Team Update #5 Posted
 

I didn't see this posted anywhere yet.

http://www2.usfirst.org/2007comp/Upd...pdate%2005.pdf

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

This is big

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Uh, don't they have their wording backwards?

I agree with the rule... But if "tinted" is ok, then aren't some reflective lens ok?

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

that is what i am wondering. i have some mirrored saftey glasses.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

If I might hijack this thread, these two rules appear to be in confliction. Does anyone have a more clear interpretation?



Under Rule<R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to
the Bimba Custom Cylinder Order form found on the last page of the Pneumatics Manual.



<R106> The following pneumatics items may be added to the ROBOT:
 -Prior year FIRST Kit Of Parts pneumatic cylinders, solenoid valves, and pneumatic tubing may be used in addition to those items in the 2007 Kit Of Parts. Their costs must be
accounted for explained in Section 8.3.4.3 Additional Parts - Cost Limits and
Accounting.


Now, while Rule 105 states that the only cylinders that may be used are the ones available on the order form, Rule 106 goes ahead and allows cylinders that may not be available on the Bimba form- including rodless actuators- not simply cylinders with slightly different stroke lengths.

Have I missed an update somewhere, or is this a question for Q&A?

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

<R105> as amended and <R106> are potentially in conflict.

Originally, with respect to the old KOP Parker cylinders, <R105> prevented them from being purchased and used (since they're not the same as the Bimbas), but <R106> specifically allowed them to be used if not purchased (they came in a previous KOP). <R48> supports this notion, with a "YES" entry for previous years' cylinders.

Now for the interpretation business. The update states that "[u]nder <R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to the [ones on the form]". Does that mean "the only cylinders allowed are the ones on the form", or does it mean "cylinders governed by <R105> may only be the ones on the form"? The former is a direct conflict with <R106>, which currently allows the old Parker KOP cylinder. Note that there is a distinction, because <R105> does not address non-purchased cylinders (other than to say that there is no numerical limit, and that they must be rated for 125 psi). If the latter was intended, then clearer wording would be appropriate, because it's easy to interpret the update too broadly.

<R106> doesn't concern cylinders in general—only those in old kits. So rodless cylinders aren't allowed (unless we received one in a kit at some point).

On another note, it's a little unlikely that a Parker Hannifan dealer would have Bimba cylinders, and not be a Bimba dealer. Indeed, by definition, selling a Bimba cylinder pretty much makes them a Bimba dealer (though not necessarily a factory-authorized one). Since no Parker products have ever existed on the Bimba free cylinders form (that should hardly be a surprise), it doesn't make much sense to talk about Parker dealers in the rule. I know it's a holdover from an old rule, but it should probably be edited out of <R105>, one of these years.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

GOOD


BAD


BAD


The latter two actually dull your vision, while the tinted goggles are designed to brighten it. The darker goggles are designed for working in very bright environments, and are not suitable for a FIRST competition. (Note, this was the 116 shop training, and we warned those team members with inappropriate goggles then to purchase new ones).

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

From this thread in the FIRST Q&A:

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

That GDC answer leaves out the word "purchased", which is found in <R105>, and which is the basis of the omission that I referred to. <R106> is not in a position to override <R105> on the specific issue of non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders, and as a result, this answer is not consistent with the rule as it is actually written.

Despite that, judging by these two Q&A responses and the update, it seems that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders. To keep things consistent, <R106> therefore ought to also be amended to include something similar to the last sentence of <R105> (stating that even non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders need to be the same as the ones in the current Bimba form). If that amendment is made to <R106>, the inconsistency will disappear, because the non-purchased ex-KOP Parkers will become explicitly illegal.

Is a team ever going to try to read the rules in that depth, and take advantage of what seems to have been an accidental oversight? How many teams even have those old Parkers lying around, available for use? I don't know, but leaving even minor discrepancies around serves nobody's interests.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

I'd be tempted to argue that a FIRST competition is a fairly bright environment for the drive teams down on the field under the stage lights. Glare off of the plexiglas and various shiny field elements can be quite bright and distracting at times, spurring our drive team to switch to polarized, 'shaded' saftey glasses two years ago - we found it did help noticeably with the glare.

