Last year's kit frame

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by 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.

I thought that was the question I asked, but it doesn't sound like the question they answered. What am I doing wrong?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I thought that was the question I asked, but it doesn't sound like the question they answered. What am I doing wrong?

That was the impression I got from your Q&A, yes. I've followed up with a somewhat more explicit question of my own. They seem to produce better results:

A few more clarifications on the recent questions concerning the IFI KITBOT chassis and <R32>. Specifically, <R32> as written only pertains to COTS ITEMS from previous ROBOTS entered in a FIRST competition, and COTS ITEMS no longer commercially available. I presume the KITBOT chassis is covered under ITEMS from previous ROBOTS, as it is obviously still commercially available. So I would like to know which of the following would be legal:

1. A 2008 KITBOT chassis, from the 2008 KoP, that was never used on a ROBOT entered in a FIRST competition.
2. A 2008 KITBOT chassis, purchased in addition to the 2008 KoP chassis, that WAS used on a ROBOT.
3. A 2008 KITBOT chassis, purchased in addition to the 2008 KoP chassis, that was never used on a ROBOT.

Finally, if #3 is illegal, what would be the specific cut off date for purchase of a KITBOT chassis that would make it legal? That is, given that the KITBOT has been continuously available for purchase since the 2008 Kickoff, when did it lose the status of "custom made for FIRST"?

[ChuckDickerson]

I must have missed it so would someone please explain again why the KITBOT from 2008 is different from the 2005, 2006, or 2007? The KITBOT may have been specifically designed for the 2005 FIRST competition but it has been available as COTS since 2005. Why is the 2008 KITBOT being singling out?

I still cannot find any rule or Q&A specifying that COTS parts have to be purchased after some specific date. If a KITBOT or parts thereof is still new, uncut, not modified, etc. then what makes it a 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009 KITBOT? There is no difference as far as I can tell.

Kevin's explicit questions should clear things up but somehow I doubt they will. Given the rules we were all given at Kickoff I see no reason not to assume that an IFI KitBot is COTS and thus is legal to use no matter when it was acquired as long as you account for it's current retail price in you cost accounting.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Abwehr

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.

No competitive advantage?

Miss Daisy has an IFI kit frame sitting on a shelf, and a rookie team does not. Both want to use an IFI kit frame. Who's at an advantage?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

No competitive advantage?

Miss Daisy has an IFI kit frame sitting on a shelf, and a rookie team does not. Both want to use an IFI kit frame. Who's at an advantage?

That's an unfair argument, however, as there are no rules addressing WHEN parts must be purchased at all.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

No competitive advantage?

Miss Daisy has an IFI kit frame sitting on a shelf, and a rookie team does not. Both want to use an IFI kit frame. Who's at an advantage?

Donated parts are explicitly allowed by the rules as long as they are accounted for as if they were an expense. How is this functionally different from that?

[Tristan Lall]

I'm getting the impression that FIRST is correct in their Q&A answer (in terms of restricting old robot parts that are/were COTS) but is doing a poor job of explaining the distinction between that situation and the use of the same parts as COTS items in general.

As I read the rules, for the current robot, you can use a currently-COTS IFI chassis, even if your chassis was included in a kit, as long as you never used it on a previous robot. (The rules require that it is generally available now on COTS terms. It doesn't actually have to have been bought or acquired while COTS.) <R32> clearly applies only to old robot parts and to no-longer-COTS parts, so any Q&A interpretation of <R32> can't be construed as applying to other items (like unused old kit parts which are currently COTS), unless they say so explicitly and provide justification.

In terms of actually implementing this rule, it seems to me that FIRST ought to be publishing a complete list of parts that are potentially excluded under <R32>, part B. How else can teams easily and definitively determine the legality of a re-used item? They're not necessarily privy to what was developed especially for FIRST, and what's just a donated part—and under most circumstances, I bet this question won't even cross their minds.

[EricH]

Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by EricH

Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616

Agreed. But I think a slight modification of <R31> would be in order under that interpretation. Since it quite obviously should currently only apply to "COTS ITEMS from ROBOTS entered into previous FIRST competitions." And an unused kit frame obviously wouldn't fall under that.

Arguing the merits and reasoning behind the rule is mostly pointless, but I would appreciate it if they at least worded the rule consistently with their interpretation. They could just switch to "COTS ITEMS from previous FIRST KoPs" and leave the current vague description of custom made for FIRST stuff... Or if they're actually concerned about "leveling the playing field" they could just do the obvious thing and ban all items from previous KoPs, period. A nice, clear, economy stimulating ruling. Not that great for the environment or team finances, but you can't have everything.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

Thanks for asking, Kevin. You have clarification and an explanation.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11616

Wait, what? A never-used 2008 kit frame (item 1) is neither of the things listed at the top of <R32>, and therefore points A through C can't apply to it. That part of the response does not follow from the rules.

As for items 2 and 3, they could have been clearer about the fine distinction between custom-made-for-FIRST and in the kit, as compared to identical-to-a-custom-FIRST-part and bought commercially.

I'm a bit surprised by the rationale for this rule, as well. What's so special about an IFI kit frame, as opposed to all of the other things that FIRST teams accumulate over the years? (Tangible and intangible.) And given that there's no practical way to inspect this, does it really make much sense to make this small distinction? Veterans will either be moderately inconvenienced (they've got a pile of metal they can't use on the robot anymore), or will just ignore this (out of spite or ignorance); either way, there's effectively no enforceability.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Wait, what? A never-used 2008 kit frame (item 1) is neither of the things listed at the top of <R32>, and therefore points A through C can't apply to it. That part of the response does not follow from the rules.

[...]Veterans will either be moderately inconvenienced (they've got a pile of metal they can't use on the robot anymore), or will just ignore this (out of spite or ignorance); either way, there's effectively no enforceability.

I said there was an explanation. I didn't say I agreed with it. (I also think I may know where <G14> came from, but that's another story.)

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I was surprised too. And I noticed the lack of enforceability right away. It's the FIX-IT Windows all over again.