[FTC]: Does this violate <R02>?

[ksafin]

My team was wondering if using the 3D-printer we had in our class would be considered a violation of <R02>; technically it's raw materials, not pre-fabricated.

Thoughts?

[Andrew Remmers]

No it does not. Prefab is bought from a distributor such as Andymark, West Coast Products. Or any other company out there except Matrix, Tetrix, and Lego.

The 3d printed part would be legal as it is plastic, and is part of your dimensionless plastic allotment.

- Andrew

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by Joyride_67_1902

No it does not. Prefab is bought from a distributor such as Andymark, West Coast Products. Or any other company out there except Matrix, Tetrix, and Lego.

The 3d printed part would be legal as it is plastic, and is part of your dimensionless plastic allotment.

- Andrew

Main reason I ask is that if I recall correctly, there was something about all teams being able to acquire the raw materials in question; I figured 3D printing isn't available to all teams and would be subject as a violation.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ksafin

My team was wondering if using the 3D-printer we had in our class would be considered a violation of <R02>; technically it's raw materials, not pre-fabricated.

Thoughts?

Well, my first thought is that the rules could do with some revisions for clarity. And maybe for proofreading (see 4.2.1... it is "genraly" embarassing to put your typos in large, bold, headline fonts).

In any case, while I think it would be good to encourage the use of 3D printed materials, I would argue, based on my reading of the rules, that they would not be allowed.

I base this on reading R2.d.1 which allows raw material to be used on the robot, however also clearly states that a material ceases to be a raw material once it is "processed or manufactured into a functional form". Since the ABS feedstock for a 3D printer does not fit the definition of plastic sheet or plastic spacer from R2.b.1, then I'd say that as cool as I think it would be to have 3D printed parts be legal, that they are not.

That said, there is room for some confusion, and I'm sure FIRST will be elaborating on exactly what they intended over the next couple weeks.

Jason

[Andrew Remmers]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Well, my first thought is that the rules could do with some revisions for clarity. And maybe for proofreading (see 4.2.1... it is "genraly" embarassing to put your typos in large, bold, headline fonts).

In any case, while I think it would be good to encourage the use of 3D printed materials, I would argue, based on my reading of the rules, that they would not be allowed.

I base this on reading R2.d.1 which allows raw material to be used on the robot, however also clearly states that a material ceases to be a raw material once it is "processed or manufactured into a functional form". Since the ABS feedstock for a 3D printer does not fit the definition of plastic sheet or plastic spacer from R2.b.1, then I'd say that as cool as I think it would be to have 3D printed parts be legal, that they are not.

That said, there is room for some confusion, and I'm sure FIRST will be elaborating on exactly what they intended over the next couple weeks.

Jason

At the Florida Kickoff I remember a mechanical design discussion that specifically talked about 3d printing being legal but I could be wrong.

http://www.flfirst.org/Florida_First..._Mech_2012.ppt

Link to presentation download.

- Andrew

[ksafin]

Will we be seeing anything like the FRC Q&A system of last season for FTC?

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I base this on reading R2.d.1 which allows raw material to be used on the robot, however also clearly states that a material ceases to be a raw material once it is "processed or manufactured into a functional form". Since the ABS feedstock for a 3D printer does not fit the definition of plastic sheet or plastic spacer from R2.b.1, then I'd say that as cool as I think it would be to have 3D printed parts be legal, that they are not.

I think I'd have to disagree with this.

Because, something like aluminum sheeting is certainly a raw material applicable to the rule. If I go by the methodology that you're using, as soon as I cut or modify the sheeting for my purposes, it's not "fabricated" and illegal.

I think the only intent of the rule Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from
standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of
Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form. was to say that you can only PURCHASE Raw Materials; modification of those raw materials is entirely fine so long as it doesn't violate any rules.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ksafin

I think I'd have to disagree with this.

Because, something like aluminum sheeting is certainly a raw material applicable to the rule. If I go by the methodology that you're using, as soon as I cut or modify the sheeting for my purposes, it's not "fabricated" and illegal.

....