I can understand the pits are by no means a similar lighting setting, and non-shaded safety glasses could be deemed more appropriate - but I know I'll be missing having my polarized glasses as a driver this year.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

You beat me to it. Being down on the competition field is a completely different environment**. You get a lot of glare off the plexiglass and the diamond plate reflects light back at you as well. Also, the stage lights are very bright and one at the wrong angle can be very annoying while trying to operate your robot. I definitely think this is gonna cause alot of debate.

As for being in the pits, I understand that one. Being in a area with poor lighting as it is, and then having shaded glasses can be an issue. I, myself, don't have that much of a problem, but i'm sure other people do too.

** The different environment while being on the field also has prompted our driver team, coach, and human player to wear shorts. While it may be 20F outside, it's VERY warm down on the field and you definitely want to be comfortable.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

I always wore the Tinted ones. I loved them. I had a pair of sunglass safety glasses a few years ago, which I thought only made things worse. But to echo what everyone else has been saying, being on the field is completely different then the pits, so I could see how people would be upset by it. However, it is just safety glasses, who cares. Wear a pair that feels comfortable and that are okay to wear according to the rules. It really is not that big of a deal.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

I plan on carrying three sets of glasses on to the field then this year. Clear, Amber Tinted, and Shaded.

Agreed, especially when the power went out to the secondary pits at UCF. Some parts of that tent were somewhat dim if you were away from the doors.

20F outside? In Florida? *glances at thermometer that reads 70F* I wish.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Is that the intent here? No Parker cylinders from previous years? If that is the intent, then the first bullet of <R106> is completely redundant since any of the items listed there would be covered by <R24>.

We have nearly all of the pneumatics components that were in any of the previous year's kits - and we use 'em. (We used a 2001 cylinder on our 2005 robot.) We just want to be sure that we are within the rules!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
The RoboDox

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

I like the scoring simulator. Nice to give us a tool like that.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Now you just watch, the next thing they will say is no shorts allowed in the pits.

:ahh:

I mean seriously. The whole safety glasses thing isn't a tried and true system, and now they want to get even more complicated?? How many people you see in the pits think it's ok to not wear glasses when in the walkways? Is it? Idk. I know my work site has places designated saftey glass zones (inside the yellow and black caution tape - similar to your actual pit) while outside the taped zone (similar to the walkway in front of the pits) are non-safety glass required zones.

Sometimes I think some of these rules are just written based on the current OSHA "work force" standards, and are not adapted at all to FIRST Robotics "competition life" ways of working.

I mean, safety is the key to it all, there is no denying this.. but who was hurt last year by wearing tinted or reflective glasses?

If they were wearing them, they were safe from flying debris in the eyes which is the whole point of wearing safety glasses. We don't mix chemicals in the pits (or shouldn't) and we don't deal with lasers (or shouldn't).

So.....

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/eyea...pectacles.html

^---- Most common FIRST Event usage shown, and approved types.

Note for the Plano Lenses which is the most common type I see at FIRST events:

Just give us a link next time FIRST to something that is industry proven & we can rely on and that the safety inspectors won't be biased to by funky wording when handing us them little green poker chips in the pits.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Wrong. Read all of Rule <R105> and Rule <R106>, carefully. Now read it again. Now read it again. Don't analyze it seventeen times. Don't try to read between the lines. Don't insert your own interpretation of what hidden meaning might be there. Just read the words. There is no inconsistency. There is no conflict between the rules. You are finding fault where there is none. If you still think there is a conflict, then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject. But you need to stop poosting incorrect interpretations of the rules and misleading other teams.

-dave

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

:confused: In referance to R105 and what was available on the bimba site and responses on the Q and A the manual very clearly states Please check the Bimba web site for available strokes in each bore size. We did and ordered what was available. We are now going to be out time and money due to a serious mistake that was not ours. This is not good:ahh: When the speed limit sign changes after you pass it -- should you get a ticket for going the old speed limit ?????

