Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

If you just want to hate on bumpers to no end, this thread is not for you.

Let us assume, since they've held the basic format for five years, that the premise of the FRC bumper as we know it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

However, each year the rules have been tweaked a bit, generally in the favor of allowing teams some flexibility in mounting and configuration to suit their design. With presumably a bit of time to weigh the options (unless Lavery and company have already encrypted the 2011 manuals), perhaps this is the time to float some ideas to the fine folks on Bedford Street. I'm not affiliated with any group or committee on this one, I'm just interested in making FRC more enjoyable for all. (Well, and maybe condensing the "I (love/hate) the bumpers" statements in the lessons learned threads into something actionable should the GDC choose to do so.)

For the sake of argument, we'll consider solely the merits of the 2010 edition of the bumper rules. (Feel free to make reference to other years' rules for comparison.)

I'll break the topic into three questions:

1) Where can the materials used in the construction of bumpers be improved? Is there something other than plywood, fabric, and pool noodles that is more robust, cheaper, or more readily available during build season?

2) Where can the rules on mounting bumpers be adjusted to simplify design frustrations without compromising the bumpers' effectiveness?

3) Where can the rules on visual content (colors, numbers, etc.) be adjusted for ease of implementation and visual effectiveness?

------------------------------------

My personal thoughts on each:

On materials: A perusal of the usual suspects (Walmart, Lowe's, McMaster-Carr) doesn't yield anything that seems a feasible replacement. Where I do think the GDC could improve the materials situation is in the timing. We're approaching summer now; this is when most rational people use pool noodles. It seems likely that 2.5" pool noodles will see usage again next season as bumper material, but we're often faced with glaring warnings from the GDC (both here and elsewhere) about thinking twice before buying other things. Throwing teams a bone (or, rather, an email blast) once this aspect rules are finalized indicating that bumpers will be present in next year's game (and that they'll use such pool noodles) will save a lot of teams a lot of shipping or scrounging without really giving away much of anything about the game itself. (Nobody could look at at "Oh, you'll need pool noodles for your bumpers" and think "rover wheels and orbit balls" or "traversing the bumps and hanging".)

On mounting: This season saw a previously-unexperienced condition where the frame perimeter was not necessarily within the bumper zone. It wasn't until after much gnashing of teeth that many teams realized they'd have to space off their bumpers to get the backing past any fastener heads above or below the bumpers. For shorter robots this year, such as 2815 and 1398, it was an easy solution to get back into compliance--take lengths of the AndyMark C-Base we didn't use, mount it just 1/4" beyond what we considered "the frame" atop spacers to get the height right, mount the bumpers to that. We had the size, we had the weight--other teams had a much harder go of it. While it's every team's responsibility to ensure they're in compliance (and to allow enough fudge factor just in case they figured incorrectly), allowing for the same minor protrusions you'd allow inside the bumper zone to happen above and below the bumper zone greatly simplifies their mounting on a wide variety of robot configurations commonly seen in FRC.

On displaying information: I'll grant this much: alliance colors were easy to discern this year with the bumpers. Team numbers, however, were problematic. Done well, with proper planning, they look great. Done poorly, on Thursday at your first event, they look like crap. Too many teams at the Bayou Regional were painting their bumpers with white tempera paint on Thursday, most dutifully observing the no-painting-in-the-pits rule by doing so just outside the Alario Center.

In the absence of telling teams to come prepared to their first events (that's a knee-slapper!), and in the absence of Logo Loc being available at every regional for custom-screenprinted bumpers, I propose allowing for a 12" zone on each bumper for teams to display the number (sized to spec) along with any other designs (team name, sponsor logos, general styling of the number, etc.) the team desires. I picked 12" for two reasons: first, selfishly, I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of styling flexibility return to the bumpers. Second, it provides enough fudge factor for an 8.5"x11" piece of paper to be added on top of the bumper fabric. I haven't tested the durability of this technique on a competition robot (someone wanna try at IRI?), but a piece of paper slid into a sheet protector (available at any office store) and secured with clear tape on the edges should be durable enough to withstand most bumper-to-bumper and bumper-to-field interactions. (Though not directly comparable, 1618 used laminated paper in 2007 for its side panels inside the frame and met with acceptable results even through tipping in the match, transportation, and (mis)handling.) Although better solutions (screenprinting, embroidery, iron-on transfers) exist, explicitly legalizing this technique or a similar one will greatly simplify a quick fix in the pits.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

My simple "fix" to the bolthead rule this year: Boltheads extending past the frame perimeter are allowed as long as said bolthead is within the plane of the plywood backing; basically, a "fully compressed" bumper will still result in said bolt heads not touching anything. Now sheet metal frames aren't illegal!

At least 6 inches of your bumper should be your alliance's color. Billfred's rule doesn't address very short bumpers, so I wanted to make a rule that at the minimum ensures every bumper has an identifying piece on it. Every part of the bumper not used for alliance identification must remain the same color, and it must be somewhat different colored than red or blue.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

our team uses spacers mounted to the bumpers then to the robot. we use 14 ply baltic birch plywood as a backing.4 pins set into the wood extend into the frame of the bot, and are fastened with cotter pins, and screwes/knobs at the rear of the chassis. we made 2 sets (red & blue) embroidered with our team number. they actually came out quite nice, and only gave us one problem, which was remedied with the spacers..

for the sake of identifying alliances, the requirement for different colored bumpers was convenient for the audience and judges, but it was a pain to build double the bumpers.

in terms of materials, i think plywood is the best option. using plastic/fiberglass/polycarb would be far too flimsy. using aluminum would be a poor and difficult surface to work with in terms of bonding, and would add to much weight (and potentially rip the fabric).

