14-01-2009 14:50

Tottanka

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

it is as long as each segment of the bumper is at least 6'' long, at least that's what i think.
oh and you need an opening for the trailer hitch to feet in.

14-01-2009 14:54

Vikesrock

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Ok, I'm not sure exactly where in the drawing you are planning on putting bumpers. Having said that I believe you could make a legal configuration out of this frame provided the two front flat surfaces are 6" long each.

Assuming the robot is 28X38 your bumper perimeter is 132" and yoiu need to cover 88" with bumpers.

It appears that there would be no reason not to cover both long sides with this design giving you 76". To properly cover the corners you would then need 2 6" segments on each of the short sides for a total of 24" which brings you well over the required 88".

If the angled pieces on the front are supposed to be bumpers these are not "official" bumpers and would count for robot weight and volume (and this cannot extend outside the bumper perimeter and would be illegal in the configuration shown. Removing these bumpers (and enough in the back to make a space for the trailer hitch would result in a legal configuration.

14-01-2009 14:55

AdamHeard

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

If the two angled front pieces are bumpers, this is illegal. Bumpers must be on the bumper perimeter, which is defined by wrapping a string around the robot.

14-01-2009 14:58

SuperJake

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

It looks to me like you have a short bumper segment on the front end that curves into some sort of picker-upper device. According to my interpretation of <R08>, the bumper segments that angle into your picker-upper are not legal bumpers because they are not on the bumper perimeter. Additionally, the front segments look a little short - the plywood backing needs to be at least 6" long.

My team actually had a discussion about a similar area on our robot last night!

Hopefully this helps you out.

14-01-2009 15:03

HUNT397

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vikesrock Ok, I'm not sure exactly where in the drawing you are planning on putting bumpers. Having said that I believe you could make a legal configuration out of this frame provided the two front flat surfaces are 6" long each. Assuming the robot is 28X38 your bumper perimeter is 132" and yoiu need to cover 88" with bumpers. It appears that there would be no reason not to cover both long sides with this design giving you 76". To properly cover the corners you would then need 2 6" segments on each of the short sides for a total of 24" which brings you well over the required 88". If the angled pieces on the front are supposed to be bumpers these are not "official" bumpers and would count for robot weight and volume (and this cannot extend outside the bumper perimeter and would be illegal in the configuration shown. Removing these bumpers (and enough in the back to make a space for the trailer hitch would result in a legal configuration.

14-01-2009 15:06

EricH

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUNT397 The angled sections are 6in long and we were going to put them there to satisify the corner bumper rule. and oops i did forget to add the hole for the trailer. So if we removed the small section would that be legal even though <R08> I. BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER. is not satisified?

14-01-2009 15:13

usbcd36

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Ok, so…

I'm going to say no, since the segments of the front bumpers that lie on the two diagonals won't be considered BUMPERS, since they don't lie on the BUMPER PERIMETER. (<R08>L)

Also, ignoring the diagonal bumpers, the two segments on the front BUMPER PERIMETER look to be too short (min. 6") to qualify as BUMPERS. (<R08>A)

Keep in mind my response is not official in any way.

14-01-2009 15:16

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard If the two angled front pieces are bumpers, this is illegal. Bumpers must be on the bumper perimeter, which is defined by wrapping a string around the robot.

14-01-2009 15:17

Clinton Bolinger

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH If you removed the angled sections and the rest in that area was 6" long or more, you'd probably be fine. The one thing I'm wondering is--are bumpers allowed inside the robot's BUMPER PERIMETER, if they aren't treated as BUMPERS?

14-01-2009 15:20

Clinton Bolinger

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber Yeah, I was wondering that myself. My only question is how does that work with polygons with 5 or more vertexes? Rather than try to illustrate with text I will give you points to plot, if I have a polygon with vertexes A= (0,0) B=(0,10) C=(10,10) D=(5,5) and E=(10,0) We know point D does not fall along the bumper perimeter. By your own argument the BP would be a polygon bounded by by ABCE. My primary question is that the rule states "BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER (see Figure 8 - 2). " (From R08 I) The corner formed by BCE needs to be protected but obviously we cannot because there is no frame there. The logical thing would to run bumpers across angle BCD but as you said this is illegal because CD is not along the bumper perimeter.

