Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules

[Billfred]

If you just want to hate on bumpers to no end, this thread is not for you.

Let us assume, since they've held the basic format for five years, that the premise of the FRC bumper as we know it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

However, each year the rules have been tweaked a bit, generally in the favor of allowing teams some flexibility in mounting and configuration to suit their design. With presumably a bit of time to weigh the options (unless Lavery and company have already encrypted the 2011 manuals), perhaps this is the time to float some ideas to the fine folks on Bedford Street. I'm not affiliated with any group or committee on this one, I'm just interested in making FRC more enjoyable for all. (Well, and maybe condensing the "I (love/hate) the bumpers" statements in the lessons learned threads into something actionable should the GDC choose to do so.)

For the sake of argument, we'll consider solely the merits of the 2010 edition of the bumper rules. (Feel free to make reference to other years' rules for comparison.)

I'll break the topic into three questions:

1) Where can the materials used in the construction of bumpers be improved? Is there something other than plywood, fabric, and pool noodles that is more robust, cheaper, or more readily available during build season?

2) Where can the rules on mounting bumpers be adjusted to simplify design frustrations without compromising the bumpers' effectiveness?

3) Where can the rules on visual content (colors, numbers, etc.) be adjusted for ease of implementation and visual effectiveness?

------------------------------------

My personal thoughts on each:

On materials: A perusal of the usual suspects (Walmart, Lowe's, McMaster-Carr) doesn't yield anything that seems a feasible replacement. Where I do think the GDC could improve the materials situation is in the timing. We're approaching summer now; this is when most rational people use pool noodles. It seems likely that 2.5" pool noodles will see usage again next season as bumper material, but we're often faced with glaring warnings from the GDC (both here and elsewhere) about thinking twice before buying other things. Throwing teams a bone (or, rather, an email blast) once this aspect rules are finalized indicating that bumpers will be present in next year's game (and that they'll use such pool noodles) will save a lot of teams a lot of shipping or scrounging without really giving away much of anything about the game itself. (Nobody could look at at "Oh, you'll need pool noodles for your bumpers" and think "rover wheels and orbit balls" or "traversing the bumps and hanging".)

On mounting: This season saw a previously-unexperienced condition where the frame perimeter was not necessarily within the bumper zone. It wasn't until after much gnashing of teeth that many teams realized they'd have to space off their bumpers to get the backing past any fastener heads above or below the bumpers. For shorter robots this year, such as 2815 and 1398, it was an easy solution to get back into compliance--take lengths of the AndyMark C-Base we didn't use, mount it just 1/4" beyond what we considered "the frame" atop spacers to get the height right, mount the bumpers to that. We had the size, we had the weight--other teams had a much harder go of it. While it's every team's responsibility to ensure they're in compliance (and to allow enough fudge factor just in case they figured incorrectly), allowing for the same minor protrusions you'd allow inside the bumper zone to happen above and below the bumper zone greatly simplifies their mounting on a wide variety of robot configurations commonly seen in FRC.

On displaying information: I'll grant this much: alliance colors were easy to discern this year with the bumpers. Team numbers, however, were problematic. Done well, with proper planning, they look great. Done poorly, on Thursday at your first event, they look like crap. Too many teams at the Bayou Regional were painting their bumpers with white tempera paint on Thursday, most dutifully observing the no-painting-in-the-pits rule by doing so just outside the Alario Center.

In the absence of telling teams to come prepared to their first events (that's a knee-slapper!), and in the absence of Logo Loc being available at every regional for custom-screenprinted bumpers, I propose allowing for a 12" zone on each bumper for teams to display the number (sized to spec) along with any other designs (team name, sponsor logos, general styling of the number, etc.) the team desires. I picked 12" for two reasons: first, selfishly, I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of styling flexibility return to the bumpers. Second, it provides enough fudge factor for an 8.5"x11" piece of paper to be added on top of the bumper fabric. I haven't tested the durability of this technique on a competition robot (someone wanna try at IRI?), but a piece of paper slid into a sheet protector (available at any office store) and secured with clear tape on the edges should be durable enough to withstand most bumper-to-bumper and bumper-to-field interactions. (Though not directly comparable, 1618 used laminated paper in 2007 for its side panels inside the frame and met with acceptable results even through tipping in the match, transportation, and (mis)handling.) Although better solutions (screenprinting, embroidery, iron-on transfers) exist, explicitly legalizing this technique or a similar one will greatly simplify a quick fix in the pits.

