Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!

[martin417]

After reading this thread, I began to ponder the greater implications of this ruling. By saying that tape is illegal in bumper construction because it is not specifically allowed as a construction material, does that apply to the rest of the robot as well?

In the pneumatic rules, R74 states:

R74
To satisfy multiple constraints associated with safety, consistency, Inspection, and constructive innovation, no pneumatic parts other than those explicitly permitted in Section 4.10: Pneumatic System may be used on the ROBOT.

I don't see a similar rule pertaining to bumpers. If the GDC is going to apply this interpretation to bumpers, then what about the rest of the robot? I don't think it would be possible to build a robot under that interpretation. Is aluminum, plastic, plywood, or fiberglass explicitly allowed as a fabrication material? I don't think so.

Sometimes the law of un-intended consequences gets even the best of us. I thing the GDC needs to clarify their intent. Making tape illegal in bumper construction might be an inconvenience to some teams, but by extension of the ruling, staples are also illegal, and that might end up creating a situation where bumpers are less robust and not as effective.

[Jon Stratis]

Did you miss R21? It states "BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8)" and then goes on to explicitly list the materials allowed in bumpers, even providing a picture of the required cross section.

[efoote868]

R21

BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8):

Rule seems pretty clear. The cross section in Figure 4-8 doesn't include adhesives.

I don't see a rule that says "ROBOTS must be constructed as follows"

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Did you miss R21? It states "BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8)" and then goes on to explicitly list the materials allowed in bumpers, even providing a picture of the required cross section.

Do you use staples in the construction of your bumpers? We always have (we have never used tape). If so, that is not legal (staples are not mentioned in the list of materials or the cross section, only wood screws). What about the system by which you attach the bumpers? the cross section shows a tee-nut and bolt, is that the only legal method? I have seen many other methods for attaching bumpers that are not pictured, are they not legal?

If the GDC does not provide a basis for this ruling, then the ruling can be extended to every other part of the robot, or at least at a minimum (if you only apply it to the bumpers), makes staples illegal.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
To be fair the question was...
"Is it legal for teams to use tape, shrink wrap, or other soft material to secure the pool noodles to the wood underneath the bumper fabric? In previous years teams have had issues with pool noodles that would sag below the wood?" The simple response was "No". That is all.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Martin,
To be fair the question was...
"Is it legal for teams to use tape, shrink wrap, or other soft material to secure the pool noodles to the wood underneath the bumper fabric? In previous years teams have had issues with pool noodles that would sag below the wood?" The simple response was "No". That is all.

I agree that was the question, and the answer. But every answer must have a basis in the rules. They cannot make rule through Q&A. So if there is a rule that prohibits the use of tape what must it be? This is important because it has other implications. The only basis I can see for ruling against tape is that it is not explicitly allowed. If we take that as the basis, then by extension, nothing can be used that is not explicitly allowed.

If my logic is flawed, perhaps you can show another basis for disallowing tape? One that does allow staples?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

You could read the answer as "Is it legal...to secure the pool noodles to the wood" is not allowed.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

You could read the answer as "Is it legal...to secure the pool noodles to the wood" is not allowed.

So, we can interpret the answer as not disallowing tape, but disallowing any means of attaching the noodles to the wood?

I might buy that. I still wish the GDC would be more clear in their answers. Sometimes they give the basis for a ruling:

Q128 Q. The rules state that solenoid values must be no larger than 1/8" npt. Does the same apply to air pilot values?
FRC2665 on 2014-01-15 | 4 Followers
A. No. However, air piloted valves which are not Solenoid valves are not listed in R77 and therefore not a legal pneumatic component.

In this example, the question was answered, and a basis was given. It is very clear why a piloted valve is not legal.

but often they just give a one-word answer with no explanation, as they did in the bumper/tape case. Without a basis, we are left to determine what the basis is, and how that affects our interpretation of the rules.

[pfreivald]

I think you're making well more of this than there is to make.

