pic: Robot Bumpers

[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