[Chris is me]

My simple "fix" to the bolthead rule this year: Boltheads extending past the frame perimeter are allowed as long as said bolthead is within the plane of the plywood backing; basically, a "fully compressed" bumper will still result in said bolt heads not touching anything. Now sheet metal frames aren't illegal!

At least 6 inches of your bumper should be your alliance's color. Billfred's rule doesn't address very short bumpers, so I wanted to make a rule that at the minimum ensures every bumper has an identifying piece on it. Every part of the bumper not used for alliance identification must remain the same color, and it must be somewhat different colored than red or blue.

[balrock043]

our team uses spacers mounted to the bumpers then to the robot. we use 14 ply baltic birch plywood as a backing.4 pins set into the wood extend into the frame of the bot, and are fastened with cotter pins, and screwes/knobs at the rear of the chassis. we made 2 sets (red & blue) embroidered with our team number. they actually came out quite nice, and only gave us one problem, which was remedied with the spacers..

for the sake of identifying alliances, the requirement for different colored bumpers was convenient for the audience and judges, but it was a pain to build double the bumpers.

in terms of materials, i think plywood is the best option. using plastic/fiberglass/polycarb would be far too flimsy. using aluminum would be a poor and difficult surface to work with in terms of bonding, and would add to much weight (and potentially rip the fabric).

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by balrock043

using plastic/fiberglass/polycarb would be far too flimsy.

Polycarb would probably work, it's definitely strong enough once you get to 3/8". Fiberglass would probably be overkill, if anything, but it would definitely hold up just fine. Fiberglass frames work just fine for robotics, they're just horribly heavy.

[RMS11]

What if 4 pool noodles and 2 sets of bumper covers were added to the KoP? That would at least make the task of getting all of the material together a lot easier for teams at not that great an expense from first.

[AdamHeard]

Allow gaps in bumper support. The Bumper does not need a frame member backing it the entire length.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Billfred, you know my opinion, the best fix to the bumper rules would be scraping them and letting us run without them. But we know that ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Polycarb would probably work, it's definitely strong enough once you get to 3/8". Fiberglass would probably be overkill, if anything, but it would definitely hold up just fine. Fiberglass frames work just fine for robotics, they're just horribly heavy.

Plywood is perfect for bumper material, it is relatively cheap, easy to work with, and widely available. If we could find something to replace the pool noodles that was as cheap and available I would be happier. Buying pool noodles in MI in winter is rough.

[BJC]

I think that although there was a lot of complaints about the bumper colors and how they take away from robots "good looks" people have to remember that alot of that was because of the amount of tunnel-bots this year. In future years the robots will be much taller and as a result the bumpers will have less of an overall effect on a robots look.

However, I do miss custom bumpers, perhaps if only 75% of the bumpers had to be red/blue and the rest could be up to the team provided it is not the opposite color the alliance is (blue and red in the same bumpers). I think that inspectors would also have to be a little more picky when looking at bumpers, making sure the reds and blues were the specified red and blue (I have seen teams with pink and dark navy bumpers). I think this could greatly improve how the robots look while clearly showing what team everyone is on at any given moment.

[ratdude747]

maybe beanbag bumpers?

[Jamie Kalb]

Originally Posted by RMS11

What if 4 pool noodles and 2 sets of bumper covers were added to the KoP? That would at least make the task of getting all of the material together a lot easier for teams at not that great an expense from first.

Seconded. Rather than having pages of rules on how bumpers can be built, why not have a bumper kit in the KOP? That should prevent a ton of teams having illegal bumpers, and teams showing up Thursday having to build their bumpers at competition.

I miss custom bumpers, too. For me, this picture says it all: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/34912

However, I do like that the red/blue bumpers made it very easy for the audience to tell which alliance the robots were on, and that they encouraged quick-change attachment methods. Plus having only two bumper colors makes a KOP bumper kit feasible.

