View Single Post
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-01-2009, 09:55
Scott Hill Scott Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #1625 (Winnovation)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 23
Scott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to beholdScott Hill is a splendid one to behold
Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abwehr View Post
There is no way (in my opinion) that this is a legal frame. The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated through the Q&A that all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6 inches. You are taking an enormous risk if you play the "it's not a rule" card.

Rules don't trump other rules, ALL rules must be obeyed. There is no way that the configuration shown meets all of the rules set forth by the GDC. We went through this same process with concave openings on the front of the machine (see this), and the GDC was firm in reaffirming that the rules are the rules.

Hopefully the GDC responds to your question clearly and unambiguously, but we've been snakebitten by the letter of the law before. Good luck!
Abwehr,
The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated, through the Q&A, "both sides of the corner must be protected by bumper segments". And they have stated "bumper segments must be a minimum of 6". I don't believe they have ever stated ..."all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6." The statements do not mean the same thing. Also, this condition is significantly different from the concave corners discussion. I agree with you that the rules are the rules, we all just need to understand them. Go to the "is this corner considered protected" thread for a more in depth discussion.

Thanks,
scott
Reply With Quote