[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson at 1/12/2001 8:56 PM EST


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Ball Sizes? What Gives?
Posted by Dodd Stacy on 1/12/2001 8:35 PM EST:



To use the word "diameter" in any sentence that
involves FIRST balls is wishful thinking indeed!

The balls that FIRST rarely have a single round
cross-section. Diameter just does not apply. One
might as well speak of the radius of a cube ;-)

For years, I have longed for FIRST to define the size
of the balls this way: The Circumference along the
equator (i.e. the parting line of the ball when it was
made).

To my way of thinking this is a very excellent
measurement system. Unlike the measurement systems
that FIRST has used in the past,
it is well defined for all shaped balls, easy to
verify and the gage needed to perform the readings can
be carried in your pocket (sting with a knot at the
right distance).

I believe we would all be happier if FIRST switched to
a rule that said, "The large balls will have a
circumference measured along their parting line (a.k.a.
equator) of 94.2 inches +/- 6.3 inches."

I will spare you the rule for the small balls, but you
get the idea.

Any thoughts? Comments

Joe J.