Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint
The rule clearly intends the rope be flexible to less than 12 inches vertical from the point it is held.
|
I don't dispute that, however my issue is not with the rope itself being flexible. I'm sure this one is. My issue is that it must
also be composed
entirely of flexible fibers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusion_Clint
They will have to give exact tolerances for a fiber and it be measured with an optical/laser comparator to fit your definition. BTW where does it say the bead is round?
|
I don't believe they will need a laser or even a specification to determine that a small glass bead is not a "slender and greatly elongated natural or synthetic filament" based on the definition that
you provided. The linked rope states "50,000 minute glass beads to the square inch". I am indeed assuming that means a sphere, but even if they are a diamond or a heart or a cylinder, they are not going to be "slender and greatly elongated", nor "filaments".
I don't want to have a team go buy this rope (since talking about it, they have gone from 201 to 171 feet in stock, so i suspect three teams bought 10 feet each!), develop a system that relies on it, and then have it non-functional because of an inspection issue. All inspectors have the goal of making sure everyone gets on the field and is playing by the rules.
Please let us know when Q&A answers your question about this material.
That being said, and after typing up a long reply with my reasoning (small glass beads are not flexible filaments), I went and found the manufacturer's website for this product:
http://shop.pmirope.com/12-5mm-retro...s-rr125yg030ev
Reading that, they don't talk about glass beads at all. they talk about "Retro reflective filaments" which are not glass beads. as a result, I think this rope is probably legal now.
Am I willing to admit that my answer changed because of new evidence? yes.
Am I willing to admit I was wrong? Yes and no. Yes, because the final material looks fine, now that there is more information, but No because given the originally linked page as the only documentation of the material, I don't think the material met the letter of the rule.
I suspect we still disagree as to
why the material is legal, but i think we both now agree that it probably is.