pic: Robot Bumpers

[Scott Hill]

loading photo ...

[sanddrag]

Well, we might as well have at it again.

I'll start by saying I don't believe this is legal, because corners A and B are not protected on both sides of the corner. I think it is made very clear by the GDC in their response in this Q/A forum post http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10933

In the above picture, I see two corners, A and B, each with one side that does not satisfy the "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments" ruling.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Well, we might as well have at it again.

I'll start by saying I don't believe this is legal, because corners A and B are not protected on both sides of the corner. I think it is made very clear by the GDC in their response in this Q/A forum post http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=10933

In the above picture, I see two corners, A and B, each with one side that does not satisfy the "Both sides of the corner must be protected by BUMPER segments" ruling.

To play devil's advocate, the rules (numbers of which I forget) about trailer hitch mounting forbid bumpers in the pivot area. Which rules trumps which?

[Rizner]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

To play devil's advocate, the rules (numbers of which I forget) about trailer hitch mounting forbid bumpers in the pivot area. Which rules trumps which?

I think they want both followed. It is to my understanding that you must have bumpers on your back segment (to cover the corners), and those bumpers must not be in the pivot area.

I think that means that you need room on the back for 6" on each side of the pivot area.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

-Rizner

Originally Posted by Rizner

I think they want both followed. It is to my understanding that you must have bumpers on your back segment (to cover the corners), and those bumpers must not be in the pivot area.

I think that means that you need room on the back for 6" on each side of the pivot area.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

-Rizner

Again playing devil's advocate (my opinion here is irrelevant), This design follows the intent of all bumper rules. It is well protected from all hits, while still allowing mobility of the trailer. If the bumper rule intent isn't to keep robots protected, then what IS it for? I mean honestly, the rules on bumpers this year are ridiculous to make me reconsider doing next year, as I know they can only follow the same path they've been following the recent years.

[Aren_Hill]

this pic was posted to explain in the current thread running of "is this corner considered protected" discussion goes there

[MikeDubreuil]

I call this configuration LEGAL within the rules set forth in the competition manual. It clearly meets the intent and follows all published rules.

Corners A and B do not have to be protected on both sides of the corners because a Q/A response is not a rule.

BTW, I love this topic. We could debate this for years and you could make a good argument either way.

[MrForbes]

Yeah, it could go on forever...

I think the Q&A response gives the GDC's meaning of "protected" as having BUMPERS on both sides of each corner.

I sure hope they get that into the rules, if that's their intent.

[joeweber]

The original intent of this design was to allow the robot to turn tight on the trailer.

This is all in vein. The trailer that everybody built has a ¾ pipe that the hitch assembly allows the trailer tung to move up to 90 degrees. The competition trailer is different and has a 1 inch x 1 inch square pipe with a short pin that is inserted and secured. If you turn the trailer more than 30 degrees the square pipe of the trailer hits the trailer hitch of the robot which is a violation. A turn of 35 degrees gets you to a contact point of a normal square cornered robot. There is no advantage to gain the 5 degrees.

Although I like this year’s game they have tied up the design rules so tight that everybody’s robot is going to be very similar. They are chocking our creative design ideas with every turn. I miss the day’s when you could make it open up as big as you want and did not have to worry about bumpers.

[Triple B]

Originally Posted by joeweber

Although I like this year’s game they have tied up the design rules so tight that everybody’s robot is going to be very similar. They are chocking our creative design ideas with every turn. I miss the day’s when you could make it open up as big as you want and did not have to worry about bumpers.

I must agree, It sounds to me as if they want eveyone to just use the rectangular kit bot chassis, a drawing could be posted showing the only legal bumper configuration, and then we could all just slap some team numbers on and go. I am NOT a fan of bumpers.
Mike d

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Triple B

I must agree, It sounds to me as if they want eveyone to just use the rectangular kit bot chassis, a drawing could be posted showing the only legal bumper configuration, and then we could all just slap some team numbers on and go. I am NOT a fan of bumpers.
Mike d

Agree totally. The rules this year legislated out a LOT of room for innovation. But FIRST is made up of smart folks; I think (and hope) that next season a little bit more leeway will be given back to us.

[RobotDevil1985]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

Agree totally. The rules this year legislated out a LOT of room for innovation. But FIRST is made up of smart folks; I think (and hope) that next season a little bit more leeway will be given back to us.

Every year people will complain that the rules are too strict and that they are limiting the designs. FIRST is meant to make you think about ways to work within extreme constraints, 6 weeks, impossible rules, and really strange games.


Just have fun with it, and don't worry about whether or not you win.

[winkelman2007]

does anyone know how far off the ground the bumpers should be? The team im mentoring can't figure it out.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Corners A and B do not have to be protected on both sides of the corners because a Q/A response is not a rule.

Yes, the Q&A's are not official rules, but they exist to provide guidance for referees, inspectors and other officials when making rulings. To ignore a fairly clear and unambiguous Q&A would be pretty irresponsible. I've seen teams try and pull the "Q&A's aren't real rules" card at events, and it has never worked. One incident sticks out in my mind, where a team directly asked if they could drill lightening holes in their flag holder. The GDC replied with a very firm "No". This same team tried to use a lightened flag holder at events, and was turned back pretty promptly. Don't be that team. Building a robot that directly goes against a ruling in the Q&A will only end up wasting both the time of your team and the inspectors.

[Scott Hill]

If you want to see this discussed with reference to the Q&A go the "Is this corner protected" thread. The image was created to supplement my latest response.

Scott

Edit: I do not believe this configuration is in conflict with the Q&A GDC responses.