I've always wondered about these, and think
separate Q&A submissions are warranted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
My preferred solution seems to be out of stock at ServoCity: Hitec HSR-1425CR. It seems to be in stock at RobotShop, however. |
On one hand, they're clearly sold as being COTS servos, but on the other hand, they don't really act like a servomotor. I don't think FIRST specifies what a servo is in a way that lends itself to drawing a hard line. If inspecting, I would be inclined to accept the team's contention that the labelling of the part is enough to classify it as a servo.
The core question here is whether a servo is defined in terms of its characteristics or its nomenclature—or in some other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
ServoCity will mod most of their analog servos into a continuous rotation version for you for a nominal fee, but I'm uncertain as to the legality of that. On the one hand, it's not you modifying it the servo. On the other hand, the resulting servo definitely isn't factory spec after that.
|
While the servo is modified from its factory configuration, its the vendor (ServoCity) that did the modification. Also, I'm not sure what we should consider integral—the mechanical stops are removed, but they also mess with the control electronics, which are inside the servo case, but separate from the tiny can motor contained within. If the modification is treated as a team request (like a contract with a fabricator), it's unclear whether it would be legal. I'd still be inclined to pass it, given the uncertain rule.
Here, one core question is whether a vendor-modified item can be COTS, even if the modification would have been illegal if performed by a team. Also, is that proposed modification even illegal for a team to perform?