Last year's kit frame

[GaryVoshol]

Since to be able to use last year's kit frame you had to fabricate it (cut it to length), it would not be allowed on this year's robot per rule <R33>. "FABRICATED ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions shall not be used on ROBOTS in the 2009 competition."

IFI still has the old kitbot frame on their website, so it could be purchased and used this year. I'd suggest any team doing so have a receipt available for inspectors.

[Chuck Glick]

I don't believe a receipt is totally necessary. You are allowed to use a previous year's kitbot frame IF is composed of parts that are still available from the companies that provided them. These parts would just need to be properly spec'd and accounted for on the teams BOM (Bill of Materials, for you rookies ;) ).
HOWEVER, parts from previous years kits that are no longer commercially available to all teams OR are not legal by all rules that pertain to the robot may NOT be used.

Hope that clears some things up.

EDIT:

For anyone trying to find part numbers or prices of previous year kit parts link is below.

http://ifirobotics.com/kitbot.shtml

[ChuckDickerson]

Also, no where in the rules does it say COTS parts have to be purchased after any particular time (for example Kickoff). We have one complete, unused KitBot and most of the parts for a second one that have been purchased separately at various times over the past 3 years. I don't find any rule stating that we can't use the old KitBot materials even from 3 years ago as long as we haven't cut/modified them (fabricated) and IFI is now still selling them after Kickoff (as COTS) so that any team could buy the same if they wanted to. We would, of course, have to declare the current purchase cost on our cost accounting/BoM at inspection but nothing I have read limits when the purchase has to have occured. No team buys all new raw stock each year and throws out all their unused aluminum/plastic/etc. left over from the previous year so why should the KitBot be any different? In fact, as far as I can tell a veteran team that didn't use their issued KitBot from some previous year that say just stuck the box on the shelf and built a custom frame that year would be perfectly legal to pull that old IFI KitBot box off the shelf and use it this year if they wanted to as long as they accounted for it in their cost analysis.

If it is FIRST's intent to not allow teams to use the IFI KitBot this year they better hurry up and define that in the rules. If they did I think it would be rather un-GP of FIRST to single out one specific COTS part from one specific vendor and make it illegal. It would also further add to the rumors regarding the IFI/FIRST split.

This is sort of why I was asking the questions I did in this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71357). Both the AndyMArk C-Base and the IFI KitBot retail for ~$190. Both are basically functionally the same. Why come out with something new if it isn't better or cheaper? FIRST has to have a reason but why?

[Elgin Clock]

This is sort of why I was asking the questions I did in this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71357). Both the AndyMArk C-Base and the IFI KitBot retail for ~$190. Both are basically functionally the same. Why come out with something new if it isn't better or cheaper? FIRST has to have a reason or but why?
In case you hadn't noticed by now, FIRST has cut a lot of ties with IFI over the past year alone (control system being the major change).
Not completely of course, as we can still use the IFI Victor's (as I recall from the Kickoff) for the control system, & you are certainly allowed to buy things from IFI as long as they meet requirements set in place by FIRST & the manual just like any other supplier of compents, since they are in fact a supplier of COTS items, but in the future I expect a lot less IFI products included in the kit or none at all.
This chassis this year is just one of them.

[ChuckDickerson]

In case you hadn't noticed by now, FIRST has cut a lot of ties with IFI over the past year alone (control system being the major change).
Not completely of course, as we can still use the IFI Victor's (as I recall from the Kickoff) for the control system, & you are certainly allowed to buy things from IFI as long as they meet requirements set in place by FIRST & the manual just like any other supplier of compents, since they are in fact a supplier of COTS items, but in the future I expect a lot less IFI products included in the kit or none at all.
This chassis this year is just one of them.

Yep, agreed. What I meant was why change what isn't broken just for the sake of change? If, for example, the new AM C-Base was a lot lighter or cheaper than the IFI KitBot then great I understand but if it isn't then why? If FIRST some how intends for us to not be able to use the IFI KitBot and specifically outlaws it then that will come across (to me at least) as just plain mean and spiteful toward IFI who has always been a loyal supported of FIRST as far as I have ever seen.

