[MrForbes]

<devil's advocate>
Perhaps this is how the GDC sees the issue (it is pretty much how I see it):


There are what appear to be two robots, although one is missing it's electronics. The team is using a "lawyer" interpretation of the rules to say that only one of them is really a robot, the other is just a mechanism, even though it is obvious by just looking at them that they are indeed both robots.


I realize I'm in the minority among those who are posting on this thread....but come on, you all know what a robot looks like, and what a mechanism looks like. Speed racer looks like a robot, it does not look like just a mechanism. Why should the GDC see it any differently just because the rules don't precisely define what comprises a "ROBOT"? Isn't the general term well enough understood among us folks who design, build, and play with robots that it doesn't need a precise definition?

</devil's advocate>