Team Update #5 Posted

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by EricH

This will give him experience as to what the GDC goes through every year and (hopefully) give a more grammatically correct manual.

Eric, I like your ideas about using caution when criticizing. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why everybody is seemingly dismissing this as a mere semantics issue. Go take a look at <R48>. I know that Eric is plenty familiar with it by now, because he is one of the outspoken rules gurus around here. Follow the flowchart with the 2006 KOP Parker cylinder in mind, as Tristan does. It passes without any question or lawyering or grammatical quirks. It is obvious that this is not what is intended, because of the latest updates and Q&As, but <R48> still stands as written. This is a problem! I don't think it's worthwhile to criticize the GDC over ticky-tack semantics, but it's also a mistake to blindly defend them when there's an obvious conflict. Am I missing something here? I feel like I'm going nuts, because it's so apparent to me, but there's only one other person who will even acknowledge what I'm seeing.

[DanDon]

I have to say that I'm with Tristan and Joey on this one. The way <R48> reads, since the Parker cylinder is a previous year's cylinder, is off-the-shelf, and does not exceed the quantity and/or cost limits for this year's competition, the cylinder passes the flowchart and is a legal part.

[Cody Carey]

Ok... Everyone who's dismissing this problem as a clash between egos needs to read the first few posts, because the question (as jgannon has stated) is entirely valid. One part of the manual says that the parker cylinders are legal, and another says that they aren't. This is a problem.

When I'm deciding what to put on the robot, I go to the flowchart. In this application, If I went to the flowchart... My team's robot wouldn't pass inspection. (That is bad).

You can walk in someone else's shoes all you want, but that doesn't make a mistake that they previously made correct. There job is hard, and I am very grateful that they do it (Thank you GDC ), but I still expect a clear, concise manual. as does everyone else in FIRST.

So... Has anyone posted this to Q&A yet?


EDIT: I also haven't seen one person criticize the GDC, I've only seen a problem with a manual being pointed out. Nobody should be taking anything said here personally, as that only aggravates the situation and causes hard feelings.

[Steve W]

Tristan's question has been posted on the Q&A exactly as I received it tonight.

[Steve W]

The answer has been posted http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=3276

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by GDC

Unmodified Parker-Hannifan and/or Bimba cylinders that are sourced from prior-year FRC Kit Of Parts, and which are one of the sizes listed on the 2007 Pneumatic Components Order Form, and which are identical in size, shape and function to any of the specific part number combinations listed on the 2007 Pneumatic Components Order Form, and which are rated for at least 125 psi, may be used on a 2007 FRC robot. The relevant rules (<R28>, <R48>, <R105> and <R106>) are satisfied. If the cylinder has been modified, it can not be used. If the cylinder is from other than Parker-Hannifan or Bimba, it can not be used. If the cylinder is of a diameter/stroke combination that is not listed on the 2007 Pneumatic Components Order Form, it can not be used. If the cylinder is not the same as one of the Bimba part numbers listed on the 2007 Pneumatic Components Order Form (e.g. it has a different mounting configuration, different piston rod configuration, different sensor integration, etc.), it can not be used. If the cylinder is rated for less than 125 psi, it can not be used.

So you can use one of the old Parker-Hannifan cylinders, as long as it is identical in function to one of the cylinders listed on the current Bimba order form.
OK.

Thank you GDC.

[Rickertsen2]

I miss the old manuals. They were better written and overall more consistent.

[dlavery]

OK, so now it is completely unambiguous. The rules make it clear that Parker cylinders from prior KOPs are permitted (as long as they are of legal sizes, etc.) and FIRST has made it clear that their intent was for Parker cylinders to be legal. The manual and the intent are consistent. Q.E.D. So can we just get over this inane lawyering of the rules and get back to building robots?


.

[Mr. Van]

Uh, so anyone need 2" bore 12" throw pistons? How about 1.5" bore 8" throw?
Now we've got PLENTY of extras!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
RoboDox