URGET RULE QUESTION: Bumper Zone

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

I didn't look in detail at their robot (I didn't inspect it), but I don't believe their frame is articulated. That would be a violation of R01-2. Their bumpers aren't articulated; that's R30. If their drive train changes position with respect to itself is not any kind of issue; there's no rule against it.

It's only the frame perimeter that can't be articulated. If the bumper is rigidly attached to that part of the robot, and it always satisfies the definition of a frame perimeter, I don't think there's a violation of [R01-2].

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

The issue isn't the field; it's what might happen to another robot if they hit it when the bumpers are high. Since I'm one of the inspectors that was involved in the conversation with the refs, I think I can explain.

The bumper rules call for 2-10 inches on a flat floor; this includes sitting on the ramps. During transition (over the bumps, onto the ramp) we're allowed to have the bumpers not be totally within that zone, per a Q&A. The question is what happens when they are travelling on the flat floor (not in transition).

We started trying to figure out if that would be a violation. It's not; there appears to be no penalty for a robot with bumpers out of the zone while on the field. However, there is the damage to other robots rule (G27). This is what they could get called on. There was some discussion about since they *know* their bumpers could hit another robot to high, any contact would be willful. I don't believe that's where we ended up.

Bottom line: you passed inspection, and we warned you about possible penalties. If you want further explanation you need to talk to the head ref; it's now out of the inspectors' hands.

btw, the "ruling" you got was from inspectors. We were all wearing the yellow hats, and not striped shirts.....

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't understand the issue fully. Highlighterheads are the best!

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

It's only the frame perimeter that can't be articulated. If the bumper is rigidly attached to that part of the robot, and it always satisfies the definition of a frame perimeter, I don't think there's a violation of [R01-2].

You are correct; I was imprecise. I'm not sure how to rigidly attach a bumper (which by rule must be non-articulated) to a frame perimeter (which also, by rule, must be non-articulated) in such a way that any articulation could take place. But then, I'm not very clever.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by EricH

Just so everyone's on the same page:
(The damage rule is also found in [G26], strategies aimed at damage.)

I read that as, if it's a high hit, no penalty unless it's either deliberate or damaging, and it makes it to or into the Frame Perimeter. You hit the bumpers at all, especially on the outside, all bets are off as to whether deliberate can be called; it's very possible to make the case that you didn't intend to, especially with the wide bumper zone this year and the potential ramifications of hitting a high bumper with a low bumper or vice versa. That just leaves damaging--and I hope that people actually build their robots to take a hit these days (back in my day... well, let's just say that bumpers were optional or non-existent until after I graduated high school, and leave it at that). That's the ref's nightmare right there--you have to be reasonably certain that it's deliberate contact to or inside the frame perimeter before you call that foul.

A potential issue is that since their bumpers are so high in this configuration it'd be way to easy for them to go over the top of the other robot's bumpers, even if there's a bit of contact between the bumpers. So I don't think "...hit at all...." necessarily would prevent a penalty. And since it's deliberate OR damaging, deliberate isn't necessary. How much breakage is necessary to get to "damage" isn't something I know anything about; no zebra training for me.

Hopefully there won't be any issues; they won't run into someone with raised bumpers and the whole discussion will be moot. The inspectors were concerned that we didn't let them go through without full knowledge of what could happen, so if they choose to make some change to help mitigate the situation they can. We did that; I hope everyone concerned thinks we did it right. We certainly tried; we had a bunch of discussion before we ever talked to the refs. This wasn't something that we just kind of breezed into.

But again, the bottom line -- you guys should probably go stand in the question box & get a clear understanding, from the head ref, of the refs' position on this. They're the ones who's position matters at this point.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

You are correct; I was imprecise. I'm not sure how to rigidly attach a bumper (which by rule must be non-articulated) to a frame perimeter (which also, by rule, must be non-articulated) in such a way that any articulation could take place. But then, I'm not very clever.

The point I was trying to make was that even when the bumper and the structure comprising the frame perimeter are rigidly attached to each other (as the rules require), that frame-bumper assembly can be articulated with respect to some other parts of the robot. That's non-controversial when we're talking about articulation of the frame-bumper assembly relative to arms and shooters (or perhaps we would ordinarily call it articulation of arms and shooters relative to the frame-bumper assembly—technically, they're the same thing). But when we talk about articulation relative to drivetrains, the perception is frequently different. I that difference in perception is, strictly speaking, unfounded.