Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
While that's generally good advice, you don't seem to realize that I did not attempt to read between the lines, nor did I insert some interpretation of hidden meaning.
... blah blah blah ...
|
OK, let's try this again. There is no inconsistency in the rule. The intent of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. The application of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. FIRST has made it clear your conclusion is wrong. The official Q&A has made it clear the conclusion is wrong. The FRC updates have made it clear the conclusion is wrong. You are finding fault and making distinctions where there are none. Again, if you still think there is an issue here then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject.
If you want to convince yourself that you are right and FIRST is wrong, then go ahead. If your robot design is impacted by the incorrect conclusions you reach, then that is between you and your team. That is your business. But when you come into a public forum and repeatedly make incorrect statements about the meaning and applicability of the rules, then there is a problem. Asserting statements that contradict the answers provided by FIRST is misleading to those teams that are trying to follow the official rules. More importantly, it is a disservice to those teams that may not yet be experienced enough to understand that answers found here carry no weight with inspectors, judges or referees, and the only official answers are those found on the FIRST Q&A system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Van
Is that the intent here? No Parker cylinders from previous years? If that is the intent, then the first bullet of <R106> is completely redundant since any of the items listed there would be covered by <R24>.
We have nearly all of the pneumatics components that were in any of the previous year's kits - and we use 'em. (We used a 2001 cylinder on our 2005 robot.) We just want to be sure that we are within the rules!
|
And this is exactly to the point. Tristan's incorrect conclusion about the legality of Parker cylinders that led to this follow-up question is flat out wrong. When this bad information causes other teams to question/alter their designs, then it needs to stop. Rather than purveying another round of torturous logic that leads to the wrong outcome, you need to refer to the one and only resource that teams should use when seeking a clarification of the rules – the official FIRST Q&A.