Brainstorm: Improving the FRC bumper rules

[Billfred]

If you just want to hate on bumpers to no end, this thread is not for you.

Let us assume, since they've held the basic format for five years, that the premise of the FRC bumper as we know it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

However, each year the rules have been tweaked a bit, generally in the favor of allowing teams some flexibility in mounting and configuration to suit their design. With presumably a bit of time to weigh the options (unless Lavery and company have already encrypted the 2011 manuals), perhaps this is the time to float some ideas to the fine folks on Bedford Street. I'm not affiliated with any group or committee on this one, I'm just interested in making FRC more enjoyable for all. (Well, and maybe condensing the "I (love/hate) the bumpers" statements in the lessons learned threads into something actionable should the GDC choose to do so.)

For the sake of argument, we'll consider solely the merits of the 2010 edition of the bumper rules. (Feel free to make reference to other years' rules for comparison.)

I'll break the topic into three questions:

1) Where can the materials used in the construction of bumpers be improved? Is there something other than plywood, fabric, and pool noodles that is more robust, cheaper, or more readily available during build season?

2) Where can the rules on mounting bumpers be adjusted to simplify design frustrations without compromising the bumpers' effectiveness?

3) Where can the rules on visual content (colors, numbers, etc.) be adjusted for ease of implementation and visual effectiveness?

------------------------------------

My personal thoughts on each:

On materials: A perusal of the usual suspects (Walmart, Lowe's, McMaster-Carr) doesn't yield anything that seems a feasible replacement. Where I do think the GDC could improve the materials situation is in the timing. We're approaching summer now; this is when most rational people use pool noodles. It seems likely that 2.5" pool noodles will see usage again next season as bumper material, but we're often faced with glaring warnings from the GDC (both here and elsewhere) about thinking twice before buying other things. Throwing teams a bone (or, rather, an email blast) once this aspect rules are finalized indicating that bumpers will be present in next year's game (and that they'll use such pool noodles) will save a lot of teams a lot of shipping or scrounging without really giving away much of anything about the game itself. (Nobody could look at at "Oh, you'll need pool noodles for your bumpers" and think "rover wheels and orbit balls" or "traversing the bumps and hanging".)

On mounting: This season saw a previously-unexperienced condition where the frame perimeter was not necessarily within the bumper zone. It wasn't until after much gnashing of teeth that many teams realized they'd have to space off their bumpers to get the backing past any fastener heads above or below the bumpers. For shorter robots this year, such as 2815 and 1398, it was an easy solution to get back into compliance--take lengths of the AndyMark C-Base we didn't use, mount it just 1/4" beyond what we considered "the frame" atop spacers to get the height right, mount the bumpers to that. We had the size, we had the weight--other teams had a much harder go of it. While it's every team's responsibility to ensure they're in compliance (and to allow enough fudge factor just in case they figured incorrectly), allowing for the same minor protrusions you'd allow inside the bumper zone to happen above and below the bumper zone greatly simplifies their mounting on a wide variety of robot configurations commonly seen in FRC.

On displaying information: I'll grant this much: alliance colors were easy to discern this year with the bumpers. Team numbers, however, were problematic. Done well, with proper planning, they look great. Done poorly, on Thursday at your first event, they look like crap. Too many teams at the Bayou Regional were painting their bumpers with white tempera paint on Thursday, most dutifully observing the no-painting-in-the-pits rule by doing so just outside the Alario Center.

In the absence of telling teams to come prepared to their first events (that's a knee-slapper!), and in the absence of Logo Loc being available at every regional for custom-screenprinted bumpers, I propose allowing for a 12" zone on each bumper for teams to display the number (sized to spec) along with any other designs (team name, sponsor logos, general styling of the number, etc.) the team desires. I picked 12" for two reasons: first, selfishly, I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit of styling flexibility return to the bumpers. Second, it provides enough fudge factor for an 8.5"x11" piece of paper to be added on top of the bumper fabric. I haven't tested the durability of this technique on a competition robot (someone wanna try at IRI?), but a piece of paper slid into a sheet protector (available at any office store) and secured with clear tape on the edges should be durable enough to withstand most bumper-to-bumper and bumper-to-field interactions. (Though not directly comparable, 1618 used laminated paper in 2007 for its side panels inside the frame and met with acceptable results even through tipping in the match, transportation, and (mis)handling.) Although better solutions (screenprinting, embroidery, iron-on transfers) exist, explicitly legalizing this technique or a similar one will greatly simplify a quick fix in the pits.

[Chris is me]

My simple "fix" to the bolthead rule this year: Boltheads extending past the frame perimeter are allowed as long as said bolthead is within the plane of the plywood backing; basically, a "fully compressed" bumper will still result in said bolt heads not touching anything. Now sheet metal frames aren't illegal!

