pic: Week Three 2009

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

There is no real need to go after these people if you look at the pictures on the teams site. It's all valid. So take some time and look at the pictures.

I don't think anyone is "going after" this team regarding their bumpers. In fact, I think everyone who has posted concerning the bumpers has expressed appreciation for the overall design, but have spotted a potential concern that we want to bring to the attention of the team.

There is clearly the potential for confusion between the wording of the rules, and figure 8-2 in the rules. The figure suggests that this design should be fine, but the wording of the rules seems to contradict the figure.

One advantage of posting photos, CAD images and sketches to CD is that it exposes your design to a number of FIRST veterans, including several experienced tech inspectors, who can offer suggestions if they see a potential rule violation. While the GDC will not rule on a specific design in the Q&A forum so asking "is this robot legal" is not a valid Q&A question, something along the lines of "The robot corners adjacent to the the trailer hitch in figure 8-2 of the game manual appear to be inconsistant with the requirement that all corners of the robot be protected by bumpers. Is special consideration meant to be given to such corners?" If it is possible to make the argument that in this design the rear corners are incapable of being the first part of the robot to contact another robot or playing surface then it may be that this bumper configuration is consistant with the intent of the rule (albeit not the current wording) and that the wording will be modified.

I hope the GDC rules favourably on this for the team. I can see how they could honestly believe their design to be legal. It is clearly consistant with figure 8-2 and is likely consistant with the intent of the bumper rules that the first part of a robot to contact a wall or other robot shall be the bumper.

Jason