentional tipping, making running a regional easier, or contributing to the events in another way I have not thought of.


You ask if mandatory bumpers are helping or hurting, but don't really define what we are talking about helping or hurting. You then trot out a lot of different points that, viewed independently, could be seen as positives or negatives.

Lewis Carroll illustrated this well.
Alice: Which way should I go?
Cat: That depends on where you are going.
Alice: I don't know where I am going.
Cat: Then it doesn't matter which way you go!

Wetzel

[CraigHickman]

You ask if mandatory bumpers are helping or hurting, but don't really define what we are talking about helping or hurting. You then trot out a lot of different points that, viewed independently, could be seen as positives or negatives.

Lewis Carroll illustrated this well.
Alice: Which way should I go?
Cat: That depends on where you are going.
Alice: I don't know where I am going.
Cat: Then it doesn't matter which way you go!

Wetzel

Uh. Dude, your own quote of Katy's OP showed exactly what she meant by helping or hurting... I quote, here's what she meant:bumpers are improving design and gameplay, increasing the spectator enjoyment of the game, preventing damage to robots or field components, preventing intentional tipping, making running a regional easier, or contributing to the events in another way I have not thought of.

[Wetzel]

Uh. Dude, your own quote of Katy's OP showed exactly what she meant by helping or hurting... I quote, here's what she meant:

I mean, some of those are good some are bad. What are the goals of bumpers.

Other than a good 8 hours of sleep on Sunday, I haven't slept properly since last Tuesday night before the Pitt regional. I suspect I'm a little loco right now and shouldn't be posting.

Wetzel

[CraigHickman]

I mean, some of those are good some are bad. What are the goals of bumpers.

Other than a good 8 hours of sleep on Sunday, I haven't slept properly since last Tuesday night before the Pitt regional. I suspect I'm a little loco right now and shouldn't be posting.

Wetzel

Hey, no worries. We all do that some time or another.

As for what the end result of bumpers is, I've found it to be such:
1. It acts as a crutch for many teams who can't or won't build a robust frame
2. It protects the field from some damage (to an extent)
3. It defines a more easily observable area of legal contact
4. It limits teams to a fairly simple, non-creative shape (with some exceptions, obviously)
5. It protects the weaker frames from SOME impact
6. It adds perceived invulnerability for many teams, which promotes more reckless driving

I know I probably missed some, but hey, I'm only human...


It's my position that bumpers are nice and dandy, but they really shouldn't be forced onto teams.

[technoL]

Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!
I saw 108's hybrid and it was DESIGNED to go stright and stop just short of their opponiants driver station, i've seen it hit the drivers statin... so here is my question. if 108 didn't have bumpers, do you think they might have programmed their hybrid diffrently?


I'd like to clarify two things here. I just watched Qualification Match 62 (the only match we had with SPAM) a few times and I didn't see us ram into them at all. Perhaps it was another alliance partner, another match?

Also, our hybrid was designed to turn when the robocoach signaled it to, not just to stop in front of the opponent's driver station. We were having horrible issues with IR on Friday, so that's what resulted in all of the crashes, though by Saturday we got most of the kinks worked out and didn't crash into the operator wall at all. As far as bumpers are concerned, the major point of contact in collisions during hybrid were with our arm, and since we don't have bumpers on the front, they wouldn't have had any effect on how our hybrid mode was executed.

For bumpers in general, I like them. It makes it easier to play defense without completely murdering other robots, and serves as great protection for the frame. In 2007 we didn't have bumpers at all and by our second regional our frame was bent significantly. This year, now that we're done with our second regional, the damages are nowhere near as great to the base. I've also seen many tipping situations prevented because of bumpers. Also, bumpers are not only to protect the robots, but the field also. On Thursday during practice a team went out on the field several times without bumpers and there were significant scratches and movement of structural field pieces due to this robot's lack of bumpers. As long as the game requires a significant amount of high speed and defense, I'd like to keep the bumpers around. Perhaps I'm a softie, but I hate seeing robots get damaged.

[Guy Davidson]

first has turned a strong defensive approach to what defenses are forced to do in the pro bowl. Kate is absolutely right that the robots are uniform.

