Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
I hope "tampering includes disassembling" was not intended to prohibit taking something apart if it was going to be reassembled in original working order before use. Note that teams are instructed to disassemble the cRIO in order to install the gaskets.
The fancy battery charger cabinets using the guts -- disassembled, but unmodified -- of the KOP Schumacher chargers are a bit more problematic. I'd like to see some productive debate about the wording of that particular rule this year.
|
Well, lets look at its intent:
Does it give an unfair advantage to your team?
If repairing a Jaguar that you accidentally fried gives you an unfair advantage, then we have a LOT to discuss.
Similarly, with the battery chargers. All you have to do is measure their current to see if they charge at greater than 6A. If they don't, then they're fine.
You can assume the GDC disagrees with me. They haven't stated the intent of the rule, and so it probably differs vastly from mine.
For example, I would say that modifying the resistors in RC servos to make them variable-speed motors - as long as they're limited to 54 oz-in of torque - is perfectly fine. (Then again, modifying the gearbox would fix that pretty easily. Maybe the rule should be based on power, not torque. ^_^ )
Let's take a look at unfair advantages.
There's many advantages one team can have over another - mentorship, money, tools, school board support, student experience, student motivation. But those are considered fair (except perhaps the money). So the crux of the issue is on what is considered unfair.
My initial definition of fair would be if everyone could do it if they chose. In the case of programming autonomous and implementing sensors, I've been told that's not possible. However, that's integrated into the game itself, and widely assumed to be a fair advantage.
Is unfair determined by how common the knowledge is? Yes and no. The rules are designed to allow some innovation. Without it, we'd just be building from a kit. But there are some things (for example, custom driver station software, or 3-phase motor controllers, or low-pressure inflatable manipulators, or engineering an impact-absorption system ) that are considered out of reach. These still qualify as innovation, but are considered unfair advantage. Some of them also fall under safety hazards, but for the same reason - they don't believe we have the experience or mentoring to do it properly.
Well, I'll stop my rant for now. Perhaps this
should be another thread.