Quote:
Originally Posted by KTorak
I don't think the question is being allowed to use other brand batteries, but more of 'why did FIRST change it?' People feel the change was done to drive business to a sponsor. Regardless of that or whatever happened, is there really a big enough performance increase in the new batteries to warrant the switch? Well, FIRST certainly thinks so.
|
Or, just maybe, it was not FIRST's decision. Remember, there are at least two parties involved in the supplier-consumer relationship. Everyone seems to be making assumptions attributing questionable motives to FIRST for the causes behind this change. Have you considered the possibility that the supplier may have chosen to change the terms of their deal with FIRST? Perhaps FIRST, faced with the choice of continuing with an existing supplier that was going to charge significantly more money for the batteries which would have to be passed on to the teams, or going with a new supplier that provided batteries with different characteristics but similar or lower pricing, chose to look for the deal with the best financial benefit to the teams?
If there are people that feel the change was done to drive business to a sponsor, they need to think things through again. For almost all of these questions there are multiple possible answers and reasons that a supplier decision might be made. And most of those answers do not require that FIRST be populated with self-interested financial vultures eager to screw us, as some are apparently assuming.
-dave