You can do whatever you want to the metal sheet as it is allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic or metal sheet is thus not covered as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, as it is already specifically allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic feedstock for a 3D printer, however, is not included in 2.b.1, and thus would only be allowable as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, quoted below:

d. The following additional structural parts, fasteners, and materials are allowed provided that they
don’t violate other rules, such as safety, entanglement, <R03>, etc. This includes no limits on
quantity and size of the following materials:
1. Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from
standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of
Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form.

Note my bold. As soon as you process or manufacture a functional form, it is no longer a raw material.

It is quite possible that the presentations of the rules, and intent of the rules is to allow for 3D printing. It is also possible that the rules will be amended, but if you read the rules as they exist now, 2.d.1 is pretty clear that as soon as you manufacture something useful from your raw material that it ceases to be a raw material and can no longer be used on the robot.

I'll agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'll certainly agree that it doesn't say what I want it to say, but I'm pretty sure that that is what it says. 3D printing is a no-go.

Jason

[Andrew Remmers]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

You can do whatever you want to the metal sheet as it is allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic or metal sheet is thus not covered as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, as it is already specifically allowed under 2.b.1. Plastic feedstock for a 3D printer, however, is not included in 2.b.1, and thus would only be allowable as a "raw material" under 2.d.1, quoted below:



Note my bold. As soon as you process or manufacture a functional form, it is no longer a raw material.

It is quite possible that the presentations of the rules, and intent of the rules is to allow for 3D printing. It is also possible that the rules will be amended, but if you read the rules as they exist now, 2.d.1 is pretty clear that as soon as you manufacture something useful from your raw material that it ceases to be a raw material and can no longer be used on the robot.

I'll agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'll certainly agree that it doesn't say what I want it to say, but I'm pretty sure that that is what it says. 3D printing is a no-go.

Jason

If 3d printing is a no-go then why change the rule in the first place?

By no means is solid Aluminum stock easy to work with without a mill or some kind of machine. So 3d printing is illegal but milling something from a 6x6x6 block of Aluminum is legal? I don't see the connection. If there was any point to changing the rule in the first place to dimensionless constraints of raw material then why restrict the way you could go about fabricating your parts? Just seems a little fishy to me, did you look at the presentation? Why show that to almost every team in Florida if it didn't have any merit? I see your reasoning but I think its just wrong from what I have heard from who I talked to.

I think the rule saying prefab parts are illegal is fine but to say you couldn't take advantage of limitless material in any dimensions is kinda silly.

[Derrick Maust]

Our teams were wondering about 3D printing also, I think the best thing to do is just ask on the official FTC forum.

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Note my bold. As soon as you process or manufacture a functional form, it is no longer a raw material.

It is quite possible that the presentations of the rules, and intent of the rules is to allow for 3D printing. It is also possible that the rules will be amended, but if you read the rules as they exist now, 2.d.1 is pretty clear that as soon as you manufacture something useful from your raw material that it ceases to be a raw material and can no longer be used on the robot.

I'll agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, and I'll certainly agree that it doesn't say what I want it to say, but I'm pretty sure that that is what it says. 3D printing is a no-go.

Jason

I still can't agree with you on this.

If they're saying that you can purchase raw materials, and only use raw materials, then that's completely and utterly useless. I can't do anything with a raw 2" x 2" aluminum sheet because it's not within the dimensions of the bot. Going by what you're saying, I can't modify it either because it would then be "fabricated" because it's actually useful now.

I sent an email to some FTC officials asking for clarification, will post when received.

[ksafin]

A reliable FTC official just told me that 3D printing is allowed.

Case closed.

[Andrew Remmers]

Originally Posted by ksafin

A reliable FTC official just told me that 3D printing is allowed.

Case closed.

What I was getting at.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ksafin

A reliable FTC official just told me that 3D printing is allowed.

Case closed.

That's good news. But they need to re-write the rules to reflect it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of 3D printing being allowed and believe that the rules are very poorly worded, but regardless of what any FTC official says, it is the rules, as they are written, that define the competition. (If not, then why have written rules?)

I'm very willing to accept that the rules don't say what the game designers meant them to say, but just look at the definition of a raw material. It is very clear, and very specific.

It is poor logic to argue that it says something else because you don't like what it says.

If there is something missing in my logic, or comprehension of English, I'm happy to have it explained.... but I'd be happier to see the rules tidied up a bit to say what they are meant to say.

Jason

P.S. My apologies to those who might feel I'm being a bit pedantic on this point, but the rules, as they are written are important. After reading FIRST's rule books inside and out for the past decade, I can say that they usually do an outstanding job of conveying complex ideas and regulations. They also do a good job of updating their rules when the rules don't fully reflect the intent of the game designers. I'd suggest that this is one of those times when some re-writing might be in order.

[Andrew Remmers]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

That's good news. But they need to re-write the rules to reflect it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of 3D printing being allowed and believe that the rules are very poorly worded, but regardless of what any FTC official says, it is the rules, as they are written, that define the competition. (If not, then why have written rules?)

I'm very willing to accept that the rules don't say what the game designers meant them to say, but just look at the definition of a raw material. It is very clear, and very specific.

It is poor logic to argue that it says something else because you don't like what it says.

If there is something missing in my logic, or comprehension of English, I'm happy to have it explained.... but I'd be happier to see the rules tidied up a bit to say what they are meant to say.

Jason

P.S. My apologies to those who might feel I'm being a bit pedantic on this point, but the rules, as they are written are important. After reading FIRST's rule books inside and out for the past decade, I can say that they usually do an outstanding job of conveying complex ideas and regulations. They also do a good job of updating their rules when the rules don't fully reflect the intent of the game designers. I'd suggest that this is one of those times when some re-writing might be in order.

Alright lets set all of this aside and get something straight here, as I still am totally lost of what you are seeing.

<R02> In addition to the TETRIX, LEGO, and/or MATRIX components, teams may use additional materials
to construct their robots providing they meet the following constraints:
a. Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) assemblies are not permitted with the exception of the following:
1. Linear Slides.
2. Non-motorized Turntables and Lazy Susans.
3. Lead Screws and threaded rod plus compatible nuts.
4. Servo blocks (e.g. ServoCity Part # SB608SH and SB609SH).
5. #25 chain and compatible connector links and half-links.

This rule plainly says that you cant use COTS parts unless its in the list of those 5 items.

Not what we are debating about though but, alas I want to be thorough.

Prefabricated and/or Preformed COTS plastics or metal are not permitted (i.e. buckets, cups,
grippers, gears, etc.).
1. Plastic or metal sheet, plastic spacers, and extruded aluminum are not considered to be
prefabricated and are allowed with no restrictions on dimension or quantity provided no other rules are violated.

The following additional structural parts, fasteners, and materials are allowed provided that they
don’t violate other rules, such as safety, entanglement, <R03>, etc. This includes no limits on
quantity and size of the following materials:
1. Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from
standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of
Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form.

Now the bolded and underlined are the rules in question here.

Plastic, Metal, and extruded metals have no dimensional limit on their usage, as long as one fits inside the 18in^3 both rules state this effectively

Now plastic and metal come in lots of shapes and sizes but I am sure I didn't have to point that out. But sheet, tube, square stock, plate, round stock. The basic stuff, that is all considered a "Raw Material". Now I would consider something to be used in a 3d printer a very long VERY thin piece of plastic rod or round stock whatever the plastic may be.

The rule does not say that manufacturing is illegal. The rule states

The definition of
Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form.

Manufacturing it into a functional form is not illegal based on any rules that you have stated. If it were true then any modification of Raw stock of sheet would also be considered "illegal" based on what you are saying.

The rule does not state what forms of manufacturing or fabrication are legal or not illegal which to me opens up everything. I could go cut a gear out of a block of solid AL and use it perfectly fine. I could do the same thing about a 3d printer, and a CNC mill, lathe, EDM wire, waterjet, laser, router. Or any OTHER kind of machine I could possibly think of.

I hope this makes a little bit more sense now.

- Andrew

Edit: This is my interpretation of the rules not final.