Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
It's the motor type that you should be looking at. FIRST Choice offers van door motors equivalent to those in prior kits, and the GDC has declared those legal; this tells me that they aren't quite as concerned about source as they could be. Frees them up no end to concentrate on motor type. See the blue box:
Note: It will be up to the teams to show that the motors used on the Robot are legal by providing paperwork showing the motor’s original use, i.e. if it’s called a “seat motor” on the ARA receipt, it is a seat motor.
I can't imagine an inspector looking at that and not asking about the source... then you'll have to show that it's in compliance with the rules. And I'm 99% certain or more that it would not be based on the motor types in that rule.
|
I don't know why you say they aren't as concerned with the source as they could be. They listed 2 sources, one of which was previous years' kits. The door motor comes from a previous year's kit. There is nothing about this situation that would imply they are not as concerned as they could be about the source.
Think of it this way. In previous years we have been told that (CIMs excluded) we could only use the motors in the kit. However, if we burned out a motor in the kit and bought an exact replacement, it was treated as if it were the motor supplied in the kit.
This set the precedent that, if the motor is exactly the same as the one in the KOP, it will be considered to be the motor that was provided in the KOP (unless used in a quantity exceeding the quantity provided). Since "previous years' KOPs" were defined by their respective years' rules, previous years' rules do, for once, apply.