[Andy A.]

I'd like to see steppers included in the rule set. Surely there are cases where they'd be useful, and it'd be a neat way to introduce students to a different sort of motor and control scheme.

I recall a turret on a robot from a few years ago that'd have been a perfect candidate for a stepper, as lost steps seem unlikely and the speed/torque requirements strike me as having been within reason for the smaller NEMA size motors out there. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure it'd have worked nicely. A closed loop brushed motor achieves the same results but in this case the stepper strikes me as the more elegant answer.

As a practical matter, I suspect it'd take a motor/controller combination that can achieve the same sort of holding torque that a window motor currently produces, and which is also reasonably compatible with FRC's electrical and cost limitations. I have no idea if such a thing exists, but it's probably out there.

Whether the benefit, which is mostly the novelty factor, justify the headache of sourcing them and the rule changes is another story.