Section 8.3.3 Illegal Gearboxes and Chassis

[Andy Brockway]

Section 8.3.3 has specifically outlaws fabrication of predesigned mechanisms.

…But completing detailed dimensioned drawings of parts, ……..intended to go on the actual competition ROBOT is prohibited outside approved fabrication periods….

Strictly taken this outlaws fabricating components from gearboxes based on White Papers here in ChiefDelphi and from AndyMark. These components can be purchased if available from an approved VENDOR, but example 2 under Section 8.2 COTS is illegal.

On top of this <R17> makes illegal any MECHANISM purchased before kick-off. Dave Lavery warned everyone. This includes those shiny new AndyMark transmissions.

This effects all of you that designed a new chassis this past year. Team 25 reported that they had a better chassis for this year. I hope you did not make any drawings! BTW all of last year’s custom chassis’s, complete with drawings, are now illegal.

I am hoping that FIRST will allow detail drawings in the public domain to be legalized.

[Tristan Lall]

I'd be curious to see what constitutes a "detailed dimensioned drawing". Traditionally, a parametric solid model isn't treated like a drawing (consider that industrial document control procedures are not always the same for models as for the production drawings), though it can be used to contain much the same data. Under the strictest reading, it would seem that teams which work from models and patterns alone wouldn't be affected, even though that probably contradicts the intent of the rule.

Also, there's a curious implication of the fact that prototypes are allowed: what if the pre-season prototype (with detailed drawings) is so good that you don't need to change anything? How much token redesigning is enough to satisfy the rules? Obviously a new-from-scratch design defeats the purpose of a prototype, and equally obviously, an identical design doesn't satisfy the requirement to do the majority of the work in-season. Where's the dividing line? It's not just an academic distinction, since some of us will no doubt have to enforce this at the events.

And excuse the blatant lawyering and word games, but the rule calls for "completing" the drawings. Could you argue that the drawings are incomplete, because you intend to issue new revisions as necessary? While that may be far-fetched, there's a more reasonable related question as well: do they really mean "completing" (as in, the drawing has to be done and checked) or "working on" (as in, don't even fill in a title block)? Or worse, "completing" in the sense of "working on" (like one completes a form)? I think I know what's meant, but it's simply not good practice to assume that everyone will see eye-to-eye on the issue.

I'm not advocating that anyone try to pass this rationale off at inspection—because it's a very hard sell, even to me—I'm just wondering how the rule could be stated so as to capture the intent with the utmost precision.

[Billfred]

I agree that a lot of folks will be kicking themselves for buying their transmissions ahead of time, but those are the risks.

As for actual designs, I have to say that one could argue decently to me that you could have a "general case solution" for an FRC robot with an arm. After all, how many arms have we seen this century? 2001, 2002 (if you had a basket on the end), 2003 (if you stacked), 2004, 2005. That's a strong indication to me that you want an arm-based robot in your repertoire.

[Michael Hill]

So should AM Gearboxes be considered COTS Components or Mechanisms? You could argue it both ways. Webster's Dictionary defines a component as "a constituent part." Constituent means it is a required part. As far as I know, gearboxes are required in a robot. However, it could be considered a mechanism.

[GMKlenklen]

<R17> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are
encouraged to think as much as they please about their ROBOTS. They may develop
prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may
gather all the raw stock materials and COTS COMPONENTS they want. But absolutely no
fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to
the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS purchased or assembled prior to the Kick-off
presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but CAN NOT be used
on the final ROBOT.

<R18> During the Build Season: During the period between the Kick-off and ROBOT shipment
deadline, teams are to design and fabricate all the COMPONENTS and MECHANISMS
required to complete their ROBOT. They are encouraged to use all the materials, sources
and resources available to them that are in compliance with the rules of the 2007 FIRST
Robotics Competition. When the ROBOT shipment deadline arrives, all work on the
ROBOT must cease and the ROBOT must be placed in a “hands-off” condition. The entire
ROBOT (including all FABRICATED ITEMS intended for use during the competition in
alternative configurations of the ROBOT) and OPERATOR CONSOLE must be crated and
out of team hands by the shipment deadline specified in Section 4.5.1.1.

This means you have to build your entire robot during the 6 week build period, also any COTS used, must be purchaced during build period. It does not say anything about not being able to use ideas prototyped before kickoff... you just have to re-make that practice chassis... just like a rookie team with no prototypes built in the pre-season.

There fore I gratiously disagree with my interpritation of what you have writen above.

EDIT: Additionally... it's more about learning... not makeing things dificult for you.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Hmmm.... R17 is distinctly lacking any comment about design, while R18 does say that the robot must be designed during the season. In fact, none of the other build rules say anything about hardware design or drawings, just fabrication. On yet another hand, there's the official unofficial verbiage about no detailed drawings or anything outside of build times.....

