Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Hill
EricH,
I believe the statements you included were referencing the sides of the corner.
Thanks,
Scott
|
In which post?
The debate here (to remind ourselves and inform anyone just joining us) is over one simple question: Do both sides of a given corner have to be protected by bumper segments of 6" or more?
I am going to state the full reason for my interpretation. This will take a while, so bear with me.
My response will follow the reverse chronological order in Q&A.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11635
3 rules are cited. One is hard parts in a corner, one is the backing. Those aren't relevant here. But the reference to <R08-A> is interesting. Rounding a corner to protect both sides results in 2 segments. Neither is long enough in this case.
The next one regards the design under consideration.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600
However, it only covers defining an exterior corner.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11609 Clarification that no, you can't wrap a bumper and have it be one segment. From henceforward, I will ignore those Q&As that cover this topic, unless something else is answered.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11454
They are considering a similar setup. Note that the GDC says, "We can't rule on specific designs. We leave that to the event inspectors."
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11471
This one is annoying. It references Bill's Blog and sets off a chain of research. Ah-hah! Bill's Blog has something:
http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2009...r-musings.html
Unfortunately, this is an unofficial channel. Nonetheless, point 3 is important. Remember, Bill is on the GDC. This is by no means official, however. I will deal with the rest of the research later, if necessary.
OK, I lie. This one is referenced to ask the previous question.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11170
Note: the relevant question, #1 in the second post, is not directly answered. However, the logic is confirmed.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11218 is perhaps the most direct. See the GDC's first paragraph. This is one disagreed with earlier. I will simply say, note the plural.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11159 is also referenced by the one that references Bill's Blog, though through a chain. #2 is the relevant point here. It's another "answer with a not-quite answer".
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11056 Here's one for you. They say that at least part of the fourth side of a 4-sided robot must be covered by bumpers. If that holds with an extra 2 sides...
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10933 and
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11070 address the issue directly and are vaguely answered, at least as concerns this discussion.
Those are all that I could find relating to this topic. Taking those together, I conclude that the corners A and B must have a 6" segment of bumper on both sides, which is impossible due to the location of the trailer hitch. Therefore, a design change must be made. If there are questions as to why I interpret a response the way I do, go ahead and ask; I could be wrong.
Edit: Dave responded in the thread with just the overhead view. His response (barring an official overturning from the GDC via Q&A) is that the configuration won't pass inspection.