Scott makes a good point, and... let me be clear... I would be happier to see his interpretation be correct than mine. I believe that this design does meet the intent of the rules (to protect robots and the field), and even the wording of the rules. Were I an inspector at a competition and presented
solely with this design and the rule book, I would probably declare it as compliant.
Where it may fall short is in the definitition of "protected", as
the GDC has stated:
Quote:
"The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of six inches" is correct. The requirement for both sides of the corner to be protected is independent of the angle of the corner.
"
|
Taking this definitition of "protected" as specifically requiring bumper segments on both sides of an exterior corner, and given that this is clearly a corner on the bumper perimeter (exterior) of the robot, I believe that as an inspector I would be compelled to declare these bumpers as "non-compliant" (whether I wanted to or not... inspectors cannot overrule the Q&A) without further official clarification from the GDC.
Don't get me wrong... I would be happy to see this be legal, but as it stands right now, I don't think it is.
Jason
Edit... Jim and Scott both posted while I was composing this reply... I have gone back to highlight in bold what I consider the crucial part of the Q&A ruling. I believe the use of "bumpers" in the plural, indicates a corner requires more than one bumper... but don't take my word for it.... put it up on Q&A!