Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?

[Katy]

As I am sure you all have noticed a specific build of bumpers are mandatory this year.

I would like to find out how many people here believe these bumpers are improving design and gameplay, increasing the spectator enjoyment of the game, preventing damage to robots or field components, preventing intentional tipping, making running a regional easier, or contributing to the events in another way I have not thought of.

Personally I do not believe bumpers are assisting the league at all.

From a spectator perspective they make the robots look more uniform. This I do not believe is a positive aspect because it makes it harder to tell simple box-like robots apart.

Bumpers do not improve design and gameplay. The 2/3rds covered rule means that generally objects can only be taken in from one side of the robot. This severely limits the design constraints and also forces the robots to become far more uniform.

Bumpers in practice do not prevent damage to robots. If for no other reason these bumpers add an additional 15 pounds of mass to the robot that now will ram full speed into other surfaces. Additionally, the bumpers appear to be giving a false sense of security to the drivers. After attending regionals (both in person and via webcast) it appears that drivers are driving more aggressively because they believe that bumpers will protect them and the field components. I know a team whose kitbot chassis was snapped by one of these aggressive drivers through both sets of bumpers. That is an incredible amount of force.

Damage situations to the field appear even worse because while other robots may have bumpers on them, the field components do not. This means that drivers can now ram rather hard into field walls without fearing damage to their robot but that the field walls may still sustain damage. Padding the walls would add weight that must be shipped from regional to regional, setup and takedown time and complexity, and make the overfall field far more expensive. I do not believe that is the solution to this problem.

Mandatory bumpers do not assist with preventing tipping.

In terms of physics mandatory bumpers should assist with intentional tipping a little bit but this is in reality a disservice to the students. The reason bumpers help is not because they prevent wedged-shaped robots particularly effectively. True wedged-shaped robots are few and far between. When was the last time you saw a robot that tipped another robot by getting under it? Instead most tipping happens by hitting a robot hard when it is most sensitive to a hit, for example while turning, reaching up high or descending a slope. Instead the additional fifteen pounds of mass is lowering the center of gravity of the robots and making them physically harder to tip. This is a disservice to the students because it is watering down one of the fundamental engineering challenges of building a good robot. Giving the students a false sense of a "rule of thumb" of "will that work" for center of gravity will only hurt them later and damage their ability to build future real-life solutions to complex problems.

Additionally, despite the physics, there is the fact that despite the extra fifteen pounds of mass to help out the CG a tremendous number of robots still wind up on their sides by the end of the match. This is probably because drivers are driving more aggressively and hitting harder.

Bumpers are an additional hassle to running a regional. Having bumpers adds time to the robot inspection process. This would be easier if they did not have to be weighed separately because then the problem could be solved with more volunteer inspectors. Instead, since there is generally only one scale at a regional it puts additional weight in what is already a bottleneck in the robot inspection process.

In short I do not not believe the mandatory bumpers are doing their job in preventing damage to the robot, other robots, or field components. Additionally they have many other negative effects. I am eager to hear other people's opinions on this topic.

I would like to see this years game played without bumpers. Then tell me that they don't prevent damage. I would rather wait 5 extra minutes during the inspection process and add 15 pounds, than have to do serious repairs after every single match.

You talked about the kitbot chassis being snapped in half even with bumpers. Imagine the damage to both robots had there not been bumpers. Even if bumpers were ruled as no longer mandatory, I would force our team to use them because I don't want my mechanical guys working their butts off after a simple practice match.

The bumpers do not have to make the robots look uniform, and they don't. If you look above the bumpers, robots are vastly different and can take many different shapes and forms. On our robot this year, we only covered the corners of the robot, while still covering 2/3rds of the robot. Our bot looks different than any other robot out there, and the bumpers help to make it stand out. All bumpers don't have to be the same color, and we used that to our advantage.

[Brandon Holley]

Honestly i cannot see how they are hurting.

Why I am not the biggest fan or advocate of bumpers, I do see where they help alot. Hearing those bangs of robot on robot, metal on metal contact were awesome in teh old days, but robots got BEAT UP. It was not uncommon to see teams rendered completely useless after an intense match.

Also a lot of the conclusions you draw come from the fact that this game is a lot different. How do you know bumpers aren't helping with tipping? I know that this is a crazy game where robots are hitting corners at top speed and going over, or they are getting caught up on an overpass with their arm and going over, but there is not really a way to say that tipping is more prevalent this year over previous years. Different game, different story.

[Racer26]

Yeah, 2007 was the first year (besides primitive custom job in 2003) that 1075 has used bumpers... in 2004 we got hit by a robot in autonomous at the Wonderland Invitational so hard that they bent our frame several inches to wedge it against our drive wheel. We had another match less than 10 minutes away, so out came the sawzall.

