2007 Kit

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Sean Schuff

I'm not normally one to gripe but I am highly irritated that they aren't allowing us to use batteries from past years.

The pessimist in me thinks that this rule was written simply to drive extra (unnecessary) business to a new FIRST supplier. The optimist in me certainly hopes this is not the case, but so far the batteries seem identical so I can't figure out why there'd be any technical reason to prohibit last year's batteries.

[Andy A.]

The Battery issue seems to be recurring. FIRST rules that because the battery has a new part number, it is different then previous batteries.

Teams argue that there is not significant difference between previous batteries and the new ones, and should be allowed to use older models.

FIRST responds by saying that its okay that only two batteries will be allowed, because you can charge them overnight.

Teams are perplexed, and frustrated that FIRST doesn't 'get it'. The worry isn't with starting the day off with fresh batteries, but finishing it with fresh batteries. It seems like FIRSTs expectations of battery use and use in reality are very different.

Refs and inspectors at regionals do 'get it' and no trouble is encountered.

Why this has to come up, year after year, is beyond me. Perhaps FIRST should just specify that the kit supplied, or equivalent, battery is legal for use. It would solve a whole bunch of headache.

Now that thats out of my system. I have not be able to go over the kit list in detail. Is anything noteable missing? Specificly things like motors and major electronics components.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Teams are perplexed, and frustrated that FIRST doesn't 'get it'. The worry isn't with starting the day off with fresh batteries, but finishing it with fresh batteries. It seems like FIRSTs expectations of battery use and use in reality are very different.

Refs and inspectors at regionals do 'get it' and no trouble is encountered.

Why this has to come up, year after year, is beyond me. Perhaps FIRST should just specify that the kit supplied, or equivalent, battery is legal for use. It would solve a whole bunch of headache.

Now that thats out of my system. I have not be able to go over the kit list in detail. Is anything noteable missing? Specificly things like motors and major electronics components.

I would be much happier if they allowed, like you said, batteries that are equivalent to the new ones, at least for a year or two. As I stated earlier, we just invested in a whole bunch of new batteries last year. Now, I know that some teams don't go through an entire battery in one round, but we do, meaning that we need at least 6 batteries to ensure we have a fresh one, especially if it's eliminations (and sometimes that's not even enough!). With the new batteries, we would have to buy probably 6 or 7 new batteries to have enough to get through an entire regional.

I'm hoping that they'll change it to allow equivalent batteries, though I doubt they will.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

The pessimist in me thinks that this rule was written simply to drive extra (unnecessary) business to a new FIRST supplier. The optimist in me certainly hopes this is not the case, but so far the batteries seem identical so I can't figure out why there'd be any technical reason to prohibit last year's batteries.

This whole battery thing has always been to create business for FIRST battery suppliers. These batteries are interchangable when used to start the engines in motorcycles, or whatever their normal use is, and would also be essentially interchangable for our use. Exide got a few years of "guaranteed" business, and now someone else will get at least one year of guaranteed business.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

This whole battery thing has always been to create business for FIRST battery suppliers. ...

I can't comment about every year, but at least once I know that FIRST kit-of-parts batteries were definitely not selected to create business for the battery supplier.

In 1997 (for Toroid Terror) I was the battery "supplier". The batteries that year were used in a 12V cordless Skil-Bosch drill made by another division of the company I work for. My management OK'd buying a few hundred extra units to donate to FIRST. Things were simpler then -- only about 150 kits, if I recall correctly, with two batteries per kit and about 200 spares. We also supplied a similar quantity of the battery chargers, drill motors, gearboxes, and drill housings from the same product.

Just look at this awesome 2007 kit of parts! FIRST has come a long way!

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by Richard

I can't comment about every year, but at least once I know that FIRST kit-of-parts batteries were definitely not selected to create business for the battery supplier.

In 1997 (for Toroid Terror) I was the battery "supplier". The batteries that year were used in a 12V cordless Skil-Bosch drill made by another division of the company I work for. My management OK'd buying a few hundred extra units to donate to FIRST. Things were simpler then -- only about 150 kits, if I recall correctly, with two batteries per kit and about 200 spares. We also supplied a similar quantity of the battery chargers, drill motors, gearboxes, and drill housings from the same product.

Just look at this awesome 2007 kit of parts! FIRST has come a long way!

I remember the cordless drill batteries, and yes, what we know have to work with is much better. The drill batteries, as I remember, had 10 sub-C nicad cells each and probably had a capacity of not much more than one amp-hour. Using two of these batteries, we still had, at best, maybe 20% of the battery capacitiy we have with the current gel batteries. Another area where we are much better off is the speed controls. The Tekin R/C car contollers that we used through 1998, while very good for their intended application, were seriously overstressed when used for drill motors at 12 volts.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

This whole battery thing has always been to create business for FIRST battery suppliers. These batteries are interchangable when used to start the engines in motorcycles, or whatever their normal use is, and would also be essentially interchangable for our use. Exide got a few years of "guaranteed" business, and now someone else will get at least one year of guaranteed business.

Sorry Kit, but you are flat out wrong. The requirement to use the new battery supplied in the Kit Of Parts (and for that matter, any other component from the KOP) has absolutely NOTHING to do with an effort to create business for a specific supplier. It has everything to do with guaranteeing that the field is as fair as possible to all teams.

The fact that the MK-12 batteries and the previously available Exide batteries can both turn over a motorcycle engine is interesting, but totally irrelevant. It takes about 90 seconds of research to determine that the batteries are NOT the same. Their characteristics, charge rates, and - most importantly - discharge rates are different. And those differences have significant implications for robot performance in a competition application such as FIRST. To ensure that the performance of the power system used in the competition is predictable and consistent for all teams, FIRST has to require that every team use the same make and model of battery.

So next time, before anyone accuses FIRST of being in the pocket of the sponsoring corporations, they might spend a minute and a half to actually apply some of that critical analytical ability that we are supposed to be demonstrating as educated engineers, and think objectively about the rationale that might be used for the various decisions that are made regarding the competition, Kit Of Parts, and robot requirements. You might find that it is not really due to some nefarious financial plot on the part of the people that are supporting this program, but that there is actually an understandable, logical reason that is obvious once you think about it.

-dave

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Sorry Kit, but you are flat out wrong. The requirement to use the new battery supplied in the Kit Of Parts (and for that matter, any other component from the KOP) has absolutely NOTHING to do with an effort to create business for a specific supplier. It has everything to do with guaranteeing that the field is as fair as possible to all teams.

The fact that the MK-12 batteries and the previously available Exide batteries can both turn over a motorcycle engine is interesting, but totally irrelevant. It takes about 90 seconds of research to determine that the batteries are NOT the same. Their characteristics, charge rates, and - most importantly - discharge rates are different. And those differences have significant implications for robot performance in a competition application such as FIRST. To ensure that the performance of the power system used in the competition is predictable and consistent for all teams, FIRST has to require that every team use the same make and model of battery.

So next time, before anyone accuses FIRST of being in the pocket of the sponsoring corporations, they might spend a minute and a half to actually apply some of that critical analytical ability that we are supposed to be demonstrating as educated engineers, and think objectively about the rationale that might be used for the various decisions that are made regarding the competition, Kit Of Parts, and robot requirements. You might find that it is not really due to some nefarious financial plot on the part of the people that are supporting this program, but that there is actually an understandable, logical reason that is obvious once you think about it.

-dave

Sorry about my accusations, Dave. I agree that FIRST is very conscientious in its decisions about robot specs and all other aspects of the competition design. I still feel that Exide, MK-12, Yuasa, or any other "name brand" battery of the type we use would perform comparably for our purposes. The most likely exception would be weight. There might be slight variations of internal resistance in the batteries, but that would be the case between different samples of the same brand. Given that we could get two or three "good" matches from a fully charged battery if we wanted to chance it, I think it's safe to assume that any brand of non-defective battery of the style we use would perform well for one match.

Again, I apologize to anyone I may have offended and promise not to do it again.

[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.

[dlavery]

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

[Kit Gerhart]

Imagine that we were allowed to use any lead-acid battery of the "size group" that we are now using and FIRST would simply find the cheapest place to buy two per kit, and include them in the kit. IMHO, this is what would probably happen.

A few teams would buy some batteries from various manufacturers including Exide, Yuasa, Varta, MK-12, or whoever else they could find, and do performance tests on them. They might, for example, measure voltage after 5 seconds into a 0.1 ohm load, voltage after 2 minutes into a 0.5 ohm load, or other electrical tests. They would probably find that they'd need several samples of each battery to come up with statistically significant results, and even then, results might be inconclusive. Still, a few teams with the resources might do it. Then, being gracious professionals that FIRSTers are, they would publish the results of their tests in the Chief Delphi White Pages. They would also list the weights of the batteries, for those who care.

Then armed with these test results provided by gracious professionals from other teams, most teams would still buy their extra batteries for practice and competition from whatever source they could find that was cheapest and/or most convenient. If, and it's a big "if" it turned out that one brand of battery was significantly better for "keeping the voltage up" when you have four stalled CIM motors, the more serious teams would go for the better batteries.

[GNH2000]

Exide stopped donating batteries.

[Paul Copioli]

Dave and GNH200 (whoever that is),

But why the rule exluding the purchase of the Exide (or Yuasa battery)? You can say fairness, but that is a pretty weak argument since everyone can purchase those batteries.

Please do not even touch the "small teams can't afford it". They can afford to travel to a regional, they can afford the $7,000 entry fee. The extra $50 to buy two batteries is noise.

-PAul

[RoboMom]

[quote=Paul Copioli;

Please do not even touch the "small teams can't afford it". They can afford to travel to a regional, they can afford the $7,000 entry fee. The extra $50 to buy two batteries is noise.

-PAul[/QUOTE]

>>off topic<<<Maybe. Maybe not. Registration remained at $6,000 this year for the first regional. Just a gentle reminder that there are many teams with a budget in the $8,000-9,000 range. They are dealing with the cards they were dealt. "Travel to the regional" involves being driven in private car/or a long public bus ride. No hotels. Bring your own bag lunch.

I'll be interested to see the creative recycling and reuse options developed by the teams that have the potential to turn into much bigger community service projects.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Dave and GNH200 (whoever that is),

But why the rule exluding the purchase of the Exide (or Yuasa battery)? You can say fairness, but that is a pretty weak argument since everyone can purchase those batteries.

Please do not even touch the "small teams can't afford it". They can afford to travel to a regional, they can afford the $7,000 entry fee. The extra $50 to buy two batteries is noise.

-PAul

That's a double edged sword you're swingin' there. The existing teams can also afford to buy a couple new MK batteries, etc.