[GaryVoshol]

An update from the GDC: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11519

Last year's kit frame is considered custom-made for FRC 2008, so cannot be used. You'd have to buy a new IFI kitbot to use it this year.

[MikeDubreuil]

An update from the GDC: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11519

Last year's kit frame is considered custom-made for FRC 2008, so cannot be used. You'd have to buy a new IFI kitbot to use it this year.
I hope for the GDC's sake there is a difference between what was in the 2008 kit and what is available here (http://www.ifirobotics.com/kitbot.shtml). If not the GDC has stooped to a new low in getting involved with FIRST politics.

[JVN]

Food for thought:
The one in the KOP last year was identical to the one we sold last year and is identical to the one we're selling now.

-John

[TD78]

Is it just me, or is it weird that that link goes to the 2008 Q&A Response Forum, as opposed to the 2009 Q&A Response Forum?

[Elgin Clock]

Is it just me, or is it weird that that link goes to the 2008 Q&A Response Forum, as opposed to the 2009 Q&A Response Forum?

Looks like people are posting 2009 questions accidentally under the 2008 forums.
(Just look at the dates of the posts for any clarification.)
I agree that is completely confusing, & that FIRST should lock all 2008 forums at this point! :yikes:

[Jared Russell]

Food for thought:
The one in the KOP last year was identical to the one we sold last year and is identical to the one we're selling now.

-John

Then I vehemently disagree with the GDC's ruling.

On the plus side, as far as I know there is no way to "carbon date" an aluminum alloy to figure out when it was made...

[Elgin Clock]

Then I vehemently disagree with the GDC's ruling.

On the plus side, as far as I know there is no way to "carbon date" an aluminum alloy...

It'a not illegal (as a COTS item) so that just means you have to purchase it this year.
This is consistent, but the comment from the GDC that is was "custom" is not correct as they stated it apparently going by John's inside info.

Bottom line: It can still be used. Just buy it this year, have proof if necessary with a dated receipt (I haven't looked at the cost & "date purchased" accounting rules completely yet to be honest) & be good to go.


I hope for the GDC's sake there is a difference between what was in the 2008 kit and what is available here (http://www.ifirobotics.com/kitbot.shtml). If not the GDC has stooped to a new low in getting involved with FIRST politics.
If anything, they are giving teams the call to spend money this year on an IFI component if they wish to, so in essence, it's not really getting into politics in the way one would think they would be (by denying teams to use anything IFI related) if that's the accusation, but rather it's treating IFI as any other supplier & telling teams to buy things from them this year, rather than get a "freebie" by using what you have lying around the shop from previous years.

Then again, there is also the rules in place that FIRST says "we don't care if you don't pay anything at all for a component, it just has to be accounted for in your robot budget as the price it would be off the shelf if you were to purchase it." (with the usual other restrictions in place following the flowchart of course)

So.. technically, you could "find" & get a 2008/2009 chassis "donated to your team" from in your team closet from last year for free, but still account for it for the price it would cost you this year if you were to buy it from IFI.

Confused yet?? I know I am slightly. lol

[Brandon Holley]

It'a not illegal (as a COTS item) so that just means you have to purchase it this year.
This is consistent, but the comment from the GDC that is was "custom" is not correct as they stated it apparently going by John's inside info.

Bottom line: It can still be used. Just buy it this year, have proof if necessary with a dated receipt (I haven't looked at the cost & "date purchased" accounting rules yet to be honest) & be good to go.


What disturbs me isnt the fact that it can still be used...its the fact that according to JVN (who I'd say is an incredibly reliable source...) the kit frame has not changed since it was put in the KOP in 2008.

I am interested to see what parts are custom from 2008...edited to not offend anyone, as that was not the original intent of my post

[Madison]

In ten years, I've not once been asked to produce a receipt in support of our Bills of Materials.

