cRio-FRC in BOM

[nitneylion452]

I'm compiling my team's BOM and a thought passed through my mind: the cRio-FRC (the 8 slot version) is not included in this year's KOP. Since it is not included, as per the exact letter of the law, it's cost ($800 with FIRST discount) should be included in the BOM. However, rule [R14] states that no individual part can cost more than $400 and would make the cRio-FRC an illegal part. Surely, the GDC does not intend this, but I thought it was an interesting thought. Anyone else care to share their opinion?

[jimwick]

Surely that is not the intent. But Thursday at the Granite State Regional should be an interesting day.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Hrm. You're correct that it should technically be costed since it's not in the 2012 KoP nor listed as an explicit exception. Practically speaking, it's a simple oversight by the GDC, since they didn't mandate the FRCII and they're not about to make about a thousand veteran bots illegal.

Definitely needs to be Q&A'd. If you can't/won't, then I will. Whoever does should point out that any exception written for it should exclude the possibility of a team using both an FRC and FRCII for free. (Someone totally would.)

[RufflesRidge]

A careful reading of R13-A should solve your problem

The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:
A. items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist)

Emphasis mine

The cRIO-FRC was on last year's checklist in quantity 1 so you're all set and can document the cost as $0.

[SenorZ]

[R15]

Individual Components or Mechanisms, not excluded in Rule [R13], that are retrieved from previous Robots and used on 2012 Robots must have their undepreciated cost included in the 2012 Robot cost accounting and applied to the overall cost limits.


However, the individual modules of the cRIO count as components. So look up their individual cost. We bought a cRIO II, and it is $525, but the modules and base are all under $400.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

[R15]

No, Ruffles had the answer. The cRIO is excluded from the cost accounting due to being listed in a previous-year's KOP Checklist.

[andreboos]

But (by the letter of the rule) wouldn't the quantity be limited to zero? Or would it be limited to the quantity of the year of the KOP (one)?

We used two IEC limit switches from the 2010 kit of parts this year, but they were not included in this year's KOP, so they were included with cost in this year's BOM. Is this incorrect? Would two switches be exempt from the cost calculation because two were included in 2010?

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by andreboos

Would two switches be exempt from the cost calculation because two were included in 2010?

Yes, that's what Al seems to be saying.

[Cal578]

I think [R13] has an implied phrase, and should be read this way:

The following items are excluded from the total cost calculation:
A. items listed on any KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed in the most recent checklist [that contained that item])

where the italics indicate the part I believe is implied.

It would be nice to see an update, a Q&A, or at least if some Lead Robot Inspector were to weigh in on this thread. ;-)

[nitneylion452]

Originally Posted by RufflesRidge

A careful reading of R13-A should solve your problem


Emphasis mine

The cRIO-FRC was on last year's checklist in quantity 1 so you're all set and can document the cost as $0.

But it's not listed on this year's, so there is no quantity of it that we would be permitted to use. That rule is in place to allow teams to use old parts from previous robots without having to count for the cost of some. For example, we have 4 cims on our bot but none of them are from this year's kit, but since 2 are included, we can write 2 of them off as kop and not have to include the cost of 2 of the 4 motors.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Hrm. You're correct that it should technically be costed since it's not in the 2012 KoP nor listed as an explicit exception. Practically speaking, it's a simple oversight by the GDC, since they didn't mandate the FRCII and they're not about to make about a thousand veteran bots illegal.

Definitely needs to be Q&A'd. If you can't/won't, then I will. Whoever does should point out that any exception written for it should exclude the possibility of a team using both an FRC and FRCII for free. (Someone totally would.)

I don't have access to Q&A, so your asking would be ideal.

[nitneylion452]

Has anyone Q&Ad this? It's clearly a mistake by the GDC, but it would be nice to have official confirmation. Plus, it'll be interesting to see the response the GDC gives as far as a "We missed that" is concerned.

[RufflesRidge]

Originally Posted by nitneylion452

But it's not listed on this year's, so there is no quantity of it that we would be permitted to use. That rule is in place to allow teams to use old parts from previous robots without having to count for the cost of some. For example, we have 4 cims on our bot but none of them are from this year's kit, but since 2 are included, we can write 2 of them off as kop and not have to include the cost of 2 of the 4 motors.

There would be no reason to write the rule that way if that were the intention. The actual physical source of a part (with the exception of FIRST Choice) has never been important for cost accounting, keeping track of whether the KOP motors or the ones you bought from AM ended up on your actual robot is pointless. That type of accounting would also cause havoc when you have to swap in a spare at an event, do you need to submit a new BoM?

I understand the desire to have an official Q&A answer for reassurance, but I am fairly certain that the "implied phrase" interpretation posted by Cal is correct.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by RufflesRidge

There would be no reason to write the rule that way if that were the intention. The actual physical source of a part (with the exception of FIRST Choice) has never been important for cost accounting, keeping track of whether the KOP motors or the ones you bought from AM ended up on your actual robot is pointless. That type of accounting would also cause havoc when you have to swap in a spare at an event, do you need to submit a new BoM?

I understand the desire to have an official Q&A answer for reassurance, but I am fairly certain that the "implied phrase" interpretation posted by Cal is correct.

If so, is there a rule somewhere that prohibits using both the cRio-FRC and the -FRCII? Or two (or three) -FRC's? (It may be in the control system stuff that I usually don't try to fully digest.)

I think the confusion is over the phrase "most recent" following the word "any". If "any" refers to any year (which, unless they meant "either" the Rookie or Veteran checklist, I think is the only interpretation), what does "most recent" mean? Logically, it should mean most recent from that year, but [R13] is a mighty weird way to write it. Further, why is this the first time they've used such phrasing/intended such an allowance?

I understand the logic behind the deduction, but a Q&A would make me feel a bit better as well. (i.e. Kevin, I for one would really appreciate your offer as well.)

[RufflesRidge]

Originally Posted by Siri

If so, is there a rule somewhere that prohibits using both the cRio-FRC and the -FRCII? Or two (or three) -FRC's? (It may be in the control system stuff that I usually don't try to fully digest.)

Under my interpretation you actually could use both a -FRC and -FRCII "for free" if you so desired. You would have to account for the cost of -FRC's beyond 1 as that was the quantity on the most recent checklist the -FRC was included on.

I agree the wording is awkward and a Q&A would certainly help put everyone at ease.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by jimwick

Surely that is not the intent. But Thursday at the Granite State Regional should be an interesting day.

Especially since they didn't address this in the last TU.

See you at GSR.