|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
The Wording on update #2 is frustrating, it doesn't specifically say that bumpers must be on the front, just seems to show that IF you have bumpers on the front.
I guess I'll wait for the QnA response. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
Looking at the intent of the rule, your configuration is illegal because the goal could protrude into your robot.
|
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
You don't know the intent of the rule and, further, even there are 6" bumpers along the front edge, it's still possible for the trailer to protrude into the robot.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
Quote:
Quote:
Based on the small paragraph below the highlights of R08 they state that the bumpers limit the goal incursion. I suppose to both limit trapping offense tactics and minimize damage if a trailer goes inside a robot. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
Which rule are you referring to?
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
The text under the highlighted points of R08 in team update #2 has a few choice words that lead me to believe their intent is to prevent a high level of goal incursion I suppose for robot safety and limiting offensive tactics.
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
I think it was meant to point out that many legal bumper configurations allow the goal to protrude, and teams should be aware of possible goal to inner robot interaction.
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
The GDC has spoken
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11159 Quote:
|
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
Well, we know it's not legal now.
We've made our changes, and in the long run this wasn't a biggie now that we know. I wasn't mad at the GDC or trying to exploit anything, I just wanted to make sure we'd show up to the event and not be at a disadvantage. For not being able to do FIRST 24/7 of their lives, I think the GDC is doing a good job. I like how there is 10x more complaining being heard than praise to the GDC for substantially simplified rules. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
The bumper configuration is legal from what I understand, however the indentation which is presumably to help keep the trailer controlled isn't legal.
Both of these are assuming I've read the rules right. I may or may not be wrong. The only official answer you can get is from the FIRST Q&A Forum, though. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
As I understand Team Update #2, this configuraion would not pass robot inspection.
|
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
The only way to know is to ask Q&A point-blank: "Must every side of the robot have bumpers?"
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
I have QnA'd, it has yet to be answered. We'll see then I guess.
Pretty much it comes down to two things; 1) does the 3.5" of soft bumper from the adjacent sides constitute protecting a corner? 2) Must bumpers be on all sides. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Legal Bumper Configuration?
The outcome of this will cause some major design changes for lots of teams should it be Illegal.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What is a legal bumper? | lemon1324 | Technical Discussion | 10 | 26-01-2008 18:23 |
| pic: Bumper and me | lilac | Extra Discussion | 7 | 09-01-2008 16:22 |
| pic: Team 1178 Robot - Starting Configuration | Jake M | Extra Discussion | 1 | 01-03-2007 22:34 |
| pic: A possible configuration of A-Rack-Nid | DanDon | Extra Discussion | 2 | 08-02-2007 15:10 |
| pic: 114 Bumper Art | CraigHickman | Extra Discussion | 6 | 20-03-2006 20:35 |