Section 8.3.3 Illegal Gearboxes and Chassis

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

that is a tough spot to be in. I sympathize with you in the lack of funding, which is an issue for MANY teams in FIRST. However you must look at the situation as a whole. Whats the difference between purchasing the parts a few days early, or an entire year early? Why is it acceptable for low budget teams and not acceptable for teams that have signifigant funding? FIRST cant be run with double standards. I do not like the rule at all because I feel teams, like yourselves, do not order parts early as intent to build early, but simply to make sure they come at all. Hopefully FIRST will clarify some of these rules for us. Until then good luck with build season, I'm sure your team will come out with a quality robot regardless.

Brandon, perhaps you have not worked inside the wonderfully strangling red tape of a school system. If you had read the post, he noted that if they had waited to order them until during the build season, they would have arrived well after the build season. Ordering something as expensive as 2 AM trannies takes ATLEAST 4 weeks to make it through the procurement bureaucracy and get a check cut, and then the check still has to get to AM and the trannies have to get back to the team. Any team that is funded by a school or runs their funds through a school has to deal with this, so FIRST is basically telling these teams that they have to stick with the kitbot and whatever they can make on their own in whatever machine shop they may or may not have. In other words, FIRST is telling these teams to not even bother thinking about doing interesting things and taking on the harder engineering challenges.

FIRST says they want a team in every school funded by the states. If they're serious about that, they need to get their heads out of the clouds and look at how their policies and rules actually affect these minimally funded school teams. As it is, it seems they've drafted their rules to force teams to spend all their time hunting sponsors before they can do any actually interesting engineering.

At the very LEAST, FIRST could have warned teams, OFFICIALLY, that mechanisms bought preseason would be disallowed. Despite Dave being high up there, no one is going to take his vague warnings on CD as seriously as an Email Blast from FIRST. This wouldn't have affected the game a single bit and would've given time for debate and consideration prior to it becoming an actual issue.

[Andrew Blair]

Indeed. I believe that too often, we follow the ltter, rather than the spirit of the rule. If the intent is to disallow teams from stockpiling or otherwise gaining a leg up on other teams, then it may not be applied to this school. They did not even open the boxes until the 9th, well after kickoff. Let's not restrict such a team because they traded funds a little earlier.

[Doug G]

We need a ruling from FIRST on this issue SOON. My robotics class, and hence team, became an ROP class this year and I was given an opportunity to buy lots of stuff last Oct. I bought mostly tools and such, but I also thought it'd be good to stock up on COTS items such as raw materials, Victors, and yes some different type of wheels. I felt safe that no matter what the game was, we'd need some wheels. Are wheels a mechanism or a component? The IFI wheels come in pieces and can be interpreted an MECHANISM, correct? And now I can't use them and I have to use the kit wheels?

We bought AM shifters for last year's competition, especially since last year's rule noted that items from previous competitions could be re-used if they're still COTS items. While I don't think we have to have them for this year's competition, we'd like to. We cannot afford to purchase them a second time. But another team in our situation may have more money and they can purchase them. Another rule that seems to favor the financially well off teams and hinder us public school folks that are making the expensive FIRST program work in creative ways. Perhaps I should be more creative in how I interpret the rules.

[Paul Copioli]

Here is the answer to my question I posted earlier in this thread. I asked the question exactly as written in this thread:

Under Rule <R24> (as amended in Update #2), the use of FABRICATED ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions can not be used. Hence, this part would not be permitted.

At least I feel a little better that they agreed it was unclear. Now it is crystal clear and we will abide by the rules as written.

[falconmaster]

Here is a question no one has asked.....
Is AndyMark able to be in business 6 weeks out of a year?

I am also confused about the definition about the AM shifters 2005, they could be both a COTS and a MECHANISM alone and the Forum had the ruling that it is a COTS MECHANISM. So if we purchased them before the kick-off they are illegal? I would like to hear an official, in plain english say something like- AM Shifters purchased before the kick-off are legal (or not legal) - rather than everyone manipulating the definitions. Please HELP STOP THE LAWYERING and answer the question! Thanks!

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by falconmaster

Here is a question no one has asked.....
Is AndyMark able to be in business 6 weeks out of a year?

I am also confused about the definition about the AM shifters 2005, they could be both a COTS and a MECHANISM alone and the Forum had the ruling that it is a COTS MECHANISM. So if we purchased them before the kick-off they are illegal? I would like to hear an official, in plain english say something like- AM Shifters purchased before the kick-off are legal (or not legal) - rather than everyone manipulating the definitions. Please HELP STOP THE LAWYERING and answer the question! Thanks!

Read the FIRST Q&A.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Read the FIRST Q&A.

I hate to be the one to point this out... And I'm probably going to get neg-repped for this, but I really don't care too much about dots... It would be easier for all of us if a simple "yes" or "no" were typed, and would save time for all parties involved. The time it takes to go to the Q&A, and to find the answer could simply be spared by typing a "yes, they're allowed" or "no, they're not." It also would save the poster some time by them having to type less characters.

I do understand that it was posted a some days ago, but for future reference, if you know the answer, save yourself and us precious time by posting the answer.

[dlavery]

At the time the original question was posted to this thread, a total of 22 questions had been answered on the FIRST Q&A system. The answer had been provided as the sixth question to be answered. I do not think it is unreasonable to let someone know that a clearly-marked answer can be found by referring to a short 22-line list of titles. The only reason that the response did not take a more precise form like "the answer has been posted in section xxx of the FIRST Q&A" is that at the time the Q&A list was so short that a section pointer was unnecessary.

In addition, the requestor had specifically asked for an official answer. Official answers are not available on CD - they are only available from FIRST via the Q&A system. So suggesting they check the FIRST Q&A system for the answer to their question is not only appropriate, it is directly responsive to what they had asked for in the first place.

That said, I will disagree with your sentiment that we are here to just spoon feed answers to every question. With that sort of an approach, the requestors will never learn about the resources that are already available to them, and with which they should be familiar. Detailed technical questions are one area where basic information may be necessary. However, particularly in the case of questions about rules, responses that point to complete, official answers are much more appropriate than having anyone here provide a paraphrased, intermediate recitation that may be incorrect.

Furthermore, doing so avoids all manner of misinterpretation and indeterminate lawyering discussions such as those that have erupted here lately. And avoiding those situations saves all of us ever so much more of the precious time that is apparently so important.

-dave

[ChuckDickerson]

Yes, I know, I am dredging back up this old thread from last year specifically pertaining to last years rules. However, I am wondering if the specific rules discussed in this thread were a warning shot to teams for this year. Are any teams worried about this issue of no COTS/MECHANISMS/WHATEVER purchased prior to kickoff becoming a rule this year or in the future? With season rapidly approaching I am sure many teams are gathering materials and pieces and parts. I just thought a reminder to all would be in order that FRC rules are always subject to change and teams may want to consider what they are buying pre-season so as to avoid spending a bunch of money on stuff they find they can’t legally use come January 5th.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Are any teams worried about this issue of no COTS/MECHANISMS/WHATEVER purchased prior to kickoff becoming a rule this year or in the future?

I believe the various problems with that rule were made sufficiently clear to the rulesmakers last year. I don't expect it to make an appearance again.