So many things are already enforced through 'gracious professionalism,' that I can't really understand why it'd suddenly become necessary for teams to be able to provide documentation for any or all purchases. Teams using an IFI chassis should be aware of the rules regarding its use -- particularly that it's still available as a COTS item -- and be able to relate that information if questioned. A team's word -- especially where it relates not to issues of safety -- should be as good as gold for inspectors.

[Elgin Clock]

Teams using an IFI chassis should be aware of the rules regarding its use -- particularly that it's still available as a COTS item -- and be able to relate that information if questioned. A team's word -- especially where it relates not to issues of safety -- should be as good as gold for inspectors.

Well said!

[jgannon]

If John's claim is true, then a mint-condition IFI chassis kit from the 2008 KOP would unequivocally satisfy the parts use flowchart and all related rules. My understanding of the official rules hierarchy is that it takes more than just a Q&A response to change that. I can't speak to any of FIRST's reasons or intents, but I hope that they will either clarify which components of the kitbot were custom to the 2008 KOP (thus refuting John's claim), rescind the Q&A response, or issue an update amending the rules to specifically outlaw kitbots that came in old kits.

[dlavery]

What disturbs me isnt the fact that it can still be used...its the fact that according to JVN (who I'd say is an incredibly reliable source...) the kit frame has not changed since it was put in the KOP in 2008.

It seems very sneaky and backhanded that the GDC states that it was custom made in 2008....

That is enough. If you have a legitimate, constructive comment regarding the ruling, then post it to the Q&A forums and get a legitimate, constructive response. The insults are totally unnecessary.



.

[JaneYoung]

In ten years, I've not once been asked to produce a receipt in support of our Bills of Materials.

So many things are already enforced through 'gracious professionalism,' that I can't really understand why it'd suddenly become necessary for teams to be able to provide documentation for any or all purchases. Teams using an IFI chassis should be aware of the rules regarding its use -- particularly that it's still available as a COTS item -- and be able to relate that information if questioned. A team's word -- especially where it relates not to issues of safety -- should be as good as gold for inspectors.

From an accounting perspective, this wouldn't work with me. Proof of purchase is reflected in original receipts and/or documentation verifying the purchase. Having correct accounting procedures in order, in place, and available for inspectors if they were to request it, is another aspect of GP, if you want to look at it in a GP way. It's also excellent training for the real world. I know a few attorneys who understand the value of submitting original receipts to a certain office manager in a timely fashion and learned that the hard way. :)

[jgannon]

I have posted a question to the Q&A requesting clarification as to which kitbot components were custom to the 2008 KOP, and which are still identical to the individual parts currently sold by IFI. This should help to reconcile the contrary claims coming from the two sides, and explain exactly what out of that box is still legal.

[Brandon Holley]

That is enough. If you have a legitimate, constructive comment regarding the ruling, then post it to the Q&A forums and get a legitimate, constructive response. The insults are totally unnecessary.



.

Dave,
I apologize for the "insult"...however I was just stating an observation. Please do not take offense to it.

Brandon

[Alan Anderson]

The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition.

I can see how that statement might be justified. I don't agree with it, as the exact same chassis has been available as a COTS item since it came into existence, but I can -- and will -- accept it as authoritative.

[Madison]

From an accounting perspective, this wouldn't work with me. Proof of purchase is reflected in originals receipts and/or documentation verifying the purchase. Having correct accounting procedures in order, in place, and available for inspectors if they were to request it, is another aspect of GP, if you want to look at it in a GP way. It's also excellent training for the real world. I know a few attorneys who understand the value of submitting original receipts to a certain office manager in a timely fashion and learned that the hard way. :)

Well, you already know how well my team handles accouting. ;)

The thing is that, currently, there's no precedent and nothing in the 2009 manual that suggests that teams will be required to provide proof of purchase for any of the materials used this season. Furthermore, there's nothing that requires that COTS materials be purchased within a given time frame -- so that's why I'm confused as to why an IFI chassis purchased post January 3rd might be considered legal while one from a prior date might not.