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Polycarb would probably work, it's definitely strong enough once you get to 3/8". Fiberglass would probably be overkill, if anything, but it would definitely hold up just fine. Fiberglass frames work just fine for robotics, they're just horribly heavy.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

What if 4 pool noodles and 2 sets of bumper covers were added to the KoP? That would at least make the task of getting all of the material together a lot easier for teams at not that great an expense from first.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Allow gaps in bumper support. The Bumper does not need a frame member backing it the entire length.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Billfred, you know my opinion, the best fix to the bumper rules would be scraping them and letting us run without them. But we know that ain't gonna happen.

Plywood is perfect for bumper material, it is relatively cheap, easy to work with, and widely available. If we could find something to replace the pool noodles that was as cheap and available I would be happier. Buying pool noodles in MI in winter is rough.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I think that although there was a lot of complaints about the bumper colors and how they take away from robots "good looks" people have to remember that alot of that was because of the amount of tunnel-bots this year. In future years the robots will be much taller and as a result the bumpers will have less of an overall effect on a robots look.

However, I do miss custom bumpers, perhaps if only 75% of the bumpers had to be red/blue and the rest could be up to the team provided it is not the opposite color the alliance is (blue and red in the same bumpers). I think that inspectors would also have to be a little more picky when looking at bumpers, making sure the reds and blues were the specified red and blue (I have seen teams with pink and dark navy bumpers). I think this could greatly improve how the robots look while clearly showing what team everyone is on at any given moment.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

maybe beanbag bumpers? :D

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Seconded. Rather than having pages of rules on how bumpers can be built, why not have a bumper kit in the KOP? That should prevent a ton of teams having illegal bumpers, and teams showing up Thursday having to build their bumpers at competition.

I miss custom bumpers, too. For me, this picture says it all: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/34912

However, I do like that the red/blue bumpers made it very easy for the audience to tell which alliance the robots were on, and that they encouraged quick-change attachment methods. Plus having only two bumper colors makes a KOP bumper kit feasible.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

There must be something wrong with me, I don't have any problem with how the bumpers are supposed to be made. The only problem I've been concerned with is the wording of the rules. It would be nice if the GDC could figure out how to say what they mean, in easier to understand language, the first time they write the rules. This doesn't seem to be a problem with most of the other parts of the manual.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

This is true, the way I laid it out does break on minimum-length bumpers. (I certainly don't want to restrict designs any further by mandating longer bumpers!)

Suppose we handle it this way:

-All of your bumpers are your alliance color, except for a numbers patch not to exceed 12" in length.
-At least six inches on both sides of the numbers patch must be the alliance color. This six inches may continue on to adjacent bumpers.

Let's take, for example, 1501's 2010 robot. If that short side was not red (or blue, as the case may be), I imagine you'd still see enough colored bumper to be able to figure it out.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

For those of you who would like to do away with bumpers completely and return to the rules of 2006, the only way that I could see this happening is if FIRST developed a better way to signify which alliance you are on and did not care about robot damage. Round lights in early years were okay, but they were easily blocked by other robots due to their smaller size. Flags used in 2006, 2007, and 2008 came out to easily which can be fixed with a little rubber, but they also broke and were also small like the lights. Little led lights from 2004, 2005, and 2008 were way to small as well. Trailers in 2009 were awesome, but I doubt any of us would want to be stuck towing items forever in FRC games. My suggestion, 12 inch cold cathodes. Yes, they are a little expensive at around $6-$12 a set, but spending a max $24 (if you buy a pair that ridiculously expensive) will allow teams to either do away with or be creative with their bumpers and return to their team colors all while signifying which alliance you are on. Now I know that they are "just another set of lights", but they do work rather well on the field: note that they are much lighter in person and appear darker in the video, http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2008iri_qm7

The overall goal of the bumpers are to create less damage to both the field and other robots. In the past two years with mandatory bumpers around the frame perimeter, damage to the fields has decreased and robot damage as also decreased. In 2007 and 2008, torn/destroyed bumpers were not uncommon along with metal to soft contact between robots. This desire for less contact between robots is noticed with specific bumper heights so that there is only bumper to bumper contact and no bumpers riding up on each other from varying height. Although this is a good idea, I personally do not like the idea of mandatory bumpers on the field. Giving the weight allowance for them is a good idea, but don't make it a mandatory item given the extent of rules surrounding them in past years.

The numbers on the bumpers should be of contrasting color to the bumpers, I don't think black should be outlawed, but a white or gray outline should be mandatory as scene here so that they number stands out from the bumper fabric- http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35535
Teams should also be wise in using larger fonts sizes and spacing the numbers out so that they are not squished and hard to read from 50+ feet away.

Just some of my thoughts!

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I still havent found what was wrong with allowing teams to use bumpers if they wanted too, all it is is another design tradeoff.

Save weight on a weaker frame and use bumpers?
Beef up the frame a bit to take the hits in exchange for more frame perimeter freedom

Its like the GDC directly saying "we dont trust your structual skills, so put these on"

I'll take responsibility for keeping my own robot alive thank you very much.

