Section 8.3.3 Illegal Gearboxes and Chassis

[Andy Brockway]

Section 8.3.3 has specifically outlaws fabrication of predesigned mechanisms.

…But completing detailed dimensioned drawings of parts, ……..intended to go on the actual competition ROBOT is prohibited outside approved fabrication periods….

Strictly taken this outlaws fabricating components from gearboxes based on White Papers here in ChiefDelphi and from AndyMark. These components can be purchased if available from an approved VENDOR, but example 2 under Section 8.2 COTS is illegal.

On top of this <R17> makes illegal any MECHANISM purchased before kick-off. Dave Lavery warned everyone. This includes those shiny new AndyMark transmissions.

This effects all of you that designed a new chassis this past year. Team 25 reported that they had a better chassis for this year. I hope you did not make any drawings! BTW all of last year’s custom chassis’s, complete with drawings, are now illegal.

I am hoping that FIRST will allow detail drawings in the public domain to be legalized.

[Tristan Lall]

I'd be curious to see what constitutes a "detailed dimensioned drawing". Traditionally, a parametric solid model isn't treated like a drawing (consider that industrial document control procedures are not always the same for models as for the production drawings), though it can be used to contain much the same data. Under the strictest reading, it would seem that teams which work from models and patterns alone wouldn't be affected, even though that probably contradicts the intent of the rule.

Also, there's a curious implication of the fact that prototypes are allowed: what if the pre-season prototype (with detailed drawings) is so good that you don't need to change anything? How much token redesigning is enough to satisfy the rules? Obviously a new-from-scratch design defeats the purpose of a prototype, and equally obviously, an identical design doesn't satisfy the requirement to do the majority of the work in-season. Where's the dividing line? It's not just an academic distinction, since some of us will no doubt have to enforce this at the events.

And excuse the blatant lawyering and word games, but the rule calls for "completing" the drawings. Could you argue that the drawings are incomplete, because you intend to issue new revisions as necessary? While that may be far-fetched, there's a more reasonable related question as well: do they really mean "completing" (as in, the drawing has to be done and checked) or "working on" (as in, don't even fill in a title block)? Or worse, "completing" in the sense of "working on" (like one completes a form)? I think I know what's meant, but it's simply not good practice to assume that everyone will see eye-to-eye on the issue.

I'm not advocating that anyone try to pass this rationale off at inspection—because it's a very hard sell, even to me—I'm just wondering how the rule could be stated so as to capture the intent with the utmost precision.

[GMKlenklen]

<R17> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are
encouraged to think as much as they please about their ROBOTS. They may develop
prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may
gather all the raw stock materials and COTS COMPONENTS they want. But absolutely no
fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to
the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS purchased or assembled prior to the Kick-off
presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but CAN NOT be used
on the final ROBOT.

<R18> During the Build Season: During the period between the Kick-off and ROBOT shipment
deadline, teams are to design and fabricate all the COMPONENTS and MECHANISMS
required to complete their ROBOT. They are encouraged to use all the materials, sources
and resources available to them that are in compliance with the rules of the 2007 FIRST
Robotics Competition. When the ROBOT shipment deadline arrives, all work on the
ROBOT must cease and the ROBOT must be placed in a “hands-off” condition. The entire
ROBOT (including all FABRICATED ITEMS intended for use during the competition in
alternative configurations of the ROBOT) and OPERATOR CONSOLE must be crated and
out of team hands by the shipment deadline specified in Section 4.5.1.1.

This means you have to build your entire robot during the 6 week build period, also any COTS used, must be purchaced during build period. It does not say anything about not being able to use ideas prototyped before kickoff... you just have to re-make that practice chassis... just like a rookie team with no prototypes built in the pre-season.

There fore I gratiously disagree with my interpritation of what you have writen above.

EDIT: Additionally... it's more about learning... not makeing things dificult for you.

[Billfred]

I agree that a lot of folks will be kicking themselves for buying their transmissions ahead of time, but those are the risks.

As for actual designs, I have to say that one could argue decently to me that you could have a "general case solution" for an FRC robot with an arm. After all, how many arms have we seen this century? 2001, 2002 (if you had a basket on the end), 2003 (if you stacked), 2004, 2005. That's a strong indication to me that you want an arm-based robot in your repertoire.

