pic: Is this corner considered protected?

[thefro526]

I would have to say, Yes-That Corner is Adequately protected. You might want to add a vertical noodle at the end though.

[Gdeaver]

I would say no. Corners must be protected by bumpers extending at least 6" on both sides. The bumper is only on one side of the vertex (corner).

[Cory]

Refer back to the string test mentioned in update two.

If you wrap a string around the perimeter of the robot, every point at which the string changes direction is considered a "corner"

Every corner must be protected on both sides by a 6" long bumper segment.

In my mind the angle immediately to the left of the pool noodle you've shown is a corner, and as such the area to the left of that angle and to the right of the trailer hitch mount must be protected by a 6" long bumper segment.

[Paul Copioli]

I agree with Cory. I would plan for a 6" bumper on the other side of the corner.

The manual is eally clear on that issue.

Your trailer hitch looks way longer than the spec. Maybe it is an optical illusion, though.

[Woody1458]

I would have your bumber team take another look at figure 8-4 on page 11 of Section 8, and rule <R08>, Clause O.

[dtengineering]

First of all, I can appreciate how there is confusion over this point. Figure 8-2 in the manual shows a similar bumper configuration, however the Q&A points out that figure 8-2 is not necessarily an example of a legal configuration. http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11257

In this case the corner will likely need to be protected by bumper material on both sides of the corner, and the shortest allowable piece of bumper is 6". http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11218

I can totally understand how teams might have designed their robot in keeping with figure 8-2 prior to the publication of these Q&A responses and assumed that because it was shown in the manual and seemed to be consistant with the intent of the bumper rules (that the first thing to hit a wall or robot is always a bumper) that this configuration of bumper would be legal. Indeed, the GDC, through Q&A and team updates may clarify that this is an acceptable configuration. Based on my reading of the rules as they now stand, however, this is an external corner of the robot that is not protected by bumpers on each side of the corner, and thus is not a legal configuration.

Jason

[joeweber]

The next question is what is considered a segment. If you permanently attach a 3 inch piece to a 7 inch piece on a 45 degree angle and wrap the noodle around would that be considered one or two segments.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by joeweber

The next question is what is considered a segment. If you permanently attach a 3 inch piece to a 7 inch piece on a 45 degree angle and wrap the noodle around would that be considered one or two segments.

2 segments, if that angle is a corner. (The GDC refuses to define a corner as anything other than what an astute observer would see as a corner.)

[Gdeaver]

As I hope you can begin to see the easy way out is to square it off and move on to more critical aspects of the game.

[Scott Hill]

Take it step by step.

Initial paragraph relevant sentence..."If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall"...

Comply? Yes, assuming the corner on the opposite side of the hitch is similar the BUMPER will hit the wall first.

A. Comply? Yes, the segment appears to meet the 6" min. dim.
B. Comply? Yes, stacked pair of noodles.
c. Comply? Yes, assuming the solid board is a prototype stand-in for the required 3/4" plywood.
D. Comply? Yes, assuming the duct tape is a stand-in for the continuous fabric.
E. Comply? Yes, assuming final weight under 18 lbs, easily attainable.
F. Comply? Yes, assuming easy installation, relatively easy to accomplish.
G. Comply? Yes, assuming rigid robust connection, relatively easy to accomplish.
H. Comply? Yes, granted.
I. Comply? Yes, the exterior corner is protected by the BUMPERS. It passes the initial paragraph vertical wall test.
J. Not applicable to the left end of the BUMPER segment as this is the free end of one BUMPER segment, not a corner or joint between BUMPER segments. The corner/joint shown looks ok.
K. Comply? Yes, assuming 2/3 of BUMPER PERIMETER is protected.
N. Comply? Yes, assuming BUMPER cross section construction requirements met.
O. Comply? Yes, if you lose the miter on the BUMPER backing board at the junction of the segments.
P. Comply? Yes, assuming the BUMPERS are mounted at the correct height in the BUMPER ZONE.

I make several assumptions in this discussion but I think they are permissible in getting to the main point(s) of contention.

With respect to the Q&A reference above by dtengineering (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11257) which is the GDC's answer to my question, the GDC states "No. Figure 8-2 is intended to only illustrate the legality of some of the possible ways in which BUMPERS could be arranged on exterior corners. Please do not infer any other conclusions from that example." Fig 8-2 shows 5 different BUMPER-corner conditions, 3 labeled "ok", 1 labeled "not ok", and one not commented on. The GDC response also says "...some of the possible ways in which BUMPERS could be arranged..." which leads me to conclude that there may well be additional ways which are not commented on which may or may not be legal.

Since the condition in question has been shown as an example but has not been directly commented on in the MANUAL or the TEAM UPDATES I believe the prudent thing to do is apply the step by step as above. Having done that, as above, I believe the condition can clearly meet the intent of <R08>.

I sincerely welcome challenges/comments to my attempt at logic.

Thanks and apologies for the length,

Scott

[MrForbes]

Scott--

The one thing that shows that you might be wrong is the other link that Jason (dtengineering) provided

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11218

The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of six inches" is correct. The requirement for both sides of the corner to be protected is independent of the angle of the corner.

[Scott Hill]

Thanks Squirrel, for the comment.

Protected by BUMPERS doesn't necessarily mean having BUMPERS. I think each side with respect to that exterior corner is protected by bumpers because if you push each side into the vertical wall the bumpers will hit first.

thanks,

Scott

[dtengineering]

Scott makes a good point, and... let me be clear... I would be happier to see his interpretation be correct than mine. I believe that this design does meet the intent of the rules (to protect robots and the field), and even the wording of the rules. Were I an inspector at a competition and presented solely with this design and the rule book, I would probably declare it as compliant.

Where it may fall short is in the definitition of "protected", as the GDC has stated:

"The interpretation that "both sides of an exterior corner must be protected with segments of bumpers, and the bumper segments must be a minimum of six inches" is correct. The requirement for both sides of the corner to be protected is independent of the angle of the corner.
"

Taking this definitition of "protected" as specifically requiring bumper segments on both sides of an exterior corner, and given that this is clearly a corner on the bumper perimeter (exterior) of the robot, I believe that as an inspector I would be compelled to declare these bumpers as "non-compliant" (whether I wanted to or not... inspectors cannot overrule the Q&A) without further official clarification from the GDC.

Don't get me wrong... I would be happy to see this be legal, but as it stands right now, I don't think it is.

Jason

Edit... Jim and Scott both posted while I was composing this reply... I have gone back to highlight in bold what I consider the crucial part of the Q&A ruling. I believe the use of "bumpers" in the plural, indicates a corner requires more than one bumper... but don't take my word for it.... put it up on Q&A!

[Mike8519]

I will also have to say that this configuration is illegal due to the requirement of both sides requiring protection and that protection required to be 6" long BUMPERS.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Scott,
In looking at the picture and visualizing certain field elements, I think it is entirely possible for an unprotected/non bumper portion of the robot to contact a field element or another robot. Certainly, the angle of the trailer tongue shown in the photo would allow a wide variety of possiblities, my robot included. In my mind, the rule that states in part...
R08 The BUMPER location and design have been specified so that ROBOTS will make BUMPER-to-BUMPER contact during any collisions. If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall.
I would be hard pressed, from this photo, to be able to prove to myself that your robot design would be able to meet this specification.