Bumpers here to stay?

[Bongle]

I think they're great. As a part of a team that played almost entirely defensively, we're obviously great fans. At our first regional, the front bar on our robot was bent quite badly from all the pushing we did. We also had a few instances where we rode up or under other robots, which is obviously no good. Once we installed bumpers, I'm pretty sure we never ended up on top of or below another robot.


Here's why I like bumpers
-Bumpers are not a slippery slope towards robot-fighting. They simply increase the degree of interaction between robots that already existed. Aggresive, robot-damaging strategies were still banned and penalized just like all the years in the past.
-Bumpers aren't new. The only new thing is that FIRST finally released a standard for them so that they would actually bump into each other, and thus actually be effective bumpers.
-High-speed ramming still draws a penalty on the offending team. If you get high-speed rammed and there is no penalty, pester the field officials, because they really should be looking out for these things.
-You are given a weight and space allowance for building the standard bumpers.
-If both rammer and rammee have bumpers, the rammer faces approximately the exact risks as your robot.
-Incidental damage to all robots is reduced. There will always be times due to driver error where robots collide with each other or the wall at high speeds. Foam absorbs such impacts much better than steel, aluminum, or plastic. Teams should use their bumper allowance for this reason alone.

The main anti-bumper argument I see (and agree with) is that the anti-ramming rules are not enforced strongly enough to keep things from degrading. If they could maybe get a single specialized ref on the lookout for high-speed rams, that might solve that problem.

As soon as we realized our prime strategy was defense, our driver was given very specific orders to not ram. We have several instances on video where he would approach a robot at full throttle, then stop so hard the robot nearly tips over. Once stopped, he would approach the other robot slowly, then being pushing.

[Donut]

Bumpers saved our robot from destruction; end of story. We suffered more damage to our conveyor belt in just 2 practice matches on Thursday (when we weren't using bumpers) than we did the entire rest of competition combined (when we were using them). They gave a weight advantage this year (obviously that will disappear if all teams begin using them) but also kept I think a number of balls out from under our robot.

The only thing I ask for if they return is what has already been suggested; some more flexibility when it comes to bumper use. Allow them to be mounted a little higher or lower than they could be this year, and allow for half-height or partial bumpers.

I honestly think the increase of defense from last year was due to this year's game, not due to bumpers. I remember just as much pushing when we competed in 2004.

[EricH]

Another con that nobody mentioned: corner intrusion. You have a perfectly legal robot, designed to flood the corner goal, and you have measures not to go in at all, but you have bumpers. You go to the corner and start flooding it, but then somebody shoves you in. You get DQ'd, just because the bumpers are 3.5" max and the rule is 3". Now, that was about the only game design issue, but it was serious. I'd like to see bumpers next year (again, nothing prohibiting teams from using ones other than the design, as long as those stay in the box), but with the field designed to allow for them.

[Ken Leedle]

The only disadvantage of bumpers is that the robot no longer will fit through most doors with them on.

They made this game playable. Without them, fast shooting teams would probably have been rammed just as much, and incurred much more damage. Besides, who wouldn't want an extra 15 lbs of weight at the bottom of the robot? I agree that they should have more flexibility in position. I do not think that one noodle bumpers would work as well because it would be possible for teams to have bumpers at different heights, negating the reason for having them.

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Ken Leedle

The only disadvantage of bumpers is that the robot no longer will fit through most doors with them on.

My team had a little trouble with that and had to remake the bumpers 3 times in order to get a set that was easy to put on and take off...

I liked the bumpers because it added more mass towards the bottom of the robot and also kept most things from getting under the robot.

[TopRamen1138]

Yeah, Kaneo, you know that the one time we ran into that ramp, and broke the frigggin' lexan, it hit us right where there was no bumper; and it killed our collectorwheelthingy... Plus, if the robot got out of control, I wouldn't hesitate as much to stick my leg in its way if it were going to hit something/body because bumpers are squishy. Aluminum, not so.

[Qbranch]

pushing/shoving/ramming/defending was major in this year's game.

i can't see how a robot can hold together without bumpers.

-Q

[Starke]

Originally Posted by Qbranch

pushing/shoving/ramming/defending was major in this year's game.

i can't see how a robot can hold together without bumpers.

-Q

i agree with what you are saying. however, this makes it seem like robots without bumpers got destroyed beyond recognition. to some extent this is true. our robot did not use bumpers this year, and the frame held up very well. no major cracks or dents.

i guess what i am saying that almost all of the robots in the past games have not been destroyed when no one used bumpers. bumpers are nice to have, no doubt. but they also prohibit some cool features on robots from being made.

