[FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

My team was wondering if using the 3D-printer we had in our class would be considered a violation of <R02>; technically it's raw materials, not pre-fabricated.

Thoughts?

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

No it does not. Prefab is bought from a distributor such as Andymark, West Coast Products. Or any other company out there except Matrix, Tetrix, and Lego.

The 3d printed part would be legal as it is plastic, and is part of your dimensionless plastic allotment.

- Andrew

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Main reason I ask is that if I recall correctly, there was something about all teams being able to acquire the raw materials in question; I figured 3D printing isn't available to all teams and would be subject as a violation.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Well, my first thought is that the rules could do with some revisions for clarity. And maybe for proofreading (see 4.2.1... it is "genraly" embarassing to put your typos in large, bold, headline fonts).

In any case, while I think it would be good to encourage the use of 3D printed materials, I would argue, based on my reading of the rules, that they would not be allowed.

I base this on reading R2.d.1 which allows raw material to be used on the robot, however also clearly states that a material ceases to be a raw material once it is "processed or manufactured into a functional form". Since the ABS feedstock for a 3D printer does not fit the definition of plastic sheet or plastic spacer from R2.b.1, then I'd say that as cool as I think it would be to have 3D printed parts be legal, that they are not.

That said, there is room for some confusion, and I'm sure FIRST will be elaborating on exactly what they intended over the next couple weeks.

Jason

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

At the Florida Kickoff I remember a mechanical design discussion that specifically talked about 3d printing being legal but I could be wrong.

http://www.flfirst.org/Florida_First..._Mech_2012.ppt

Link to presentation download.

- Andrew

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Will we be seeing anything like the FRC Q&A system of last season for FTC?

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I think I'd have to disagree with this.

Because, something like aluminum sheeting is certainly a raw material applicable to the rule. If I go by the methodology that you're using, as soon as I cut or modify the sheeting for my purposes, it's not "fabricated" and illegal.

I think the only intent of the rule 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. was to say that you can only PURCHASE Raw Materials; modification of those raw materials is entirely fine so long as it doesn't violate any rules.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

You can do whatever you want to the metal sheet as it is allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic or metal sheet is thus not covered as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, as it is already specifically allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic feedstock for a 3D printer, however, is not included in 2.b.1, and thus would only be allowable as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, quoted below:

Note my bold. As soon as you process or manufacture a functional form, it is no longer a raw material.

It is quite possible that the presentations of the rules, and intent of the rules is to allow for 3D printing. It is also possible that the rules will be amended, but if you read the rules as they exist now, 2.d.1 is pretty clear that as soon as you manufacture something useful from your raw material that it ceases to be a raw material and can no longer be used on the robot.

I'll agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'll certainly agree that it doesn't say what I want it to say, but I'm pretty sure that that is what it says. 3D printing is a no-go.

Jason

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

If 3d printing is a no-go then why change the rule in the first place?

By no means is solid Aluminum stock easy to work with without a mill or some kind of machine. So 3d printing is illegal but milling something from a 6x6x6 block of Aluminum is legal? I don't see the connection. If there was any point to changing the rule in the first place to dimensionless constraints of raw material then why restrict the way you could go about fabricating your parts? Just seems a little fishy to me, did you look at the presentation? Why show that to almost every team in Florida if it didn't have any merit? I see your reasoning but I think its just wrong from what I have heard from who I talked to.

I think the rule saying prefab parts are illegal is fine but to say you couldn't take advantage of limitless material in any dimensions is kinda silly.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Our teams were wondering about 3D printing also, I think the best thing to do is just ask on the official FTC forum.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I still can't agree with you on this.

If they're saying that you can purchase raw materials, and only use raw materials, then that's completely and utterly useless. I can't do anything with a raw 2" x 2" aluminum sheet because it's not within the dimensions of the bot. Going by what you're saying, I can't modify it either because it would then be "fabricated" because it's actually useful now.

I sent an email to some FTC officials asking for clarification, will post when received.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

A reliable FTC official just told me that 3D printing is allowed.

Case closed.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

What I was getting at.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

That's good news. But they need to re-write the rules to reflect it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of 3D printing being allowed and believe that the rules are very poorly worded, but regardless of what any FTC official says, it is the rules, as they are written, that define the competition. (If not, then why have written rules?)

I'm very willing to accept that the rules don't say what the game designers meant them to say, but just look at the definition of a raw material. It is very clear, and very specific.

It is poor logic to argue that it says something else because you don't like what it says.

If there is something missing in my logic, or comprehension of English, I'm happy to have it explained.... but I'd be happier to see the rules tidied up a bit to say what they are meant to say.

