Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules

[ratdude747]

maybe beanbag bumpers?

[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.

[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!

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by squirrel

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.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't like bumpers. I miss the sound of 2 robots coming together at full speed. We have to spend too much time reading on how to build them and then building them. It is a week’s worth of work that could be actually used to teach useful stuff to the students.

I also don't like having to modify the bumpers every time a different ref looks at them. We didn't have to touch them our first event, but had to make major changes at our 2nd event and the Championship. The rules were constantly being reinterpreted throughout this year. Mostly because they were written poorly. The GDC does a great just with the rest of the rules but somehow seems to fall short on bumpers.

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by squirrel

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.

Totally agree. The bumpers were especially effective this year because most robots were under 18" tall. You could easily see who was on the red or blue alliance, what a concept!

The bumper rules keep on metastasizing and are fast approaching the incomprehensiveness of the 70,000+ page US tax code. Tear them up and start again. Do the same with the bumper rules too! (haha)

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

maybe beanbag bumpers?

Can you imagine?

I sure hope you don't mean the same kind of Bean Bags used for furniture. Those things were very popular when I was in College. They were cheap and comfortable, for the first 20 minutes. (Don't ever fall asleep in one, you will wake up with the worst back ache of your life!)

The problem with them is that they really don't handle abuse very well. Once abused, they start multiplying. Little baby white bean bags start showing up on the floor. Once they start multiplying, they never stop. The next thing you know, those baby beans are all over the place. You will find them in the most unlikely places, like in lamp shades two stories above the floor. (Can you say "Tribbles"?)

Any way, just imagine the exploding cloud of baby beans as two robots smash headlong into each other? It would be better than the 4th of July!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYb_Z...eature=related

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

I forget what year it was rookies were deemed incapable of making a robot with any level of ability.

And having a rougher interaction helps teach not only robust construction, but designing for ease of maintenance and replacement.

The bottom line, Aren, is that sometimes you have to look beyond the competition to see the greater meaning of FIRST. I do believe that bumpers are one of these times.

There are plenty of rookies capable of building great bots, and there are plenty that are not. Perhaps I shouldn't have used "rookie" as my descriptor, as there are plenty of veteran teams who have the problems I'm alluding to, but it quickly got my point across to a reasonably astute reader.

I've seen plenty of "adventurous" uses materials and frame design in my years in FIRST. And plenty of these uses have ended up failing under the heat of competition. I've even seen some very sturdy frames get quite bent out of shape by some overzealous play by other machines. I'm not saying we should reward "bad" design, but I am saying we should be somewhat forgiving of it in terms of helping the greater mission of FIRST.

Ask yourself, which is going to be more inspiring to a student. Showing up with a scrapped-together robot that barely runs, takes plenty of help to pass inspection (including needing to make bumpers), but ultimately gets out on the field and drives around. Or one that drives around for two matches, then gets smashed into the wall and broken and doesn't see the field again for the rest of the day as your fix it?

Obviously neither situation is ideal, but the joy I've seen from teams just as their robot moves is much greater than the joy I've seen from teams who don't see the same achievement. I'd rather have the teams at least come away from the event with a robot that didn't get smashed to pieces, and I think they would all say the same thing.

Maybe it forces the elite teams to change their designs some to meet bumper rules, but ultimately I think it does FIRST all the better. It's the lesser of two evils, in my mind. And not to mention, anything to help make sure I have functional alliance partners throughout qualifications is a good thing, in my book.



More related to the topic at hand, I do agree that some of the restrictions on materials, backing, shape, and coverage need to be adjusted to make more sense and allow for more creative designs. Specifically making it easier to create oddly shaped frames, concavities, curves, sloped frames, and articulated frame members.

I would like to keep the SOLID red/blue colors for the entire length of the bumper, though. Introducing team colors to the bumpers will take away much of the simplicity of the red/blue rules (or require more strict rules about bumper/frame shapes to facilitate "color on the corner" or similar rules, which still won't be as effective as the current situation). I would suggest more strictly enforcing team number size and color rules, and perhaps forcing number colors to be white to increase visibility.

[Aren_Hill]

Thats the biggest reason my vote goes under "optional", if a team feels the robot won't take a beating, easy answer, make bumpers.

I like Eric's wording of "highly recommended"

Anything that forces 254 and 968 to hide parts of the machine is doing a disservice to everyone from an inspiration standpoint.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

Thats the biggest reason my vote goes under "optional", if a team feels the robot won't take a beating, easy answer, make bumpers.

The problem is that many of these teams that will build robots that can't take the punishment are the same teams that would not build bumpers for their robot.

I agree with much of what has already been said by others in this thread

1. Keep the red/blue bumpers all the way around. I would not be mad if they made building two sets mandatory and got rid of the covers, but I won't go so far as to suggest it be added.

2. Mandatory white numbers. For every team that loses their good looking non-whit numbers (eg. 67) 10 teams will be gaining clear readable numbers from both in the stands and on the webcast. We originally painted ours black, it looks fine in the shop. After watching webcasts we decided to repaint them white on Thursday.

3. Go back to 2009 style coverage % + cover every corner (dependent on game). In this game I think requiring full coverage was fine, I just hope it's not here to stay if the bumpers move back down.

4. Move bumper height back down. I'm just assuming this one will happen when the bumps disappear.

5. Allow "minor protrusions" along the entire projection of the frame perimeter as long as they're < 3/4". This should fix a lot of the nastiness that occurred this year (moving the bumpers back should help too.

6. Relax the fully supported rule. I would prefer they just let us figure out how to support them, but I would be ok with a % or a maximum span or both.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

My answer comes from years of observation so bear with me. Prior to bumpers, broken robot parts littered the fields after most matches. Broken and bent frames were the norm in a competition that is the opposite of Battle Bots. Damage to field borders was common and some teams actually took pride in leaving marks on opponents. With the advent of bumpers, broken robot frames occur far less often. Major frame parts no longer litter the field and the field borders are able to take a beating without the need to be replaced. The cushioned impact we now see, saves under-secured robot parts like the Crio and battery from attacking field volunteers and refs during robot interaction. So for those reasons, I say the bumpers stay.
As to minor gaps behind the bumper, these will not affect the integrity of the bumper system up to 1/4" or so. Wider gaps can and do cause failure in plywood that is only 5" high and therefore need to be eliminated. Gaps in supporting structure also allow for failure. Knowing this, gaps in the bumper, where the frame cannot back the bumper, should be allowed. This was the rule last year and I suspect it will be part of game specific bumper design in the future. I liked creativity in bumper design in the past, but you have to admit, when you wondered who was on what alliance this year, you looked at the bumpers for confirmation. If we could mix creativity with alliance marking, I would be all for it.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

Thats the biggest reason my vote goes under "optional", if a team feels the robot won't take a beating, easy answer, make bumpers.

You're missing both aspects of my point.

A) As Vikesrock mentioned, most the teams that build robots that can't withstand the punishment are the same ones that don't build bumpers until Thursday at an event when they find out they need to. They're not going to build bumpers no matter how highly suggested they are, unless they required.

B) Bumpers aren't there solely to protect your robot, but protect other things FROM your robot.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You're missing both aspects of my point.

A) As Vikesrock mentioned, most the teams that build robots that can't withstand the punishment are the same ones that don't build bumpers until Thursday at an event when they find out they need to. They're not going to build bumpers no matter how highly suggested they are, unless they required.

B) Bumpers aren't there solely to protect your robot, but protect other things FROM your robot.

I'm not missing your point.

I'm trying to MAKE the point of: these teams that need bumpers the most and dont build them need to learn a lesson. I know my team always analyzes what we do each year and nail down the things to improve on, if our frame required extensive repairs after many matches....

Option A: Improve the frame for next year.
Option B: Build bumpers, either thursday, for the next comp, or the next year.

The bumpers are babying them along instead of forcing them to realize issues and take corrective action.

Concerning your B) of protecting other things, the lexan panels on the field get more scratches, not exactly a big deal. Other robots yes this can be an issue, but its usually covered by the "no entangling" or protrustions that could easily damage other robots, which worked for many years. This could be worked on.

This also follows the trend of the preference many have
Less growth in quantity of teams, more growth in quality of teams.
I'd rather see a decrease in box on wheels robots and a smaller amount of total team growth, than double the amount of these robots out on the field.

[Mike Rizzo]

My thoughts on bumpers, just my opinions: (and I will try to keep it brief)
Commenting As a Ref, Team Bumper maker, and as a 11 veteran of FIRST

First of all as a Ref it makes it very easy for me to distinguish between teams, the different colors are great. Also displaying the numbers is an added bonus as well.

As for making the Bumpers I made 2 separate sets of bumpers which took around 20 hours, (including the errors that needed to be corrected) to create. They are well within the weight limit and are durable, have not had issues with them at all. They can also be changed in about a minute.

I would be more then happy to share how they are made if there is any interest.

As for when there were no bumpers I must admit it was something to see robots smashing into other robots, metal on metal, it did add a certain element of excitement to the game for those watching. However the more time you spend on a team and the more money you put into the robot it hurts to see anytime you robot takes battle damage.

Now aside from safety and helping reduce repairs the bumpers were an integral part of the game this year. If your robot did not have bumpers it could just drive along the side to the field plowing any and all balls in was right to the goal. Since we all know how much the balls enjoyed resting against the walls. If your robot was built to the footprint allowed then it was going to be a tight squeeze though the tunnel for you and the fact that they can’t articulate them over the bump added a new challenge. That is just a few examples of how they work with the game.

I feel the GDC knew exactly what they were doing when they created the bumper rules and all others. Each rule and game element had a place and a reason.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

I'm not missing your point.

I'm trying to MAKE the point of: these teams that need bumpers the most and dont build them need to learn a lesson. I know my team always analyzes what we do each year and nail down the things to improve on, if our frame required extensive repairs after many matches....

We could let them learn their lesson, but at what expense THIS YEAR. They learn to do better in next year's build season, but should their robot be crap for the rest of this year because a weld wasn't perfect or a bolt came loose? Should their alliance partners in Quals suffer for it too?

I conjecture that the same teams in question use a KOP frame to begin with. That frame is strong enough for the most part. It's the placement of the frame that worries me, and forcing teams to put their contact zones in alignment with each other helps me sleep better at night.

[Aren_Hill]

This is still why my vote is still optional bumpers, as in years that dont have a bump the bumper zone is typically 2" to 8" or similar, and this size covered almost every drivetrain height so most contact was still in that zone.