We have a pretty tremendous stock of bearings, sprockets and chain on hand and have used items from that stock -- all unmodified and all still available -- on this season's robot and on those we've built in the past. I think it's ridiculous to expect us to produce a proof of purchase for those items and worse to expect that we purchase them only after kickoff. It places undue demand on our suppliers, drives up costs and slows our development. Folks that were around in the years when the rules required nearly all parts be purchased from Small Parts will remember what a hassle and headache it was to get things in a timely, cost efficient manner.

If the intent was for teams to maintain documentation of all purchases and to be able to provide said documentation, it should have been communicated to teams at the outset of the season -- if not earlier -- and I don't think you can fault them for being out of compliance ex post facto.

[EricVanWyk]

I read it as:

You can not take the IFI kit-frame out of your 2008 robot and use it as your 2009 frame. You can take an unused/untouched/unmodified 2008 IFI kit-frame and use it as your 2009 frame.

The implication is that modifying a COTS item makes it a custom item.

Is my interpretation correct?

[Russ Beavis]

Eric,
I would either add "not built into a kit in 2008" (untouched?) or change "kit-frame" to "kit-frame components".

Russ

[Alan Anderson]

I read it as:

You can not take the IFI kit-frame out of your 2008 robot and use it as your 2009 frame. You can take an unused/untouched/unmodified 2008 IFI kit-frame and use it as your 2009 frame.

The implication is that modifying a COTS item makes it a custom item.

Is my interpretation correct?

That's how I wanted to read it as well, but that's definitely not how the GDC response is worded.

"The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition."

The restriction against using it on this year's robot follows from that simple declaration, not from a distinction between "unmodified COTS" and "modified".

[Vikesrock]

The GDC's has responded to a followup question regarding the IFI chassis provided in previous KOP. They have also responded to a question about 56mm Banebots Gearboxes using similar reasoning.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11564
The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition by Innovation First, Inc. That IFI now sells the chassis as a COTS item does not change the status of the 2008 chassis elements provided as part of the 2008 Kit Of Parts. COTS items recovered from a previous ROBOT can only be used if all three conditions listed in Rule <R32> are satisfied. A 2008 kit-bot chassis does not satisfy item <R32-B>, and would therefore be a prohibited item. Note however, that a current chassis element similar in form/function, obtained as a purely COTS purchase (i.e. not re-used from a previous ROBOT) would be permitted under Rule <R31>.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11555
The Banebots P56 gearboxes were custom-made products supplied for the 2007 Kit Of Parts. As such, they are prohibited from use in the 2009 competition by Rule <R32-B>. However, Banebots P56-HC gearboxes, which are improved versions of the model supplied in the 2007 Kit, are available COTS items and may be used.

These responses disturb me quite a bit. The only possible consequences of these rulings is to hurt teams with low budgets that want to play by the rules. I cannot understand why it is legal to use a purchased IFI Kitbot chassis endcap when we have an identical, completely unmodified one sitting on the shelf in our shop.

The other bizarre part of these rulings is the complete about-face from a 2008 ruling regarding the same gearboxes. Rule <R32> from the 2009 Manual is word-for-word equivalent with <R36> from the 2008 Manual.

2007 transmissions
Posted by FRC2185 at 01/09/2008 05:48:07 pm
Are the 2007 banebots transmission considered "custom made parts" are per rule <R36>?
The manual specifically mentions 2006 transmissions but nothing is said about the 2007 ones.
thanks for the help
.....

Posted by GDC at 01/10/2008 08:17:46 pm
The BaneBots planetary transmissions (like those provided in the 2007 KoP) are commercially available and any revision may be used. The 2006 transmissions are not commercially available and therefore may not be used.

Posted by FRC174 at 01/19/2008 09:27:57 am
Is our team able to use last year's transmission with the banebot?

Posted by GDC at 01/20/2008 10:08:10 am
The previous answer is still true.

[Jared Russell]

This is a bad rule. There is no competitive advantage in buying what you already have; all it does is penalize teams who want to save a couple bucks.