So, my vote is make them optional and give teams using them:

Bumper zone height

Diagram for correct construction, (5" tallx .75" plywood, 2 pool noodles)

Minimum 6" in length



Alliance color coordination i believe should be kept separate from bumpers as they severly limit frame configurations and make robots look the same.

Ideas could include giving led lightstrips in the KOP (red and blue, difficulties may come up during inspections for rookies and people who dont read the manual, but that happens every year)

Flags (annoying to mount)

Rotating lights are rather bulky and sound like they broke alot

In 2006 they had light squares that also flashed your alliance color, mayhaps they could find those but bigger that just sent solid the whole match.

I'm a bumper hater I admit but i hope I kept this civil enough for this thread.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I think the other reason FIRST is pushing bumpers is to level the playing field a bit for rookie teams. It's hard for a kit-bot to stand up to a beating that a welded frame with big CNC'ed side plates can dish out. FIRST isn't BattleBots, so let's not force teams to make robots that way!

However, I think bumpers may actually make matches more violent/aggressive. When teams have to worry about actually damaging their robot, I would hope they tend to not be quite so aggressive in their driving on the field.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Well, part of it is that bumpers protect both teams. In (a practice match) 2007, a team without bumpers drove onto our bumpers and broke our radio. I don't think this would have happend if they had bumpers. This may have been a freak thing, but their lack of bumper hurt our robot. So, you may take responsibility for protecting your robot, but you also have to take responsibility for protection the other teams that did choose to have bumpers (this includes make sure they don't get ripped).

I've been in FIRST since 2006 and each of our robots have been alteast 75% of the peraminter have been covered in bumpers. So, I don't know what it was like not having bumpers. What are the advantages to not having bumpers?

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

This was one of the earlier things under the "sharp edges" check
having bumpers shouldn't mean your off the hook for people finding ways around them accidentally.

alot slimmer profile, much higher ability to build your robot in a unique fashion.
If bumpers became optional chances are you may see 1625 with them, we just like being able to use them flexibly.

Our 2006 had bumpers on the right left and back sides, and none on the front, plus about 6" back on both sides. The ability to do that gave us a Full front pickup that rivaled 111's and they were a wide oriented robot.

In 2009 we immediately went for a wide robot partially due to the 6" minimum mandated on every corner. Going skinny would give us a very very small pickup compared to what we wanted.

If you noticed many many other teams did this and robots slowly began to look more and more similar...

I'm a fan of the 05 and earlier robots, they just look so much more athletic and awesome.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

But will you take responsibility to keep the bumperless rookie bots you play against alive?

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

The ones that use the KOP frame. The old IFI ones were pretty much indestructible in my experience.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I forget what year it was rookies were deemed incapable of making a robot with any level of ability.

And having a rougher interaction helps teach not only robust construction, but designing for ease of maintenance and replacement.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I also don't have much of a problem with bumper rules. On the other hand, I had the "pleasure" of being knocked out of eliminations in 2007 and 2008 as a result of those flags, so I'm glad to see that they are gone. :o

While it was nice to be able to identify alliances with the bumpers, I think it did mess with the team identities a bit. Then again, this game lent itself to boxy, short robots. I think with a game with taller robots (e.g. 2009 or 2006) teams would have lots of space to display their usual colors/logo/etc, and the lack of personalized bumpers would be less noticeable.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

What if, in conjunction to Billfred's idea we make it so each corner of the bumper has to be a certain color. If we make it so that each side has to have 3"-4" of alliance coloring then it would be a solid 6"-8" on each corner. More than enough to denote who is on which alliance. Then the middle would be free to be decorated as teams saw fit.

Or (assuming that most robots are a 4 sided polygon...148 from 2008 and 1501 from 2010 would be an exception not the rule) we have opposing sides be colored for alliances, with the other two allowed for team decoration.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

If I was in charge of the bumper rules:

Section 8.Y BUMPERS.
<RXX> Bumpers are at the team's discretion. Only standard bumpers, as defined in <RXY>, are exempt from size/weight requirements for the entire robot. NOTE: While bumpers are not required, they are highly recommended. Teams that choose not to use bumpers may find their robots taking a lot of structural damage.

<RXY> Standard design is defined as:
a) 2 vertically stacked 2.5" pool noodles, or [reasonable substitute that is 5" high],
b) 3/4" thick by 5" high plywood backing for the noodles,
c) Cover made of tough, smooth fabric that covers the noodles and the top and bottom of the plywood backing.
d) Optional: angled aluminum may be used to help secure the bumper covers.
All components must be assembled as shown in Figure 8-Z.

<RCD> All bumper segments used must be at least 6" in length. A section of bumper is not a segment unless it has all of the required components.

<RXZ> Standard bumpers must be entirely within the BUMPER ZONE and securely attached to the FRAME PERIMETER.

<RBA> Standard bumpers should be removable by one person in about 10 minutes.

<RZX> Non-standard bumpers are allowed, but must fit within normal robot size and weight requirements.
a) The outer material should be soft enough that a normal human could punch it and not suffer serious damage, but stiff enough that said normal human can not drive the material into the backing.
b) Should the bumpers have anything capable of motion inside them, the inspectors will notify the referees. Use of the bumpers to tip other robots will result in being reinspected after the motion is removed, in addition to any on-field penalty.

<RAB> Numbers/decorations/colors on bumpers. Should a team use bumpers, they are required to have their number, sized according to <Rnumberrule>, upon at least one segment, in a contrasting color to the rest of the bumper. Other than that, there are no restrictions on color.

