Bumpers here to stay?

[Jeff K.]

This was the first year FIRST recommended us to use bumpers. Majory of the teams had used them, so do you think that they will keep them next year?

[Nuttyman54]

I think so. I know they were a big hit with a lot of teams, and there's no real reason NOT to do them again.

[Hiteak]

After seeing what happens without bumbers with our robot, its a big yes.

[Steve Howland]

I think they seemed to be a hit and will definitely return...but then again we won't need them if we're underwater, now will we?

[Cory]

I hope not--having bumpers practically invited teams to ram the heck out of each other.

contact that would never have been allowed last year was practically encouraged this year. At every one of our events we ended up with robots driving on top of the insides of our robot, and ramming our subframe.

Obviously we chose to lose some protection by not using bumpers, and we fully expected for the outside of our robot to be brutalized. We never planned on part of that loss of protection to mean the inside of our robot could legally be torn up.

[Tim Arnold]

Originally Posted by Cory

I hope not--having bumpers practically invited teams to ram the heck out of each other.

contact that would never have been allowed last year was practically encouraged this year. At every one of our events we ended up with robots driving on top of the insides of our robot, and ramming our subframe.

Obviously we chose to lose some protection by not using bumpers, and we fully expected for the outside of our robot to be brutalized. We never planned on part of that loss of protection to mean the inside of our robot could legally be torn up.

Although I like bumpers (ours went through SEVERAL attachment processes as they kept breaking... I think the final way to hold them on was drywall screws (we tried concrete anchors, zip ties, bolts, wood screws, etc.)), there is a very interesting read about this subject on D*mn Interesting called "The Balance of Risk":

Originally Posted by DamnInteresting

What’s happening is a process known as risk compensation. It’s a tendency in humans to increase risky behavior proportionately as safeguards are introduced, and it’s very common. So common, in fact, as to render predictions of how well any given piece of safety equipment will work almost useless...

The article goes much more in depth. Good read.

[xzvrw2]

What ever happened to building a robot that can withstand a beating?
Our team didn't use them this year and we got beat up so bad, only one think happened to our drive train and that was a screw came loose.
I think that if you need bumpers to save your robot, you need to go back and re-engineer your 'bot to be able to withstand the illegal ramming that went on all year this year.

Stevie

[Not2B]

Originally Posted by xzvrw2

I think that if you need bumpers to save your robot, you need to go back and re-engineer your 'bot to be able to withstand the illegal ramming that went on all year this year.

Or you could use the bummers, as allowed, as part of your engineering assumptions and use them to your advantage, allowing for a different frame. They weren't just foam - there was one heck of a chuck of wood there too, that could be used for stiffening - and it was FREE in the weight budget.

I like the bummers - why? Because they allow more "robot interaction". So? People don't want to watch co-operation FIRST or Triple Play (And I loved Triple play) - a bunch of robots doing a task mostly un-bothered. No one is going to watch offence alone. If basketball was offence alone, then it would be an NBA version of HORSE. Football would just be a game of catch. And baseball would be a grand slam challenge. NASCAR would only be time trials. And as a Michigander, I don't even want to know what Hockey would become.

All that's from a team that was an offence bot this year. (In theory)

[xzvrw2]

I see the bumper as an excuse to ram really hard.
I think that they need to go.
They saved some robots from damage, but thats because robots were just battering rams.
Thats no what FIRST is about.
Maybe its just me, but I think they need to go.

Stevie

(edit: ok so it isn't only me haha)

[lukevanoort]

I hope they do, but I'm not sure. It seems to me that a lot of the high speed high contact play that made this year's game so exciting would have been impossible without the bumpers. (Or at least unrealistic, by the Champs, I think something like a third the robots would have been quite damaged) So, I would really like to see another fast, exciting game, and if bumpers would help that happen, then I hope they stay forever. Given the concerns menitoned above, the ramming rules would have to tighten though...

[Billfred]

Some of the rules about bumpers were annoying to me. If they were to allow some angled cuts (no obvious wedges, though), and also authorize a one-noodle version of the bumper for those times when you want more clearance, I could stand to see them return. Perhaps there was some feeling of "oh, they've got bumpers, we can ram 'em" with some drivers, but I never really saw anything to that effect in person. Your mileage can and will vary.

[BBnum3]

I really liked the bumpers this year and I hope they come back next year. I think that a lot of "ramming" with bumpers would cause less damage than a little "ramming" without them. My team used them as we were a defensive robot and they worked out nicely. They also help to absorb some of the shock caused by collisions.

Originally Posted by Billfred

Some of the rules about bumpers were
annoying to me. If they were to allow some angled cuts (no obvious wedges, though), and also authorize a one-noodle version of the bumper for those times when you want more clearance, I could stand to see them return.

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

From what I saw with my team, angled cuts weren't illegal, that is if we're talking about the same kind of angled cuts. You can see on this picture of the robot that the back 1/4 of our bumper is only one noodle. We did this so we could get on the ramp at the end. I'm glad that we didn't have to change this because the open space in the back of our bumper didn't really affect contact outside of the bumper zone. I hope that next year angled cuts are allowed, too, because it doesn't really change game play if they are disallowed.

Going from what I can tell from the picture, such angled cuts are the ones that are currently disallowed (source) but should be permitted.

[Gabe]

Wouldn't bumpers be a hindrance when trying to get across obstacles like a 4" by 4" on the ground or some stairs? Next year there has to be rougher terrain as part of the challenge (no, not water ). It seems that bumpers would not be so good in those situations.

We did not use any bumpers this year because we decided that instead we should reinforce the chassis some more, which we think helped us by having one less thing to worry about on the field.

[Cactus_Robotics]

Yea w/o bumpers our team didn't have enough weight to get on the ramp and they definitely help in the ways of pushing and protection from the frame bending. So bumpers = good idea