27-01-2009 23:17

sanddrag

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

27-01-2009 23:23

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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?

27-01-2009 23:26

Rizner

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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

27-01-2009 23:29

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

27-01-2009 23:30

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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

27-01-2009 23:39

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

27-01-2009 23:46

MrForbes

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

28-01-2009 00:01

joeweber

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

28-01-2009 00:11

Karthik

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

28-01-2009 00:22

Scott Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

28-01-2009 00:42

waialua359

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Furthermore, we had a team do the same, then came back the next day with duct tape covering the entire PVC holder.
That was a "No-no."

28-01-2009 07:16

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

There is no way (in my opinion) that this is a legal frame. The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated through the Q&A that all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6 inches. You are taking an enormous risk if you play the "it's not a rule" card.

Rules don't trump other rules, ALL rules must be obeyed. There is no way that the configuration shown meets all of the rules set forth by the GDC. We went through this same process with concave openings on the front of the machine (see this), and the GDC was firm in reaffirming that the rules are the rules.

Hopefully the GDC responds to your question clearly and unambiguously, but we've been snakebitten by the letter of the law before. Good luck!

28-01-2009 07:48

Triple B

Re: pic: Robot 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

28-01-2009 08:11

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

28-01-2009 08:18

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Where does it say in the competition manual that Q/A responses are rules? <edit> Do you think the GDC and FIRST actually expect every team to read every Q/A response to be sure they are in compliance with a new rule? </edit>

We're on the 6th revision of the robot manual if "corners must be protected on both sides" was actually a rule the GDC would put it into the competition manual.

Don't forget, Dave Lavery and other GDC members read these forums. They know we're talking about this. They see how many very competent people can argue the issue either way and have decided not to act. Again, If they wanted to make it a rule they would have.

28-01-2009 08:27

XXShadowXX

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

The gdc has even made a Q/A forum export of all the rule changes
link

28-01-2009 08:31

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

That link references a forum export of the 2007 game- not 2009.

28-01-2009 08:39

XXShadowXX

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

*headondesk* sorry

Anyways, as far as i know D and A would we most defiantly unprotected, since there is a hole in between them, if you angle the end of your tubes, and the end of bumpers at a 45 degree angle then it would most likely be legal.
ends C & F you should be able to extend your bumpers around that corner to make one massive bumper, because the ungodly 6 inch rule applies to the whole bumper, not bumper past the vertex of a corner by my understanding

28-01-2009 08:49

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Section 1.6.1 of the manual tells teams about the Q&A forums.

I totally agree that if the "both sides of the corner" ruling is in fact a rule, then it should appear in a team update. However, if it is NOT a rule, then the GDC did my team and many others a disservice by unambiguously answering questions pertaining to bumpers on corners. I don't believe that they would have done that and then reversed course without retracting their response.

So I remain adamant that ignoring the GDC's ruling about corners being protected on both sides is a risky decision.

EDIT: Bill's Blog also fairly unambiguously answered the "both sides" question here.

28-01-2009 09:30

Matt C

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Actually, unless they change Figure 8-2 in the released rules, this configuration seems legal per that figure.

The conflict between this figure and the official Q&A response seems like an issue.

(edit) Unless of course the Figure shows a "curve" rather than a "corner" (the scale is a little small to tell)

28-01-2009 09:55

Scott Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Abwehr,
The GDC has clearly and repeatedly stated, through the Q&A, "both sides of the corner must be protected by bumper segments". And they have stated "bumper segments must be a minimum of 6". I don't believe they have ever stated ..."all bumper perimeter corners must be protected on both sides by a bumper segment of at least 6." The statements do not mean the same thing. Also, this condition is significantly different from the concave corners discussion. I agree with you that the rules are the rules, we all just need to understand them. Go to the "is this corner considered protected" thread for a more in depth discussion.

Thanks,
scott

28-01-2009 10:02

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I hear you- it's definitely unfair.

A.) Your a team who saw the Q/A response and decided to change your design to be consistent with what appeared to be a new addition to the competition manual.

B.) Your a team who has never seen the Q/A response but diligently follows the manual and team updates and an inspector declares your robot illegal.

