cost constraint - Zip ties do not require $500+ tool to use.
Ask on Official Q&A for clarification on use of 3D printed parts.
Right now, they do not meet the competition requirements or constraints for functional parts.
GDC is not a democracy 
we are expected to buy very expensive parts, but not allowed to use a $500 one time purchase?
correct - you are constrained by the material choices by the GDC. That is engineering.
Not even $500 - you can buy a decent 3D printer for as little as $150.
not really… well define “decent” …
look - ask Official Q&A if you want the real opinion on this.
But the parts aren’t going to be very delicate, and most parts that are actually used for a purpose in Vex are aluminum or steel, the vast majority of parts that are plastic are delicate. And most of them are used for decorations. A $150 3D printer can print now more than 15cm cubed.
I’m just interested into what the GDC’s reasons were for not allowing 3D printing. It would be odd for it to be due to the high costs - seeing as they expected teams to pay far greater amounts to transfer over to V5.
Than maybe Vex could rebrand and markup a different 3d printer and have constraints on materials used instead of completely banning 3d printed parts. Vex U has 3d printed parts.
Additive manufacturing is convenient but also hard to use. If you wanted to make a C channel with the same strength as precision as the Vex alternative, just the filament would likely cost more.
That historically has been the reason.
Ask the GDC again and see if they are changing the constraint for this year.
My guess is no.
I doubt they will either, but wish we could have the ability to use 3D parts - would give teams the freedom to be more creative.
and that is likely to happen, just not this year.
I believe the legal definition of “commercially available” usually includes something along the lines of “commercial item sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace”. A team offering a few 3d printed parts for sale might well meet the definition of “commercial item” (in part, “has been sold, leased, or licensed, or offered for sale, lease, or license, to the general public”) but is unlikely to rise to the level of being commercially available. The 3d printers themselves would be commercially available items, however no one can really make a case of them (the printers) being either non-functional decoration or used for wire management. What they can print could potentially be used as non-functional decoration but NOT for wire management (unless, of course, commercially available).
This was stated in a prior year Q&A [Answered: <R7>[d][l] - 3D Printed/Custom Manufactured Wire Management Materials] and has been reiterated several times over the years, however the only way to officially get a yes or no would be for someone to ask a current year Q&A. I’d recommend that such a Q&A question specifically asks both whether 3d wire management is acceptable in general for the current year (although I assume this remains as “no” based on game manual reading) AND whether a team making and selling a few 3d printed wire management items makes those specific items commercially available and thus allowed for robot wire management use (which I also assume is “no” due to commercially available definition).
Hmm, this is an interesting point. Out of curiosity, where did you get that definition?
I would add that the legal definition of a term is not necessarily the same as its everyday, layperson definition. Keep <G3> in mind:
When reading and applying the various rules in this document, please remember that common sense always applies in the VEX Robotics Competition.
When there’s a difference between the “legal” and “everyday” definition, I would tend to lean towards the latter as a ref/inspector unless there is some guidance or rule that says otherwise, or establishes a VRC-specific definition of a term.
Intuitively (and keeping <G3> in mind), I’d say that if I can go online and buy something, and get it shipped to me in some reasonable amount of time (say, within a week or two), then it seems reasonable to call that a “commercially available item”. Absent any further guidance from the game manual/GDC, that’s probably the approximate definition I would use when inspecting a robot if a question ever came up about whether a cable-management product was “commercially available”.
US Legal Code, section 104.
You are absolutely correct that Vex likely has its own definition, which is why I would suggest someone interested in 3d printing make an official Q&A.
Personally, I would lean towards common sense saying that the mere act of a team printing a few items and offering them for sale basically for the purpose of being allowed to use them in competition would not bring them to the level of commercially available. Now,if said team got set up as a business and had a storefront and was planning a profitable business I would absolutely say pass!
ETA - also, if this is the team purchasing (rather than selling), especially if the selling team was located farther away, as an inspector I would want to pass them.
Agreed that selling a few copies of an item once, just to make it legal, shouldn’t meet a common-sense definition of “commercially available”. Another potential test might be, if a team makes an item available for purchase by the general public on an ongoing basis, either keeping some copies in stock to fulfill orders or even printing them to order fairly promptly, then it seems fair to me to call that product “commercially available”.
Agreed - not sure it warrants a q&a post if no one is actually going to do this, but if I were a team planning on doing this I would definitely ask on the q&a first just to make sure.
While you raise a good point, I think most teams have access to a 3d printer and if they don’t they could order a print from online printing companies. There isn’t any competitive advantage to 3d printing your wire management solution. It’s more just for convenience.
do you have factual data to support this opinion? I don’t but when we have to deal with 3d printers in our district on a daily basis, it is a difficult technology to keep operational.
Right now the RECF and GDC does not believe that equity exists for a level playing field to be had. Definitely not at middle school… high school is emerging… University level there is much more access both personally and institutionally.
That said the technology is coming down in terms of price and usability.
Personally, I would have students focus more on structures, coding, and engineering. Rather than bling technology:)
But v5 shipped in 8 weeks- a few months 