pic: Is this corner considered protected?

[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.

[Kyler]

curiously enough, the GDC never actually says in http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600 that the configuration is illegal, only that figure 8-2 is meant to be an example. Just to point that out.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Kyler

curiously enough, the GDC never actually says in http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600 that the configuration is illegal, only that figure 8-2 is meant to be an example. Just to point that out.

The question in that Q&A post never asked if the configuration on their robot was illegal or not. So of course they did not get a determination of the legality of the configuration.


.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The question in that Q&A post never asked if the configuration on their robot was illegal or not. So of course they did not get a determination of the legality of the configuration.

Had they asked about that specific robot, they would have been referred to team update 6 and still not get the answer they wanted.

[5n1p3r]

technically you only need to cover 3 sides lol, im jk but really i would consider this well over the range of legal. The trailer aint bumpin so it seems perfectly fine lol

[Mike8519]

Originally Posted by 5n1p3r

technically you only need to cover 3 sides lol, im jk but really i would consider this well over the range of legal. The trailer aint bumpin so it seems perfectly fine lol

But the rear corner is not protected on both sides

[Mike Martus]

As a Lead Inspector in many Michigan Events I can see a headache in the making. I hope many of the bumper issues stated here are not typical.... bottom line is.... the rules rule!

[Scott Hill]

the drawing shows a ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER with BUMPERS (blue) and corner fillers (red) which I think reasonably represents the ROBOT and CORNER in question.

The BUMPER PERIMETER is a polygon. The polygon has 6 corners; A,B,C,D,E,F. 2 of the corners, D,E, have right angles. 4 of the corners, A,B,C,F, have obtuse oblique angles. The polygon has 6 sides; AB,BC,CD,DE,EF,FA.

The corner in question with respect to this thread is corner A. There are 2 sides "of corner A", side AB and side FA.

Each side of the corner, side AB and side FA, is protected by BUMPERS. Each sides protection clearly meets the intent of <R08> ..."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."... . Side AB has no BUMPERS on it yet the BUMPER configuration clearly meets the intent of the rule, which is clearly stated.

EricH, I enjoy reading your may posts in these fora. I think you do a lot to contribute positively with your comments. However I must take issue with your position on this question. What I believe are the relative sentences from your referenced sources follow, with my comments appended:

Reference #1: "Both sides of the corner must be protected." Comment: they are, see above.

Reference #2: "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments." Comment: they are, see above. "Rule <R08-i> requires BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER." There is obviously BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER, see above drawing.

Reference #3: This reference is not on point because the answer is given with respect to a rectangular ROBOT BUMPER PERIMETER, not the BUMPER PERIMETER in question.

Reference #4: "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 6 inches" is correct." Comment: both sides of the corner are protected, see above, and the bumper segments in the example can be easily made to meet the 6" minimum dimension requirement.

Mike8519: You state ..."those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side"..... I think if you read carefully the requirements typically state ..."both sides of the corner must be protected"... not, corners must be protected on each side. They do not mean the same thing.

Thanks to all for contributing to the discussion,

Scott

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Scott Hill

[edited for brevity]

Reference #2: "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments." Comment: they are, see above. "Rule <R08-i> requires BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER." There is obviously BUMPER protection on every corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER, see above drawing.

Please note the plural form. The GDC has been quite clear on this. There is bumper protection, yes. It is protected by a bumper segment. I'm nit-picking here, but it seems that this would be illegal.

Reference #4: "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 6 inches" is correct." Comment: both sides of the corner are protected, see above, and the bumper segments in the example can be easily made to meet the 6" minimum dimension requirement.

Again, plural form is used.

Mike8519: You state ..."those corners must be protected by 6" of bumper on each side"..... I think if you read carefully the requirements typically state ..."both sides of the corner must be protected"... not, corners must be protected on each side. They do not mean the same thing.

While the words don't mean the same thing, the first is a subcase of the second. The first is also what the GDC seems to be saying.

I know how we can settle this once and for all. Submit the picture to Q&A. Ask: "Are corners A and B adequately protected under <R08>? If not, why not?" If they don't refer you back to the rule, they will hopefully give a straight answer.

The other option is that they say, "we cannot comment on specific robot designs", in which case I would advise having a more conservative route available at the event or just plain installed on the robot.

[Scott Hill]

EricH,

Thanks for your comments.

Question: If the plural is required as you say and "protected by a bumper segment" would not be legal, as you suggest, is a robot side legally protected if it is covered completely by only one bumper segment?

I think it would be.

I also don't see how you can consider the first of the two statements as you list them as a subcase of the second. I have never seen the GDC say the first, and I have quite often seen them specifically say the second.

Scott