Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

This year 1379 used quick release hitch pins,...

I thought the GDC clarified that bumpers must be firmly attached to the robot frame using bolts.

[robochick1319]

I actually am starting to like the bumpers!

With the bumpers none of our pretty yellow paint has scratched off!

But seriously I have seen some hard hits by robots rounding the corners for the turns and I think the bumpers help the situation. I never thought this game would resemble bumper cars so much.

I think they are appropriate for 2008 but I wonder if the 2009 game will include such fierce bumping as would require said bumpers.

[EricH]

I'm torn on this. Here's why:

Previous to the "standard" bumpers' debut in 2006, teams had the option of using their own designs, but they had to fit in the size and weight constraints with the rest of the robot. Not many took advantage of this, and I've heard of a "lifting bumper" in 2005 or so that would lift an opponent slightly. Preferred methods of keeping defenders off you included a) avoid them or b) wedges. Wedges were a fairly effective method of keeping defenders from damaging or moving you, but they did have a tendency to tip robots that came up them. They could also be used to tip other robots (a red-card offense, at least after 2007; before that, a DQ.)

So, in 2006, FIRST threw everyone a change-up. Wedges were outlawed; contact could only be in the bumper zone, and there was a "standard" bumper that would give you extra size and weight. You could still use your own, but it had to fit in the box and on the scale with the rest of the robot. Many teams used them because 2006 was expected to be a physical game. Others didn't.

The same thing happened in 2007, except that more teams used bumpers. ("Wedges" were only allowed in the home zone. There were limits on their use, though--opponents couldn't intentionally tip on them; they'd get the penalty instead.) Again, 2007 was a very physical game.

Now we have entered 2008, and the game is slightly less physical (only slightly...), yet bumpers are now required. Not only that, but they absolutely have to be of the "standard" design, no holes other than mounting holes in the backing, no alternate materials in the backing. Some teams have trouble with bumper weight, due to aluminum angle being suggested to hold the fabric on. So they want to put lightening/mounting holes (axles sometimes stick out of frames...) but can't. Innovative mounting methods are rejected because they aren't "bolt and fastener".

So here's what I think: bumpers are a good idea. They protect robots fairly well and define a contact zone. But the design is the issue. I would like to see: 1) If bumpers are optional, any area in the bumper zone without them should be colored or marked so that bumper-zone contact can be seen. 2) Slightly looser attachment/backing requirements. Questions about various mounting methods in Q&A made up the bulk of the questions in their section, and many of those got a "we can't evaluate individual designs for compliance" and a "you must use a bolt-and-fastener system". 3) Freedom to use other designs under the old rules of "fit in the box with them".

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

... Figuring out how to attach them so that they can be removed and installed quickly is part of the engineering challenge. This year 1379 used quick release hitch pins, and can remove / replace all the bumpers in less than a minute. ...

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I thought the GDC clarified that bumpers must be firmly attached to the robot frame using bolts.

Alan is correct. The GDC did clarify that, here, here, and here.

The inspection checklist (Rev F, line item 30) doesn't included a specific reference to allowable fastening systems, and first mention of bumpers in the inspection reference materials (Rev D, page 4) don't cover fastening systems, either. The reference materials do summarize several important Q&A responses (pages 10 thru 15) including those that deal with bumper mounting (items 50, 60, 71, and 79 of the Q&A summary).

So even though Alan is right, it is not hard to see why some inspectors might have missed this point. Inspection standards are higher at the Championship, so teams whose robots passed inspection at a regional despite having a non-conforming bumper fastening system should anticipate being required to correct that when they get to Atlanta.