[Ali Ahmed]

I completely understand why FIRST wanted to make bumpers permanent in this game because they are needed. But really only for this game. I graduated from high school and then came to India in 2005 so I wasn't really able to see matches up close with bumpers but I think that bumpers kinda make FIRST games look slightly more nerdy and not so captivating, to an outside observer. Most people will look at Battlebots and will continue to watch it because you will see some metal on metal action and this is now not as prominent in FIRST, although I'm not saying that it should be. But if a complete stranger to FIRST glances at a match and sees some hardcore defense going on and gets into it then he will learn to true beauty of a FIRST game.

Also I believe that teams understand that bashing into other robots isn't really going to get anything done and the real way to win a match is to play the game and score points.

So what I'm saying is that the bumpers should not be mandatory.

[Katy]

Originally Posted by tanmaker

You talked about the kitbot chassis being snapped in half even with bumpers. Imagine the damage to both robots had there not been bumpers. Even if bumpers were ruled as no longer mandatory, I would force our team to use them because I don't want my mechanical guys working their butts off after a simple practice match.

The point I was trying to make is that drivers are driving more aggressively because they believe bumpers will shield them. I haven't heard of a kitbot side being snapped in previous years in such a manner. This indicates to me that people are hitting much harder this year.

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Also a lot of the conclusions you draw come from the fact that this game is a lot different. How do you know bumpers aren't helping with tipping? I know that this is a crazy game where robots are hitting corners at top speed and going over, or they are getting caught up on an overpass with their arm and going over, but there is not really a way to say that tipping is more prevalent this year over previous years. Different game, different story.

Point acknowledged. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately I don't know) we will not have the opportunity to test this game without bumpers.

Originally Posted by iCurtis

Robots have tipped since the beginning. Robots will continue to tip. Bumpers don't really help much in this regard, but they weren't meant to.

You are correct. I mentioned the tipping because I was trying to find some positive aspect to bumpers but then wound up finding that a negative aspect.

Originally Posted by iCurtis

I've never worked on the field, but from the drive team's perspective the only typical damage to the field is to the carpet. I can see the point of bumpers making driver's drive more aggressively, but the carpet always gets ripped up. Was there more field damage at your regional?

The easiest example I can think of is a post on the Pittsburgh field. Additionally the issues of individuals ramming the drivers station occur not just on the first lap. I don't think they would ram as hard if they believed their robot would sustain damage. Additionally I don't think anything would hit anything else as hard if the robots were not approaching 145 pounds.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I've also seen definite proof that bumpers can aid with tipping, as their geometry often has them act as "wheelie bars" for teams slowly tipping over. In more than once instance I've seen team balance on their frame and bumpers while pushed against the Rack or Overpass.

You are correct on this.

[Billfred]

This year was our first with bumpers, and it cut both ways.

On the one hand, I don't know how our riveted frame would've held up with some of the hits we delivered. On the other hand, the width added to the frame did us no favors when trying to slip past robots, which proved frustrating at times.

The one thing I like about bumpers is that they're one pesky way of separating the well-designed robots from the not-so-well-designed. We didn't plan our bumper mounts quite as well as we could have, and we paid for it every time we had to put on or take off bumpers. A pain in the butt to be sure, but you'll bet we learned something from the exercise.

Originally Posted by Billfred

We didn't plan our bumper mounts quite as well as we could have, and we paid for it every time we had to put on or take off bumpers. A pain in the butt to be sure, but you'll bet we learned something from the exercise.

We made sure that our bumpers were easily removed this year. That was the one thing we learned in 2007, was that easily removable bumpers will save your life. We used wing nuts to hold them on but they are still a little tricky to get on and off, but a ton better than last year. That was my only problem with them.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I am in favor of the use of bumpers. I feel they are a good means of protection, they allow you to put less frame reinforcement in (and save weight!), and the extra weight down low helps keep a low CG. I have used bumpers each year for the last 3, and I'm glad I did.

On the other hand, I am not in favor of making them mandatory. I am a firm believer in letting teams make design choices themselves, rather than being limited by the rules. The more restrictions FIRST puts on robot design, the more homogeneous the field of competitors gets. Something like bumpers should be left as an engineering decision for each individual team. If you want to use them, you can get a lot of benefit, but it may be a trade-off with other design considerations.

[sdcantrell56]

I like the bumpers but I would like to see them be an option. A lot of teams, mine included build robots that don't need bumpers to keep from being destroyed and without bumpers, our machines can do a lot more easier. I think the decision to use them should be up to the teams.

[Lil' Lavery]

Having bumpers not only means that robots take less damage, but that they deal less damage to other robots as well. I'd much rather be hit by a robot with bumpers than a robot without them. It's much like car insurance in a way.
Mandatory bumpers means that robots will be less capable of hurting another robot. Even if your robot won't get hurt in the collision, will the other robot survive?

