Quote:
Originally Posted by iRobot_
FIRST should have mandated at least a motorized component on any part of a robot attached by a tether to help combat the abuse of the rule.
|
Even if FIRST made a rule like this, what constitutes a "Motorized Component"? I could see a number of teams ziptying the lightest possible motor onto the ramp completely out of the way, connecting it legally to the robot, and having it be legal based on this rule. And adjusting the rule so that the motorized component has make contact would also be really easy to get around by attaching a ziptie to the motor shaft, and having it slap the totes as they come out would also be legal.
And if FIRST did make a rule that required that the tethered components be an active mechanism, there would be an outcry. Why require teams to develop and use an active mechanism when a passive one can be just as effective, without allocating extra electrical/pneumatic resources? 1114's RC holder is passive (to the best of my knowledge), and it works better than a lot of the active mechanisms.