Since to be able to use last year’s kit frame you had to fabricate it (cut it to length), it would not be allowed on this year’s robot per rule <R33>. “FABRICATED ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions shall not be used on ROBOTS in the 2009 competition.”
IFI still has the old kitbot frame on their website, so it could be purchased and used this year. I’d suggest any team doing so have a receipt available for inspectors.
I don’t believe a receipt is totally necessary. You are allowed to use a previous year’s kitbot frame IF is composed of parts that are still available from the companies that provided them. These parts would just need to be properly spec’d and accounted for on the teams BOM (Bill of Materials, for you rookies ). HOWEVER, parts from previous years kits that are no longer commercially available to all teams OR are not legal by all rules that pertain to the robot may NOT be used.
Hope that clears some things up.
For anyone trying to find part numbers or prices of previous year kit parts link is below.
Also, no where in the rules does it say COTS parts have to be purchased after any particular time (for example Kickoff). We have one complete, unused KitBot and most of the parts for a second one that have been purchased separately at various times over the past 3 years. I don’t find any rule stating that we can’t use the old KitBot materials even from 3 years ago as long as we haven’t cut/modified them (fabricated) and IFI is now still selling them after Kickoff (as COTS) so that any team could buy the same if they wanted to. We would, of course, have to declare the current purchase cost on our cost accounting/BoM at inspection but nothing I have read limits when the purchase has to have occured. No team buys all new raw stock each year and throws out all their unused aluminum/plastic/etc. left over from the previous year so why should the KitBot be any different? In fact, as far as I can tell a veteran team that didn’t use their issued KitBot from some previous year that say just stuck the box on the shelf and built a custom frame that year would be perfectly legal to pull that old IFI KitBot box off the shelf and use it this year if they wanted to as long as they accounted for it in their cost analysis.
If it is FIRST’s intent to not allow teams to use the IFI KitBot this year they better hurry up and define that in the rules. If they did I think it would be rather un-GP of FIRST to single out one specific COTS part from one specific vendor and make it illegal. It would also further add to the rumors regarding the IFI/FIRST split.
This is sort of why I was asking the questions I did in this thread. Both the AndyMArk C-Base and the IFI KitBot retail for ~$190. Both are basically functionally the same. Why come out with something new if it isn’t better or cheaper? FIRST has to have a reason but why?
In case you hadn’t noticed by now, FIRST has cut a lot of ties with IFI over the past year alone (control system being the major change).
Not completely of course, as we can still use the IFI Victor’s (as I recall from the Kickoff) for the control system, & you are certainly allowed to buy things from IFI as long as they meet requirements set in place by FIRST & the manual just like any other supplier of compents, since they are in fact a supplier of COTS items, but in the future I expect a lot less IFI products included in the kit or none at all.
This chassis this year is just one of them.
Yep, agreed. What I meant was why change what isn’t broken just for the sake of change? If, for example, the new AM C-Base was a lot lighter or cheaper than the IFI KitBot then great I understand but if it isn’t then why? If FIRST some how intends for us to not be able to use the IFI KitBot and specifically outlaws it then that will come across (to me at least) as just plain mean and spiteful toward IFI who has always been a loyal supported of FIRST as far as I have ever seen.
Looks like people are posting 2009 questions accidentally under the 2008 forums.
(Just look at the dates of the posts for any clarification.)
I agree that is completely confusing, & that FIRST should lock all 2008 forums at this point! :yikes:
It’a not illegal (as a COTS item) so that just means you have to purchase it this year.
This is consistent, but the comment from the GDC that is was “custom” is not correct as they stated it apparently going by John’s inside info.
Bottom line: It can still be used. Just buy it this year, have proof if necessary with a dated receipt (I haven’t looked at the cost & “date purchased” accounting rules completely yet to be honest) & be good to go.
If anything, they are giving teams the call to spend money this year on an IFI component if they wish to, so in essence, it’s not really getting into politics in the way one would think they would be (by denying teams to use anything IFI related) if that’s the accusation, but rather it’s treating IFI as any other supplier & telling teams to buy things from them this year, rather than get a “freebie” by using what you have lying around the shop from previous years.
Then again, there is also the rules in place that FIRST says “we don’t care if you don’t pay anything at all for a component, it just has to be accounted for in your robot budget as the price it would be off the shelf if you were to purchase it.” (with the usual other restrictions in place following the flowchart of course)
So… technically, you could “find” & get a 2008/2009 chassis “donated to your team” from in your team closet from last year for free, but still account for it for the price it would cost you this year if you were to buy it from IFI.
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.
I am interested to see what parts are custom from 2008…edited to not offend anyone, as that was not the original intent of my post
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.
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.
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.
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.