[engunneer]

Originally Posted by czeke

He was saying that the entire assembly is not considered to be contiguous. As I understood it, the leading edge, was in motion ( the polycord belts ). When I asked him " What if we covered it, with a Lexan cover ?" , then he responded, saying that he would favor our argument.

If all of the parts of the pickup mechanism are touching each other at the same time outside the single edge of the frame perimeter, then they are contiguous. The fact that one part is able to rotate on bearings does not make it not-contiguous, as far as I can determine from the intent of the rule. I would love to see Al's interpretation of this or the GDC's. Without seeing a before picture, I can't be certain I am understanding you correctly. This discussion should become a separate topic, since we are hijacking the thread of a great looking robot.

Originally Posted by czeke

In another related system, our ball thrower, uses a rotating turret. When the turret rotates, say about 30-45 degrees, our CIM motor, breaks the plane of the frame perimeter, on the left side and our spinning wheels break the front plane of the frame perimeter. That's two appendages sticking out, not one, as we had thought. We were once again illegal. The only good thing was, that we found out two days before bag-n-tag, and we could correct it.

This is an entirely different story. The CIM breaking a plane while your feeder mech is breaking the plane is clearly not within [G21]. The shooter wheels popping out the other side? Also not good with [G21]. If your feeder was retracted, and only the CIM *OR* the Shooter Wheel was breaking the plane, then it is ok under [G21].