pic: Robot Bumpers

[Matt C]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

In the Scott Hill Image corners A and B are not corners and are in fact "curves" making this configuration LEGAL.

I believe that if it looks like a corner, acts as a corner, and feels like a corner, it's a corner.

If the point of tangency (of the change in direction) can't easily/quickly be identified, it's probably a curve.

I personally think A and B in the picture are to be considered corners, thus not being a legal configuration.
If they had a much broader radius (lets say >8 in.), I'd start to consider them more a curve than a corner.

[Jared Russell]

In my mind, a legal curve's minimum radius is functionally defined by your ability to bend a solid piece of 3/4" plywood around it without causing your bumper to break any rules (e.g. it must be backed all the way around by frame and remain rigid and strong).

This limit arguably excludes an even larger class of curves than the "I know a curve when I see it" test...

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

In my mind, a legal curve's minimum radius is functionally defined by your ability to bend a solid piece of 3/4" plywood around it without causing your bumper to break any rules (e.g. it must be backed all the way around by frame and remain rigid and strong).

This limit arguably excludes an even larger class of curves than the "I know a curve when I see it" test...

And how is that test applied when you steam the piece of plywood and bend it around a 1/4-inch radius? (yes, it can be done)

You see, the arguments are not as simple as they might first appear.


-dave



.

[Gdeaver]

This thread is an_l retentive. Get on with it. Week 4 is half shot. There have got to be other issues with the robot than your robot's rear end. Square it up and move on. The design does not allow picking up from the floor so you got 7 balls to make count. The drivers need allot of practice to make each one of them count. Our team learned from aim high that the human loading of balls requires great skill. With the strategy you have chosen practice and perfection are more important than the robots but. Let this thread die.

[Dr Theta]

Here's a purely hypothetical situation. Let's say that a team designs a chassis in which there are no sharp angles, only rounded ones so their bot isn't actually a polygon, nor does it actually have any corners... Say using a bent-pipe frame rather than straight-pipe? Just curious.

[Aren_Hill]

this debate effects other robot orientations than just the one being shown, so it should kinda be resolved before the regionals begin, so dont let the thread die please. This also is not talking specifically about the robot mentioned in the other thread.

[Dr Theta]

I have to agree that this is a vital issue, I would hate to see teams disqualified over this rule. I believe that this orientation is Illegal as stated within the manual in which clearly states Compliance with all rules is mandatory this orientation is not in compliance with all rules and is therefore illegal.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

this debate effects other robot orientations than just the one being shown, so it should kinda be resolved before the regionals begin, so dont let the thread die please. This also is not talking specifically about the robot mentioned in the other thread.

Hopefully, there are NO teams that are allowing this discussion to influence the design of their robots. If any team still has serious questions about how the rules are interpreted and/or applied, they should be going to the official FRC Q&A forums to get those questions answered. To remind everyone once again, NONE of the discussions here - no matter who the source may be - are official answers. Nothing said here will carry any weight with the inspectors or competition officials. "I got the answer on CD" does not work when trying to explain why your 167 pound robot should be allowed to compete (yes, this has happened ).

Related to that, the various responses in the Q&A forums have made it pretty clear that reviews of specific designs will not be provided. But you can expect direct questions about how a rule will be applied to be answered. So when posing your question, instead of asking "here is a picture of my design - tell me if my corner bumpers are legal," you might ask "Given rule <R08-A> and <R08-I>, does this mean that a bumper segment of at least six inches in length is required on each side of an exterior corner of the robot?" I am pretty sure that the second form of the question will be answered (actually, I am pretty sure that it has already been answered multiple times, but some here obviously remain unconvinced).

-dave


.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Related to that, the various responses in the Q&A forums have made it pretty clear that reviews of specific designs will not be provided. But you can expect direct questions about how a rule will be applied to be answered. So when posing your question, instead of asking "here is a picture of my design - tell me if my corner bumpers are legal," you might ask "Given rule <R08-A> and <R08-I>, does this mean that a bumper segment of at least six inches in length is required on each side of an exterior corner of the robot?" I am pretty sure that the second form of the question will be answered (actually, I am pretty sure that it has already been answered multiple times, but some here obviously remain unconvinced).

-dave


.

Perhaps we might ask instead if "a bumper segment of at least six inches in length is required on each side of EVERY exterior corner of the robot?"

An answer to that ought to quickly affirm whether or not the bumper arrangement surrounding A and B is legal. Or, maybe not.

[RobotDevil1985]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

Agree totally. The rules this year legislated out a LOT of room for innovation. But FIRST is made up of smart folks; I think (and hope) that next season a little bit more leeway will be given back to us.

