Quote:
|
...pneumatic system items specifically permitted on 2010 FRC ROBOTS include the following items... ...off-the-shelf vacuum devices (as long as they are powered by provided or permitted motors).
|
We understood that there were certain permitted motors allowed, but thought that vacuums were exempt because the above rule allowed them. We also took the word "provided" to mean provided in the COTS vacuum, but a lot of people are saying this means provided in the Kit of Parts.
I have heard a bunch of times how teams needed to/have replaced vacuum motors with KoP motors. So this matches up with the "illegal" opinion.
I also look at the original third rule I posted, <R53>, which bans all electric motors except permitted ones. It includes the phrase "except those permitted in <R52> [basic permitted motors list]" and if the vacuum motors were to be allowed it would probably also reference that related rule too. More evidence for the vacuum motors being "illegal."
The FRC manual also says to not twist or legalize the rules and always take them in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism. When I rethink these rules in terms of GP, I actually think that this would mean the vacuum motors are "illegal". One could argue that the vacuum motor is part of the COTS component and also doesn't offer a large energetic/mechanical/power advantage, but theoretically it could. Motors are a source of power and there is a reason FIRST restricts them and all other such devices (compressor, pistons, etc): to give teams a fair advantage. While it is not technical, I think this is a big support for the "illegal" viewpoint.
I will check with my team and see what they think about what has been said. Personally, I could still take the word "provided" multiple ways, so I don't know. We might just post this on Q&A to completely be sure. Thanks for what has been commented so far!