pic: Robot Bumpers

[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

[Paul Copioli]

I would have rather you guys won your last qualification match, but the Dew was tasty anyway and it worked out for you guys in the end.

You have a fantastic robot this year and good luck at Wisconsin. Watch out for Ashley from 2022 as she is deadly accurate with the super cells... as you already know.

[Dillon Carey]

I wish we would have won our last match to, but like you said it worked out for us so I'm not complaining.

your welcome for the mountain dew.

She was really good. Our strategy was to stay on the opposite side of the field of 2022's HP, at least for the last 30 seconds. Wich worked well for 2 out of 3 matches.

Good luck at your next regional.

[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?

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

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?

Well maybe you're just waaaaay smarter than me

BTW: I do read the Q/A.

- The competition manual should be able to make it's case without relying on the Q/A. I have found that 99% of questions are easily answered by reading the manual; for instance, this thread. I found Figure 8-2 confusing and I don't think it was a good way to show the 4 corner examples.

- Fortunately or maybe unfortunately, many teams don't have to work as hard to come up with the funds for registration. I have seen that this works in ways that wasn't intended. I have actually encountered these: "Why do I have to read the rules? It will be okay if we ship a couple days late. Why doesn't someone from FIRST come and mentor us?"

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

BTW: I do read the Q/A.

Ah, sorry about that. I didn't mean to insinuate you didn't, just that some teams don't and then complain when their robot is illegal. And I do sound pretty pompous, I didn't mean to come across as such.

Which particular issue gave you trouble that wasn't adequately answered by the Q&A?

[Manoel]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

(...)

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.
(...)

Well, none of us down here have English as our first language, neither are we a powerhouse team and we never had a problem understanding the bumper rule - in my opinion, it's never been a matter of understanding it, more like "we don't like it the way it is so we'll pretend to be crazy and circumvent it".

Lots of people are confusing "lawyering" with "basic logical reasoning". FIRST can't possibly write down every outcome of a rule clause. If proposition A and B clearly lead to conclusion C - and let's be honest, the relation is quite clear to anyone trying just a little bit hard to understand the rule -, then there's no need to make it explicit-rub-in-your-nose-spell-like-you-really-mean-it-72-pt-bright-pink-font.

Nobody wants a 700-page manual that's absolutely juridically perfect and leaves even the world's greediest lawyer without chance of arguing, right?

Sorry if I came out harsh, but this bumper thing has taken way too much of everyone's time for nothing. I don't hate many things, but time-wasting and false dilemmas are amongst the few.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Manoel

Well, none of us down here have English as our first language, neither are we a powerhouse team and we never had a problem understanding the bumper rule - in my opinion, it's never been a matter of understanding it, more like "we don't like it the way it is so we'll pretend to be crazy and circumvent it".

Lots of people are confusing "lawyering" with "basic logical reasoning". FIRST can't possibly write down every outcome of a rule clause. If proposition A and B clearly lead to conclusion C - and let's be honest, the relation is quite clear to anyone trying just a little bit hard to understand the rule -, then there's no need to make it explicit-rub-in-your-nose-spell-like-you-really-mean-it-72-pt-bright-pink-font.

Nobody wants a 700-page manual that's absolutely juridically perfect and leaves even the world's greediest lawyer without chance of arguing, right?

Sorry if I came out harsh, but this bumper thing has taken way too much of everyone's time for nothing. I don't hate many things, but time-wasting and false dilemmas are amongst the few.

That was beautiful.

I thought I was the only one.

Thank you, Manoel.

Jane

[5n1p3r]

AMAZING lol!