Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

This.

With the new flexibility being granted in determining frame configurations, it would be nice to see similar flexibility in the frame perimeter bumper coverage rules.

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

This would allow you to create an extremely long or short frame edge and still NOT have to completely cover that side with bumpers.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

The perimeter rule created headaches for me this year, but I would imagine next year I would be better prepared for it. What drove me nuts was that the bumpers counted toward the 54" cylinder. Next year either don't count the bumpers or change the cylinder to a square prism. We kept changing our perimeter to better fit in the cylinder, it delayed our build by a week.

I would prefer if the perimeter was a little bit bigger next year at 120" but I think I could deal with the current dimensions.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

With bumpers on?

My first reaction to the smaller size was that the intent was to reduce the ease with which the pyramid to side wall passage could be blockaded. With a more open field, we may return to former robot sizing. I like the perimeter rule though. Just increase or decrease to fit the years' floorplan.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

Thats the smartest thing I heard all day, that totally must be the reason.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

Only if you have a rectangular robot. A circular robot could be 35" in diameter. A triangular robot, if equilateral, could be 37" on a side.

If the perimeter were increased in the future, I think the answer to "How do you fit a robot through a doorway?" will be the same as the answer to "How do you fit a 6' robot in a 5.5' crate?" back in 2007: Plan ahead.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

We shipped our robot to Champs today. A compact little crate, with everything needed to operate and maintain the robot included inside (tools, spare parts, cart, bumpers, operator console, batteries, chargers, etc) and it only weighed 370 pounds including the crate!

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

point of curiosity - was it in a bag too?

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

Yes, the robot is locked up in it's bag, inside the crate. And the lockup form is in a protective sleeve, taped to the outside of the bag.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

I liked the perimeter restriction on the whole. I don't like the current number, and as many have pointed out, is likely a very specific rule for this game. The rule of the perimeter restriction allows more diverse robots, because you aren't in "lets use every last inch they give us" mode.

For my team (and several others I saw at WPI), the creative usage of space, especially for electronics, was a cool side effect. Our robot had 3 hinged lexan panes with electronics on them!

I'm personally anticipating the GDC's next move here. I'm of the mind that the NUMBER is the rule that leaves. I think the perimeter measuring rule is here to stay.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

Mike,
Could that allow a team to not have bumpers on the corners making that part of the frame a weapon? One of our tests for bumpers is being able to punch the corner and not feel anything hard. The whole point in bumpers is to prevent robot damage.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

I think that what he's trying to say could be better expressed as:

"Each side of each corner of the frame perimeter shall be covered by bumpers with a length at least 8" or 25% of the length of the side, whichever is less."

Example: A team has a 16" side, for whatever reason. It is next to a 36" side (I'm not assuming any particular bumper perimeter length). The 16" side, under current rules, needs to be entirely covered by bumpers; the 36" side is slightly less than half covered by bumpers. The rule change suggested would allow the 16" side to use 4" bumper lengths on each end, rather than 8". However, the 36" side would still be constrained to 8" minimum length bumpers, as 25% of 36" is 9". Any bumper less than 4" long on the 16" side, or less than 8" long on the 36" side, is a violation of the rule.

BTW, Al, if you have any input into this: I'd LOVE to see the frame perimeter measurement kept as the size rule. Changing the size is relatively simple, and it opens up a lot of odd frame shapes.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

... And what about a circular robot (has no 'end' or 'side')? ;)

The difficulty in these rules is not with the standard shaped robots, but in the 'out of the box' designs.

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

Erik and Daniel,
Previous rules did not put a serious restriction on shape or really dimension. The 28" limit that all year's rules have included is simply to insure that robots can make it through a standard door opening. This is an issue many people forget. Many venues have large overhead doors but those are generally not open for use during the event. Some venues that have large openings require building staff to be present to operate the door. That is often cost prohibitive for the event. (imagine paying a building engineer overtime for 12 hours on a Saturday)

Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?
 

I personally like the size requirements being narrowed, it really provides a new type of challenge for teams, and in some instances helps level out the player field. Teams generally had to make a choice between a good climber or shooter. Of course, there are those teams that manage to do everything very well, but they are far and few between. I also think the designs have been incredibly varied because of the weight limit, which is great because looking at other team's robots and ideas, I find myself amazed at what some teams come up with. All in All, I support the size change, and would like the robots to stay similar sizes in the future