Every year people will complain that the rules are too strict and that they are limiting the designs. FIRST is meant to make you think about ways to work within extreme constraints, 6 weeks, impossible rules, and really strange games.


Just have fun with it, and don't worry about whether or not you win.

[Paul Copioli]

Scott (and everyone else on 1625),

You are smart people. I have met and talked to many of you, but in my eyes you are making fool's of yourselves. I know you and I have a hard time believing you are actually confused. I know that you try to build really competitive robots and many of us understand the huge advantage the configuration you show above gives a team. The rest of us who have figured that out (148, 254, 1114, to name a few) are not doing it because it is painfully obvious to be illegal based on the rules and Q & A.

At some point, you have to realize that your interpretation is wrong and your implementation is illegal whether you agree with it or not. I still think it is strange that a bumper that measures 9" long is really only 6" but you have to move on. I know the inspectors at Midwest and I will bet you a Mountain Dew they will not let this robot compete as shown above.

[Aren_Hill]

Paul that picture does not represent our robot fyi.

And we would still be fine if they come out with an update 100% clarifying bumpers must be on both sides of each corner (not just protecting, being there)

It would've been the simplest thing to add to the manual when it was written, and why they didn't I don know. We could've avoided all of this.

and here's the chief inspector himself saying clarifications should be made....
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=29

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=30

[hillale]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Scott (and everyone else on 1625),

You are smart people. I have met and talked to many of you, but in my eyes you are making fool's of yourselves. I know you and I have a hard time believing you are actually confused. I know that you try to build really competitive robots and many of us understand the huge advantage the configuration you show above gives a team. The rest of us who have figured that out (148, 254, 1114, to name a few) are not doing it because it is painfully obvious to be illegal based on the rules and Q & A.

At some point, you have to realize that your interpretation is wrong and your implementation is illegal whether you agree with it or not. I still think it is strange that a bumper that measures 9" long is really only 6" but you have to move on. I know the inspectors at Midwest and I will bet you a Mountain Dew they will not let this robot compete as shown above.

I'll buy you a mountain dew if you're thirsty. We weren't confused, just thought that this was the correct interpretation of the rules and that it should be debated/defended to the fullest extent.

[Scott Hill]

dlavery,

<R08-i> states "BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER (see Figure 8-2)"

<R08-j> states " Corners and joints between BUMPER segments may be filled with short pieces of vertically oriented pool noodle, by wrapping the pool noodles around the corners, or by beveling the ends between adjacent segments so they form a tight and complete protective surface (see Figure 8-2).

Any specification writer worth their salt knows (and if the Competition Manual isn't a set of specifications I don't know what is) that a clear specification has 2 basic requirements; #1-scope of what is to be done, and #2-method for doing it.

<R08-i> is clearly a scoping statement, specifically referring to "all exterior corners" and to Figure 8-2. It is clear that Figure 8-2 has 6 exterior corners, that only 4 of them are protected with adjacent continuous bumpers on each side, and that 2 of them are protected by bumpers adjacent to the corner on one side only. Any reasonable person, and especially a design/engineering professional, can read <R08-i> look at referenced Figure 8-2 and come away with the understanding that all corners do not have to have contiguous adjacent bumpers on each side. This thought process and this understanding is directly to the point of <R08-i> and to suggest otherwise as you do in your prior post ..."That is exactly the point. Neither the illustration nor the text referencing the illustration are saying anything about anything other than the four corners indicted with "OK" or "not OK." Don't assume that there is any more implied information content than that.".... is disingenuous at best.

<R08-j> is clearly a method statement and ADDITIONALLY uses Figure 8-2 to show some possible methods with which corners may or may not be protected by bumpers.

Thanks to all who have taken the time and heart to go in depth with well reasoned and intuitive discussion on this side of the Q&A filter, in this thread and the "is this corner protected thread; dtengineering, MikeDubreui, EricH, squirrel, MattC, Cory, Al Skierkiewicz, Joe Ross, Tristan Lall (especially insightful), to joewebber for providing the initial post/photo for us all to chew on and start this neccessary discussion (brave soul) and to others I have probably omitted. Despite someones prior statement, "All discussions and debates here are meaningless", I have found more meaning in these discussions than in my attempts to communicate through the Q&A filter. I would really enjoy being in a room with all of you and a whiteboard to continue on. The cumbersom aspects of posting back and forth really drag things out.

Russ Beavis,

The language you suggest would have cleared things up and if that was the GDC's intent should have been included at the beginning. I eagerly await your release of the "good"/"bad" diagrams and the inspector training materials. They are sorely needed and quickly.

Thanks to all, see you at competitions,

Scott Hill

[Molten]

Finally, an end to the thread. Now, nobody ruin it.