pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

From my understanding of the rules this is currently legal by the manual.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Agreed. Looks good to me, fellow GRR team.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

This isn't legal, part I of rule <R08> requires that "BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER." and refers to a drawing that has bumpers on both sides of a corner with the padding extending all the way out (I'm sure this explanation is slightly confusing, I suggest you look at the diagram in the rules to see what I am referring to). It wouldn't take too much to make this legal, you'd just have to sacrifice a bit of your collection area on the front to make room for the 6" of bumper on each corner. And remember to leave 7" out of the back for the trailer hitch.


EDIT: I didn't notice that the bumpers extend past the corners. I think this is a question for the Q&A, as the rules are vague about whether protecting a corner requires bumper on both sides (as the diagram suggests), or just a bumper on the corner.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Yup, your post explains my internal debate precisely.

We will QnA it, which will be hard to describe via text.

I say it is legal, and should be legal per the rules and the intent of the rules.

If it isn't, then only wide robots will be able to pick up two balls wide.....

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

This looks legal to me. I see what your question is, but it still sounds legal, and within the intent of the rules. You should be fine, but Q&A can't hurt.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Well you cant also forget about the big gap you have to leave for the trailer in the back of your robot

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

I suspect this was drawn prior to reading Team Update 1. Where's your trailer hitch going?

I also question whether or not the soft portion of the bumper can extend beyond a corner if there's not a bumper on the adjacent side.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

I do not think this would be legal.

Looking at the way you have it set up in the picture, the bumpers on the long side extend past the robot.

Also, looking at the diagram on page ten of section 8, it looks like the bumpers need to have an adjacent corner as Gary suggested.

Edit: the rules say bumper sections have to be at least 6" long, does this mean 6" against the robot? At a joint, since the bumpers are 2.5" wide, can the adjacent bumper be mounted so that only 4" of it is braced against the robot?

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

My guess is no because i think bumpers need to be fully supported by frame this year.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

There would have to be three sections. One covering the entire short side, including the corners, and two more covering the remainder of the long sides. Basically what that rule says is that no section can be longer then the length of the robot.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

As far as the current bumper rules, please read them entirely before replying.

Depending on the definition of corner, we are legal per the rules. The rules are ambiguous as to whether or not an adjacent bumper is required to extend the soft part out.

The gap for the trailer hitch wasn't drawn in because it wasn't really what I was asking for, the opposite to the open side will have it.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

I think you might run into an issue with saying that the front of your robot is protected by a bumper.

The rule says that the first thing that contacts the wall has to be a bumper.
A bumper in the definitions includes the mounting board.

Your design appears to be hitting the wall with just the cloth and noodle portion of the side bumper.

I can only surmise that the rule is there to protect the walls from needless damage from metal or other hard portions of the robot because of the sliding characteristics of the robots this year.

This is certainly a question that needs to be asked in Q and A and not on here to get a correct interpretation.

I know that if I were inspecting the robot ... and without any other indications from GDC or Q and A... I would not pass this bumper configuration.

Now is the time to ask... get it in writing and keep it with you for inspection.

good luck!!

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

We'll be submitting to QnA tonight, if this configuration is deemed illegal, I will be very upset.

It limits the width of ball intakes a very substantial amount, unnecessarily as well.

I like bumpers, I don't like overly restrictive bumper rules.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

I'm interested in the official answer regarding this as well. It means the difference between a ~26" wide collector and a ~16" wide collector.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The Wording on update #2 is frustrating, it doesn't specifically say that bumpers must be on the front, just seems to show that IF you have bumpers on the front.

I guess I'll wait for the QnA response.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The update doesn't have to say it. The manual already specifies where the bumpers must be. The relevant paragraph:

It's clear -- to me, anyway -- that every side of the robot must have bumpers at the corners at least.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Looking at the intent of the rule, your configuration is illegal because the goal could protrude into your robot.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

You don't know the intent of the rule and, further, even there are 6" bumpers along the front edge, it's still possible for the trailer to protrude into the robot.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The bumper configuration is legal from what I understand, however the indentation which is presumably to help keep the trailer controlled isn't legal.

Both of these are assuming I've read the rules right. I may or may not be wrong. The only official answer you can get is from the FIRST Q&A Forum, though.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

From team update #2:

Based on the small paragraph below the highlights of R08 they state that the bumpers limit the goal incursion. I suppose to both limit trapping offense tactics and minimize damage if a trailer goes inside a robot.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

As I understand Team Update #2, this configuraion would not pass robot inspection.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The only way to know is to ask Q&A point-blank: "Must every side of the robot have bumpers?"

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

I have QnA'd, it has yet to be answered. We'll see then I guess.

Pretty much it comes down to two things;

1) does the 3.5" of soft bumper from the adjacent sides constitute protecting a corner?

2) Must bumpers be on all sides.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The outcome of this will cause some major design changes for lots of teams should it be Illegal.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Any News From the GDC yet?

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

My interpretation of the rules would say this design is legal, but that's not to say my interpretation is what the GDC has in mind. When they say the corners must be protected, protect it how? Protect it from contact intiated from which direction? And what defines a "corner?" What if a robot has curved "corners"? How much does it need to be curved before it is no longer a corner?

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Which rule are you referring to?

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The text under the highlighted points of R08 in team update #2 has a few choice words that lead me to believe their intent is to prevent a high level of goal incursion I suppose for robot safety and limiting offensive tactics.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

I think it was meant to point out that many legal bumper configurations allow the goal to protrude, and teams should be aware of possible goal to inner robot interaction.

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

The GDC has spoken

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11159

Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
 

Well, we know it's not legal now.

We've made our changes, and in the long run this wasn't a biggie now that we know.

I wasn't mad at the GDC or trying to exploit anything, I just wanted to make sure we'd show up to the event and not be at a disadvantage. For not being able to do FIRST 24/7 of their lives, I think the GDC is doing a good job. I like how there is 10x more complaining being heard than praise to the GDC for substantially simplified rules.