pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

...If FIRST doesn't want us to lawyer their rules, then why do they make them so damned hard to understand? I mean honestly, if you don't want us snaking for loopholes, make the rules clear! This bumper fiasco is meant to keep our robots safe, but instead end up hindering so many teams. If FIRST wishes that competition be boiled down to a bunch of driving boxes, they'll get what they've had last year: A game that was boring to watch.

</crotchety complainer>

I'm going back to building....

[Scott Hill]

Precision in communication in any endeavour is as important, if not more so, than precision in measuring or calculation, just to use 2 examples from engineering. You can do layout work with a knotted string or a digital caliper, with the performance of your resulting effort rewarded accordingly. Communication, on the written/spoken end, AND on the reading/listening end, is no different.

The precise use of language; the challenge of presenting requirements and ideas well, AND the challenge of interpreting those same requirements/ideas just as well, is one of my favorite aspects of FIRST, this game included, and the current bumper requirements included. So many people seem frustrated by this, I find it a joy and time passes without notice when I am helping my team determine the limits of the box they have given us within which to play this game.

Carefully reading and understanding the rules and subsequent commentary (without jumping to preconceived or hasty conclusions) is as important an aspect of this game as any other. If you carefully read the rules, the updates, and the Q&A I think you will find that the GDC has been very particular and very consistent in their writing of, commenting on, and answering of questions with respect to the bumpers.

Getting more specific with respect to bumpers, I believe the GDC has stated consistently that all sides of the robot must be protected by bumpers, I do not believe they have ever stated that all sides of the robot must have bumpers (if you look closely, there is an indication that they don't necessarily expect all sides of robots to have bumpers). The two statements do not communicate the same thing and the application of one versus the other can result in significantly different designs, one of which may have advantages over the other. What's the definition of protection of a side you may ask? It seems to me that the GDC states this very clearly when in the Competition Manual they write in <R08> ..."If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall."... If you design your robots bumpers so that this is the case, then the side is protected, and protected per the manual requirement.

There is another bumper design concept, developed with what I would call a more comprehensive understanding of the rules, that has only been hinted at in these discussions (if you look carefully) and which I think will appear in significant numbers at competitions. So take off your lawyer hat, put on your Deer Stalker, and re-study the rules / comments.

"Lawyering the rules". I continue to be confused by this phrase in the context in which it is commonly used here. "Understanding, designing and engineering to the rules", is what my team strives for in our participation in FIRST. Too many times I think the phrase "lawyering the rules" is and will be used to denigrate good "understanding, design, and engineering to the rules". I hope this practice goes away.

In the spirit of great communication, GREAT fun, great design, and great engineering......... good luck to all in the pursuit of this challenge!

[MrForbes]

"Lawyering the rules" seems to me to refer to the practice of reading the rules with an interpretation that favors your design. The problem with any written language is that it is very difficult to make it precise and unambiguous. For example, my three sons and I were staring at the computer screen, reading a Q&A response, and two of us read it to mean one thing, the other two read it to mean the opposite. Avoiding this problem is a serious challenge that the GDC faces.

[Tom Line]

There is another bumper design concept, developed with what I would call a more comprehensive understanding of the rules, that has only been hinted at in these discussions (if you look carefully) and which I think will appear in significant numbers at competitions. So take off your lawyer hat, put on your Deer Stalker, and re-study the rules / comments.

Scott, are you perhaps talking about the idea of orienting your 6 inch bumper segment vertically? Since it only need be 5 inches wide in that case, you do gain 2 inches of opening in that manner.

However, there are several rules that may prohibit that configuration and make it reasonably clear that the intent is to NOT have your 6 inch bumper oriented vertically. Specifically:

B. BUMPERS must use a stacked pair of 2-1/2 inch “pool noodles” as the bumper material.
C. Each BUMPER segment must be backed by a piece of 3/4-inch thick by 5-inch tall piece of plywood.

They're not stacked if the bumper is vertical, and 5 inches tall is pretty specific.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

...If FIRST doesn't want us to lawyer their rules, then why do they make them so damned hard to understand? I mean honestly, if you don't want us snaking for loopholes, make the rules clear! This bumper fiasco is meant to keep our robots safe, but instead end up hindering so many teams. If FIRST wishes that competition be boiled down to a bunch of driving boxes, they'll get what they've had last year: A game that was boring to watch.

I think they thought their rules were clear... but a group of 10000+ excited high school students can find holes in pretty much anything.

[Scott Hill]

Tom, sorry for the delay in reply, the job and working with the students in the bot shop take most of my time. That's not the idea. I think you answer your own question very well in finding the bumper configuration you describe to not be legal.