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

OK - If this seems obvious - I'm sorry, but I think there is still room for confusion regarding legal pneumatic cylinders - primarily because of differences in the Bimba order webpage and the printed order form. I wish for teams to avoid problems in a few weeks at inspection. I've read the Q & A and the updates and the manual. I've come to the following conclusion:

The PRINTED order form (the last page of the pneumatics manual) lists the ONLY pneumatic cylinders that can be on a 2007 robot.

It does not matter that teams can order different cylinders from Bimba's FIRST webpage.
It does not matter that the manual is somewhat confusing regarding previous KOP cylinders (<R106>).
It does not matter that the Pneumatics Manual states "you may order the exact custom cylinder or rotary actuator you need for the job".
It does not matter that the Pneumatics Manual states "please go to www.bimba.com and click on the FIRST link and follow the instructions".

Only those cylinders IDENTICAL to those on the FIRST Free Components Order Form (p. 16 of the Pneumatics Manual) and allowed.

This means no Parker cylinders at all. This means no 1.5" bore cylinders longer than 11".

I make this post because I think lots of teams are going to confuse the PRINTED order form with the Bimba FIRST webpage - even after Update #5. As an inspector, I do not want to be telling teams that their pneumatics are not legal.

-Mr. Van
Coach 599
RoboDox

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

While that's generally good advice, you don't seem to realize that I did not attempt to read between the lines, nor did I insert some interpretation of hidden meaning.

Perhaps you need to look at what's actually written, and not what you (or whoever was responsible for this rule) intended to write. That's the salient point here: what's actually written. Teams are not bound by intent, they are bound by rules. You know as well as I that the officials can't just insert words and concepts as if they should (in someone's opinion) be there. While I certainly recognize that the intent of the rule is very important, if the rule doesn't actually say what it was intended to say, no amount of good intent can take the place of actually fixing the rule.

I'm not trying to mislead teams, but you're not helping matters by denying that the rule is potentially inconsistent. If they're misled, it will be because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a slight difference in the way that the rules are worded, and that omission has the potential to cause practical consequences.

I'm going to go over this in detail:It satisfies the flowchart in <R48>.

The first sentence of <R105> says there is no overall quantity limit on cylinders. The second sentence says that they must be rated for 125 psi and COTS. So far so good.

The third sentence says that you may purchase cylinders. The fourth sentence says that they must be the same as the ones on the form (same part numbers), and obtained from a Bimba or Parker dealer. So, what's that saying? The word "they" bolded above logically refers to the objects in the preceding (third) sentence, namely purchased pneumatic cylinders. Not pneumatic cylinders in general. Not donated, found, stolen or bartered pneumatic cylinders.

If you take that fourth sentence to mean cylinders in general (referring to sentences one and two, but not three), its content is logically consistent, but grammatically disjointed. You wouldn't write an essay like that, and you can't reasonably expect people to read like that.

Going to Update 5, the relevant sentence references rule <R105>. We have previously established that the text restricting us to cylinders from the form applies to purchased cylinders.

If we are operating under <R105>, then the clarification ought to be referring to those items in <R105> which are in question—namely the ones with the restriction that needs clarifying, or in other words, the purchased ones (see sentences three and four). It makes no sense for the update to be referring to all cylinders (i.e. clarifying one of the first two sentences), because it isn't a mere "clarification" to add a new restriction where it never existed before. If the intent was to modify the rule, then you can't just call it a clarification, and expect people to treat it identically.

<R106> says, in the first sentence of the first bullet, that prior year KOP cylinders are allowed in addition to those in the KOP. The second sentence of that bullet says that these parts must be accounted for as explained in Section 8.3.4.3 (i.e. account for the cost like any conventional COTS item). Note that the word "purchased" doesn't make an appearance in <R106>.

Like I said earlier, there's a subtle point that was overlooked. It's your problem if you feel compelled to take it personally, but the fact of the matter is, given a reasonable application of English sentence and paragraph structure, I can't interpret it your way.

The stupid part of all of this, is that it's a tiny change to fix it to everyone's satisfaction.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Does no one have a problem with this?

Anyone who didn't keep the cartons?

