Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I have watched 2 robots, without bumbers, have a full speed head on collision during autonomous mode during the practice rounds of Thursday. 1 of those 2 never fully recovered all of it's functionality.

Bumpers are good. They allow for more robot-to-robot interaction with less damage. This makes for a more exciting match, IMHO.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I think it should be up to the team. If you don't want them, you know you have to make a stronger frame. If you like them and feel they are an asset to your robot then go for it. I like bumpers, but I don't think they should be mandatory.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I like the mandatory bumper idea because as a driver one of my worries is getting hit to hard and hitting others to hard. This year are base is quicker than ever before so when we hit someone its gonna be hard. Also there's gonna be alot more inadvertent high speed robot to robot interaction this year and no one is ever really out to damage anyone else but it would be bound to happen with a weak frame.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

im also a driver, and i go both ways.
last year (bumper-less) i managed to have two pieces of lexan, and one regulator that was attached to another piece of lexan behind the outermost, get smashed. Though it was kinda cool "battle scar" type kinda thing, its obvious why the GDC wouldnt want this. This is a faster game where experienced and inexperienced drivers may/will? lose control.

With that said, i did like having a solid, flat frame to do my pushing and other maneuvers.
Plus, nothing like that metal to metal smash sound in a collision that Daniel LaFleur described earlier.


But hey, this isnt battle bots.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

There is going to be bumper material all over the field.

Is Shop Vac our new sponsor?

I personally think bumpers should be optional. I don't care to spend all that time fixing bumpers, removing them to work on the robot and getting inspected multiple times. This is an engineering problem and we should be able to design robots that don't need bumpers. Prior years I think teams used them for the weight advantage they gave, I don't think this year the weight will help, but will hinder you.

Sorry, if someone has heard me say this before, but I am very against the mandatory part of bumpers.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I think FIRST should let teams decide for themselves if they should have bumpers (and many other things for that matter). While they may be a good idea for some robots this year, they will probably be a problem for others. As with anything in engineering, there are trade offs in any decision. Why not let a team what's better for them?

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I disagree.

Yes, this is an engineering problem ... but the problem is how to design the robot WITH bumpers.

1824s design would not work without the bumpers we are putting on. They are an integral part of the design. And we plan on using the weight as an advantage too ;)

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

Ive always been a fan of robots with a few gouges and scars in the aluminum, it gives it character. But I see the logic for this game, its very high speed. An out of control 120lbs hunk of metal will do much more less damage with bumpers... (I hope)

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I HATE THAT RULE!!!:mad: Teams should be able to decide weather or not they want bumpers. If teams build sissy robots that cant handle being out on the track and getting hit, then i dont think they can build very effective robots. To me, bumpers are a sign of weakness in a robot. I love seeing robots with battle scars. Besides this year we're not even really supposed to hit. We can 'bump' to signal we want to pass. We're not supposed to plow through the field (although i'd love that. our robot has the strength to take any hits.) Anyone can make a something strong, but it takes and engineer to make something strong and light. and isn't that what we are supposed to be? Future Engineers!

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I couldn't agree more. It seems that the team members that have been around a long time prefer not having bumpers. The old robots did fine without them and there where many games that had head-on full speed collisions every round.

In 2002 every one drove full speed across the field from both sides at (3) 120 lb movable goals and there opponents. There was always a big bang at the start of the match, it was a great crowd pleaser.

In 2004 again most came flying across the field at each other and a 100 lb movable goal at each side of the field.

I believe the time wasted on bumpers could be used so that the students learn more.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

In general, I don't like the requirement. I understand why it's there, and what FIRST is trying to accomplish/prevent, but I still don't like it.

If bumpers were really as fantastic an idea as they are being made out to be then FIRST wouldn't have to make their use mandatory. The vast majority of teams last year choose not to use bumpers, and that's been true for every year since bumpers debuted, so there are clearly reasons to not use them. I imagine reasons range from lack of time, concerns about arrival and departure angles on ramps (albeit not an issue this year), and overall size.

Like I said, I get it. I know why bumpers are good. I just don't think they are good enough to have their use mandatory.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

I strongly disagree with both of these statements, just because you put bumpers on your robot doesn't mean you can't build an effective robot and in real world engineering you design to the customers specs not you own.

FIRST has given us specs and we design to them that's what real engineers do.

How is the time spent on helping students design their robot with bumpers in mind waste time? I think it is valuable experience.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

Our design always works good for the bumpers, that is not the problem. The problem is we spend hours finding the right covering and ordering it, finding pool noodles, and taking them on and off to work on the robot and to get it inspected. They also are probably the thing that needs the most constant maintenance on the robot. And to top it all; man are they ugly and make the robot look wimpy.

This competition takes a lot of peoples time to work with the students and I would rather not spend my valuable time with them on bumpers. There is so much more I would like to teach them in that time like: Gear ratios, leverage, acceleration, vector forces, material strengths, motors speed and power, programming, pneumatics and so much more.

Thanks for your view though.

Edit "They also coverup the most important part of the robot, the drivetrain"

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

Personally, I really don't like bumpers at all. They require us to spend time and money on something that isn't really needed. Sure they add protection, but we've built plenty of robots able to withstand high-speed collisions without bumpers before. Certainly they add weight and help drop the CG, but in this game isn't more weight a hindrance? We're trying to be maneuverable at high speeds - the heavier the robot, the harder that is. And the larger size just makes it harder to squeeze through tight spaces on the track. They have their good side, but I'd much rather have a robot without bumpers this year.

Re: How many people like bumpers?
 

Aww, I don't think bumpers look ugly. If you cover them right they can add a very nice patch of color to your robot. Ours are always bright orange. Even in the off season they help attract attention and stick in peoples mind. If you have bright, noticeable bumpers its one more thing a scout might see and remember. When you are searching your mind for a team to pick sometimes you remember a team for the strangest reasons.

I don't know why you'd think they make the robot look wimpy. If you have them it should show that you put a lot of work into this robot and that you want to protect it and the other teams you might be "bumping" when your on the field. I have never seen a robot with bumpers that looked wimpy.

It should be very obvious that I am highly in favor of the bumper rule.