I feel like this year there is trouble in the GDC. I can't recall a year where they have been inconsistent between the Q/A and rules. It's like this situation occurs:

1.) A team posts a question in the Q/A
2.) Someone representing the GDC answers the question. Most questions are straight forward and are easilly answered. Very rarely the answer quotes a rule in a context which no reasonable person could extrapolate by just looking at the rule. (i.e. "both sides of the corner")
3.) We discuss the matter on Chief Delphi.
4.) Teams move ahead thinking the Q/A response is a rule or will soon be a rule.
5.) The GDC comes together to work on a team update. In committee they decide that the Q/A response was flawed and will not revise the manual.
6.) They drop the issue and do not revise the Q/A response.
7.) Confusion, and we still discuss the matter on Chief Delphi.

Other Q/A Oddities:
1.) Not being able to use I2C.
A.)This appeared legal in the rules.
B.) A team asked specifically via Q/A.
C.)The GDC responded you can not use I2C.
D.) Team update 4 came out and said you could use I2C.
E.) The Q/A response was revised.
In theory this is how things should work. But why did the GDC originally say I2C was illegal?

2.) Not being able to use last year's kit frame without purchasing a new one
A.) This appeared legal in the rules
B.) A team asked specifically via Q/A
C.) The GDC responded saying the frame was "custom" and quoted <R32-B>.
Why doesn't the GDC know the kit bot frame is a COTS part which would negate <R32-B>. Once they did find out, why didn't they modify the Q/A response? This in itself is extremely troublesome if as many of you said the inspectors will treat the Q/A response as a rule.

28-01-2009 10:04

dlavery

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Yes, actually, they do. That is why the Q&A system is explicitly called out in the "Communications" Section of the Manual (Section 1.6), and highlighted as one of the important responsibilities of the team "Game Rules Monitor" position on the team (described in Section 2.6 of the Manual).

It is already there, and has always been there since the Manual was released. So no change to the rule is necessary.

If you don't understand what the rule means, then ask a question in the official Q&A system and have the rule explained. Nothing here is official, and in the context of the competition, nothing discussed here matters. Submit it as a formal question to the Q&A system and get an official determination on the question. I am sure that the folks that answer the Q&A questions will be happy to respond with exactly the same answer that has already been provided multiple times, and let you know that the illustrated bumper configuration will not pass inspection.


.

28-01-2009 10:12

MrForbes

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Apparently the GDC feels it's obvious that

means that there must be bumpers on both sides of every corner of the bumper perimeter, even though the referenced figure shows otherwise, by having unprotected corners on either side of the trailer hitch.

Unfortunately, the folks designing and building robots don't all see it as obvious.

What to do?

28-01-2009 10:38

Elgin Clock

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Avoid a week one regional this year at ALL costs until examples of robots are passed through inspection & we can see what inspectors & the GDC really meant as far as "outside the box" designs that aren't rolling rectangles!

I hate to sound harsh, but apparently there are a lot of loopholes in this rule that the GDC & teams do not see as cut & dry.

Week one will be interesting to say the least.
(Even moreso with bumpers... let alone problems undoubtedly associated with the new control system.)


And a note to teams. Be nice to your inspectors. This year especially!

28-01-2009 10:52

Scott Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Oh boy. Hi dlavery, Scott Hill here. With all due respect and appreciation, I can't find "corners must be protected on both sides" anywhere in the Competition Manual, the Team Updates, or in the answers in Q&A. If precise language is important anywhere it is important here. Would you do me a huge favor and review the thread "is this corner considered protected" and point out any flaws in my attempted logical analysis of this issue?

If you would it would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Scott Hill

28-01-2009 10:55

MrForbes

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Scott, did you read the first reply in this thread? it has a link to a Q&A question which has an answer by the GDC that says just that.

28-01-2009 11:09

Russ Beavis

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

It's becoming obvious that I need to officially release the inspector training materials ASAP. The new materials will include a set of "good"/"bad" diagrams that should, I hope, ensure regional-to-regional inspection consistency. Please check the website with the FIRST manuals often for the inspection materials (I'm sure that a Team Update will probably indicate when the docs are available as well).

After you read the inspection materials, do NOT be surprised if your robot inspector deems the above bumper configuration to be ILLEGAL. The Section 8 Robot Rules and various GDC Q&A responses have always required 6" bumper segments on both sides of every "exterior corner". The diagram at the top of this thread does not have the required 6" segments at every corner ("corner" being EVERY vertex in the Bumper Perimeter).