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

We didn't ... we (foolishly, it seems) assumed the rules would be the same as last year, where you had to option to ship or bring the batteries to events.

For us, it's easier to bring the batteries to competition since we drive anyway. Shipping them adds an extra 30+ lbs to the crate, we don't have the original packaging, and we'll be bringing extras in the car anyway - why can't we just bring the original kit batteries too?

I guess my biggest problem with this is I don't see why we have to ship two of them. It seems more of a hassle and hindrance than anything. :(

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

OK, let's try this again. There is no inconsistency in the rule. The intent of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. The application of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. FIRST has made it clear your conclusion is wrong. The official Q&A has made it clear the conclusion is wrong. The FRC updates have made it clear the conclusion is wrong. You are finding fault and making distinctions where there are none. Again, if you still think there is an issue here then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject.

If you want to convince yourself that you are right and FIRST is wrong, then go ahead. If your robot design is impacted by the incorrect conclusions you reach, then that is between you and your team. That is your business. But when you come into a public forum and repeatedly make incorrect statements about the meaning and applicability of the rules, then there is a problem. Asserting statements that contradict the answers provided by FIRST is misleading to those teams that are trying to follow the official rules. More importantly, it is a disservice to those teams that may not yet be experienced enough to understand that answers found here carry no weight with inspectors, judges or referees, and the only official answers are those found on the FIRST Q&A system.

And this is exactly to the point. Tristan's incorrect conclusion about the legality of Parker cylinders that led to this follow-up question is flat out wrong. When this bad information causes other teams to question/alter their designs, then it needs to stop. Rather than purveying another round of torturous logic that leads to the wrong outcome, you need to refer to the one and only resource that teams should use when seeking a clarification of the rules – the official FIRST Q&A.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

My understanding of the Q&A is that the answers are merely guidance and clarification from the GDC, and that the manual and updates are still the law of the land. <R105> has been modified to say that only cerrtain Bimba cylinders are allowed. <R48> has not been modified, and as Tristan showed, the flow chart indicates that old KOP Parker cylinders are legal. (I went through it myself to be sure.) The GDC has made it very clear that this is not the intent, by modifying <R105>, but <R48> still stands as written. I agree with you, Dave, that the intent of the GDC is unambiguous, but I think that it's foolish to not acknowledge that there is seemingly a conflict between <R48> and <R105>. I don't want to beat this topic to death any further, but can anyone use the <R48> flowchart to show that the old KOP Parker cylinders are illegal? Or should we ask the GDC to modify <R48>?

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Ok, so you can buy new pneumatic cylinders, or you can use old ones. Where is the complication? One point doesn't detract from the other.

This lawyering needs to stop! Just build a robot and have a good time.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Someone said what I was thinking! Finally. This is the complete truth. There is so much, 'if i think this, im right' 'but if i think that, im wrong'. This has to be the worst year, of my three years of experience where people are trying to argue the rule in favor of themself. No, I do not mean that everyone has this intent either. However, the rules simply have not changed alot from previous years, and I will agree that some are unfair, while others are very beneficial. However, there is no need to (stealing from Tom here) lawyer the rules. I can guarantee that if an inspector says that you are in violation of rules, and you try to argue with them without say a specific Q&A response allowing your instance, you most likely will not pass inspection. The rules are not per your interpretation, rather the people who wrote them, FIRST.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Ok, now I'm confuesed - and rather upset.

We just completed our 3 cylinder order from Bimba - ordering three cylinders that are the same bore and stroke as previous kit PARKER cylinders that we already have. Why? Because update #5 makes these Parker cylinders illegal.

Update #5 states that:
"~ Under Rule<R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to the Bimba Custom Cylinder Order form found on the last page of the Pneumatics Manual."

The FIRST Manual rule <R105> states that:
"...additional air cylinders or rotary actuators may be purchased. However, they must be identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form (i.e. same part numbers), and obtained from a Bimba or Parker Hannifan distributor."

