cRio-FRC in BOM

[nitneylion452]

I'm compiling my team's BOM and a thought passed through my mind: the cRio-FRC (the 8 slot version) is not included in this year's KOP. Since it is not included, as per the exact letter of the law, it's cost ($800 with FIRST discount) should be included in the BOM. However, rule [R14] states that no individual part can cost more than $400 and would make the cRio-FRC an illegal part. Surely, the GDC does not intend this, but I thought it was an interesting thought. Anyone else care to share their opinion?

[jimwick]

Surely that is not the intent. But Thursday at the Granite State Regional should be an interesting day.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Hrm. You're correct that it should technically be costed since it's not in the 2012 KoP nor listed as an explicit exception. Practically speaking, it's a simple oversight by the GDC, since they didn't mandate the FRCII and they're not about to make about a thousand veteran bots illegal.

Definitely needs to be Q&A'd. If you can't/won't, then I will. Whoever does should point out that any exception written for it should exclude the possibility of a team using both an FRC and FRCII for free. (Someone totally would.)

[RufflesRidge]

A careful reading of R13-A should solve your problem

The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:
A. items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist)
Emphasis mine

The cRIO-FRC was on last year's checklist in quantity 1 so you're all set and can document the cost as $0.

[SenorZ]

[R15]

Individual Components or Mechanisms, not excluded in Rule [R13], that are retrieved from previous Robots and used on 2012 Robots must have their undepreciated cost included in the 2012 Robot cost accounting and applied to the overall cost limits.


However, the individual modules of the cRIO count as components. So look up their individual cost. We bought a cRIO II, and it is $525, but the modules and base are all under $400.

[Nate Laverdure]

[R15]
No, Ruffles had the answer. The cRIO is excluded from the cost accounting due to being listed in a previous-year's KOP Checklist.

[andreboos]

But (by the letter of the rule) wouldn't the quantity be limited to zero? Or would it be limited to the quantity of the year of the KOP (one)?

We used two IEC limit switches from the 2010 kit of parts this year, but they were not included in this year's KOP, so they were included with cost in this year's BOM. Is this incorrect? Would two switches be exempt from the cost calculation because two were included in 2010?

[Nate Laverdure]

Would two switches be exempt from the cost calculation because two were included in 2010?
Yes, that's what Al seems to (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1135495#post1135495) be saying (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1135154#post1135154).

[Cal578]

I think [R13] has an implied phrase, and should be read this way:
The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:
A. items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist [that contained that item])
where the italics indicate the part I believe is implied.

It would be nice to see an update, a Q&A, or at least if some Lead Robot Inspector were to weigh in on this thread. ;-)

[nitneylion452]

A careful reading of R13-A should solve your problem


Emphasis mine

The cRIO-FRC was on last year's checklist in quantity 1 so you're all set and can document the cost as $0.

But it's not listed on this year's, so there is no quantity of it that we would be permitted to use. That rule is in place to allow teams to use old parts from previous robots without having to count for the cost of some. For example, we have 4 cims on our bot but none of them are from this year's kit, but since 2 are included, we can write 2 of them off as kop and not have to include the cost of 2 of the 4 motors.

EDIT:


Hrm. You're correct that it should technically be costed since it's not in the 2012 KoP nor listed as an explicit exception. Practically speaking, it's a simple oversight by the GDC, since they didn't mandate the FRCII and they're not about to make about a thousand veteran bots illegal.

Definitely needs to be Q&A'd. If you can't/won't, then I will. Whoever does should point out that any exception written for it should exclude the possibility of a team using both an FRC and FRCII for free. (Someone totally would.)

I don't have access to Q&A, so your asking would be ideal.

[nitneylion452]

Has anyone Q&Ad this? It's clearly a mistake by the GDC, but it would be nice to have official confirmation. Plus, it'll be interesting to see the response the GDC gives as far as a "We missed that" is concerned.

[RufflesRidge]

But it's not listed on this year's, so there is no quantity of it that we would be permitted to use. That rule is in place to allow teams to use old parts from previous robots without having to count for the cost of some. For example, we have 4 cims on our bot but none of them are from this year's kit, but since 2 are included, we can write 2 of them off as kop and not have to include the cost of 2 of the 4 motors.


