Quote:
Originally Posted by akoscielski3
First off, has anyone posted this question in Q&A yet? If no it should be done because we NEED to know, the teams need to know if we need to add a gaurd ans the inspectors need to know if they have to have s gaurd or dont need one. In my opinion, since it doesnt say anything anout it specifically then we dont need it to be legal. Teams didn't need them last year did they? Why do we need them this year then?
|
I did so several weeks ago, but the answer was (surprise), 'we're not telling'.
A:564 Due to the large number of design parameters which affect the safety of a particular ROBOT MECHANISM it is not possible to provide absolute guidelines regarding compliance with [R08]. When considering MECHANISM safety, teams are advised to consider factors such as velocity, exposure, and material ratings. The Lead Robot Inspector at each event has final authority on any ROBOT'S compliance with [R08].
This answer seems odd, given that some events are making
everyone cover their wheels and others are making no one. If inspectors are getting specific guidance, could it be shared publicly? If not, has anyone noticed the patterns in design parameters, as the GDC indicates?
In the end, what you need to be legal is what the inspector requires to be legal, so you'll need them this year if the inspector/LRI. Regardless, 'it doesn't say anything specifically' probably won't fly. Remember that the nature of the average shooter is very different between 2013 and 2012: more wheels-through-boards and fewer wheels-in-boxes. Even if the actual level of danger isn't so different as that, attention to it is up this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyroslev
Could a remedy to that be that when teams going to further events the Robot Inspectors sign the bag form with a copy of the inspection sheet? If not this season, then next season. I imagined the teams that went to previous events could inspected by noon at least if this were implemented.
|
This is an interesting idea. But if inspectors are understandably missing issues--there's so much to check I don't know how it ever gets done--how would relying on previous checks affect the integrity of inspections? (Robots can change, and you bring up issues that have slipped through.) I think I see two basic potential results here. One, negatively because more issues slip through, particularly in the burden of early events. Two, positively, because efforts are better focused, assuming potential issues are identified in another way (without creating resentment). Interesting idea.