Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
There is a universal way of determining whether it's a spare part or not, I think.
Quote:
|
<R76> The costs of "spare" parts are excluded from this rule. A spare part is defined as a part that a team has obtained as a direct replacement for a failed or defective Robot part (Kit part or non-kit part)
|
If the team is putting it on the other assembly for convenience and not to replace a busted drill motor, then I don't think it counts. If it's not a spare part, then it has to be counted on the weight. |
That only addresses the reason for which it was obtained, rather than the reason for which it was installed. It is legitimate to buy it in order to cover a possible malfunction, then preemptively install it in one module or the other. That is only tantamount to changing a motor in an integral mechanism for the heck of it, rather than when broken (which isn't a bad idea in some cases, and which is perfectly legal). The issue seems to be with the time saved, which seems like one hell of a worthless thing to be concerned about!
Just out of curiosity, Aaron, since only one drill motor is installed at inspection-time, and it meets weight limits at that time, why wouldn't it pass the inspection? You state "I would have to say it would not pass the inspection", but there is nothing
at inspection-time that would constitute an illegal part or mechanism.
As for why I think that the rule is ill-conceived, look at it this way: if you had a quick-change collar on the Globe motor, it would make sense to make two--one for the robot and one for the spare motor. Is it being implied that such a collar is inherently illegal, unless you defeat its purpose by only waiting until you need it in order to install the collar on the motor? Also, I agree with Al's reasoning regarding the comparable example of robot sizing.
I can definitely attest that I liked the 2003 rule better, but I don't think that the 2004 rule even covers the situation in question.