pic: Robot Bumpers

[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

[Molten]

Finally, an end to the thread. Now, nobody ruin it.

[dlavery]

Since I was explicitly called out on it, I do feel an obligation to respond. I will repeat what I said above - the discussions and debates here are meaningless. In the eyes of the officials at the competitions, these discussions do not exist. They carry no official weight, and will do nothing to convince an inspector that a particular solution is within the rules.

On the particular topic at hand, official answers have been provided - multiple times. The referenced design violates the rules, and will not be permitted. End of discussion. Whether you agree with the interpretation of the rules or not does not matter. The ruling is what the ruling is. You accept it and move on.

Yet some have chosen to continue even after the ruling was made. They have clearly indicated that they do not intend to use this design themselves, but are merely arguing simply for the sake of arguing and upholding a point in which they do not actually believe. That is the point where you have become the very definition of disingenuous, and as Paul Copioli has said, "you are making fool's of yourselves." That is the point where cantillation erudition to corpulent ungulates ceases (to quote RSH), and I choose not to participate.

-dave


.

[EricH]

And to agree with Dave, the GDC has issued the following Q&A: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11644 which reads in part:

Originally Posted by Q&A

C: Every exterior corner of the BUMPER PERIMETER must be protected by BUMPERS (Rule <R08-I>). Each segment of the BUMPERS protecting an exterior corner must be a minimum of six inches in length (Rule <R08-A>). The Trailer Hitch must be attached along the BUMPER PERIMETER (Rule <R18-D>), so it cannot be mounted to the BUMPERS. These three rules, taken together, would mean that there can not be corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER immediately adjacent to the ends of the Trailer Hitch.

Please refer to this post from Bill's Blog for advice about determining bumper legality.

If it isn't clear by now, then it will never be. The "robot" pictured is not legal to compete.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Yet some have chosen to continue even after the ruling was made. They have clearly indicated that they do not intend to use this design themselves, but are merely arguing simply for the sake of arguing and upholding a point in which they do not actually believe. That is the point where you have become the very definition of disingenuous, and as Paul Copioli has said, "you are making fool's of yourselves." That is the point where cantillation erudition to corpulent ungulates ceases (to quote RSH), and I choose not to participate.

No one is being disingenuous or making a fool out of themselves. (Anyone who assumes anyone else is a fool is acting elitist IMHO)

I have 10 years of FIRST experience and a college engineering degree... this puts me into the category of person who should be able to easily understand the competition manual.

My concern is that the competition manual does not adequately explain why Mr. Hill's image is illegal. If it does explain it, it is not clear enough for a high school audience. It's as if "lawyering" must be used to understand why it is non-compliant.

I get a unique perspective working with other FIRST teams in the Boston schools. For many of these students English is not their first language. Many of the teams do not have a strong foundation. They are not your "typical suburban" FIRST teams where FIRST powerhouses reside. These type of teams will have difficulty with confusing rules.

Again, I'm not looking to get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" match. I just find the bumper rules to be inadequate enough to avoid confusion.

[EricH]

Gentlemen, please see http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Team%20Update%208.pdf for the most current clarification.

hillale, I think you might owe Copioli a Mountain Dew.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by EricH

hillale, I think you might owe Copioli a Mountain Dew.

Copiloli got his mountain dew lol

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

I have 10 years of FIRST experience and a college engineering degree... this puts me into the category of person who should be able to easily understand the competition manual.

My concern is that the competition manual does not adequately explain why Mr. Hill's image is illegal. If it does explain it, it is not clear enough for a high school audience. It's as if "lawyering" must be used to understand why it is non-compliant.

Yet, with 6 years of FIRST experience, not even a high school diploma (yet), and a few hours of my time, I came to these conclusions? I thought it was relatively clear. Could it have been clearer? Yup. But the Q&A effectively cleared up these sticking points by the end of week 2. And if you can't be bothered to read the Q&A, why are you spending thousands of dollars competing?