2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Does anyone know what the rationale behind the follow rule was? Would anyone care to speculate on whether we'll see it's return?

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

They are suggesting some places to buy parts. Then they tell you that you can't spend more than $300 total and more than $100 on any one part. I don't see what is so wrong with the rule personally. What exactly is the question you are posing?

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

If a component is not offered by one of those vendors, it is not allowed.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

You used to have to build your entire robot out of the Small Parts catolouge, the Kit of Parts, and the additional parts list. We outgrew Small Parts, so we can buy things anywhere. They limit us to what Digi-key, Future Active, Radio Shac and Newark InONe offer so as to level the playing field.

I suspect that it will be back.

Wetzel

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

It is so a team cannot go out and buy a "Flux Capacitor" and have a huge advantage.

EDIT: I actaully like the 2004 rule because it has the "or equivalent to those available from" part that was not inlcuded in the 2003 rule.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Right, I understand they don't want teams gaining an advantage by purchasing magical parts, but that's what the cost limit is for! If the cost limit is enough to ensure equality as far as mechanical components go, why isn't it enough for electrical components?!

Therefore the "unfair advantage" arguement doesn't make sense, as it's internally inconsistent with other FIRST rules.

UPDATE:
If these companies have generously supported FIRST, and this is FIRST's way of returning the favor, I see no problem with it. I just wish I knew why specifically we've been restricted to certain arbitrary component suppliers.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

We haven't been restricted to those suppliers, just the components they sell. And as for the "magic components," the cost limit might not take care of that. Sometimes these "magic components" are not expensive, just hard to find or available only in limited quanities.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Just about anything tangible to be used on a robot can be found from these vendors. FIRST does not want you buying the "Magical Robot Control System with super duper sensors built in an all-in-one black box" electrical system from a vendor that no one else would have access to. If you want to build a decent control system, you have to do it piece by piece and maybe (the horror) have the students learn something.

...or so my thoughts go

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

The rule says, and I am quoting:

"or equivalent to those available"

This means you *do not* have to buy from those vendors but instead you have to buy parts that those vendors also carry. This is to keep it so that parts are readily available to other teams. It's not that big of a deal at all really.

If you can find parts that are not available through one of those vendors and can point me to them then I will begin to see the reason for getting rid of the rule but I can't think of anything that isn't available on digi-key or through hack shacks corporate part supplier end.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

There are thousands of niche ICs not sold through one of those suppliers that could be (extremely) useful to teams. Many of these are available online and available to anyone.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Both Newark and Digi-key will special order parts that they do not stock if they are from one of their first tier vendors. The lead time may not be good for our build time window and they may have minimum order amounts. Newark will special order a PNI digital compass. It's not in their catalog. Is it allowed? Can I buy it direct from PNI ?

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

The rule should mandate "electrical equivalence" for saftey reasons, but otherwise it's unessicarily restricting innovation.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

I think the real reason for this rule is the same as the reason for the maximum single electrical part cost. FIRST does not want teams putting a small PC or other powerful computer on the robot as it would drastically change the playing field.

Regardless, I think FIRST should just use the price limit and not restrict manufacturers as Phrontist said.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

I personally think this rule is unnecessary and overly restrictive. I have run into problems with this rule several times. The selection of sensors from the approved vendors is rather limited. I think a better rule would be one that limits the max price per part, and states that the part must be available to all teams.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Out of curiosity, what parts? I mean, I can't think of much that you can't procure through digi-key or hack shack's corporate end. True, specialty IC's but you don't need to build a computer on the 'bot.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

I can answer this one.
Way back when, you could do just about anything on mechanical but you were highly restricted on electrical. Those of us electrical types petitioned FIRST, through the feedback process, to give a little more leeway in electrical design by allowing more vendors. The current list is a progression of that request and further year's changes. By limiting the number of vendors, all teams are somewhat restricted to using the same components that are readily available to everyone. Inspectors are more able to make rational decisions when they see components that are available from a small list of vendors. Any questions as to availability can be easily answered on line or by phone. Everyone benefits! Add to this list, parts that are available through regular suppliers, i.e. McMaster-Carr and you have a lot of electrical stuff at your fingertips.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

One other thought that occurred to me was enforcement. I've watched many teams "fudge" numbers on price costs. Who's to say that the "flux capacitor" you have on your robot didn't cost you 18 dollars through ebay, while it's 600 dollars to any other team. By limiting the items to whats in the catalog, it makes it much easier to enforce the rule.

EDIT: Hmm..kinda repetitious of Al, sorry. I guess it helps to read the latest posts before just going on and posting the new thought.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

I was under the impression that even if the part costs your team 18 dollars if you stick it on the bot you have to put down the retail price as the cost for the part. I thought that was how it worked anyway, I could be wrong, I'm not as familiar with the part costs rules as I would like to be.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Thank You

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

...but if you don't set a standard (Digikey, Radioshack, etc.), who's to say what's "retail" cost.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Then what's your explanation of a lack of supplier restriction for all non-electrical parts?

