View Single Post
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2007, 00:48
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
From this thread in the FIRST Q&A:
Quote:
Please remember that rules from prior FIRST Robotic Competitions do not apply to the 2007 competition. Under Rule <R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to those shown in the table on the Custom Cylinder Order Form. Rule <R106> and availability listed on Bimba's website do not override this. Therefore, any parts scavenged from prior year robots, as permitted by Rule <R106>, must still be in compliance with Rule <R105>.
That GDC answer leaves out the word "purchased", which is found in <R105>, and which is the basis of the omission that I referred to. <R106> is not in a position to override <R105> on the specific issue of non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders, and as a result, this answer is not consistent with the rule as it is actually written.

Despite that, judging by these two Q&A responses and the update, it seems that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders. To keep things consistent, <R106> therefore ought to also be amended to include something similar to the last sentence of <R105> (stating that even non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders need to be the same as the ones in the current Bimba form). If that amendment is made to <R106>, the inconsistency will disappear, because the non-purchased ex-KOP Parkers will become explicitly illegal.

Is a team ever going to try to read the rules in that depth, and take advantage of what seems to have been an accidental oversight? How many teams even have those old Parkers lying around, available for use? I don't know, but leaving even minor discrepancies around serves nobody's interests.