Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Okay, thank you for explaining your thoughts on the matter. Before I go too much further, let me say that if the intent of the rules was to include 3D printed parts, then I'm good with that... but consider....

What is a 3D printed part?

It is not a "plastic or metal sheet", nor is it a "plastic spacer". It never was. Thus it is not included in 2.b.1. Items included in 2.b.1 may be modified however you want, however this is completely irrelevant to a 3D printed part. Note that there are some subtle interpretations here... the phrasing "plastic or metal sheet" could leave some ambiguity as to whether the term "sheet" applies to the term "plastic"... if you interpret the rule to say that "sheet" does not apply to "plastic" then any shape of plastic would be allowed, including plastic feedstock for 3D printers. However given that, plastic spacers are specifically mentioned in this rule, we have to assume that the term sheet does apply to plastic... otherwise plastic spacers (as well as anything else made of plastic) would have been inherently included within the term "plastic". Thus 2.b.1 allows plastic sheet and plastic spacers, but not plastic wire/rod that is fed into 3D printers.

This means that to use a 3D printed part you are using the "Raw materials" section under 2.d.1. This section specifically excludes, by definition, raw materials that have been processed or manufactured into a functional form. So you could use unlimited quantities of the ABS feedstock for your printer, but the process of printing turns it into a "processed or manufactured" form, thus meaning that it is no longer a raw material. This means that as soon as you take a raw material and process or manufature it to make it functional... you can't use it.

I'll agree with you that that doesn't make a lot of sense... but that is what it says.

There are a couple of simple modifications to the rules that would allow for 3D printed parts. 2.b.1 could include "plastic wire or rod", or 2.d.1 could be modified to say, "The definition of raw material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form by a non-team member."

To help explain in more detail, I will suggest 3 questions to consider:

1) Is the plastic wire used to feed a 3D printer included as "sheet" or "spacer" under 2.b.1? (No.)

2) Is the plastic wire (which is definitely a "raw material") used to feed a 3D processed or manufactured into a functional form during the process of 3D printing? (Yes.)

3) If the answer to #2 is "yes" then the 3D printed part is no longer a "raw material", is it? (No, and thus it is no longer allowed on the robot.)

I'll admit that you could put a non-functional, decorative 3D printed part on the robot, as the definition in 2.d.1 only specifies functional forms as destroying "raw material" status.

To many reading this, analyzing the text to this level of detail might seem a bit ridiculous... but writing clear and unambiguous documents that mean what you actually want them to mean is a very, very difficult process. Studying ambiguities and unintentional "glitches" in technical documents can help us learn to avoid them in our own writing. Being an engineer does not release one from the requirement to communicate clearly... in fact, in many ways, it demands it.

Jason

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

In your own words define Manufacturing.

- Andrew

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I'd prefer to defer to authority on this one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manufactured?s=t

I'm pretty sure that includes 3D printing.

Jason

Edit: I want to reiterate here... I'm not Anti-3D printing (heck, I'm waiting for my Solidoodle to show up, and have a Z-corp machine within 10 feet of my office). And I'm not saying that the rules makers didn't mean to include 3D printing. I'm just saying that their first edition of the rules doesn't include 3D printed "functional" parts as legal on the robot, and that the rules should be amended.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

By your definition of Manufacturing cutting any raw material E.G. Everything including plastic spacers and extrusion and sheet mentioned in rule 2.b. is considered illegal. I honestly think your defining "Manufacturing" as a form of "Prefabrication" but that is my opinion.

Another note two out of the seven definitions on that page deal with large scale fabrication.

In FTC scale we would never be considered anywhere close to large scale fabrication. We are talking about small amounts of parts 2-10 at most.

The better wording of this rule would consist something along the lines of:

"Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from
standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of
Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form - insert something about fabrication here. "

- Andrew

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Ah, perhaps this helps me to figure out why we took a few posts to understand each other. You are allowed to cut (or process or manufacture) the items in 2.b.1 as they don't have to be covered by 2.d.1. They aren't "Raw material" they are "plastic or metal sheet".

The key part here is that we both agree that 3D printing is good, should be included in the rules, was intended to be included in the rules, but that the rules could be better written to include it as an option.

So now that we've kind of beaten the 3D printing thing to death, let me suggest that something even cooler than 3D printing is the ability to use basically unlimited aluminum or steel sheet on a waterjet. Oh, sure... you'll have to ask around to find someone local who'll let you use theirs (try mechanical engineering or manufacturing programs) but if you are already good at 3D CAD, then the possibilities are just about endless if you can talk them into a half hour of waterjet time.

Jason

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I still don't see why you think the rule is that way but we shall agree to disagree :) As we both agree the rule was poorly worded, I just interpreted it differently. As for Machining... Well You may be interested in my design. Absolutely zero Tetrix parts. But yes, this has been beaten completely to death.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I think I may have the answer to all your problems.

