View Single Post
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 21-03-2011, 10:17
Bill_B Bill_B is offline
You cannot not make a difference
FRC #2170
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,099
Bill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: One-day Minibot

Quote:
Originally Posted by thefro526 View Post
R47-A covers the removal of the pinion - if you consider the pinion to be a part of the motor.

Personally, I don't believe that the Pinion is an "integral part" of the motor, since removing it doesn't change how the motor works...
I read <R47A> several times, too. I think that the modifications allowed by it relate to the attachment of the motor to the robot or the shaft attaching to actuated part. So if the pinion is part of the motor shaft then, OK by r47a. In the case of the Tetrix motor, there is a bracket to which the gearbox is attached. Part of the gearbox? or motor? Maybe it doesn't matter, since modification of it is allowed to change attachment of the motor to the robot. I don't think that the pinion is part of the attachment of the motor to the robot, but it is part of the attachment to the actuated part.

The blue section below <R47> outlines the intent of forbidding structural modification. I'm really not trying to be pedantic, but if removing the pinion didn't change how the motor "works", then why do it? weight reduction? That is my opinion of course, and we all know how influential personal opinions are at the inspection station, right?
__________________
Nature's Fury FLL team 830 - F L eLements
FRC team 2170 - Titanium Tomahawks
Reply With Quote