Re: <R08> Section M
 

I hope the GDC leaves it in the hands of the inspectors to determine whether something is "structural". Through the magic of engineering we have a pretty strong box structure made from .090 aluminum with bent flanges and standoffs. I'm worried about meeting an inspector who says: "The Q&A says .125" plate isn't strong enough, so why should we allow your .090?"

Common sense?

-John

Re: <R08> Section M
 

John, I am also a little frustrated/concerned about that Q&A answer, the GDC shouldn't be defining what parts of our robot's frame is structural and not. The outside of our frame is a 1/8" AL sheet supported buy three 2"X1" square supports and 4 standoffs on each side, and by my experience more then strong enough, but by the Q&A definition this could not be a solid enough structure to mount our bumpers. I find it absurd that they are defining how solid of a 'frame structure' we have to mount our bumpers to. Where I would be comfortable running our robot without bumpers in its current configuration, but by that definition it is not be strong enough to support bumpers???

Re: <R08> Section M
 

Keep in mind the question that was asked...it was "We plan to place aluminum plate (say 1/8in in thickness) across standoffs along the length of the robot so to meet the intent of this rule."

It was not: "We are making our robot chassis of thin aluminum that extends along the bumper perimeter in all areas where the bumper will be attached".

In other words, the GDC was answering a question about adding something to the robot chassis to satisfy the rule, they were not answering a question about what the chassis needs to be made of.

I agree it might take some engineering knowledge on the part of the inspectors to figure this out. Hopefully they'll have some guidelines (and we'll get to see those guidelines).