Other rules referenced:

FRAME PERIMETER: The polygon defined by the outermost vertices of the robot in the bumper zone, not counting bolts. As an example, imagine putting a rubber band around your frame in the bumper zone--the band defines the perimeter. [note: bolt exclusion would extend up and down--no tolerance for outside the size box, but inside, tolerance up to the thickness of the plywood.]

<Rnumberrule> Numbers shall be X" high by Y" stroke, in a contrasting color to the background, spaced at about 90 degrees from each other. Numbers shall be visible against a black background from 300'. NOTE: This means that if your robot is in front of a black background, and you can't see the numbers from 300' away, you're in violation of the rule.

[author note: 300' has been the guideline for a number of years. Black on clear contrasts, but darned if I can see it from 300' away on a dark background...]

Now, to solve the alliance ID issues:

KOP item: 4 color-changing LED strips.
<Rcolor> You must use all 4 provided LED strips, and the color must be visible from X feet away on all sides. Your base code will take care of changing the color. (Base code would include a call to find out the alliance and produce a red or a blue.)

Of course, I am not in charge of any rules, so this is just what I'd like to see.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

i've been the bumper maker for the past 3 seasons on my team, not only do i miss the personalization aspect, but the 2 color thing is just a pain. I made the mistake of making the colors switchable by flipping the fabric, but it was a slow and unreliable process. It actually took me 3 days to sew it all too!!!
I could have easily done one of the "skirts", but i foresaw ripping and snagging on other robots (which happened).
While its easy for me to find the materials in balmy California, my largest complaint is the color compliance (bring back the flags) and the frame perimeter. The first FIRST team that can send me a picture of legal bumpers with broken plywood because of another robot (again with standard bumpers) crashed into it will make me have a heart attack from suprise

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Frankly, I liked switching bumper colors for the alliance. It tended to be a pain, it really helped on the field, and off the field to see who's who. But similar bumpers (red & blue) tend to make all of the robots looks the same.

And I can just blame that on this year's game. I think that no matter if in '09, every team was using the same bumpers, each robot would definitely have looked different.

Regardless of what the rules will be, I still found a little interesting when a team at P'tree asked the ref if they would provided a second set of bumpers. Needless to say, I could see them frantically trying to locate some more pool noodles.

- Sunny

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Bumper zones signify contact zones. To me, it seems logical to force contact within the same zone on every robot so as to prevent teams from making contact zones as low as possible and thus tipping other robots.

There's also some math Dave did a while back, and the result is that a ~10fps 150lb robot can exert 10,000 psi of force onto an external object if the contact area is small enough. Thus, in the interest of keeping the fields and field components in tip top shape, bumpers are very necessary.

So Aren, I do trust you to keep your own robot in good health. Yet that doesn't mean your drivers will make decisions that are in the interest of all parties involved. (And by "your" I mean the overall FRC community of teams, not 1625.)

All I hope for moving forward is that we keep the bumpers. It keeps our robot prettier for the offseason.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I'd like to see FIRST go back to bumper quantity rules like 2008.

I believe in 2008 something like 75% of your robots perimeter had to be covered by bumpers. This was a good trade off between function and protection and some teams used it to their advantage

Also, I never want to see a 10"-16" bumper zone again, EVER. I understand that having bumpers that high was the only way to make bump crossing work, but the side effects of this were just too much. It seemed like every other match some random defender would be pushing a machine up on one side of their drive and holding them there which was far less likely to happen with the lower bumper zone of 2008 and 2009.

As far as "Mandatory" bumpers go, I'm torn on the subject. There's part of me that doesn't like anything to be Mandatory, but at the same time I feel that bumpers make robots look better in most cases.

One thing I'd love to see added to bumper rules is a specific and required supplier for bumper fabric. Most teams use fabrics from the same vendors, but occasionally you'll see a machine with some random fabric that looks like crap and is clearly different that the standard fabric.

Red and Blue bumper colors were a cool idea, but I don't want to see it happen again. For as long as I've been watching FRC competitions I've never had a problem figuring out which team was on which alliance, but I can see how this could be a problem. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the old school rotating light from 2002-ish for differentiating alliances. I'm sure someone could track down a similar and more modern replacement for this.

I'd like to see bumper decoration restrictions go back to their 2008 and 2009 standards. We decorated our bumpers in both 2008 and 2009 and I think they looked great and we got a lot of compliments on them. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to do this now.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I personally do not like that bumpers are mandatory, but that being said I'll assume that they will continue to be and answer accordingly.

1) I'd like to see the backing material rules relaxed. Allow people to use what they wish for the backing material and rigidly enforce bumpers staying in the bumper zone. Thus if the bumper breaks and droops then penalties will accrue.

I'd also like to see the 'soft' section materials include other options such as 2" memory foam.

2) Mounting should be the option of the teams, but should be required to be robust. Again, if it fails then teams should be penalized and not allowed to return to the field until it is robust enough to withstand 'vigorous' robot-to-robot interaction.

3) The rules for this year made most robots look alike, which is boring to the casual observer. While the alliance color is a good idea, I'd rather see 2 sets of LED string lights controlled by a spike signifying alliance color. I loved seeing the different bumper colors and the unique look some teams had prior to this year.


Again, if I had my way bumpers (and their additional weight) would be optional.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

We've never had much problems with the bumpers in past years. We always used them, with the exception of 2007 when we took off the side bumpers to facilitate getting on ramp bots. While I'm not a particularity a big fan of bumpers, I do see that they save where and tear on robots, and especially the field elements. And I thought that the bumpers this year made the alliances readily identifiable, and that's a good thing.

