Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve W
Tristan you better read the rules. It says 1 compressor. There are rules about filling tanks. If you have an issue you ask the Q&A. Plain and simple, as an acting LRI and reading the rules and going for training, I deem it illegal.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonRotolo
I'm sorry folks, but which part of "One and only one" is not perfectly clear to you?
Aside from the other reasons mentioned, having two compressors gives a team an unfair advantage, since the on-board compressor is not being run as much. This keeps it cooler, allowing it to be more efficient and effective.
Seriously: Follow the rules or don't, but if you don't, stop trying to rationalize your cheating.
 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangemoore
This.
Seriously this conversation should be over. What else is there to talk about?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
Yes, it should.
|
I see where you're coming from, since for stored pneumatic energy—in contrast to stored electrical energy—the relevant rules refer to the the legality of the air itself, rather than to the device storing it.
However, for purposes of other rules, a spare part tends to be considered equivalent to the original—for example, your number of motors used does not increment by 1 when you replace a motor with a spare. It's not an unreasonable interpretation to postulate that the "one and only one" compressor treats the original and/or any replacements as the same (as it would be for motor usage, cost accounting, etc.).
In other words, is "one and only one" intended to be equivalently restrictive to R29's "Max Qty Allowed", or is it intended to be more restrictive? If more restrictive, why? Is it FIRST's desire to prevent the advantage gained through this process, when the advantages referred to in Q209 and Q88 are specifically permissible? I suggest referring it to the Q&A, so that they can sort it out.