Legal Bumper???

We are curious if a bumper like this would be legal?

Hmmm, I’ve never even thought of this before, providing the top and bottom are still within the “bumper zone” it seems okay. This looks like a question for the Q&A though.

As far as I an tell, there’s nothing in the bumper rules that prohibits that design as long as the plywood is 5" high at all points and the top/bottom edges don’t exceed the bumper zone (2-10"). Practically, I don’t see a reason for it to be illegal as those bumpers will still make contact with another robot’s correctly constructed bumpers at all points except the front opening (which I suspect will be common this year anyways). From a practical standpoint, it might make more sense to make the bumpers as 5 different sections (2 low sections, 3 high sections) or with hard edges instead of the curves. Either of those modifications shouldn’t change how it is ruled though.

My mentor and I were acutally looking through Q & A and this question was brought up and I think it was answered as well. That kind of a bumper is totally legal. As far as we know. We are thinking something similar as well.

We actually a posted a question to this effect on Q&A and it has been answered. As stated in previous posts, as long as the entire bumper is in the bumper zone this appears to be legal but please read the questions and answers to make your assessment.

Now, if they would just answer all the questions about appendages…

Thanks Everyone. Looks like we are going to go with it

Here is the close to final concept

More pics here

Maybe I’m missing something, but just out of curiosity, whats the advantage of the “dropped center” design for the bumpers?

Whenever 2 robots get in a pushing match, the one with lower bumpers always has more leverage. If the bumper is lower, then the pushing robot won’t be able to wedge itself under the other team’s bumper and contact the t-boned robot’s frame, so it won’t have an advantage in leverage; therefore, it’s less likely that the robot being pushed will tip over.

Is the 5 in height requirement in [R28A] a constraint on the local height of the bumper plywood at every point, or a constraint on the total height of each segment of bumper plywood?*

You should probably ask the Q&A exactly that (or build a conventional set of bumpers, in case the inspectors rule it was a global constraint).

*In what orientation?

Q&A has already ruled that angled bumpers and bumpers at varying heights are legal.

  					Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R29 							
  				 							Q. **As  long as no other rules are violated, can the various sections of  bumpers on a robot be at different heights within the bumper zone?   Would this apply to the 2 bumper sections on adjacent sides of a common  vertex?  Can bumper sections be mounted non-parallel to the floor in the  bumper zone?** 							A. There are no rules prohibiting either of these scenarios.

If it’s total height of bumper plywood, then the quoted Q&A needs revision.

I think the Q&A makes clear that if every individual segment is 5 in tall, their relative orientation doesn’t matter for the purposes of height. But it’s not clear how that applies to a single segment. Is the restriction on the height of the bumper between every pair of vertically aligned points on the top and bottom edges, or is it between the two extrema (the highest and lowest points) on the top and bottom edges? (And how does the orientation of the bumper affect these measurements, if at all?)

We cited the Q&A that Eric posted as well. Although this bumper design isn’t a requirement for us, it plays into our robot’s CoG just a bit. If we are deemed to have illegal bumpers later on, it is a quick fix for us.

The 5" plywood as referred to in the bumper rules is the bumper in cross section. i.e.Two stacked 2-1/2" pool noodles backed by a 5" high, 3/4" plywood covered in fabric. Where ever you have 2 pool noodles they are backed by 3/4" plywood as long as other parts of the rules are satisfied. Vertical sections in the corners for instance, and the 1" hard parts specification.