Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules

[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.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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'd rather more teams have a reality check as to what they're capable of creating. I mean, is it really that hard to add bumpers later?

I just can't imagine the kind of team that would pass up the free weight of bumpers without evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a bumperless frame and deciding why they need one. Also consider that they're not too difficult to build "thursday night" either, and that the same teams that go "psh we don't need bumpers lol" probably build the super strongth kitbot anyway.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by JesseK

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?

The answer to these questions is, well ... sort of.

Teams should always talk with their partners (most veterans do). The discussions my team has always includes robot capabilities and robustness. If a partner isn't robust then we'll do what we can (and what they allow us to) to help them make their robot more robust. In the end, it pays off for us as we get better partners and we find out who is willing to make their robot better and who is 'just there for the experiance'.

Originally Posted by JesseK

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.

Where did anyone say that the bumper zone interaction only rules would change? Just because a team does not have a bumper doesn't mean that they can interact with other robots outside the 'bumper zone'. In fact, I would assume (conjecture?) that the interaction only within the bumperzone would be even more harshly enforced.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I'd rather more teams have a reality check as to what they're capable of creating. I mean, is it really that hard to add bumpers later?

I just can't imagine the kind of team that would pass up the free weight of bumpers without evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a bumperless frame and deciding why they need one. Also consider that they're not too difficult to build "thursday night" either, and that the same teams that go "psh we don't need bumpers lol" probably build the super strongth kitbot anyway.

Yeah, as one of those people that do build the kitbot I don't feel the need for bumpers. I don't dislike bumpers because they make robots look all like (this year they did but generally this isn't an issue) I don't dislike them because they cause robots to take less damage (this is a good thing). I dislike them because they encourage shoddy construction. They encourage teams taking shortcuts in their designs. They allow teams to get away with mediocrity and I just can't stand by that. Allow teams to use bumpers the same way you let them use pneumatics or motors. Do the benefits of bumpers outweigh the costs?

This year benefits: My frame won't get as trashed in what will be a hard hitting game.
Downside: Harder to acquire balls, Harder to go through tunnel, More weight to lift at endgame.

These are design tradeoffs that should be evaluated by the team.

PS: The kitbot IS overkill. It is way stronger than it needs to be if we use bumpers. The thing is, it is a great frame and if you can afford the extra weight I would highly suggest using it. The last 3 years I have used it I have had almost no problems with it.

[billbo911]

I appreciate your opinions on whether bumpers should be mandatory or not. Honestly though, that will be up to the GDC.

Based on all the opinions posted thus far, it seems to boil down to one of three options that the GDC will give us. Regardless of what your opinion is, or the logic behind your opinion, only one of these three options will be provided.

Option 1: Bumpers will be prohibited.
Option 2: Bumpers will be optional
Option 3: Bumpers will be mandatory.

Obviously option 1 will not have any rules associated with their design, so that one really merits very little if any discussion.

That leaves the options 2 and 3. With either of these situations, I see the rules applying to the design and implementation of the bumpers being identical.

So, that being said, the focus of these discussions really should be about what the rules could/should be. Additionally, suggestions of how to actually implement said rules would be great.

JMHO

[viperred396]

Originally Posted by billbo911

Option 1: Bumpers will be prohibited.
Option 2: Bumpers will be optional
Option 3: Bumpers will be mandatory.

I vote for option 3 with the ruling that
-all corners must be covered
-only 60% of each side of the machine must be covered
-Each bumper piece must be longer then 6 in

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by viperred396

I vote for option 3 with the ruling that
-all corners must be covered
-only 60% of each side of the machine must be covered
-Each bumper piece must be longer then 6 in

Why not 75% of the robot must be covered, all corners must be covered and each bumper must be longer than 3".

The reasoning, it allows long bots to be effective at game piece pickup (see 2009/2006).

I would also say that bumpers must be supported in at least 2 places for every 6" of run. And all runs shorter than 6" must be supported in 2 places.

Construction would be the same as always. (Could we get some pool noodles in the KOP?)

On 3/4 sides teams must provide a 12" long section of bumper for alliance colors and team numbers. On the side without the alliance color bumpers teams must mount a Alliance Identifier Light (supplied) and have their team number CLEARLY visible.

Bumper perimeter will be determined based on normal driving configuration. Robots which change their orientation (aka "flopbots") will not be required to start the match with bumpers in the bumper zone so long as they demonstrate that their bumper are in the zone during normal operation. Similarly, robots with articulating wheels should normally have bumpers in the bumper zone but may have them leave so long as they are not actively interacting with another robot or the field barriers. (To allow teams to traverse stairs/bumps/get off balls)

I think these rules would allow flexibility while still meeting the goals of bumpers. The reason I chose 3" is that seemed like an amount that would generally be taken up with a motor or mounting for an intake anyway and it would still let bumpers be put on corners.

[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)