Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

your forgetting that there are MANY people who do not bother looking at chiefdelphi... from what i know, it's because of what katy has stated in her other thread that she published last week.http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=65668

taht count is sort of crippled, i know teams that don't even have accounts, or if they do, the next to NEVER check them or log on to CD.

I think if you were to do a poll in the pits at championship you would get more even numbers...

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I think bumpers are great. They have saved out bots in 06 and 08. In 07 we chose not to use bumpers because our decorations protected out frame. This year though i think bumpers help alot. Our robot is much more stable with the bumper than with out.

IMO Bumpers = Win!

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Although they are a pain, I am game on the mandatory bumpers.:) They provide protection to the robot and help keep damage down. The only downside is being confined to the "standard" rules. I wish we could mount them however we want. The other thing that gets me is that I see bumpers that other teams have(not standard or have a different fastening system other than what is allowed) and I wonder how they pass inspection. I had to read these rules a couple of times to make sure they were constructed correctly and mounted to the robot correctly. Figuring out how to Mount them was one of the biggest headaches for me. I got over it and I love the bumper system:)

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

This being my first year, i cant contribute to as much as others could, but judging by videos and being to a regional(and winning =) ) For this game i think the manditory bumpers are a good idea,but for future games should be optional.

But just because you have bumpers dosent mean your 100% safe from major damage to somthing, like, your control board on your robot.

I think it was the last qualifying rounds of the matches before the semi finals. Our team (20) had just scored when another robot came from behind and somehow, with its gripper, went around our lexan cover and snaged onto one of the most important plugs you dont want to rip out: the radio transmitter.

We were left dead for the last 1:30. After we asessed the damage, we found it unreparible because the robot had ripped the female(or male, i forget which) plug out onthe Controler side. The only thing left was a few loose wires out the end of it.

Thank god to team 2053 who came out of nowhere to lend us a spare!

Anyway, the point is: Bumpers can decrease the amount of overall damage that a robot sustains, but that dosent mean there invincible, or the "false security" disease.(At least, thats the way i see it)

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Interesting, I've seen a number of these, especially in 2007. I've seen a handful get missed, but that's the case with any rule (let's not get into the ref debate here as well).

The wonderful thing about mandating bumpers is that these strong framed bots won't snap the weaker framed bots in half. I've seen extrusion, box channel, c-channel, kitbot, and virtually every frame type suffer damage at one point. I've also seen various robot components (mainly manipulators) "impale" frames and drive components not shielded by bumpers.

Really? I think someone forgot to tell 1986, 179, 1098, and 148.

If you are willing to put together a poll at Championship, I'd be very eager to see the results. If anything, given the high-profile teams on CD, I'd think that the teams not on it would actually fall more into the category of teams that use bumpers to protect their often lower-budget frames.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Bumpers used to drive me crazy as a driver. They made the robot wider then it needed to be, and got caught up on the slightest obstructions. With a well designed and constructed frame, damage should not even be an issue. With the GM Ind Design Award for example, robustness was something they were looking for. We won it last year, using bumpers only once we were in Atlanta.


Just me 2 cents.

FIRST is about vehicles
 

You ask if mandatory bumpers are helping or hurting, but don't really define what we are talking about helping or hurting. You then trot out a lot of different points that, viewed independently, could be seen as positives or negatives.

Lewis Carroll illustrated this well.
Alice: Which way should I go?
Cat: That depends on where you are going.
Alice: I don't know where I am going.
Cat: Then it doesn't matter which way you go!

Wetzel

Re: FIRST is about vehicles
 

Uh. Dude, your own quote of Katy's OP showed exactly what she meant by helping or hurting... I quote, here's what she meant:

Re: FIRST is about vehicles
 

I mean, some of those are good some are bad. What are the goals of bumpers.

Other than a good 8 hours of sleep on Sunday, I haven't slept properly since last Tuesday night before the Pitt regional. I suspect I'm a little loco right now and shouldn't be posting.

Wetzel

Re: FIRST is about vehicles
 

Hey, no worries. We all do that some time or another.

As for what the end result of bumpers is, I've found it to be such:
1. It acts as a crutch for many teams who can't or won't build a robust frame
2. It protects the field from some damage (to an extent)
3. It defines a more easily observable area of legal contact
4. It limits teams to a fairly simple, non-creative shape (with some exceptions, obviously)
5. It protects the weaker frames from SOME impact
6. It adds perceived invulnerability for many teams, which promotes more reckless driving

I know I probably missed some, but hey, I'm only human...


It's my position that bumpers are nice and dandy, but they really shouldn't be forced onto teams.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I'd like to clarify two things here. I just watched Qualification Match 62 (the only match we had with SPAM) a few times and I didn't see us ram into them at all. Perhaps it was another alliance partner, another match?

Also, our hybrid was designed to turn when the robocoach signaled it to, not just to stop in front of the opponent's driver station. We were having horrible issues with IR on Friday, so that's what resulted in all of the crashes, though by Saturday we got most of the kinks worked out and didn't crash into the operator wall at all. As far as bumpers are concerned, the major point of contact in collisions during hybrid were with our arm, and since we don't have bumpers on the front, they wouldn't have had any effect on how our hybrid mode was executed.

