View Single Post
  #104   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 06-02-2012, 23:26
Joe G.'s Avatar
Joe G. Joe G. is offline
Taking a few years (mostly) off
AKA: Josepher
no team (Formerly 1687, 5400)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Worcester, MA
Posts: 1,453
Joe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond reputeJoe G. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Joe G.
Re: 2nd Most Awaited Q and A Answer?

I'm very curious as to the ruling on components that are touching, but not rigidly connected. For example, in the wheel drawing that Art provided, would it become legal if a brush was added to the front of the support, keeping the wheel's tread in constant contact with the support?

If it does, then I think that most illegal appendage concepts could be legalized through similar means.

If it doesn't, things become hairy in a hurry. For example, is a threaded fastener legal? At some point, the outsides of each thread will be beyond the frame perimeter, while the core of the bolt that keeps it "contiguous" is within the perimeter. Even if you ignore the threads, the bolt is not strictly "connected" to the appendage around it.
__________________
FIRST is not about doing what you can with what you know. It is about doing what you thought impossible, with what you were inspired to become.

2007-2010: Student, FRC 1687, Highlander Robotics
2012-2014: Technical Mentor, FRC 1687, Highlander Robotics
2015-2016: Lead Mentor, FRC 5400, Team WARP
2016-???: Volunteer and freelance mentor-for-hire