Our frames for the last 2 years have been held together with bolts, spacers and standoffs. the bolt caps extend about 3/16" outside the frame, but well within the box. Last year they where within the bumper zone and therefore allowed, since the bumper zone was low on the robot where the drive train was located. Inspectors where not real sticky on bolt heads behind the bumpers.

This year the bumper zone was 10" to 16" above ground level and therefore above the drive train area, so we had to add lexan spacers on our bot to cover those bolt caps, needlessly adding weight to a robot that already had weight issues. It's these spacers that I really dislike.

When the bumpers start to dictate the design of robots, I start to have problems with them. Having a "zero tolerance" for bolt heads protruding outside of the bumper zone, even when they are well within the box seems petty and useless, a "lawyers" interpretation of the rules; and we have in the past been admonished tor "lawyering" the rules.

It is my hoe that next year the GDC relaxes these rules a little, thereby giving inspectors some leeway for bolt heads and other minor protrusions. A more sensible and common sense approach is indicated.

I rest my case:)

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I don't like bumpers and 1319 has only used them the years where they were mandatory. I agree with everything Tom has said above and could not have said it better. Instead I add an alternative to the alliance identification issue. Right now every robot has a required signal light that arguably evryone can see from the stands. You know when your robot is not moving look to see what the signal light is doing right? So why not have interchangeable robot signal lights that are either blue or red much like back in 2003 and before as manyy have already suggested. A link below shows a great possibility.

http://www.ab.com/signaling/towerlights/855t.html

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Note, I'm donning my firesuit now as I type this.


I've been thinking about this ALOT lately. I'm not a fan of bumpers, primarily because of the restrictive rules, but I do see the reason for them.

I do realize bumpers are all or nothing, either every robot has them, or they don't. Making them optional will just result is robots without bumpers tearing up the bumpers on the ones that do.

Looking back at it, there is one major thing that has changed as the bumper rules have come about. The power of the motors included in the kit.

I believe 2005 was the first year of having 4 cims and we also had the big cims that year (I think). This was also one of the first years teams started building mega drive trains. Previous years had mostly used the bosch drill motors for drivetrains. As the power of the drivetrains increased do did the damage to robots. Now teams are building mega (up to 6) motor drive trains with shifting transmissions capable of doing massive damage to another bot or field element.

I'm not sure if it would be a major step backwards but what if FIRST restricted the motors in the kit, or amount of motors used in the drivetrain in order to lessen the damage that can be caused by a robot and thus remove the bumper rules? Not only would it loosen up the robot rules a bit, but it might help some of the KOP cost issues as well?

Just a suggestion, and I'm really not sure if it's even something I support or not, just throwing it out there. Just to be clear, I am in favor or less rules, not more. :)

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I like the standard bumpers, with the standardized colors for alliance identification. The only change I personally would like to see is an allowance for gaps in the bumpers as we have seen in previous years (which I think only wasn't allowed this year because it wasn't particularly necessary given Overdrive's other design limitations).

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't like bumpers. I miss the sound of 2 robots coming together at full speed. We have to spend too much time reading on how to build them and then building them. It is a week’s worth of work that could be actually used to teach useful stuff to the students.

I also don't like having to modify the bumpers every time a different ref looks at them. We didn't have to touch them our first event, but had to make major changes at our 2nd event and the Championship. The rules were constantly being reinterpreted throughout this year. Mostly because they were written poorly. The GDC does a great just with the rest of the rules but somehow seems to fall short on bumpers.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I loved the easy identification of alliances. I know members of my team spent large amounts of time fabricating our bumpers, and they did a superb job. Hopefully one of them will post pictures of the construction, and the mechanisms used to switch them out.


As far as robot identification, bumpers were a nice standardization. Other ways to identify robots such as lights or covers wouldn't be as easy to standardize as bumpers are.

Including bumper materials in the kit and a mounting system for the kit bot may be a must in the future.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

When this came up last year, here's what I said: I think that all continues to hold true.

Additionally, I would support the idea that bumpers be made optional again, as long as it's clear that robots running without them would not draw more penalties against the opponent (despite being more likely to be damaged), and that they would have to identify themselves in an equivalent way (e.g. coloured, numbered placards in the bumper zone).

Mandatory bumpers do have one big advantage: they save teams that build the robot to the full 38 in × 28 in limits from huge trouble when the frame twists, or their tolerances are off. This can be obviated with a simple note in the rules: "Build your robot smaller than the maximum limits of size to account for manufacturing tolerances and distortion due to damage suffered during gameplay. As a rule of thumb, you should consider building the robot at least 1 in smaller than each limit."

Things like supporting the entire backing of the bumper are not helpful. If a bumper breaks, who cares? It's a bumper. Either fix it with some sort of gusset, or cut it and call it two bumpers. The rules should be written to permit a simple, effective resolution to a broken bumper, instead of imposing a basically-worthless constraint on everyone—which, due to the phrasing, affects teams even if there's no reasonable chance that their bumpers will break. During inspections at three events, I saw two teams with essentially unsupported bumpers along two sides (including one at the Championship...). They were forced to add structure to support the backing of their bumpers—even though, in all likelihood, the bumper backing itself was much stronger than the structure. By contrast, I saw more than a dozen teams that had small gaps behind their bumpers which were technically illegal, but which posed no real problem from an engineering perspective. And yet, the rule is clear: they must support the entire length of each bumper with the robot's structure or frame. So mounting points were adjusted, or bumpers shimmed. This wasted a lot of time, both for teams and inspectors. But basically: this constraint is useless, and even counterproductive—either get rid of it, or write in a clause that specifically allows inspectors to override it based on their engineering judgment.

