[Tristan Lall]

Having dealt with the chaos the pneumatics cause at inspection time, I think there's a need for some simplification of the rules.

If it's decided (by the ones making the rules) that for 2006, pneumatics will still be substantially the same in terms of the types of devices allowed, then I think the rules should be broad enough to allow all sorts of variations on a well-defined theme. The rule might allow, for example, "any unmodified pneumatic cylinder rated by its manufacturer for operation at 120 psi, with the following characteristics...", followed by a chart or detailed description of exactly what's allowed and what's not. A good start might be "non-repairable, single-ended, non-rodless, with optional magnetic piston, with optional piston seals and/or rod seals, with nominal diameter of ≤2 in, and with stroke ≤24 in"; note the absence of things like the material of the cylinder, the mounting method, the types of ports, the types of seals, the manufacturer or the source.

By not specifying a Bimba part number, it avoids the difficulty of cross-referencing an identical cylinder from Parker (because of small differences in design), and it potentially opens the door to the many other manufacturers who also produce similar apparatus. I hasten to add, of course, that if the intent is to generate business for Bimba, a sponsor, then it is reasonable to restrict teams to using their products. If it's the capability, not the brand that's important, then we should broaden the rules.

This also has the advantage of eliminating inspection decisions based on the letter of the law, rather than the function of the cylinder in question. By careful examination of the rules, updates and Q&As from last year, inspectors at Waterloo and Toronto had access to a reference of the exact model numbers from Bimba and Parker that met all conditions. Even so, there was interpretation involved, when really, there was no need for it. For example, is a Bimba cylinder with suffix DXP equivalent to a DP? It was decided that (for Waterloo and Toronto) they would be treated as being DPs, because mechanically, a DXP is a DP, with dowel and clevis brackets deleted and nuts substituted. The cylinder itself is the same, incorporating provisions for both mounting styles, and the hardware is COTS (for both types). But since the DP was on the official form and the DXP wasn't, by some fractured logic, if the sticker on the side said DXP, it was to be rejected, even if it were being used as a DP. (We chose to set aside the actual letter of the law, and substituted a reasonable, ad hoc modification of that rule. So sue us, or rant about the inconsistent officiating.... Even though the inspectors would have been within their rights to reject a DXP, it serves nobody's interests to appear as heartless bastards who would take pleasure in watching a team pull their cylinder off, because of exactly one extra letter on a sticker.)

Rickertsen2 pointed out that there are a lot of other pneumatic devices that are safe, cost-effective, widely available and useful. As simple a measure as permitting anything from within the Bimba general catalogue would allow for a substantial variety of new capabilities for the robots. On the other hand, if FIRST tends toward Dave's opinion that sometimes there is too much variety in the types of off-the-shelf mechanisms permitted, it would be a simple matter to scale down the rule to permit "anything from pages [some range] of the 2005 Bimba catalogue". In either event, the arcane, arbitrary pneumatics rules need some readjustment in order to ease the burden on teams and officials alike.