[dlavery]

In the example you give above, I would say that you are acting both within the spirit, letter and intent of the rules. All your fabrication, both in the case of the changed gear and the screw drive nut repair, is being done on site or at facilities open and available to all the competition participants. All the fabrication is being done within the time frame of the competition. All repairs/spares are made from component materials, and not built-up assemblies that have been built off-site. So, it looks like you are OK.

Which is exactly my point. You guys had to figure out a way to repair your machine, and you managed to find a way to do it within the rules. The fact that you did DESIGN work off-site is fine. Even using your practice robot to work through the design is OK, as long as you don't use any of those parts on your competition machine (and you have clearly indicated that you won't be doing that). The fact that you were able to find a way to do this, within the rules, is to your credit.

And the fact that you were able to do this provides an existance proof that it can be done - within the rules. If these teams can do it, why shouldn't we expect ALL teams to stay within the rules regarding spare parts?

If they are violating a rule because they do not understand or misinterpreted the rule, then then can be gently informed of the problem, and will probably respond as gracefully and honestly as Team 830. If they are knowlingly violating a rule (hopefully a VERY rare occurance) then they should be called on it.

-dave