Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I believe that most posters are missing an important aspect to bumpers.

They indicate the area of legal contact. If some robots have no bumpers and some do we have no real frame of reference as to where contact is made.

They make it easier for the referees to judge whether contact is made in a legal way rather than outside the bumper area....

I think this is a chief advantage for using them.... legal contact is made at the same or similar point on every robot. Deciding where the contact was initiated (high or low) is easier because that initial contact is not made up against someone's frame...

I like bumpers and my teams have used them from the very beginning.

I do think that different methods of attaching them should be allowed rather than the "t-nuts" and bolts method. The idea would be that externally they are all the same.... cloth covered pool noodles backed up by plywood.

Thickness defined.... weight defined...
method of attachment.... choose and engineer a good one...

thanks!!
have a safe and pleasant year!!!

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

As an inspector, the bumpers are not a big deal. Weighing them does not slow the process down significantly, as long as the team is paying attention and has them ready to put on the scale. Having them on the robot during the rest of the inspection sometimes makes it hard to see the things we want to see, so I like having them off during the inspection.

The teams I have been involved with have used the bumpers every year they have been an option. Personally, I like them. They have saved us from a lot of damage, not only during matches, but during testing at the school and during demos, where walls and posts just seem to like to jump in front of the robot. Figuring out how to attach them so that they can be removed and installed quickly is part of the engineering challenge. This year 1379 used quick release hitch pins, and can remove / replace all the bumpers in less than a minute.

When I don't like the bumpers is when I have to help carry the robot on and off the field. 120# for the robot, 13# for the battery, 15# for the bumpers, and all of a sudden you are asking two people to pick up and move a 150 lb object that is pretty awkward to handle, and to do it quickly and safely.

One thing I noticed last year when inspecting at the Championships was that the robots that didn't use bumpers tended to be more beat up and had a lot more trouble at inspection fitting in the sizing box due to things being bent. I hope that there will be less of that this year due to everyone having bumpers.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I thought the GDC clarified that bumpers must be firmly attached to the robot frame using bolts.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I actually am starting to like the bumpers!

With the bumpers none of our pretty yellow paint has scratched off! :p

But seriously I have seen some hard hits by robots rounding the corners for the turns and I think the bumpers help the situation. I never thought this game would resemble bumper cars so much.

I think they are appropriate for 2008 but I wonder if the 2009 game will include such fierce bumping as would require said bumpers. :)

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Alan is correct. The GDC did clarify that, here, here, and here.

The inspection checklist (Rev F, line item 30) doesn't included a specific reference to allowable fastening systems, and first mention of bumpers in the inspection reference materials (Rev D, page 4) don't cover fastening systems, either. The reference materials do summarize several important Q&A responses (pages 10 thru 15) including those that deal with bumper mounting (items 50, 60, 71, and 79 of the Q&A summary).

So even though Alan is right, it is not hard to see why some inspectors might have missed this point. Inspection standards are higher at the Championship, so teams whose robots passed inspection at a regional despite having a non-conforming bumper fastening system should anticipate being required to correct that when they get to Atlanta.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I'm torn on this. Here's why:

Previous to the "standard" bumpers' debut in 2006, teams had the option of using their own designs, but they had to fit in the size and weight constraints with the rest of the robot. Not many took advantage of this, and I've heard of a "lifting bumper" in 2005 or so that would lift an opponent slightly. Preferred methods of keeping defenders off you included a) avoid them or b) wedges. Wedges were a fairly effective method of keeping defenders from damaging or moving you, but they did have a tendency to tip robots that came up them. They could also be used to tip other robots (a red-card offense, at least after 2007; before that, a DQ.)

So, in 2006, FIRST threw everyone a change-up. Wedges were outlawed; contact could only be in the bumper zone, and there was a "standard" bumper that would give you extra size and weight. You could still use your own, but it had to fit in the box and on the scale with the rest of the robot. Many teams used them because 2006 was expected to be a physical game. Others didn't.

The same thing happened in 2007, except that more teams used bumpers. ("Wedges" were only allowed in the home zone. There were limits on their use, though--opponents couldn't intentionally tip on them; they'd get the penalty instead.) Again, 2007 was a very physical game.

Now we have entered 2008, and the game is slightly less physical (only slightly...), yet bumpers are now required. Not only that, but they absolutely have to be of the "standard" design, no holes other than mounting holes in the backing, no alternate materials in the backing. Some teams have trouble with bumper weight, due to aluminum angle being suggested to hold the fabric on. So they want to put lightening/mounting holes (axles sometimes stick out of frames...) but can't. Innovative mounting methods are rejected because they aren't "bolt and fastener".

