So can we or can we not reuse CIM motors from past years? Can we reuse them if they’re not involved in the drive train?
I think that the rules are very clear - you can use up to 4 FR801-001 motors on your robot (regardless of whether you use them for driving wheels, driving other actuators are just hanging around for decoration). You can use those 2, add 2 more and, if necessary, replace the 2 from the kit with IDENTICAL (ie same P/N) motors if you broke them or can’t use them for any reason.
Are these the same as from previous years? Yes except for the 2006 and 2007 kits (others?) included 2 larger (3") CIMs as well (FP801-005).
Russ
yeah, the rules dont say anything about not using cims from last year, but i would anyway. you always want to have a new stockpile of parts and motors.
^Unless, of course, your budget is ridiculously tiny. We’re trying to recycle as much as we can right now (right now, the frame of our robot is based on last year’s frame and this year’s frame put together)…
Anyhow, thanks for the information on the CIMs. That should save us some money and time.
Reflion,
Just to be sure, only parts (robot frame parts included) manufactured by your team after the 2009 kickoff can be used on the 2009 robot. You may not reuse parts of your 2008 robot. You can use the design and make new parts this year. I know it seems hard but as Russ has pointed out above, the CIM motors from last year can be used as functioning spares for 2009 but cannot be used on the original robot construction that you will ship in just a few weeks.
EDIT: I now agree with Al, see below
Here are the relevant rules
<R23> Individual COMPONENTS or MECHANISMS retrieved from previous ROBOTS and used on 2009 ROBOTS must have their undepreciated cost included in the 2009 robot cost accounting, and applied to the overall cost limits.
Ok, so the motor’s depreciated cost must be accounted for, no problem.
COTS ITEMS from ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions or COTS MECHANISMS that are no longer commercially available may be used under the following conditions:
A. The item must be unmodified, and still in its original condition as delivered from the VENDOR, and
B. The item must not be a part custom made for the FIRST competition and provided in the Kit Of Parts for a previous FIRST Robotics Competition (e.g. 2006 FRC transmissions, custom-made motor couplers, custom sensor strips, 2006 IFI CMUcam II modules, etc. are not permitted), and
C. The item must satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition)
The CIM motor is a COTS part and is not legally allowed to be modified from it’s original condition. I would argue that crimp connectors and trimming the wire leads while against the exact letter of this rule are well within the intent (obviously the only official judge of intent is the GDC themselves).
Motors specifically permitted on 2009 FRC ROBOTS include:
…
D. One or two additional 2-1/2” CIM motors (part #FR801-001 and/or M4-R0062-12) in addition to those provided in the Kit Of Parts. This means that up to four, and no more, 2-1/2” CIM motors can be used on the ROBOT.
This rule makes no specifications as to the source of the additional CIM motors that you are allowed to use.
Unless I missed a rule limiting these motors to spares, it seems to me like it would be legal to use them on your 2009 robot.
EDIT: Missed <R50> somehow. I am now in agreement with Al’s post.
<R50> comes the closest. That’s what got me confused earlier when I tried to answer the original question.
Wow, right under a rule I quoted. That’s a pretty spectacular failure :mad:
According to this rule I now agree with Al’s interpretation. If this is make or break for your team you could try asking the Q&A if the CIM is an exception to due to the number allowed versus the number provided.
This all seems quite silly and academic to me. I don’t care where/when/how you obtained the motors. On your 2009 robot, you’re allowed to have 4 CIMs, 1 of …, 2 of …, etc.
I don’t care whether the 2009 kit motors or 2007 leftovers with the same model number are on the crated robot. Please put all of your old and new CIMs on a table and play a shell game. Mix 'em up good and put 'em back on the shelf. Use whichever one you want since they’re all the same.
I can guarantee that I won’t be checking date codes on motors and will not ask to see your broken 2009 motors before allowing you to use old (identical) motors.
Russ
If the lead inspector says he doesn’t care about the year of the motor, I’ll go with that unless the GDC says otherwise.
I agree, there is no good reason for the rule to be interpreted as written with regard to the CIMs.
I just wanted to be sure people don’t get burned by an overzealous inspector or something like that.
I have posted the question to the Q&A to get an official answer.
Do you realize that the guy you are quoting in your post is the LEAD INSPECTOR for all of FIRST? he writes the inspection procedures used at all of the events. I think his word is just as good as the Q&A no need to wait 4 days for an answer.
I do realize exactly who the post was made by. I also realize that Chief Delphi is not an official communication outlet for this competition whether the post is made by me, the Lead Inspector or a member of the GDC.