[Michael Hill]

So should AM Gearboxes be considered COTS Components or Mechanisms? You could argue it both ways. Webster's Dictionary defines a component as "a constituent part." Constituent means it is a required part. As far as I know, gearboxes are required in a robot. However, it could be considered a mechanism.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Hmmm.... R17 is distinctly lacking any comment about design, while R18 does say that the robot must be designed during the season. In fact, none of the other build rules say anything about hardware design or drawings, just fabrication. On yet another hand, there's the official unofficial verbiage about no detailed drawings or anything outside of build times.....

Frankly, I think the whole thing needs some specific clarification from FIRST so they can bring the verbiage and rules in line one way or another. I don't think it's rules lawyering to actually want the rules to mention this instead of a vague, possibly applicable preface to a rules section. I think it's preventing rules lawyering and arguments about what's official. At the very least, it would give people something to point at.

That said..... I can sort of understand the logic, but the logical conclusion disturbs me. It implies that I may not do any detailed design work on my robot after ship outside of fix it windows. I can understand not designing new systems to be whipped together at regionals. I cannot understand (potentially) not being able to calculate and source a new gear ratio in case your lifter doesn't perform as advertised. Can't dimension and locate potential speed holes. Draw a circle on paper? Better not put a diameter on it. (You know, for kids.)

Mostly I'm philosophically against this. We're theoretically encouraging students to be engineers. Engineers looove having a portfolio of working designs to pick from and adapt. If it's a standard problem with a standard solution, all the better. If we're telling teams that anything they do in the off season must be wiped from their memories..... well I'm not sure how that encourages students to be excited about engineering year round. (Sorry Johnny, FIRST says your shifting transmission design has to go in the trash. But on the bright side, you get to do it all over again.) Mostly.... I think FIRST is now struggling mightily with the opposing interests of being an engineering inspiration and being a robot competition. For all that they swear it's not about the robots, some of these restrictions can only be rationally explained from that POV.

EDIT: Ok.... I just read the rules that make preseason AM trannies illegal. I'm rather upset with them philosophically, but will spare CD my rant for now until FIRST has a chance to clarify. Once they finally have Q&A working.

[Mike Schroeder]

now i have a question, if a veteran team didnt use the KOP gearboxes from last year or 2005, is it acceptable for them to donate them to a newer team, assuming the newer team account for them in their Bill of Material?

[Paul Copioli]

There are contradictions between this and rule R24. Rule R24 reads:

Individual COMPONENTS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2007 ROBOTS IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition.

This is the best rule ever! However, I now have more questions. We WILL be using the gerbox housing we used in 2005 and 2006 for our drive base. However, the drawings were done in 2005. Rule R24 states I can use the component from 2005 / 2006, but according to section 8.3.3 I can't make another one from my drawings. That seems a bit ridiculous.

Now, what about the kit gearbox housing from last year (or 2005 for that matter)? If you follow the flow chart it is legal since it is not a kit part this year. So by the letter of the rule R24 the old kit gearbox housing is legal, right?

-Paul

[Steve W]

R17 does not state that you cannot use designs from before kickoff. It does state however what other things you can and cannot use. By the fact that FIRST is very diligent in how it writes its rules I would think that the omission of stating that the design was not illegal was by intent. This would mean that designs would be legal but the fabrication must be done during build season. R18 states that design and fabrication are to be done during build but does not state the design from pre kickoff is not allowed therefore it should be allowed.

Just some thoughts to ponder. :confused:

[Andy Brockway]

The only problem with <R24> is that if you designed and fabricated before kickoff than they cannot be used, only unmodified COTS.

Paul, last year's KOP gearboxes are not available to all teams this year so it is illegal under 8.2 Definition for COTS.

Until FIRST changes its mind I will designing a new dual speed gearbox for the Banebot transmission. I welcome everyone to come see our robot, it will be designed and built under these rules. You can bet I will not be making any detailed drawings and will not be posting a White Paper on this gearbox.