So here's what I think: bumpers are a good idea. They protect robots fairly well and define a contact zone. But the design is the issue. I would like to see: 1) If bumpers are optional, any area in the bumper zone without them should be colored or marked so that bumper-zone contact can be seen. 2) Slightly looser attachment/backing requirements. Questions about various mounting methods in Q&A made up the bulk of the questions in their section, and many of those got a "we can't evaluate individual designs for compliance" and a "you must use a bolt-and-fastener system". 3) Freedom to use other designs under the old rules of "fit in the box with them".

Re: Are the manditory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

This was not true for our team. We found ourselves butting heads with the mandatory 2/3 bumper rule, because we wanted to make a low-profile robot with a fork-lift style front that the ball could roll into. Even when we pushed our bumpers as far back as possible, the 2/3 rule prevented us from allowing the ball to slide as far into the robot as we had wanted. We specifically asked the GDC about rules regarding this design and it took them an entire week to respond about how the 2/3 perimeter rule would be interpreted – and then this was never checked at inspection.

I think a major point missed in this discussion is that teams could leave more than an entire side of their robot uncovered by bumpers. While many teams chose to add bumpers on four sides, those who did not can still inflict the same metal-on-metal damage to each other and to the playing field. So even though bumpers may reduce the potential for damage, they cannot prevent it unless they are required around the entire robot perimeter. With this in mind, it is clear to me that the "illusion of safety" inducing drivers to behave more recklessly is an especially serious concern.

I do think that bumpers are generally good for protecting robots, and I support teams who use bumpers to their fullest extent. For the past three years, my team has used bumpers covering the left and right sides of our robot for protection. But when we didn't put bumpers on the front or back, that was also for a reason – we designed the robot to be sturdy enough without them, and chose to prioritize other aspects of the design.

To echo the other posters: bumpers are good, but they should NOT be mandatory. If you want to protect your robot, use bumpers. If you want to achieve greater design flexibility, then don't. It's not hard.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Mandatory bumpers are really unnecessary because not all teams need them. I know many posts in this thread address the robot-crushing hits they witnessed that bumpers helped prevent major damage in, but my team builds our robots to withstand those big hits. We usually only add bumpers to increase our weight, thus lowering our CG and increasing our traction.

I feel that mandatory bumpers do not reduce the high-speed collisions or the effects of high-speed collisions. If FIRST really wants to cut down on battlebot-like games and to improve safety, they should impose some sort of speed limit or actually use the yellow card. I'm sure every driver will tone their driving down once they get that yellow card.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I don't think that bumpers should be necessary as long as teams build for some big hits. However, teams are not building for heavy bot to bot interaction. Before anyone complains, I understand that beating on the bots is not in the spirit of FIRST. I am just saying, that whether or not it should happen or not, it is going to happen eventually. If I recall correctly, there was a team that had its arm broke off in practice. The other team did not try to break it off, it just happened. Due to the lack of structural integrity of some bots, I do think that the bumpers are necessary. I would almost be interested in a year where bumpers are not allowed. That will be something to design around. Just my thoughts. But to apply what I said above to this thread. Both. It helps some teams and hurts others. But that is life. When they make a new regulation they help one company and hurt another.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I don't like the bumpers one bit. they give FIRST a finesse look, like "oh, i don't want to get hit, i don't want my robot's paint coming off...(insert excuse here)". I remember back in 2004 and 2005, robots would get hit hard ALL the time and they would come back onto the field for another beating. That was because they could, the robot's now can't seem to do that for some odd reason, Kate is right as teams are using the bumpers as a false since of security. with the bumpers, first has turned a strong defensive approach to what defenses are forced to do in the pro bowl (no blitzes, cover 2 all the time). Kate is absolutely right that the robots are uniform.


I saw 108's hybrid and it was DESIGNED to go stright and stop just short of their opponiants driver station, i've seen it hit the drivers statin... so here is my question. if 108 didn't have bumpers, do you think they might have programmed their hybrid diffrently?

Thats the same philosophy my old team (1402) used to employ, if you can't play with the big boys, then get off. if your team can't handle high speed hits, then teams won't pick you in eliminations.

seince we do have split sides, let us all unite and come to a proper compromise that could work. maybe go back to optional bumpers, like in 2006. it would coun't aginest your weight and size, but if you really wanted it, you would be able to protect your robot...

I would also like one more thing brought back... WEDGES.

