View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-09-2014, 15:45
nuclearnerd's Avatar
nuclearnerd nuclearnerd is offline
Speaking for myself, not my team
AKA: Brendan Simons
FRC #5406 (Celt-X)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 458
nuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant futurenuclearnerd has a brilliant future
Re: 8 MINI-CIM SWERVE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
We already have more power available than needed. Allowing even more would just serve to make things hit that much harder, break that much quicker, and overall decrease our purpose here. I'd rather we saw less motor power and fewer things breaking from impacts!
I'm not against this idea either, but the problem as stated is that the rules give hard numbers for each type of motor, regardless of application. You could theoretically have a 6-Cim + 2 mini-cim drive which would be completely legal, but cause far more of the impacts you're afraid of. What's being proposed here is a more nuanced application of the rules to allow teams more flexibility in choice of motor, without increasing the maximum power output. That sounds sensible to me!