Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jgannon
I wouldn't doubt your word, but I don't think that's accurate. You say that the rule was created after 2002, which would mean that it was in effect last year, too. Our robot last year had two wheels and two metal ball transfers, all of which touched the ground. We were inspected in Sacramento, and twice in Atlanta. It's hard for me to believe that they would have missed something like that all three times, so I can only assume that the interpretation that the other folks (2000vfr800 and Wayne Doenges) have provided is correct. Feel free to prove me wrong.
|
It has been said before, and it will be said again: "Rules from prior years DO NOT APPLY to this year!" Just because a team was able to do something in prior years, they should not assume that they will be able to do the same thing this year. There will be new inspectors, new inspection procedures, new rules, and new controversies. I know that FIRST has tried to simplify and clarify the rules as much as possible without having them lose all meaning. But it is an imperfect science, and there are sure to be areas of contention (both during the inspections and during the matches) that result.
That said, my own take on <R27> is the same as Cory's first post - no metal touching the carpet, anywhere, anytime. If I take a conservative approach (frequently the best approach to interpreting the rules) to the reading of <R27>, then any metal part touching the carpet will cause a violation. Every object - metal or otherwise - will provide some traction when in contact with the carpet. The only time this would not be true would be if the carpet were a true frictionless surface, which it obviously is not. Also, the rule does not state that the "traction devices" have to be driven devices, it just says that the device has to provide traction on the playing field. Every object will do this, even if it is just being dragged around the field by the robot (or an opposing robot). The fact that a small metal caster provides only a very minute amount of traction is immaterial - the only thing that matters is that it is providing SOME traction. As soon as we accept that fact, then <R27> kicks in.
Yes, that would appear to be a restrictive rule, but "dem's da rules!" You might choose to argue past precedent and extreme interpretations of the wording with the inspectors. And you might or might not win the arguments (care to guess how it would come out if I were the inspector?
). But rather than risk it, why not just use a different, non-metallic, caster? Plastic, acetal, phenolic, and even wood, casters are available, so why not just use one of those?
-dave