Re: Team Update #2
 

I'm familiar with the instances you're talking about, hopefully they would consider bumpers easy enough to add that they won't go back on this rule. Ideally, they'd let teams slide on bumper mounting (maybe not exactly on bumper perimeter, not supported along the whole length, etc..) rather than just let teams go without bumpers on all sides.

Re: Team Update #2
 

With all this stuff happening in regards to bumpers, i'm really wondering how many teams are even keeping track. I can picture quite a few ignorant teams showing up with non legal bumpers simply for not checking the updates and QandA system. I hope inspectors will have those teams make the bot legal before they can play qualifiers, otherwise everyones headaches trying to figure out bumper rules had no point when they could've just ignored them and still played.

last year i saw a bot with 2 van door motors, 1 of them being from 2006 and duct tape quite evident in quite a few places, and the bot still played, i didn't mention anything to the inspectors.

Re: Team Update #2
 

This is true. Unlike some previous years where bumpers were optional, so if you had a problem with them you could just take them off if they didn't comply, I hope by the end of week 6 that EVERYONE is on the same page of what is allowed & what is not regarding bumpers.
(I saw one team show up with duct tape over pipe insulation wrap on the side of their bot one year thinking that would pass as a bumper. It didn't, so they just took them off.)

The only reason I say this, is that a bumper is probably not the easiest thing to fabricate for teams with bad ones at a regional event. (Relatively speaking I guess. It's easier to make a set of bumpers than re-design a whole drivetrain, but you know what I mean...

When in doubt, bring two (or more) pre-made configurations of your proposed bumper designs for your specific robot, & ask the inspectors which one is legal at your first competition if you have any questions.

It will HAVE to be goverened on a case by case basis in that regard ONLY at the events in my opinion, unless the GDC starts taking submissions of pictures of every team's bumper designs & approving them on a case by case basis now (before shipping).

I don't want to see the GDC have to nit-pick now & do that, as they have already spent enough time on this issue as it is.

Re: Team Update #2
 

That would actually require us to bring two different frames, and possible two different mechanisms; that's how much the bumper rules affect design.

I think we'll be bringing some plywood, some pool noodles, and some nice bright orange bumper fabric. Hell, maybe we'll even make some 6" sections to hand out; first 10 teams to fail get 6" free!

Re: Team Update #2
 

Rule <R18> secion E states "The Trailer Hitch must be placed such that, as the TRAILER swings from side to side, the first contact between th TRAILER and ROBOT is BUMPER-to-BUMPER and not TRAILER-tongue-to-BUMPER."

Are there any other teams having a problem with this in their designs? With our hitch on a 28" side of our design which doesn't include 90 degree corners on the back, we can not seem to find a way to make our concept account for the trail bumpers hitting the robot before the tongue does.

Re: Team Update #2
 

This is a good plan...but I agree with Adam's and Corey's statement that it shouldn't come down to that in the first place. Kinda like saying "oh let's take two robots and see which one they say is legal we'll use."

But idk, the rules always seem this ambiguous to me anyway.

My pov, it shouldn't have to come down to making two configs. But you gotta roll with the punches I guess.

Re: Team Update #2
 

while I agree that this response from the GDC answers nearly all concerns, it doesn't answer the question of what they consider a corner. Is it any angle between two pieces of plywood. Is it simply a change of direction? Is it something greater than 45*? Like the one picture in the rule book shows, there is a continuous section that rounds a 120* angle corner. Now - this corner appears that it probably has a 6" side on one part and a longer side on the other. So, I'm assuming this is a corner. I'm also assuming, however, that if this was a continuous arc in the frame rather than a sharp corner or change of direction, and if you could bend the plywood to match, then the total segment length could be 6" around the bend. Would this be a feasible design? I have no idea - never tried to make a roundish robot or even part of one and I have never tried to bend plywood. It may be physically impossible and a moot point.

So, is this relevent? Yes - if it were possible to do a curved section (or round robot for that matter) then it leaves open more flexibility.

Also, can someone please explain to me what is meant by "lawering" the rules? How can simply trying to understand the rules properly so that you know your appropriate limitations for your design be considered lawering? Anyway - just want to understand since I have seen it used in many different contexts.

Re: Team Update #2
 

Certain people consider translating the rules into a playable robot, while finding ways to make it more competitive than others might think the rules allow, to be lawyering.

Re: Team Update #2
 

okay - that makes sense. I can agree with that - as long as it applies to the intent of the rule. Correct?

So, in the case of the 6" long bumper rule - is the intent to allow for sufficient bumper to bumper contact to eliminate/reduce damage between the two contacted surfaces or is it to increase the design challenge? or something else?


I think it's just a rule to dictate proper protection. If someone can come up with a good (although potentially complicated) design that will allow them a wider opening (>16") on the 28" wide side of the allowable robot design then I call that good engineering.

I'm only saying this because that's what I want to do - engineer my way out of this 16" limitation if I can. I don't want to be called a cheat or something because others might think that I'm stretching the intent or letter of the rules. (BTW, I'm not saying that anyone will, but that is a fear that I have).

Of course, part of a good design (particularly for this case with the bumpers) would be that, even though the design would be fresh and innovative, would be very clear that the rules were followed to the "T" without question.

Re: Team Update #2
 

I agree with your interpretation on the rule and I really hope that's the way it is clarified (if it ever is). However, given the exact design shown in team update 2, I'm not sure what's going to happen.

Re: Team Update #2
 

It's amazing how First is a microcosm of the real world. And as such it gives the students a chance to play the game of life without the threat of job loss or financial ruin. Team's don't have to like the rules, they don't have to make sense in you specific case. It doesn't matter what you think they should be or how they should be interpreted. The rules are the rules. You must follow Z RULES. You must be in compliance. Compliance is WHAT EVER THE RULE ENFORCERS SAY THEY ARE. PERIOD.
I'm in the construction business and a good part of my life is spent figuring out how to keep my jobs and business in compliance. It's a never ending battle to stay on top of all the rules and the interpretations of them. If I fail to to do it the financial repercussions could bankrupt me. So I would suggest teams take a conservative interpretation of the bumper rules and make your robot fit the bumper restrictions. Once again you don't have to like them. One the worst things that can happen is to show up practice day and not be in compliance. Been there, it's not fun.

Re: Team Update #2
 

Now you're talkin....that's a great idea!


:)

Re: Team Update #2
 

I'm just really curious what the RULE ENFORCERS are actually saying. If they wanted us to only have a 26" opening on a wide-based robot, why not tell us that specifically? There is always going to be some gray area. Whether this is to leave space for innovation or to have the gray area defined by the respective regional referees, I'm not sure in this case. I'm hoping it's for the prior, but the past does not shed positive light on that path.

I'd much rather build something that plays the game well, thinks outside the box AND adheres to all of the existing rules (updates included). I always find those to be more inspiring... to everyone.

Re: Team Update #2
 

The GDC has decided to expose the First community to bureaucratic double speak this year. Your lucky they didn't give it to us in the paragraph-sub paragraph 30 layers deep form that only lawyers can write. Compared to some of the regulatory documentation and insurance policies I have received this year, The Robot rules are clearly written.