Say I rip an aluminum bar off last year’s robot. I then cut off the ends of the bar with drill holes in them, so the bar looks as new (though somewhat shorter than originally). Is this bar still considered a modified part, and thus unusable on this year’s robot? Or since the cuts that un-modified it were made this year, is it considered fair game?
For all those visiting this page but lacking answers, what’s your opinion on the matter?
- I’d like to know the answer to this as well.
- Sounds legal to me.
- If the inspectors don’t notice, it’s legal.
- It’s probably illegal.
- It’s unethical, even if it’s not specifically disallowed.
The idea being that you’ve returned it to the condition it was in as a new, COTS, raw material.
Sounds about right. You’ve turned a fabricated part into a standard piece of aluminum extrusion.
Part was turned into scrap material.
Scrap material is perfectly legal to use.
From robot rules Section 8.1
Bte that it is possible for an item (typically raw materials) to be neither COTS nor a FABRICATED ITEM. For example, a 20 ft. length of aluminum which has been cut into 5 ft. (~152 cm) pieces by the Team for storage or transport is neither COTS (it’s not in the state received from the VENDOR), nor a FABRICATED ITEM (the cuts were not made to advance the part towards its final form on the ROBOT).
I would put raw material salvaged from previous robots in this category. As long as you are not re-using pieces as removed. But please scrape off last years inspection stickers. :]
I would also see it this way. It’s a chunk of aluminum (possibly with holes in it) that you used in a new way with more holes/cutouts this year.
But scrape off last years inspection stickers? Where’s the fun in that? True story: Showed up at a preseason with the previous years robot with some modifications. The real robot showed up at the first regional.
To not allow this would not be environmentally responsible. Reduce, reuse, recycle!
Why require that someone purchase a new piece of aluminum stock when the identical thing is already available to be recovered as a resource, rather than disposed of? Even if it could be recycled, that unnecessarily uses energy and other resources.
I can’t believe FIRST would condone that approach.