Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

I forgot to mention in the previous post 2 teams have made a system like this and used it for completely different reasons than you mentioned.

Wildstang used this design in 2006 to stabilize their wide body robot so it wouldn't tip when going up and down the ramp that year.

In 2007 Husky Brigade had a system like this so they could "point guard" and pass tubes to another robot across the floor.

It's important to note that bumpers were not mandatory back then and the rules for them didn't really start clamping down until 2008 when they were mandated to cover 2/3 of the frame perimeter.

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

Peter's reference to par K is right on. When Wildstang used this method in 2006 it was legal as the "frame perimeter" definition had not been written into the rules yet. Adding to the above...
<R14> When a ROBOT is in its STARTING CONFIGURATION, no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER (with the exception of minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc).

Please be advised this is quoted from 2011 rules and may change for 2012.

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

In 1999 team 95 used a pneumatic bumper (aka "momentum transfer device") that worked VERY well in the days before bumpers. With pool noddle bumpers there isn't too much of an advantage to be had.

If you were going to use it to push opponents away... I can see two scenarios:

1) They have more grip than you, so you push yourself away from them.

2) You have more grip than them, so they couldn't push you around much in the first place.

A neat idea for sure, but I don't think it would be useful given the new bumper rules.

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

They were not non-functional decorations. They were very functional parts of the robot and were treated the same way any other appendage that extended outside the bumper perimeter was.

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

Articulated bumpers have been illegal for every year I've been in FRC. (2009 on) I wouldn't expect that to change.

Yup, those bumpers looked everything like BUMPERS but were there solely to reduce damage in contact outside the Bumper Zone. A non-BUMPER decoration?

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

What does working very well mean?

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

That year there was a puck on casters in the middle of the field, and our robot would run full-tilt into the puck with its bumper to knock it across the field.

The pneumatic bumper worked very well in that it inelastically transfered a good deal of momentum to the puck without damaging the robot or the puck.

It's been a long time (obviously) but I want to say the robot's top speed was 7-9ft/s, which was pretty quick back then. It was also a kiwi drive with all-aluminum machined wheels... but I digress.

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

I sincerely hope that the re-worked robot rules will remove the need for questions like this surrounding bumpers.

All of the definitions (going back several years) that rely upon terms like "main structure" are inherently broken to varying degrees, because of the ambiguity of those terms. (What is "main"? The most important, the most massive, the first unit assembled, etc.? What if the entire frame containing the bumpers is articulated, but the bumpers themselves are not? And what's the point of reference for the articulation?) The bumpers should be defined in terms of functional specifications with wide tolerances, rather than requiring FIRST and its officials to invent definitions and interpretations that don't neatly apply to many potential robot designs.

Re: Bumpers w/pneumatic cylinders
 

Or worse yet, definitions which outlaw several potential robot designs that would have met the spirit of the rules but no longer are capable of meeting the letter. (Worse is when this happens after kickoff)