Legality of Team 190's Mechanism?

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

My question: if you need to document the legality of your machine to make a case to the inspectors, are you really following the intent of the rules? I don't really like the term "lawyering" the rules (I feel it's gotten clichéd here), but this would seem to be a textbook example. A robot should be able to prove that it meets the rules without supporting documentation. Out of the box designs are great, and should be encouraged, but being able to play within the rules is part of the design challenge.

With the way rules are varying in interpretation from regional to regional, I think getting the documentation was a very smart and necessary thing to do. Take SVR for instance, where a simple rule like G14 was consistently misinterpreted, even after teams talked with the refs to point out otherwise. I love the innovative spirit of team 190, one of my favorite robots to this day is their 2004 robot that hung in autonomous, and I think any claims that they are ignorant to the rules is simply ridiculous. Awesome robot this year 190, and I hope your strategy doesn't get thrown out because the GDC decided to change their mind.

Mike C.