[Paul Copioli]

No. The rule reads that if you used it on your robot in a previous year, then it is O.K. as long as it follows the other rules for legal materials. I asked the Q&A in 2005 (when the rule first appeared) and it was confirmed that if you used it on your robot last year, then it was O.K.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that our custom housing we used last year is perfectly legal this year. I am just not as sure about the kit housing.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Steve,

I think most people here understand that the restriction on detailed drawings, etc. isn't in any <R##>. The issue is the very strong verbiage in the summary/description of the fabrication section. Is it enforceable? Is it something we should abide? Is it just so much hot air? Inquiring minds want to know which of these sets of rules we need to follow. FIRST needs to clarify the issue since we teams obviously can't agree on the interpretation. You think the <R##> paragraphs are all that matter, Andy quite obviously believes that the summary paragraph matters as well. I have no clue but I'm blessedly free of actually having to make the choice.

[ewankoff]

My interpretation of these rules is that andy mark transmisissions purchased before the kickoff may be used as long as the COMPONENTS were not assemebled to be a MECHANISM. The rules even encourage gathering supplies but not assembling or fabricating those items. Any raw COMPONENT that was purchased at anytime can be used on this years robot.

(Capitolized words are defined in the manual)

[ChrisH]

The father of one of the new kids on our team is a lawyer. He is quite adamant that he knows nothing about technical things, though his son is very mechanical.

Sounds like we might be finding uses for Dad's talents after all.

[Tristan Lall]

There are contradictions between this and rule R24. Rule R24 reads: Individual COMPONENTS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2007 ROBOTS IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition

This is the best rule ever! However, I now have more questions. We WILL be using the gerbox housing we used in 2005 and 2006 for our drive base. However, the drawings were done in 2005. Rule R24 states I can use the component from 2005 / 2006, but according to section 8.3.3 I can't make another one from my drawings. That seems a bit ridiculous.

Now, what about the kit gearbox housing from last year (or 2005 for that matter)? If you follow the flow chart it is legal since it is not a kit part this year. So by the letter of the rule R24 the old kit gearbox housing is legal, right?According to <R48> (the flowchart), the kit gearbox falls under the following:Is the part or material off-the-shelf or is it custom made by the team after the start of the 2007 Kickoff? (See Robot Section)If you assume that "off-the-shelf" means COTS, the answer is no (technically, it is an off-the-shelf part, but COTS additionally requires that it be available to FIRST teams now). That makes it illegal, and by violating a 2007 rule, it's not legal for use, despite <R24>.

Furthermore, your custom housings were never COTS. They go through the same flowchart scrutiny, and unequivocally fail. Unfortunately, they're illegal, because any violation (e.g. of <R48>) means that <R24> doesn't allow them. I'm not sure of the Q&A's guidance from last year, but that's about two steps removed from being a 2007 rule, so I'd say the current rules have to take precedence.

[RogerR]

while an entire COTS gearbox from a prior year's 'bot seems to be disallowed, what about the components that its made of? specifically, i'd like to pull the guts out of our old AM shifters, and use them in our latest design; all the basic parts are available individually from AM.biz (and i suspect we'll need some additional/replacement parts), so if i list the individual parts on my BOM, would this be within the letter and spirit of the rule(s)?

[Bharat Nain]

This effects all of you that designed a new chassis this past year. Team 25 reported that they had a better chassis for this year. I hope you did not make any drawings! BTW all of last year’s custom chassis’s, complete with drawings, are now illegal.

I am hoping that FIRST will allow detail drawings in the public domain to be legalized.

Our originally planned chassis and gearbox isn't ideal for this game. So we have to redesign, but thanks for bringing this rule to our attention.

[Steve W]

My interpretation of these rules is that andy mark transmisissions purchased before the kickoff may be used as long as the COMPONENTS were not assemebled to be a MECHANISM. The rules even encourage gathering supplies but not assembling or fabricating those items. Any raw COMPONENT that was purchased at anytime can be used on this years robot.

(Capitolized words are defined in the manual)

A transmission is a mechanism of individual components assembled to made the transmission. By that definition they would not be allowed.

