pic: Is this corner considered protected?

[Scott Hill]

EricH,

I believe the statements you included were referencing the sides of the corner.

Thanks,

Scott

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Scott Hill

EricH,

I believe the statements you included were referencing the sides of the corner.

Thanks,

Scott

In which post?

The debate here (to remind ourselves and inform anyone just joining us) is over one simple question: Do both sides of a given corner have to be protected by bumper segments of 6" or more?

I am going to state the full reason for my interpretation. This will take a while, so bear with me.

My response will follow the reverse chronological order in Q&A.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11635

3 rules are cited. One is hard parts in a corner, one is the backing. Those aren't relevant here. But the reference to <R08-A> is interesting. Rounding a corner to protect both sides results in 2 segments. Neither is long enough in this case.

The next one regards the design under consideration. http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11600
However, it only covers defining an exterior corner.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11609 Clarification that no, you can't wrap a bumper and have it be one segment. From henceforward, I will ignore those Q&As that cover this topic, unless something else is answered.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11454
They are considering a similar setup. Note that the GDC says, "We can't rule on specific designs. We leave that to the event inspectors."

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11471
This one is annoying. It references Bill's Blog and sets off a chain of research. Ah-hah! Bill's Blog has something: http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2009...r-musings.html
Unfortunately, this is an unofficial channel. Nonetheless, point 3 is important. Remember, Bill is on the GDC. This is by no means official, however. I will deal with the rest of the research later, if necessary.

OK, I lie. This one is referenced to ask the previous question. http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11170
Note: the relevant question, #1 in the second post, is not directly answered. However, the logic is confirmed.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11218 is perhaps the most direct. See the GDC's first paragraph. This is one disagreed with earlier. I will simply say, note the plural.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11159 is also referenced by the one that references Bill's Blog, though through a chain. #2 is the relevant point here. It's another "answer with a not-quite answer".

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11056 Here's one for you. They say that at least part of the fourth side of a 4-sided robot must be covered by bumpers. If that holds with an extra 2 sides...

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10933 and http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11070 address the issue directly and are vaguely answered, at least as concerns this discussion.

Those are all that I could find relating to this topic. Taking those together, I conclude that the corners A and B must have a 6" segment of bumper on both sides, which is impossible due to the location of the trailer hitch. Therefore, a design change must be made. If there are questions as to why I interpret a response the way I do, go ahead and ask; I could be wrong.

Edit: Dave responded in the thread with just the overhead view. His response (barring an official overturning from the GDC via Q&A) is that the configuration won't pass inspection.