[YMTC]: Is robot debris still part of the robot?

[Basel A]

First, let me say that this is a purely hypothetical situation.

Let's say a robot scales, but before the matches ends, a piece of their bumper completely falls off. The rest of their bumper is above the low goal, but the piece that fell off obviously is not. Per the rules, the robot is disabled, but they hold the elevated position. Is this a valid scale?

[Richard Wallace]

If a robot pushes its disabled alliance partner onto the batter, and then drives onto the batter at a different tower face, do both robots get credit for a challenge? Yes, they do. Or at least I have scored it that way, and seen it scored that way by other referees.

So a disabled robot can earn tower points. I think the situation you describe is similar.

[edit] I think the piece that fell off is field debris, not part of the robot.[/edit]

[whitetail]

This happened to us in the finals, one our bumpers fell of in the outworks. I drove the robot on to the batter and it counted before our robot was disabled.

[New Lightning]

I think that the question is more referring to the fact that since something fell off the robot, the part that fell off is below the top of the low goal, even though the rest of the robot is above it. Thus the part that fell off and is subsequently below the low goal would mean that not all of the robot is above the top of the low goal, and thus there would be no scale.

What the OP is asking is whether or not the piece that fell off counts as part of the robot. I don't think that it would because once it fell off it would be considered field debrief and no longer part of the robot. Therefore the scale would count.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

I think that the question is more referring to the fact that since something fell off the robot, the part that fell off is below the top of the low goal, even though the rest of the robot is above it. Thus the part that fell off and is subsequently below the low goal would mean that not all of the robot is above the top of the low goal, and thus there would be no scale.

What the OP is asking is whether or not the piece that fell off counts as part of the robot. I don't think that it would because once it fell off it would be considered field debrief and no longer part of the robot. Therefore the scale would count.

The problem is that this isn't just some random piece of the robot - it's a bumper. Does that make a difference? When a random chunk falls off the robot, it becomes a random chunk, while the robot continues on its way (containing everything it needs to be a ROBOT, per the definition). But does a BUMPER stop being a BUMPER if it falls off the robot? The definition FIRST provides does not require it to be attached to the robot to still be considered a bumper, merely designed to attach to the exterior of the robot. Even after falling off, it probably still meets that definition.

I would argue that even after falling off, a bumper is still a bumper. After all, if it falls off you can be disabled, while if your arm falls off you probably won't be. So, per the scoring rules:

A ROBOT has SCALED the TOWER if, at the conclusion of the MATCH, the ROBOT:
A. is in contact with a unique RUNG, and
B. has all of its BUMPERS fully above the height of the low GOALS.

That bumper that fell off is not above the low goals, so I don't think you should get the points.

Of course, I'm not a ref

[New Lightning]

If it were the bumper then I think that it probably wouldn't count because the rules say all of the bumpers. So in that case I probably wouldn't give the scale points but still give the challenge points.

[rich2202]

When the bumper falls off, the fallen off part is no longer a bumper. The rule is that a robot will be disabled if it no longer meets the bumper rules. In theory, a robot could loose a non critical section of the bumper while still maintaining 8 inches on each corner, thus not be disabled.

In ruling whether it is a climb, I am not sure if you would look at just the remaining bumpers, or where the bumper would have been. I think the former.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rich2202

When the bumper falls off, the fallen off part is no longer a bumper. The rule is that a robot will be disabled if it no longer meets the bumper rules. In theory, a robot could loose a non critical section of the bumper while still maintaining 8 inches on each corner, thus not be disabled.

In ruling whether it is a climb, I am not sure if you would look at just the remaining bumpers, or where the bumper would have been. I think the former.

Does it make a difference if the bumper is still partially attached, but dangling outside the bumper zone and below the top of the low goal?

[rich2202]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Does it make a difference if the bumper is still partially attached, but dangling outside the bumper zone and below the top of the low goal?

Yes. If it is still attached, it still part of the bumper.

Not any different from the 15" rule. If it is attached, it counts. If it unitentionally detaches, it does not.

An interesting case is: Bumper partially detaches, drags for 1 second, and then full detaches. For 1 second, the robot is non-compliant with the Bumper Rules. However, by the time the Ref can disable the robot, it then becomes compliant.

For climbing rule purposes, there is the 5 second rule. So, if the bumper is still moving, the robot has not come to rest. If it detaches, then it is no longer a bumper part.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by rich2202

Yes. If it is still attached, it still part of the bumper.

Not any different from the 15" rule. If it is attached, it counts. If it unitentionally detaches, it does not.

An interesting case is: Bumper partially detaches, drags for 1 second, and then full detaches. For 1 second, the robot is non-compliant with the Bumper Rules. However, by the time the Ref can disable the robot, it then becomes compliant.

For climbing rule purposes, there is the 5 second rule. So, if the bumper is still moving, the robot has not come to rest. If it detaches, then it is no longer a bumper part.

How would a missing bumper be compliant? As I see it you would go from non-compliant to still non-compliant.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

How would a missing bumper be compliant? As I see it you would go from non-compliant to still non-compliant.

Given how most bumpers are constructed it's not possible. However, it IS possible to construct bumpers for one side of the robot in three segments - 2 8" segments on the corner and a middle segment between them. That middle segment can fall off and your robot will still be compliant with the bumper rules.

[engunneer]

to add to the possible options, does the bumper fall off and remain supported by the batter?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by rich2202

When the bumper falls off, the fallen off part is no longer a bumper.

Please quote the rule that states that a fallen off bumper is no longer a bumper.

I believe that there is no scale point awarded if a portion of the bumper (even if detached from the robot) is not above the low goal.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Please quote the rule that states that a fallen off bumper is no longer a bumper.

I believe that there is no scale point awarded if a portion of the bumper (even if detached from the robot) is not above the low goal.

An official answer to this would be helpful.

One interpretation would be that a BUMPER (see Glossary) is "a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and constructed as specified in Section 4 (4.7 BUMPER Rules)." A protective assembly that has become detached from the robot's structure/frame no longer satisfies R26, and therefore no longer fits the definition of a BUMPER.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

An official answer to this would be helpful.

One interpretation would be that a BUMPER (see Glossary) is "a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and constructed as specified in Section 4 (4.7 BUMPER Rules)." A protective assembly that has become detached from the robot's structure/frame no longer satisfies R26, and therefore no longer fits the definition of a BUMPER.

Originally Posted by rules

R26 BUMPERS must be supported by the structure/frame of the ROBOT (see Figure 4-9). To be considered supported, a minimum of ½ in. at each end of the BUMPER must be backed by the FRAME PERIMETER. Additionally, any gap between the backing material and the frame: A. must not be greater than ¼” deep, or B. not more than 8 in. wide

Interesting interpretation of R26. I see your point as the detached part is no longer supported by the structure/frame.

Reading it that way, I agree with your interpretation and reverse my original opinion: The scale would count.

I agree that an official answer is needed here.