Quote:
Originally Posted by banebots
We are a bit confused by the constant stream of BaneBots bashing on this forum. We understand that some people have concerns with the RS-775 so let me give a bit from our perspective.
We sold the RS-775 18V motor for 3 years prior to introducing it to FIRST last year with no problems and believed it to be a robust and reliable product. As a result of experiences by FIRST teams last year, we have been testing every RS-775 prior to shipping. We have had conversations with only one customer concerning manufacturing defects with an RS-775 purchased this year and replacements were sent out the same day.
Given the number of RS-775 motors shipped since implementing the 100% testing practice and the very low reported number of problems we believed our testing adequate. It should be noted that no attempt is made to fix any motor that fails testing - failures are removed from product inventory and isolated where they can not be accidentally mixed in with tested product. It would appear from posts in this thread that we may need to review parts of this process.
|
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by banebots
As for some of the other stuff in this thread and on this forum in general, I'm not sure what to think. At a minimum it makes me question our continued support of FIRST. I'd ask that folks step back and read some of what is being posted from an objective view point and consider what kind of impression it leaves not only on BaneBots but on this forum and FIRST.
|
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.)