Thread: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
View Single Post
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-03-2008, 01:47
Richard McClellan's Avatar
Richard McClellan Richard McClellan is offline
Engineering Mentor
FRC #0254 (Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Mentor
  
Join Date: May 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 322
Richard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud ofRichard McClellan has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to Richard McClellan
Re: Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?
Our team (2158) was seriously considering this design during week 1 of build season, but decided against it only because we thought it would be too complex and might be hard to adhere to the 80" rule. That's why we asked the Q&A question that everyone has been referring to.

I'm still confused as to why the concept was ruled illegal by <G22>. The definition of CROSSING is that the entire robot must cross a finish line or lane marker. With 190's design, the base stays in Q1 the whole time, so it nevers crosses, correct? What am I missing?
__________________
~ Richard McClellan ~
Former Student on 1477 | Northside Roboteers | 2004-2005
Former Lead Mentor for 2158 | ausTIN CANs | 2007-2010
Current Mentor for 254 | Cheesy Poofs | 2013