pic: Robot Bumpers

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Well, we might as well have at it again.

I'll start by saying I don't believe this is legal, because corners A and B are not protected on both sides of the corner. I think it is made very clear by the GDC in their response in this Q/A forum post http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10933

In the above picture, I see two corners, A and B, each with one side that does not satisfy the "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments" ruling.

To play devil's advocate, the rules (numbers of which I forget) about trailer hitch mounting forbid bumpers in the pivot area. Which rules trumps which?

[Rizner]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

To play devil's advocate, the rules (numbers of which I forget) about trailer hitch mounting forbid bumpers in the pivot area. Which rules trumps which?

I think they want both followed. It is to my understanding that you must have bumpers on your back segment (to cover the corners), and those bumpers must not be in the pivot area.

I think that means that you need room on the back for 6" on each side of the pivot area.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

-Rizner

Originally Posted by Rizner

I think they want both followed. It is to my understanding that you must have bumpers on your back segment (to cover the corners), and those bumpers must not be in the pivot area.

I think that means that you need room on the back for 6" on each side of the pivot area.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

-Rizner

Again playing devil's advocate (my opinion here is irrelevant), This design follows the intent of all bumper rules. It is well protected from all hits, while still allowing mobility of the trailer. If the bumper rule intent isn't to keep robots protected, then what IS it for? I mean honestly, the rules on bumpers this year are ridiculous to make me reconsider doing next year, as I know they can only follow the same path they've been following the recent years.

[Aren_Hill]

this pic was posted to explain in the current thread running of "is this corner considered protected" discussion goes there

[MikeDubreuil]

I call this configuration LEGAL within the rules set forth in the competition manual. It clearly meets the intent and follows all published rules.

Corners A and B do not have to be protected on both sides of the corners because a Q/A response is not a rule.

BTW, I love this topic. We could debate this for years and you could make a good argument either way.

[MrForbes]

Yeah, it could go on forever...

I think the Q&A response gives the GDC's meaning of "protected" as having BUMPERS on both sides of each corner.

I sure hope they get that into the rules, if that's their intent.

[joeweber]

The original intent of this design was to allow the robot to turn tight on the trailer.

This is all in vein. The trailer that everybody built has a ¾ pipe that the hitch assembly allows the trailer tung to move up to 90 degrees. The competition trailer is different and has a 1 inch x 1 inch square pipe with a short pin that is inserted and secured. If you turn the trailer more than 30 degrees the square pipe of the trailer hits the trailer hitch of the robot which is a violation. A turn of 35 degrees gets you to a contact point of a normal square cornered robot. There is no advantage to gain the 5 degrees.

Although I like this year’s game they have tied up the design rules so tight that everybody’s robot is going to be very similar. They are chocking our creative design ideas with every turn. I miss the day’s when you could make it open up as big as you want and did not have to worry about bumpers.

[Triple B]

Originally Posted by joeweber

Although I like this year’s game they have tied up the design rules so tight that everybody’s robot is going to be very similar. They are chocking our creative design ideas with every turn. I miss the day’s when you could make it open up as big as you want and did not have to worry about bumpers.

I must agree, It sounds to me as if they want eveyone to just use the rectangular kit bot chassis, a drawing could be posted showing the only legal bumper configuration, and then we could all just slap some team numbers on and go. I am NOT a fan of bumpers.
Mike d

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Triple B

I must agree, It sounds to me as if they want eveyone to just use the rectangular kit bot chassis, a drawing could be posted showing the only legal bumper configuration, and then we could all just slap some team numbers on and go. I am NOT a fan of bumpers.
Mike d

Agree totally. The rules this year legislated out a LOT of room for innovation. But FIRST is made up of smart folks; I think (and hope) that next season a little bit more leeway will be given back to us.

[RobotDevil1985]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

Agree totally. The rules this year legislated out a LOT of room for innovation. But FIRST is made up of smart folks; I think (and hope) that next season a little bit more leeway will be given back to us.

Every year people will complain that the rules are too strict and that they are limiting the designs. FIRST is meant to make you think about ways to work within extreme constraints, 6 weeks, impossible rules, and really strange games.


Just have fun with it, and don't worry about whether or not you win.

