|
Re: YMTC: Redabot weighs 129.8?
OK, I will make a stab at this again. I like using real world examples so here is one I am very familiar with. Wildstang has modular, crab steering as everyone knows. Each of four drive modules can be swapped out (four bolts and an electrical connector) at anytime so therefore one can consider them "attachments". Two of the modules use drill motors and two use FP motors. The robot shows up for inspection and all four modules are separate from the robot and sitting on the cart. All of the modules have motor mounts but only three of the modules actually have motors. A drill motor is missing. Of course there are plenty of spare motors and spare drive modules with motors already mounted. We put the robot, and "attachments" on the scale and are logged in at 129.8 lb. Back in the pit as the robot is reassembled, all four modules are fitted with motors in place and out to the competition field.
To make a few statements before you get excited...Both the Wildstang robot and the virtual robot have attachments that need motors to be functional. Both robots mount the motors on the attachments to play. Both robots weighed in with all attachments on the scale as outlined in <R06> under 5.2.3 of the robot rules. Both robots weighed in without a motor mounted in an attachment that is used during competition and passed inspection. Now as it stands, the only difference is that the virtual robot has an attachment left in the pit (making it considerably less than 130 lb.) and Wildstang has left nothing in the pit. Of course you are going to cry foul, but on what basis? Wildstang weighed in under the same interpretation of the rule as virtual robot. It weighed in with all attachments and the basic robot on the scale at the same time, same as virtual. It left one drill motor behind, same as virtual. Check the rule and the example and pass the red face test by telling me a rookie could make this error with just the rule book in front of them. The rule is clear and the example is clearer.
"Luckily, I don't take offense to being labelled a lawyer; perhaps I take comfort in the fact that attorneys have much higher average IQs than professional engineers."
Jonathon, I challenge this. You need to come up with some hard evidence in support of this claim.
Tristan, although I disagree with you I do need to give you some encouragement. You have an outstanding command of the English language, written at least. I would expect no less of your spoken language as well. It is rare to come across such well written paragraphs in modern literature let alone in technical text such as these forums. Please make good use of this gift, do not waste it.
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
|