From my perspective, I think that R08 would be more painfully clear if the word "exterior" were removed from "exterior corners" and figures 8-2 and 8-3 were updated to either officially declare the unlabeled features to be "NOT OK" or fix them so that they are "OK".

Russ Beavis
Chief Inspector

28-01-2009 11:16

Russ Beavis

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I'd also recommend that the wording of Robot Rule R08-i be modified with wording from related Q&A responses to say something like "BUMPERS must protect all corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER with BUMPERS on both adjoining perimeter segments".

More clear? "Protect" isn't very easy to quantify but it's obvious (at least to me) that the GDC Q&A responses are requiring 6"+ bumpers on both sides that meet in a "corner".

Russ

28-01-2009 11:18

rjohnson

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

What would be the point of building a robot with this configuration? I don't know who likes to use less space than they are given to build their robot. Going to this much trouble to add a few extra degrees for trailer movement doesn't make any sense either. Can anyone enlighten me with why this design element is so important?

Also, anybody who wants to do something like this should be careful with <R18E>, which refers to damaging the trailer tongue with bumper contact. If you REALLY wanted to make something like this, I guess you could make it rounded as long as the tangent to the bumper near the trailer is parallel to the side of the robot. It would be much more difficult to fabricate though.

Just to go along with what everyone else is talking about, I think that this configuration is illegal because of the "both sides of the corner" rule. However, I think there are other questions to ask first.

28-01-2009 11:18

T3_1565

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Yeah, this bumper stuff is getting to be very frustrating.

From the way the rule was written I understood it as "We don't want any part of the robot exposed because of the high speed ramming that will occur, so bumpers must be on every corner to ensure there is little damage caused to the field and other robots". This is understandable.

I do not see how ANY part of the robot shown above could make contact with another robot (that is also following the bumper rules) or the field in a way that "the bumpers must make contact first" would not apply. Yes, corner A and B are not covered on both sides of the corner, but at the same time, it is impossible to reach the uncovered side of those corners.

It seems almost like things went a little overboard when making these rules, We might as well just build our robot out of pool noodle wrapped bars, or wrap the whole robot in bubblewrap, with the way this keeps going.
2cents.

PS. to follow what seems to be what the GDC wants, I would also suggest putting bumpers on the inside corners of D and E, as both sides of those corners will also need to be protected.

EDIT: I hope that inspector manual comes out soon, so we can build our robot lol

28-01-2009 11:52

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Dave, I looked carefully at it and I can see where you are coming from now.

28-01-2009 12:06

johnr

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

That picture only shows techniques for mounting bumpers. Trailer hitch could just as easily go b/t a-c or b-d.

28-01-2009 12:16

dlavery

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

No. For the simple reason that ALL discussions and debates here are meaningless. They carry no official weight at all. If you want a determination on the legality of bumper configurations, do what has been suggested (multiple times, both publicly and via PM) and submit a particular, specific question to the FRC Q&A forums. Get your real answers there.

28-01-2009 12:31

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

he's tried twice....

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11361

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11204

no useful answer

28-01-2009 12:43

Matt C

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

The better question to ask would indicate the exact configuration intended to be used, with illustration, and ask if it is legal per the rules.

A picture is worth 1000 words.
Without a completely clear indication of what the design is, (no ambiguity as appears on the second question posted) it would appear hard to give a definitive answer without opening up the door for discrepant designs based on that answer (to an ambiguous question).

I'm sure they would get a useful answer if they provided the illustration to the GDC that they provided to us.

28-01-2009 12:51

jgraber

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Except that specific examples are discouraged at Q&A, they want only rules clarification rather than pre-inspection.
I'm exploring theoretical ways to use the bumper frame as 18 lbs of robot frame stiffener. There is no limit on how far inside the robot perimeter that the bumper side of the interlocking brackets can protrude, right? Only a 1" limit on how far outside the robot perimeter for bumper hard parts.
So a 28x38 piece of plywood the shape of the robot frame, with holes for wheels, etc, with bumper plywood mounted to the edges, is all considered bumper mounting hw, and as long the whole thing with foam and fabric and bolts weighs less than 18 lbs, its legal, and could be used to stiffen the frame of the robot. Sound good? To remove the bumpers, pull all the bolts, drop the bumper floor, and lift/drive the robot out of it. Has anyone weighed a 28x38" full perimeter bumper yet, to see how generous 18lbs is?

