Quote:
Originally Posted by scottandme
Searched to no avail looking for the answer, but we're currently getting dinged by the lead inspector at the MAR Lenape regional for our c-base frame corners. The exterior corners create a 1"x1" open section as per the assembly instructions for the wide frame configuration.
http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default...de%20Final.pdf
See our robot here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/frc2590...in/photostream
Lead inspector claims that the rear corners have 2 individual vertices, making it a 6 sided robot. Then claims that since there isn't 8" of bumper from each vertex that it's illegal. In my eyes, our bumpers meet up at the "projected" corner and follow rule R28B of not extending more than 1" past the frame perimeter. |
The lead inspector is correct.
Those are exterior vertices, and therefore the frame perimeter is as he describes. Bumpers must be supported at their ends (with "ends" as defined by the inspectors—there is no objective standard), and must protect both sides of each exterior vertex of the frame perimeter (around 2009, there was more ambiguity about whether protection implied bumpers on both sides of a vertex—this year, [R27] is clear about this).
The solution he proposes is a good one—indeed, probably the best one.
By the way, be cautious about [R28B]. When it says 1 in, there is no tolerance—or rather, the tolerance is MAX 1 in, measured along the projection of the edge. Even if you prevailed on the vertex issue (which you shouldn't), if your notched corner left a span of even 1.01 in, you'd be in violation. I suggest measuring the C-Base again to make sure that it's not slightly more than the 1 in you're assuming it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottandme
I can't believe that if this was truly an illegal configuration that FIRST would supply and then direct you to illegal assembly instructions. Lead inspector didn't address that, just said that "AndyMark isn't FIRST". Though true, the c-base is in every KoP with the included instructions for assembly.
|
FIRST made a small mistake by failing to warn teams about this. Nevertheless, this doesn't rise to the level of FIRST misrepresenting the situation—after all, those (third-party) instructions aren't held out as being official documents, and the official rule is sufficiently clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
That's not right, and should be legal. If they keep complaining, cut a piece of pool noodle and put it in there.
|
If and only if it satisfies the definition of frame perimeter as required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
Honestly though, ask for another inspector. That is the way the kitbot is made, and the way we made our kitbot. If the kitbot is deemed "illegal", then that is the inspector's fault.
|
Not really. Also, they're already dealing with the lead inspector. There isn't any higher authority. Short of having the LRI removed from their position—which frankly isn't going to happen over a mere judgment call, right or wrong—they don't have any higher avenue of appeal. Only the officials and FTA can make the call to FIRST HQ for assistance with a ruling, and even then, it's their prerogative alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperNerd256
No offense to the inspector, but the kitbot should be legal.
|
That's something to take up with FIRST after the season. I hope they listen, because it's very reasonable for the rules to be written with the kitbot in mind.