Bumper colours were very helpful for identifying alliances, but quite the opposite for identifying teams. With the location of the bumpers this year, and the fact that many robots were low, it meant that a lot of robots were hard to identify from a distance or on the webcast videos. While in the past, unique bumpers were easy ways to identify robots, this year, everyone had to rely more closely upon the team numbers (which are quite invisible in many webcasts). I'd be quite happy to see the rules allow the bumpers to be any colour, except for an inset patch (at least 12 in long) corresponding to the alliance colour, and containing the team numbers in white.

Bumpers should be required to be removable in 20 s per bumper segment. No exceptions. This isn't rocket science, but because the rules suggest threaded fasteners, teams tend to go with complicated arrangements that require the insertion of hand tools into tight spaces. Teams will rapidly discover the existence of various spring pins if forced to design bumpers to be removed quickly.

Finally, though it's not technically part of the bumper rule, the frame perimeter rule was a significant annoyance. Hopefully there won't be any reason to need this next year—but if it does come back, tighten the definition.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I agree.

We usually run the west coast drive, a system that is extremely minimal and elegant in construction. The fact that we had to do this in 2009 to fully support the bumpers is silly to me, we could've supported them at a few places and be done with it. That doubled the amount of welding and parts in our frame, along with adding a pound of useless weight and making the frame ugly.

It's a little insulting for FIRST to say, hey, we don't trust you to build a frame right, so here are bumpers. I can live with that, but when FIRST says we further don't trust you enough to put bumpers on there without them breaking, so you MUST support them the entire length, that's just ridiculous.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Do the bumpers need to be as thick as they are? What if we chopped down their outward extension?

I always liked the bumpers but thought it was rather clunky and needs some refinement. Not sure what else to say though.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I really liked the red/blue colors this year. It made telling alliances apart very easy, even moreso than last year when you might have a red trailer pulled by a blue robot. I understand the team image issues, but perhaps that can be addressed in another manner.

I didn't like most of the removable bumper covers I saw - they looked shoddy. Add to that some very amateurish numbering methods. C'mon, let's try to make these machines look like the high-tech and high-class robots that they (usually) are.

I agree that the rules are too complex, without getting to what the GDC really wants. When too many smart teams can misinterpret the rules and show up with defective bumpers, the rules aren't written clearly enough.

I'm not sure why the frame perimeter cannot have concavities. As long as each section of the frame is at least 6" long and protected by an adequate bumper, why can't there be a pocket?

As for the bolthead and rivet rule, don't get me started ... :mad:

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

My teams main issue with the bumper rules this year. Our design had two concavities, those such allowed the ball to roll under the robot without going the 3 inches under the robot. It was a genius idea on our part, and the refs at our first event thought it was awesome.

When we were asked to change the design, our main issue was, what advantage did we gain by doing this? We were never given an answer by the GDC or and Inspector, but we did comply and change the design in about two hours at the Troy District Event.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I have no problem with the answer to many rules questions being, "Because we said so."

I usually revise that when my students ask that question of me. I say, "To make it harder."

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Can you imagine?

I sure hope you don't mean the same kind of Bean Bags used for furniture. Those things were very popular when I was in College. They were cheap and comfortable, for the first 20 minutes. (Don't ever fall asleep in one, you will wake up with the worst back ache of your life!)

The problem with them is that they really don't handle abuse very well. Once abused, they start multiplying. Little baby white bean bags start showing up on the floor. Once they start multiplying, they never stop. The next thing you know, those baby beans are all over the place. You will find them in the most unlikely places, like in lamp shades two stories above the floor. (Can you say "Tribbles"?)

Any way, just imagine the exploding cloud of baby beans as two robots smash headlong into each other? It would be better than the 4th of July!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYb_Z...eature=related

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

The bottom line, Aren, is that sometimes you have to look beyond the competition to see the greater meaning of FIRST. I do believe that bumpers are one of these times.

There are plenty of rookies capable of building great bots, and there are plenty that are not. Perhaps I shouldn't have used "rookie" as my descriptor, as there are plenty of veteran teams who have the problems I'm alluding to, but it quickly got my point across to a reasonably astute reader.

I've seen plenty of "adventurous" uses materials and frame design in my years in FIRST. And plenty of these uses have ended up failing under the heat of competition. I've even seen some very sturdy frames get quite bent out of shape by some overzealous play by other machines. I'm not saying we should reward "bad" design, but I am saying we should be somewhat forgiving of it in terms of helping the greater mission of FIRST.

Ask yourself, which is going to be more inspiring to a student. Showing up with a scrapped-together robot that barely runs, takes plenty of help to pass inspection (including needing to make bumpers), but ultimately gets out on the field and drives around. Or one that drives around for two matches, then gets smashed into the wall and broken and doesn't see the field again for the rest of the day as your fix it?

Obviously neither situation is ideal, but the joy I've seen from teams just as their robot moves is much greater than the joy I've seen from teams who don't see the same achievement. I'd rather have the teams at least come away from the event with a robot that didn't get smashed to pieces, and I think they would all say the same thing.