[Alan Anderson]

The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition.

After considering things for a while, I now believe that this declaration from the GDC is not supported by reality. The chassis was perhaps custom-made for a pre-2008 competition, but I'm pretty sure it was already a commercially available product by the time the 2008 Kit of Parts was put together.

As the sole source of what is and is not "by the book", however, the GDC needs no support from reality in order for what it says to be law. Instead of chewing on the subject and complaining about the taste, let's just swallow it and move on.

[Kevin Sevcik]

As I'm reading their responses, there's still a loophole of sanity that they haven't covered yet. Namely, that <R32> only pertains to salvaging parts that were actually USED on previous robots. So, presumably, they wouldn't prevent you from using an IFI frame that was just collecting dust somewhere.

Also, the rule only pertains to KoP items. So, I would hope, any extra IFI frames (or BB trannies) that you bought during the 2007/2008 season would still be legal.

I'll be posting a Q&A concerning these issues. One does wonder if they have any plans or hopes of actually enforcing these rulings, aside from depending on the GP of teams. Given the funding crunch on teams, and that the only perceptible difference between a 2008 frame and a 2009 frame is $200 and some convoluted reasoning.... I can't see GP making it very far here.

[Mr. Van]

Humm...

So if you pull a CIM motor (that was custom made for FRC 2007 or 2008) from your old robot and it is in "off the shelf" condition, you can use it.

But, if you've got an IFI chassis that was never on a robot, you can't?

I always thought re-use was better than recycling.

-Mr. Van
Robodox

[jgannon]

As I'm reading their responses, there's still a loophole of sanity that they haven't covered yet. Namely, that <R32> only pertains to salvaging parts that were actually USED on previous robots. So, presumably, they wouldn't prevent you from using an IFI frame that was just collecting dust somewhere.
I thought that was the question I asked, but it doesn't sound like the question they answered. What am I doing wrong?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I thought that was the question I asked, but it doesn't sound like the question they answered. What am I doing wrong?That was the impression I got from your Q&A, yes. I've followed up with a somewhat more explicit question of my own. They seem to produce better results:A few more clarifications on the recent questions concerning the IFI KITBOT chassis and <R32>. Specifically, <R32> as written only pertains to COTS ITEMS from previous ROBOTS entered in a FIRST competition, and COTS ITEMS no longer commercially available. I presume the KITBOT chassis is covered under ITEMS from previous ROBOTS, as it is obviously still commercially available. So I would like to know which of the following would be legal:

1. A 2008 KITBOT chassis, from the 2008 KoP, that was never used on a ROBOT entered in a FIRST competition.
2. A 2008 KITBOT chassis, purchased in addition to the 2008 KoP chassis, that WAS used on a ROBOT.
3. A 2008 KITBOT chassis, purchased in addition to the 2008 KoP chassis, that was never used on a ROBOT.

Finally, if #3 is illegal, what would be the specific cut off date for purchase of a KITBOT chassis that would make it legal? That is, given that the KITBOT has been continuously available for purchase since the 2008 Kickoff, when did it lose the status of "custom made for FIRST"?

[ChuckDickerson]

I must have missed it so would someone please explain again why the KITBOT from 2008 is different from the 2005, 2006, or 2007? The KITBOT may have been specifically designed for the 2005 FIRST competition but it has been available as COTS since 2005. Why is the 2008 KITBOT being singling out?

I still cannot find any rule or Q&A specifying that COTS parts have to be purchased after some specific date. If a KITBOT or parts thereof is still new, uncut, not modified, etc. then what makes it a 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009 KITBOT? There is no difference as far as I can tell.

Kevin's explicit questions should clear things up but somehow I doubt they will. Given the rules we were all given at Kickoff I see no reason not to assume that an IFI KitBot is COTS and thus is legal to use no matter when it was acquired as long as you account for it's current retail price in you cost accounting.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

This is a bad rule. There is no competitive advantage in buying what you already have; all it does is penalize teams who want to save a couple bucks.