[Mike Nawrot]

Bumpers have many benefits and pitfalls. Personally, bumpers saved our robot this year, considering it was a little top heavy. I cannot begin to count the number of times our robot balanced on two wheels and a bumper after being hit from the side by another robot. We won those matches because we balanced on the bumper enough for one of our alliance partners to tip us back and allow us to score. There were even ocasions where we were still shooting while balancing on our bumper. On the other hand, bumpers eliminate alot of design aspects, such as designing with CG in mind from the get-go, to material choice and such, because the students that design the robot no longer have to worry about how they'll make their drivetrain/robot withstand the abuse an FRC robot endures. This has a negative result in some situations, since the students may learn less than they would otherwise. Also, bumpers are more prone to aggressive play on the feild, resulting in more robots flipping and breaking. Bumpers are a great idea if robot contact and aggressive play are still called to a degree, and if structural integrity is still taken into mind during the design, there is almost no disadvantage. But like I said, aggressive contact has to be more closely monitored.

[dhitchco]

If nothing else, the usage of bumpers will likely help exdend the lifetime of the field elements! yes, in 2006, there were incidents of cracked sheets of acrylic, but all-in-all, the side rails will be be in better shape with the usage of bumpers.

Also, the usage of bumbers may be a safety benefit to the robots in the pits since it cuts down (no pun intended) onthe number of sharp edges that a team member can get impaled upon.

For the matches themselves, the use or non-use of bumpers won't make too much of a difference. Our battery cable came out (no Zip-tie) and would have done so with or without bumpers. Rules are already in place to minimize ramming and pinning, so bumpers won't change (and should NOT change) those rules.

They do add some imagery though!

[chrisinmd]

I had mixed feelings about bumpers when we shipped, I didn't think we would need them, but at Pittsburgh (our first regional) during practice matches we got hit pretty hard. Luckily we brought the stuff to make them so we frantically worked to get them finished for qualifying matches. They helped so much and also helped to keep the balls out from under the bot. In a practice match we didn't have bumpers and a ball got under our gears and we were stuck, the only thing we could do was shred the heck out of the ball (oops!). I thought they were a good thing, but they are definitely not an excuse to ram.

-Chris

[Dylan]

I certainly hope that bumpers are here to stay, they probably saved alot of robots from being smashed this year. And whatever the game, there will always be robots smashing into each other. If bumpers are not featured next year, I'll bet some teams will be building their robots to allow for bumper space, and still be within the size specs.

[Zoheb N]

i admit the bumpers were helpful to protect your robot from being smashed up from being hit, but i believed it sort of said it is fine to go ram a robot as long as you use a bumper. Now I am not trying to shoot down bumpers, but when you get robots who's sole goal is to ram you with their bumpers and try to tip your bot that is not really accomplishing the game.

[MikeJ675]

I don't mind the bumpers, but I dislike the 15lb weight advantage for using them.

If bonuses are given for them, why not for using the camera or one of the other special parts we get each year?

The weight limit should be steady. The max weight + battery(due to inconsistant weights between batteries)

The weight bonus is the main problem I have.

If you'll excuse the use of a robot combat related example, here I go-

Spining weapon robot A faces fast wedge B. Due to the rules, B was able to add 15lbs of armor to their robot, while due to the nature of A, it is impracticle. B has gained 15lbs more worth of pushing power and protection. It is also now going to react to the impact different. When A hits B, roughly 50% of the energy goes into each on a horizontal impact. A will now move farther and faster than B due to B's weight advantage.

To go on to another kinda off kilter point-
Why not give weight bonuses or penalties for certain types of scoring mechanisms? Obviously some are heavier than others as well as sometimes more difficult to make. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for their extra effort?


To close-
If you can't build it to survive the game within the normal weight restrictions, you aren't trying hard enough.

[eugenebrooks]

Originally Posted by MikeJ675

I don't mind the bumpers, but I dislike the 15lb weight advantage for using them.

The weight advantage was explicitly indicated at our kickoff as encouragement for using bumpers. FIRST's goal with the bumper specification was to define contact points between robots in a manner that would minimize damage, and to use the weight advantage as an inducement for teams to include bumpers in their design. If we had to include the weight of the bumpers in our weight budget, we would never had included them and FIRST's goal of a well defined contact point between robots that minimizes the chances of damage due to robot interaction would not have been served.

I think that the shock of high speed ramming can damage the internals of a robot, even with the bumpers, and I think that the rule against high speed ramming should be enforced regardless of whether or not a robot has bumpers. We had the drive shaft of our turret pan motor bent by an impact, in spite of bumpers, although it did not take our turrent out of operation. It easly could have.

It is easy to see that aggressive robot contact between robots without bumpers has a greater chance of causing damage, and I can understand a higher degree of sensitivity on the part of referees in this instance. Their goal is to prevent robot damage during play...

I think that the bumpers were a smashing success this year! :-)

I have enough experience without bumpers to look forward to seeing "weightless" bumpers in the robot rules next year.

Eugene