[Paul Copioli]

Scott (and everyone else on 1625),

You are smart people. I have met and talked to many of you, but in my eyes you are making fool's of yourselves. I know you and I have a hard time believing you are actually confused. I know that you try to build really competitive robots and many of us understand the huge advantage the configuration you show above gives a team. The rest of us who have figured that out (148, 254, 1114, to name a few) are not doing it because it is painfully obvious to be illegal based on the rules and Q & A.

At some point, you have to realize that your interpretation is wrong and your implementation is illegal whether you agree with it or not. I still think it is strange that a bumper that measures 9" long is really only 6" but you have to move on. I know the inspectors at Midwest and I will bet you a Mountain Dew they will not let this robot compete as shown above.

[Aren_Hill]

Paul that picture does not represent our robot fyi.

And we would still be fine if they come out with an update 100% clarifying bumpers must be on both sides of each corner (not just protecting, being there)

It would've been the simplest thing to add to the manual when it was written, and why they didn't I don know. We could've avoided all of this.

and here's the chief inspector himself saying clarifications should be made....
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=29

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=30

[hillale]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Scott (and everyone else on 1625),

You are smart people. I have met and talked to many of you, but in my eyes you are making fool's of yourselves. I know you and I have a hard time believing you are actually confused. I know that you try to build really competitive robots and many of us understand the huge advantage the configuration you show above gives a team. The rest of us who have figured that out (148, 254, 1114, to name a few) are not doing it because it is painfully obvious to be illegal based on the rules and Q & A.

At some point, you have to realize that your interpretation is wrong and your implementation is illegal whether you agree with it or not. I still think it is strange that a bumper that measures 9" long is really only 6" but you have to move on. I know the inspectors at Midwest and I will bet you a Mountain Dew they will not let this robot compete as shown above.

I'll buy you a mountain dew if you're thirsty. We weren't confused, just thought that this was the correct interpretation of the rules and that it should be debated/defended to the fullest extent.

[Scott Hill]

dlavery,

<R08-i> states "BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER (see Figure 8-2)"

<R08-j> states " Corners and joints between BUMPER segments may be filled with short pieces of vertically oriented pool noodle, by wrapping the pool noodles around the corners, or by beveling the ends between adjacent segments so they form a tight and complete protective surface (see Figure 8-2).

Any specification writer worth their salt knows (and if the Competition Manual isn't a set of specifications I don't know what is) that a clear specification has 2 basic requirements; #1-scope of what is to be done, and #2-method for doing it.

<R08-i> is clearly a scoping statement, specifically referring to "all exterior corners" and to Figure 8-2. It is clear that Figure 8-2 has 6 exterior corners, that only 4 of them are protected with adjacent continuous bumpers on each side, and that 2 of them are protected by bumpers adjacent to the corner on one side only. Any reasonable person, and especially a design/engineering professional, can read <R08-i> look at referenced Figure 8-2 and come away with the understanding that all corners do not have to have contiguous adjacent bumpers on each side. This thought process and this understanding is directly to the point of <R08-i> and to suggest otherwise as you do in your prior post ..."That is exactly the point. Neither the illustration nor the text referencing the illustration are saying anything about anything other than the four corners indicted with "OK" or "not OK." Don't assume that there is any more implied information content than that.".... is disingenuous at best.

<R08-j> is clearly a method statement and ADDITIONALLY uses Figure 8-2 to show some possible methods with which corners may or may not be protected by bumpers.

Thanks to all who have taken the time and heart to go in depth with well reasoned and intuitive discussion on this side of the Q&A filter, in this thread and the "is this corner protected thread; dtengineering, MikeDubreui, EricH, squirrel, MattC, Cory, Al Skierkiewicz, Joe Ross, Tristan Lall (especially insightful), to joewebber for providing the initial post/photo for us all to chew on and start this neccessary discussion (brave soul) and to others I have probably omitted. Despite someones prior statement, "All discussions and debates here are meaningless", I have found more meaning in these discussions than in my attempts to communicate through the Q&A filter. I would really enjoy being in a room with all of you and a whiteboard to continue on. The cumbersom aspects of posting back and forth really drag things out.

Russ Beavis,

The language you suggest would have cleared things up and if that was the GDC's intent should have been included at the beginning. I eagerly await your release of the "good"/"bad" diagrams and the inspector training materials. They are sorely needed and quickly.

Thanks to all, see you at competitions,

Scott Hill

[winkelman2007]

does anyone know how far off the ground the bumpers should be? The team im mentoring can't figure it out.