Skip to 2:20 of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE7jy...3&feature=plcp

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Thank you for providing the link, but it doesn't matter who says it until it says it in the rule book... and right now the rule book, at the very least, is somewhat confusing on the matter.

Just to be clear, you could have Dean Kamen himself rolling around the competition floor on a souped up, hot-pink, Segway with racing stripes while giving Woodie Flowers a piggy back ride, and they could both be singing a slightly off-key chorus of "3D printing is a supercalifragilstically wonderfully legal thing", but if it isn't in the rule book then it isn't a rule.

Mind you, that would probably distract the tech inspectors long enough to get you through! :)

But really... I'm cool with sitting back and waiting to see the rule book clarified. It's actually a pretty common occurence, and probably needs it in other areas, too.

Jason

Edit: On second thought, Woodie would probably be on-key. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was a pretty good singer. Dean strikes me as more of a bass player.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

We are looking for a low cost Linear Slides for our FTC team. Where could we fine them?

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

May wanna check out Igus. They are a sponsor for first and it might be what your looking for.

-RC

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

There are two parts of the rules that come into play here in my opinion...

"b. Prefabricated and/or Preformed COTS plastics or metal are not permitted (i.e. buckets, cups, grippers, gears, etc.).
1. Plastic or metal sheet, plastic spacers, and extruded aluminum are not considered to be prefabricated and are allowed with no restrictions on dimension or quantity provided no other rules are violated."

and...

"d. The following additional structural parts, fasteners, and materials are allowed provided that they don’t violate other rules, such as safety, entanglement, <R03>, etc. This includes no limits on quantity and size of the following materials:
1. Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form."

I think that both these rules point inspectors to look at materials in their purchased "raw" forms. A sheet can be cut but is still identifiable as a sheet. A sheet melted into another form is no longer identifiable as a sheet. The linked video seems to contradict this but FTC must come out with a statement that 3D printing is allowed before it can be stated as a legal method.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I've read this entire thread, and I'm confused as to why people are saying that the rules imply that: "Once you turn some raw materials into a functional part, then it's Manufactured, therefore you can't use it on your robot".

That's dumb... The point is that you can't "Purchase" manufactured parts, not manufacture your own.

FIRST fully expects you to take the raw materialis that you purchase, modify/process/machine them into a userful part, and then use it on your robot. That's the whole point of the exercise. To imply otherwise is the height of silliness...

The real question boils down to whether FIRST considers the roll of ABS plastic (or otherwise) that a rapid prototyping machine uses as a "Raw" enough material or not.

One man's processed material is another man's raw material.

The company that makes solid bar stock uses metal ingots as it's raw material.
The company that makes gear rod uses bar stock as their raw material.
The company that makes motor gears, uses gear rod as their raw material.

FIRST says we can use bar stock, but not gear rod.
It's all just a matter of where you want to put the line in the sand.

I for one hope they allow rapid prototyping machines.

It's learning how to use CAD to design parts that is the payoff in being able to use them. Having the part itself is just a bonus.

If you don't have access to one, find somone who does.

Phil.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

<Beating dead horse>

The issue is the way the rules are phrased. They say you are allowed to use raw materials on your robot, but then specifically define raw materials as items not processed or manufactured into a functional form.

Therefore you could take the 3D feedstock, and put that on your robot, but by the very definition in the rules... once you process it through the 3D printer it would no longer be a "raw material" and thus no longer allowed.

That might not be the intent of the rule... but read it carefully and I think you'll agree that that is the wording of the rule.

I would agree that this is "dumb", although I'd prefer to refer to it as a simple oversight on behalf of the decidedly non-dumb GDC. I suspect they honestly meant to say something along the lines of that it couldn't be "commercially processed or manufactred" or "processed or manufactured into a functional form by a non-team member", but the fact is... they said what they said.

And while I'm happy to accept that the idea of Dean giving Woodie a piggyback ride on a Segway might be the height of silliness, I would suggest that reading what the rules actually say with a critical eye is actually quite a serious business. Really... I'm sorry... it's not my fault that the rules say what they say.

</Beating Dead Horse>

Jason

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Phil,
For many teams that is much harder than you think. Many of these teams have only heard of CAD but have not been exposed to it, let alone having access to a 3D printer.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

The same arguement can be made for FRC but they still allow any kind of custom machining. And in some cases insane amounts of it. Yeah I come from a team that is privaliged with this ability to precision machine our parts, but not everyone has access to it in reality. Its just commercially available to all teams, and if they wanted to they could figure out how to get that capability if they needed/wanted it.

Still don't see it, we are allowed to weld this year as well, so the melting down of the metal rods used to weld would also be considered illegal. Because once you process any kind of raw stock albeit Aluminum, Steel, Titanium (bit crazy) you still have by your definition "Manufactured" it.

So as we have beaten the dead horse into a pulp, can we please stop bickering over this and wait for the GDC to make a clarification? After that we can start screaming at each other again over another awesome debate :)

- Andrew