I think with the “nominal working air pressure” verbiage AlecMiller highlighted, I am somewhat persuaded.
I am still a bit hung up on the fact that once you release the air you no longer have a pneumatic system - because there is no longer air. That’s where I see this setup as primarily storing air. The motion resulting from that stored air is presumably provided by an elastic/mechanical assembly. Its still a bit murky to me.
(Yes you can fire a closed loop with tanks enough times the pressure is too low to provide functionality, but there is still air in a closed system.)
Yeah, you are right, the wording doesn’t match the Q&A. The rule says “may use up to two reserviors” when they want it to mean “must use one and may use up to two.”
I would point out that the word primarily is not found in the rules, only solely. Is a tankless system dependent on the air pressure in the components to function? Yes, absolutely. But even granting for the sake of argument that the primary purpose of the components is to store air, it is still not the sole purpose, because each component is vital to the pneumatic system, regardless of the air capacity of the system (i.e even if the robot had a tank which could store as much air as they needed, they would still need the included actuators in the system for the purpose of actuating, the actuators are serving both purposes)
Actually, my team managed to get our “single shot” mechanism to still have air in it after one shot. The mechanism would fire once at 100 PSI, but since it was active for so short a period of time. It could actually fire a second time very slowly (probably with the force of around 5 PSI, couldn’t even fully extend the cylinder). So there can still be air left over in a single shot system.
In this case, the shape is not an issue, we are talking about round spacers. However, if the word “fit” implies a certain tolerance of size, why do people even say “fits loosely” or “fits tightly”? The “right size” has different meanings for different people and across cultures. It is definitely not a scientific term, if we want to go there.
I understand all this discussion and ranting is not going to change the outcome. The king has spoken. But, the impact is more significant than what people think. I am short of the HS spacers, but I don’t want to pay $10 shipping for $5 parts. Before anyone suggests, no, I don’t need any other part right now from vex. If only I could just get the spacers from local hardware stores or pick it up at a Grainger branch, I could save a few dollars.
It is definitely a burden on teams to have so many parts restricted to one manufacturer – versa hub adaptors, hs ball bearing holders, hs spacers, flywheel weights are all obviously useful this year and have no alternate suppliers.
This is true, but in a competition where the point is “by limiting what resources teams have access to, the competition is kept more fair” (and the GDC insists on dubious rules and rule interpretations to stop creative rules loopholes, e.g. very heavy screws as a stand-in for flywheel weights) your opportunities for innovation are somewhat more limited.
It’s one thing if everybody has to work around not having a ball bearing or a flywheel weight, but there’s only so many hours in a day, and if a team has to innovate around a supply shortage, the team who was able to just buy one can apply that time and energy to the next challenge.
It’s clearly established that VRC is (largely) a single-vendor competition format. FTC/FRC are a more multi-vendor format. Each has merits and demerits, but to express dismay that the governing body of the single-vendor format restricts parts from sources other than that vendor (even if they were accepted or in a grey area), seems foreseeable.
Does it suck that supply-chain realities affect teams? Of course. Is it “fair” that teams that are able to start earlier effectively starve later-starting teams of parts? No. These are some of the inherent risks in competing in a single-supplier competition format, unfortunately.
Sadly seems pretty par for the course of the GDC right now. Someone asks a valid question, the GDC gives a nonsensical answer with questionable basis and/or rulings to back it up and the entirety of the VRC community is left scratching their heads trying to wrap their heads around the GDC’s rationale.
While I would not go so far as saying this is a G1 attitude problem, I will say this is not-productive post to make on VEXforum with many new teams learning from others.
Re-read your post and ask yourself does your opinion truly reflect the view point of “the entirety of the VRC community…”
I have to remind myself to take a break from the interweb when I get to locked into a particular viewpoint.
What I am looking forward to tomorrow is going to a Tournament and engaging teams in healthy discussions about the rules for this season. I doubt we will have earth shattering Version 3.0 material for Game Manual, but we will hone best practices for the season in the region.
(Perhaps not everyone (maybe that’s why China refs aren’t enforcing the ban on non-pneumatic to pneumatic connections at China nationals hmmm), but at least a good deal of those who are active in the VRC community lul)
Why couldn’t the GDC just give a simple “yes”. This q and a sparked a follow up and a discussion among experienced members of the community on opposite sides arguing the legality.