28-01-2009 12:55

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Anyone else have a head ache?

28-01-2009 12:59

T3_1565

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

lol... you have no idea... I'm trying to keep track of all this stuff for my team (they are focused on other things besides bumpers right now.. lol) and hopefully our design doesn't end up breaking some bumper rule (as of right now it doesn't but who knows?)

28-01-2009 13:03

Collin Fultz

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Except that R08-L says "The BUMPERS must be fixed to the BUMPER PERIMETER."

28-01-2009 13:42

dlavery

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

<sigh> The Q&A forum has made this statement over and over and over again:
DO NOT READ MORE INTO THE ILLUSTRATION THAN IS SUPPORTED BY THE TEXT OF THE RULE. I don't know how that can be stated more clearly. To state that every illustration must be in complete compliance with every rule in the manual is possibly one of the most unrealistic notions ever. EVERY illustration is based on the reasonable expectation that the audience will apply a modicum of thought to understanding the illustration, and use the available context (established by the referencing text) to identify and extract the useful information supplied. There is NEVER an expectation that an illustration be anything more than an abstraction of a particular subset of all available information, included as a clarifying aide regarding a particular point.

For example, why is it that you are just focused on the presence/absence of bumper segments across the lower edge of the robot in the 8-2 illustration ("lower" in the reference frame of the illustration)? If anyone were really on their game, they would also note that upon immediate inspection the robot is also in violation of Rule <R06>, <R10>, <R11>, <R14>, <R15>, <R18>, <R19>, <R20>, <R21>, <R23>, all of the fabrication schedule rules, <R29>, <R32>, <R33>, every one of the power distribution rules (<R38> through <R49>), <R55>, <R56>, <R57>, <R58>, <R59>, <R62>, <R64>, all of the operator console rules (<R79> through <R88>), <R90>, <R91>, <R93>, and probably several other rules. The illustrated robot is also a two-dimensional figure. Two dimensional robots are not allowed in the competition (implicit effects of Rule <R55>, <R58> and <R64> wherein three-dimensional devices must be included as part of the robot). Since it is in violation of Rule <R18> it cannot haul a trailer, thus it cannot participate as a viable entry into the game. So it is in clear violation of both the letter of the rules and the intent of the game. Yet no one seems to have a problem with that.

At this point, if you have any common sense at all, you are saying "that is silly, of course the illustration of the robot in figure 8-2 doesn't need a control system included. That is not relevant to the text referencing the illustration, and it would be unnecessary - even distracting - to include all that extra information."

That is exactly the point. Neither the illustration nor the text referencing the illustration are saying anything about anything other than the four corners indicted with "OK" or "not OK." Don't assume that there is any more implied information content than that.

28-01-2009 13:54

Cory

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Scott,

I'm not sure what's unclear about "bumper segments". Segments is plural. That implies two bumper segments, which means both sides of the corner.

The odds of that are just about zero. The GDC has stated that they will not comment on the legality of specific designs.

28-01-2009 14:22

Molten

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Hill:
Ok, here's a thought. Listen to lavery. Ask the Q&A and listen to their response. I've read your posts on the Q&A and must say that they answered your question. Their answer was that it is up to the ref. Now, this means: Go ahead with the design and test your luck with the refs, or use a design that you are already 100% certain is completely allowed. How was their response not clear? They answered the question the only way they can.

28-01-2009 14:32

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Dave, for a discussion of figure 8-2 involving a Q and A answer see:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=11

We're trying to take the discussion away from figure 8-2 and judge this configuration based on the original competition manual rules and pertinant team updates and Q and A responses.

Russ stated a simple way all of this could have been avoided and possibly yet be mitigated prior to competition.

We and we think many others would appreciate a Team Update that clarifies this.

28-01-2009 14:53

Matt C

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I believe that if it looks like a corner, acts as a corner, and feels like a corner, it's a corner.

If the point of tangency (of the change in direction) can't easily/quickly be identified, it's probably a curve.

I personally think A and B in the picture are to be considered corners, thus not being a legal configuration.
If they had a much broader radius (lets say >8 in.), I'd start to consider them more a curve than a corner.

28-01-2009 16:56

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

In my mind, a legal curve's minimum radius is functionally defined by your ability to bend a solid piece of 3/4" plywood around it without causing your bumper to break any rules (e.g. it must be backed all the way around by frame and remain rigid and strong).

