[Allison K]

I would really like to see some clarification and/or modification of the rules regarding withholding allowance and the definition of COTS parts. Currently, as best as I can tell, a motor with terminals on the wires is considered a fabricated component when it comes to withholding allowance, but the same motor is a COTS component when used at the beginning of the season (because otherwise reusing a motor from a previous year would be illegal, as it was fabricated outside of the build season).

Specifically what I would like to see is the withholding allowance move away from definitions using the words "fabricated" vs. "COTS" and instead use a system of "identical spares" vs. "upgrades". I think "identical spares" should be unlimited in quantity and weight. This includes COTS or custom gearboxes, motors and motor controllers with modified wires, assemblies that may be prone to damage, etc. - anything that is inside the bag on stop build day. Identical spares should be defined as the same material serving the same function fabricated in the same way and identical in form, weight, material, and use. Secondly, the "upgrades" should be limited similar to withholding, though perhaps a lesser limit (15-20 lbs), as the "identical spares" can be unlimited. Upgrades include anything that is kept out of the bag on stop build day, and anything that is fabricated after stop build day - anything that will be added to the robot to upgrade it after it is unbagged. Raw material is still separate from either definition and allowed in unlimited quantities.

The benefits I see to this system include...
1) Stronger teams are significantly less limited in their ability to bring in popular spares that will enable them to help all teams be competitive
2) Unlimited identical spares helps ensure all teams will be competitive as they can have replacements ready to go.
3) Eliminates fuzziness about withholding weight of spares that were fabricated during the six weeks vs spares that were fabricated after the six weeks, and in general is somewhat more enforceable.
3) The definitions don't conflict with those that are used to define what parts can be reused from one season to the next.
4) The definitions better convey what the purpose of the withholding allowance is for (if indeed it is for upgrades, i.e. assemblies that were withheld).

One situation that would need to be addressed in this system is how to address instances of teams bringing in entire assemblies that can be added to partners to make them a more useful member of an alliance. Overall I think this would clarify a lot of the withholding confusion and be more in line with the spirit of a six week build season.