Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!

[Ether]

One man's "lawyering" is another man's quest for disambiguation.

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by martin417

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 feel like a bunch of you are ganging up on Martin here - but he is absolutely right. I too have worked in a specifications-driven industry and, regardless of the "perceived significance" of an official interpretation, these kinds of discrepancies can have far reaching implications on other rules.

If the illegality of tape is due to a possibility that teams may build up enough tape to add structural strength under the bumpers that is one thing...if it is to prevent a team from adhering the noodles to the wood before wrapping (though I can't understand why that would be disallowed) it is another. With no basis given for the rule, an entirely new set of questions are now valid and in play...most notably: "Are staples legal?". There are no staples shown or referenced in R21 or Figure 4-8.

[wilsonmw04]

I think we are in the weeds here. IF we really wanted to get wacky, the tubes in the rule book are all blue. That means we can only use blue tubes...

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
Point taken.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by efoote868

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:

I agree that the rules don't say this, but my point, which everyone seems to be missing, is that if we accept R21 as the basis for the GDC ruling that tape is not legal, then the only way that can be the basis is by saying that anything not explicitly listed in R21 is forbidden. There can be no other justification for R21 as the basis.

[Lil' Lavery]

Much ado about nothing.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Much ado about nothing.

OK, lets play "what if".

What if your team interprets the ruling the way it was probably meant, no other implications other than no tape. You build your bumper the way you always have and staple the fabric to the plywood backing. You attach the bumpers to the frame using De-sta-co clamps and arrive at your regional ready to go.

The LRI, on the other hand, has read the Q&A carefully, and interpreted the ruling to mean that nothing is allowed that is not listed in R21. He says your bumpers are not legal, and you have to remove the staples and come up with a different way to mount your bumpers. You spend all day Thursday bringing your robot into compliance. You miss all practices on Thursday, and two matches on Friday morning because you weren't inspected.

Wouldn't you wish then that there had been no ambiguity? Wouldn't it be simpler and make all regionals and inspections go more smoothly by making things crystal clear now? What is the advantage to waiting until Inspections to find out if your interpretation is correct? (or more importantly, in line with the interpretation of the LRI).

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

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...

My point was a reversible bumper or cover has 2-3 layers of cloth, not a single layer. Also involves velcro or drawstrings. Certainly a further deviation than a few strips of tape or dabs of glue.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

My point was a reversible bumper or cover has 2-3 layers of cloth, not a single layer. Also involves velcro or drawstrings. Certainly a further deviation than a few strips of tape or dabs of glue.

To take this one step further, what about those elastic bumper covers? R27 says "Each ROBOT must be able to display red or blue BUMPERS to match their ALLIANCE color...". The definition of a BUMPER is "BUMPER: a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and constructed as specified in Section 4.6: BUMPER Rules.". If the prevailing wisdom is that a BUMPER must be constructed per R21 then where in the rules does it say those elastic bumper covers are legal? When using an elastic bumper cover isn't the underlying stapled, glued, whatever fabric cover now serving the exact same purpose as if the pool noodles were taped to the wood? R21 does not specifically allow 2 layers of fabric either.

For the record, my team has often used a small strip of tape either between the pool noodles and wood or around the pool noodles and wood as simply a "3rd hand" to hold the 2 pool noodles while stapling the fabric on. Was it necessary? No. It was simply a matter of convenience. Will they do it this year? No. The GDC has specifically ruled and and we will of course comply. We can simply grab another student to fulfill the "3rd hand" requirement and move on.

However, as an LRI, I am very interested in this thread and where it leads with any future rulings by the GDC on this subject. If Martin's strict interpretation is correct then I do not see how reversible bumpers nor elastic bumper covers are legal per the picture in R21-F.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by ChuckDickerson

... If Martin's strict interpretation is correct then I do not see how reversible bumpers nor elastic bumper covers are legal per the picture in R21-F.