There would be no reason to write the rule that way if that were the intention. The actual physical source of a part (with the exception of FIRST Choice) has never been important for cost accounting, keeping track of whether the KOP motors or the ones you bought from AM ended up on your actual robot is pointless. That type of accounting would also cause havoc when you have to swap in a spare at an event, do you need to submit a new BoM?

I understand the desire to have an official Q&A answer for reassurance, but I am fairly certain that the "implied phrase" interpretation posted by Cal is correct.

[Siri]

There would be no reason to write the rule that way if that were the intention. The actual physical source of a part (with the exception of FIRST Choice) has never been important for cost accounting, keeping track of whether the KOP motors or the ones you bought from AM ended up on your actual robot is pointless. That type of accounting would also cause havoc when you have to swap in a spare at an event, do you need to submit a new BoM?

I understand the desire to have an official Q&A answer for reassurance, but I am fairly certain that the "implied phrase" interpretation posted by Cal is correct.If so, is there a rule somewhere that prohibits using both the cRio-FRC and the -FRCII? Or two (or three) -FRC's? (It may be in the control system stuff that I usually don't try to fully digest.)

I think the confusion is over the phrase "most recent" following the word "any". If "any" refers to any year (which, unless they meant "either" the Rookie or Veteran checklist, I think is the only interpretation), what does "most recent" mean? Logically, it should mean most recent from that year, but [R13] is a mighty weird way to write it. Further, why is this the first time they've used such phrasing/intended such an allowance?

I understand the logic behind the deduction, but a Q&A would make me feel a bit better as well. (i.e. Kevin, I for one would really appreciate your offer as well.)

[RufflesRidge]

If so, is there a rule somewhere that prohibits using both the cRio-FRC and the -FRCII? Or two (or three) -FRC's? (It may be in the control system stuff that I usually don't try to fully digest.)


Under my interpretation you actually could use both a -FRC and -FRCII "for free" if you so desired. You would have to account for the cost of -FRC's beyond 1 as that was the quantity on the most recent checklist the -FRC was included on.

I agree the wording is awkward and a Q&A would certainly help put everyone at ease.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Surely that is not the intent. But Thursday at the Granite State Regional should be an interesting day.

Especially since they didn't address this in the last TU.

See you at GSR.

[kjohnson]

I'm not sure why the legality of the cRIO is even being questioned...

Robots must be controlled via one programmable National Instruments cRIO (part # cRIO-FRC or cRIO-FRCII), with image version FRC_2012_v43. Other controllers shall not be used.

As for your budget concerns:

The original 8-slot cRIO-FRC (with modules) was provided in a previous KOP.
The new 4-slot cRIO-FRCII (with modules) was provided in this year's rookie KOP.

Therefore, they count as previous or current KOP items and neither the cRIO nor modules need to be accounted for.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

In order to use an item, it must pass ALL FRC rules. Not just <R52>

I'm not sure why the legality of the cRIO is even being questioned...

As for your budget concerns:

The original 8-slot cRIO-FRC (with modules) was provided in a previous KOP.
The new 4-slot cRIO-FRCII (with modules) was provided in this year's rookie KOP.

Therefore, they count as previous or current KOP items and neither the cRIO nor modules need to be accounted for.


[R52]
Robots must be controlled via one programmable National Instruments cRIO (part # cRIO-FRC or cRIO-FRCII), with image version FRC_2012_v43. Other controllers shall not be used.

Check. CRio-FRC and -FRCII allowed.

[R13]
The total cost of all non-KOP items shall not exceed $3,500.00 USD. All costs are to be determined as explained in Section 4.1.3: Budget Constraints.

The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:
A. items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist),
B. items obtained via a Product Donation Voucher included in the KOP,
C. items ever distributed to the team via FIRST Choice,
D. any non-functional decorations,
E. individual fasteners, adhesives, or lubricants that are less than $1.00 each,
F. spare parts, and
G. parts of the Operator Console.

