Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
I believe you are wrong. The FRAME PERIMETER is not angled. A bumper backed by it will also not be angled. An angled bumper will not be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER and will not comply with the rules.
|
There's nothing in the rules that requires that the frame perimeter polygon be parallel to the floor (if the robot is appropriately shaped). Also, it is uncertain whether a skew polygon (as opposed to a planar polygon) satisfies the rule.
1
Also, while the rules require that (certain parts of) the bumpers be backed by the frame perimeter, that doesn't create a constraint in which the entire vertical projection of the bumper has to lie directly above that locus of intersection. For example, one might conceive of a twisted bumper that was vertical at the ends and reclined in the middle. (But R21 and figure 4-8 may have something to say about that, on different grounds.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone
In the Q&A I asked
Q. As Per rule G27 robots can not use a wedge mechanism in order to flip other robots, but can we put our bumpers on an angle in order to help aid the ball in rolling into our chassis?
2014-01-31
A. BUMPERS must be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER and may not go inside the FRAME PERIMETER (see Figure 4-5). Please see the Blue Box on R2 for help determining the FRAME PERIMETER of the ROBOT.
and with the response it seems to sound like they dont approve of it but they dont say no to it but i could be wrong.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeTwo
To be more specific, there seems to be no question that bumpers angled from the vertical (that is, like cow catchers) are illegal.
|
That Q&A response doesn't follow from figure 4-5, but R21 and figure 4-8 may offer clearer guidance, if interpreted using the same standard as in R22. Of course, consistency of enforcement will be difficult, given that FIRST's guidance (about another, similar rule) is to look for overt deviation.
1 Would FIRST really want to prevent a robot from passing inspection because its only possible frame perimeter is a skew polygon? Would it serve any purpose to interpret the rule that way? As usual, I'm inclined to give teams the widest possible latitude within the precise letter of the rules. And given that FIRST already allows curvilinear polygons, I see no particular reason to infer that they object to skew polygons.