pic: Robot Bumpers

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated through the Q&A that all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6 inches.

Where does it say in the competition manual that Q/A responses are rules? <edit> Do you think the GDC and FIRST actually expect every team to read every Q/A response to be sure they are in compliance with a new rule? </edit>

We're on the 6th revision of the robot manual if "corners must be protected on both sides" was actually a rule the GDC would put it into the competition manual.

Don't forget, Dave Lavery and other GDC members read these forums. They know we're talking about this. They see how many very competent people can argue the issue either way and have decided not to act. Again, If they wanted to make it a rule they would have.

[XXShadowXX]

The gdc has even made a Q/A forum export of all the rule changes
link

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by XXShadowXX

The gdc has even made a Q/A forum export of all the rule changes
link

That link references a forum export of the 2007 game- not 2009.

[XXShadowXX]

*headondesk* sorry

Anyways, as far as i know D and A would we most defiantly unprotected, since there is a hole in between them, if you angle the end of your tubes, and the end of bumpers at a 45 degree angle then it would most likely be legal.
ends C & F you should be able to extend your bumpers around that corner to make one massive bumper, because the ungodly 6 inch rule applies to the whole bumper, not bumper past the vertex of a corner by my understanding

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Where does it say in the competition manual that Q/A responses are rules? <edit> Do you think the GDC and FIRST actually expect every team to read every Q/A response to be sure they are in compliance with a new rule? </edit>

We're on the 6th revision of the robot manual if "corners must be protected on both sides" was actually a rule the GDC would put it into the competition manual.

Don't forget, Dave Lavery and other GDC members read these forums. They know we're talking about this. They see how many very competent people can argue the issue either way and have decided not to act. Again, If they wanted to make it a rule they would have.

Section 1.6.1 of the manual tells teams about the Q&A forums.

I totally agree that if the "both sides of the corner" ruling is in fact a rule, then it should appear in a team update. However, if it is NOT a rule, then the GDC did my team and many others a disservice by unambiguously answering questions pertaining to bumpers on corners. I don't believe that they would have done that and then reversed course without retracting their response.

So I remain adamant that ignoring the GDC's ruling about corners being protected on both sides is a risky decision.

EDIT: Bill's Blog also fairly unambiguously answered the "both sides" question here.

[Matt C]

Actually, unless they change Figure 8-2 in the released rules, this configuration seems legal per that figure.

The conflict between this figure and the official Q&A response seems like an issue.

(edit) Unless of course the Figure shows a "curve" rather than a "corner" (the scale is a little small to tell)

[Scott Hill]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

There is no way (in my opinion) that this is a legal frame. The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated through the Q&A that all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6 inches. You are taking an enormous risk if you play the "it's not a rule" card.

Rules don't trump other rules, ALL rules must be obeyed. There is no way that the configuration shown meets all of the rules set forth by the GDC. We went through this same process with concave openings on the front of the machine (see this), and the GDC was firm in reaffirming that the rules are the rules.

Hopefully the GDC responds to your question clearly and unambiguously, but we've been snakebitten by the letter of the law before. Good luck!

Abwehr,
The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated, through the Q&A, "both sides of the corner must be protected by bumper segments". And they have stated "bumper segments must be a minimum of 6". I don't believe they have ever stated ..."all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6." The statements do not mean the same thing. Also, this condition is significantly different from the concave corners discussion. I agree with you that the rules are the rules, we all just need to understand them. Go to the "is this corner considered protected" thread for a more in depth discussion.

Thanks,
scott

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

I totally agree that if the "both sides of the corner" ruling is in fact a rule, then it should appear in a team update. However, if it is NOT a rule, then the GDC did my team and many others a disservice by unambiguously answering questions pertaining to bumpers on corners. I don't believe that they would have done that and then reversed course without retracting their response.

So I remain adamant that ignoring the GDC's ruling about corners being protected on both sides is a risky decision.

EDIT: Bill's Blog also fairly unambiguously answered the "both sides" question here.

I hear you- it's definitely unfair.

A.) Your a team who saw the Q/A response and decided to change your design to be consistent with what appeared to be a new addition to the competition manual.

B.) Your a team who has never seen the Q/A response but diligently follows the manual and team updates and an inspector declares your robot illegal.

I feel like this year there is trouble in the GDC. I can't recall a year where they have been inconsistent between the Q/A and rules. It's like this situation occurs:

1.) A team posts a question in the Q/A
2.) Someone representing the GDC answers the question. Most questions are straight forward and are easilly answered. Very rarely the answer quotes a rule in a context which no reasonable person could extrapolate by just looking at the rule. (i.e. "both sides of the corner")
3.) We discuss the matter on Chief Delphi.
4.) Teams move ahead thinking the Q/A response is a rule or will soon be a rule.
5.) The GDC comes together to work on a team update. In committee they decide that the Q/A response was flawed and will not revise the manual.
6.) They drop the issue and do not revise the Q/A response.
7.) Confusion, and we still discuss the matter on Chief Delphi.

Other Q/A Oddities:
1.) Not being able to use I2C.
A.)This appeared legal in the rules.
B.) A team asked specifically via Q/A.
C.)The GDC responded you can not use I2C.
D.) Team update 4 came out and said you could use I2C.
E.) The Q/A response was revised.
In theory this is how things should work. But why did the GDC originally say I2C was illegal?

2.) Not being able to use last year's kit frame without purchasing a new one
A.) This appeared legal in the rules
B.) A team asked specifically via Q/A
C.) The GDC responded saying the frame was "custom" and quoted <R32-B>.
Why doesn't the GDC know the kit bot frame is a COTS part which would negate <R32-B>. Once they did find out, why didn't they modify the Q/A response? This in itself is extremely troublesome if as many of you said the inspectors will treat the Q/A response as a rule.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

<edit> Do you think the GDC and FIRST actually expect every team to read every Q/A response to be sure they are in compliance with a new rule? </edit>

Yes, actually, they do. That is why the Q&A system is explicitly called out in the "Communications" Section of the Manual (Section 1.6), and highlighted as one of the important responsibilities of the team "Game Rules Monitor" position on the team (described in Section 2.6 of the Manual).

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

We're on the 6th revision of the robot manual if "corners must be protected on both sides" was actually a rule the GDC would put it into the competition manual.

It is already there, and has always been there since the Manual was released. So no change to the rule is necessary.

If you don't understand what the rule means, then ask a question in the official Q&A system and have the rule explained. Nothing here is official, and in the context of the competition, nothing discussed here matters. Submit it as a formal question to the Q&A system and get an official determination on the question. I am sure that the folks that answer the Q&A questions will be happy to respond with exactly the same answer that has already been provided multiple times, and let you know that the illustrated bumper configuration will not pass inspection.


.

[MrForbes]

Apparently the GDC feels it's obvious that

R08-I. BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER (see Figure 8 - 2).

means that there must be bumpers on both sides of every corner of the bumper perimeter, even though the referenced figure shows otherwise, by having unprotected corners on either side of the trailer hitch.

Unfortunately, the folks designing and building robots don't all see it as obvious.

What to do?

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by squirrel

What to do?

Avoid a week one regional this year at ALL costs until examples of robots are passed through inspection & we can see what inspectors & the GDC really meant as far as "outside the box" designs that aren't rolling rectangles!

I hate to sound harsh, but apparently there are a lot of loopholes in this rule that the GDC & teams do not see as cut & dry.

Week one will be interesting to say the least.
(Even moreso with bumpers... let alone problems undoubtedly associated with the new control system.)


And a note to teams. Be nice to your inspectors. This year especially!

[Scott Hill]

Oh boy. Hi dlavery, Scott Hill here. With all due respect and appreciation, I can't find "corners must be protected on both sides" anywhere in the Competition Manual, the Team Updates, or in the answers in Q&A. If precise language is important anywhere it is important here. Would you do me a huge favor and review the thread "is this corner considered protected" and point out any flaws in my attempted logical analysis of this issue?

If you would it would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Scott Hill

[MrForbes]

Scott, did you read the first reply in this thread? it has a link to a Q&A question which has an answer by the GDC that says just that.

[Russ Beavis]

It's becoming obvious that I need to officially release the inspector training materials ASAP. The new materials will include a set of "good"/"bad" diagrams that should, I hope, ensure regional-to-regional inspection consistency. Please check the website with the FIRST manuals often for the inspection materials (I'm sure that a Team Update will probably indicate when the docs are available as well).

After you read the inspection materials, do NOT be surprised if your robot inspector deems the above bumper configuration to be ILLEGAL. The Section 8 Robot Rules and various GDC Q&A responses have always required 6" bumper segments on both sides of every "exterior corner". The diagram at the top of this thread does not have the required 6" segments at every corner ("corner" being EVERY vertex in the Bumper Perimeter).

From my perspective, I think that R08 would be more painfully clear if the word "exterior" were removed from "exterior corners" and figures 8-2 and 8-3 were updated to either officially declare the unlabeled features to be "NOT OK" or fix them so that they are "OK".

Russ Beavis
Chief Inspector

[Russ Beavis]

I'd also recommend that the wording of Robot Rule R08-i be modified with wording from related Q&A responses to say something like "BUMPERS must protect all corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER with BUMPERS on both adjoining perimeter segments".

More clear? "Protect" isn't very easy to quantify but it's obvious (at least to me) that the GDC Q&A responses are requiring 6"+ bumpers on both sides that meet in a "corner".

Russ