Are the mandatory bumpers helping or hurting?

[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".