Go to Post Minnesota could pioneer the idea of suspending a field 20 feet above the other field and have true double decker events. - PayneTrain [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-02-2004, 01:27
sanddrag sanddrag is offline
On to my 16th year in FRC
FRC #0696 (Circuit Breakers)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 8,510
sanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond repute
Question on "equivalence" in R71

Rule R71 states that
Quote:
Additional electronic components for use on the robot must be currently available from or equivalent to
those available from...
I know we are supposed to go with the spirit of the rule and not be lawyers but I couldn't find a way to resolve this in my own head. What exactly is the definition of equivalence? Does equivalence mean the same part number, the part accomplishes the same task, equal performance, the same type of part, the same manufacturer but a different part number... What?

I would like to use something from the same manufacturer that accomplishes the same goal and is the same type of part but it is a different part number than the FIRST supplyers sell. It has slightly different specs that are at no advantage or disadvantage to us whatsoever. For our uses, the parts are identical. The only reasons for the different one is cost and time.

So what do you think?
__________________
Teacher/Engineer/Machinist - Team 696 Circuit Breakers, 2011 - Present
Mentor/Engineer/Machinist, Team 968 RAWC, 2007-2010
Technical Mentor, Team 696 Circuit Breakers, 2005-2007
Student Mechanical Leader and Driver, Team 696 Circuit Breakers, 2002-2004
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-02-2004, 01:36
D.J. Fluck
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Question on "equivalence" in R71

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
Rule R71 states that I know we are supposed to go with the spirit of the rule and not be lawyers but I couldn't find a way to resolve this in my own head. What exactly is the definition of equivalence? Does equivalence mean the same part number, the part accomplishes the same task, equal performance, the same type of part, the same manufacturer but a different part number... What?

I would like to use something from the same manufacturer that accomplishes the same goal and is the same type of part but it is a different part number than the FIRST supplyers sell. It has slightly different specs that are at no advantage or disadvantage to us whatsoever. For our uses, the parts are identical. The only reasons for the different one is cost and time.

So what do you think?

I say good question for the Q&A...let them figure that one out
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-02-2004, 10:58
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,673
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Question on "equivalence" in R71

I would think that cost equivalence is one of the factors. The rules make a large fuss about accounting for the fair market value of things no matter if they were donated, bought on eBay, fell off the back of a truck, etc. So I think buying and "equivalent" part somewhere that's cheaper and costing the lower price might not come off well. So you might need to use the price of the piece you're saying it's equivalent to.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-02-2004, 17:17
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Question on "equivalence" in R71

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
I know we are supposed to go with the spirit of the rule and not be lawyers but I couldn't find a way to resolve this in my own head. What exactly is the definition of equivalence? Does equivalence mean the same part number, the part accomplishes the same task, equal performance, the same type of part, the same manufacturer but a different part number...
Unfortunately, there I don't think there is any way to provide a universally acceptable definition to the "equivalence" phrase for this context. It is much too application- and part-dependent.

For example, consider a resistor purchased from two different sources. The measured resistance of the two parts is identical. However, the body of one resistor (other than the color coding bands) is brown, while the other one is black. Are they "equivalent?" If you interpret equivalent to mean "identical" then they are not. If you interpret "equivalent" to mean "functionally equivalent for this application" then they are the same. For this application, the color is irrelevant.

But for another part in another application, color may be critical (e.g. a lens cover over a visible light sensor, which would affect the particular wavelengths detectable by the sensor, and therefore influence the sensor response).

One reasonable way to look at this is to try to determine the "functional equivalence" of two parts. The MINIMUM standard I would use would be "do they provide the same capability, and the same output response to equivalent input stimuli?" Because our robots are subject to such strict mass and volume guidelines, the parts may also have to pass a "do the parts weigh (approximately) the same and fill (approximately) the same volume?" test to be "equivalent" in the eyes of FIRST inspectors.

Realistically, if you are worried about this, you need to post a question to FIRST as soon as possible. They are the only ones that can give an official answer that you can use if questioned by an inspector.

-dave
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A question about control system options computhief263 Control System 7 04-02-2004 14:46
my idea of a question forum... Ken Leung General Forum 12 30-11-2002 12:17
MnM EASY Question of the Day Winners! Mike Bonham General Forum 22 03-05-2002 21:21
Chief Delphi Site Question Mike Bonham General Forum 1 16-02-2002 22:18
Rookie Programmer has question about the default code DanL Programming 3 26-01-2002 19:59


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi