Bumpers here to stay?

[Steve Howland]

I think they seemed to be a hit and will definitely return...but then again we won't need them if we're underwater, now will we?

[Cory]

I hope not--having bumpers practically invited teams to ram the heck out of each other.

contact that would never have been allowed last year was practically encouraged this year. At every one of our events we ended up with robots driving on top of the insides of our robot, and ramming our subframe.

Obviously we chose to lose some protection by not using bumpers, and we fully expected for the outside of our robot to be brutalized. We never planned on part of that loss of protection to mean the inside of our robot could legally be torn up.

[Tim Arnold]

Originally Posted by Cory

I hope not--having bumpers practically invited teams to ram the heck out of each other.

contact that would never have been allowed last year was practically encouraged this year. At every one of our events we ended up with robots driving on top of the insides of our robot, and ramming our subframe.

Obviously we chose to lose some protection by not using bumpers, and we fully expected for the outside of our robot to be brutalized. We never planned on part of that loss of protection to mean the inside of our robot could legally be torn up.

Although I like bumpers (ours went through SEVERAL attachment processes as they kept breaking... I think the final way to hold them on was drywall screws (we tried concrete anchors, zip ties, bolts, wood screws, etc.)), there is a very interesting read about this subject on D*mn Interesting called "The Balance of Risk":

Originally Posted by DamnInteresting

What’s happening is a process known as risk compensation. It’s a tendency in humans to increase risky behavior proportionately as safeguards are introduced, and it’s very common. So common, in fact, as to render predictions of how well any given piece of safety equipment will work almost useless...

The article goes much more in depth. Good read.

[xzvrw2]

What ever happened to building a robot that can withstand a beating?
Our team didn't use them this year and we got beat up so bad, only one think happened to our drive train and that was a screw came loose.
I think that if you need bumpers to save your robot, you need to go back and re-engineer your 'bot to be able to withstand the illegal ramming that went on all year this year.

Stevie

[Not2B]

Originally Posted by xzvrw2

I think that if you need bumpers to save your robot, you need to go back and re-engineer your 'bot to be able to withstand the illegal ramming that went on all year this year.

Or you could use the bummers, as allowed, as part of your engineering assumptions and use them to your advantage, allowing for a different frame. They weren't just foam - there was one heck of a chuck of wood there too, that could be used for stiffening - and it was FREE in the weight budget.

I like the bummers - why? Because they allow more "robot interaction". So? People don't want to watch co-operation FIRST or Triple Play (And I loved Triple play) - a bunch of robots doing a task mostly un-bothered. No one is going to watch offence alone. If basketball was offence alone, then it would be an NBA version of HORSE. Football would just be a game of catch. And baseball would be a grand slam challenge. NASCAR would only be time trials. And as a Michigander, I don't even want to know what Hockey would become.

All that's from a team that was an offence bot this year. (In theory)

[xzvrw2]

I see the bumper as an excuse to ram really hard.
I think that they need to go.
They saved some robots from damage, but thats because robots were just battering rams.
Thats no what FIRST is about.
Maybe its just me, but I think they need to go.

Stevie

(edit: ok so it isn't only me haha)

[lukevanoort]

I hope they do, but I'm not sure. It seems to me that a lot of the high speed high contact play that made this year's game so exciting would have been impossible without the bumpers. (Or at least unrealistic, by the Champs, I think something like a third the robots would have been quite damaged) So, I would really like to see another fast, exciting game, and if bumpers would help that happen, then I hope they stay forever. Given the concerns menitoned above, the ramming rules would have to tighten though...

[Billfred]

Some of the rules about bumpers were annoying to me. If they were to allow some angled cuts (no obvious wedges, though), and also authorize a one-noodle version of the bumper for those times when you want more clearance, I could stand to see them return. Perhaps there was some feeling of "oh, they've got bumpers, we can ram 'em" with some drivers, but I never really saw anything to that effect in person. Your mileage can and will vary.

[BBnum3]

I really liked the bumpers this year and I hope they come back next year. I think that a lot of "ramming" with bumpers would cause less damage than a little "ramming" without them. My team used them as we were a defensive robot and they worked out nicely. They also help to absorb some of the shock caused by collisions.

Originally Posted by Billfred

Some of the rules about bumpers were
annoying to me. If they were to allow some angled cuts (no obvious wedges, though), and also authorize a one-noodle version of the bumper for those times when you want more clearance, I could stand to see them return.

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.

Going from what I can tell from the picture, such angled cuts are the ones that are currently disallowed (source) but should be permitted.

[Gabe]

Wouldn't bumpers be a hindrance when trying to get across obstacles like a 4" by 4" on the ground or some stairs? Next year there has to be rougher terrain as part of the challenge (no, not water ). It seems that bumpers would not be so good in those situations.

We did not use any bumpers this year because we decided that instead we should reinforce the chassis some more, which we think helped us by having one less thing to worry about on the field.

[Cactus_Robotics]

Yea w/o bumpers our team didn't have enough weight to get on the ramp and they definitely help in the ways of pushing and protection from the frame bending. So bumpers = good idea

[Bongle]

I think they're great. As a part of a team that played almost entirely defensively, we're obviously great fans. At our first regional, the front bar on our robot was bent quite badly from all the pushing we did. We also had a few instances where we rode up or under other robots, which is obviously no good. Once we installed bumpers, I'm pretty sure we never ended up on top of or below another robot.


Here's why I like bumpers
-Bumpers are not a slippery slope towards robot-fighting. They simply increase the degree of interaction between robots that already existed. Aggresive, robot-damaging strategies were still banned and penalized just like all the years in the past.
-Bumpers aren't new. The only new thing is that FIRST finally released a standard for them so that they would actually bump into each other, and thus actually be effective bumpers.
-High-speed ramming still draws a penalty on the offending team. If you get high-speed rammed and there is no penalty, pester the field officials, because they really should be looking out for these things.
-You are given a weight and space allowance for building the standard bumpers.
-If both rammer and rammee have bumpers, the rammer faces approximately the exact risks as your robot.
-Incidental damage to all robots is reduced. There will always be times due to driver error where robots collide with each other or the wall at high speeds. Foam absorbs such impacts much better than steel, aluminum, or plastic. Teams should use their bumper allowance for this reason alone.

The main anti-bumper argument I see (and agree with) is that the anti-ramming rules are not enforced strongly enough to keep things from degrading. If they could maybe get a single specialized ref on the lookout for high-speed rams, that might solve that problem.

As soon as we realized our prime strategy was defense, our driver was given very specific orders to not ram. We have several instances on video where he would approach a robot at full throttle, then stop so hard the robot nearly tips over. Once stopped, he would approach the other robot slowly, then being pushing.

[Donut]

Bumpers saved our robot from destruction; end of story. We suffered more damage to our conveyor belt in just 2 practice matches on Thursday (when we weren't using bumpers) than we did the entire rest of competition combined (when we were using them). They gave a weight advantage this year (obviously that will disappear if all teams begin using them) but also kept I think a number of balls out from under our robot.

The only thing I ask for if they return is what has already been suggested; some more flexibility when it comes to bumper use. Allow them to be mounted a little higher or lower than they could be this year, and allow for half-height or partial bumpers.

I honestly think the increase of defense from last year was due to this year's game, not due to bumpers. I remember just as much pushing when we competed in 2004.

[EricH]

Another con that nobody mentioned: corner intrusion. You have a perfectly legal robot, designed to flood the corner goal, and you have measures not to go in at all, but you have bumpers. You go to the corner and start flooding it, but then somebody shoves you in. You get DQ'd, just because the bumpers are 3.5" max and the rule is 3". Now, that was about the only game design issue, but it was serious. I'd like to see bumpers next year (again, nothing prohibiting teams from using ones other than the design, as long as those stay in the box), but with the field designed to allow for them.