Re: Team Update #2
 

The GDC has provided further clarification in this Q&A response.

Re: Team Update #2
 

So, looking at all the responses in the Q&A & the pics & reading the pertaining rules associated with this fiasco, it clearly means that the 6" min is the length of the wood backing only, so thus a bumper with a soft noodle making the corner extend the diameter of a bumper which is really a bumper 6"+~2.5" long is defined as a 6" bumper.*
*(The ~2.5" being the diameter of 1 pool noodle in the vertical position for protection of the corner of the bot)

Why can't they just say that?

It's like buying a 2x4 piece of wood.
We all know it's not really 2" x 4" but that's just the name of the darn thing.

Why can't they just come out & say that a 6" bumper is either 6" total length without any overlap past the wood, or a 6" piece of wood with the only allowed overlap being the 1 or 2 pieces of vertical pool noodle(s) at the ends.

I'm glad I (think I) understand what they are trying to say, but why must they be so roundabout sometimes in the way they say things?

Re: Team Update #2
 

This finally does state the fact that we need bumpers on all sides of the robot.

"2. As indicated in Rule <R08-I>, all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER must be protected by BUMPERS. Both "sides" of the corner must be protected."

Re: Team Update #2
 

I still would like to know if we can wrap a corner with a bumper and have that considered as one segment....in an "L" shape

Re: Team Update #2
 

It appears not. See part O of rule <R08>

To make the bumper wrap around a corner, you would need to extend the backing past two edges of the robot.

Re: Team Update #2
 

I believe that was a direct response to the angled configuration that was posted by that person as an example.

Which makes complete sense, because common sense tells you that if you do build a robot that wants to hug the goal, you can only touch the goal with bumper on bumper contact, so the face of your bot that will touch the goal will need a bumper.

Re: Team Update #2
 

Elgin, I think it's a more general response....it appeared to me that they did not give a specific answer for that design. I'm starting to sound like a lawyer, I better stop posting on this thread

Re: Team Update #2
 

I wish the GDC would have just come out and said whether 842's chassis design was legal.

Re: Team Update #2
 

That Q&A was mine.

I too was struggling with the obtuse language, but it is VERY clear now: The length of a "Bumper" is the any length that includes all three elements: the wood backing, foam and cover.

So angular foam protrusions and vertical noodles are NOT part of the bumper length (they don't include the wood backing).

This explains why the 9" bumper on the front of the robot in the figures is measured as 6".

Bottom Line: Bumpers are REQUIRED in TWO places:

1. On the front, two 6" segments minimum.
2. on the rear (or wherever the trailer hits the robot when it swings around.

Re: Team Update #2
 

Make that THREE:
3. On the sides adjacent to the front and back bumpers. (Because both sides of the corner must be protected with a bumper.)

Re: Team Update #2
 

Dave likes to remind us every year at VCU that we're really solving problems that are very similar to the same problems NASA has to solve. I can't wait for this year's speech, but until then I think about the bumpers like this:

All of the little Mars rovers had airbags that deployed and overlapped the corners of the tetrahedron. The 'hard' bumpers may not have been allowed to overlap each other due to NASA's testing and requirements, but obviously all of the corners had to be covered by a bumper. There were probably other requirements that were derived from testing as well. If the bumper system failed in any way shape or form, the free fall from X number of miles out would have compromised the entire multi-million dollar mission.

We complain that there are very strict bumper rules, and each individual rule appears to contradict other rules when put into a certain perspective. However, the only perspective that matters is the big picture: the GDC wants less damage done to their fields, their field components, and teams' robots. Yes the rules limit the design a bit, and yes some of the requirements appear unclear when put into the myriad of perspectives. How is that any different from the real world of engineering?

Re: Team Update #2
 

Because it would have been far easier to say "all sides of your robot must have bumpers", "all corners must be protected by bumpers", "a single bumper segment cannot span both sides of a corner", "a bumper segment has a plywood backing a minimum of 6" long, with pool noodle overlapping the edge (unsupported) no more than 2.5 inches", and "bumpers must cover 2/3 of the robot's perimeter"

There really wouldn't be any confusion if the rules had been more specific. We're always asked not to lawyer the rules but our team hasn't felt like we could be certain our bumper configuration would meet the intent (or word) of the rules without doing so.

Re: Team Update #2
 

Exactly.

Did anyone else have to modify frames that had already been cut? We did. Some people may say we we're being "Greedy" and thinking we could get away with not having bumpers on all sides. But if we arrived at a regional and many teams were legally competing without them, we'd be terribly upset.

Re: Team Update #2
 

It will happen, so be prepared to be upset.
The teams would not be competing legally btw.
They (inspectors, staff, etc,) would rather have a team compete being illegal, than miss out on the experience because it is too much work to modify something on a lone practice day that they spent 6 weeks making.
They will be told that they are in violation & be given time to fix it, but if it's not perfect, they will be able to slide unfortunately.
I've seen it happen before & it will happen again.

Would you deny a team to compete if they made the effort to fix their problem that practice day? I would say they gave a good effort, & give them credit for trying & allow it as long as it wasn't a clear safety hazard - I know that's a huge grey area, but it will happen.

On the other hand, would you tell them they couldn't compete at all if they didn't care, & went on the field knowing they were illegal without giving any effort to fix it? I would deny them that priviledge if they were arrogant about it, or just didn't care.

It's something to shudder at thinking about it, but you get used to it; while hopefully not getting too stressed about it, & realizing it just comes with the territory.
The best thing to do, is help teams if you have the resources at your regionals to be fully compliant within the rules if they misinterpreted something.
We have all misinterpreted som rules at some time or another, so just give them the benefit of the doubt, & help them if they do not comply with the rules.
If they refuse to change, then bring it up with an inspector & let them handle it.

Re: Team Update #2
 

<edit> Elgin beat me to it by a couple of seconds, but I wanted to add my sentiment anyway </edit>

My biggest problem with issues like this is that there have been several occasions where FIRST has had a rule going into the Regional Competition that has changed because too many teams show up at the regional in conflict with the rules.

I will be quite disappointed if this rule is made legal during the regionals because some other teams decided to ignore the rules.