Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadav Zingerman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leav
Even though it looks like a circular saw, it isn't very dangerous. many robots with a similar giant sprocket on an arm passed inspection in 2008, and I don't see why that would change in 2011.
|
My concern isn't that it will cut something, as it is not going that fast, but rather that someone will their hair or finger caught in there. The sprocket must be entirely covered to prevent this. |
It's not even the sprocket itself that is the most significant hazard—rather, it's the point where the chain wraps around the sprocket.
Generally speaking, this is not an issue at inspection, however the precedents* for that are complicated. In 2006, for example, based upon guidance issued to robot inspectors, FIRST was adamant that the test for hazards in ball-shooting devices ought to follow from modern North American industrial practice, where finger-sized (or larger) pinch points on moving mechanisms are generally guarded. Although there were various exceptions made (mainly because that was rather difficult to implement when these mechanisms had to release balls), technically, the drive sprockets for shooter mechanisms had to be protected, because there were pinch points there. This led to quite a few unexpected rejections at inspection.
In more recent years, even with similar rules, the interpretation has been drastically different—presumably in recognition of the fact that FIRST robots are all dangerous if you stick your hand inside, but tend to be significantly less hazardous at a distance. To that end, nowadays only the most evil of mechanisms will get singled out because of close-range hazards.
In fact, you're much more likely to be called on it because of entanglement, than because of the hazard to humans. (A robot that gets its arm looped into there, or something.)
That doesn't relieve teams of the responsibility to minimize the risks to their pit crews. There's plenty of impetus for that flowing from real-world implications—but there's no universal standard or right answer to the question of "how safe is safe enough?".
*Bear in mind that precedents (recorded or not) are of limited value, firstly because the rules change every year, and secondly because FIRST doesn't recognize them as authoritative sources, even when the rules are the same. They're only guidance, made relevant principally because of the desire to keep things consistent.