pic: Is this corner considered protected?

[joeweber]

We figured if we turn the andle corner into a curve we could resove the problem but found the next issue.

Questions about the trailer hitch- I assembles a hitch like the one for the competition trailer (which is different than the team built trailer) and found that the small .615 dia. Hitch pin fits into a 1 inch x 1 inch square tube. There is only about 1 3/8 inch from the pin to the edge of the square tube. Will this limit the amount of turn that the trailer can make and if the aluminum hits the trailer hitch assembly (although it barley fits inside maybe if perfectly centered) will this be a violation of <R18> E..

We want to turn as sharp as possible so we can pin wheel around the trailer for defense.

[Scott Hill]

Cory,
The Q&A answer you refer to follows:

Default Re: Bumper Length
1. The statements are not contradictory. The length of a BUMPER is determined by the portion of the assembly the includes all the required elements (pool noodle, fabric covering, clamping angles, and plywood backing) in the cross-section of the assembly. The length of this portion of the BUMPER assembly must be at least six inches. This is consistent with the previous answers and the statements/drawings in Team Update #2.

2. As indicated in Rule <R08-I>, all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER must be protected by BUMPERS. Both "sides" of the corner must be protected.

3. Rule <R18-E> requires that the ROBOT be designed such that contact between the ROBOT and the TRAILER (other than the Trailer Hitch) must be BUMPER-to-BUMPER. There are no exceptions to this.

To be honest I don't see here where it is abundantly clear that both sides of the corner must have their own BUMPER segment. It is clear that "all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER must be protected by BUMPERS." and that "Both sides of the corner must be protected." It is easy to create a ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER which meets the the two statements in 2. above which has a side that does not have bumpers on it, yet the side would be protected. I believe the ROBOT in question at the beginning of this thread could be such a case. All it takes is two sets of oblique angles as part of the BUMPER PERIMETER.

Paul,

You quote ..."all sides must have a bumper"... GDC clarifications. I would like to know where you found that quote. In the Manual, in the team updates, and in the Q&A in it's many replies to questions on this topic I can't find where the GDC has stated "all sides must have a bumper". If any one has knowledge of where, in the above venues they have, please show me.

If you think about this.... if they really wanted each side of the robot to have BUMPER(S) they just have to include in the Competition Manual or the Team Updates the simple statement "all sides must have BUMPERS". When it would be so easy to state "all sides must have BUMPERS", they don't; not in the Competition Manual, not in the Team Updates, and not even in the many replies to questions in the Q&A. In my mind it is doubtful that in all of this communication, all of these communicators have randomly avoided using this simple statement if it clearly expresses their intent. Therefore I don't think it is the GDC's intent to require all sides of a ROBOT to have BUMPERS.

Paul, I look forward to seeing you, and your team and ROBOT at Midwest, and Cory, if things work out you and your folks as well at Nationals, the best of luck to us all,

Scott

[EricH]

Scott, this Q&A was posted early on. You also have:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10933
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11056
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11218

Take them all together or one at a time, Paul has summarized what the GDC has said.

[Mike8519]

While there is no rule saying all "sides" must have bumpers it must have corners to form that edge and by the Q&A responses those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side. Extending noodles into the corner for protection does not count as both sides being protected.

EricH's final link explicity states this

[Kyler]

curiously enough, the GDC never actually says in http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600 that the configuration is illegal, only that figure 8-2 is meant to be an example. Just to point that out.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Kyler

curiously enough, the GDC never actually says in http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600 that the configuration is illegal, only that figure 8-2 is meant to be an example. Just to point that out.

The question in that Q&A post never asked if the configuration on their robot was illegal or not. So of course they did not get a determination of the legality of the configuration.


.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The question in that Q&A post never asked if the configuration on their robot was illegal or not. So of course they did not get a determination of the legality of the configuration.

Had they asked about that specific robot, they would have been referred to team update 6 and still not get the answer they wanted.

[5n1p3r]

technically you only need to cover 3 sides lol, im jk but really i would consider this well over the range of legal. The trailer aint bumpin so it seems perfectly fine lol

[Mike8519]

Originally Posted by 5n1p3r

technically you only need to cover 3 sides lol, im jk but really i would consider this well over the range of legal. The trailer aint bumpin so it seems perfectly fine lol

But the rear corner is not protected on both sides

[Mike Martus]

As a Lead Inspector in many Michigan Events I can see a headache in the making. I hope many of the bumper issues stated here are not typical.... bottom line is.... the rules rule!

[Scott Hill]

the drawing shows a ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER with BUMPERS (blue) and corner fillers (red) which I think reasonably represents the ROBOT and CORNER in question.

