scca229--I have to say that your post reads to me as from an inspector that has gone through the rigors of a thankless stressful job, and is siding with a fellow soldier. Just my opinion.
I am responding as someone who has never met anyone from any team involved, while also feeling guilty for allowing my stress to cause me to be short with our inspector this last week. I think I'm coming from an objective place, therefore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scca229
At the Arizona Regional, we used that exact 2014 form and the location in the upper right of the form to denote a passed Final Inspection for Eliminations along with an additional different initialed colored sticker on the white inspection sticker on the bot.
|
1) that's great that you did this in AZ, but it's irrelevant unless every other robot at
this regional did this level of paperwork... actually... even if they did:
2) where does it state that the teams are responsible for this inspection form?
You are told you need re-inspection. You go. They say you're good. If that happens, then the responsibility is on the inspector, not the team. If the responsibility
is on the team to the extent that you can be retroactively DQed, then that needs to be an explicit rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scca229
I also happen to notice on those forms, and the captain and mentor should as well since they had to sign the form (you read everything you sign, right?), that the following words appear under the Electrical section:
2013 form - "Battery - A single MK ES17-12 battery or a single EnerSys NP18-12 must be securely fastened to robot. <R34 & R35 >"
2014 form - "Battery - A single EnerSys NP18-12 battery or listed equivalent, terminals insulated, must be securely fastened to robot. <R31,
R32, R33>. Check all batteries for compliance."
|
I really can't see how it is reasonable to expect that the teams read every bit of the checklist. I would guess most people just read the "Team Compliance Statement" which is what the signature pertains to. Also, I'm guessing the checklist states the relevant rules on each line because it is NOT intending to be an ADDITION to the rules. If the rules had the verbiage of the checklist, then maybe I could get on board with part of your argument...
Quote:
Originally Posted by scca229
Not sure where the ambiguity on legality is.
|
Even if I accept your argument that the checklist should be treated as an addition to the rules, this part of the checklist is the electrical section. The batteries in question are not part of the electrical subsystem because they do not provide potential energy to the robot. I could go further, but this already makes it ambiguous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scca229
The whys of what happened are irrelevant as the bot should never have been presented for Final Inspection with more than one battery on it, connected or not.
I guess I equate the DQ in the same frame of mind as to how the Arizona Regional Head Referee answered a question in the driver meeting regarding ball possession..."Don't make us have to determine whether it was or not." Even if the Final Inspection document was provided, it would have explicitly said that a single battery was allowed and the robot was presented on the field with more than one.
|
This analogy doesn't make sense to me. If they called a meeting of all the mechanical leads and the LRI said, "Don't make us have to determine whether or not your robot is legal" I think most people would laugh because that is a joke. That's exactly what the inspection process is for. Everyone comes to inspection thinking they are legal. Don't make it seem ridiculous that a team would come to inspection with something that might be illegal. Unless your premise is that 1902 knew they were illegal, which I'm sure you weren't saying.