At least 6 inches of your bumper should be your alliance's color. Billfred's rule doesn't address very short bumpers, so I wanted to make a rule that at the minimum ensures every bumper has an identifying piece on it. Every part of the bumper not used for alliance identification must remain the same color, and it must be somewhat different colored than red or blue.

[balrock043]

our team uses spacers mounted to the bumpers then to the robot. we use 14 ply baltic birch plywood as a backing.4 pins set into the wood extend into the frame of the bot, and are fastened with cotter pins, and screwes/knobs at the rear of the chassis. we made 2 sets (red & blue) embroidered with our team number. they actually came out quite nice, and only gave us one problem, which was remedied with the spacers..

for the sake of identifying alliances, the requirement for different colored bumpers was convenient for the audience and judges, but it was a pain to build double the bumpers.

in terms of materials, i think plywood is the best option. using plastic/fiberglass/polycarb would be far too flimsy. using aluminum would be a poor and difficult surface to work with in terms of bonding, and would add to much weight (and potentially rip the fabric).

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by balrock043

using plastic/fiberglass/polycarb would be far too flimsy.

Polycarb would probably work, it's definitely strong enough once you get to 3/8". Fiberglass would probably be overkill, if anything, but it would definitely hold up just fine. Fiberglass frames work just fine for robotics, they're just horribly heavy.

[RMS11]

What if 4 pool noodles and 2 sets of bumper covers were added to the KoP? That would at least make the task of getting all of the material together a lot easier for teams at not that great an expense from first.

[AdamHeard]

Allow gaps in bumper support. The Bumper does not need a frame member backing it the entire length.

[BJC]

I think that although there was a lot of complaints about the bumper colors and how they take away from robots "good looks" people have to remember that alot of that was because of the amount of tunnel-bots this year. In future years the robots will be much taller and as a result the bumpers will have less of an overall effect on a robots look.

However, I do miss custom bumpers, perhaps if only 75% of the bumpers had to be red/blue and the rest could be up to the team provided it is not the opposite color the alliance is (blue and red in the same bumpers). I think that inspectors would also have to be a little more picky when looking at bumpers, making sure the reds and blues were the specified red and blue (I have seen teams with pink and dark navy bumpers). I think this could greatly improve how the robots look while clearly showing what team everyone is on at any given moment.

[ratdude747]

maybe beanbag bumpers?

[MrForbes]

There must be something wrong with me, I don't have any problem with how the bumpers are supposed to be made. The only problem I've been concerned with is the wording of the rules. It would be nice if the GDC could figure out how to say what they mean, in easier to understand language, the first time they write the rules. This doesn't seem to be a problem with most of the other parts of the manual.

[BrendanB]

For those of you who would like to do away with bumpers completely and return to the rules of 2006, the only way that I could see this happening is if FIRST developed a better way to signify which alliance you are on and did not care about robot damage. Round lights in early years were okay, but they were easily blocked by other robots due to their smaller size. Flags used in 2006, 2007, and 2008 came out to easily which can be fixed with a little rubber, but they also broke and were also small like the lights. Little led lights from 2004, 2005, and 2008 were way to small as well. Trailers in 2009 were awesome, but I doubt any of us would want to be stuck towing items forever in FRC games. My suggestion, 12 inch cold cathodes. Yes, they are a little expensive at around $6-$12 a set, but spending a max $24 (if you buy a pair that ridiculously expensive) will allow teams to either do away with or be creative with their bumpers and return to their team colors all while signifying which alliance you are on. Now I know that they are "just another set of lights", but they do work rather well on the field: note that they are much lighter in person and appear darker in the video, http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match/2008iri_qm7

The overall goal of the bumpers are to create less damage to both the field and other robots. In the past two years with mandatory bumpers around the frame perimeter, damage to the fields has decreased and robot damage as also decreased. In 2007 and 2008, torn/destroyed bumpers were not uncommon along with metal to soft contact between robots. This desire for less contact between robots is noticed with specific bumper heights so that there is only bumper to bumper contact and no bumpers riding up on each other from varying height. Although this is a good idea, I personally do not like the idea of mandatory bumpers on the field. Giving the weight allowance for them is a good idea, but don't make it a mandatory item given the extent of rules surrounding them in past years.

The numbers on the bumpers should be of contrasting color to the bumpers, I don't think black should be outlawed, but a white or gray outline should be mandatory as scene here so that they number stands out from the bumper fabric- http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/35535
Teams should also be wise in using larger fonts sizes and spacing the numbers out so that they are not squished and hard to read from 50+ feet away.

Just some of my thoughts!

