Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinDpOwers89
well it's not as tho the bumpers would be any different then normal bumpers... other than their orientation. the pool noodles would be stacked inside the bumper... it's just the bumper is oriented so that the length of the bumper goes along the vertical... if we were to interpret stacked that way then we can't have inclined bumpers either? so no inclined chasis? or can we have an inclined chasis but we have to compensate? or can we have them at an angle but not vertical? how about 89.9 degrees?...
|
I like your creative thinking (really: it's useful to consider all options), but I do believe that Eric is correct here. (Also, while the use of "stacked" might not be completely airtight, it would be hard to say that a design in which one noodle was almost entirely supported on the other noodle doesn't qualify. Maybe there's an edge case where that definition would be inadequate, but I think that when taken together with the other limits that govern bumper construction, it's sufficient for this purpose.)
There are other issues with vertical bumper segments: tolerance and length. The bumper zone is between 1 in and 7 in, with no stated tolerance on each dimension (which is reasonable, since you only have 5 in tall bumpers, so there's an implied margin for adjustment). But what's the length of a vertical 5 in × 6 in bumper? Is the length 5 in, and the height 6 in? (That's doubly illegal.) If not, how do you justify measuring the height in such an unconventional way (i.e. in a horizontal direction)? And even if you do justify it, how do you fit a bumper segment that is MIN 6 in into a space that is 6 in ± 0 in (from 1 in to 7 in from the ground)? Absent FIRST specifying some other tolerance on these dimensions, you'd logically have to demonstrate that the bumper was
exactly the right height. (This is impossible, for all intents and purposes.)