This is were we will need better answers from FIRST. I would also ask the question : Why can someone use a design from last year but someone that works on one in the off season is not allowed to use that design? I can understand that it must be built during "BUILD" season, but why would FIRST stiffle the inspiration and creativity that they are trying to promote. I guess that there is the same issue with those that worked on getting the camera to work and cannot use what they have designed (I know that it has to be reprogrammed as builders must rebuild).

[dlavery]

The father of one of the new kids on our team is a lawyer. He is quite adamant that he knows nothing about technical things, though his son is very mechanical.

Sounds like we might be finding uses for Dad's talents after all.

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave

[MrForbes]

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave

so, do you feel that the term "gracious lawyer" might be an oxymoron?

[Richard Wallace]

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.Lawyers have their uses. Interpreting FRC rules is not one of those uses.

Back to topic: my interpretation is similar to Tristan's. I would like very much to have a 2007 Q&A response on this very soon. It would not be any fun to inspect Paul's robot if (1) he proceeds as outlined above and (2) I still concur with Tristan's reasoning on March 1st. We need the GDC to resolve this one before any of us waste a lot more time.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Lawyers have their uses. Interpreting FRC rules is not one of those uses.

Back to topic: my interpretation is similar to Tristan's. I would like very much to have a 2007 Q&A response on this very soon. It would not be any fun to inspect Paul's robot if (1) he proceeds as outlined above and (2) I still concur with Tristan's reasoning on March 1st. We need the GDC to resolve this one before any of us waste a lot more time.

We should nominate someone from this thread to ask these questions about:

A. Off-season/prior season designs and drawings.
B. Off-season purchased mechanisms.
C. Previous year components and mechanisms.

10 different people asking 30+ different questions might not work as well.

[Richard Wallace]

We should nominate someone from this thread to ask these questions ... 10 different people asking 30+ different questions might not work as well.I nominate Tristan.

[Paul Copioli]

Here is the question I posted to the Q&A forums although it has not shown up yet:

My question is regarding Robot Rule R24 and how it applies given all the other rules in Section 8.3. I will first ask my question, then go into detail why I am confused regarding the rule and how it interacts with the other rules.

We want to use a machined aluminum gearbox housing that was designed and fabricated during the 2005 build season and used on our 2005 robot. We have not modified it since the 2005 season. According to rules R24 and R26, we should be able to use this component on our 2007 robot. Is this interpretation correct?

The part that has us confused is the last part of the rule which states "... IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition."

What sections, exactly, contain the rules regarding materials/parts use? Is it section 8.3.4 only? Is it all of 8.3?

Robot Rule R17 seems to be in direct contradiction to R24. The 4th sentence of rule R17 states, "But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kickoff presentation"

R24 reads, "<R24> Individual COMPONENTS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2007 ROBOTS IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition. "

The definition of COMPONENT is, "A ROBOT part in its most basic configuration, which can not be disassembled without damaging or destroying the part, or altering its fundamental function."

Based on R24 and the definition of a COMPONENT, then my 2005 housing is legal, but based on R17 it is not. Please clarify.

Thanks,
Team 217

However, Tristan brings up a very good point regarding Rule R48. According to that, as it stand right now my gearbox housing is illegal to use. So, those of you worried about inspecting my team's robot; have no fear. Unless we hear concretely otherwise, we will design a new housing for our drive gearbox and use all new parts purchased / designed / fabricated after the start of Kickoff.

With that said, then why have rule R24? Commercial off the shelf components are covered every other place in the manual so why this special rule? It makes abosolutely no sense!.

[clydefrog88]

what about mechanisms from previous seasons that were developed but not used

[gabrielse]

The Lab Rats (Team 1748) had to purchase AndyMark transmissions before kickoff because if we waited to order them through the Baltimore City School System we wouldn't get them until after build season.

We only opened the box with our AndyMark transmissions
on the ninth (after kickoff). We are a second year team in Baltimore City. We can't afford to buy another set of transmissions identical to what we just opened in order to say we purchased them after kickoff.

It seems like we met the intent of the rules and are getting caught up in legalities. I'm hoping that FIRST will allow us to use the transmissions we purchased but did not open until after the kickoff.

My students want to finish designing our drivetrain and they need to know what they can use.