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by squirrel

The only problem I've been concerned with is the wording of the rules. It would be nice if the GDC could figure out how to say what they mean, in easier to understand language, the first time they write the rules. This doesn't seem to be a problem with most of the other parts of the manual.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't like bumpers. I miss the sound of 2 robots coming together at full speed. We have to spend too much time reading on how to build them and then building them. It is a week’s worth of work that could be actually used to teach useful stuff to the students.

I also don't like having to modify the bumpers every time a different ref looks at them. We didn't have to touch them our first event, but had to make major changes at our 2nd event and the Championship. The rules were constantly being reinterpreted throughout this year. Mostly because they were written poorly. The GDC does a great just with the rest of the rules but somehow seems to fall short on bumpers.

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by squirrel

There must be something wrong with me, I don't have any problem with how the bumpers are supposed to be made. The only problem I've been concerned with is the wording of the rules. It would be nice if the GDC could figure out how to say what they mean, in easier to understand language, the first time they write the rules. This doesn't seem to be a problem with most of the other parts of the manual.

Totally agree. The bumpers were especially effective this year because most robots were under 18" tall. You could easily see who was on the red or blue alliance, what a concept!

The bumper rules keep on metastasizing and are fast approaching the incomprehensiveness of the 70,000+ page US tax code. Tear them up and start again. Do the same with the bumper rules too! (haha)

[billbo911]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

maybe beanbag bumpers?

Can you imagine?

I sure hope you don't mean the same kind of Bean Bags used for furniture. Those things were very popular when I was in College. They were cheap and comfortable, for the first 20 minutes. (Don't ever fall asleep in one, you will wake up with the worst back ache of your life!)

The problem with them is that they really don't handle abuse very well. Once abused, they start multiplying. Little baby white bean bags start showing up on the floor. Once they start multiplying, they never stop. The next thing you know, those baby beans are all over the place. You will find them in the most unlikely places, like in lamp shades two stories above the floor. (Can you say "Tribbles"?)

Any way, just imagine the exploding cloud of baby beans as two robots smash headlong into each other? It would be better than the 4th of July!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYb_Z...eature=related

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

I forget what year it was rookies were deemed incapable of making a robot with any level of ability.

And having a rougher interaction helps teach not only robust construction, but designing for ease of maintenance and replacement.

The bottom line, Aren, is that sometimes you have to look beyond the competition to see the greater meaning of FIRST. I do believe that bumpers are one of these times.

There are plenty of rookies capable of building great bots, and there are plenty that are not. Perhaps I shouldn't have used "rookie" as my descriptor, as there are plenty of veteran teams who have the problems I'm alluding to, but it quickly got my point across to a reasonably astute reader.

I've seen plenty of "adventurous" uses materials and frame design in my years in FIRST. And plenty of these uses have ended up failing under the heat of competition. I've even seen some very sturdy frames get quite bent out of shape by some overzealous play by other machines. I'm not saying we should reward "bad" design, but I am saying we should be somewhat forgiving of it in terms of helping the greater mission of FIRST.

Ask yourself, which is going to be more inspiring to a student. Showing up with a scrapped-together robot that barely runs, takes plenty of help to pass inspection (including needing to make bumpers), but ultimately gets out on the field and drives around. Or one that drives around for two matches, then gets smashed into the wall and broken and doesn't see the field again for the rest of the day as your fix it?

Obviously neither situation is ideal, but the joy I've seen from teams just as their robot moves is much greater than the joy I've seen from teams who don't see the same achievement. I'd rather have the teams at least come away from the event with a robot that didn't get smashed to pieces, and I think they would all say the same thing.

Maybe it forces the elite teams to change their designs some to meet bumper rules, but ultimately I think it does FIRST all the better. It's the lesser of two evils, in my mind. And not to mention, anything to help make sure I have functional alliance partners throughout qualifications is a good thing, in my book.



More related to the topic at hand, I do agree that some of the restrictions on materials, backing, shape, and coverage need to be adjusted to make more sense and allow for more creative designs. Specifically making it easier to create oddly shaped frames, concavities, curves, sloped frames, and articulated frame members.

I would like to keep the SOLID red/blue colors for the entire length of the bumper, though. Introducing team colors to the bumpers will take away much of the simplicity of the red/blue rules (or require more strict rules about bumper/frame shapes to facilitate "color on the corner" or similar rules, which still won't be as effective as the current situation). I would suggest more strictly enforcing team number size and color rules, and perhaps forcing number colors to be white to increase visibility.

[Aren_Hill]

Thats the biggest reason my vote goes under "optional", if a team feels the robot won't take a beating, easy answer, make bumpers.

I like Eric's wording of "highly recommended"

Anything that forces 254 and 968 to hide parts of the machine is doing a disservice to everyone from an inspiration standpoint.