I loved wedges, i remember on 1402's 2005 bot, we had a nice steep wedge. wedges are a tough lesson to teams that think they can play defense taht can't. i think wedges used to separate the contenders from the pretenders.

so in other words, give teams the option to have Wedges, Bumpers, or none, maybe even a combination of both...

I'm a big advocate of hard nose, black and blue defense.... Offense brings the crowds, but DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

my honest opinion: putting bumpers on robots is like buying a poor mans warranty for that robot. Building a durable, strong and consistent robot is a true warranty in itself.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

The poll seems to show one side is clearly the majority. EIGHT times as many people say bumpers help FRC as hurt, and nearly three times as many want them to return next year as want them gone.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I don't wish to reiterate the points in favor of bumpers in regards to robot interaction, robustness and safety. I could argue for a while on those points, complete with nerf and metal baseball bat analogies :ahh:. My views on the how bumpers could have prevented the tip on Einstein last year are in this post and at the end I call for mandatory bumpers. Instead, I will bring up how they reduce field damage.

The bumpers are soft and not likely to pop a trackball. Contact with a metal robot chassis at the speeds of this game is much more likely. To make matters worse your metal chassis is likely to be sharp. Why is it sharp? Because it is damaged from all the robot collisions that would be absorbed by the bumpers (if you had them). This is very noticeable when reinspecting robots for elims, the sides without bumpers always need filing. Popping a trackball is a major disruption to game play since there are only 2 per side (unlike tubes last year where popping was minor, expected and there were more tubes). We now have a famous popped trackball from the SVR finals but I haven't heard of many other incidents (partially thanks to mandatory bumpers).

I would like to see the mandatory bumper rule back next year regardless of the game. I don't think they restrict robot design much at all in this game since the track balls are giant. I could see them changing the required percentage to allow for different mechanisms in future games. I would also like to see a standard bumper covering with a lower friction coefficient than the current cloth (so it can slip out of pins easier).

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

thread killer :(

:p

bumpers = good
although our sides still need a bashing after every match, but we've come to expect our driver, Mr. Cox, to hit anything in range (including the track balls which he has popped multiple times :) )

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Woo, Big post time!


Absolutely, I agree that this makes it easier. Oh wait, that would mean that refs would be calling more out of contact zone penalties, from arm to arm hits, and so on. But they haven't. Sure, it's a nice idea to think that it would make it easier, and conceptually, it does. However, I have yet to see enough out-of contact zone penalties for this to really make sense to me...


Hm. See, I've always seen two classes of bots that didn't have bumpers: We've got the ones who are broken and wished they used bumpers, or wished that their frame was more robust, and then you have the teams that designed a strong frame, and don't need bumpers either way. I've always made sure to design my frames to be strong enough to not need bumpers. The only year I had a chassis break was after the bot tipped, and was rammed repeatedly by another bot with no bumpers. Basically, I'm trying to say that not having bumpers teaches teams to design a stronger chassis, or reap the consequences.

I totally agree. Bumpers are nice and all, for some designs, but should not be required in any way. Honestly, you're taking a lot of really stylish designs, and covering them up. What ever happened to the "wow!" factor of a nicely crafted drive base? Now it seems all we have is box-bots that look the same, with the only difference being the color of the fabric on the bumpers.

I'm all for the free choice of teams to use or not use bumpers.

See, now I've been standing behind a barrier that was hit by team 254 at high speed last year. They didn't have bumpers. The collision knocked the alliance station back a good foot, and shut down the entire side of the field. Their robot: fine, and in good operational ability. What this comes down to is intelligent design: make it strong or break it. FIRST shouldn't have to enforce teams into a weak state.

Yes! I agree totally! If your bot can't handle impact, and can't handle the heavy defense and contact that FIRST requires, you'll have a broken chassis. On hand, this sucks for a team, as it can often mean the end of a regional. However, i've been that team that's stripped the bot down, taken it out to the welder, and had our chassis repaired before the finals, and STILL brought it to the other alliance, when our bot was practically in half an hour before. It may suck for many, but even more will learn a VERY valuable lesson in structural integrity: Design strong or deal with a broken bot.

Aye, that it does. However, I voted oddly: I voted that bumpers are helping. I said this because we aren't seeing as many crippled robots this year. At the same time, I also voted that bumpers should be optional. I think the team should have the choice whether or not to build a large (and fairly ugly) construction that doesn't always lend a useful capacity to the bot. There are always cases where bumpers are necessary, and most of them involve a poorly designed frame.

[note: that was a lot for me to track. I may have missed something/misphrased something. Feel free to ask for clarification on my views if I mangled something and didn't notice on my edit...]