| |
O.K. I'm going to regret this simply because I usually avoid heated
debates and I should know better but....
Calum, try not to take any of this too personally. It is intended for
the purposes of debate and not an attack on anyone's mind set (yours,
Iian's, whoever)
I have to side with Chris and Iian 100% on this one.
> The difference is that while one may call it preventative care, others may
> call it competitive advantage. • <snip>
> First, a ban of oil or other lubricants is not to determine how much Lego
> you destroy, but not to give anyone else an advantage. .....
Come on Calum, get serious! (Have you been sniffing that plastic
dust?)
I can appreciate your desire to work on a level playing field and to
ensure that all participants have an equal opportunity at success, but
this is just nuts. I can't quite see what your problem is with
lubricants? I gather that you feel that it somehow would give some
people an advantage over others, but how exactly? I presume it's
because you feel it wouldn't be available to everyone?
If this is your logic (and I can't see any other interpretation for
it) then let's look at it more closely.
We allow people to use three RCX's for an application where one (and,
arguably two) would do. Clearly this gives some people a clear
advantage over those with more limited Lego budgets. Hardly fair, is
it? To be equitable, we shouldn't allow this anymore.
We allow people to use 9, 15 and 21 tooth gears - the mid-70's era
red, blue and yellow variety that I used in my entry. These babys have
teeth that are 8 times the size of modern technic gears. You'll break
an axel before you strip one. I'm just dying to use them in a
high-torque application and with teeth that big, the whole issue of
lubrication becomes irrelivant. I propose, therefor, that we make
their use mandatory at upcoming robotics events. You can't grid 'em
down - that'l keep Iian, Chris and others happy - and you don't need
to lubricate them - just for your pleasure - so this is clearly the
happy medium we are all seeking. But wait.. they haven't been sold in
a quarter century. The few that are left in the Toronto area are hard
to find, and I probably own 1/4 of them. That's not fair either is it?
You can't have a level playing field if you allow parts that are
almost non-existant anymore. Clearly we can't allow these either
anymore either. (Gasp! Did I actually say that?)
The same holds true for any other expensive or rare Lego parts.
Maybe I've missed your point entirely and I'm in dire need to have it
clarified, but looking at it again...
> you destroy, but not to give anyone else an advantage. .....
... I would have to assume that you either feel that:
- 3-in-1 oil, or WD40, or whatever, being sold in every
Canadian Tire, Home Hardware, Lansing, Revy, Home Depot and even
Walmart and Zellers for that matter, is too hard to come by for the
average individual and, hence, affords an unfair advantage to those
lucky enough to have found a can.
- 3-in-1 oil, or WD40, or whatever, provides an unfair
advantage to those with sufficient liquidity in their mutual fund
portfolios, or a suitably steep line of credit, to be able to afford
the $3.00-a-small-can price tag.
> ..... Making the argument
> for using lubricants as preventative is weak....
...and you thought Iian's argument was weak?!??
> .... In the same mindset, we don't
> allow battery box hammers or arcing track points not because we don't want
Huh? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(I know this is unrelated to this topic, but I do actually wonder what
this means)
> I do not wish to get into what lubrications are allowed etc,
Perhaps you don't, but others might. Feel free not to participate in
the discussion if it doesn't interest you.
As I said at the start, none of this should be taken personally, but I
do share Iian's distaste at the unilateral way you are handling the
issue. Your argument that this is in the same vein as Chris'
unilateral decision on when a robot is considered finished doesn't
compare. Chris made a decision that *needed* to be made, one way or
the other, since it directly, and significantly effected the way RTL10
would play out. Robots like mine which did not pre-scan the board and
were therefor forced to check every cell of the X to ensure completion
would have had radically different results if I had been allowed to
scan the board myself and declare my robot done when it had placed the
last mis-placed block, even though the robot couldn't realize it was
finished. I have to question whether your decision to outlaw
lubricants is even necessary at all.
This brings up an interesting experiment: If there is anyone out there
who still has their robot in one piece, could you please take several
runs at the anti-X pattern and give us an average time? Be as accurate
as possible. Then put some WD40 or whatever on the gears and take an
average of another series of runs. Let us know if there truely is any
difference, and if so, by how much. I have a suspicion that this whole
argument is effectively pointless.
Matthias Jetleb
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: lube....
|
| (...) Okay, don't worry about that. Iain and I aren't taking it too personally either. (...) Yes, it gives people an advantage, but I'm not against them because not everyone can get them. I'm against them because when you say lubricants, that could (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: lube....
|
| Matthias, Your points are valid and i could not explain them better. Thank you. This topic has a few grey areas. (...) Yes, Calum I did tell you this. And for the most part it is true. Only one part was so badly worn that I would not use it in THAT (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
