Go to Post My lasting impression of 217 (for years now) has been based on how their robot looks, dynamically. It is poultry in motion. :) - Richard Wallace [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Regional Competitions
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 19 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-03-2014, 01:16
Nuttyman54's Avatar
Nuttyman54 Nuttyman54 is offline
Mentor, Tactician
AKA: Evan "Numbers" Morrison
FRC #5803 (Apex Robotics) and FRC #0971 (Spartan Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Seattle, WA/Mountain View, CA
Posts: 2,137
Nuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond reputeNuttyman54 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Nuttyman54
Re: 2014 Orlando Regional

Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyJeff View Post
I wonder whether R8 is relevant to the idea of using lead-acid batteries as counterweights or ballast. Is battery acid a hazardous material?
If you make the argument that lead acid batteries are hazardous material and shouldn't be used on robots that may take hard hits, then we shouldn't be allowed to use them at all. It's definitely against FIRST's safety principles to say "yeah it's hazardous and unsafe, but a little bit is OK, just this once."

I'd buy it if the mounting solution was considered unsafe, but that's not related to how many batteries are on the robot.

Given that it's an ambiguity in the rules (It COULD be legal...but it also could not be, depending on how you read it), I think it's perfectly fair for the LRI to make his interpretation that extra batteries of the same kind as the main robot battery are illegal. What bothers me is that it seems that 1902 was given a signoff/pass by an inspector (maybe not the LRI) that it was OK. Lacking a formal re-inspection process and documentation, that should qualify as a passed inspection. If the LRI disagrees and wants to make them change it after it is brought up, that is also fine. But a T6 shouldn't be given to a robot that had passed inspection, regardless of if the LRI thinks it should or shouldn't have.

In my opinion, the entire thing gets hung up on what is or is not an "inspection", what process the teams and inspectors are supposed to go through to get re-inspected, and ensuring that both the team and the inspectors involved are on the same page as to what is being agreed upon.
__________________
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:06.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi