|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
I'm not sure why the legality of the cRIO is even being questioned...
Quote:
|
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
In order to use an item, it must pass ALL FRC rules. Not just <R52>
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
CRio-FRC is disallowed due to costing of $535 I agree that it appears to be an oversight ... Again, it'll be an interesting Thursday. ![]() |
|
#18
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
EDIT: disregard my first point... didn't make sense! I stand by my second point, which is that:
I agree with nukem... I'm unable to understand how this is an issue. EDIT2: I interpret [R13] Exception A to mean: items listed on the most recent revision of any year's KOP Checklist (qty is limited to the total listed) Last edited by Nate Laverdure : 28-02-2012 at 19:47. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Here's what I don't get about this interpretation. Why use the word "any" at all if that's what they meant? The way you are interpreting that's not allowing you to exclude the cost of an item that was on "any" KOP checklist it's allowing you to do so for items on the 2012 KOP checklist. If that's what they meant that's what they would have said IMO (considering that's exactly what they did in R20 last year).
|
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
|
|
#21
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
|
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
Quote:
The only CRio identified in the most recent KoP checklist is the CRIO-FRCII. There is no CRIO-FRC in the most recent KoP checklist, thus a qty of 0 in the most recent KoP checklist. As per their exact wording (Inside the parenthisis(sp?)), we cannot cost account the CRio-FRC at $0. |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
|
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
However, this interpretation is necessary to make the 8-slot cRIO legal, which is clearly the intent. The interpretation I prefer is this: items are exempt from cost calculations at the quantity they were last included in a kit of parts checklist. This means that a single cRIO-FRC would be exempt from cost calculations, because the last checklist in which it was included (2011), has quantity one. Victors would be exempt up to quantity one, because one was included this year. Next year, if Victors are not included in the KOP, one would still be exempt from cost calculations. |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
I'm aware of that statement, but at some point in the past you still had the 8-slot cRIO-FRC on your KOP checklist.
Here is the "most recent" version of the KOP checklist that included the cRIO-FRC. Page 7 of the 2009 KOP Checklist. |
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
But the wording is "Most recent checklist", not "Most recent checklist that the item was on". Personally, I hope your interpretation is taken. Otherwise, we're going to have lots of issues at GSR on Thursday (My team included). ![]() |
|
#28
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Quote:
(This is not to exonerate the rule-crafters-- I've said before that with proper review, the manual can and should be free of grievous errors. However, the closer you examine the language, the more interpretative intricacies you'll find.) Yes, if I were the GDC, I'd agree with that interpretation. Last edited by Nate Laverdure : 28-02-2012 at 20:57. |
|
#29
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
Everything in this thread is an early April Fools joke, right?
I mean, you can't seriously equate "Not on the list" with "On the list with a quantity of zero". Those are not even close to the same. It's threads like this that has the GDC pleading with us to stop "lawyering" the rules. I mean, seriously. Sheesh. |
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: cRio-FRC in BOM
QFT. Wasn't that the point of the smaller manual this year? Whatever happened to the intent of the rule?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|