Thats the same philosophy my old team (1402) used to employ, if you can't play with the big boys, then get off. if your team can't handle high speed hits, then teams won't pick you in eliminations.

I would also like one more thing brought back... WEDGES.

I loved wedges, i remember on 1402's 2005 bot, we had a nice steep wedge. wedges are a tough lesson to teams that think they can play defense taht can't. i think wedges used to separate the contenders from the pretenders.


Most posts here show an great combination of GP and expressing a reasonable opinion. It is my opinion that this post shows neither.

You can still play defense. Even with bumpers. The difference is that now, instead of the defense being "look at us, we have experience, we can design a strong drive train and ram people", the defense takes the form of "we found a defensive strategy to counter an offensive strategy."

I also disagree that this makes robots look uniform. With coloring, and the fact you can use however much bumpers you desire (66% - 100% of the frame) and whichever shape you desire *cough*148*cough*, means that as with most years, robots look anything but uniform. Also, bumpers give rookie and young teams opportunities to add color onto their robot, without painting something that is likely to be broken or be worked on.

With your high speed hits thing, what a great way to be as anti-rookie as possible. Unfortunately, not all rookies get experienced FIRST teams to mentor them. Without any knowledge that some teams will be out there just to hit people as hard as they can, I am sure that many rookie teams would find it hard to do FIRST. You spend six weeks on building a robot, come to a competition all excited, until someone who has done this a few more times than you drives all the way across the field to hit you, to separate the "contenders" from the "pretenders"? I'm all for defense, if it's played intelligently and doesn't rely on brute force. However, if you design a game that can end up as a drive-train war, how do you encourage creativity? You're talking about all robots looking the same? If games end up as pushing and hitting competitions, all robots will look the same. And that will be a sad, sad day for FIRST.

This is why I like Overdrive. Even though penalties play a huge, excessive role, and some things leave to be desired, I still think that in many ways, it's a step in the right direction. Especially during eliminations, this is one of the more exciting and crowd friendly games I can recall. It also allows for a myriad of offensive and defensive strategies, with few of them relying on brute force and many on intelligent design, creativity, and strategy.

As for wedges. If you read the rest of my post (and I'm not blaming you if not :P), I am not for wedges. They're another rookie trap, something veteran teams would know how to handle much better than rookies. They also lead to boring play (have you ever watched two battle bots wedges compete?), and to tipped robots. In my opinion, if FIRST is to encourage creativity, intelligent engineering, and hard work, then wedges should remain illegal.

[Vikesrock]

I am definitely for the mandatory bumpers for many of the reasons stated by other posters above. There are a few changes I would like to see for next year:

1. Open up mounting restraints (just make teams show they're secure e.g. no zip-ties, no velcro, etc.
2. Open up joining rules. I see no reason that mitering the pool noodles so 2 bumpers meet at a 45* angle should be disallowed, pool noodles are still on the outside and wood is on the inside. Our bumpers for this year looked much better when they were constructed with an illegal miter than when constructed legally.
3. Eliminate 6" minimum. I see no reason for this and it limits ability to cover shapes with small sides.
4. Allow teams to make their own plywood to better facilitate curves.

[s_forbes]

Bumpers definitely help prevent damage, I don't see how anyone can argue against that. The mandatory bumper rule has saved many more robots than it has hurt.

In my opinion, though, they shouldn't be a requirement for future years (but they should be very strongly encouraged!). My reason for this is: teams should be allowed to build robust bumper-less robots if they choose, it makes the overall size of the robot smaller and allows for more diverse and aesthetically pleasing robots. (lame reason, I know...)

[Katy]

The poll seems to show one side is clearly the majority. EIGHT times as many people say bumpers help FRC as hurt, and nearly three times as many want them to return next year as want them gone.

Yes. I actually realize now I constructed that poll pretty poorly. You have my apologies. This is because I don't want them to be outlawed, I just don't feel that mandatory bumpers are helping. What I meant to really ask "are mandatory bumpers assisting the league" and "do you want bumpers to be mandatory next year." If you look at the written responses the difference is actually a pretty big deal. If you do actually take your proposed poll at the championship please consider modifying the questions in that manner.

