Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

We were the first team inspected at lake superior and they went over our 'bot like they were inspecting a nuclear reactor, but that is fine with me, we are a veteran team and should know the rules. Every year there are a half dozen teams at each regional that make me feel real sympathy for the inspectors. Just looking at their 'bots, you can tell the issues to getting them passed are huge. I think we veterans have to either help them get passed or look the other way when they slide through. Hopefully they learn something and figure it out by next year.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

I agree taht veteren teams should help in all ways possible, but i dont think "looking the other way" sends the right message. It says that a lesser robot should get sympathy and should be allowed to break the rules. Many of the same issues that are goign on in our government policies....but before i get political..ill stop before ...::ouch:: ::ouch:: ::ouch::

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

You should ask FIRST, just as a general inquiry and without pointing any fingers at officials or teams, what they're doing about rules that are perennially difficult to fully comply with. I wonder whether the GDC has established a plan to improve upon those rules for the future.

I'm curious about this statement; the Chit-Chat forum is always available for these sorts of things....

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

At a lot of events the first robot to be inspected is used as hands-on training/refresher for the inspectors by the lead inspector (LRI). I wouldn't take any offense from it.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

As the Lead Robot Inspector at the Alamo Regional, I stand by our decision and I would approve to pass your bumpers again, referencing this same exact rule. While I did not personally inspect your bumpers, I agree with the inspector's decision who did this at the Alamo Regional.

However, if the Lead Robot Inspector at the Peachtree Regional found something that was specifically not allowed in the rules (possibly a different rule), then their decision at that time must be followed, like your team did. If there is indeed a specific rule that we did not catch at the Alamo Regional, and we should have told you about this, then I am sorry that this was missed. Reading through this thread, I still don't see a clear explanation of why your bumpers would be illegal. If anyone can clearly and effectively show how this is illegal, please do this so we can all be educated.

If you (or anyone) wish to pass along more information to me via PM, I can possibly help alleviate this situation.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker
LRI at Alamo Regional & Boilermaker Regional
Inspector at Midwest Regional & Smokey Mountain Regional

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

With regard to the 1 piece bumper, it is pretty clear to me they are legal in general, but can't have any wood sticking out past the corner thus making yours illegal. I have attached a view of our bumpers to show what I mean.

In addition, the attachment also has a view of the metal frame we made to be legal and have a one piece bumper. Note that we do not show the pool noodles in the diagram but is is obvious where they should go.


Credit has to go to team 118 for the idea. They had a one piece bumper last year and at the 2010 Lone Star Regional they were kind enough to show me how they did it. I knew right then that it was the ONLY way to make bumpers. Our pit crew and drive team are very thankful that team 118 asked that clarification last year and showed us their design.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

Guys,
I am guessing the answer came from this rule...
D. BUMPERS segments must have a minimum length of six inches (as defined by the
BUMPER backing), and a maximum length that does not exceed the maximum horizontal
dimension of the ROBOT (except for the soft cushion in the corner, as permitted by Rule
<R07-C>).
We have allowed teams to make one piece bumpers that do not violate any other rules. Paul's design is but one that appears to be legal.
Please remember that the 1" hard parts rules is a cross sectional rule as defined in Fig 4-1 extending out from the robot frame. As always, inspectors are concerned that no hard parts exist in the corners that can damage another robot. Sorry that you got passed at one regional and caught at another. We are trying hard to make things consistent across all regionals.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

We were called on this at the Finger Lakes Regional as well, during the second inspection before elimination rounds. Why it was missed during the initial inspection, we will never know. I know a second team was also advised to fix their bumpers as well. After understanding the rules, we fixed the two offending bumpers, pulled them apart, cut off 3/4 inch of wood off of each end and re-wrapped them.

A bit of a pain, yes. But we were the ones who mis-read the rules, so we have no real reason to complain. And since our bumper design is one of the simplest possible, they still look just as good as before.

To me, it does no good to look at other teams bumpers to say that we weren't treated fairly. Our team's expectation is that we do our best to be professional and focus on making our robot the best it can be regardless of the status of the team's around us.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

A couple of points

1) There are several differences in the bumper rule wording between last year and this year, but I think they intended them to be the same. One problem is the omission of Figure 3-2 (which should be 4-2) referenced in rule R07-C. If that were the same as Figure 8-4 from last year (which I think it was intended to be) that should have answered any questions. Rule R07-O from last year is omitted this year, but replaced by R07-C and D where you could see the same intent although not as clearly.
2) I think there is some confusion between one-piece construction and continuous construction. When the GDC said that nothing prohibits one-piece construction, they are correct; you can attach all of your bumper segments together into a single unit. However, you cannot make the backing continuous because that would violate R07-C by having hard material in the radial projection of the corner. You would have to make that joint by crossing behind the corner diagonally above or below the robot frame.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

lucky for us, we just add new bumper.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

All,

I have started a thread on the LRI discussion board within the FIRST Forums. Hopefully, we can get some more clarity on this issue.

I honestly thought that rule L allowed this overlap to happen this year.

Andy

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

Our team interpreted the bumper rule as allowing overlap, so we also got called on that immediately at Chesapeake. I'm glad we got it fixed then so that we can go into Connecticut without having to worry about it. It's hard to keep the bumper rules straight from year to year - I do think that the rules were a bit difficult to decipher this year.

Re: Bumper Inspection Discrepency
 

Thanks for checking into this. We really appreciate it. Of course we will change it if FIRST indeed clarifies the ruling but it really seems to be allowed based on the rules this year. Also there is no difference in performance, it is just easier to fabricate this way for us. Why bother with the added complexity of angle if you don't have to.