View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 02:46
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: CIM motor legality

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dad1279 View Post
So the gearbox should be legal if mated to a currently legal motor?
If you have a thing that incorporates a motor, and you remove the motor, is the thing still considered a motor? This has usually been ruled not a motor, and thus acceptable (and justifiably so). However in this instance, the thing is itself sold a "Globe motor", which could provoke confusion and possibly a different ruling.1

If it were me doing the inspection, I'd permit it. It might be worthwhile getting it on record from FIRST (via Q&A), so that all of the inspectors are on the same page.

(A possible complication is the issue of integrality: it's not really defined, except by example. If I remember correctly, the gearbox on the Globe initially wasn't considered integral, then it was integral for a while, then it wasn't again. And in 2012, the AndyMark gearmotors were considered to have integral gearboxes, despite being straightforwardly removable.)

1 The 2009 Q&A stated that a motor (described there in the context of a motor without a gearhead) could not be modified beyond the limits of the manual, even if not used as a motor.

Last edited by Tristan Lall : 24-01-2013 at 03:58. Reason: Clarifying deliberately unclear example.