![]() |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
|
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Last year's kit frame
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. |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
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? |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
|
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
|
Re: Last year's kit frame
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. |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616 |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
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. |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
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. |
Re: Last year's kit frame
Quote:
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi