Woo, Big post time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Steele
I believe that most posters are missing an important aspect to bumpers.
They indicate the area of legal contact. If some robots have no bumpers and some do we have no real frame of reference as to where contact is made.
They make it easier for the referees to judge whether contact is made in a legal way rather than outside the bumper area....
|
Absolutely, I agree that this makes it easier. Oh wait, that would mean that refs would be calling more out of contact zone penalties, from arm to arm hits, and so on. But they haven't. Sure, it's a nice idea to think that it would make it easier, and conceptually, it does. However, I have yet to see enough out-of contact zone penalties for this to really make sense to me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl
One thing I noticed last year when inspecting at the Championships was that the robots that didn't use bumpers tended to be more beat up and had a lot more trouble at inspection fitting in the sizing box due to things being bent. I hope that there will be less of that this year due to everyone having bumpers.
|
Hm. See, I've always seen two classes of bots that didn't have bumpers: We've got the ones who are broken and wished they used bumpers, or wished that their frame was more robust, and then you have the teams that designed a strong frame, and don't need bumpers either way. I've always made sure to design my frames to be strong enough to not need bumpers. The only year I had a chassis break was after the bot tipped, and was rammed repeatedly by another bot with no bumpers. Basically, I'm trying to say that not having bumpers teaches teams to design a stronger chassis, or reap the consequences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorpe
To echo the other posters: bumpers are good, but they should NOT be mandatory. If you want to protect your robot, use bumpers. If you want to achieve greater design flexibility, then don't. It's not hard.
|
I totally agree. Bumpers are nice and all, for some designs, but should not be required in any way. Honestly, you're taking a lot of really stylish designs, and covering them up. What ever happened to the "wow!" factor of a nicely crafted drive base? Now it seems all we have is box-bots that look the same, with the only difference being the color of the fabric on the bumpers.
I'm all for the free choice of teams to use or not use bumpers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko Ed
Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!
|
See, now I've been standing behind a barrier that was hit by team 254 at high speed last year. They didn't have bumpers. The collision knocked the alliance station back a good foot, and shut down the entire side of the field. Their robot: fine, and in good operational ability. What this comes down to is intelligent design: make it strong or break it. FIRST shouldn't have to enforce teams into a weak state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak
my honest opinion: putting bumpers on robots is like buying a poor mans warranty for that robot. Building a durable, strong and consistent robot is a true warranty in itself.
|
Yes! I agree totally! If your bot can't handle impact, and can't handle the heavy defense and contact that FIRST requires, you'll have a broken chassis. On hand, this sucks for a team, as it can often mean the end of a regional. However, i've been that team that's stripped the bot down, taken it out to the welder, and had our chassis repaired before the finals, and STILL brought it to the other alliance, when our bot was practically in half an hour before. It may suck for many, but even more will learn a VERY valuable lesson in structural integrity: Design strong or deal with a broken bot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
The poll seems to show one side is clearly the majority. EIGHT times as many people say bumpers help FRC as hurt, and nearly three times as many want them to return next year as want them gone.
|
Aye, that it does. However, I voted oddly: I voted that bumpers are helping. I said this because we aren't seeing as many crippled robots this year. At the same time, I also voted that bumpers should be optional. I think the team should have the choice whether or not to build a large (and fairly ugly) construction that doesn't always lend a useful capacity to the bot. There are always cases where bumpers are necessary, and most of them involve a poorly designed frame.
[note: that was a lot for me to track. I may have missed something/misphrased something. Feel free to ask for clarification on my views if I mangled something and didn't notice on my edit...]