[Brandon Holley]

The Lab Rats (Team 1748) had to purchase AndyMark transmissions before kickoff because if we waited to order them through the Baltimore City School System we wouldn't get them until after build season.

We only opened the box with our AndyMark transmissions
on the ninth (after kickoff). We are a second year team in Baltimore City. We can't afford to buy another set of transmissions identical to what we just opened in order to say we purchased them after kickoff.

It seems like we met the intent of the rules and are getting caught up in legalities. I'm hoping that FIRST will allow us to use the transmissions we purchased but did not open until after the kickoff.

My students want to finish designing our drivetrain and they need to know what they can use.

that is a tough spot to be in. I sympathize with you in the lack of funding, which is an issue for MANY teams in FIRST. However you must look at the situation as a whole. Whats the difference between purchasing the parts a few days early, or an entire year early? Why is it acceptable for low budget teams and not acceptable for teams that have signifigant funding? FIRST cant be run with double standards. I do not like the rule at all because I feel teams, like yourselves, do not order parts early as intent to build early, but simply to make sure they come at all. Hopefully FIRST will clarify some of these rules for us. Until then good luck with build season, I'm sure your team will come out with a quality robot regardless.

[ChrisH]

The Lab Rats (Team 1748) had to purchase AndyMark transmissions before kickoff because if we waited to order them through the Baltimore City School System we wouldn't get them until after build season.

We only opened the box with our AndyMark transmissions
on the ninth (after kickoff). We are a second year team in Baltimore City. We can't afford to buy another set of transmissions identical to what we just opened in order to say we purchased them after kickoff.

It seems like we met the intent of the rules and are getting caught up in legalities. I'm hoping that FIRST will allow us to use the transmissions we purchased but did not open until after the kickoff.

My students want to finish designing our drivetrain and they need to know what they can use.

AndyMark products are COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) items. AndyMark meets FIRST's definition of a vendor and their products are available to all teams in a reasonable period. I suppose if there was a run on one or two components they might get backlogged but that is allowed for in the rule too. Purchase of COTS items before Kickoff is allowed and, in the case of raw stock, encouraged. Since you just opened the box it obviously was not modified before Kickoff. If you had so much as drilled a single hole before Kickoff then it would be a "custom fabricated" part and therefore illegal.

You took something of a risk in purchasing before Kickoff. They could have switched to VEX type parts or some other motors completely unsuitable and you would have been stuck, but fortunately for us all this is not the case.

There is the question of whether or not this is a "pre-designed solution". Since you are making your own choices as to wheel size, gearing etc. I'd say it is not. The AM gearbox could be used to power an arm or robot lifter in addition to a drive system so it is generic enough in my mind that this is not a concern.

So turn your guys loose.

[Hieb]

AndyMark products are COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) items. AndyMark meets FIRST's definition of a vendor and their products are available to all teams in a reasonable period. I suppose if there was a run on one or two components they might get backlogged but that is allowed for in the rule too. Purchase of COTS items before Kickoff is allowed and, in the case of raw stock, encouraged. Since you just opened the box it obviously was not modified before Kickoff. If you had so much as drilled a single hole before Kickoff then it would be a "custom fabricated" part and therefore illegal.


Unfortunately, I think you also have to look at whether the part is a COMPONENT or a MECHANISM. I think these would fit in to the category of mechanism, which from my reading must be purchased within the time frame of the build period.

I tried posting a question about a similar situation to the Q&A, but I don't seem to be having much luck with the Q&A fora this year. Hopefully we can get a ruling quickly so the design process can continue.

[Kevin Sevcik]

that is a tough spot to be in. I sympathize with you in the lack of funding, which is an issue for MANY teams in FIRST. However you must look at the situation as a whole. Whats the difference between purchasing the parts a few days early, or an entire year early? Why is it acceptable for low budget teams and not acceptable for teams that have signifigant funding? FIRST cant be run with double standards. I do not like the rule at all because I feel teams, like yourselves, do not order parts early as intent to build early, but simply to make sure they come at all. Hopefully FIRST will clarify some of these rules for us. Until then good luck with build season, I'm sure your team will come out with a quality robot regardless.Brandon, perhaps you have not worked inside the wonderfully strangling red tape of a school system. If you had read the post, he noted that if they had waited to order them until during the build season, they would have arrived well after the build season. Ordering something as expensive as 2 AM trannies takes ATLEAST 4 weeks to make it through the procurement bureaucracy and get a check cut, and then the check still has to get to AM and the trannies have to get back to the team. Any team that is funded by a school or runs their funds through a school has to deal with this, so FIRST is basically telling these teams that they have to stick with the kitbot and whatever they can make on their own in whatever machine shop they may or may not have. In other words, FIRST is telling these teams to not even bother thinking about doing interesting things and taking on the harder engineering challenges.