Jason

P.S. My apologies to those who might feel I'm being a bit pedantic on this point, but the rules, as they are written are important. After reading FIRST's rule books inside and out for the past decade, I can say that they usually do an outstanding job of conveying complex ideas and regulations. They also do a good job of updating their rules when the rules don't fully reflect the intent of the game designers. I'd suggest that this is one of those times when some re-writing might be in order.

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Alright lets set all of this aside and get something straight here, as I still am totally lost of what you are seeing.

This rule plainly says that you cant use COTS parts unless its in the list of those 5 items.

Not what we are debating about though but, alas I want to be thorough.

Now the bolded and underlined are the rules in question here.

Plastic, Metal, and extruded metals have no dimensional limit on their usage, as long as one fits inside the 18in^3 both rules state this effectively

Now plastic and metal come in lots of shapes and sizes but I am sure I didn't have to point that out. But sheet, tube, square stock, plate, round stock. The basic stuff, that is all considered a "Raw Material". Now I would consider something to be used in a 3d printer a very long VERY thin piece of plastic rod or round stock whatever the plastic may be.

The rule does not say that manufacturing is illegal. The rule states Manufacturing it into a functional form is not illegal based on any rules that you have stated. If it were true then any modification of Raw stock of sheet would also be considered "illegal" based on what you are saying.

The rule does not state what forms of manufacturing or fabrication are legal or not illegal which to me opens up everything. I could go cut a gear out of a block of solid AL and use it perfectly fine. I could do the same thing about a 3d printer, and a CNC mill, lathe, EDM wire, waterjet, laser, router. Or any OTHER kind of machine I could possibly think of.

I hope this makes a little bit more sense now.

- Andrew

Edit: This is my interpretation of the rules not final.

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

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Oh. Oh my goodness. You're right! I hadn't even thought about that.

You could fusion weld, or spot weld sheet metal or aluminum extrusions, of course, but filler rod or MIG isn't included in the rules.

And please... it isn't "my" definition... the defintion of "Raw Material" is given quite clearly in the rules. (And remember, I'm only arguing that that definition applies to "Raw Material" as covered under 2.d.1, all other materials specifically allowed by the rules are legal, and you can pretty much do what you want with them. It is only materials that are described no where else in the rules that have to meet the definition of "Raw Material" in order to be legally included on the robot.)

But I have found a way to argue that 3D printing is legal... 2.d.4 allows "Monofilament", and doesn't specify that it has to be monofilament fishing line. So I could probably be convinced to include 3D printed materials as the feedstock would come from a single filament of plastic. This moves the feedstock from having to be included under 2.d.1 as "Raw Material" and moves it to 2.d.4, where it is no longer subject the the definition of "Raw Material" and can now be "used in the construction of the robot" even after it has been manufactured or processed into a functional form.

I wish someone had suggested that about twenty posts ago. It's a bit of a lame loophole, as the other examples of materials in 2.d.4 are all items that can be tied, twisted and used for tensile applications, but I think it could work.

But yeah... this welding thing.... you are totally right. Filler rod is not included in the list of materials you are allowed to use on your robot, and I'd have hard time believing MIG wire is "monofilament". :ahh:

And yes.... yes, I am chuckling as I write this.

Jason

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

My reaction was way beyond a chuckle...

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Mine as well...

- Andrew

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

I think I could tie and twist printer line. Maybe even use it for a tensile application. (Like pulling more off of the reel!)

Jason, I bet I can find a way around the filler rod and MIG wire not being listed as legal. Filler rod is aluminum, as I recall, sold in rod form as a raw material. MIG wire is also aluminum, sold in wire form as a raw material. Raw materials are explicitly allowed, and as I recall it was decided that they are not meant to remain in raw material form because that just doesn't make any sense in terms of putting on a robot. Also, the welding makes it very obvious what form the material originally was in. Therefore, welding with filler rod and MIG wire is legal because a) the raw material is legal and b) you can tell what it came from pretty easily.

Of course, welding type isn't specified--anybody got an ultrasonic welder or a friction stir welder?

Re: [FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?
 

Auuugh! :eek: No... no... must resist posting! <FAIL>

That's the whole point of what this entire thread has been discussing, and you're absolutely right... the definition in 2.d.1 that says a "Raw Material" ceases to be a "Raw Material" when it is "processed or manufactured into a functional form" doesn't make sense the way it is worded right now, at least as far as practical robot design considerations go. It is absolutely contrary to everything that the GDC has apparently said about their intentions for including it.

But whether we like it or not, or whether it makes sense or not, doesn't change what it says.

In any case, I've had fun with this discussion and I don't even have anything to do with FTC. Can't wait to see how much time I'll lose when the FRC rules come out! I was mostly curious what the rules said, and what the game was about... and it led down this particular little rabbit hole. I'm interested to see how the GDC's intent to include a broad range of manufacturing processes and materials will turn out.

It looks like a good game, regardless of my fixation with 2.d.1

Jason