How to prevent broken ethernet port on DS

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I wonder if anyone would take issue with combining something like this and something like this such that you'd NEVER have to remove the cable from your DS at a competition....

Nice FIX, Travis. I think the more you can prevent the cable coming in and out the better. Great idea.

[pitzoid]

For people having issues with blowing out and breaking RJ45 ports when tethered to the bot, this might help along with some of the other things being talked about here

Surge Protection

We were considering putting them on the field when the DS issues started, but they don't help the EMP events, the DSes still reset.... But it will help with tethered bots.....

[Peter Randall]

We configured a short extension for our ethernet ports after blowing one in Trenton in week one. We were asked to disconnect them from our DS when we were in competition last weekend in Pittsburgh. The rules clearly say nothing between DS and Field System. We blew another port and had to rely on a borrowed DS to compete. Not happy with the DS.

PGR

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by pitzoid

For people having issues with blowing out and breaking RJ45 ports when tethered to the bot, this might help along with some of the other things being talked about here

Surge Protection

We were considering putting them on the field when the DS issues started, but they don't help the EMP events, the DSes still reset.... But it will help with tethered bots.....

Just placed an order for one at Newegg.com we'll try it out at Boilermaker and see how it works. Thanks for the tips!

[Travis Hoffman]

I've just been reminded that my earlier suggestion comes in a unified product called a "port saver". I should have recalled this, as I purchased a very similar crossover adapter from this site a while back.

[pitzoid]

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

Just placed an order for one at Newegg.com we'll try it out at Boilermaker and see how it works. Thanks for the tips!

Don't take it out to the official field, but I'm sure it'll help in the pits and on the practice field.

We ran a bunch of testing on the fields having to do with if the ethernet connection from the SCCE (field end FMS cabinet) to the DS was causing issues and it wasn't that (besides the physical breakage you guys are seeing). They don't allow you to have anything between the DS and the SCCE because they don't want you injecting anything besides the DS to cRio comm string in the system.

I don't like the DSes either (had nothing to do with its development....), we've been asked to work on a solution for it though.

[Travis Hoffman]

I have it on good authority that FIRST has been petitioned to permit passive "port saver" devices. One hopes a response either way would be forthcoming prior to next week's regionals.

Requiring the port saver to be removed before coming to the field would yield no benefits over the current "plug the DS into a switch in our pit" methods (other than being cheaper than a $20 switch). Presuming you tether for a function check before each match (if you don't, you should!), you would still have to initiate one engage/disengage cycle at DS Ethernet Port 1 in the pit and one at the alliance station for each match.

I feel the benefits of an "installed all the time" port saver far outweigh the costs. I would suggest FIRST allow any teams wishing to use these devices to do so on Thursday at Week 4 regionals and let FTA's and such determine if there are any adverse effects on comms (I doubt it). If no ill effects are observed, then I feel teams should be permitted to use these devices on Friday/Saturday.

Finally, I might still elect to use the 1 ft. Ethernet cable to female/female adapter solution instead of the port saver adapter installed right at the DS ETH1 port - the cabled solution would further minimize the risk of unintentional forces being transmitted to the reportedly weak circuit board connections of the DS ports relative to a rigid "port saver" that someone might still jiggle a bit in connecting/disconnecting cables.

Next question - would such devices also be legal for installation at the cRIO ethernet port 1? I'm sure that port is much more "ruggedized" than the DS ports, but it would still be nice to have the option of protecting our $750, forced-to-reuse-over-multiple-seasons investment.

[Chris_Elston]

Well Bob has a point though, use it in the pits even if it's not permitted at on the field, that just furthers the life and wear and tear in the pits and only a few in and out clicks at the field. ***what maybe 11-15 matches?*** So until the rules changes, we won't use the "port saver" device AKA 1 foot extension or the Triplit surge at the field, but we'll use it in the pits while we are tethered just to try and be safe and careful with the port as long as we can. It's a first time product, "they" who ever that is, did a good job designing it for the first time. Maybe next years revision will have some improvements or suggestions from everyone would be great.

[EricVanWyk]

"They" is KwikByte

As Bob said, the rule is there for a good reason. However, that reason is not valid for these sort of 'port saver' parts - they do nothing to the traffic, and can not change it nor read it. Perhaps it is worth a Q&A to ask for an exception.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

At least temporarily the rule is
<R85> During competition MATCHES, the competition cable at the Alliance Station must connect
directly to the competition port on the Driver Station. The competition Ethernet cable must
connect directly to an Ethernet port on the Driver Station. No intermediate connectors,
cables, or “pigtails” are permitted. Only the Driver Station may connect to the competition
cables – no direct connection of team-provided portable computers, PDAs, or alternate
devices is permitted

Emphasis is mine. If the GDC were to ask me, I would respond that it is better to save the DS with a short pigtail with suitable strain relief than to see the rampant failure of the port connectors that many teams have thus far experienced. I would rather add this jumper than to have a team not compete due to a component failure that could have been avoided.

[adman]

Originally Posted by Chris_Elston

Well Bob has a point though, use it in the pits even if it's not permitted at on the field, that just furthers the life and wear and tear in the pits and only a few in and out clicks at the field. ***what maybe 11-15 matches?*** So until the rules changes, we won't use the "port saver" device AKA 1 foot extension or the Triplit surge at the field, but we'll use it in the pits while we are tethered just to try and be safe and careful with the port as long as we can. It's a first time product, "they" who ever that is, did a good job designing it for the first time. Maybe next years revision will have some improvements or suggestions from everyone would be great.

Al, Chris

If the teams use the "pigtail" 1 foot extension with one of those 1 x 1 adhesive backed wire tie attachers on their driverstation it would be obvious to the casual observer that no malicious intent "other than staying in
a working condition" would be the purpose. I hope GDC lets go on this one
so the teams have a fix for such a high stress point wear area .

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

"They" is KwikByte

As Bob said, the rule is there for a good reason. However, that reason is not valid for these sort of 'port saver' parts - they do nothing to the traffic, and can not change it nor read it. Perhaps it is worth a Q&A to ask for an exception.

I submitted one.

[heydowns]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

"They" is KwikByte

As Bob said, the rule is there for a good reason. However, that reason is not valid for these sort of 'port saver' parts - they do nothing to the traffic, and can not change it nor read it. Perhaps it is worth a Q&A to ask for an exception.

The other reason often cited for this rule (with fairly good reason) is that intermediate connections make it harder for field personnel to diagnose any DS<>Robot link issues.
However, if an exception were allowed for passive devices/pigtails and those devices/pigtails were visible and easily removed, I don't think there would be a huge issue with this either.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by heydowns

However, if an exception were allowed for passive devices/pigtails and those devices/pigtails were visible and easily removed, I don't think there would be a huge issue with this either.

Agreed,
I would think that the GDC might rule as they have in the past, this little addition could be legally made but any failure related to connection issues would lie solely with the team not the FMS.

[Andy Brockway]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Agreed,
I would think that the GDC might rule as they have in the past, this little addition could be legally made but any failure related to connection issues would lie solely with the team not the FMS.

Al called it! See update 18.

http://usfirst.org/community/frc/content.aspx?id=450