Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Again,
I have to ask what resistance was measured in both cases, Karthik and Brando?

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Same here. Banebots cost us several matches in Florida last year. We re-engineered our entire drive train to eliminate Banebots for Philly and Champs and then did not have another electrical problem the remainder of the year.

My intent is not to bash Banebots or influence anyone. All I can say is that in a free market, I will not choose to use their products. We were not satisfied with the product, the delivery, or the 2011 response to an obvious defect.

The only way we will use another Banebots product is if we are forced to do so by the 2013 motor rules.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

I haven't tested any this year, so my recollection is based on last years, but it ranged from dead shorts to 1M ohm resistance on failed motors.

Typically if we got into the 10k 0hm range, we started to have massive issues. If we were above 1M ohm, we would typically run a match with that motor. If it was below that threshold, we would continue zapping to get it higher.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

My apologies Al, just got a text from the person who did the test. Our failed motors were showing less than 2 ohms of resistance. The 4 M Ohms was what was seen last year after zapping the motors as per the suggestion of Banebots.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Thanks

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

The 775 was rock solid on our arm last year, we must have been lucky because we did test our motors a week ago off of our 2011 bot and they had case shorts, but we were not stopped in inspection and it didn't cause any electrical ghosts on our bot. If this one small problem was fixed, I would feel alot more confident because they really are good sized, powerful motors, and with the CIM-ulator, not a bad substitute for a CIM. But about half of the ten we ordered are case shorted, or the shafts are stiff. We still plan on using them though, we'll just have to try and isolate the mounting plates and bring a bunch of spares. And I'll know what to replace first if stuff starts to short or reboot.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Anyone look at the 775 motor on the AndyMark gearmotor?

We checked ours today - About 1-2 ohms from either terminal to the case. It flickers to infinity if I tap the end of the shaft slightly. I didn't test it while running, and I can't really spin the shaft because of the gearbox.

Good thing we ordered extra 550's and P60's.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

I can see it now: 2013 rules: Teams are allowed to custom wind one motor of their own design and manufacturing methods. :D

(Not bashing on BaneBots, just a funny thought that popped in my mind).

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

I apologize in advance if this post comes across as accusatory, but this issue does have to be raised.

With reference to posts 228 and 229, as seen here:
And with reference to post 199: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...5&d=1326998264

However low the manufacturing defect rate is (and given Banebots' role as a dedicated FIRST supplier, there is no doubt that their testing is sufficiently thorough), many members have pointed out that the shipping process itself is accountable for a number of ensuing problems following product receipt. Therefore, it is likely that the fundamental problem at hand is not persay the manufacturing process, but rather the packing process which subsequently results in inevitable damage during the shipping process. If this is indeed the case, then any further attempts to improve control quality of the manufacturing process will likely prove futile.

The other problem that has been raised occasionally in this thread is the immense lead time on gearbox orders (we personally had to wait nearly a full 2 weeks for a shipment of P60s to arrive). As one of the few dedicated and valued FIRST suppliers, there is no doubt that a backlog would be inevitable, but this is the kind of problem that the company itself should acknowledge and address of its own volition.

That being said, the 775s (notwithstanding all defect receipts) have undoubtedly been an extraordinarily useful resource for those fortunate teams that have had success using them (as these teams have attested), to say nothing of the outstanding support for usage of the RS-550s (which, having had personal experience with, I can safely say were the only part of our robot that we never had problems with, for which I am eternally grateful). It is my hope that Banebots will remain a FIRST supplier and continue to support it and all the teams.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Thanks for dropping in to offer your comments. I think the core problem is that nobody has the full story—you hadn't been advised about the issues some teams were reporting, and teams weren't aware of your action to correct related product issues.

For example, I believe this is the first that we've heard about 100% inspection of the 18 V RS-775 motors. Perhaps teams would not have been so quick to decry the RS-775's apparent faults, if they'd known you were actively attempting to solve the problem. And while I grant it would have been a difficult decision to admit publicly on your product page that faults had been found, and that you were in the process of dealing with the issue, that acknowledgment would probably have changed the tone of this discussion. Without your input, the fair criticisms that have been raised weigh heavily against your products. Thanks to your explanation above, I'm sure that many of us are reassured that you're revisiting the RS-775 issues.

Now that you're in contact with us, the way forward is to bring us up to date, so that we can re-evaluate our impressions of your products and customer service. Would you care to summarize your testing procedures and results, to give us a better idea of the underlying issues? Also, could you confirm or deny the allegation that you were advising teams to burn out a winding on the motor as a partial fix for the electrical issue—and if so, could you characterize the decrease in performance, reliability and safety that might result?

