Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

Was this ruled on officially by FIRST that teams could not reuse CIMs after crimping on a connector? I don't know that I've ever seen that in the Q&A. I'm not going to throw any teams under the bus but lets face it, teams re-use CIMs.

You are definitely right about this given a pure legal reading of the rules though. I'd just like to know if FIRST has ruled on it.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

I can't imagine that FIRST would rule in a way like this. It would be counter to the way teams have operated for years.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

Todd,
What rule would not allow CIM reuse?

David

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

The rule Todd is referring to is (from 2014):
This is clarified in a blue box,
along with the definition found in the glossary:
So, from a strict reading of the rule, crimping or soldering connectors to the ends of leads or even cutting the leads is an alteration, and makes an item (a CIM motor, one of these new controllers, etc) illegal in future years.

Now, I ask all of you two questions. First, do you think it's the intent of the rules to make a CIM motor illegal because you spent 30 seconds adding a pair of 50 cent connectors on it? Second, do you think your inspector, LRI, or any team at your event is going to know or care?

When I read the rule, two possible intents come to mind (note that I'm not the GDC, so I could be wrong about either/both of these):

The first is fair play - we don't want veteran teams having an advantage over rookie teams by being able to pull out a robot from 7 years ago that can already play the game, and instead of spending 6 weeks build one get to spend it improving and driving one. Veterans already have enough of an advantage through their experience with FIRST and through having people (mentors, upper classmen or graduates) with first hand experience in games similar to those we're playing now (for example, the similarities between Arial Assist and Over Drive).

The second is educational - we want the students on the team this year to have the experience of designing and building a robot, not just using what someone else built before them. I've heard before (on here? In LRI training? Not sure) that reusing an assembled gear box (which ships from the supplier unassembled) is illegal... but taking that gear box, breaking it down and then reassembling it during the build season makes it legal because you returned it to the form it arrived in. That strongly implies that the educational experience of assembling a gearbox and seeing how it works is important with this rule.

As an LRI, even if I was 100% certain that a team reused a CIM motor or speed controller and the connectors they had on it from the previous year, I wouldn't say anything or hassle them in any way. On the other hand, if a team comes in with a shooter on it I recognize, and I can verify that it came from a previous robot, they'll be in trouble. When we went with the new sizing rules, there were several teams that had to be lectured, as their re-use was obvious - they used the previous years frame and (assuming) drive train without modification. In that case, the modifications made to make it fit within the sizing parameters was enough of a penalty and lesson for the teams in question, and we could let them play once they got it fixed (which took the entire practice day, and afterwards their mechanisms had issues due to the changes).

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

R13 ROBOT elements created before Kickoff are not permitted. If you crimp on a connector you've created an element. A specific exception in R13 allowed using battery assemblies from prior years, so if there was a concern with something as simple as charging a battery being a modification it seems that crimping a connector would have the same concern.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

CIMS with crimps fall under the rule that makes any COTS part plus an added connector a non-COTS fabricated "assembly". Battery assemblies got an explicit exception a few years ago, so there is precedent for removing some restrictions on reuse.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

Interesting. I never thought of it this way. Definitely one for the Q&A.

By that logic, I could reuse a CIM (and the new Talons) if I used wirenuts and avoided a crimped connector.

David

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

By the letter of the rule connectors on a motor make it not longer COTS/Reusable, but by the intent of the rule, this entire conversation is beating a dead horse with a level that is unfortunately consistent with all things on ChiefDelphi lately.

I personally commend VEXpro and CTRE on their joint effort to produce this product, and am excited at the form factor and apparent quality, it should have a very positive impact on our wiring layout.

Perhaps they can just have connectors mounted to the motor controllers from the factory or push for a reasonable rule change (about motor leads and connectors on all motors and control hardware).

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

I agree it's not the intent of the rule but if some teams are following it to that level. There should be official clarification that they shouldn't be. They are at a disadvantage by holding themselves to a standard that I don't believe FIRST expects for them.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

Agreed. They really need to publish a list that tells you what rules you don't need to follow.

For newer teams, it gets confusing.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

It's not a question about "what rules you don't need to follow"... it's about reading the rules for both the letter and intent of the law and using common sense in interpreting them.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

The issue is my view of intent is very different than your view of intent. But you can issue a red card retroactively if you find I viewed intent differently.

Rules should require intent to follow.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

Exactly, my interpretation of the intent can differ than yours. Just like the issue with the withholding allowance and robots in the parking lot this past season.

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

Using common sense as a guiding principle, would it be permissible to apply a thin film of non-curing thermal grease to the mounting surface of the new Victor SP (or Talon SRX) before bolting it to the robot?

Re: blog; Motor Controller Options for 2015
 

It was asked in Q&A for 2014. Q454 and Q445.

Highlights:
"Installation of connectors would make the resulting assembly a FABRICATED ITEM."

"Some additional work must have been done to the part (e.g. trimming leads, adding connectors) after the 2014 Kickoff for the part to be legal per R13."

It was asked in the context of the rule that 45 lbs fabricated components (including spares) must be brought into first day of competition and inspected and that additional non-COTS items could not be stored outside the pits and used on the robot, hence the reference to the 45 lbs limit. The implication was that spare motors must be brand new in box motors with no connectors and they would be exempt from the limit.

Hopefully they straighten this out this year. Or we're going to need more motors.