Sorry--clarification on the rules about motors?

[reflion]

So can we or can we not reuse CIM motors from past years? Can we reuse them if they're not involved in the drive train?

[Russ Beavis]

I think that the rules are very clear - you can use up to 4 FR801-001 motors on your robot (regardless of whether you use them for driving wheels, driving other actuators are just hanging around for decoration). You can use those 2, add 2 more and, if necessary, replace the 2 from the kit with IDENTICAL (ie same P/N) motors if you broke them or can't use them for any reason.

Are these the same as from previous years? Yes except for the 2006 and 2007 kits (others?) included 2 larger (3") CIMs as well (FP801-005).

Russ

[Ozeaden]

yeah, the rules dont say anything about not using cims from last year, but i would anyway. you always want to have a new stockpile of parts and motors.

[reflion]

^Unless, of course, your budget is ridiculously tiny. We're trying to recycle as much as we can right now (right now, the frame of our robot is based on last year's frame and this year's frame put together)...

Anyhow, thanks for the information on the CIMs. That should save us some money and time.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Reflion,
Just to be sure, only parts (robot frame parts included) manufactured by your team after the 2009 kickoff can be used on the 2009 robot. You may not reuse parts of your 2008 robot. You can use the design and make new parts this year. I know it seems hard but as Russ has pointed out above, the CIM motors from last year can be used as functioning spares for 2009 but cannot be used on the original robot construction that you will ship in just a few weeks.

[Vikesrock]

EDIT: I now agree with Al, see below

Here are the relevant rules

<R23> Individual COMPONENTS or MECHANISMS retrieved from previous ROBOTS and used on 2009 ROBOTS must have their undepreciated cost included in the 2009 robot cost accounting, and applied to the overall cost limits.

Ok, so the motor's depreciated cost must be accounted for, no problem.

<R32> COTS ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions or COTS MECHANISMS that are no longer commercially available may be used under the following conditions:
A. The item must be unmodified, and still in its original condition as delivered from the VENDOR, and
B. The item must not be a part custom made for the FIRST competition and provided in the Kit Of Parts for a previous FIRST Robotics Competition (e.g. 2006 FRC transmissions, custom-made motor couplers, custom sensor strips, 2006 IFI CMUcam II modules, etc. are not permitted), and
C. The item must satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition)

The CIM motor is a COTS part and is not legally allowed to be modified from it's original condition. I would argue that crimp connectors and trimming the wire leads while against the exact letter of this rule are well within the intent (obviously the only official judge of intent is the GDC themselves).

<R51> Motors specifically permitted on 2009 FRC ROBOTS include:
...
D. One or two additional 2-1/2” CIM motors (part #FR801-001 and/or M4-R0062-12) in addition to those provided in the Kit Of Parts. This means that up to four, and no more, 2-1/2” CIM motors can be used on the ROBOT.

This rule makes no specifications as to the source of the additional CIM motors that you are allowed to use.

Unless I missed a rule limiting these motors to spares, it seems to me like it would be legal to use them on your 2009 robot.

EDIT: Missed <R50> somehow. I am now in agreement with Al's post.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

This rule makes no specifications as to the source of the additional CIM motors that you are allowed to use.

Unless I missed a rule limiting these motors to spares, it seems to me like it would be legal to use them on your 2009 robot.

<R50> comes the closest. That's what got me confused earlier when I tried to answer the original question.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by EricH

<R50> comes the closest. That's what got me confused earlier when I tried to answer the original question.

Wow, right under a rule I quoted. That's a pretty spectacular failure

According to this rule I now agree with Al's interpretation. If this is make or break for your team you could try asking the Q&A if the CIM is an exception to <R50> due to the number allowed versus the number provided.

[Russ Beavis]

This all seems quite silly and academic to me. I don't care where/when/how you obtained the motors. On your 2009 robot, you're allowed to have 4 CIMs, 1 of ..., 2 of ..., etc.

I don't care whether the 2009 kit motors or 2007 leftovers with the same model number are on the crated robot. Please put all of your old and new CIMs on a table and play a shell game. Mix 'em up good and put 'em back on the shelf. Use whichever one you want since they're all the same.

I can guarantee that I won't be checking date codes on motors and will not ask to see your broken 2009 motors before allowing you to use old (identical) motors.

Russ

[EricH]

If the lead inspector says he doesn't care about the year of the motor, I'll go with that unless the GDC says otherwise.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Russ Beavis

This all seems quite silly and academic to me. I don't care where/when/how you obtained the motors.

I agree, there is no good reason for the rule to be interpreted as written with regard to the CIMs.

I just wanted to be sure people don't get burned by an overzealous inspector or something like that.

I have posted the question to the Q&A to get an official answer.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I agree, there is no good reason for the rule to be interpreted as written with regard to the CIMs.

I just wanted to be sure people don't get burned by an overzealous inspector or something like that.

I have posted the question to the Q&A to get an official answer.

Do you realize that the guy you are quoting in your post is the LEAD INSPECTOR for all of FIRST? he writes the inspection procedures used at all of the events. I think his word is just as good as the Q&A no need to wait 4 days for an answer.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

Do you realize that the guy you are quoting in your post is the LEAD INSPECTOR for all of FIRST? he writes the inspection procedures used at all of the events. I think his word is just as good as the Q&A no need to wait 4 days for an answer.

I do realize exactly who the post was made by. I also realize that Chief Delphi is not an official communication outlet for this competition whether the post is made by me, the Lead Inspector or a member of the GDC.

I will not be waiting on the answer with baited breath or anything like that. If my team decides we need to harvest some CIMs from previous robots we will be doing so.