View Single Post
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-01-2012, 19:19
jason701802's Avatar
jason701802 jason701802 is offline
Registered User
FRC #0753 (The High Desert Droids)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Oregon/Univ. of Southern Calif.
Posts: 234
jason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant futurejason701802 has a brilliant future
Re: FRC 2012: Update #3

Quote:
Originally Posted by nssheepster View Post
Perhaps ambiguity should be able to be left. If the rule says, don't let your bumpers fall off, it's kinda common sense to build bumpers that won't fall off. Right? We inspire and recognize science and technology, but sometimes, common sense seems to be forgotten.......
That would be better than it is now. Ambiguity isn't bad as long as it doesn't mean a set of bumpers could fail inspection based upon nothing more than semantics (is the end of the bumper the terminal edge? is it the last 3in of bumper? etc.) or that a superior set of bumpers (vs. a set that passes) fails just because its supports are a 1/2in from the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiztobe View Post
Perhaps they mean if you do have an unsupported 8" segment, the last supported segment on each end must be attached somewhere (and there must be no unsupported segment beyond it).
That would be the most logical requirement to me, I hope, although somewhat doubt, that's what they mean.
__________________
Jason

Last edited by jason701802 : 17-01-2012 at 19:21.