View Single Post
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 22-04-2010, 09:41
Tom Bishop's Avatar
Tom Bishop Tom Bishop is offline
Registered User
FRC #0832 (Oscar)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Roswell, Ga
Posts: 124
Tom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant futureTom Bishop has a brilliant future
Re: Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules

We've never had much problems with the bumpers in past years. We always used them, with the exception of 2007 when we took off the side bumpers to facilitate getting on ramp bots. While I'm not a particularity a big fan of bumpers, I do see that they save where and tear on robots, and especially the field elements. And I thought that the bumpers this year made the alliances readily identifiable, and that's a good thing.

Our frames for the last 2 years have been held together with bolts, spacers and standoffs. the bolt caps extend about 3/16" outside the frame, but well within the box. Last year they where within the bumper zone and therefore allowed, since the bumper zone was low on the robot where the drive train was located. Inspectors where not real sticky on bolt heads behind the bumpers.

This year the bumper zone was 10" to 16" above ground level and therefore above the drive train area, so we had to add lexan spacers on our bot to cover those bolt caps, needlessly adding weight to a robot that already had weight issues. It's these spacers that I really dislike.

When the bumpers start to dictate the design of robots, I start to have problems with them. Having a "zero tolerance" for bolt heads protruding outside of the bumper zone, even when they are well within the box seems petty and useless, a "lawyers" interpretation of the rules; and we have in the past been admonished tor "lawyering" the rules.

It is my hoe that next year the GDC relaxes these rules a little, thereby giving inspectors some leeway for bolt heads and other minor protrusions. A more sensible and common sense approach is indicated.

I rest my case