For bumpers in general, I like them. It makes it easier to play defense without completely murdering other robots, and serves as great protection for the frame. In 2007 we didn't have bumpers at all and by our second regional our frame was bent significantly. This year, now that we're done with our second regional, the damages are nowhere near as great to the base. I've also seen many tipping situations prevented because of bumpers. Also, bumpers are not only to protect the robots, but the field also. On Thursday during practice a team went out on the field several times without bumpers and there were significant scratches and movement of structural field pieces due to this robot's lack of bumpers. As long as the game requires a significant amount of high speed and defense, I'd like to keep the bumpers around. Perhaps I'm a softie, but I hate seeing robots get damaged.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Most posts here show an great combination of GP and expressing a reasonable opinion. It is my opinion that this post shows neither.

You can still play defense. Even with bumpers. The difference is that now, instead of the defense being "look at us, we have experience, we can design a strong drive train and ram people", the defense takes the form of "we found a defensive strategy to counter an offensive strategy."

I also disagree that this makes robots look uniform. With coloring, and the fact you can use however much bumpers you desire (66% - 100% of the frame) and whichever shape you desire *cough*148*cough*, means that as with most years, robots look anything but uniform. Also, bumpers give rookie and young teams opportunities to add color onto their robot, without painting something that is likely to be broken or be worked on.

With your high speed hits thing, what a great way to be as anti-rookie as possible. Unfortunately, not all rookies get experienced FIRST teams to mentor them. Without any knowledge that some teams will be out there just to hit people as hard as they can, I am sure that many rookie teams would find it hard to do FIRST. You spend six weeks on building a robot, come to a competition all excited, until someone who has done this a few more times than you drives all the way across the field to hit you, to separate the "contenders" from the "pretenders"? I'm all for defense, if it's played intelligently and doesn't rely on brute force. However, if you design a game that can end up as a drive-train war, how do you encourage creativity? You're talking about all robots looking the same? If games end up as pushing and hitting competitions, all robots will look the same. And that will be a sad, sad day for FIRST.

This is why I like Overdrive. Even though penalties play a huge, excessive role, and some things leave to be desired, I still think that in many ways, it's a step in the right direction. Especially during eliminations, this is one of the more exciting and crowd friendly games I can recall. It also allows for a myriad of offensive and defensive strategies, with few of them relying on brute force and many on intelligent design, creativity, and strategy.

As for wedges. If you read the rest of my post (and I'm not blaming you if not :P), I am not for wedges. They're another rookie trap, something veteran teams would know how to handle much better than rookies. They also lead to boring play (have you ever watched two battle bots wedges compete?), and to tipped robots. In my opinion, if FIRST is to encourage creativity, intelligent engineering, and hard work, then wedges should remain illegal.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

I am definitely for the mandatory bumpers for many of the reasons stated by other posters above. There are a few changes I would like to see for next year:

1. Open up mounting restraints (just make teams show they're secure e.g. no zip-ties, no velcro, etc.
2. Open up joining rules. I see no reason that mitering the pool noodles so 2 bumpers meet at a 45* angle should be disallowed, pool noodles are still on the outside and wood is on the inside. Our bumpers for this year looked much better when they were constructed with an illegal miter than when constructed legally.
3. Eliminate 6" minimum. I see no reason for this and it limits ability to cover shapes with small sides.
4. Allow teams to make their own plywood to better facilitate curves.

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Bumpers definitely help prevent damage, I don't see how anyone can argue against that. The mandatory bumper rule has saved many more robots than it has hurt.

In my opinion, though, they shouldn't be a requirement for future years (but they should be very strongly encouraged!). My reason for this is: teams should be allowed to build robust bumper-less robots if they choose, it makes the overall size of the robot smaller and allows for more diverse and aesthetically pleasing robots. (lame reason, I know...)

Re: Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?
 

Yes. I actually realize now I constructed that poll pretty poorly. You have my apologies. This is because I don't want them to be outlawed, I just don't feel that mandatory bumpers are helping. What I meant to really ask "are mandatory bumpers assisting the league" and "do you want bumpers to be mandatory next year." If you look at the written responses the difference is actually a pretty big deal. If you do actually take your proposed poll at the championship please consider modifying the questions in that manner.

In other news: let's take it easy with the calling other people un-GP! That's a pretty strong word. You may be right or you may be wrong but I'm going to ask we avoid this entire branch of discussion because reading flame-wars is boring!

So here is my next question to individuals in this thread. You have explained quite effectively why you believe bumpers should be permitted. I agree with you as it was never my intent to say that bumpers should be outlawed. (I'll admit my opening post may be misleading on this but honestly I was just using shorthand when it was in reality rather inappropriate and glossing over an important distinction. My issue is mainly with the fact that bumpers are mandatory and additional weight and size are alloted for them.) Now, other than to define contact zone, which has been pretty widely disputed, why should bumpers be mandatory? Why does FIRST requiring them improve the league?