View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-02-2010, 14:12
s_forbes's Avatar
s_forbes s_forbes is offline
anonymous internet person
FRC #0842 (Falcon Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,131
s_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond reputes_forbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Team 1942-Cinderella Week 3 . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag View Post
It would seem so long as something was not designed/inteded to provide traction, then in the event contact happened by accident, it would not be in violation, so long as it didn't damage anything.
That's what a reasonable observer would probably conclude if they saw a chain hit a bump during a match. The chain/bump issue would have been a nice thing to let slip by and not worry too much about.

But since someone asked, and the GDC specified in the Q&A that such contact is not allowed, it looks like another pesky little design constraint that we need to follow.

I haven't seen a ruling yet that calls frame members traction devices (and so I think coincidental contact would be permitted), but I'd be a bit irritated if one showed up.
Reply With Quote