Quote:
Originally Posted by dtengineering
You can do whatever you want to the metal sheet as it is allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic or metal sheet is thus not covered as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, as it is already specifically allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic feedstock for a 3D printer, however, is not included in 2.b.1, and thus would only be allowable as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, quoted below:
Note my bold. As soon as you process or manufacture a functional form, it is no longer a raw material.
It is quite possible that the presentations of the rules, and intent of the rules is to allow for 3D printing. It is also possible that the rules will be amended, but if you read the rules as they exist now, 2.d.1 is pretty clear that as soon as you manufacture something useful from your raw material that it ceases to be a raw material and can no longer be used on the robot.
I'll agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'll certainly agree that it doesn't say what I want it to say, but I'm pretty sure that that is what it says. 3D printing is a no-go.
Jason
|
If 3d printing is a no-go then why change the rule in the first place?
By no means is solid Aluminum stock easy to work with without a mill or some kind of machine. So 3d printing is illegal but milling something from a 6x6x6 block of Aluminum is legal? I don't see the connection. If there was any point to changing the rule in the first place to dimensionless constraints of raw material then why restrict the way you could go about fabricating your parts? Just seems a little fishy to me, did you look at the presentation? Why show that to almost every team in Florida if it didn't have any merit? I see your reasoning but I think its just wrong from what I have heard from who I talked to.
I think the rule saying prefab parts are illegal is fine but to say you couldn't take advantage of limitless material in any dimensions is kinda silly.