This limit arguably excludes an even larger class of curves than the "I know a curve when I see it" test...

28-01-2009 17:35

dlavery

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

And how is that test applied when you steam the piece of plywood and bend it around a 1/4-inch radius? (yes, it can be done)

You see, the arguments are not as simple as they might first appear.


-dave



.

28-01-2009 17:39

Gdeaver

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

This thread is an_l retentive. Get on with it. Week 4 is half shot. There have got to be other issues with the robot than your robot's rear end. Square it up and move on. The design does not allow picking up from the floor so you got 7 balls to make count. The drivers need allot of practice to make each one of them count. Our team learned from aim high that the human loading of balls requires great skill. With the strategy you have chosen practice and perfection are more important than the robots but. Let this thread die.

28-01-2009 18:00

Dr Theta

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Here's a purely hypothetical situation. Let's say that a team designs a chassis in which there are no sharp angles, only rounded ones so their bot isn't actually a polygon, nor does it actually have any corners... Say using a bent-pipe frame rather than straight-pipe? Just curious.

28-01-2009 18:02

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

this debate effects other robot orientations than just the one being shown, so it should kinda be resolved before the regionals begin, so dont let the thread die please. This also is not talking specifically about the robot mentioned in the other thread.

28-01-2009 18:13

Dr Theta

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I have to agree that this is a vital issue, I would hate to see teams disqualified over this rule. I believe that this orientation is Illegal as stated within the manual in which clearly states Compliance with all rules is mandatory this orientation is not in compliance with all rules and is therefore illegal.

28-01-2009 19:23

dlavery

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Hopefully, there are NO teams that are allowing this discussion to influence the design of their robots. If any team still has serious questions about how the rules are interpreted and/or applied, they should be going to the official FRC Q&A forums to get those questions answered. To remind everyone once again, NONE of the discussions here - no matter who the source may be - are official answers. Nothing said here will carry any weight with the inspectors or competition officials. "I got the answer on CD" does not work when trying to explain why your 167 pound robot should be allowed to compete (yes, this has happened ).

Related to that, the various responses in the Q&A forums have made it pretty clear that reviews of specific designs will not be provided. But you can expect direct questions about how a rule will be applied to be answered. So when posing your question, instead of asking "here is a picture of my design - tell me if my corner bumpers are legal," you might ask "Given rule <R08-A> and <R08-I>, does this mean that a bumper segment of at least six inches in length is required on each side of an exterior corner of the robot?" I am pretty sure that the second form of the question will be answered (actually, I am pretty sure that it has already been answered multiple times, but some here obviously remain unconvinced).

-dave


.

28-01-2009 19:30

Madison

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Perhaps we might ask instead if "a bumper segment of at least six inches in length is required on each side of EVERY exterior corner of the robot?"

An answer to that ought to quickly affirm whether or not the bumper arrangement surrounding A and B is legal. Or, maybe not.

28-01-2009 20:10

RobotDevil1985

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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.

28-01-2009 21:09

Paul Copioli

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Scott (and everyone else on 1625),

You are smart people. I have met and talked to many of you, but in my eyes you are making fool's of yourselves. I know you and I have a hard time believing you are actually confused. I know that you try to build really competitive robots and many of us understand the huge advantage the configuration you show above gives a team. The rest of us who have figured that out (148, 254, 1114, to name a few) are not doing it because it is painfully obvious to be illegal based on the rules and Q & A.

At some point, you have to realize that your interpretation is wrong and your implementation is illegal whether you agree with it or not. I still think it is strange that a bumper that measures 9" long is really only 6" but you have to move on. I know the inspectors at Midwest and I will bet you a Mountain Dew they will not let this robot compete as shown above.

28-01-2009 21:40

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Paul that picture does not represent our robot fyi.

And we would still be fine if they come out with an update 100% clarifying bumpers must be on both sides of each corner (not just protecting, being there)

It would've been the simplest thing to add to the manual when it was written, and why they didn't I don know. We could've avoided all of this.

and here's the chief inspector himself saying clarifications should be made....
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=29

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=30

28-01-2009 21:45

hillale

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I'll buy you a mountain dew if you're thirsty. We weren't confused, just thought that this was the correct interpretation of the rules and that it should be debated/defended to the fullest extent.

