Interlocking bumpers?

[Youarefunny]

It would be neat if teams designed their bumpers so that th fit together to save space on the bridge. ASCII art below. (to scale. In the x each character is one inch)


-----------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| --------------- |
| | ----------- | | --------
------- | | ----------- | |
| ---------------- |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
------------------------------------


Even width-wise they would still fit on the bridge.

With this design you fit on the bridge perfectly. (28*3 + 4 == 88)

[KevinGoneNuts]

What my team is doing is shortening our chassis, allowing all three robots on the bridge.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Just how short are you going?

[Ninja_Bait]

Please say your robot is the size of 1501's in 2010. (about 15" square) That would make me happy.

[lefkoc]

QUOTE:It would be neat if teams designed their bumpers so that th fit together to save space on the bridge.

My team had the same idea, we were also wondering if it was legal to extend an appendage to hold on to an ALLIANCE (not opponent, which is what the touching rule says) bot so it is easier to get on the bridge to balance.

[Brian Ha]

My team had also talked about interlocking robots and grabbing on to other teams, mostly bumper for robot sake.

Theres another idea that our team has thought of. Hopefully we can pull it off, cause if we can, our robot will be sexy as hell. Sry about my words but I really am excited about this idea, and rdy to see if we can perform.

We have a week one comp so I just hope we can do it, would be the coolest thing in the world.

[plnyyanks]

Please say your robot is the size of 1501's in 2010. (about 15" square) That would make me happy.

I remember that year, we scored 1501's robot in one of the goals. It was quite entertaining...

[Ninja_Bait]

I remember that year, we scored 1501's robot in one of the goals. It was quite entertaining...

I remember that - Hartford, right? That's part of the reason it would make me happy.

[Tom I]

Something tells me interlocking bumpers is a cute idea in concept, but in an actual competition with the heat of the battle, I doubt it'll ever happen.

[KevinGoneNuts]

Just how short are you going?

Well we're not going 15"X15"...We still want to be able shoot balls. But as of right now, the design is for either 26"X26" or 27"x27" Don't exactly remember... :yikes:

[Peyton Yeung]

I think that getting multiple robots together on 1 alliance that all have interlocking bumpers will be tricky

[Dave McLaughlin]

Well we're not going 15"X15"...We still want to be able shoot balls. But as of right now, the design is for either 26"X26" or 27"x27" Don't exactly remember... :yikes:

So are you also counting on your entire elims alliance to be that small, or smaller, as well, or do you just plan on hanging off both sides of the ramp when attempting to balance?

[plnyyanks]

I remember that - Hartford, right? That's part of the reason it would make me happy.

Yup, at Hartford - in one of the final matches, I think. It was pretty cool...

[Ernst]

QUOTE:It would be neat if teams designed their bumpers so that th fit together to save space on the bridge.

My team had the same idea, we were also wondering if it was legal to extend an appendage to hold on to an ALLIANCE (not opponent, which is what the touching rule says) bot so it is easier to get on the bridge to balance.

[G26]
Strategies aimed at the destruction, attachment, damage, tipping or entanglement of Robots are not in the spirit of
the FRC and are not allowed.

(emphasis mine)

Sorry, but it looks like the rules say no. However, this rule seems more like it applies to malicious intent. We'll need GDC confirmation, I suppose.

[Brandon Holley]

Something tells me interlocking bumpers is a cute idea in concept, but in an actual competition with the heat of the battle, I doubt it'll ever happen.

Seeing as the bumper rules are written so bumpers can interlock fairly easily, I think this will happen more than you think.


(emphasis mine)

Sorry, but it looks like the rules say no. However, this rule seems more like it applies to malicious intent. We'll need GDC confirmation, I suppose.

I wouldnt be surprised to see a clarification from the GDC stipulating attaching to your partners to be legal. My reasoning is that in that rule the only non-destructive/non-damaging verbage is "attach". Why would you want to damage your teammate? This indicates to me that the GDC is referring to interactions with the opposing alliance.

Of course as the rule is written at the moment, my assumptions are not true. I would bet that upon clarification, the GDC may revise that rule.

-Brando