[Wayne TenBrink]

The rules are the rules and they need to be enforced uniformly - both at inspection and during game play.

There has been a lot of discussion here about the similarity between the FRC rules and customer specifications. I see a lot of those, and they are often ambiguous or open to misinterpretation. If I see something I "don't like" I can either take exception or ask the customer to consider a change. The one thing I can't do is just ignore stuff and deliver whatever I feel like. There is a time & procedure for working out differences. FIRST has a similar concept with the Q&A forum and updates. Students should be taught to use this as a tool to make sure that their robot complies at inspection time.

I fret about some of the rules governing build schedule and re-use of fabricated parts. The way the rules are written, teams have an incentive to purchase mechanisms rather than develop and build their own. We are encouraged to develop prototypes and concepts in the fall, but then we are forbidden from using any component with the exact design in the robot - even if we built a new one during the build period. Our team has been evolving a frame/driveline "system" that can be adapted to a wide range of finished arrangements (wheel size & quantity, frame aspect ratio, ground clearance, etc.). The finished assembly will be different every year, but at some point a bracket, axle, or frame rail might need to be the same as some previous model - which would be a violation. If we just used the kit frame, we wouldn't have to worry about that. Perhaps per <R25, example 5> we could just publish our frame design and then it would be "public" and we could use the same design in the future. Gearboxes are another example. If we used public plans to modify a COTS gearbox to accept a CIM , we could use the exact design, but not the same gearbox again next year. If we just used the gearbox in the kit or bought one, we are free to use it over and over again. All of these rules are basically on the "honor system" because they are virtually impossible to verify and enforce.

Regarding <G43> violations - our robot was capable of posessing more than one ball. We considered the <G43> warning about multiple ball posession capability to be an indication that the referees would be watching - not a prohibition against having the capability. We thought the potential benefit of a wide pickup zone outweighed the risk of an occasional penalty, and it paid off. We used driver skill & ball magnet control & the occasional random kick to avoid penalties. We only receive one all season.