I will not be waiting on the answer with baited breath or anything like that. If my team decides we need to harvest some CIMs from previous robots we will be doing so.
<<<When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule. >>>
The reasoning behind this rule is to prevent a motor count on the robot that is greater than quantity and type of motors that came in the KOP. The one exception is the two additional CIM motors, not counting servos. Prior KOP motors, unmodified, are identical COTS items. You guys are lawyering the rules, in this case to regulate the source for a COTS item. That is totally nuts.
Eugene
You make it sound as if I wish to make this illegal. That is far from the case. My team has extremely limited funds at the moment and may be recovering CIMs from the drivetrain of last year’s robot to use for mechanisms this year.
When asked this question last year the GDC’s response was to basically parrot the manual
CIM motor
Posted by FRC1513 at 01/22/2008 02:53:02 pm
Do we have to use current year CIM motors or can we use two from another year to run the mecanum system.
…Re: CIM motor
Posted by GDC at 01/24/2008 02:56:41 pm
Please refer to Rule <R58>. Motors from previous robots and years may be used as one-to-one replacements for damaged or failed motors.Per Rule , up to four 2 1/2" CIM motors may be used on the robot.
I have only been around FRC for 2 years, but I have already seen what can happen around the gray areas when it comes to inspection. I highly doubt that an inspector would check this, and I agree with you on the intent of the rule and how nuts it would be to use it to restrict CIMS simply because they have been used on previous robots, but I tend t practice “better safe than sorry” whenever I can. In a case like this the cost of assuring safety is extremely low, a minute or two of my time to write the Q&A question and a minute or two of the GDC’s time to answer it.
An important note - yes, I am responsible for creating and maintaining inspection procedures and documents and acting as the intermediary between the GDC and LRIs. I am NOT the official interpreter. Official answers always need to be obtained from the rules and Q&A responses.
But I still stand by my statement that I don’t care when motors were manufactured or whether they were used on a previous robot. They’re all the same. PARTS is PARTS (emphasis on the BOLD lettering to coincide with Section 8 syntax).
The reason why MECHANISMS aren’t allowed to be re-used is to enourage teams to design and fabricate entirely new robots every year. But even in that case, how can I reasonably expect the inspectors to know what was developed for 2006, 2007 and 2008 for YOUR robot and therefore cannot be used in 2009? That’s an impossible request BUT we should rely on the GP of teams to comply with that rule. Inspectors cannot test every rule.
Russ
In regards to the 2008 Q&A response regarding replacement CIMs, I’ve always interpreted the rule to essentially stipulate that you are officially permitted to replace broken parts from the kit. It would be a shame if you broke ANYTHING in your kit and were not allowed to replace it (for “free” when accounting on the BoM).
In the case of 2 extra CIMs for a total of 4 on the robot, any “new” CIMs that are obtained and used are obviously NOT for damaged/missing motors but are additions to the 2 from the KoP. I don’t care how you get them as long as they have the same P/N. They do, however, need to be included in your BoM cost with the current retail price and no reduction for age.
Russ
I would note that the rules are essentially the same as 2008 rules <R58> and <R59>. Was this ever an issue before?
Kevin,
I was basing my opinion on this,
<R50>
Motors from previous robots shall not be used in addition to those provided in the 2009 Kit Of Parts. They may be used as direct one-to-one SPARE PARTS for those provided if the provided part fails or is damaged. They can only be used if they are identical to the part being replaced.
As Russ has pointed out there is no way for inspectors to know when or where you obtained your motors. I have always seen this rule as one of those rules that gives the competition a virtual real world constraint. The same is true of components or mechanisms used on a previous year’s robot. How would I as an inspector know or be able to identify such an item. This is where GP comes into play. I expect that a robot team has followed GP in the design and construction of their robot because GP demands that I do. Pretty simple, straight forward, and perhaps a little naive, but that is the way we operate. Inspectors are here to attempt to level the playing a field a little but we are really present to make sure you are ready to play. We will go out of our way to make sure you are ready by getting you help, pointing out where you robot could be improved or where it might need to be brought up to standard. Above all, we want your team and the other spectators to be safe, have a great experience and do your best. Inspectors are not present to prevent you from playing, they/we want you to play and play well. You might be our alliance partner someday.
BTW, you guys had a great robot last year and a memorable team. Keep it up!
After Eric pointed out the rule I missed I agreed with your interpretation Al, based on the letter of the rule.
The GDC has clarified and CIMs used in previous years are legal provided they have the correct part number