Frankly, I think the whole thing needs some specific clarification from FIRST so they can bring the verbiage and rules in line one way or another. I don't think it's rules lawyering to actually want the rules to mention this instead of a vague, possibly applicable preface to a rules section. I think it's preventing rules lawyering and arguments about what's official. At the very least, it would give people something to point at.

That said..... I can sort of understand the logic, but the logical conclusion disturbs me. It implies that I may not do any detailed design work on my robot after ship outside of fix it windows. I can understand not designing new systems to be whipped together at regionals. I cannot understand (potentially) not being able to calculate and source a new gear ratio in case your lifter doesn't perform as advertised. Can't dimension and locate potential speed holes. Draw a circle on paper? Better not put a diameter on it. (You know, for kids.)

Mostly I'm philosophically against this. We're theoretically encouraging students to be engineers. Engineers looove having a portfolio of working designs to pick from and adapt. If it's a standard problem with a standard solution, all the better. If we're telling teams that anything they do in the off season must be wiped from their memories..... well I'm not sure how that encourages students to be excited about engineering year round. (Sorry Johnny, FIRST says your shifting transmission design has to go in the trash. But on the bright side, you get to do it all over again.) Mostly.... I think FIRST is now struggling mightily with the opposing interests of being an engineering inspiration and being a robot competition. For all that they swear it's not about the robots, some of these restrictions can only be rationally explained from that POV.

EDIT: Ok.... I just read the rules that make preseason AM trannies illegal. I'm rather upset with them philosophically, but will spare CD my rant for now until FIRST has a chance to clarify. Once they finally have Q&A working.

[Mike Schroeder]

now i have a question, if a veteran team didnt use the KOP gearboxes from last year or 2005, is it acceptable for them to donate them to a newer team, assuming the newer team account for them in their Bill of Material?

[Paul Copioli]

There are contradictions between this and rule R24. Rule R24 reads:

Individual COMPONENTS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2007 ROBOTS IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition.

This is the best rule ever! However, I now have more questions. We WILL be using the gerbox housing we used in 2005 and 2006 for our drive base. However, the drawings were done in 2005. Rule R24 states I can use the component from 2005 / 2006, but according to section 8.3.3 I can't make another one from my drawings. That seems a bit ridiculous.

Now, what about the kit gearbox housing from last year (or 2005 for that matter)? If you follow the flow chart it is legal since it is not a kit part this year. So by the letter of the rule R24 the old kit gearbox housing is legal, right?

-Paul

[Steve W]

R17 does not state that you cannot use designs from before kickoff. It does state however what other things you can and cannot use. By the fact that FIRST is very diligent in how it writes its rules I would think that the omission of stating that the design was not illegal was by intent. This would mean that designs would be legal but the fabrication must be done during build season. R18 states that design and fabrication are to be done during build but does not state the design from pre kickoff is not allowed therefore it should be allowed.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

[Andy Brockway]

The only problem with <R24> is that if you designed and fabricated before kickoff than they cannot be used, only unmodified COTS.

Paul, last year's KOP gearboxes are not available to all teams this year so it is illegal under 8.2 Definition for COTS.

Until FIRST changes its mind I will designing a new dual speed gearbox for the Banebot transmission. I welcome everyone to come see our robot, it will be designed and built under these rules. You can bet I will not be making any detailed drawings and will not be posting a White Paper on this gearbox.

[Paul Copioli]

No. The rule reads that if you used it on your robot in a previous year, then it is O.K. as long as it follows the other rules for legal materials. I asked the Q&A in 2005 (when the rule first appeared) and it was confirmed that if you used it on your robot last year, then it was O.K.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that our custom housing we used last year is perfectly legal this year. I am just not as sure about the kit housing.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Steve,

I think most people here understand that the restriction on detailed drawings, etc. isn't in any <R##>. The issue is the very strong verbiage in the summary/description of the fabrication section. Is it enforceable? Is it something we should abide? Is it just so much hot air? Inquiring minds want to know which of these sets of rules we need to follow. FIRST needs to clarify the issue since we teams obviously can't agree on the interpretation. You think the <R##> paragraphs are all that matter, Andy quite obviously believes that the summary paragraph matters as well. I have no clue but I'm blessedly free of actually having to make the choice.

[ewankoff]

My interpretation of these rules is that andy mark transmisissions purchased before the kickoff may be used as long as the COMPONENTS were not assemebled to be a MECHANISM. The rules even encourage gathering supplies but not assembling or fabricating those items. Any raw COMPONENT that was purchased at anytime can be used on this years robot.

(Capitolized words are defined in the manual)

[ChrisH]

The father of one of the new kids on our team is a lawyer. He is quite adamant that he knows nothing about technical things, though his son is very mechanical.

Sounds like we might be finding uses for Dad's talents after all.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

The father of one of the new kids on our team is a lawyer. He is quite adamant that he knows nothing about technical things, though his son is very mechanical.

Sounds like we might be finding uses for Dad's talents after all.

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave