I was just looking at that forum post where the "potential for increased traction" will be assessed by the referees. I am not happy with that answer
Here's why-
1. there has been an epidemic of inconsistency in inspections among the regionals and the championships. Since the inspectors/referees are volunteers, often inconsistently trained and always subjective, what is easily allowed in one region may be rejected at another
2. any scratching on the wheels offers a "potential for increased traction" .
3. no recourse is clearly stated for the team who has wheels that are rejected. Are the expected to rip the bot apart on the spot and put on new wheels? Where do these wheels come from? Are the teams expected to put out hundreds of dollars in changeout wheels that they may not be required to use?
We have been driving a nice robot base since last weekend. We prepared a waxed school hallway by sweeping and dry mopping the floor before the robot ever hit it. To the best of my knowledge this is the type of substitute the GDC was proposing if a team didn't have an official practice surface.
Now, after 3 hours of driving around we are noticing scratches and scores from dirt picked up by the wheels. I am sure similar scratches will also happen from metal flakes and such shed by the robot in any situation. Shoes track enough grit to be an issue, especially when we have snow days and salt is all over the place.
So I ask- What is considered NORMAL WEAR? An answer of "the refs will decide" isn't satisfactory.
How about the experts developing a technique for refinishing scratched wheels so they can be used if they experience this "normal wear"? If this traction is such an issue that is the only way I can see that assures that all robots hit the field in the same condition.
WC
