Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Team Update 13: Violation: FOUL. DISABLED if structurally non-compliant or the Team number or ALLIANCE color is ambiguous

I will have to think about what "failures" would be structurally compliant. Drooping fabric. Anything else?

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Don't get Big Al started on the elastic bumper covers!!!!!!! I don't think he was too keen on them :eek:

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

We ripped ours too just practicing, no robot-robot contact, although we are using the standard RoboPromo stuff that came in the KOP.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Checking the interweb:

The Robopromo super slick material is a 70 Denier Nylon

The AM Slick is a 200 Denier Nylon

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Al,

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be less than 16" (8" from EACH of the vertices)?

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Technically although Al was just quoting the manual there.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

In 2013 our robot hit a defensive robot pretty hard (not by 2014 standards though) and not one, not two, but all four bumpers fell off at the same time. Don't be that robot.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

R19 ROBOTS are required to use BUMPERS to protect all outside corners of the FRAME PERIMETER. For adequate protection, at least 8 in. of BUMPER must be placed on each side of each out side corner (see Figure 4-3). If a side is shorter than 8 in., the entire side must be protected by BUMPER (see Figure 4-4).

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

This is one of the biggest faults of the bumper rules. It's very unhelpful for R19 to repeat that the entire side <8" must be protected by BUMPER, when earlier statements make it obvious that this MUST be the case for rules-compliant bumpers with sides <16". The poorly worded statement is probably causing misinterpretations and mistakes. But unfortunately it's been repeated around FRC for so long that it might be ingrained at this point.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

We ripped our bumpers up on Saturday at the Week Zero event using the AM slick bumper material. The fabric cut right along the edge of the plywood. The small lexan walls on the batter were what caused the rips since it is so easy to drive up on top of them.

We are going to remake them using the tougher cordura and put thin aluminum angle along the bottom edge to protect the fabric in accordance with the rules. I would highly recommend teams consider doing this before you end up with a serious tear like ours.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Nate,
Think from the other side of the discussion...
"If I can't cover 8" from the corner than I don't have to use bumpers on that side."
That is one thing the GDC does not want. In the past this dimension has often been 6". This year due to the game, the dimension was changed to 8". In my opinion it is pretty obvious that was decided to give a greater challenge to designers.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

Al,

I just checked the manuals from 2012 until now and they had the minimum set for 8". Maybe I'm missing what you are saying but it would appear this rule has been set like this for awhile.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

It's been 8" for a long time.

The other point trying to be made is that there is no configuration of a 16" or shorter side that doesn't require the entire side to be covered. It is the logical consequence of 8"from each corner needing covering. Another way to say it is that all frame sides greater than 16" require at least 16" of total bumper on that side in addition to the 8" from each corner.

The wording of the rule for "sides less than 8"" could also be written "sides less than 16"" without changing any actual bumper requirements.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

"Long time" is a relative term when you have been around since 1996. The rule was 6" in 2011.

Re: Al's 2016 Inspection Thread
 

I disagree the minimum side is 16". I propose that a side that is 8" long, completely protected by bumpers has bumpers 8" from each vertex. The minimum side is essentially 8" not 16". Of course the other side of each of those vertexes also need a minimum 8" of bumper.

The <8" being completely covered wording was intended to address the "infinite vertexes" case of a circular robot.

I suspect the confusion arises from FRAME PERIMETER sides with concave segments. I agree that a side with a concave segment (aka intake throat) needs a minimum of 16" of fully supported bumpers.

I would also suggest that the term FRAME perimeter is confusing and should be changed to CONVEX PERIMETER or string perimeter. Wheels sticking out past the FRAME are still part of the CONVEX perimeter.