View Single Post
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-02-2010, 13:23
sgreco's Avatar
sgreco sgreco is offline
Registered User
AKA: Steven Greco
FRC #2079
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Millis
Posts: 1,031
sgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond reputesgreco has a reputation beyond repute
Re: legality of bolt and screw heads breaking plane of chassis meeting bumpers

Ok, I'm a bit confused.


Frame Perimeter

Quote:
FRAME PERIMETER – the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE. To determine the FRAME
PERIMETER, wrap a piece of string around the ROBOT at the level of the BUMPER ZONE - the string describes this polygon. Note: to permit a simplified definition of the FRAME PERIMETER and encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER, minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER.
R-16

Quote:
Exception: To facilitate a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER, minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc that are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER and are within the BUMPER ZONE are permitted.
Note Under R-16

Quote:
Note: This means no “mushroom-bots.” If a ROBOT is designed as intended, in normal operation you should be able to push the ROBOT (with BUMPERS removed) up against a vertical wall, and the FRAME PERIMETER will be the only point of contact with the wall.
These Three parts of the rules completely contradict each other.

The definition of frame perimeter is consistent with the first part of R-16, which would make bolts protruding perfectly legal.

The note under R -16 completely contradicts everything. I would be more inclined to believe that a part of rules would be more correct than a note underneathe, and I would also be more inclined to believe that something that appears in the rules twice would be more correct than a note that occurs once. Based on what I've seen and read I have no reason to believe that protruding bolts are illegal; true there is some gray area, but since two distinct sections say it is legal, I would think that I can fairly assume that it is legal.

To me the rules pretty clearly allow the bolts to protrude as neither of the first two quotes I posted have been removed from the rules.

Last edited by sgreco : 27-02-2010 at 13:26.