Last year's kit frame

[jgannon]

If John's claim is true, then a mint-condition IFI chassis kit from the 2008 KOP would unequivocally satisfy the parts use flowchart and all related rules. My understanding of the official rules hierarchy is that it takes more than just a Q&A response to change that. I can't speak to any of FIRST's reasons or intents, but I hope that they will either clarify which components of the kitbot were custom to the 2008 KOP (thus refuting John's claim), rescind the Q&A response, or issue an update amending the rules to specifically outlaw kitbots that came in old kits.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

What disturbs me isnt the fact that it can still be used...its the fact that according to JVN (who I'd say is an incredibly reliable source...) the kit frame has not changed since it was put in the KOP in 2008.

It seems very sneaky and backhanded that the GDC states that it was custom made in 2008....

That is enough. If you have a legitimate, constructive comment regarding the ruling, then post it to the Q&A forums and get a legitimate, constructive response. The insults are totally unnecessary.



.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Madison

In ten years, I've not once been asked to produce a receipt in support of our Bills of Materials.

So many things are already enforced through 'gracious professionalism,' that I can't really understand why it'd suddenly become necessary for teams to be able to provide documentation for any or all purchases. Teams using an IFI chassis should be aware of the rules regarding its use -- particularly that it's still available as a COTS item -- and be able to relate that information if questioned. A team's word -- especially where it relates not to issues of safety -- should be as good as gold for inspectors.

From an accounting perspective, this wouldn't work with me. Proof of purchase is reflected in original receipts and/or documentation verifying the purchase. Having correct accounting procedures in order, in place, and available for inspectors if they were to request it, is another aspect of GP, if you want to look at it in a GP way. It's also excellent training for the real world. I know a few attorneys who understand the value of submitting original receipts to a certain office manager in a timely fashion and learned that the hard way.

[jgannon]

I have posted a question to the Q&A requesting clarification as to which kitbot components were custom to the 2008 KOP, and which are still identical to the individual parts currently sold by IFI. This should help to reconcile the contrary claims coming from the two sides, and explain exactly what out of that box is still legal.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by dlavery

That is enough. If you have a legitimate, constructive comment regarding the ruling, then post it to the Q&A forums and get a legitimate, constructive response. The insults are totally unnecessary.



.

Dave,
I apologize for the "insult"...however I was just stating an observation. Please do not take offense to it.

Brandon

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by GDC

The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition.

I can see how that statement might be justified. I don't agree with it, as the exact same chassis has been available as a COTS item since it came into existence, but I can -- and will -- accept it as authoritative.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

From an accounting perspective, this wouldn't work with me. Proof of purchase is reflected in originals receipts and/or documentation verifying the purchase. Having correct accounting procedures in order, in place, and available for inspectors if they were to request it, is another aspect of GP, if you want to look at it in a GP way. It's also excellent training for the real world. I know a few attorneys who understand the value of submitting original receipts to a certain office manager in a timely fashion and learned that the hard way.

Well, you already know how well my team handles accouting.

The thing is that, currently, there's no precedent and nothing in the 2009 manual that suggests that teams will be required to provide proof of purchase for any of the materials used this season. Furthermore, there's nothing that requires that COTS materials be purchased within a given time frame -- so that's why I'm confused as to why an IFI chassis purchased post January 3rd might be considered legal while one from a prior date might not.

We have a pretty tremendous stock of bearings, sprockets and chain on hand and have used items from that stock -- all unmodified and all still available -- on this season's robot and on those we've built in the past. I think it's ridiculous to expect us to produce a proof of purchase for those items and worse to expect that we purchase them only after kickoff. It places undue demand on our suppliers, drives up costs and slows our development. Folks that were around in the years when the rules required nearly all parts be purchased from Small Parts will remember what a hassle and headache it was to get things in a timely, cost efficient manner.

If the intent was for teams to maintain documentation of all purchases and to be able to provide said documentation, it should have been communicated to teams at the outset of the season -- if not earlier -- and I don't think you can fault them for being out of compliance ex post facto.

[EricVanWyk]

I read it as:

You can not take the IFI kit-frame out of your 2008 robot and use it as your 2009 frame. You can take an unused/untouched/unmodified 2008 IFI kit-frame and use it as your 2009 frame.

The implication is that modifying a COTS item makes it a custom item.

Is my interpretation correct?

[Russ Beavis]

Eric,
I would either add "not built into a kit in 2008" (untouched?) or change "kit-frame" to "kit-frame components".

