Q774 and the Supreme Bumper Mounts

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It is imperative that we do not read intent into rules where nothing written into the rule supports that interpretation - nothing in the rules prohibits bumpers from being any particular amount of structural.

Have you looked at figure 4-6 or read Q814?

I did not say that the rules prohibit the bumpers from being structural. I said that the cross-brace was legal but that I thought it would be likely to cause a rule change. The only way to make the call on whether a rules change would result is to read intent into the rules.

Despite the last paragraph of 1.4 of the game rules, I find that when we try to understand the intent of the rules, we are less likely to run afoul of them. When we read them too literally, we are more likely to be disappointed. Edit: If someone hadn't tried to read intent into the rules, cheese caking would be illegal.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

Have you looked at figure 4-6 or read Q814?

I did not say that the rules prohibit the bumpers from being structural. I said that the cross-brace was legal but that I thought it would be likely to cause a rule change. The only way to make the call on whether a rules change would result is to read intent into the rules.

Despite the last paragraph of 1.4 of the game rules, I find that when we try to understand the intent of the rules, we are less likely to run afoul of them. When we read them too literally, we are more likely to be disappointed. Edit: If someone hadn't tried to read intent into the rules, cheese caking would be illegal.

By your interpretation of the intent of the rules all over the bumper intakes in 2012 and this year would be breaking the intent of the bumper rules because they are increasing the functionality of the robot.

Also, by increasing the structural integrity of the bumpers am I not also increasing the protection that they provide to my robot? Therefor the additions still fall into your definition of the intent of bumpers "the bumpers protect the robot (and other robots, field elements, etc)"

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

By your interpretation of the intent of the rules all over the bumper intakes in 2012 and this year would be breaking the intent of the bumper rules because they are increasing the functionality of the robot.

Also, by increasing the structural integrity of the bumpers am I not also increasing the protection that they provide to my robot? Therefor the additions still fall into your definition of the intent of bumpers "the bumpers protect the robot (and other robots, field elements, etc)"

If the bumpers as built to protect also assist a function, that's certainly OK. If there's a part of the bumper that does not protect or attach, but ONLY serves another function, there are no rules against it, but its use may generate a rule change. It's similar to G11 this year: if you're playing the game and a by-product is a violation of a rule on your opponent's part, foul on him (her); if your action is (judged to have been) performed solely to draw the foul, foul on you.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

If the bumpers as built to protect also assist a function, that's certainly OK. If there's a part of the bumper that does not protect or attach, but ONLY serves another function, there are no rules against it, but its use may generate a rule change. It's similar to G11 this year: if you're playing the game and a by-product is a violation of a rule on your opponent's part, foul on him (her); if your action is (judged to have been) performed solely to draw the foul, foul on you.

This kind of structural bumper has been legal for years, and it would be very difficult to make this illegal as it would require an inspector to judge intent. You would essentially be saying there is a limit to how strong or rigid a bumper assembly could be, which is a pretty terrible precedent to set.

Take a look at 118's 2010 robot or 33's 2013 robot for examples of how the bumper is built "extra-robust" and then that robustness is taken advantage of by requiring less in the drivetrain. We certainly don't want to write rules demanding teams build drive frames to a certain robustness, and we don't want rules saying "if your bumper is too strong, you have to weaken it", so these rules are likely here to stay. The 20 pound bumper weight limit, along with practicality concerns with being able to remove the entire bumper assembly, will constrain these designs to a reasonable level.