[EricH]

Originally Posted by bachster

However, if you take a hypothetical approach where the sponsor was including some special, proprietary feature on the brackets (like a fancy lightweight material) that only one team had access to, one can start to see the rationale for limiting the timeline for FABRICATED components.

It does seem like there could be room for "components functionally equivalent to COTS" where COTS rules could be applied, but capturing the intent while considering all end cases would be tough.

I'm going to say no. The difference between "COTS" (team-built) and COTS (actual COTS) could potentially be hazardous. Or not.


What I would do would be to make the rule read something: R1234: Any Fabricated Item that was built to the blueprint of a COTS item, using standard industrial methods, will be treated as a COTS item. Teams will be responsible for MARKING the item and DOCUMENTING the construction (copies of the blueprint, photos of construction, and similar items that will help to show that the item was built using standard methods). Fabricated Items that do not match the COTS item in question will be counted as Fabricated Items for the purposes of all applicable rules.The MARKING is to designate that the item was built by the team to COTS blueprints. Inspectors may request the DOCUMENTATION to verify that the item meets the same specifications as a COTS item.

Incidentally, hand-drilling holes can be a standard industrial method. Just sayin'. Also the "not match" would in general be taken to mean major departures, not "color doesn't match" or "it's scratched".