FIRST says they want a team in every school funded by the states. If they're serious about that, they need to get their heads out of the clouds and look at how their policies and rules actually affect these minimally funded school teams. As it is, it seems they've drafted their rules to force teams to spend all their time hunting sponsors before they can do any actually interesting engineering.

At the very LEAST, FIRST could have warned teams, OFFICIALLY, that mechanisms bought preseason would be disallowed. Despite Dave being high up there, no one is going to take his vague warnings on CD as seriously as an Email Blast from FIRST. This wouldn't have affected the game a single bit and would've given time for debate and consideration prior to it becoming an actual issue.

[Andrew Blair]

Indeed. I believe that too often, we follow the ltter, rather than the spirit of the rule. If the intent is to disallow teams from stockpiling or otherwise gaining a leg up on other teams, then it may not be applied to this school. They did not even open the boxes until the 9th, well after kickoff. Let's not restrict such a team because they traded funds a little earlier.

[Doug G]

We need a ruling from FIRST on this issue SOON. My robotics class, and hence team, became an ROP class this year and I was given an opportunity to buy lots of stuff last Oct. I bought mostly tools and such, but I also thought it'd be good to stock up on COTS items such as raw materials, Victors, and yes some different type of wheels. I felt safe that no matter what the game was, we'd need some wheels. Are wheels a mechanism or a component? The IFI wheels come in pieces and can be interpreted an MECHANISM, correct? And now I can't use them and I have to use the kit wheels?

We bought AM shifters for last year's competition, especially since last year's rule noted that items from previous competitions could be re-used if they're still COTS items. While I don't think we have to have them for this year's competition, we'd like to. We cannot afford to purchase them a second time. But another team in our situation may have more money and they can purchase them. Another rule that seems to favor the financially well off teams and hinder us public school folks that are making the expensive FIRST program work in creative ways. Perhaps I should be more creative in how I interpret the rules.

[Paul Copioli]

Here is the answer to my question I posted earlier in this thread. I asked the question exactly as written in this thread:

Under Rule <R24> (as amended in Update #2), the use of FABRICATED ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions can not be used. Hence, this part would not be permitted.

At least I feel a little better that they agreed it was unclear. Now it is crystal clear and we will abide by the rules as written.

[falconmaster]

Here is a question no one has asked.....
Is AndyMark able to be in business 6 weeks out of a year?

I am also confused about the definition about the AM shifters 2005, they could be both a COTS and a MECHANISM alone and the Forum had the ruling that it is a COTS MECHANISM. So if we purchased them before the kick-off they are illegal? I would like to hear an official, in plain english say something like- AM Shifters purchased before the kick-off are legal (or not legal) - rather than everyone manipulating the definitions. Please HELP STOP THE LAWYERING and answer the question! Thanks!

[dlavery]

Here is a question no one has asked.....
Is AndyMark able to be in business 6 weeks out of a year?

I am also confused about the definition about the AM shifters 2005, they could be both a COTS and a MECHANISM alone and the Forum had the ruling that it is a COTS MECHANISM. So if we purchased them before the kick-off they are illegal? I would like to hear an official, in plain english say something like- AM Shifters purchased before the kick-off are legal (or not legal) - rather than everyone manipulating the definitions. Please HELP STOP THE LAWYERING and answer the question! Thanks!

Read the FIRST Q&A.

[whytheheckme]

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave

Hey!

We have a father on our team that is a lawyer, and he is in charge of strategy/rules/safety! His job is to interpret the rules!

lol,
Jacob

[dlavery]

Hey!

