|
Re: Define "ROBOT"
First of all, I'm personally just fine with leaving the rule as it is right now... or at least as it was before GDC's recent ruling. If a team can build two functional but totally different configurations and keep it within all weight limits and rules, then let them go for it. But since I have had plenty of space to express my opinions in that other thread, I'll now stick to the question at hand.
To achive the goal that FIRST appears to wish to achieve, I would simply add:
When considering multiple, removable mechanisms, at least x% of the mass of the robot must be common to all possible configurations.
I would suggest 30-40% would be a reasonable number for X. This fraction of the overall mass would represent "the robot". Thus a team could still designate what constituted the robot... and swap out drive bases, etc, but there would be some significant common core between all posible configurations.
Jason
|