[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Levansic

I guess what is confusing me a little about this RFP, is that it looks like FIRST is not soliciting a contract manufacturer, but a full-service company to completely take over all development and support of hardware and software. TI chips are to be retained, as is the Jaguar name.

Actually it appears to be plural or singular. So either a single company to do the whole thing or several companies each accepting a part of the greater project. See page 3 of 11, the section RFP Component Responses, the first paragraph.

What I am missing, is why this isn't a more open-ended solicitation, where applicants could propose totally new designs that meet the requirements. It reads as though they want an improved Jaguar, in a Jaguar package.

Well if you think about it you've got (now less than) 30 days to respond or you are cut out (page 7 of 11, top, due May 11, 2012...page 3 of 11, see sentence with e-mail address to send response to) I've already tried to call FIRST on this matter and gotten no response at all (very disheartening). Even if I wanted to propose something no communications means it won't happen.

If you are a company who manufactures power electronics, and you follow these forums, when you do your due diligence do you think you will submit a proposal within 30 days? Basically you're taking the risk that you'll be asked to accept production volume on a product you don't get to design at all (page 7 of 11, the section Specifications, the second sentence...the only requirement they want separate is coating the boards, see item M...and they need that because of SWARF!). A product that you'll have to produce in quantity in possibly short order from documents that have typographical errors in them (let's just assume that the images on the pages can be reversed and scaled to Gerber). Never mind that I can't even tell if you will inherit *all* the injection molds (and that's not cheap tooling) (see page 9 of 11, the section Available Project Resources, item C).

If the request is for me to make the Jaguars precisely the way they are and agree to that in 30 days, I would say no. I'm sorry but I've already expended $4,000+ dollars just trying to get information about the Jaguars that you can't read in the manual. I know how to use them and when they should not be used. I can't in good faith accept liability on this product and I'm not the sort that hides behind my disclaimer.

I suspect I am not alone in this concern and it's purely a business concern so I suspect this means that in 30 days FIRST is going to be short support vendors. Otherwise the section Proposal Evaluation Criteria (page 10 of 11) is FIRST telling the vendors they are already courting the ground rules and this process is just perfunctory. The item I of the Proposal Evaluation Criteria specifically jumps out at me as hoping they'll not have someone that already makes approved speed controls unless they can assure that diversity.

This may be the last ditch attempt to push the life boat clear.

Whoever wins this will be responsible for support of the new Jaguars. Will they also be responsible for supporting the tan and black Jaguars? That could be quite a burden for a small company.

I read it as hopefully make the existing product now and improve on programming first, then incrementally in hardware later. If my interpretation is correct this is actually potential liability you accept if you pick this up as one piece. More importantly this is not good news if you're a Jaguar junky and this dies without response.

Personally I have a website I constructed that I never brought public about the Jaguars. I'd put that up for this request but without communication from FIRST I won't. I'm still talking with Linuxboy about his project and I'll fund and support it if he wishes, but what future can it have if FIRST can't provide more Jaguars or something that needs CAN termination?

If I were to change or add features to the current model (one part of the proposal), I would probably focus on software features to add more configurable parameters for the PID controls. For the hardware, I would add a pair of 7-segment LED's to the current single multicolor LED, to indicate CAN address, error states, or operation mode. As an educationally focused motor controller, this would be a valuable addition for troubleshooting. I think the cost of adding this could easily be offset in reduced support calls for ambiguously blinking LED's.

-- Len

There are a great number of things that can be improved on the Jaguars including the size, shape. weight and features through modular design. If you must squeeze new life in that exact box you're not going to get incremental change. However, if you happen to have lots of plastic parts for Jaguars (and I bet they do) you'll save money on making more. I bet that to cover the cost of the molds for the injection molding process a significant number of plastic components were made.

I will publicly commit to this: if I can find out from FIRST the criteria and process to make an approved speed control assuming FIRST doesn't object I'll provide the information to whomever requests it. I've been trying since 3/29/2012 so basically it's an existing project.

If they open this door I'll do my best to try to catalog the feature requests so perhaps a more universal design surfaces. I actually have something I already made as a prototype that works and supports CAN but I can't call something community support with a straight face if I ignore community feature requests.