[Tristan Lall]

I'd be curious to see what constitutes a "detailed dimensioned drawing". Traditionally, a parametric solid model isn't treated like a drawing (consider that industrial document control procedures are not always the same for models as for the production drawings), though it can be used to contain much the same data. Under the strictest reading, it would seem that teams which work from models and patterns alone wouldn't be affected, even though that probably contradicts the intent of the rule.

Also, there's a curious implication of the fact that prototypes are allowed: what if the pre-season prototype (with detailed drawings) is so good that you don't need to change anything? How much token redesigning is enough to satisfy the rules? Obviously a new-from-scratch design defeats the purpose of a prototype, and equally obviously, an identical design doesn't satisfy the requirement to do the majority of the work in-season. Where's the dividing line? It's not just an academic distinction, since some of us will no doubt have to enforce this at the events.

And excuse the blatant lawyering and word games, but the rule calls for "completing" the drawings. Could you argue that the drawings are incomplete, because you intend to issue new revisions as necessary? While that may be far-fetched, there's a more reasonable related question as well: do they really mean "completing" (as in, the drawing has to be done and checked) or "working on" (as in, don't even fill in a title block)? Or worse, "completing" in the sense of "working on" (like one completes a form)? I think I know what's meant, but it's simply not good practice to assume that everyone will see eye-to-eye on the issue.

I'm not advocating that anyone try to pass this rationale off at inspection—because it's a very hard sell, even to me—I'm just wondering how the rule could be stated so as to capture the intent with the utmost precision.