Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I wonder if the GDC has ever "changed their mind."

From the standpoint of an event volunteer, I hope they do... this ruling really makes no sense...

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

so the question i would have is this:

Is a human hand an appendage? or is it the fingers? or is it the arm? We can spend all day arguing the points of the question. We'll have to find out week one or in an update. The gnashing of teeth is wasted energy.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Under conventional definition, or GDC definition?

Under GDC definition, when a finger broke the plane, it would be an appendage. When another finger broke the plane, it would be a different appendage if there wasn't a contiguous element (i.e., the palm area) on the outside of the plane. Then when the palm broke the plane, it would be one appendage again. Or you could break the plane with a fist, then expand into a flat hand, and you'd be legal.

There is a slightly different interpretation of one of the Q&As that has to do with exactly which phrase a particular modifier (contiguous, IIRC) applies to. Under the most common interpretation, it applies to the parts of the appendage; it could also plausibly apply to the appendage as a whole (which is what common sense would have it apply to).

Either way, it's a big PITA, and my guess is that IRI will handily forget to check appendage contiguousness if FRC doesn't.

(I have been thinking of a way to make an uncontiguous appendage contiguous for a short time while deploying--it could theoretically be easily applied with a little bit of leftover weight and an hour or so at an event. No design drawings yet, though--I'm still plotting and scheming how to do it.)

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I am going to take a stab at summarizing where I think the definition of a legal appendage is at this point. I believe that the only legal appendages at this point would be a U or T shaped one with the bottom of the U or the top of the T pointing up prior to deployment. As the appendage is deployed the bottom of the U or the top of the T, which in both cases would be the contiguous part, would be the first edge to break the frame perimeter. Does this seem like a reasonable, common sense approach to take?

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I wouldn't go so far as to say these are the only legal appendages...

If you were to have an H or U or Y shaped appendage you could use two separate motions .. one to move the entire H or U or Y out beyond the frame and then fold it down (when it is outside the frame perimeter).

"Its contiguity extension would preceed its rotary deployment"

Push the Y out beyond the frame and then rotate it down...

think linkages...or two separate controlled motions.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I don't think you have to go that far. An H would satisfy the requirement as long as it was 1) “an appendage is a contiguous assembly that may extend beyond the frame”

Are putting words on the GDC's mouth about the rest if this?

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

i am not sure what you mean by the last statement but it is pretty clear that if you "lead" with the open part of the "H".. that your design will be illegal

The Q and A answer (see above somewhere) is pretty clear that any appendage must ALWAYS be contiguous outside the frame perimeter.

The contiguity issue is unambiguous...sort of...
I love using those big words...

In case you hadn't read the QA the latest in the ongoing appendage saga....

Q. It seems the appendage definition Q&A started out innocently requesting clarity, but led to being over-scrutinized. I suspect the intent of G21 is that an appendage is simply “a contiguous assembly of parts originating from inside the frame and can extend beyond one frame edge 14”.” Please confirm. FRC1619 2012-02-02
Follow
A. There is no formal definition of appendage. All pieces of an appendage outside the Frame Perimeter must be contiguous outside the Frame Perimeter.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

In other words, we're not putting words in the GDC's mouth. We're taking what they say at face value. Because they don't specify that appendages in the process of being deployed are exempt from contiguity checks, we can reasonably assume that an H or a Y that simply rotates downwards will at some point be discontiguous outside the frame perimeter. Therefore, it becomes illegal at that time, drawing a foul.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

so if I add rubber bands to my "H" and attach them to a wire so that as they deploy downward they remain "contiguous" but in functionality they are two separate pieces it would be legal?
So, I would follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law? I find that situation indefensible and ripe for an update.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Stringing a rubber band around the prongs of the H wouldn't really make them contiguous. When I think contiguous, I think rigid attachments.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

not meaning to be contrary, but where is that stated in the rule book?

Contiguous defined:

1. bordering, adjoining, abutting. 2. adjacent.

The two parts are adjoined by a rubber band. Thank you for proving my point. :-)

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Contiguous defined from Merriam Webster:

You gave some wonderful synonyms, but not a very good definition.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Again, I would say I am within the letter of the law. All parts of my two "halves" are touching (through another member), therefore, contiguous.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

I'm very curious as to the ruling on components that are touching, but not rigidly connected. For example, in the wheel drawing that Art provided, would it become legal if a brush was added to the front of the support, keeping the wheel's tread in constant contact with the support?

If it does, then I think that most illegal appendage concepts could be legalized through similar means.

If it doesn't, things become hairy in a hurry. For example, is a threaded fastener legal? At some point, the outsides of each thread will be beyond the frame perimeter, while the core of the bolt that keeps it "contiguous" is within the perimeter. Even if you ignore the threads, the bolt is not strictly "connected" to the appendage around it.

Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?
 

Only official way to know would be to ask the GDC directly through the Q&A. We can argue semantics till the cows come home, but if you want to know for sure, ask through the Q&A.