pic: FRC1646 Precision Guesswork's 2009 Robot - Front Shooter

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I know there's a ridiculous amount of confusion over these rules, but this seems pretty clear-cut... wouldn't that make it not COTS?

If the anodizing makes this not COTS, then that's true lunacy right there. The gearbox is technically speaking identical and wasn't used on a previous year's robot.

[NorviewsVeteran]

Is the part number the same? Also, you might want to take a new one up to competition just in case the lunacy does extend past the field.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Fireworks 234

Technically speaking, the transmission is exactly the same as what you would get if you bought it now. The only difference is that the color is blue. I don't think that should be an issue.

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

If the anodizing makes this not COTS, then that's true lunacy right there. The transmission is technically speaking identical and wasn't used on a previous year's robot.

"Functionally equivalent" is not the same as "technically identical"... anyone familiar with the now-deceased Bimba rule ought to know that.

I don't like the written definition of COTS, I don't agree with how it is being interpreted even more strictly by the Q&A, and I'm not going to narc on you by asking on your behalf. That being said, let this post serve as a standing wager of a dozen Krispy Kremes that they'd tell you that because it's not available to all teams for purchase, it's not COTS, so it's not legal.

(Now that the Bimba rule is gone, I'm hopeful that some of the other material utilization rules will look very different next year too. If we have enough of these ridiculous discussions, maybe they'll listen.)

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I don't like the written definition of COTS, I don't agree with how it is being interpreted even more strictly by the Q&A, and I'm not going to narc on you by asking on your behalf. That being said, let this post serve as a standing wager of a dozen Krispy Kremes that they'd tell you that because it's not available to all teams for purchase, it's not COTS, so it's not legal.

I'll take you up on that wager, though I have a bad feeling on this one. :sigh:

Or not. Thanks Andy!

[Andy Baker]

AndyMark has sold clear, red, and blue anodized AM Planetary gearboxes this year. We are crazy like that. If any inspector wants to DQ these gearboxes, please have them call AndyMark and talk to me personally. If I am not there, the good people at the AndyMark world headquarters will know how to get in touch with me. Neither the red, blue, or clear AM Planetary gearboxes should be deemed illegal.

Lunacy is right.

Precision Guessworks... that is one good lookin robot. See ya in the Armory.

Andy

[EricLeifermann]

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

In that Q&A they are talking about the kit chassis, but I believe it can be used for this instance as well, as they are talking about R32.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

AndyMark has sold clear, red, and blue anodized AM Planetary gearboxes this year.

Then I have no complaints. In any case, based on the lunacy we've seen to this point, I'm still betting donuts that a hypothetical part that is no longer available in a certain color is enough to make it non-COTS. I'm going to hate being right.

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

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

In that Q&A they are talking about the kit chassis, but I believe it can be used for this instance as well, as they are talking about R32.

That Q&A is about (bizarrely) applying <R32> to veteran teams who gain an advantage by using old kit parts. The AM Planetary has never come in the KOP, so it's not really a related issue.