Bryan,
When I'm not available to field AI questions, they defer to Michael. The inverse is true for CMC. In this case, I was also discussing with Michael at the same time since we typically talk several times per week anyway. The official "legal or not" doesn't even lie with me or Michael. It ultimately would sit with Al Fernandez and the National Office. Michael and I are simply ambassadors of the series and make the best call we can with the information provided. Obviously my discussions with Aaron were under the pretense that he executed the wheel modification exactly as we had discussed. If he had done anything outside of our documented conversation, the "approval" most likely would have no grounds for being upheld. NASA always has the ability to reach out to the series directors to point out if we are overstepping our authority. In this case, I didn't hear a peep and Aaron didn't have any issues with the wheels at Nationals.
Clarification for pushing the limits of the rules are what continue to grow series, not in inverse. There are many examples of series that don't exist anymore due rulesets that are close ended with regards to future grown and or written with a ruleset that stifles innovation.
I personally don't like it when people talk about the rules and then as a subset the "intent". If it was the intent to allow or not allow a particular modification, it needs to be clearly specified in the rules. For example, if a battery box per intent isn't supposed to be made out of 1/4" steel plate and put behind the roll cage, the rules need to a maximum weight for a battery box.. Looking at a battery box and saying it is illegal because it doesn't meet the intent of the rules is not a solid defense, IMHO. There are so many loopholes that can be closed with clarified rules. If the series is seeing rules creep with a particular item (wheels plus spacers), the rules can be changed to clearly set the allowed parameters for the wheels.
Bookmarks