Check. CRio-FRCII allowed at no cost (1 on KoP checklist). CRio-FRC is allowed but at cost because qty on latest KoP is 0.

[R14]
No individual item shall have a value that exceeds $400.00. The total cost of Components purchased in bulk may exceed $400.00 USD as long as the cost of an individual Component does not exceed $400.00.

CRio-FRCII -- no issue here (Costing is 0)
CRio-FRC is disallowed due to costing of $535

I agree that it appears to be an oversight ... Again, it'll be an interesting Thursday. :rolleyes:

[Nate Laverdure]

EDIT: disregard my first point... didn't make sense! I stand by my second point, which is that:

I agree with nukem... I'm unable to understand how this is an issue.

EDIT2: I interpret [R13] Exception A to mean: items listed on the most recent revision of any year's KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed)

[RufflesRidge]

Check. CRio-FRCII allowed at no cost (1 on KoP checklist). CRio-FRC is allowed but at cost because qty on latest KoP is 0.

Here's what I don't get about this interpretation. Why use the word "any" at all if that's what they meant? The way you are interpreting that's not allowing you to exclude the cost of an item that was on "any" KOP checklist it's allowing you to do so for items on the 2012 KOP checklist. If that's what they meant that's what they would have said IMO (considering that's exactly what they did in R20 last year).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Here's what I don't get about this interpretation. Why use the word "any" at all if that's what they meant? The way you are interpreting that's not allowing you to exclude the cost of an item that was on "any" KOP checklist it's allowing you to do so for items on the 2012 KOP checklist. If that's what they meant that's what they would have said IMO (considering that's exactly what they did in R20 last year).

Their wording does seem to be contradictory. As such, I take it as the most restrictive (IE Qty 0). We only have an 8-slot CRio, so we're in the barrel, so to speak ... Hence, my statement that it's going to be interesting on Thursday.

[Nate Laverdure]

CRio-FRC is allowed but at cost because qty on latest KoP is 0.
Can you point me toward the KOP Checklist (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2012_Assets/KickoffKitChecklistRev_A.pdf) with a listed quantity of "0" for the 8-slot cRIO?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Can you point me toward the KOP Checklist (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2012_Assets/KickoffKitChecklistRev_A.pdf) with a listed quantity of "0" for the 8-slot cRIO?

Page 19

compactRIO
1
Rookie Kit
P/N: cRIO-FRC II
4-slot cRIO with Analog (9201), Digital (9403),
and Solenoid (9472) modules

Highlighted by me.
The only CRio identified in the most recent KoP checklist is the CRIO-FRCII.
There is no CRIO-FRC in the most recent KoP checklist, thus a qty of 0 in the most recent KoP checklist. As per their exact wording (Inside the parenthisis(sp?)), we cannot cost account the CRio-FRC at $0.

[kjohnson]

Page 19



Highlighted by me.
The only CRio identified in the most recent KoP checklist is the CRIO-FRCII.
There is no CRIO-FRC in the most recent KoP checklist, thus a qty of 0 in the most recent KoP checklist. As per their exact wording (Inside the parenthisis(sp?)), we cannot cost account the CRio-FRC at $0.

But the Rookie checklist isn't your checklist. You would have to go back to the checklist where you first got your 8-slot cRIO.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

But the Rookie checklist isn't your checklist. You would have to go back to the checklist where you first got your 8-slot cRIO.

Incorrect:

This is a sample Bill of Material Template (BOM) for use in the 2012 FIRST(R) Robotics Competition Game, Rebound RumbleTM. All parts required by The Robot Section 4 should be entered into the BOM. The BOM helps Inspectors verify part use and legality on Robots.

Any item that was included in the Rookie KOP but not the Veteran KOP should be considered a KOP item and indicated on the BOM. Costs are to be recorded per Section 4.1.3 of The Robot, which can be found at http://frc-manual.usfirst.org.

Highlighted by me.

