There are several incorrect statements about the rules that really need to be addressed before anyone goes off and bases some bad decisions on them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
If I used my manual bicycle pump or car tire compresser I could easily exceed 120 without people noticing as they would think I'm adjusting tire pressue if they even saw me.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
Not per <R02> the rule you are refering to. There is no defined source for the pressureized air.
|
That is incorrect. Rule <R02> states: "Energy used by FIRST Robotics Competition robots, (i.e., stored at the start of a match), may only come from the following sources: ... Compressed air stored in the pneumatic system,
but only supplied by the compressor included in the kit, and stored at a maximum pressure of 120 PSI in no more than two Clippard Instruments tanks." It is also a violation of Rule <R96>, as has already been noted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
Making the gages read inaccurately can be done, and the relief valve in asked for is the parker ball valve that comes with the kit.
|
Modification of the gauges, or any other pneumatic components, is expressly prohibited by Rule <R94>.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
As a devious engineer without a PSV it would be easy to overcharge my accumulators and carrier a greater volume of air (at my working pressure, not storage pressure).
|
To do so would be a direct violation of Rule <R02>, Rule <R94> and Rule <R98>. Yes, it is possible that you could knowingly circumvent the rules make it appear that the system was legal during inspection. Some might call that "devious engineering". I call it "blatant cheating."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd
I don't want to do something sneaky it just seems to me like a simple rule requiring the pressure relief valve be mounted on the robot when the compressor isn't would prevent me from thinking of things like this.
|
I'm sorry if this seems overly harsh, but the tone of the above messages makes it appear that you are explicitly seeking out ways to cheat. It is one thing to say, "I may make a mistake and accidentally violate a rule I don't understand." But it is another thing entirely to say "I will alter the gauges to give false readings that will make it appear that I am within the rules when I know I am not." Rules already exist to prevent exactly the sort of actions being discussed. All you have to do is read them and follow them.
Yes, FIRST could write even more rules to make it harder to cheat - but why should they? The community of teams gave very explicit feedback to FIRST for several years, asking them to reduce the number of rules and size of the rulebook. In return, teams committed to making a good faith effort to understand both the wording and the intent of the rules that were written, and to abide by them. It is not incumbent upon FIRST to write an onerous tome to document and prevent every conceivable situation that a team could create to circumvent the intent of the existing rules. It is the responsibility of the teams to read the rules that are already there, and follow them without resorting to devious workarounds that are specifically intended to violate the spirit and intent of the competition.
-dave