Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

Given that we are limited the Bores and Strokes listed on the bimba form are we also limited to DP for 3/4 and 1.5 and DXP for 2" cylinders? Nose mount (D mount) cylinders are illegal?

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

Technically not legal, but ask the Q&A: this is often an issue at inspection, and they may be willing to broaden the interpretation. The cylinders are functionally equivalent, as long as you don't take advantage of the different back end of the cylinder on the D models (they have no clevis, and the port is centred on the axis of the body).

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

It might be unfair to those teams who use the specified cylinders, since they weigh more than the same size D model, to use that example.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

You have to use the exact PN as indicated, including the mounting end.
All you can modify is to remove the pin in the clevis if you want to bolt the cylinder in place, and you can choose how to mount the extending end (clevis, but and bolt, etc.).

We proposed to use the front mount versions for transmission shifters a few years ago, because they are shorter, but we told we could not, via an official Q+A.

While the function of the cylinders is the same, the rule is there to assure that all teams have the same aprts and the same issues with mounting them,

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

This question comes up every year and the answer has always been the same as Chris mentions above. Use only what is listed on the cylinder order sheet as anything else will probably not pass inspection.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

does anyone know if we have to use a clevis? or can we have on built in to our robot?

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

You do not have to use the clevis, but you cannot alter the actual cylinder as it comes out of the package, except to remove the pin.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

I think this is the rule associated with your question. It doesn't say that you have to use the clevis. You can mount the cylinders using the threads that are on them, or example.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

We have a 24" stroke cylinder in our supply which is the 1.5 inch bore. It was on the free cylinder form a few years back. The only 24" stroke cylinder on the free cylinder form this year is the 2 inch bore. So if cylinders from previous years are legal is this cylinder legal? I am leaning towards no citing the identical to free parts quote.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

By the rule you posted, it is not. Also see Q&A. It must be identical to the free ones from this year's order sheet.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

What is the purpose of the last sentence of <R89>? Just to legalize the 1.5x8 Parker cylinder from KoPs past? Or does that one even count?

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

I think it is just to legalize that one cylinder...good thing too...we're using it in our design so far...

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

Having read the Q&A tonight on pneumatic cylinder restrictions, The GDC response is kind of funny. There were 5 teams requesting variances to the allowed cylinders. The one answer the GDC recommended was exactly what is being said here by the CD community. If it's not on the approved 2008 list, it's not allowed.

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

The wording of <R89> had me confused for a while. This answer clears things up for me.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8447

Re: Pneumatics Part # restrictions
 

I'm a little surprised by that response, because without some creative interpretation (which we might call "lawyering"*), it's hard to reconcile with the rule, which states:

All cylinders, regardless of source, must be identical to those listed on the Free Pneumatic Components Order Form (e.g. same part numbers).

Parker cylinders do not have the same part numbers as Bimba cylinders, so what are we to conclude? Hypothetically, I suppose the "e.g." clause could be a non-binding clarifying example like the one previously provided for the 80-inch rule (as opposed to "i.e.", which would be an unambiguous pronouncement), and "identical" could be short for "functionally identical". Even if that might be the case, I'd have to say the most obvious interpretation of the rule is that every cylinder's part number must match one provided on the form—why else would you give the example of matching numbers? Either way, that's worth clarifying once and for all in an update (if a rule is to be changed), or an unambiguous Q&A response.

Also (if we accept the permissive interpretation given above), why does the response state that these Parker cylinders must be from an old kit? If functionally identical (as opposed to matching-numbers identical) Parker cylinders are permitted under the 2^nd sentence of <R89>, then according to the 3^rd sentence, if they come from Parker, it's not necessary that they be from an old kit. (It must be either from Parker, from Bimba, or from an old kit; no combination of those things is required.)

*Not this again! :(