FRC 2012: Update #3
 

The third team update is now available online. Team Update #3

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

"each end of the Bumper must be rigidly attached to the Frame Perimeter" (emphasis mine)

What's that supposed to mean?


Does that mean bumpers like this are illegal?

[----<attachment>---------------<attachment>----]


And that these are legal?

[<attachment>-----------------------<attachment>]

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

That seems to be true according to the rules.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

This would seem to make pulling off a WCD bumper mount much more of a pain. Why the GDC cwon't leave designing structurally sound bumpers up to the teams is such a great question.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

It seems they are trying to avoid allowing bumpers that attached only at the corner and/or leaving unsupported ends, although specific requirements need to be set out to leave out any ambiguity.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

Also of note is an update to the administrative section of the manual:

The bolded part is what's highlighted in the update, AKA the added part.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

Also, this makes the double C-shaped style of bumpers illegal too, no?

For those unfamiliar, they look like this: [ ] (Top view of robot) and usually the short lengths of the C are only attached to the frame at one point. The other side is supported by the edge of the long bumper.

This is very disappointing.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

I was a little confused as well.
Isnt the end of one side of a bumper unsupported when extended out to the depth of the other adjacent side?
I guess I know what they mean, ......its just the wording.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

Perhaps ambiguity should be able to be left. If the rule says, don't let your bumpers fall off, it's kinda common sense to build bumpers that won't fall off. Right? We inspire and recognize science and technology, but sometimes, common sense seems to be forgotten.......

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

While what you are saying is absolutely true, I've been in enough regionals (20+), where not following the letter of the law, can prevent you from passing inspection.
Without diagram 4-3, it would have been quite ambiguious.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

Remember, it is the wood backing that must be supported and attached as specified. This update doesn't affect the unsupported extensions of pool noodle/fabric that you are referring to.

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

The question then becomes: how close to the end of the bumper is the end of the bumper?

This is slightly annoying... :ahh:

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

:ahh:

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

It seems to me that they mean simply that the ends of the bumper must be supported by the frame (an exception to the general rule of 8" unsupported sections). How can anyone determine whether or not a fastener holding a bumper on is "at the end" or not? Where is the line drawn? 1 inch, 2 inches? And, structurally, why would it matter, assuming the end of the bumper is supported? However they do not say supported, they say attached, so we'll have to wait for clarification.

Perhaps they mean if you do have an unsupported 8" segment, the last supported segment on each end must be attached somewhere (and there must be no unsupported segment beyond it).

Re: FRC 2012: Update #3
 

That would be better than it is now. Ambiguity isn't bad as long as it doesn't mean a set of bumpers could fail inspection based upon nothing more than semantics (is the end of the bumper the terminal edge? is it the last 3in of bumper? etc.) or that a superior set of bumpers (vs. a set that passes) fails just because its supports are a 1/2in from the end.

That would be the most logical requirement to me, I hope, although somewhat doubt, that's what they mean.