The rule is quoted numerous times by the GDC in the Q&A forums. They go further to say:
"...and you may NOT use purchased cylinders that are not IDENTICAL to those found on the Custom Cylinders Order Form." (emphasis in original post)

PARKER cylinders do NOT have the same part numbers as BIMBA cylinders.
They are NOT "IDENTICAL" (the piston shaft, for example appears to be stainless on the Parker and steel on the Bimba). Therefore, Parker cylinders are NOT legal parts.

Is there any other way to interpret this?

No matter what, I can see that teams will be upset at inspection time - either at having to swap out old Parkers or at learning that they didn't really have to take the rules literally...

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
RoboDox

PS. I now very much wish that I hadn't deleted my earlier post!

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

It has been established that Q&A responses are for guidance, and don't change the wording of the rules. Clarifications in updates can be assumed to clarify, not change the wording of the rules. Only new versions of the rules documents, and updates containing modified rules actually change the rules. So your insistence that it has been done to death in the Q&A and updates is hollow, because FIRST didn't actually change the rule—and the clarification isn't a good clarification at all, because it doesn't necessarily follow from what's written.

If the GDC writes a rule, then it's their responsibility to make the rule agree completely with their intent. It is never up to the teams to make up for a shortcoming in the communication of the GDC's intent. In particular, if, on a minor point, FIRST leaves a loophole, an inconsistency or a statement with multiple interpretations, then it stands to reason that FIRST ought to fix it (once it's been communicated to them via the proper channels). And if FIRST doesn't agree that there's a problem, then it's their prerogative to say so—but they do so at their peril, because it might represent a missed opportunity to defuse some of the conflicts that occasionally arise at inspection.
Actually, it appears that Mr. Van was considering using his teams old Parker cylinders this year, then came upon this thread and discovered that FIRST intends for them to be illegal. (He apparently learned from my post that "that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders".) That's hardly a disservice to him, considering that not knowing this fact could have been far more harmful to his team.

And I know you don't agree with my rationale. But it's FIRST's job to avoid phrasing things in ways that lend themselves to torturous logic. If the rule were precise in its statement of intent, you wouldn't be having this argument.

I can send this to my team's Q&A person, and we'll see what happens. I would like to point out, however, that a flippant response of "see Update 5" doesn't address the issue—it would be nice if the person answering it takes the time to explain precisely why the existing rule justifies their interpretation, and not my own.



I'm not arguing in favour of myself or my team (and I'm not sure if that was what you were suggesting). I'm actually about 90% sure that none of <R105> will apply to 188's robot this year.



You've apparently captured what FIRST intended to say, but not necessarily what they actually said in the rules. Just so that Dave is clear on this point, I never recommended that any team (including my own) use the old KOP Parkers—merely that FIRST left a loophole in the rules that would have made them legal (de jure), if they weren't purchased. And as a matter of fact, with the differing interpretations here, I'd suggest that teams avoid the Parkers, whether or not they're actually allowed by the rulebook; with free Bimba alternatives available, it makes sense to avoid the controversy entirely.



Incidentally, there's another reason why you can't read <R105> in the manner that Dave prefers. If the fourth sentence applies to the first and second sentences, you're in effect saying the following:

"solenoid valves, air cylinders, pressure regulators, and connecting fittings" must be "identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form"

Of course, this makes no sense. You can't order valves, etc. from the Bimba form. If you want to cherry-pick the reference to cylinders, sure, that part makes sense (I referred to this earlier)—but then you have the little problem of how to justify the rest of the items ("they"); basically, the rule lacks logical consistency when read this way. (And on top of that, the rest of the fourth sentence would mean that any new fittings, even for the Festo components in the kit, would need to come from a Parker or Bimba dealer; while FIRST is free to mandate this, it's a bit strange, especially considering that other pneumatic parts like tubing can come from any vendor.)

Now, instead, read it as if sentence four follows directly from sentence three:

"additional air cylinders or rotary actuators may be purchased" and must be "identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form"

Note that this makes sense. Note that this one also doesn't require a leap of grammar to make it work.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Tristan,

We all are human beings. Our grammar (including yours at times I'm sure) is not always perfect, nor are we. This is why FIRST has established a means for clarification for the 10 section manual that they published: FIRST Q & A. No, the replies to it are not officially in the manual, but they are official clarification on any confusion, and they are from the GDC, thus making them valid.