FIRST teams are voracious consumers of information: we need information about motors and gearboxes that is timely and accurate. This need is driven by the compressed timeframe of the competition (just over 6 weeks of design and building), and by the fact that most teams have neither the stamina nor the impetus to seek this information in advance of the competition season. Additionally, since FIRST embargoes the rules until the kickoff date, any such efforts could easily be wasted, if FIRST elects to change the kit of parts or the robot specifications. The net effect is that around the first non-holiday Saturday of every year, two thousand teams will descend on your website looking for information. At this point, teams will be rushing to make design decisions, to place orders, and to build their robots. They definitely don't want to run the risk that what they buy is not fit for its intended purpose.

If FIRST hasn't informed you that this is the date by which everything needs to be in order, please take heed of that now. By participating as a FIRST supplier (especially one with an effective monopoly on certain parts), and whether you were explicitly informed of this or not, teams expect that someone—either you or FIRST—has determined that the motors you offer are of good quality. They're putting their faith in you, and linking their competitiveness to the products you provide.

Also, we don't mean to pin all of the blame on BaneBots, if in reality the fault lies with your supplier. In the absence of the manufacturer's datasheets and product reference, we have no way of knowing whether the motors they're providing to you consistently meet their OEM specifications. Supplying that datasheet to FIRST in advance of the FRC season, and posting it on your website would go a long way towards informing our opinions, and towards improving the FRC design process.

There's also another issue of which you may not be aware: FRC operates with strict technical specifications, particularly for motors.¹ By substituting motors of similar specifications, without advising FIRST and without providing new specification sheets (for comparison), you create a dilemma for teams and competition officials: how can we rely on your spec sheets if you haven't acknowledged an obvious substitution?²

As for the issues with shipping packages with insufficient packaging, I trust you now understand the issues and will solve this problem expeditiously.

In terms of the gearboxes, I recall that in the past, when defective gearboxes were discovered, you reacted by sending replacement parts. I have no quarrel with that kind of commendable customer service. I can only hope (for our sake and yours, because I know that must not have been cheap to correct) that in the future you'll be a bit more rigourous with your gearbox testing regimen.

(We can revisit the other criticisms of various gearboxes—especially lead time—later.)

Finally, though I don't presume to know the details of your business, I can point to another FIRST supplier, AndyMark, as an example of a business that the FIRST community generally trusts. AndyMark was founded by longtime FIRST participants, so already they have an advantage—but their real strength is in their quick response to product questions and concerns, and their general willingness to offer satisfaction, even when they're not strictly at fault. (I hope I'm not putting them on too high a pedestal, but that has been my experience with them in the past.)

If people were writing baseless libel, then it would definitely reflect poorly upon this forum, and FIRST. But I don't think that's the case. While frustration is evident, the criticisms have not been exaggerated, nor have the comments been defamatory. Indeed, the exchange of experiences relating to a product or service is a fundamental feature of a free market system—people need to be able to meaningfully evaluate and compare goods in order to make economically rational choices.

If there's something you believe to be false, by all means, point it out and offer your corrections.

¹ In contrast to other motors, which are permitted on the basis of part number only, FIRST specifies "the BaneBots motors provided in the KOP". This potentially precludes your substitutions (without a rule change). I'm not FIRST, so I don't know if this was intentional—but I suspect that it was to avoid confusion with other similar can motors you've offered previously or subsequently.
² This happened in 2009. (More details are available if you desire them.)

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Everyone,
I think it is important to state the effect of shorted motors on FRC robots. In the event of a shorted winding to the armature, there is likely to be no significant degradation of performance in our applications. Only quality control style testing would indicate a drop off in speed or power and then only when measured using the type of instruments used in this testing. Where problems will arise on an FRC robot is when wiring errors occur on the robot such that an additional electrical path is established through both the shorted motor and the other fault. If this second path is established through the Crio chassis which is electrically tied to the negative terminal of the battery, the Crio +24 volt power supply will be compromised and that will result in Crio reboot. If the second path should be through a second motor, a variety of faults could occur. While none have been documented, these could be anything from tripped breakers to power supply fluctuations to electrical component failures. We all know that a simple test for frame continuity may not show a defect until the motor is rotated to where the short is actually connected to a brush within the motor. A single shorted motor on a properly constructed FRC robot should not (in and of itself) cause any additional failures. In the event of a short as witnessed in 2011, the frame of the robot would be alternately switched to the negative lead of the battery or the positive lead of the battery dependent on the motor direction command of the controller. As inspectors we are very concerned about frame shorts of any kind for two significant reasons. One occurs when two faulty robots become engaged and there exists two paths through frame and other electrical wiring that may cause significant damage to electrical components or sparks. The second is our desire to insure every team plays every match and is able to be competitive at every event they attend.
When you are building your robot please keep in mind that the Crio must be electrically isolated from the frame and that all electrical wiring be insulated. When an inspector points to something during the inspection process, he/she is trying to help you. He/she wants you to perform at your best. Good Luck.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

If you never respond to our emails, how can you expect to get feedback from customers???

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Apparently they do not want to receive emails. See attachments.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Yes, but on the "Contact Us" page of their website, it has fields to send them an email inquiry.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short
 

Yes I know. My point was a bit too subtle I guess.