View Single Post
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-12-2004, 12:13
Marc P. Marc P. is offline
I fix stuff.
AKA: βetamarc
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Watertown, CT
Posts: 997
Marc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond reputeMarc P. has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Marc P.
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Thanks to this, I just had another one of my off-the-wall thoughts...since we're required to have our robots re-inspected whenever we make any substantial change, what prevents a team from choosing either of the above modules before a match, then going to get re-inspected with the new configuration? I would guess that only their last-inspected configuration is legal, but the team is effectively making the choice in exactly the same fashion as before--and the total weight in any last-inspected state is always no greater than 130 pounds. The fact that this renders all previous states unusable is not relevant; re-inspection is a blank slate--it needs to be, in order to accomodate modifications made at a competition.
But that's just it, this discussion was intended to be "Based on the 2004 rules," which again, state the weight of the robot with all functions combined (whether or not attached, all modules must be present on the weight platform) to be no more than 130 pounds. It wouldn't matter when or why a robot would be reinspected, or whether or not the configuration changes- the robot must still be weighed with all modules and attachments on the scale at the same time. Re-inspection is indeed a blank slate- however, under the 2004 rules, it must still include all modular states the team intends to use during the course of competition. Any module usage whos components were not weighed in at the time of initial inspection would be illegal until officially weighed in with all other components. I know it sounds repetative, but it is my main argument. Everything Tristan has been saying is correct, provided we were governed by the 2003 rules. But the 2004 rules are such as they are for the purpose of preventing or "making difficult" the type of scenario this thread is discussing- the usage of multiple modules for multiple purposes. I'm inclined to agree with what Al said a number of posts back- the mechanism lacking the drill motor would be considered incomplete, invalidating it's status as an alternate configuration.

Quote:
You see the problem with easily defining parts and related terminology--the implications of your questions are what I was concerned about, when I noted that a silly semantic argument with no clear-cut resolution could result.
I agree.
Reply With Quote