As to your frustrations with the descrepancy between what the rule says and what it means, these men are engineers, not lawyers. A lawyer would spend months of just working on this to get the technicalities correct. These men spend their volunteer free time. I, for one, know that I spend my free time on catching up on Grey's Anatomy and I am grateful to them for contributing theirs to help me.

Yes Tristan, it is frustrating when the things that we think should be clear are not. But there is an established mean for fixing the issue in place here. Please use it. And please stop the lawyer-like arguments. From what I've read, the last page or so has been arguing that is doing nothing but getting people confused. And that just doesn't benefit anyone.

FIRST is something we do for fun, because we love it. My team has had to remind me of that lately. It should be fun, and we shouldn't torture ourselves over tidbits like words. We're halfway through, so please, everyone (readers and posters) just take a breath and remember why you go to robotics every day.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Tristan and Dave: There is an easy way to reconcile your views. First, make the change, assuming that it changes nothing else. Then, put Tristan on the GDC for the 2008 game. This will give him experience as to what the GDC goes through every year and (hopefully) give a more grammatically correct manual.

I'm not joking here. "Never criticize someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes." You can't know what the volunteers go through until you volunteer to fill one of their places.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Eric, I like your ideas about using caution when criticizing. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why everybody is seemingly dismissing this as a mere semantics issue. Go take a look at <R48>. I know that Eric is plenty familiar with it by now, because he is one of the outspoken rules gurus around here. Follow the flowchart with the 2006 KOP Parker cylinder in mind, as Tristan does. It passes without any question or lawyering or grammatical quirks. It is obvious that this is not what is intended, because of the latest updates and Q&As, but <R48> still stands as written. This is a problem! I don't think it's worthwhile to criticize the GDC over ticky-tack semantics, but it's also a mistake to blindly defend them when there's an obvious conflict. Am I missing something here? I feel like I'm going nuts, because it's so apparent to me, but there's only one other person who will even acknowledge what I'm seeing.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

I have to say that I'm with Tristan and Joey on this one. The way <R48> reads, since the Parker cylinder is a previous year's cylinder, is off-the-shelf, and does not exceed the quantity and/or cost limits for this year's competition, the cylinder passes the flowchart and is a legal part.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Ok... Everyone who's dismissing this problem as a clash between egos needs to read the first few posts, because the question (as jgannon has stated) is entirely valid. One part of the manual says that the parker cylinders are legal, and another says that they aren't. This is a problem.

When I'm deciding what to put on the robot, I go to the flowchart. In this application, If I went to the flowchart... My team's robot wouldn't pass inspection. (That is bad).

You can walk in someone else's shoes all you want, but that doesn't make a mistake that they previously made correct. There job is hard, and I am very grateful that they do it (Thank you GDC :D), but I still expect a clear, concise manual. as does everyone else in FIRST.

So... Has anyone posted this to Q&A yet?


EDIT: I also haven't seen one person criticize the GDC, I've only seen a problem with a manual being pointed out. Nobody should be taking anything said here personally, as that only aggravates the situation and causes hard feelings.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Tristan's question has been posted on the Q&A exactly as I received it tonight.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

The answer has been posted http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=3276

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

So you can use one of the old Parker-Hannifan cylinders, as long as it is identical in function to one of the cylinders listed on the current Bimba order form.
OK.

Thank you GDC.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

I miss the old manuals. They were better written and overall more consistent.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

OK, so now it is completely unambiguous. The rules make it clear that Parker cylinders from prior KOPs are permitted (as long as they are of legal sizes, etc.) and FIRST has made it clear that their intent was for Parker cylinders to be legal. The manual and the intent are consistent. Q.E.D. So can we just get over this inane lawyering of the rules and get back to building robots?


.

Re: Team Update #5 Posted
 

Uh, so anyone need 2" bore 12" throw pistons? How about 1.5" bore 8" throw?
Now we've got PLENTY of extras!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
RoboDox