The BUMPER PERIMETER is a polygon. The polygon has 6 corners; A,B,C,D,E,F. 2 of the corners, D,E, have right angles. 4 of the corners, A,B,C,F, have obtuse oblique angles. The polygon has 6 sides; AB,BC,CD,DE,EF,FA.

The corner in question with respect to this thread is corner A. There are 2 sides "of corner A", side AB and side FA.

Each side of the corner, side AB and side FA, is protected by BUMPERS. Each sides protection clearly meets the intent of <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."... . Side AB has no BUMPERS on it yet the BUMPER configuration clearly meets the intent of the rule, which is clearly stated.

EricH, I enjoy reading your may posts in these fora. I think you do a lot to contribute positively with your comments. However I must take issue with your position on this question. What I believe are the relative sentences from your referenced sources follow, with my comments appended:

Reference #1: "Both sides of the corner must be protected." Comment: they are, see above.

Reference #2: "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments." Comment: they are, see above. "Rule <R08-i> requires BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER." There is obviously BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER, see above drawing.

Reference #3: This reference is not on point because the answer is given with respect to a rectangular ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER, not the BUMPER PERIMETER in question.

Reference #4: "The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of 6 inches" is correct." Comment: both sides of the corner are protected, see above, and the bumper segments in the example can be easily made to meet the 6" minimum dimension requirement.

Mike8519: You state ..."those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side"..... I think if you read carefully the requirements typically state ..."both sides of the corner must be protected"... not, corners must be protected on each side. They do not mean the same thing.

Thanks to all for contributing to the discussion,

Scott

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Scott Hill

[edited for brevity]

Reference #2: "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments." Comment: they are, see above. "Rule <R08-i> requires BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER." There is obviously BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER, see above drawing.

Please note the plural form. The GDC has been quite clear on this. There is bumper protection, yes. It is protected by a bumper segment. I'm nit-picking here, but it seems that this would be illegal.

Reference #4: "The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of 6 inches" is correct." Comment: both sides of the corner are protected, see above, and the bumper segments in the example can be easily made to meet the 6" minimum dimension requirement.

Again, plural form is used.

Mike8519: You state ..."those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side"..... I think if you read carefully the requirements typically state ..."both sides of the corner must be protected"... not, corners must be protected on each side. They do not mean the same thing.

While the words don't mean the same thing, the first is a subcase of the second. The first is also what the GDC seems to be saying.

I know how we can settle this once and for all. Submit the picture to Q&A. Ask: "Are corners A and B adequately protected under <R08>? If not, why not?" If they don't refer you back to the rule, they will hopefully give a straight answer.

The other option is that they say, "we cannot comment on specific robot designs", in which case I would advise having a more conservative route available at the event or just plain installed on the robot.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Mike Martus

As a Lead Inspector in many Michigan Events I can see a headache in the making. I hope many of the bumper issues stated here are not typical.... bottom line is.... the rules rule!

I agree with this one. There will be many headaches for inspectors and some very unhappy campers on both sides.

The most simplest solution, while it may not allow teams to be as creative as they wanted to be, is to have a frame, that is unquestionably, legal.

From past experience the last several years, I dont want those headaches again as much as possible.

[Scott Hill]

EricH,

Thanks for your comments.

Question: If the plural is required as you say and "protected by a bumper segment" would not be legal, as you suggest, is a robot side legally protected if it is covered completely by only one bumper segment?

I think it would be.

I also don't see how you can consider the first of the two statements as you list them as a subcase of the second. I have never seen the GDC say the first, and I have quite often seen them specifically say the second.

Scott

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Scott Hill

EricH,

Thanks for your comments.

Question: If the plural is required as you say and "protected by a bumper segment" would not be legal, as you suggest, is a robot side legally protected if it is covered completely by only one bumper segment?

I think it would be.

We aren't considering sides, are we? We are considering corners, which are a junction of two sides.

I also don't see how you can consider the first of the two statements as you list them as a subcase of the second. I have never seen the GDC say the first, and I have quite often seen them specifically say the second.

Scott

On this, I have reviewed. If the corners must be protected on by six inches of bumpers on both sides, then by definition, both sides are protected. So the second is a subcase of the first, but may also stand alone. I stand corrected.

However, I now have some more things to consider. Several teams have recently asked, "will bending 1 6+" bumper segment around a corner be legal if we don't have backing in the corner and we have less than 6" on one side?" or something to that effect. The GDC has answered no to all cases like this. But if you had a 13" piece of bumper, broken into 2 6" segments and a filled, I'm pretty sure that would be legal. Just some food for thought.