[MrForbes]

There must be something wrong with me, I don't have any problem with how the bumpers are supposed to be made. The only problem I've been concerned with is the wording of the rules. It would be nice if the GDC could figure out how to say what they mean, in easier to understand language, the first time they write the rules. This doesn't seem to be a problem with most of the other parts of the manual.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

At least 6 inches of your bumper should be your alliance's color. Billfred's rule doesn't address very short bumpers...(snip)

This is true, the way I laid it out does break on minimum-length bumpers. (I certainly don't want to restrict designs any further by mandating longer bumpers!)

Suppose we handle it this way:

-All of your bumpers are your alliance color, except for a numbers patch not to exceed 12" in length.
-At least six inches on both sides of the numbers patch must be the alliance color. This six inches may continue on to adjacent bumpers.

Let's take, for example, 1501's 2010 robot. If that short side was not red (or blue, as the case may be), I imagine you'd still see enough colored bumper to be able to figure it out.

[BrendanB]

For those of you who would like to do away with bumpers completely and return to the rules of 2006, the only way that I could see this happening is if FIRST developed a better way to signify which alliance you are on and did not care about robot damage. Round lights in early years were okay, but they were easily blocked by other robots due to their smaller size. Flags used in 2006, 2007, and 2008 came out to easily which can be fixed with a little rubber, but they also broke and were also small like the lights. Little led lights from 2004, 2005, and 2008 were way to small as well. Trailers in 2009 were awesome, but I doubt any of us would want to be stuck towing items forever in FRC games. My suggestion, 12 inch cold cathodes. Yes, they are a little expensive at around $6-$12 a set, but spending a max $24 (if you buy a pair that ridiculously expensive) will allow teams to either do away with or be creative with their bumpers and return to their team colors all while signifying which alliance you are on. Now I know that they are "just another set of lights", but they do work rather well on the field: note that they are much lighter in person and appear darker in the video, http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2008iri_qm7

The overall goal of the bumpers are to create less damage to both the field and other robots. In the past two years with mandatory bumpers around the frame perimeter, damage to the fields has decreased and robot damage as also decreased. In 2007 and 2008, torn/destroyed bumpers were not uncommon along with metal to soft contact between robots. This desire for less contact between robots is noticed with specific bumper heights so that there is only bumper to bumper contact and no bumpers riding up on each other from varying height. Although this is a good idea, I personally do not like the idea of mandatory bumpers on the field. Giving the weight allowance for them is a good idea, but don't make it a mandatory item given the extent of rules surrounding them in past years.

The numbers on the bumpers should be of contrasting color to the bumpers, I don't think black should be outlawed, but a white or gray outline should be mandatory as scene here so that they number stands out from the bumper fabric- http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35535
Teams should also be wise in using larger fonts sizes and spacing the numbers out so that they are not squished and hard to read from 50+ feet away.

Just some of my thoughts!

[Aren_Hill]

I still havent found what was wrong with allowing teams to use bumpers if they wanted too, all it is is another design tradeoff.

Save weight on a weaker frame and use bumpers?
Beef up the frame a bit to take the hits in exchange for more frame perimeter freedom

Its like the GDC directly saying "we dont trust your structual skills, so put these on"

I'll take responsibility for keeping my own robot alive thank you very much.

So, my vote is make them optional and give teams using them:

Bumper zone height

Diagram for correct construction, (5" tallx .75" plywood, 2 pool noodles)

Minimum 6" in length



Alliance color coordination i believe should be kept separate from bumpers as they severly limit frame configurations and make robots look the same.

Ideas could include giving led lightstrips in the KOP (red and blue, difficulties may come up during inspections for rookies and people who dont read the manual, but that happens every year)

Flags (annoying to mount)

Rotating lights are rather bulky and sound like they broke alot

In 2006 they had light squares that also flashed your alliance color, mayhaps they could find those but bigger that just sent solid the whole match.

I'm a bumper hater I admit but i hope I kept this civil enough for this thread.

[Peter Johnson]

I think the other reason FIRST is pushing bumpers is to level the playing field a bit for rookie teams. It's hard for a kit-bot to stand up to a beating that a welded frame with big CNC'ed side plates can dish out. FIRST isn't BattleBots, so let's not force teams to make robots that way!

However, I think bumpers may actually make matches more violent/aggressive. When teams have to worry about actually damaging their robot, I would hope they tend to not be quite so aggressive in their driving on the field.