For the record, this is not my interpretation. What I mean by that is that I don't believe that the GDC intended to to outlaw any material not listed in R21. I am trying to point point out the dangers of answers on the Q&A that do not explain the basis of the ruling. And I am trying to prevent ambiguity and the potential for anyone to misinterpret a ruling.

Nobody wants inspections to be a nightmare, with teams and inspectors disagreeing on the meaning of a rule or a Q&A. Why not make the ruling clear and move on?

If the GDC is trying to model real life, and the frustrations of dealing with poorly defined requirements, then that might be an explanation, but I hope that is not the case.

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by martin417

If the GDC is trying to model real life, and the frustrations of dealing with poorly defined requirements, then that might be an explanation, but I hope that is not the case.

This would explain a lot of what happens each year...

To perhaps add to the discussion, I would point out the following from the Introduction of Section 4 "The Robot" in the 2014 Game Manual:

When reading these rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.

I would argue that the first sentence supports Martin's detractors in that he's reading too much into the rules. But I would say that the 2nd sentence fully supports the questions that Martin is bringing up. His clearly stated intent is to understand the reasoning -- and this is not a simple issue, despite what some of you interpret.

Ultimately, the GDC needs to respond and clarify. Has someone actually posted a followup in the Q&A, or is there just heated debate in the forum?

[Tuba4]

Maybe I am missing something here. The question was about using tape to secure the pool noodles to the play wood backing. The answer was a simple no.

"Q. 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.
2014-01-24 by FRC3847
A. No."

The answer makes no reference to any other rules. It says simply no you can not use tape to secure the pool noodles to the plywood. There is simply no inference that staples or anything else are prohibited materials.

Biblically speaking, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

[arizonafoxx]

I agree with Martin417. It seems like every year there are some rules that are too strict while others go by the way side. One year we had to cut our driver station down 1/4" because it was 12.25" and the rules said that it could only be 12". However we played with and against teams that had saggy bumpers and fabric that were well below the bumper area. In one match the fabric was dragging on the ground the whole match but because it was a rookie team that could barely get bumpers on their robot for inspection everyone looked the other way and no penalties or disqualification was issued. This Q&A is another one of those situations I hate. Using a little bit of tape to hold the noodles to the board before you wrap the fabric is very helpful and makes for good bumpers. I have seen very many veteran teams use this method and teach this method at competition when trying to get rookie team to pass inspection. Now should we wrap the noodles all the way down to side with 20 wraps of duct tape and create uber bumpers NO. Maybe the GDC should have a little common sense and say no more than 12" of tape in two places along the bumper may be used. But Oh wait what about the teams that use 12.25" of tape. I mean come on. Are we going to have Xray camera examine our bumpers now to determine if we use tape or not? If we are caught helping a rookie team make bumpers by using tape does that disqualify a rookie team or better yet our team even though we our being gracious by helping them. I think Martin417 has the right idea. When does it all end. It does not say I can use staples in my bumpers. Maybe I should just use the wood screws as mentioned but use real long ones, that way they stick all the way through the wood and noodles and have real sharp edges sticking out from the noodles. It does not say I have a restriction on length of wood screw so that means I can use the longest size I can find. Right?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by arizonafoxx

I agree with Martin417. It seems like every year there are some rules that are too strict while others go by the way side.

FIRST does have an issue with rules enforcement--some are draconian, some are ignored. That's true of every organization that has or makes rules, actually, but that's no excuse for not looking for ways to improve upon what's here.

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by arizonafoxx

Maybe I should just use the wood screws as mentioned but use real long ones, that way they stick all the way through the wood and noodles and have real sharp edges sticking out from the noodles. It does not say I have a restriction on length of wood screw so that means I can use the longest size I can find. Right?

Originally Posted by R21 B

hard BUMPER parts allowed per R21-A, -E, and -F may not extend more than 1 in. beyond the end of the FRAME PERIMETER (see Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8).

Yes, it does.