Structural Bumpers
 

The bumper rule this year gives us all an opportunity to protect our chassis and other robot bits without having to fit the protection within the footprint and weight limit of the core robot. I believe most of us think of this as a Good Thing. Even the most robust chassis can be dented by a solid whack from another similarly robust 'bot.

Using the specified bumper also opens up an opportunity that we chose not to exploit, but I am curious to see if anyone else did. The spec for the new bumper calls for a layer of .75" plywood covered by a foam layer. Properly attached to a subframe, that plywood could act as both a layer of protection and a structural member. If that plywood was something strong like BS1088 Meranti, connected to either a lightweight frame rail, or even via spacer blocks to a rail inside the robot's wheels it could become the outer frame rail of the robot. Connected properly, the plywood beam would replace structural material in the frame.

I'm waiting to see this in someone's design.

Re: Structural Bumpers
 

I thought about this too, but decided against it because I'm in a fight with the kit chassis for stiffness as it is.

Re: Structural Bumpers
 

I know it was one of the items that made my team go with lexan for our outer side plates instead of the aluminum we used on the inside. While we are very close to the ground and the bumpers won't cover the vast majority of the side plate, it will keep the plate behind it stiff enough to overcome the difference between aluminum and lexan. Our robot will definitely be able to run without the bumpers but I wouldn't want the robot to take a hit without the bumper being on because the frame would probably flex which is bad!

Re: Structural Bumpers
 

i personal think that everyone should at least use the basic bumpers because it adds weight and therefor harder to push around. not to mention the whole protect your robot thing : :cool:

Re: Structural Bumpers
 

We were going to. But with the current official interpretation of the bumper rule, it would require notches that are not permissible. So the sides will be somewhat structural, but the ends will be a little less useful in this regard. We're going to have to figure out an additional stiffener for the rear area, but that hasn't been decided yet.