We have a father on our team that is a lawyer, and he is in charge of strategy/rules/safety! His job is to interpret the rules!

lol,
Jacob

My dad was a lawyer. There is NO WAY that I would let him anywhere near the FIRST rules! Who knows what damage he might have done! :)

-dave

[CraigHickman]

Read the FIRST Q&A.

I hate to be the one to point this out... And I'm probably going to get neg-repped for this, but I really don't care too much about dots... It would be easier for all of us if a simple "yes" or "no" were typed, and would save time for all parties involved. The time it takes to go to the Q&A, and to find the answer could simply be spared by typing a "yes, they're allowed" or "no, they're not." It also would save the poster some time by them having to type less characters.

I do understand that it was posted a some days ago, but for future reference, if you know the answer, save yourself and us precious time by posting the answer.

[dlavery]

At the time the original question was posted to this thread, a total of 22 questions had been answered on the FIRST Q&A system. The answer had been provided as the sixth question to be answered. I do not think it is unreasonable to let someone know that a clearly-marked answer can be found by referring to a short 22-line list of titles. The only reason that the response did not take a more precise form like "the answer has been posted in section xxx of the FIRST Q&A" is that at the time the Q&A list was so short that a section pointer was unnecessary.

In addition, the requestor had specifically asked for an official answer. Official answers are not available on CD - they are only available from FIRST via the Q&A system. So suggesting they check the FIRST Q&A system for the answer to their question is not only appropriate, it is directly responsive to what they had asked for in the first place.

That said, I will disagree with your sentiment that we are here to just spoon feed answers to every question. With that sort of an approach, the requestors will never learn about the resources that are already available to them, and with which they should be familiar. Detailed technical questions are one area where basic information may be necessary. However, particularly in the case of questions about rules, responses that point to complete, official answers are much more appropriate than having anyone here provide a paraphrased, intermediate recitation that may be incorrect.

Furthermore, doing so avoids all manner of misinterpretation and indeterminate lawyering discussions such as those that have erupted here lately. And avoiding those situations saves all of us ever so much more of the precious time that is apparently so important.

-dave

[ChuckDickerson]

Yes, I know, I am dredging back up this old thread from last year specifically pertaining to last years rules. However, I am wondering if the specific rules discussed in this thread were a warning shot to teams for this year. Are any teams worried about this issue of no COTS/MECHANISMS/WHATEVER purchased prior to kickoff becoming a rule this year or in the future? With season rapidly approaching I am sure many teams are gathering materials and pieces and parts. I just thought a reminder to all would be in order that FRC rules are always subject to change and teams may want to consider what they are buying pre-season so as to avoid spending a bunch of money on stuff they find they can’t legally use come January 5th.

[T3_1565]

This effects all of you that designed a new chassis this past year. Team 25 reported that they had a better chassis for this year. I hope you did not make any drawings! BTW all of last year’s custom chassis’s, complete with drawings, are now illegal.

I am hoping that FIRST will allow detail drawings in the public domain to be legalized.

This doesn't mean that you can make drawings for your chassis, it means you can't use those drawings during frabrication.

Therefore, make new drawings!!

[ChuckDickerson]

This doesn't mean that you can make drawings for your chassis, it means you can't use those drawings during frabrication.

Therefore, make new drawings!!

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you may have missed the point of my post. Yes, we all know what the rules were last year but we were at first concerned with the wording of some of the rules as discussed in this thread regarding what was and wasn't legal to use based on when you purchased it. My point in the post was simply to remind teams that the rules are always subject to change from year to year and that whether it is a fancy new COTS gearbox or a sheet of carbon fiber think carefully before you spend a bunch of funds that you may not be able to recover if the rules change and that item is no longer legal.

[T3_1565]

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you may have missed the point of my post. Yes, we all know what the rules were last year but we were at first concerned with the wording of some of the rules as discussed in this thread regarding what was and wasn't legal to use based on when you purchased it. My point in the post was simply to remind teams that the rules are always subject to change from year to year and that whether it is a fancy new COTS gearbox or a sheet of carbon fiber think carefully before you spend a bunch of funds that you may not be able to recover if the rules change and that item is no longer legal.

This is my fault, I was reading the first couple of posts in this thread and responded to them, not yours!