In other news: let's take it easy with the calling other people un-GP! That's a pretty strong word. You may be right or you may be wrong but I'm going to ask we avoid this entire branch of discussion because reading flame-wars is boring!

So here is my next question to individuals in this thread. You have explained quite effectively why you believe bumpers should be permitted. I agree with you as it was never my intent to say that bumpers should be outlawed. (I'll admit my opening post may be misleading on this but honestly I was just using shorthand when it was in reality rather inappropriate and glossing over an important distinction. My issue is mainly with the fact that bumpers are mandatory and additional weight and size are alloted for them.) Now, other than to define contact zone, which has been pretty widely disputed, why should bumpers be mandatory? Why does FIRST requiring them improve the league?

[Nawaid Ladak]

Most posts here show an great combination of GP and expressing a reasonable opinion. It is my opinion that this post shows neither.

You can still play defense. Even with bumpers. The difference is that now, instead of the defense being "look at us, we have experience, we can design a strong drive train and ram people", the defense takes the form of "we found a defensive strategy to counter an offensive strategy."

I also disagree that this makes robots look uniform. With coloring, and the fact you can use however much bumpers you desire (66% - 100% of the frame) and whichever shape you desire *cough*148*cough*, means that as with most years, robots look anything but uniform. Also, bumpers give rookie and young teams opportunities to add color onto their robot, without painting something that is likely to be broken or be worked on.

With your high speed hits thing, what a great way to be as anti-rookie as possible. Unfortunately, not all rookies get experienced FIRST teams to mentor them. Without any knowledge that some teams will be out there just to hit people as hard as they can, I am sure that many rookie teams would find it hard to do FIRST. You spend six weeks on building a robot, come to a competition all excited, until someone who has done this a few more times than you drives all the way across the field to hit you, to separate the "contenders" from the "pretenders"? I'm all for defense, if it's played intelligently and doesn't rely on brute force. However, if you design a game that can end up as a drive-train war, how do you encourage creativity? You're talking about all robots looking the same? If games end up as pushing and hitting competitions, all robots will look the same. And that will be a sad, sad day for FIRST.

This is why I like Overdrive. Even though penalties play a huge, excessive role, and some things leave to be desired, I still think that in many ways, it's a step in the right direction. Especially during eliminations, this is one of the more exciting and crowd friendly games I can recall. It also allows for a myriad of offensive and defensive strategies, with few of them relying on brute force and many on intelligent design, creativity, and strategy.

As for wedges. If you read the rest of my post (and I'm not blaming you if not :P), I am not for wedges. They're another rookie trap, something veteran teams would know how to handle much better than rookies. They also lead to boring play (have you ever watched two battle bots wedges compete?), and to tipped robots. In my opinion, if FIRST is to encourage creativity, intelligent engineering, and hard work, then wedges should remain illegal.

i like overdrive too, but only in the eliminations, im not sure about crowd pleasing on thursday, friday or saturday morning though, i had a break on friday and i talked to my old mentor and he absolutely HATED this game, as i've heard from quite a few other people. I really don't like this game either, "defense is not knocking a trackball down from the overpass with 5 seconds left. its stopping a team from placing a trackball in the first place with 5 seconds left." defense is not keeping the trackball away from the opposing bots by rolling it away from them, but more along the lines of pushing that opposing robot away from the trackball. this creates a "king of the hill" setting. played in 2004, 2006, and considerably less in 2007. (2004 from the bar, 2006 from the prime shooting possessions right in front of the center goal, and in 2007, on the rack). FIRST doesn't let you pull that off anymore...

your point about me being anti-rookie is incorrect, i EXPECT rookies to be wise enough to know what they are getting into. there are rookies that know how to win, even without veteran mentors, they should have seen a couple of matches from the previous years to see what base designs have worked, seince those DESIGNS have been uniform because of these BUMPERS.

I would enjoy it if FIRST brought back the 2006 rules minus the <R43>(i think that was the wedge rule).

