Originally Posted by Retired Starman (Post 1358466)

Many of the robot construction rules may not make sense to the robot builders. But think not of "rules" but of "specifications". I wish FIRST would call the robot construction "rules" ,"specifications" instead.

When real engineers build products for the customer, it is the customer who gives them the specifications. The engineer doesn't argue with the specifications, but builds the product to meet them, because that's what the customer is PAYING FOR.

The customer may have a very valid reason for the specification, even if the engineer doesn't know what they are. For instance, specifying the model motor to be used on the robot. Say a customer is buying a mail-delivery robot to place in each of its 5000 business locations. They already inventory a particular motor at each of these locations, so it makes sense for them to specify this motor for use on the robot you have been contracted to design. It saves the customer from having to spend thousands to stock a different motor when you can design around their existing motor. Motors go bad, and having the right motor in inventory is nice and saves the customer money.

Another example from the same mail-delivery robot. The specifications may call for dimensions to not exceed 28 in. If you design larger than this, the robot won't go through all the doors in the customer's many locations.

Stop trying to get around FIRST's robot specifications Design your robot to meet them, even if you, in your infinite wisdom, think these specifications are dumb!

Dr. Bob
Chairman's Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

Originally Posted by Tem1514 Mentor (Post 1358526)

In your real life example above what happens when the customer comes back after you have been building for, lets say three weeks and changes the specifications? Would you, as the design be entitled to some form of compensation?
Just asking.

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1358530)

I am not sure what this has to do with pre-charging your air tank unless you bought the wrong compressor. :)

Originally Posted by cgmv123 (Post 1358531)

There was only one change to the pneumatics rules all season and it was just a minor language clarification. ...

Originally Posted by FrankJ (Post 1358533)

That was sort of my point. But after 3 pages (oops 5) of discussion, I felt the thread needed some levity. There really needs to be a mild sarcasm smilie.

But since we or on the subject of specifications, anybody notice the recommended regulator in rules has a maximum outlet pressure of about 100 psi? You have to adjust it to 60 PSI. Which is how most people interpret this rule, but it is really not what it is saying.

Originally Posted by Steve W (Post 1358787)

You would also be playing with an un-inspected robot which would be a DQ for your alliance if they wanted to go that far.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 1358790)

If the team is correctly asserting that it's a spare, wouldn't that imply that all spares, once installed, must be re-inspected? (Right now, conventional practice is not to require this—for good reason.)

Or are we not presupposing that it's a legal spare? (And why?)

Originally Posted by mmaunu (Post 1358771)

We had a question about the "one and only one" wording so we asked it in Q&A. I think that many people will be surprised with the result.

Game - The Robot
Q209 Q. Rule R79: "compressed air on the ROBOT must be provided by one and only one compressor." 1) We can only use one compressor at a time, but can swap out compressors (e.g. if the one we are using starts to overheat). 2) We can only use one compressor for an entire event. Which reading is correct?
FRC2485 on 2014-01-22 | 2 Followers
A. Situation 1, but also consider T8 and T10.
Published by GDC

I'm not trying to stir the pot but simply point out that it is legal to use multiple compressors (e.g. if one starts to overheat).

Originally Posted by dradel (Post 1359062)

I'm laughing out loud right now. How long can this thread go on???