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Having bumpers not only means that robots take less damage, but that they deal less damage to other robots as well. I'd much rather be hit by a robot with bumpers than a robot without them. It's much like car insurance in a way.
Mandatory bumpers means that robots will be less capable of hurting another robot. Even if your robot won't get hurt in the collision, will the other robot survive?

That an engineering question. Robustness should be incorporated into all designs. If your robot cannot handle a hard hit, put bumpers on it. If you build it to take a hit, you shouldn't have to add 6 inches to your robot's width.

A side note: If bumpers are mandatory next year, they should not count in the size of your playing configuration. By making them not count for your starting size but then make them count for your playing size effectively reduces the polygon of support of your robot and could indirectly lead to more tipping.

In summary: bummers are good, but they should be optional.

[razor95kds]

Mandatory bumpers are really unnecessary because not all teams need them. I know many posts in this thread address the robot-crushing hits they witnessed that bumpers helped prevent major damage in, but my team builds our robots to withstand those big hits. We usually only add bumpers to increase our weight, thus lowering our CG and increasing our traction.

I feel that mandatory bumpers do not reduce the high-speed collisions or the effects of high-speed collisions. If FIRST really wants to cut down on battlebot-like games and to improve safety, they should impose some sort of speed limit or actually use the yellow card. I'm sure every driver will tone their driving down once they get that yellow card.

[Nawaid Ladak]

I don't like the bumpers one bit. they give FIRST a finesse look, like "oh, i don't want to get hit, i don't want my robot's paint coming off...(insert excuse here)". I remember back in 2004 and 2005, robots would get hit hard ALL the time and they would come back onto the field for another beating. That was because they could, the robot's now can't seem to do that for some odd reason, Kate is right as teams are using the bumpers as a false since of security. with the bumpers, first has turned a strong defensive approach to what defenses are forced to do in the pro bowl (no blitzes, cover 2 all the time). Kate is absolutely right that the robots are uniform.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Last weekend in Florida I saw SPAM taking a shockingly hard hit right next to me from their alliance partner SigmaC@ts. The impact broke the bumper. The robot itself was undamaged. Considering the violent collisions going on out there to not want bumpers is to openly court insanity!

I saw 108's hybrid and it was DESIGNED to go stright and stop just short of their opponiants driver station, i've seen it hit the drivers statin... so here is my question. if 108 didn't have bumpers, do you think they might have programmed their hybrid diffrently?

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

I like the bumpers but I would like to see them be an option. A lot of teams, mine included build robots that don't need bumpers to keep from being destroyed and without bumpers, our machines can do a lot more easier. I think the decision to use them should be up to the teams.

Thats the same philosophy my old team (1402) used to employ, if you can't play with the big boys, then get off. if your team can't handle high speed hits, then teams won't pick you in eliminations.

seince we do have split sides, let us all unite and come to a proper compromise that could work. maybe go back to optional bumpers, like in 2006. it would coun't aginest your weight and size, but if you really wanted it, you would be able to protect your robot...

I would also like one more thing brought back... WEDGES.

I loved wedges, i remember on 1402's 2005 bot, we had a nice steep wedge. wedges are a tough lesson to teams that think they can play defense taht can't. i think wedges used to separate the contenders from the pretenders.

so in other words, give teams the option to have Wedges, Bumpers, or none, maybe even a combination of both...

I'm a big advocate of hard nose, black and blue defense.... Offense brings the crowds, but DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

my honest opinion: putting bumpers on robots is like buying a poor mans warranty for that robot. Building a durable, strong and consistent robot is a true warranty in itself.

[The Lucas]

I don't wish to reiterate the points in favor of bumpers in regards to robot interaction, robustness and safety. I could argue for a while on those points, complete with nerf and metal baseball bat analogies . My views on the how bumpers could have prevented the tip on Einstein last year are in this post and at the end I call for mandatory bumpers. Instead, I will bring up how they reduce field damage.

The bumpers are soft and not likely to pop a trackball. Contact with a metal robot chassis at the speeds of this game is much more likely. To make matters worse your metal chassis is likely to be sharp. Why is it sharp? Because it is damaged from all the robot collisions that would be absorbed by the bumpers (if you had them). This is very noticeable when reinspecting robots for elims, the sides without bumpers always need filing. Popping a trackball is a major disruption to game play since there are only 2 per side (unlike tubes last year where popping was minor, expected and there were more tubes). We now have a famous popped trackball from the SVR finals but I haven't heard of many other incidents (partially thanks to mandatory bumpers).

I would like to see the mandatory bumper rule back next year regardless of the game. I don't think they restrict robot design much at all in this game since the track balls are giant. I could see them changing the required percentage to allow for different mechanisms in future games. I would also like to see a standard bumper covering with a lower friction coefficient than the current cloth (so it can slip out of pins easier).