[GaryVoshol]

Oh wait, that would mean that refs would be calling more out of contact zone penalties, from arm to arm hits, and so on. But they haven't. Did you forget <G37>e?

e. Extension to extension contact between two ROBOTS with appendages outside the
ROBOT perimeter of the STANDARD BUMPERS will generally not be penalized.

[kaszeta]

I'm in the "it limits creativity" camp. I rather like how our robot last year was nice and round with rollers.

[CraigHickman]

Did you forget <G37>e?

Nope, didn't forget that. Most of the penalties (or lack thereof) that I was referring to are ones where the appendage contact is inside the bumper zone for one team. This is absolutely illegal, and can take a team out of the running for a match (ex: team 8 and team 254. I'm sure there have been many others all over, but that one sticks out in my head).

[GaryVoshol]

Nope, didn't forget that. Most of the penalties (or lack thereof) that I was referring to are ones where the appendage contact is inside the bumper zone for one team. This is absolutely illegal, and can take a team out of the running for a match (ex: team 8 and team 254. I'm sure there have been many others all over, but that one sticks out in my head).

I can't speak for what may have happened at SVR, but at Detroit several G37 penalties were called - probably the third-most called, after G22 and G42.

[bestgamer]

i think they are helping the robot, because its protecting the robot from others..

[Lil' Lavery]

Yes. I actually realize now I constructed that poll pretty poorly. You have my apologies. This is because I don't want them to be outlawed, I just don't feel that mandatory bumpers are helping. What I meant to really ask "are mandatory bumpers assisting the league" and "do you want bumpers to be mandatory next year." If you look at the written responses the difference is actually a pretty big deal. If you do actually take your proposed poll at the championship please consider modifying the questions in that manner.
I agree that the written responses differ a great deal, but more people tend to talk about something they want fixed than something that works well (look at the news, typically negative regardless of the situation). While I don't want to get into that debate here, the current poll shows a very definite bias towards bumpers helping FIRST.
As for the Championship poll, that was actually Nawaid's idea. I'll more than likely be sitting at home during CMP. ;)


So here is my next question to individuals in this thread. You have explained quite effectively why you believe bumpers should be permitted. I agree with you as it was never my intent to say that bumpers should be outlawed. (I'll admit my opening post may be misleading on this but honestly I was just using shorthand when it was in reality rather inappropriate and glossing over an important distinction. My issue is mainly with the fact that bumpers are mandatory and additional weight and size are alloted for them.) Now, other than to define contact zone, which has been pretty widely disputed, why should bumpers be mandatory? Why does FIRST requiring them improve the league?

It prevents robots from harming other robots and field objects. Regardless of the claims of more aggressive driving, which are disputable at best seeing as there's no real way to empirically support either side of that argument, bumpers do shield both robots and field elements from damage. Any perceived increase in aggressive driving more than likely stems from the game being played, or more specifically, the high speed robots designed for this game. Even if the other robot does have bumpers, if yours doesn't you transfer a greater impulse to the other robot. People have already testified to damage being done when both robots have bumpers, this damage will increase as bumpers decrease. I'd like to see robot damage decrease in general, regardless of whether or not "rookie teams should know better". Nobody likes to see an event where half the teams are broken.

[Guy Davidson]

Nope, didn't forget that. Most of the penalties (or lack thereof) that I was referring to are ones where the appendage contact is inside the bumper zone for one team. This is absolutely illegal, and can take a team out of the running for a match (ex: team 8 and team 254. I'm sure there have been many others all over, but that one sticks out in my head).

The way the referees were calling it in SVR is that they were only calling intentional (what in their mind was not incidental) contact outside the bumper zone a penalty. While we made some outside the bumper zone contact in the finals, similar contact was made against us earlier in the elimination, and went uncalled.

We made a mistake in not tying our arm back until we deployed it in the finals. Even with the stop we had, the arm had a tendency to flip slightly forward, and extrude outside our frame. In the future, when we're playing defense, we will either tie it back with a something that will snap when we want to deploy it, or just deploy it immediately in the beginning of the match.