Quote:
Originally Posted by animenerdjohn
You could alloy your own super-strong metal too if you want!
|
I would love to see the fair market price for a one-off batch of "super-strong metal" in your BOM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandvich
It doesn't actually have to be commonly available, as long as it isn't dangerous or too expensive.
I wonder how stringent their standards are for hazardous materials. Lead and beryllium come to mind. They would be harmless on a robot but dangerous to work with. So FIRST could restrict it on the grounds that it puts students at risk, while allowing COTS parts containing the materials.
|
From the 2013 FRC manual:
"There are many reasons for the structure of the rules, including
safety, reliability,
parity, creation of a reasonable design challenge, adherence to professional standards, impact on the competition, compatibility with the Kit of Parts (KOP), etc."
Emphasis mine.
Hazardous materials are, by definition, not safe. Certain risks are unavoidable (i.e. the battery). However, I doubt any team has suffered from not using a hazardous material (i.e. 'we would have won if our steel ballast was lead!' or 'our titanium/carbon-fiber mechanism failed... if only we could have used beryllium!). Don't use hazardous materials, it is neither gracious nor professional to expose other teams to potentially dangerous materials when there are plenty of other options available.
Parity, in this context, means: 'an equal playing field for all participants, regardless of their economic circumstances'. If you use a material that is not available to all teams you are violating the spirit of 'parity' in the rules, which is neither gracious nor professional.
You can lawyer the parts/materials rules all you want to try and find loopholes. The intent and spirit of the rules is to use safe and available materials to mitigate risk and unfair advantages.