|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bumpers: why not?
I was very suprised by the amount of teams without bumpers and the number of ramming penalties incured by those teams. Why would any team now want bumpers? If you have a ball grabber then just put the bumers on the back and hit people backwards.
1549 had bumpers and we did lots of hard hitting never getting a ramming penalty. Bumpers also allow you to add 15 pounds to the robot. Extra C in F=ukC is always welcome! |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Our bot didn't need bumpers to protect itself and we could not afford andextra 15 pounds added. we ended up at 119.9 pounds
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Quote:
|
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Quote:
<R10> The weight of any bumper assemblies included on the robot that are in compliance with Rule <R35> is excluded from the robot weight limit specified in Rule <R09>, up to a maximum of 15 pounds. <R35> Goes into more detail about bumper specifications, if you're interested. In any case, 857 doesn't have bumpers simply because we didn't have enough time to make them. That might change at the Milwaukee regional, though. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
We had trouble with the ramp with the bumpers on...and the only place on the robot that recieved damage was in the ball intake area where we can't put a bumper anyways.
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Sorry I didn't know that 15 pounds were added onto the 120, but still our bot is really solid and doesn't need bumbers. Also we didn't have time to make them even if we wanted them
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
The bumpers were a huge problem for us on the ramp. They allowed us to get up but we could not get back down. The first time we tried we fell and damaged a critical part of our robot. We only had to remove them from the back though, so we still have protection on our sides.
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
I determined early on that bumpers would not match the aesthetic sensibilities of the rest of our design, thus, we have no bumpers.
![]() |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
A very valid and simple reason to not have bumpers:
They easily go into the lower goals beyond 3". They will result in your team being disqualified in the seeding rounds or your entire alliance being DQed in the elimination rounds. Even if you are pushed in by an opposing robot - you will be DQed. Bumpered beware! -Mr. Van Coach, 599 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Good point. I never thought about the corner goal penalty.
|
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
This is where I see fault with FIRST and not the team. We would have designed bumpers within this weight limit that wouldn't have entered the goal but because of the standard bumper configuration, we are forced to make them a certain way. Generally we avoid those areas anywho.
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
it cant be that hard to add an offset at the top of you robot to keep you from entering the goal.
Like 2 of those spring doorstops. they don't weight anything and they'd work just fine. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
When your robot is right at 120 lbs (us) you cant add anything. Plus that thing sticking out can interact with other robots infringing on the contact rules for touching robots ouside the bumperzone.
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Quote:
Don |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Bumpers: why not?
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| pic: Team 1817's Black Widow | 118 Tech | Robot Showcase | 14 | 25-02-2006 11:04 |
| Are you actually using bumpers? | Chriszuma | Technical Discussion | 28 | 16-02-2006 18:41 |
| bumper customization? | gondorf | General Forum | 20 | 01-02-2006 19:30 |
| Bumpers & the Ramp | Gary Bonner | Rules/Strategy | 2 | 26-01-2006 11:13 |
| Enough with the bumpers! | archiver | 2000 | 2 | 23-06-2002 22:32 |