2007 Kit

[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.

[dlavery]

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

I don't see any rule that prohibits anyone from purchasing Exide, or Yuasa, or any other battery. FIRST has said nothing that would prevent you from buying all of them that you want.

The only thing that they have said is that for the official competitions, you can only USE the approved make and model of battery that is supplied in the Kit Of Parts. This is precisely analogous to what they specify for the motors used in the competition - you can use only the approved make and model of motor, in the quantities specified, on your robot during the competitions. You can purchase all you want for development and as spares. You can do anything you want for prototyping. But you can't use any alternate motors on the robot during competition. If the motor in this year's kit is different than the motor in last year's kit, you can't use last year's motor. The batteries are being handled in exactly the same way.

And for those that are whining "but I bought a whole bunch of extra batteries last year and want to use them again" I will just point out once again that FIRST and many others have repeatedly cautioned against purchasing anything in advance of the kickoff in anticipation of using it on the 2007 robots. Messages like the one below have been repeated here and elsewhere many, many times. If you chose to ignore that advice, you do so at your own peril.

Let me just take this opportunity to repeat an earlier comment. I would strongly recommend that teams do not go out on any big spending sprees, purchasing lots of mechanisms, stockpiling stuff in anticipation of some expected use in their 2007 robots. Wait until after kick-off and until you know the challenge, constraints, and limitations that may be included in the rules. Teams do not yet know what may be included in the 2007 rules that may constrain sources for additional (non-KOP) parts, limit purchased components to a given level of complexity, restrict the cost or size of additional elements, proscribe the permissibility of pre-ordering parts and components, or define the timing under which materials for the competition robots may be purchased. It would be a shame if a team were to commit a significant portion of a limited budget on a component pre-ordered before the 2007 kick-off, only to find once they read the rules that the component was not permitted in the 2007 FRC competition.

Just a word to the wise...

-dave

[Sean Schuff]

I don't know all the technical specifications of these batteries but I'm betting that the collective brainpower of FIRST mentors on this forum will come to logical conclusions regarding their compatability. For us it breaks down like this. A team gets two batteries in the kit and maybe buys two more during the build so they have enough to make it safely through a day of competitions. After three or four years they have built up an inventory of 12 - 16 batteries, maybe a few less if they just accept the two batteries in the kit each year. Hypothetically, let us say the team develops a sophisticated charging station that can accomodate maybe 15 batteries. The team is by no means in financial peril but is stretching it's budget to impact as many kids as they can. They are working on the assumption that FIRST will use the same batteries and they won't need to make a significant investment in new batteries but will be able to recondition and reuse old batteries. Maybe they will even provide them for use to rookie teams at the comps who may have thought that two batteries was enough. (I'm no engineer but my guess is it is better to have more than two batteries at a competition.) Now with the current state of affairs the team is faced with the "do we just use the two batteries we got in the kit and waste the rest of the room in the shiny new charging rack or do we buy a batch of the new batteries and run the risk that FIRST will change again next year?" question.

My guess is the bottom line in all of this is that some teams (ours included) have invested in what we thought would be a consistent component from year to year and now we're faced with the dilemma of "to replace or not to replace". Dave - I understand your comments regarding "don't assume that kit parts won't change" but it would be nice to have some input. Perhaps FIRST could have alerted teams to an impending change and allowed veteran teams to "opt out" of getting new batteries so a smaller donation of them could go towards the rookie and newer teams. I can speak for our team that it is nice to get fresh batteries each year but we've got enough of them from previous years that we could do without if it meant a newer/rookie team got them as long as the battery remained consistent.

For us it boils down to the question of "can we afford to replace our old batteries?" and "do we want to run the risk of getting burned again?" My guess is our fancy new, high-tech, one-of-a-kind, state-of-the-art charging station will be underutilized this year. Anyone want to rent space in it?

I want to believe that FIRST isn't bowing down to suppliers and I'll take Dave's word for it but it would have been nice to have had a heads up.

Sean

[chris31]

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

There are teams, like ours, who have a very small budget. We paid $6000 for entry and have some money for parts but not alow. We go to a local regional that we plan to drive an hour to each day to save money. So yes, there are teams who dont have alot of money.

If any veteran team has old Exide batteries we will surely take them off your hands.

-chris

[Steve W]

I am afraid that I have to agree with Dave on the battery issue. Batteries are a vital part of the robot. The ability to even the field is really important in some areas. This is no different than changing the Fisher Price motors or limiting the pneumatics. I know that our team only counts on batteries for 2 years and then they go to practice only status.

Teams have in the past planned on using the drill motors and they disappeared. the fact is we lost a sponsor or costs went too high. I remember reading of people complaining the the cost of regionals was too high yet when FIRST tries to be careful, everyone is complaining. What is it that we are asking for?

[Sidney San Martín]

Sorry to butt in (though, then again, this is the general kit thread...), but has anyone figured out that indicator lamp? The wiring diagram's up, but still no visible sign of purpose.

[synth3tk]

Hey, our team was wondering if there were any specifics as to how the battery is supposed to be placed. E.G. whether or not it is allowed to be positioned sideways or not.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by blakcheez

Hey, our team was wondering if there were any specifics as to how the battery is supposed to be placed. E.G. whether or not it is allowed to be positioned sideways or not.

Unless guidelines have changed, which is unlikely, the battery can be placed on its side or edge in the robot, but should be charged in the upright position.

[Alekat]

I found that suction cup pretty powerful, but it requires just a little pressure to get its seal started, and you have to get it on a smooth surface (not the edge of the tube). It will certainly lift the tube well and even survive some quick jolts, but notice you can't use it to rotate the tube vertically. So unless I'm missing something you can't tip a tube up from the ground using the suction cup

If only someone could make a mechanism that mimics that motion people make with their foot to tip the ringers vertically...