Maybe it forces the elite teams to change their designs some to meet bumper rules, but ultimately I think it does FIRST all the better. It's the lesser of two evils, in my mind. And not to mention, anything to help make sure I have functional alliance partners throughout qualifications is a good thing, in my book.



More related to the topic at hand, I do agree that some of the restrictions on materials, backing, shape, and coverage need to be adjusted to make more sense and allow for more creative designs. Specifically making it easier to create oddly shaped frames, concavities, curves, sloped frames, and articulated frame members.

I would like to keep the SOLID red/blue colors for the entire length of the bumper, though. Introducing team colors to the bumpers will take away much of the simplicity of the red/blue rules (or require more strict rules about bumper/frame shapes to facilitate "color on the corner" or similar rules, which still won't be as effective as the current situation). I would suggest more strictly enforcing team number size and color rules, and perhaps forcing number colors to be white to increase visibility.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Thats the biggest reason my vote goes under "optional", if a team feels the robot won't take a beating, easy answer, make bumpers.

I like Eric's wording of "highly recommended"

Anything that forces 254 and 968 to hide parts of the machine is doing a disservice to everyone from an inspiration standpoint.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

The problem is that many of these teams that will build robots that can't take the punishment are the same teams that would not build bumpers for their robot.

I agree with much of what has already been said by others in this thread

1. Keep the red/blue bumpers all the way around. I would not be mad if they made building two sets mandatory and got rid of the covers, but I won't go so far as to suggest it be added.

2. Mandatory white numbers. For every team that loses their good looking non-whit numbers (eg. 67) 10 teams will be gaining clear readable numbers from both in the stands and on the webcast. We originally painted ours black, it looks fine in the shop. After watching webcasts we decided to repaint them white on Thursday.

3. Go back to 2009 style coverage % + cover every corner (dependent on game). In this game I think requiring full coverage was fine, I just hope it's not here to stay if the bumpers move back down.

4. Move bumper height back down. I'm just assuming this one will happen when the bumps disappear.

5. Allow "minor protrusions" along the entire projection of the frame perimeter as long as they're < 3/4". This should fix a lot of the nastiness that occurred this year (moving the bumpers back should help too.

6. Relax the fully supported rule. I would prefer they just let us figure out how to support them, but I would be ok with a % or a maximum span or both.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

My answer comes from years of observation so bear with me. Prior to bumpers, broken robot parts littered the fields after most matches. Broken and bent frames were the norm in a competition that is the opposite of Battle Bots. Damage to field borders was common and some teams actually took pride in leaving marks on opponents. With the advent of bumpers, broken robot frames occur far less often. Major frame parts no longer litter the field and the field borders are able to take a beating without the need to be replaced. The cushioned impact we now see, saves under-secured robot parts like the Crio and battery from attacking field volunteers and refs during robot interaction. So for those reasons, I say the bumpers stay.
As to minor gaps behind the bumper, these will not affect the integrity of the bumper system up to 1/4" or so. Wider gaps can and do cause failure in plywood that is only 5" high and therefore need to be eliminated. Gaps in supporting structure also allow for failure. Knowing this, gaps in the bumper, where the frame cannot back the bumper, should be allowed. This was the rule last year and I suspect it will be part of game specific bumper design in the future. I liked creativity in bumper design in the past, but you have to admit, when you wondered who was on what alliance this year, you looked at the bumpers for confirmation. If we could mix creativity with alliance marking, I would be all for it.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

You're missing both aspects of my point.

A) As Vikesrock mentioned, most the teams that build robots that can't withstand the punishment are the same ones that don't build bumpers until Thursday at an event when they find out they need to. They're not going to build bumpers no matter how highly suggested they are, unless they required.

B) Bumpers aren't there solely to protect your robot, but protect other things FROM your robot.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I'm not missing your point.

I'm trying to MAKE the point of: these teams that need bumpers the most and dont build them need to learn a lesson. I know my team always analyzes what we do each year and nail down the things to improve on, if our frame required extensive repairs after many matches....

Option A: Improve the frame for next year.
Option B: Build bumpers, either thursday, for the next comp, or the next year.

The bumpers are babying them along instead of forcing them to realize issues and take corrective action.

Concerning your B) of protecting other things, the lexan panels on the field get more scratches, not exactly a big deal. Other robots yes this can be an issue, but its usually covered by the "no entangling" or protrustions that could easily damage other robots, which worked for many years. This could be worked on.

This also follows the trend of the preference many have
Less growth in quantity of teams, more growth in quality of teams.
I'd rather see a decrease in box on wheels robots and a smaller amount of total team growth, than double the amount of these robots out on the field.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

My thoughts on bumpers, just my opinions: (and I will try to keep it brief)
Commenting As a Ref, Team Bumper maker, and as a 11 veteran of FIRST

First of all as a Ref it makes it very easy for me to distinguish between teams, the different colors are great. Also displaying the numbers is an added bonus as well.

As for making the Bumpers I made 2 separate sets of bumpers which took around 20 hours, (including the errors that needed to be corrected) to create. They are well within the weight limit and are durable, have not had issues with them at all. They can also be changed in about a minute.

I would be more then happy to share how they are made if there is any interest.

As for when there were no bumpers I must admit it was something to see robots smashing into other robots, metal on metal, it did add a certain element of excitement to the game for those watching. However the more time you spend on a team and the more money you put into the robot it hurts to see anytime you robot takes battle damage.

Now aside from safety and helping reduce repairs the bumpers were an integral part of the game this year. If your robot did not have bumpers it could just drive along the side to the field plowing any and all balls in was right to the goal. Since we all know how much the balls enjoyed resting against the walls. If your robot was built to the footprint allowed then it was going to be a tight squeeze though the tunnel for you and the fact that they can’t articulate them over the bump added a new challenge. That is just a few examples of how they work with the game.

I feel the GDC knew exactly what they were doing when they created the bumper rules and all others. Each rule and game element had a place and a reason.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

We could let them learn their lesson, but at what expense THIS YEAR. They learn to do better in next year's build season, but should their robot be crap for the rest of this year because a weld wasn't perfect or a bolt came loose? Should their alliance partners in Quals suffer for it too?

I conjecture that the same teams in question use a KOP frame to begin with. That frame is strong enough for the most part. It's the placement of the frame that worries me, and forcing teams to put their contact zones in alignment with each other helps me sleep better at night.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

This is still why my vote is still optional bumpers, as in years that dont have a bump the bumper zone is typically 2" to 8" or similar, and this size covered almost every drivetrain height so most contact was still in that zone.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I'd rather more teams have a reality check as to what they're capable of creating. I mean, is it really that hard to add bumpers later?

I just can't imagine the kind of team that would pass up the free weight of bumpers without evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a bumperless frame and deciding why they need one. Also consider that they're not too difficult to build "thursday night" either, and that the same teams that go "psh we don't need bumpers lol" probably build the super strongth kitbot anyway.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

The answer to these questions is, well ... sort of.

Teams should always talk with their partners (most veterans do). The discussions my team has always includes robot capabilities and robustness. If a partner isn't robust then we'll do what we can (and what they allow us to) to help them make their robot more robust. In the end, it pays off for us as we get better partners and we find out who is willing to make their robot better and who is 'just there for the experiance'.

Where did anyone say that the bumper zone interaction only rules would change? Just because a team does not have a bumper doesn't mean that they can interact with other robots outside the 'bumper zone'. In fact, I would assume (conjecture?) that the interaction only within the bumperzone would be even more harshly enforced.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Yeah, as one of those people that do build the kitbot I don't feel the need for bumpers. I don't dislike bumpers because they make robots look all like (this year they did but generally this isn't an issue) I don't dislike them because they cause robots to take less damage (this is a good thing). I dislike them because they encourage shoddy construction. They encourage teams taking shortcuts in their designs. They allow teams to get away with mediocrity and I just can't stand by that. Allow teams to use bumpers the same way you let them use pneumatics or motors. Do the benefits of bumpers outweigh the costs?

This year benefits: My frame won't get as trashed in what will be a hard hitting game.
Downside: Harder to acquire balls, Harder to go through tunnel, More weight to lift at endgame.

These are design tradeoffs that should be evaluated by the team.

PS: The kitbot IS overkill. It is way stronger than it needs to be if we use bumpers. The thing is, it is a great frame and if you can afford the extra weight I would highly suggest using it. The last 3 years I have used it I have had almost no problems with it.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I appreciate your opinions on whether bumpers should be mandatory or not. Honestly though, that will be up to the GDC.

Based on all the opinions posted thus far, it seems to boil down to one of three options that the GDC will give us. Regardless of what your opinion is, or the logic behind your opinion, only one of these three options will be provided.

Option 1: Bumpers will be prohibited.
Option 2: Bumpers will be optional
Option 3: Bumpers will be mandatory.

Obviously option 1 will not have any rules associated with their design, so that one really merits very little if any discussion.

That leaves the options 2 and 3. With either of these situations, I see the rules applying to the design and implementation of the bumpers being identical.

So, that being said, the focus of these discussions really should be about what the rules could/should be. Additionally, suggestions of how to actually implement said rules would be great.

JMHO

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

I vote for option 3 with the ruling that
-all corners must be covered
-only 60% of each side of the machine must be covered
-Each bumper piece must be longer then 6 in

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Why not 75% of the robot must be covered, all corners must be covered and each bumper must be longer than 3".

The reasoning, it allows long bots to be effective at game piece pickup (see 2009/2006).

I would also say that bumpers must be supported in at least 2 places for every 6" of run. And all runs shorter than 6" must be supported in 2 places.

Construction would be the same as always. (Could we get some pool noodles in the KOP?)

On 3/4 sides teams must provide a 12" long section of bumper for alliance colors and team numbers. On the side without the alliance color bumpers teams must mount a Alliance Identifier Light (supplied) and have their team number CLEARLY visible.

Bumper perimeter will be determined based on normal driving configuration. Robots which change their orientation (aka "flopbots") will not be required to start the match with bumpers in the bumper zone so long as they demonstrate that their bumper are in the zone during normal operation. Similarly, robots with articulating wheels should normally have bumpers in the bumper zone but may have them leave so long as they are not actively interacting with another robot or the field barriers. (To allow teams to traverse stairs/bumps/get off balls)

I think these rules would allow flexibility while still meeting the goals of bumpers. The reason I chose 3" is that seemed like an amount that would generally be taken up with a motor or mounting for an intake anyway and it would still let bumpers be put on corners.

Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules
 

Totally agree. The bumpers were especially effective this year because most robots were under 18" tall. You could easily see who was on the red or blue alliance, what a concept!

The bumper rules keep on metastasizing and are fast approaching the incomprehensiveness of the 70,000+ page US tax code. Tear them up and start again. Do the same with the bumper rules too! (haha)