View Single Post
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-03-2016, 18:37
cbale2000's Avatar
cbale2000 cbale2000 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Chris Bale
FRC #5712 (Gray Matter)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Saginaw, MI
Posts: 944
cbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond reputecbale2000 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Disabled robots moving

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctt956 View Post
I'd think that if the fan is built in to a motor controller, it's legal as that's part of the controller. As with the practice robot I mentioned above, fans installed that weren't built in should only be a problem if they're unsafe(blades completely exposed).
Right but if the refs translation of the rule is "it cannot have any parts that keep moving even when disabled" then they wouldn't be legal under that interpretation.
I was merely giving an example of how insane that interpretation is because it totally goes against other rules, the intent of the rules, and basic common sense. Now, as mentioned by ollien, this appears to have not been the reason in this case but as OP presented it, it would have been a horrible ruling.