Russ

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

I read it as:

You can not take the IFI kit-frame out of your 2008 robot and use it as your 2009 frame. You can take an unused/untouched/unmodified 2008 IFI kit-frame and use it as your 2009 frame.

The implication is that modifying a COTS item makes it a custom item.

Is my interpretation correct?

That's how I wanted to read it as well, but that's definitely not how the GDC response is worded.

"The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition."

The restriction against using it on this year's robot follows from that simple declaration, not from a distinction between "unmodified COTS" and "modified".

[Vikesrock]

The GDC's has responded to a followup question regarding the IFI chassis provided in previous KOP. They have also responded to a question about 56mm Banebots Gearboxes using similar reasoning.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11564

The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition by Innovation First, Inc. That IFI now sells the chassis as a COTS item does not change the status of the 2008 chassis elements provided as part of the 2008 Kit Of Parts. COTS items recovered from a previous ROBOT can only be used if all three conditions listed in Rule <R32> are satisfied. A 2008 kit-bot chassis does not satisfy item <R32-B>, and would therefore be a prohibited item. Note however, that a current chassis element similar in form/function, obtained as a purely COTS purchase (i.e. not re-used from a previous ROBOT) would be permitted under Rule <R31>.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11555

The Banebots P56 gearboxes were custom-made products supplied for the 2007 Kit Of Parts. As such, they are prohibited from use in the 2009 competition by Rule <R32-B>. However, Banebots P56-HC gearboxes, which are improved versions of the model supplied in the 2007 Kit, are available COTS items and may be used.

These responses disturb me quite a bit. The only possible consequences of these rulings is to hurt teams with low budgets that want to play by the rules. I cannot understand why it is legal to use a purchased IFI Kitbot chassis endcap when we have an identical, completely unmodified one sitting on the shelf in our shop.

The other bizarre part of these rulings is the complete about-face from a 2008 ruling regarding the same gearboxes. Rule <R32> from the 2009 Manual is word-for-word equivalent with <R36> from the 2008 Manual.

2007 transmissions
Posted by FRC2185 at 01/09/2008 05:48:07 pm
Are the 2007 banebots transmission considered "custom made parts" are per rule <R36>?
The manual specifically mentions 2006 transmissions but nothing is said about the 2007 ones.
thanks for the help
.....

Posted by GDC at 01/10/2008 08:17:46 pm
The BaneBots planetary transmissions (like those provided in the 2007 KoP) are commercially available and any revision may be used. The 2006 transmissions are not commercially available and therefore may not be used.

Posted by FRC174 at 01/19/2008 09:27:57 am
Is our team able to use last year's transmission with the banebot?

Posted by GDC at 01/20/2008 10:08:10 am
The previous answer is still true.

[Jared Russell]

This is a bad rule. There is no competitive advantage in buying what you already have; all it does is penalize teams who want to save a couple bucks.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by GDC

The 2008 kit-bot chassis was custom-made for the 2008 FRC competition.

After considering things for a while, I now believe that this declaration from the GDC is not supported by reality. The chassis was perhaps custom-made for a pre-2008 competition, but I'm pretty sure it was already a commercially available product by the time the 2008 Kit of Parts was put together.

As the sole source of what is and is not "by the book", however, the GDC needs no support from reality in order for what it says to be law. Instead of chewing on the subject and complaining about the taste, let's just swallow it and move on.

[Kevin Sevcik]

As I'm reading their responses, there's still a loophole of sanity that they haven't covered yet. Namely, that <R32> only pertains to salvaging parts that were actually USED on previous robots. So, presumably, they wouldn't prevent you from using an IFI frame that was just collecting dust somewhere.

Also, the rule only pertains to KoP items. So, I would hope, any extra IFI frames (or BB trannies) that you bought during the 2007/2008 season would still be legal.

I'll be posting a Q&A concerning these issues. One does wonder if they have any plans or hopes of actually enforcing these rulings, aside from depending on the GP of teams. Given the funding crunch on teams, and that the only perceptible difference between a 2008 frame and a 2009 frame is $200 and some convoluted reasoning.... I can't see GP making it very far here.

[Mr. Van]

Humm...

So if you pull a CIM motor (that was custom made for FRC 2007 or 2008) from your old robot and it is in "off the shelf" condition, you can use it.

But, if you've got an IFI chassis that was never on a robot, you can't?

I always thought re-use was better than recycling.

-Mr. Van
Robodox