The bumper rules specify how bumpers are to be constructed. The question was whether or not those rules could be deviated from; the answer was "no". It doesn't apply to general materials usage, or non-bumpers, or anything else--just bumper construction.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think you're making well more of this than there is to make.

The bumper rules specify how bumpers are to be constructed. The question was whether or not those rules could be deviated from; the answer was "no". It doesn't apply to general materials usage, or non-bumpers, or anything else--just bumper construction.

I respectfully disagree. FIRST wants all teams to conform to the rules, even the rules that aren't readily inspect-able. I believe that most teams want to comply with all the rules. To do that, teams have to be able to understand what those rules are. When they answer a question without giving a basis for the answer, and that basis is not obvious, they are leaving it up to teams to interpret what they mean. If some teams interpret things differently than other teams, or differently than inspectors, it can lead to trouble.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by martin417

I respectfully disagree. FIRST wants all teams to conform to the rules, even the rules that aren't readily inspect-able. I believe that most teams want to comply with all the rules. To do that, teams have to be able to understand what those rules are. When they answer a question without giving a basis for the answer, and that basis is not obvious, they are leaving it up to teams to interpret what they mean. If some teams interpret things differently than other teams, or differently than inspectors, it can lead to trouble.

Multiple people here have pointed you to R21 as the likely basis for the ruling. the GDC doesn't need to qualify or explain every single answer. They include additional explanation when they feel the question requires it. In this case, they didn't feel the question required additional explanation. Their answer is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If you're getting so worked up about this, why aren't you also getting worked up about all of the responses disallowing specific items from use with the pneumatic system? It's the same thing... the GDC listed exactly how you need to set up your system and what you're allowed to use (just like they did with the bumpers in R21), and teams ask if they can use something that's not on the list.

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Did you miss R21? It states "BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8)" and then goes on to explicitly list the materials allowed in bumpers, even providing a picture of the required cross section.

If the ruling was based on R21, and the cross section, then reversible bumpers and bumper covers should also be illegal.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

If the ruling was based on R21, and the cross section, then reversible bumpers and bumper covers should also be illegal.

Both of those fall under "D. be covered with a rugged, smooth cloth."

We don't need to get ourselves all uber-strict and lawyer the rules to death just because of one GDC ruling...

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Multiple people here have pointed you to R21 as the likely basis for the ruling. the GDC doesn't need to qualify or explain every single answer. They include additional explanation when they feel the question requires it. In this case, they didn't feel the question required additional explanation. Their answer is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If you're getting so worked up about this, why aren't you also getting worked up about all of the responses disallowing specific items from use with the pneumatic system? It's the same thing... the GDC listed exactly how you need to set up your system and what you're allowed to use (just like they did with the bumpers in R21), and teams ask if they can use something that's not on the list.

Yes multiple people have pointed out R21. That is exactly my point. If R21 is the basis for the ruling, then anything not listed in R21 (like staples) are illegal, and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal. I do not believe that this is the intent of the GDC, but it is the result of their answer if you take R21 as the basis.

I am not "getting worked up", I am simply pointing out that when the GDC interprets a rule, that interpretation has broader implications, and has to be applied to all aspects of that rule. If R21 makes tape illegal because tape is not listed, it makes staples illegal because staples are not listed.

Al Skierkiewicz posited that perhaps the basis is that noodles may not be attached to the plywood by any means, but I can't find that rule anywhere, so it would be a new rule not an interpretation.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by martin417

and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal.

Not sure how you can interpret that from anywhere in the rule. Figure 8-4 posts "example fastener system ...", and the verbiage of 21F is pretty clear about not being specifically defined:

21

F. must attach to the FRAME PERIMETER of the ROBOT with a rigid fastening system to form a tight, robust connection to the main structure/frame (e.g. not attached with hook-and-loop or tie-wraps). The attachment system must be designed to withstand vigorous game play. All removable fasteners (e.g. bolts, locking pins, pip-pins, etc.) will be considered part of the BUMPERS.