|
Re: Ballast considered extra parts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz
Last year, a team decided mid event to change the design of the robot. They removed a shooter to become a defensive robot. In this case the change was a permanent redesign and not an attachment. As such the robot was required to be reweighed and inspected. The team went through all the steps including the input of the Head Ref, FTA and Inspector. Of most concern is that the "ballast" was secured within the robot. ...
|
The situation I recalled (above) was very similar, Al. The change was considered "permanent" because the team had no intention nor opportunity to change back to the original configuration after installing the ballast. At least not at that event. And the team's goal was not to gain a strategic advantage using multiple configuration options. They were trying to be as competitive as possible under the circumstances, and their shooter could not be repaired in the time available. I think official's call was correct then.
The question now is whether a team should be allowed to plan on multiple configurations, mechanism or ballast, to gain a strategic advantage in 2007. And the official Q&A system is the only place to look for an answer.
__________________
Richard Wallace
Mentor since 2011 for FRC 3620 Average Joes (St. Joseph, Michigan)
Mentor 2002-10 for FRC 931 Perpetual Chaos (St. Louis, Missouri)
 since 2003
I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.
(Cosmic Religion : With Other Opinions and Aphorisms (1931) by Albert Einstein, p. 97)
Last edited by Richard Wallace : 12-02-2007 at 09:42.
|