Sorry :p

[Leav]

The team I am mentoring has bought a Mecanum wheel Set and a Traction wheel set from AM and IFI, in the intent of building simple frames to experiment with.

I wanted them to learn by experience, so that when the kickoff gets here they can say "well according to our experiments in different setups we can conclude that it is probably better to use this setup rather than that." (for example)
(like every veteran team can do for free - because they usually have 2-3 old robots lying around with different drive concepts).

The plan was to later dismantle the chassis' and use the wheels we ordered before the kickoff on the real robot we build during the 6 weeks.


I think feel that this is legal according to the spirit of the rules.

specifically I remember reading somewhere in the rules that it's ok to buy parts before the kickoff for use on the actual robot.
and I think it's still ok if you use those parts to prepare yourself for the FRC by building testbeds.

now of course there are really gray areas such as coding...
I don't know about you but I won't tell anyone not write code in the offseason... it's called learning!, and when he does write code I have no problem with copy+pasting it into the robot code, as long as when he wrote the code in the first place he didn't mean for it to go on the real robot.
writing it all over again is a stupid lawyer-type formality and we could all really do ourselves a favor and ditch that kind of stuff.

We can either have it really lawyered up and basically everything would be illegal (you have to be sterilized before the kickoff because dust created before the kickoff is not allowed on the robot).....

Or we can try and understand what the intent was (or have FIRST tell us what the intent IS), which in this case was in my opinion:
"Don't start building the robot before the kickoff."

(and no I don't think i'm contradicting myself regarding the programming and the "no robot building")

Good luck to everyone this season and remember to bring your GP to the kickoff! :)

-Leav

[meaubry]

Yes, Deepwater is correct -
The way the rules have been distributed in the past at the kickoff, didn't assure year to year continuity. What was legal one year didn't necessarily mean it would be legal the next.

When purchasing material or parts, there is that risk that must be considered.

I have advocated that rules that do not impact the game, but might impact the way a team functions outside of the time from Kickoff to Championship event, should be posted on the FIRST FRC website - and not included each year in the rule book at the kickoff.

There are plenty of those type of "standing" non-game dependent rules that could be communicated and managed with effective dates for subsequent revisions, regardless of when those revisions occur. All of the rules do not need to be rolled out at the kickoff, and in some cases (like the one you are posting about) it would be good to know what teams could, and what teams shouldn't, plan on doing in advance.

Mike Aubry

[Leav]

Yes, Deepwater is correct -
The way the rules have been distributed in the past at the kickoff, didn't assure year to year continuity. What was legal one year didn't necessarily mean it would be legal the next.

When purchasing material or parts, there is that risk that must be considered.

I have advocated that rules that do not impact the game, but might impact the way a team functions outside of the time from Kickoff to Championship event, should be posted on the FIRST FRC website - and not included each year in the rule book at the kickoff.

There are plenty of those type of "standing" non-game dependent rules that could be communicated and managed with effective dates for subsequent revisions, regardless of when those revisions occur. All of the rules do not need to be rolled out at the kickoff, and in some cases (like the one you are posting about) it would be good to know what teams could, and what teams shouldn't, plan on doing in advance.

Mike Aubry]

Mike, I wish you were on the Rule Design Committee. :rolleyes:
I'm 100% with you on this one.

-Leav

[Alan Anderson]

Are any teams worried about this issue of no COTS/MECHANISMS/WHATEVER purchased prior to kickoff becoming a rule this year or in the future?

I believe the various problems with that rule were made sufficiently clear to the rulesmakers last year. I don't expect it to make an appearance again.

[Dasistmeinmoped]

Idea for those AM shifters. great loophole. Locate another team who is planning on buying them, both get a set, then sell them to each other. The fact is AM turns out a nice product that gives teams a chance to compete at a higher level, who without a shop would never have a shot to try something new. Ordering per-season seems like a decent idea to prevent back orders.

[Alan Anderson]

There was serious discussion of a scheme last year where the manufacturer would buy back a gearbox and immediately resell it to a team in order to satisfy the letter of the rule. From what I could tell, nobody had a problem with that violating the spirit of the rule, because nobody could come up with a good reason for the rule to have a spirit in the first place.