No competitive advantage?

Miss Daisy has an IFI kit frame sitting on a shelf, and a rookie team does not. Both want to use an IFI kit frame. Who's at an advantage?

[Madison]

No competitive advantage?

Miss Daisy has an IFI kit frame sitting on a shelf, and a rookie team does not. Both want to use an IFI kit frame. Who's at an advantage?

That's an unfair argument, however, as there are no rules addressing WHEN parts must be purchased at all.

[Jared Russell]

No competitive advantage?

Miss Daisy has an IFI kit frame sitting on a shelf, and a rookie team does not. Both want to use an IFI kit frame. Who's at an advantage?

Donated parts are explicitly allowed by the rules as long as they are accounted for as if they were an expense. How is this functionally different from that?

[Tristan Lall]

I'm getting the impression that FIRST is correct in their Q&A answer (in terms of restricting old robot parts that are/were COTS) but is doing a poor job of explaining the distinction between that situation and the use of the same parts as COTS items in general.

As I read the rules, for the current robot, you can use a currently-COTS IFI chassis, even if your chassis was included in a kit, as long as you never used it on a previous robot. (The rules require that it is generally available now on COTS terms. It doesn't actually have to have been bought or acquired while COTS.) <R32> clearly applies only to old robot parts and to no-longer-COTS parts, so any Q&A interpretation of <R32> can't be construed as applying to other items (like unused old kit parts which are currently COTS), unless they say so explicitly and provide justification.

In terms of actually implementing this rule, it seems to me that FIRST ought to be publishing a complete list of parts that are potentially excluded under <R32>, part B. How else can teams easily and definitively determine the legality of a re-used item? They're not necessarily privy to what was developed especially for FIRST, and what's just a donated part—and under most circumstances, I bet this question won't even cross their minds.

[EricH]

Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616

[Kevin Sevcik]

Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616
Agreed. But I think a slight modification of <R31> would be in order under that interpretation. Since it quite obviously should currently only apply to "COTS ITEMS from ROBOTS entered into previous FIRST competitions." And an unused kit frame obviously wouldn't fall under that.

Arguing the merits and reasoning behind the rule is mostly pointless, but I would appreciate it if they at least worded the rule consistently with their interpretation. They could just switch to "COTS ITEMS from previous FIRST KoPs" and leave the current vague description of custom made for FIRST stuff... Or if they're actually concerned about "leveling the playing field" they could just do the obvious thing and ban all items from previous KoPs, period. A nice, clear, economy stimulating ruling. Not that great for the environment or team finances, but you can't have everything.

[Tristan Lall]

Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616Wait, what? A never-used 2008 kit frame (item 1) is neither of the things listed at the top of <R32>, and therefore points A through C can't apply to it. That part of the response does not follow from the rules.

As for items 2 and 3, they could have been clearer about the fine distinction between custom-made-for-FIRST and in the kit, as compared to identical-to-a-custom-FIRST-part and bought commercially.

I'm a bit surprised by the rationale for this rule, as well. What's so special about an IFI kit frame, as opposed to all of the other things that FIRST teams accumulate over the years? (Tangible and intangible.) And given that there's no practical way to inspect this, does it really make much sense to make this small distinction? Veterans will either be moderately inconvenienced (they've got a pile of metal they can't use on the robot anymore), or will just ignore this (out of spite or ignorance); either way, there's effectively no enforceability.

[EricH]

Wait, what? A never-used 2008 kit frame (item 1) is neither of the things listed at the top of <R32>, and therefore points A through C can't apply to it. That part of the response does not follow from the rules.

[...]Veterans will either be moderately inconvenienced (they've got a pile of metal they can't use on the robot anymore), or will just ignore this (out of spite or ignorance); either way, there's effectively no enforceability.
I said there was an explanation. I didn't say I agreed with it. (I also think I may know where <G14> came from, but that's another story.)

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I was surprised too. And I noticed the lack of enforceability right away. It's the FIX-IT Windows all over again.