Section 8.3.3 Illegal Gearboxes and Chassis

[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.

[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

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.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by Andy Brockway

This effects all of you that designed a new chassis this past year. Team 25 reported that they had a better chassis for this year. I hope you did not make any drawings! BTW all of last year’s custom chassis’s, complete with drawings, are now illegal.

I am hoping that FIRST will allow detail drawings in the public domain to be legalized.

This doesn't mean that you can make drawings for your chassis, it means you can't use those drawings during frabrication.

Therefore, make new drawings!!

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by T3_1565

This doesn't mean that you can make drawings for your chassis, it means you can't use those drawings during frabrication.

Therefore, make new drawings!!

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you may have missed the point of my post. Yes, we all know what the rules were last year but we were at first concerned with the wording of some of the rules as discussed in this thread regarding what was and wasn't legal to use based on when you purchased it. My point in the post was simply to remind teams that the rules are always subject to change from year to year and that whether it is a fancy new COTS gearbox or a sheet of carbon fiber think carefully before you spend a bunch of funds that you may not be able to recover if the rules change and that item is no longer legal.

[T3_1565]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

Please don't take this the wrong way but I think you may have missed the point of my post. Yes, we all know what the rules were last year but we were at first concerned with the wording of some of the rules as discussed in this thread regarding what was and wasn't legal to use based on when you purchased it. My point in the post was simply to remind teams that the rules are always subject to change from year to year and that whether it is a fancy new COTS gearbox or a sheet of carbon fiber think carefully before you spend a bunch of funds that you may not be able to recover if the rules change and that item is no longer legal.

This is my fault, I was reading the first couple of posts in this thread and responded to them, not yours!

Sorry

[Leav]

The team I am mentoring has bought a Mecanum wheel Set and a Traction wheel set from AM and IFI, in the intent of building simple frames to experiment with.

I wanted them to learn by experience, so that when the kickoff gets here they can say "well according to our experiments in different setups we can conclude that it is probably better to use this setup rather than that." (for example)
(like every veteran team can do for free - because they usually have 2-3 old robots lying around with different drive concepts).

The plan was to later dismantle the chassis' and use the wheels we ordered before the kickoff on the real robot we build during the 6 weeks.


I think feel that this is legal according to the spirit of the rules.

specifically I remember reading somewhere in the rules that it's ok to buy parts before the kickoff for use on the actual robot.
and I think it's still ok if you use those parts to prepare yourself for the FRC by building testbeds.

now of course there are really gray areas such as coding...
I don't know about you but I won't tell anyone not write code in the offseason... it's called learning!, and when he does write code I have no problem with copy+pasting it into the robot code, as long as when he wrote the code in the first place he didn't mean for it to go on the real robot.
writing it all over again is a stupid lawyer-type formality and we could all really do ourselves a favor and ditch that kind of stuff.

We can either have it really lawyered up and basically everything would be illegal (you have to be sterilized before the kickoff because dust created before the kickoff is not allowed on the robot).....

Or we can try and understand what the intent was (or have FIRST tell us what the intent IS), which in this case was in my opinion:
"Don't start building the robot before the kickoff."

(and no I don't think i'm contradicting myself regarding the programming and the "no robot building")

Good luck to everyone this season and remember to bring your GP to the kickoff!

-Leav

[meaubry]

Yes, Deepwater is correct -
The way the rules have been distributed in the past at the kickoff, didn't assure year to year continuity. What was legal one year didn't necessarily mean it would be legal the next.

When purchasing material or parts, there is that risk that must be considered.

I have advocated that rules that do not impact the game, but might impact the way a team functions outside of the time from Kickoff to Championship event, should be posted on the FIRST FRC website - and not included each year in the rule book at the kickoff.

There are plenty of those type of "standing" non-game dependent rules that could be communicated and managed with effective dates for subsequent revisions, regardless of when those revisions occur. All of the rules do not need to be rolled out at the kickoff, and in some cases (like the one you are posting about) it would be good to know what teams could, and what teams shouldn't, plan on doing in advance.

Mike Aubry