[EricH]

They didn't find a rule against it. However, that's because they didn't look in the Q&A. See Martin's post. That's not the rule... but it's supposed to be how the rule is called.

Now, how separating a cells is a violation is the tough part. I would suspect that the rule calling for an identical battery is why it's a violation. Not sure how an electrically unchanged battery being separated while remaining electrically the same is a violation--electrically, it should be identical--but, nonetheless, that is the call the GDC has chosen to make, and as such is the ruling that needs to be listened to.


Oh, and If I can translate royal robotics' post: "if it is illegal why did they let it on " (Next up after proper English spelling will be proper English capitalization and punctuation, which for now is left as an exercise for those that need the practice.)

It's quite possible that the inspectors simply missed that it was illegal, and nobody complained at the event. This happens from time to time; there have been robots rebuilt at the Championship because they were not in compliance with the rules, yet they had passed regional inspection. I've had to reject stuff that non-official inspections had said was okay. It happens.