More minibot clarifications and the addition of pneumatic pistons and storage tanks to the list of allowable pneumatic components.
This relaxation of the pneumatic rules makes Scott very happy!
I’m guessing this thread won’t consist of 8 pages of complaints 
Being able to use cylinders at our discretion is great. I’m happy. Though, I doubt my team will take advantage of the ruling.
Hmmm, can we use ANY pneumatic storage tank? I can think of some pretty huge ones that would meet the pneumatics safety requirements.
But can you spare the weight? 
Engineering is all tradeoffs.
Trading?
What?
Stock market time! :yikes:
I believe that if we go with pneumatics, then if we end up a few pounds under the limit… AIR TANKS!
Oops - thanks to whoever closed my thread in the other forum; I didn’t see this one when I hunted quickly - I should have searched.
Maybe not, but that’s got to be the harshest red card ever. DQ’d for deploying your MINIBOT marginally too high? :eek:
I agree Gary
I think they added the language and didn’t look at the penalty
The penalty SHOULD be Red Card for deploying your minibot on a different tower and a standard tower disable for starting too high…
that would be much more fitting…
I think you SHOULD get a RED CARD for trying to mess up another team’s shot at the minibot by deploying on the opponent’s tower.
But for a slight discretion on your own tower you should just have the tower disabled…
Much more reasonable penalty…
So it’s ok if a person in Track starts on a running block that’s marginally too far forward?
No, but the penalty would be the same for starting too far forward or starting too soon, wouldn’t it?
If you deploy your MINIBOT early, the tower is disabled - you lose any possible race bonus points.
If you deploy too high, you are DQ’d - but presumably your alliance still gets the bonus points? The rules don’t say.
They should have included “entirely below the deployment line” into <G20>, not <G21>.
No, but this is equivalent to removing the runner’s score from the race (disabling the tower) as opposed to saying that all previous races are discounted because of it.
I agree that the red card is a bit harsh, perhaps we’ll see this changed in the next one. Regardless, people should be designing their systems so they can’t deploy above the line easily or at all, so hopefully it will be a non-issue either way.
I’m with you there. I suspect that it’s a mistake and will be corrected in a later update.
I’m happy that FIRST has relaxed the pneumatics rules, but I doubt our strategy is going to take advantage of them this year.
I’d say second harshest. Harshest is when you get a red card for your partner not passing inspection.
I would have to agree with that. I still do not get that. I get that they should be inspected, but why is it the alliances responsibility?
I think the intent of that rule is that if the partner does not pass inspection, they must be a no-show. If the non inspected team no-shows, then you do not get a red card, but if they attempt to show to get points, then the rule thwarts that.
I guess. I will be sure to make sure, no matter what, our alliance partners are inspected, or at least for the first 20 or so qualifications.
To add to that,
While I agree it’s harsh, and not necessary, FIRST is clearly going for the Peer Pressure approach. With this penalty, you can bet everyone on the alliance will be pressuring other teams to get inspected, and it will probably work.
Will some unfortunate teams go under because of this? Yes. However in the end it will keep this problem to a minimal.
Only if they’re stupid enough to let a non inspected team try to show up for a match.