14-01-2009 15:59

MrForbes

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

From all the hours I've spent reading on this subject, I'll agree with Adam, it's not legal, you need to have 6" minimum bumpers on the front, not angled back. It's the combination of the Q&A response that you need BUMPERS on both sides of each corner of the BP, the rule that BUMPERS must attach at the BUMPER PERIMETER, and the minimum length of 6".

Wide robots are looking pretty good this year.

14-01-2009 17:09

GaryVoshol

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Non-standard bumpers could be included on the angled faces leading to your collector if you desired. They would not have to meet any BUMPER standards, but would be counted in size and weight of the robot.

The short front sections of the robot must be protected with Standard BUMPERS. Part of the requirement of those is that the combined section of plywood, noodles and cloth must be at least 6" long, and not extend past the exterior corner of the robot. (Noodles and cloth alone can - in fact MUST - extend past the frame to protect the corner.) The entire length of the BUMPER must be supported by the main frame.

14-01-2009 17:29

Jared Russell

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

I have deleted this post because of my (now) better judgement.

14-01-2009 22:15

Tom Line

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

It'd be pretty upsetting if the GDC reverses what they've already stated very clearly. All corners, both sides, 6 inches. It's intent has been pretty clear in the rules. That still leaves you 16 inches on a long robot to get a ball.

"Wrapping" the string so it touches just the outside edges of your robot and defining that as the bumper perimeter has been pretty well understood too (in my opinion).

If this suddenly changes to allow teams more leeway, other teams that have made serious design decisions that can't be changed would be rather disadvantaged.

14-01-2009 22:32

Woody1458

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

if I were you guys I would put a horizontal path for balls in front of the wall, if just 8" long. I think you may be hitting balls faster then they would be sucked up and you will not get as many balls as you could.

14-01-2009 22:41

IndySam

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Line It'd be pretty upsetting if the GDC reverses what they've already stated very clearly. All corners, both sides, 6 inches. It's intent has been pretty clear in the rules. That still leaves you 16 inches on a long robot to get a ball. "Wrapping" the string so it touches just the outside edges of your robot and defining that as the bumper perimeter has been pretty well understood too (in my opinion). If this suddenly changes to allow teams more leeway, other teams that have made serious design decisions that can't be changed would be rather disadvantaged.

14-01-2009 22:46

dlavery

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abwehr To all with a vested interest in the answer to this question: Expect the GDC to make a ruling on this specific situation by Friday. Enough teams have asked direct questions in the Q&A forum that this specific case will be discussed at the GDC telecon on Thursday (in preparation for Friday's team update).

14-01-2009 22:59

Stuart

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

I think the only thing making it NOT legal is the shortness of the front 2 stubs. The inner slants I don't think count as bumpers because they are not "the outer-most set of exterior vertices", they are just extra safety for the field.

Least I hope thats the only reason. We at 1745 have a very similar frame( but our short stubs are greater than 6".

As for the GDC making a ruling on this. I personal do think this will happen( not that I have inside information . . cause I don't). but mainly because figure 8-2 has an angled frame and it shows the line to follow the angles( granted they are outward angles) . . that picture does kinda muck things up and you know what they say about pictures vs words.

14-01-2009 23:03

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

...If FIRST doesn't want us to lawyer their rules, then why do they make them so damned hard to understand? I mean honestly, if you don't want us snaking for loopholes, make the rules clear! This bumper fiasco is meant to keep our robots safe, but instead end up hindering so many teams. If FIRST wishes that competition be boiled down to a bunch of driving boxes, they'll get what they've had last year: A game that was boring to watch.

</crotchety complainer>

I'm going back to building....

15-01-2009 13:25

Scott Hill

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Precision in communication in any endeavour is as important, if not more so, than precision in measuring or calculation, just to use 2 examples from engineering. You can do layout work with a knotted string or a digital caliper, with the performance of your resulting effort rewarded accordingly. Communication, on the written/spoken end, AND on the reading/listening end, is no different.

The precise use of language; the challenge of presenting requirements and ideas well, AND the challenge of interpreting those same requirements/ideas just as well, is one of my favorite aspects of FIRST, this game included, and the current bumper requirements included. So many people seem frustrated by this, I find it a joy and time passes without notice when I am helping my team determine the limits of the box they have given us within which to play this game.

Carefully reading and understanding the rules and subsequent commentary (without jumping to preconceived or hasty conclusions) is as important an aspect of this game as any other. If you carefully read the rules, the updates, and the Q&A I think you will find that the GDC has been very particular and very consistent in their writing of, commenting on, and answering of questions with respect to the bumpers.

Getting more specific with respect to bumpers, I believe the GDC has stated consistently that all sides of the robot must be protected by bumpers, I do not believe they have ever stated that all sides of the robot must have bumpers (if you look closely, there is an indication that they don't necessarily expect all sides of robots to have bumpers). The two statements do not communicate the same thing and the application of one versus the other can result in significantly different designs, one of which may have advantages over the other. What's the definition of protection of a side you may ask? It seems to me that the GDC states this very clearly when in the Competition Manual they write in <R08> ..."If implemented as intended, a ROBOT that is driven into a vertical wall in any normal PLAYING CONFIGURATION will always have the BUMPER be the first thing to contact the wall."... If you design your robots bumpers so that this is the case, then the side is protected, and protected per the manual requirement.

There is another bumper design concept, developed with what I would call a more comprehensive understanding of the rules, that has only been hinted at in these discussions (if you look carefully) and which I think will appear in significant numbers at competitions. So take off your lawyer hat, put on your Deer Stalker, and re-study the rules / comments.

"Lawyering the rules". I continue to be confused by this phrase in the context in which it is commonly used here. "Understanding, designing and engineering to the rules", is what my team strives for in our participation in FIRST. Too many times I think the phrase "lawyering the rules" is and will be used to denigrate good "understanding, design, and engineering to the rules". I hope this practice goes away.

In the spirit of great communication, GREAT fun, great design, and great engineering......... good luck to all in the pursuit of this challenge!

15-01-2009 13:32

MrForbes

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

"Lawyering the rules" seems to me to refer to the practice of reading the rules with an interpretation that favors your design. The problem with any written language is that it is very difficult to make it precise and unambiguous. For example, my three sons and I were staring at the computer screen, reading a Q&A response, and two of us read it to mean one thing, the other two read it to mean the opposite. Avoiding this problem is a serious challenge that the GDC faces.

15-01-2009 13:45

Tom Line

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

There is another bumper design concept, developed with what I would call a more comprehensive understanding of the rules, that has only been hinted at in these discussions (if you look carefully) and which I think will appear in significant numbers at competitions. So take off your lawyer hat, put on your Deer Stalker, and re-study the rules / comments.

Scott, are you perhaps talking about the idea of orienting your 6 inch bumper segment vertically? Since it only need be 5 inches wide in that case, you do gain 2 inches of opening in that manner.

However, there are several rules that may prohibit that configuration and make it reasonably clear that the intent is to NOT have your 6 inch bumper oriented vertically. Specifically:

B. BUMPERS must use a stacked pair of 2-1/2 inch “pool noodles” as the bumper material.
C. Each BUMPER segment must be backed by a piece of 3/4-inch thick by 5-inch tall piece of plywood.

They're not stacked if the bumper is vertical, and 5 inches tall is pretty specific.

15-01-2009 13:47

smurfgirl

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigHickman ...If FIRST doesn't want us to lawyer their rules, then why do they make them so damned hard to understand? I mean honestly, if you don't want us snaking for loopholes, make the rules clear! This bumper fiasco is meant to keep our robots safe, but instead end up hindering so many teams. If FIRST wishes that competition be boiled down to a bunch of driving boxes, they'll get what they've had last year: A game that was boring to watch.

18-01-2009 12:29

Scott Hill

Re: pic: 397 Bumper Configuration

Tom, sorry for the delay in reply, the job and working with the students in the bot shop take most of my time. That's not the idea. I think you answer your own question very well in finding the bumper configuration you describe to not be legal.