30-01-2009 00:51

Scott Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

dlavery,

<R08-i> states "BUMPERS must protect all exterior corners of the BUMPER PERIMETER (see Figure 8-2)"

<R08-j> states " Corners and joints between BUMPER segments may be filled with short pieces of vertically oriented pool noodle, by wrapping the pool noodles around the corners, or by beveling the ends between adjacent segments so they form a tight and complete protective surface (see Figure 8-2).

Any specification writer worth their salt knows (and if the Competition Manual isn't a set of specifications I don't know what is) that a clear specification has 2 basic requirements; #1-scope of what is to be done, and #2-method for doing it.

<R08-i> is clearly a scoping statement, specifically referring to "all exterior corners" and to Figure 8-2. It is clear that Figure 8-2 has 6 exterior corners, that only 4 of them are protected with adjacent continuous bumpers on each side, and that 2 of them are protected by bumpers adjacent to the corner on one side only. Any reasonable person, and especially a design/engineering professional, can read <R08-i> look at referenced Figure 8-2 and come away with the understanding that all corners do not have to have contiguous adjacent bumpers on each side. This thought process and this understanding is directly to the point of <R08-i> and to suggest otherwise as you do in your prior post ..."That is exactly the point. Neither the illustration nor the text referencing the illustration are saying anything about anything other than the four corners indicted with "OK" or "not OK." Don't assume that there is any more implied information content than that.".... is disingenuous at best.

<R08-j> is clearly a method statement and ADDITIONALLY uses Figure 8-2 to show some possible methods with which corners may or may not be protected by bumpers.

Thanks to all who have taken the time and heart to go in depth with well reasoned and intuitive discussion on this side of the Q&A filter, in this thread and the "is this corner protected thread; dtengineering, MikeDubreui, EricH, squirrel, MattC, Cory, Al Skierkiewicz, Joe Ross, Tristan Lall (especially insightful), to joewebber for providing the initial post/photo for us all to chew on and start this neccessary discussion (brave soul) and to others I have probably omitted. Despite someones prior statement, "All discussions and debates here are meaningless", I have found more meaning in these discussions than in my attempts to communicate through the Q&A filter. I would really enjoy being in a room with all of you and a whiteboard to continue on. The cumbersom aspects of posting back and forth really drag things out.

Russ Beavis,

The language you suggest would have cleared things up and if that was the GDC's intent should have been included at the beginning. I eagerly await your release of the "good"/"bad" diagrams and the inspector training materials. They are sorely needed and quickly.

Thanks to all, see you at competitions,

Scott Hill

30-01-2009 01:27

Molten

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Finally, an end to the thread. Now, nobody ruin it.

30-01-2009 14:53

dlavery

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Since I was explicitly called out on it, I do feel an obligation to respond. I will repeat what I said above - the discussions and debates here are meaningless. In the eyes of the officials at the competitions, these discussions do not exist. They carry no official weight, and will do nothing to convince an inspector that a particular solution is within the rules.

On the particular topic at hand, official answers have been provided - multiple times. The referenced design violates the rules, and will not be permitted. End of discussion. Whether you agree with the interpretation of the rules or not does not matter. The ruling is what the ruling is. You accept it and move on.

Yet some have chosen to continue even after the ruling was made. They have clearly indicated that they do not intend to use this design themselves, but are merely arguing simply for the sake of arguing and upholding a point in which they do not actually believe. That is the point where you have become the very definition of disingenuous, and as Paul Copioli has said, "you are making fool's of yourselves." That is the point where cantillation erudition to corpulent ungulates ceases (to quote RSH), and I choose not to participate.

-dave


.

30-01-2009 15:03

EricH

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

And to agree with Dave, the GDC has issued the following Q&A: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11644 which reads in part:

If it isn't clear by now, then it will never be. The "robot" pictured is not legal to compete.

30-01-2009 15:13

Luis28

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

how far should the trailer hitch be away from the bumpers.

30-01-2009 15:16

EricH

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Far enough to not hit the trailer tongue on the bumpers before the trailer bumpers hit your bumpers (<R18-E>). Any more specific answer will depend on your specific design.

30-01-2009 16:15

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

No one is being disingenuous or making a fool out of themselves. (Anyone who assumes anyone else is a fool is acting elitist IMHO)

I have 10 years of FIRST experience and a college engineering degree... this puts me into the category of person who should be able to easily understand the competition manual.

My concern is that the competition manual does not adequately explain why Mr. Hill's image is illegal. If it does explain it, it is not clear enough for a high school audience. It's as if "lawyering" must be used to understand why it is non-compliant.

I get a unique perspective working with other FIRST teams in the Boston schools. For many of these students English is not their first language. Many of the teams do not have a strong foundation. They are not your "typical suburban" FIRST teams where FIRST powerhouses reside. These type of teams will have difficulty with confusing rules.

Again, I'm not looking to get into a "I'm right, you're wrong" match. I just find the bumper rules to be inadequate enough to avoid confusion.

30-01-2009 17:20

EricH

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Gentlemen, please see http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Team%20Update%208.pdf for the most current clarification.

hillale, I think you might owe Copioli a Mountain Dew.

30-01-2009 17:38

Ian Curtis

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Yet, with 6 years of FIRST experience, not even a high school diploma (yet), and a few hours of my time, I came to these conclusions? I thought it was relatively clear. Could it have been clearer? Yup. But the Q&A effectively cleared up these sticking points by the end of week 2. And if you can't be bothered to read the Q&A, why are you spending thousands of dollars competing?

30-01-2009 18:05

MikeDubreuil

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Well maybe you're just waaaaay smarter than me

BTW: I do read the Q/A.

- The competition manual should be able to make it's case without relying on the Q/A. I have found that 99% of questions are easily answered by reading the manual; for instance, this thread. I found Figure 8-2 confusing and I don't think it was a good way to show the 4 corner examples.

- Fortunately or maybe unfortunately, many teams don't have to work as hard to come up with the funds for registration. I have seen that this works in ways that wasn't intended. I have actually encountered these: "Why do I have to read the rules? It will be okay if we ship a couple days late. Why doesn't someone from FIRST come and mentor us?"

30-01-2009 18:26

Manoel

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Well, none of us down here have English as our first language, neither are we a powerhouse team and we never had a problem understanding the bumper rule - in my opinion, it's never been a matter of understanding it, more like "we don't like it the way it is so we'll pretend to be crazy and circumvent it".

Lots of people are confusing "lawyering" with "basic logical reasoning". FIRST can't possibly write down every outcome of a rule clause. If proposition A and B clearly lead to conclusion C - and let's be honest, the relation is quite clear to anyone trying just a little bit hard to understand the rule -, then there's no need to make it explicit-rub-in-your-nose-spell-like-you-really-mean-it-72-pt-bright-pink-font.

Nobody wants a 700-page manual that's absolutely juridically perfect and leaves even the world's greediest lawyer without chance of arguing, right?

Sorry if I came out harsh, but this bumper thing has taken way too much of everyone's time for nothing. I don't hate many things, but time-wasting and false dilemmas are amongst the few.

30-01-2009 19:03

Ian Curtis

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Ah, sorry about that. I didn't mean to insinuate you didn't, just that some teams don't and then complain when their robot is illegal. And I do sound pretty pompous, I didn't mean to come across as such.

Which particular issue gave you trouble that wasn't adequately answered by the Q&A?

30-01-2009 20:18

JaneYoung

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

That was beautiful.

I thought I was the only one.

Thank you, Manoel.

Jane

30-01-2009 21:39

5n1p3r

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

AMAZING lol!

31-01-2009 15:26

winkelman2007

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

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

31-01-2009 17:22

Mike8519

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

BUMPERS must be mounted in the BUMPER ZONE which is defined as two horizontal planes at 1" and 7" from the ground

02-03-2009 13:43

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

Copiloli got his mountain dew lol

02-03-2009 16:59

Paul Copioli

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I would have rather you guys won your last qualification match, but the Dew was tasty anyway and it worked out for you guys in the end.

You have a fantastic robot this year and good luck at Wisconsin. Watch out for Ashley from 2022 as she is deadly accurate with the super cells... as you already know.

02-03-2009 17:40

Dillon Carey

Re: pic: Robot Bumpers

I wish we would have won our last match to, but like you said it worked out for us so I'm not complaining.

your welcome for the mountain dew.

She was really good. Our strategy was to stay on the opposite side of the field of 2022's HP, at least for the last 30 seconds. Wich worked well for 2 out of 3 matches.

Good luck at your next regional.