View Single Post
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-12-2004, 17:21
phrontist's Avatar
phrontist phrontist is offline
Proto-Engineer
AKA: Bjorn Westergard
FRC #1418 (Vae Victus)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 828
phrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond reputephrontist has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to phrontist
Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
It is so a team cannot go out and buy a "Flux Capacitor" and have a huge advantage.

EDIT: I actaully like the 2004 rule because it has the "or equivalent to those available from" part that was not inlcuded in the 2003 rule.
Right, I understand they don't want teams gaining an advantage by purchasing magical parts, but that's what the cost limit is for! If the cost limit is enough to ensure equality as far as mechanical components go, why isn't it enough for electrical components?!

Therefore the "unfair advantage" arguement doesn't make sense, as it's internally inconsistent with other FIRST rules.

UPDATE:
If these companies have generously supported FIRST, and this is FIRST's way of returning the favor, I see no problem with it. I just wish I knew why specifically we've been restricted to certain arbitrary component suppliers.
__________________

University of Kentucky - Radio Free Lexington

"I would rather have a really big success or a really spectacular crash and failure then live out the warm eventual death of mediocrity" - Dean Kamen

Last edited by phrontist : 28-12-2004 at 17:29.