[andreboos]

I interpret [R13] Exception A to mean: items listed on the most recent revision of any year's KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed)

The 2007 Kit of Parts included four Victor motor controllers. This year's KOP included one. Would up to four Victors be exempt from cost calculations this year? By this interpretation, they would, and a team could include four Victors and four Jaguars without a cost penalty. This is not contradictory, but I doubt it is the intended effect of the rule.

However, this interpretation is necessary to make the 8-slot cRIO legal, which is clearly the intent.

The interpretation I prefer is this: items are exempt from cost calculations at the quantity they were last included in a kit of parts checklist.

This means that a single cRIO-FRC would be exempt from cost calculations, because the last checklist in which it was included (2011), has quantity one. Victors would be exempt up to quantity one, because one was included this year. Next year, if Victors are not included in the KOP, one would still be exempt from cost calculations.

[kjohnson]

Incorrect:

I'm aware of that statement, but at some point in the past you still had the 8-slot cRIO-FRC on your KOP checklist.

Here is the "most recent" version of the KOP checklist that included the cRIO-FRC. Page 7 of the 2009 KOP Checklist (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/2009%20KOP%20Checklist%20Rev%20B.pdf).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I'm aware of that statement, but at some point in the past you still had the 8-slot cRIO-FRC on your KOP checklist.

Here is the "most recent" version of the KOP checklist that included the cRIO-FRC. Page 7 of the 2009 KOP Checklist (http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/2009%20KOP%20Checklist%20Rev%20B.pdf).

Correct.

But the wording is "Most recent checklist", not "Most recent checklist that the item was on".

Personally, I hope your interpretation is taken. Otherwise, we're going to have lots of issues at GSR on Thursday (My team included). :ahh:

[Nate Laverdure]

As per their exact wording (Inside the parenthisis(sp?)), we cannot cost account the CRio-FRC at $0.
Thanks for your patience in explaining this. Based on this reading of the rule, I'll agree that the "exact wording" appears to run counter to the meaning of the rule. However, I can offer no further solution other than to say that "words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent."

(This is not to exonerate the rule-crafters-- I've said before (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1126075#post1126075) that with proper review, the manual can and should be free of grievous errors. However, the closer you examine the language, the more interpretative intricacies you'll find.)
The interpretation I prefer is this: items are exempt from cost calculations at the quantity they were last included in a kit of parts checklist.
Yes, if I were the GDC, I'd agree with that interpretation.

[DonRotolo]

Everything in this thread is an early April Fools joke, right?

I mean, you can't seriously equate "Not on the list" with "On the list with a quantity of zero". Those are not even close to the same.

It's threads like this that has the GDC pleading with us to stop "lawyering" the rules. I mean, seriously. Sheesh.

[kjohnson]

It's threads like this that has the GDC pleading with us to stop "lawyering" the rules. I mean, seriously. Sheesh.

QFT. Wasn't that the point of the smaller manual this year? Whatever happened to the intent of the rule?

[Nate Laverdure]

Sheesh.
I take issue with the sentiment...

When "lawyering" prompts an rule update that results in better understanding of the rule intent, or when it informs the more-cohesive development of future competition manuals, or when it encourages us to use rational thought to drive our own decision-making processes, it adds value to the program.

What else is this forum for, if not to discuss how to play the FIRST game?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Everything in this thread is an early April Fools joke, right?

I mean, you can't seriously equate "Not on the list" with "On the list with a quantity of zero". Those are not even close to the same.

It's threads like this that has the GDC pleading with us to stop "lawyering" the rules. I mean, seriously. Sheesh.

Unfortunately, no ... it's not an early April Fools joke (I wish it were).

Please tell me what the quantity of any item not on the latest checklist is. Be careful, as you may make some things legal that you didn't intend (like IFI controllers and early speed controllers).

I'm not lawyering. I'm actually hoping that they rule qty 1 on CRio-FRC (as per previous checklists) as an exemption.

[RufflesRidge]

Please tell me what the quantity of any item not on the latest checklist is. Be careful, as you may make some things legal that you didn't intend (like IFI controllers and early speed controllers).


You are not making these items legal. They still must comply with all other robot rules to be legal to use on your robot. You are making them exempt from the cost accounting if they are legal and on your robot.