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

I should add here that limiting the electrical vendors also accomplishes something else. An unlimited vendor list allows teams to use substandard parts and assemble electrical devices from non electrical parts. This is a safety issue that I am fully behind. I have stated before that the battery can be a source of personal harm and as such electrical devices need to be restricted. The current list is smaller than I would like. Mouser and MCM Electronics are two high quality vendors that jump to mind as added vendors. All of the vendors on the list carry similar parts and it allows teams a wider choice of inventory. That being said, I can live with the list as it stands.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

OK - here's a specific example of the issue.

I have been working away on an optical mouse based navigation system. The mouse speaks the PS/2 protocol. While it may well be possible to get the PIC to be able to interface to a PS/2 device, there will undoubtedly be a fair amount of work involved in getting the bi-directional communications established and working reliably.

I happened to find a nifty little chip & resonator on the web that is specifically designed to interface between a PS/2 device and a microprocessor. It costs all of $30. I'd be willing to bet that the chip is in fact a PIC - but that's not the point. The point is that the chip/resonator kit is not sold by any of the vendors in the list. So - using a strict interpretation of last year's rule R71 (i.e. what I believe FIRST intended) - I can't use it.

The kit *is* available to anyone who wishes to buy it however so, assuming the vendor can handle the demand, the playing field is level. So if it's all about there being a level playing field and staying within reasonable cost boundaries, I think those criteria have probably been met.

I have indeed asked FIRST whether, looking in retrospect, they would have allowed use of the chip last year had I asked. The answer was that the Director of Engineering at FIRST "did not know if it would have been allowed last year." And of course they would not say whether rule R71 would be changed this year or not. That's no surprise of course and an entirely reasonable position to take.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

How many teams have a part placing machine (the ones at motorola are about a half million and so expensive to run we don't typically get access to it). How many teams have the ability to build their own ICs? Not many, right?

However, how many teams can take a chunk of stock steel and run it in a lathe to create a shaft? Most of them. How many teams can build gears? A good deal of them.

It's level because a part one team can manufacture themselves another team should be allowed to buy. It's much easier to build non-electrical parts from stock. Placing silicon in layers is still rather difficult for high school students.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

lol no kidding. I would love the facilities to make our own ICs.

Random thought of the day.

Sparks

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Ha! How much does that stuff cost?

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

The one we have here in Kokomo costs in the billions. I am not sure what the total cost would be for a IC fab plant, but we just re-tooled ours within the last 5 years and it was a $300-400 million dollar project.

Putting in a large-scale IC fab operation is somewhat on the same scale as building a modern power plant, and those cost well over 1 billion.

This year, we hit a milestone by making about 20 "perfect wafers" (5") in our fab here at Delphi. In the IC fab world, a "perfect wafer" with zero defects is a pretty big deal. We have been making 5" wafers for a long time (older technology), but recently have been making 8" wafers for the past couple of years.

The air filtration system in these types of places runs a single digit ppm, and has 10x the flow of air that a domed stadium has. Cool stuff.

(sorry to get off topic, but this IC fab stuff intrigues me)

Andy B.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Like I said earlier, just the machine that PLACES the IC onto a board costs a half million for an old one, the new ones are like a million or more. They're unblievable to watch though, placing hundred or even thousands of tiny 20x40 resistors on a board per SECOND. amazing stuff.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Prices have dropped during the past few years. Chip placement machines can be as cheap as $250k. It really depends on the type. Ten years ago, you could not buy a good one for under a million.

Andy B.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

Back to the original topic for this thread...

Given my reading of the message from FIRST today regarding parts suppliers, it seemed clear to me that the supplier I used for the PS/2 interface chip may now be legal. Hallelujah!!!

So I sent a message off to Al Williams, Inc. - the supplier for the chip. My question to him was simple: Did he feel that his company would meet the specified criteria?

I'll post his response here once I get it.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

I am sure the new rules regarding what are "Legal vendors" will get a lot of discussion in the coming days.

Bottom line is simple: FIRST is trying to control the cost of the robots as well as make sure parts are available to all teams.

Many reasons for this, the best being allowing teams with very small limited budgets to compete with teams that have sponsors and a slightly larger budget.

Keeping costs down is VERY important.

Re: 2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale
 

No it isn't. Here is a list of sensors that you can have on your robot according to last year's rules.
Capacitance sensor (Basically it's a stud finder that measures distance)
Infrared range finders (manufactured by sharp)
Encoders
Metal Detectors (A very useful sensor ironically)
Ultrasonic range finder (A long shot and probably the most costly sensor here)
Mechanical switches
Infrared beacons
Infrared obstacle detectors
Current Sensor
Gyroscope
Isn't that called a microchip.:) You can turn those little pic's into anything you want to. The startup cost is annoying since you need programmer and a compiler. Personally I feel that the rules are perfect the way they are. More than likely you are probably going to overengineer the problem if you don't stay within these rules. Also, building this robot is a challenge. You might as well have the electronics team do some type of fabrication which is in the realm of possiblity.