What if our bumper had a pneumatic system on that made it extend out wards pushing robots away from us would this be legal. IF not what about a Pneumatic shield at which teams might be able to build that the pneumatic system extends forward hitting another robot. Thoughts?
My thoughts would be to carefully re-read the rules about bumper attachment, specifically R24-E. To define FRAME PERIMETER in that rule, look back at R02 (specifically the fixed, non-articulated section). I know that teams have thought of this in the past, but unless the rules change in the future, I don’t think they will be allowed.
The Frame Perimeter cannot be articulated (R02). Bumpers must be attached to the Frame Perimeter (R24E). Not legal.
IF not what about a Pneumatic shield at which teams might be able to build that the pneumatic system extends forward hitting another robot. Thoughts?
If it started inside the Frame Perimeter, then it probably would be legal. However, you would be well advised to take heed of G28 and G29; such a device would invite scrutiny from referees if used for the stated purpose in a match. Also be wary of the 54" cylinder restriction, which does include bumpers.
Purely hypothetical, but I wonder if bumpers that moved up and down (within the legal height range) and did not change the frame perimeter would be allowed.
Not sure why you’d want that though 
The rules don’t handle relative motion very well, so if all the bumpers were rigidly connected together on a frame, you could credibly argue that the drivetrain subframe was articulating parallel to the floor on the pneumatic cylinders (and that the bumpers were not). However, if you’re not in the mood to confuse people, this may not be such a good idea.
well it was and idea so if a team didnt get a finished robot at the competion we might be able to make this. So wat about the sheild that extends and bashes other robots.
You could have them down most of the time so that they act like a wheelie bar making your robot harder to tip, but if you need to go over an obstacle on the field they could be raised.
But that could be accomplished with pneumatically raising/lowering your choice in drive module.
You probably have a bit of rule-reading to do 
Defense is okay, and very important but an appendage specifically designed to cause damage to other bots doesn’t align well with the rules.
As far as a robot part, it would be legal as long as it stayed inside the 54" cylinder and started within the frame perimeter. But check the gameplay rules again.
Specifically, be VERY, VERY careful with G28 and G29. What those two say I leave to you to find out; however, the proposed device would have a minimum 75% chance of triggering at least one of those two, which would result in a rather hefty penalty (and the second time used would increase the penalty).
Indeed. Though, what if you had an extendable wall made with bumper-like construction that you could use to play lead-blocker to allow offensive robots to get to scoring/feeding positions without harassment.
It’s not intended to damage robots, it’s intended to shove them out of the way. You might even be able to have it actuate out at an angle so that you can push them off to one side.
Granted, you would need a drivetrain with lots of torque and the ability to go fast (WCP/Vex Pro Shifters anyone?) but if that’s all you’re doing, why not?
If you did it right, you would probably be A-OK, at least as far as the robot rules are concerned. (We’ll leave out the question of how you work it with your alliance partners–that’s your problem.)
Doing it right would mean something like a snowplow or cowcatcher (the angled part of the quoted post), covered with some form of padding and/or cloth, designed to stay in the bumper zone and the 54" cylinder when deployed but start inside the frame perimeter. I would say that that would be quite legal as regards both robot and gameplay rules (though I do suggest checking to make sure your actuation method is legal).
Working it out with your alliance partners wouldn’t be too hard. Just make sure that the primary robot you choose to protect doesn’t out-drive yours, and is worth protecting. It would work especially well with a teammate that happens to be susceptible to defense.
I’m sure 840 would have loved a robot that can put a cow catcher out on their alliance. It means the potential 84" robot has to be that much further away from them.
The line of questioning seems a bit silly to me, I assume your new or simply not conveying your idea well, because “bashing” another robot typically would be taken as intent to damage, and if you don’t intend to do damage (where you are coming back towards the realm of legality), what you are describing would be similar to using your frame and bumpers.
Even an appendage wrapped in bumper material is still very likely to cause damage if it isn’t hitting something else covered in bumper material (and rigid), since you want it to have enough power to push robots.
In general, just about the only thing that will reliably push a robot’s drivetrain, is another robot’s drivetrain, building an appendage to do that doesn’t make sense because you can just use the robot itself for that.
My team has debated the merits of extendable “bumpers” on several occasions, but we’ve always ended up deciding that it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. Here’s a few of the conclusions that we reached.
In order to make such a device fit the current rules, it would have to:
- Start the match retracted within the frame perimeter (because it cannot technically be a bumper if it is articulated in any way)
- Remain within the same height zone that bumpers fit into, so as to avoid being misconstrued as a device intended to contact an opponent outside the bumper zone
- Be constructed from a material which is simultaneously smooth enough to avoid damaging other robots, whilst also being strong enough to withstand multiple, severe impacts
Within these restrictions, my team liked the idea of a 1/4-inch thick sheet of polycarb (or 1/8" thick aluminum, or 3/32" thick steel…), bent into the same shape as the outside edge of a bumper, and with extra bracing as necessary to ensure rigidity. We debated the merits of over-the-bumper deployment versus going through a gap in the bumpers, but ended up dismissing the idea before we came to a conclusion on that one.
My first thought was where the pneumatic bumper attaches to the CRIO is not that strong. You don’t want to be bashing other robots with it. :eek:
In terms of moving other robots. Your drive train has to be strong enough to hold the reaction force. If so you can just use your existing bumpers & drive train to push the other bots around. Oh wait some teams already to that. 
Thinking outside the box is a good thing. Just realize that a lot of times there is a good reason the idea is not in the box to begin with. 