[nitneylion452]

Everything in this thread is an early April Fools joke, right?

I mean, you can't seriously equate "Not on the list" with "On the list with a quantity of zero". Those are not even close to the same.

It's threads like this that has the GDC pleading with us to stop "lawyering" the rules. I mean, seriously. Sheesh.

I made this thread to point out a simple discrepancy in the rules. I never intended for it to be a serious discussion of whether the cRio-FRC is a legal part. I also asked for someone to Q&A this to simply bring it to the GDC's attention. As I said in the original post, the GDC obviously doesn't teams to include the cRio-FRC at cost in their BOM (unless it's a conspiracy with NI to make everyone buy a new cRio:ahh: ).

[PAR_WIG1350]

Please tell me what the quantity of any item not on the latest checklist is. Be careful, as you may make some things legal that you didn't intend (like IFI controllers and early speed controllers).

Show me the rule that says you can't use an IFI controller as a co-processor. I personally believe that one could indeed argue that one could include the IFI controller in their BOM at a cost of $0.00 under the current rules. Some might say this is too ridiculous to be true, but it really isn't, especially when you consider the fact that some teams are using laptops on their robots.

Other items from old KOPs that they didn't intend to allow, such as motors and speed controllers not explicitly allowed were implicitly prohibited.


However, I can offer no further solution other than to say that "words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent."

When language is used correctly, intent can be conveyed nearly perfectly. The style of the current manual was chosen in response to requests for a "simpler" manual. What people actually wanted was a concise and precise manual (i.e. one without such blather as the description of how to determine the frame perimeter by wrapping a string... ). Ironically, the debacle caused by the current manual could have been avoided if the people asking for precision had been more precise in their request. Instead of a highly polished, linguistically efficient manual, we were given condensed blather. The lesson to be learned in this situation is that one should know what they want before they ask someone to devote substantial resources to the fulfillment of said request. [/rant] //Another interesting factoid that pertains to this topic is that programming and markup languages are often used with greater precision than the writer uses when speaking their native language. This is extrapolated purely from casual observation, but it is still something worth thinking about.

[DonRotolo]

However, I can offer no further solution other than to say that "words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent."What else is there? Actions can be very ambiguous.
I take issue with the sentiment...

<snip>

What else is this forum for, if not to discuss how to play the FIRST game?
Nate, please don't take anything I write as a personal attack. That is not my intent at all. My intent is to expose a practice that I believe to be unhealthy for the program.

In other words, my beef is with the process, not the people.

Yes, we can gather technical advice and discuss the game here. But sometimes we go from the sublime to the ridiculous. OK, there is a discrepancy, but I'd love to see any LRI argue against using a cRio at zero cost.

Please tell me what the quantity of any item not on the latest checklist is. Be careful, as you may make some things legal that you didn't intend (like IFI controllers and early speed controllers).Well, they had to appear on a checklist somewhere, at least can we agree on that? If so, then let's use two hypothetical "early speed controllers"*. Absolutely not legal if they are connected to an electrical circuit. However if I put them on a robot in a legal role (e.g., as ballast), their cost basis is ZERO. That's the point of this thread.

To find "the quantity of [an] item not on the latest checklist", you must find the most recent (=latest) checklist on which they were listed, and read the quantity from there.


.
* I haven't been around that long.

[Nate Laverdure]

Nate, please don't take anything I write as a personal attack.
Oh, I definitely didn't. Thanks for discussing this with me!

I agree that there's issues with "the process," but I don't agree that it is always unhealthy-- when it's used to drive improvement efforts, it's very healthy.

The GDC asking people to stop "lawyering" is the same as asking them to stop discovering ways to write a better manual.

[DonRotolo]

Yeah. As if that would happen.

I just think that if I were to write the rules, they'd be FAR worse that what we have now. I mean, writing a document that will be scrutinized to the utmost degree by tens of thousands of the smartest* people on the planet is a little intimidating, and a sure path to 'failure to convey meaning clearly'.

*and often literal

Don