Quote:
Originally Posted by JHSmentor
okay - that makes sense. I can agree with that - as long as it applies to the intent of the rule. Correct?
So, in the case of the 6" long bumper rule - is the intent to allow for sufficient bumper to bumper contact to eliminate/reduce damage between the two contacted surfaces or is it to increase the design challenge? or something else?
I think it's just a rule to dictate proper protection. If someone can come up with a good (although potentially complicated) design that will allow them a wider opening (>16") on the 28" wide side of the allowable robot design then I call that good engineering.
I'm only saying this because that's what I want to do - engineer my way out of this 16" limitation if I can. I don't want to be called a cheat or something because others might think that I'm stretching the intent or letter of the rules. (BTW, I'm not saying that anyone will, but that is a fear that I have).
Of course, part of a good design (particularly for this case with the bumpers) would be that, even though the design would be fresh and innovative, would be very clear that the rules were followed to the "T" without question.
|
I agree with your interpretation on the rule and I really hope that's the way it is clarified (if it ever is). However, given the exact design shown in team update 2, I'm not sure what's going to happen.