[EricH]

Originally Posted by Jim_1137

Figure 8 – 2 shows a diagram of similar tapered back as this robot.
"This design follows the intent of all bumper rules. It is well protected from all hits, while still allowing mobility of the trailer. If the bumper rule intent isn't to keep robots protected, then what IS it for?" Personally I can't see the inspectors rejecting this team over this toss up. How would that be in the spirit of FIRST?

Take a look at the red line on Fig. 8.2. This marks the bumper perimeter. See that pair of bends right at the ends of the lower bumper? This means that that section of that drawing violates <R08-I> as clarified/enforced. Ironically, this drawing is intended to clarify the rule...

Look at it this way: a corner is anything that causes the bumper perimeter to change direction other than stuff like bolts, etc. So if your bumper perimeter changes direction, you have to put 6" of bumper on both sides. (Yes, even if it's a curve.) The back of your robot has 2 such direction-changing places: one each side of the trailer hitch. If you can fit 6" of bumper between the hitch and the corner while following the tongue clearance rule (<R18-E>), then you are perfectly legal. If, however, you cannot, I would suggest planning out how you will resolve the situation.