Section 8.3.3 Illegal Gearboxes and Chassis

[Paul Copioli]

There are contradictions between this and rule R24. Rule R24 reads:

Individual COMPONENTS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2007 ROBOTS IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition.

This is the best rule ever! However, I now have more questions. We WILL be using the gerbox housing we used in 2005 and 2006 for our drive base. However, the drawings were done in 2005. Rule R24 states I can use the component from 2005 / 2006, but according to section 8.3.3 I can't make another one from my drawings. That seems a bit ridiculous.

Now, what about the kit gearbox housing from last year (or 2005 for that matter)? If you follow the flow chart it is legal since it is not a kit part this year. So by the letter of the rule R24 the old kit gearbox housing is legal, right?

-Paul

[Steve W]

R17 does not state that you cannot use designs from before kickoff. It does state however what other things you can and cannot use. By the fact that FIRST is very diligent in how it writes its rules I would think that the omission of stating that the design was not illegal was by intent. This would mean that designs would be legal but the fabrication must be done during build season. R18 states that design and fabrication are to be done during build but does not state the design from pre kickoff is not allowed therefore it should be allowed.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

[Andy Brockway]

The only problem with <R24> is that if you designed and fabricated before kickoff than they cannot be used, only unmodified COTS.

Paul, last year's KOP gearboxes are not available to all teams this year so it is illegal under 8.2 Definition for COTS.

Until FIRST changes its mind I will designing a new dual speed gearbox for the Banebot transmission. I welcome everyone to come see our robot, it will be designed and built under these rules. You can bet I will not be making any detailed drawings and will not be posting a White Paper on this gearbox.

[Paul Copioli]

No. The rule reads that if you used it on your robot in a previous year, then it is O.K. as long as it follows the other rules for legal materials. I asked the Q&A in 2005 (when the rule first appeared) and it was confirmed that if you used it on your robot last year, then it was O.K.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that our custom housing we used last year is perfectly legal this year. I am just not as sure about the kit housing.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Steve,

I think most people here understand that the restriction on detailed drawings, etc. isn't in any <R##>. The issue is the very strong verbiage in the summary/description of the fabrication section. Is it enforceable? Is it something we should abide? Is it just so much hot air? Inquiring minds want to know which of these sets of rules we need to follow. FIRST needs to clarify the issue since we teams obviously can't agree on the interpretation. You think the <R##> paragraphs are all that matter, Andy quite obviously believes that the summary paragraph matters as well. I have no clue but I'm blessedly free of actually having to make the choice.

[ewankoff]

My interpretation of these rules is that andy mark transmisissions purchased before the kickoff may be used as long as the COMPONENTS were not assemebled to be a MECHANISM. The rules even encourage gathering supplies but not assembling or fabricating those items. Any raw COMPONENT that was purchased at anytime can be used on this years robot.

(Capitolized words are defined in the manual)

[ChrisH]

The father of one of the new kids on our team is a lawyer. He is quite adamant that he knows nothing about technical things, though his son is very mechanical.

Sounds like we might be finding uses for Dad's talents after all.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

The father of one of the new kids on our team is a lawyer. He is quite adamant that he knows nothing about technical things, though his son is very mechanical.

Sounds like we might be finding uses for Dad's talents after all.

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave

so, do you feel that the term "gracious lawyer" might be an oxymoron?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

Lawyers have their uses. Interpreting FRC rules is not one of those uses.

Back to topic: my interpretation is similar to Tristan's. I would like very much to have a 2007 Q&A response on this very soon. It would not be any fun to inspect Paul's robot if (1) he proceeds as outlined above and (2) I still concur with Tristan's reasoning on March 1st. We need the GDC to resolve this one before any of us waste a lot more time.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Richard

Lawyers have their uses. Interpreting FRC rules is not one of those uses.

Back to topic: my interpretation is similar to Tristan's. I would like very much to have a 2007 Q&A response on this very soon. It would not be any fun to inspect Paul's robot if (1) he proceeds as outlined above and (2) I still concur with Tristan's reasoning on March 1st. We need the GDC to resolve this one before any of us waste a lot more time.

We should nominate someone from this thread to ask these questions about:

A. Off-season/prior season designs and drawings.
B. Off-season purchased mechanisms.
C. Previous year components and mechanisms.

10 different people asking 30+ different questions might not work as well.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

We should nominate someone from this thread to ask these questions ... 10 different people asking 30+ different questions might not work as well.

I nominate Tristan.

[Paul Copioli]

Here is the question I posted to the Q&A forums although it has not shown up yet:

My question is regarding Robot Rule R24 and how it applies given all the other rules in Section 8.3. I will first ask my question, then go into detail why I am confused regarding the rule and how it interacts with the other rules.

We want to use a machined aluminum gearbox housing that was designed and fabricated during the 2005 build season and used on our 2005 robot. We have not modified it since the 2005 season. According to rules R24 and R26, we should be able to use this component on our 2007 robot. Is this interpretation correct?

The part that has us confused is the last part of the rule which states "... IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition."

What sections, exactly, contain the rules regarding materials/parts use? Is it section 8.3.4 only? Is it all of 8.3?

Robot Rule R17 seems to be in direct contradiction to R24. The 4th sentence of rule R17 states, "But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kickoff presentation"

R24 reads, "<R24> Individual COMPONENTS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2007 ROBOTS IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition. "

The definition of COMPONENT is, "A ROBOT part in its most basic configuration, which can not be disassembled without damaging or destroying the part, or altering its fundamental function."

Based on R24 and the definition of a COMPONENT, then my 2005 housing is legal, but based on R17 it is not. Please clarify.

Thanks,
Team 217

However, Tristan brings up a very good point regarding Rule R48. According to that, as it stand right now my gearbox housing is illegal to use. So, those of you worried about inspecting my team's robot; have no fear. Unless we hear concretely otherwise, we will design a new housing for our drive gearbox and use all new parts purchased / designed / fabricated after the start of Kickoff.

With that said, then why have rule R24? Commercial off the shelf components are covered every other place in the manual so why this special rule? It makes abosolutely no sense!.

[whytheheckme]

Originally Posted by dlavery

The first team that uses a lawyer to interpret the rules should be disqualified from all competitions, just on general principles.

-dave

Hey!

We have a father on our team that is a lawyer, and he is in charge of strategy/rules/safety! His job is to interpret the rules!

lol,
Jacob

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by whytheheckme

Hey!

We have a father on our team that is a lawyer, and he is in charge of strategy/rules/safety! His job is to interpret the rules!

lol,
Jacob

My dad was a lawyer. There is NO WAY that I would let him anywhere near the FIRST rules! Who knows what damage he might have done!

-dave