Our intake is, obviously, under-the-bumper. The idea is to basically have a separate trapezoidal piece of the bumper higher up over the intake. This would basically mean that the points to the sides of the intake are angled inwards, maybe giving us another inch or so of easy-peasy intaking by funneling the note a little bit.
The main part of the bumper would be around 1/2" off the ground (in the 1/2" to 5-1/2" area) and then the trapezoid blue section would be 2-1/2," as high as it can go to allow note clearance.
I can’t really see why this would be illegal. It seems like a why not? type of thing, perhaps saving us a few milliseconds on intaking.
I believe the trapezoidal section would break the bumper cross section rule since at the edges of the trapezoid you would not have the full cross-section.
Aside from the potential issues with the cross section, this is legal per Q97 and Q29. You could use a rectangular lifted bumper section and then put funneling pieces underneath.
I don’t really see this rule preventing this. While the cross-section of the angled part is less than the rulebook, the total cross-section is the same, as the angled sections overlap, only offset slightly in height. They are simply cut at an angle, just as many bumpers are for corners.
I think my team might make these and make it easy to switch them all to the high-version (bumper brackets should be easy to re-screw lower.) We can ask at our first comp, and if refs say this is illegal, we can easily switch entire bumpers to the high-up version and fit other shields below to block unwanted notes on non-intake sides.
Something like this would definitely work for note clearance, but we would be missing the extra angle funneling. We may end up going with this either way.
If I was inspecting, I would say the top circled section of bumpers are not backed by plywood and the bottom circled sections do not have adequate noodle material in front of the plywood.
I think you are going to be unable to convince any inspector at any event that this cross-section matches the one shown in figure 8-6, and you will be setting your team up for a wasted practice day making replacement bumpers in the pits.
Asmith1675 is also correct that the highlighted areas don’t meet the requirements.
The argument that “they’re cut at an angle just like any corners” is inaccurate. This section is similar to what you’d see on an outside corner
At first (pun intended) blush, I asked myself, “self (I knew it was me…I recognized my inner voice), would this work? Is it legal? I answered, yes and no. The problems I have are more structural than any thing else. IF you are doing quick disconnect…that center piece needs two…and the rest as appropriate. Is there a greater than 1/2” gap? No. R401 is satisfied (IF what is CAD’ed is done). How about the angle? On corners they are allowed…why not here? Protection is offered. How about the height? IF that “intake” funnel bumper is under 7.5"…legal.
The real issue becomes on the “raised” front bumper (R410). The lower looks like the wood backing supports the bumper fully…The raised one…not so much. IF this was a straight cut and not an angled cut…I would say that it would pass. HOWEVER…I am not an inspector.
The other issue…MAYBE…is placement of the officially sized team numbers. I am not sure.
I guess the real question (aside from the obvious), what is the minimum thickness of the bumper required by FRC? IF it is no less than 2" (compression)…Then the mod is illegal. IF any part is less than that…one needs to rethink the bumper before they compete. Then one would have to ask if doing a corner with 45* cuts fall into the “illegal” category. IF it was not “connected” to another piece…and that cut is not supported by the wood. Yet they say it is a legal corner.
IF the goal was to use it as a funnel, and you are dead set on “raising” that section…make it a straight cut…no angles…and use polycarb or lexan to aid the pieces to your intake.
I don’t disagree with you one bit. The pic is a weird “C or Uish” bumper. That “raised” bumperette is not done like this. They can try it…and if it is allowed…I am good with it.
Generally speaking, any bumper that doesn’t have the Official Cross-Section as shown in the drawing* is right out. Whether it’s missing wood or noodle parts is irrelevant.
Cut the raised section square instead of angled and it’s legal.
*or the allowed mods for corners/optional/fasteners.
OK, I will try and explain. The original idea of chamfer/miter the bumper to allow it to direct notes into the robot does not seem legal for the reasons stated. That is, that the cross section in the bumper rules is not maintained. The example of miter cut for corners is a legal method for the corners in that it maintains the cross section and protects “hard parts” of the robot from coming in contact with other robots.
As show in the photo of 1114, bumpers can be different heights around the robot as long as all other parts of the Bumper rules are maintained, i.e. all parts are in the bumper zone, there are no gaps between segments wider than 1/2" and pool noodles are not modified by compressing them or cutting sections out. However, there is a method you can accomplish the direction of the notes using angled materials that are not bumper, polycarb or aluminum. The bumper segment on the entire side of your robot where you intend to pick up notes can be raised so that the top edge is at or below 7-1/2". If you bumper is constructed as shown, that should leave you with 2-1/2" between the floor and the bottom of your bumper.
In addition to the other concerns listed here, I think if you consider the red & blue as a single bumper (to make other aspects of it “legal”), then it is probably too tall to be legal.
I really seen no reason not to mount the bumper higher (just shy of max height) with normal butt-ends and then just add in polycarb skirts near the swerve modules to funnel stuff in. There are ways to make things pop out pretty easily if you want the larger “funnel”.
If the design is pressing this many bumper rules at once that is a bit too close to my golden tule of “never build your robot around the presence of a loophole”
Bumper rules are hilariously lax in some ways, but as far as cross section is concerned not so much.
Let me remind everyone who is lurking here, the BUMPER ZONE is between the floor and 7-1/2" above the floor. It is not from the bottom of the robot as implied in the above drawing. If the higher bumper segment was the correct dimension and the top of that segment were at the maximum dimension above the floor, there should be ~2-1/2 inches between the floor and the bottom of the bumper segment. A typical bumper is ~5 inches in height.
As a reminder, the bumper vertical cross section shown in Fig. 8-6 of R408 must be maintained for all bumper segments.
Our team ended up using pneumatic wheels on our bot (we were going to use our swerve setup but are new it it, and it sits even lower). Our bumpers are 5" in height, and are at the 7.5" height limit, but are one solid piece (as the pictures show). We were curious, if we wanted to lower the bumpers an inche but cut out the bottom 1 inch in the front to give more clearance for the note, would that be permitted?
Or does the width of the bumper all the way around have to the the same? as in 5 inches all the way around?
