Answered: Clarification, unnecessary risk <R3 C.>

Our team is planning to add a string based expansion mechanism(which is stored within a solid container before it is ejected) for the purpose of parking and moving throughout the field. A flexible material must be used for this type of mechanism to achieve these 2 tasks simultaneously.

with support of <g11>, is that enough to justify the use of this type of scoring mechanism and that it does not pose an unnecessary risk of entanglement to pass inspection?

I understand that it is obvious we are not allowed to use this mechanism if a fellow robot is nearby, however if the coast is clear, may we?

in the past, similar mechanisms have been used. Some examples are,

Clean sweep- used to deploy minibot

Round up- String based

FRC 2002- tether based with no robot entanglement seen at 0:35-0:40

If this type of mechanism is not allowed, can you please provide a requirement/example that can define unnecessary risk of entanglement?

It is impossible to determine if this device is posing an unnecessary risk of entanglement without knowing more about the nature of the device. However, from your initial description, it appears to present a definite risk of entanglement.

Devices which pose risks of unnecessary risks of entanglement may not be used at anytime.

Non rigid devices which extend beyond the frame of a robot, are typically considered to be risks of entanglement. These types of situation are evaluated on a case by case basis. Specifically, non rigid devices which drag along the tiles, beyond the frame of the robot, will definitely be considered unnecessary risks of entanglement.

are we allowed to do any of the following points?

-does that mean if the string has enough slack and doesnt drag(or raised), it wont be considered unnecessary risks of entanglement and be categorized as obstruction of the field?

-since every manipulator has some sort of degree of freedom, would it be legal to use a jointed cable guard as an expansion?
Note: im not really sure what’s the real name, but i know in frc competitions some teams feed wires through this chain looking thing that protects the wiring

-cable guard has too many joints to be considered rigid, is it safe to assume that metal with a reasonable amount of joints would be legal? (and undergo extra scrutiny from <g11?> for the “defensive” measures)

Sorry if i’m being annoying and exploiting rulings, but this is a really cool idea that i want to try doing:o

No, this would still be clear unnecessary risk of entanglement.

It would depend on the specific implementation of the rigid and jointed guard made from VEX legal parts.

Alright, Thank you for your time:)

You’re welcome!