[martin417]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

My first sentence was a statement, not a question.

The update says that the protrusions are excluded in determining the perimeter. Therefore, they cannot be considered in voilation of the frame perimeter if they are not considered when defining it.

It is sort of like the weight rule and batteries. Your weight limit excludes the battery. If you pass weight without the battery, then you cannot be considered overweight when you put the battery in.

No, it's nothing like the battery rule. <R10> A states:

A. Exception: solely for the purposes of determining compliance with the weight and volume limitations, these items are NOT considered part of the ROBOT and are NOT included in the weight and volume assessment:

This is crystal clear. No argument. The wording in question is not a rule, it is a DEFINITION. That wording DEFINES the frame perimeter. It make no rule about what may or may not extend past that perimeter. That definition is clear. By that definition, the frame members alone define the FRAME PERIMETER, the fasteners are excluded. The RULE this wording affects is <R16> and is equally clear:

During normal operation no part of the ROBOT shall extend outside the vertical projection of the FRAME PERIMETER, except as permitted by Rule <G30>.

I don't see any argument. From a lawyer point of view, (and the inspector is, and must be, a lawyer about the rules) The RULE refers to the DEFINITION. Both the RULE and the DEFINITION are clear. Regardless of intent, or how the GDC meant it, it is currently illegal for fasteners to extend outside the frame members.

Again, I am not trying to cause problems, but to prevent them. Inspectors and teams should abide by the wording of the rule, teams can't be expected to guess the intent of the framers and try to abide by that intent.