2004 Electrical Component Rule Rationale

[phrontist]

Does anyone know what the rationale behind the follow rule was? Would anyone care to speculate on whether we'll see it's return?

<R71>Additional electronic components for use on the robot must be currently available from or equivalent to those available from Newark InONe (http://www.newarkinone.com), Future Active (http://future-active.com), Radio SHack (http://www.radioshack.com) or Digi-key Corporation (http://www.digikey.com). Additional electronic components include any object that conducts electricity other than IFI relays and voltage controllers, wires, connectors and solder. The total catalogue value of additional electronic components must not exceed $300.00 USD. This cost is counted as part of the $3,500 limit. No single electronic component shall have a catalogue value of over $100.00 USD.

[Nick Fury]

They are suggesting some places to buy parts. Then they tell you that you can't spend more than $300 total and more than $100 on any one part. I don't see what is so wrong with the rule personally. What exactly is the question you are posing?

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

They are suggesting some places to buy parts. Then they tell you that you can't spend more than $300 total and more than $100 on any one part. I don't see what is so wrong with the rule personally. What exactly is the question you are posing?

If a component is not offered by one of those vendors, it is not allowed.

[sanddrag]

It is so a team cannot go out and buy a "Flux Capacitor" and have a huge advantage.

EDIT: I actaully like the 2004 rule because it has the "or equivalent to those available from" part that was not inlcuded in the 2003 rule.

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

It is so a team cannot go out and buy a "Flux Capacitor" and have a huge advantage.

EDIT: I actaully like the 2004 rule because it has the "or equivalent to those available from" part that was not inlcuded in the 2003 rule.

Right, I understand they don't want teams gaining an advantage by purchasing magical parts, but that's what the cost limit is for! If the cost limit is enough to ensure equality as far as mechanical components go, why isn't it enough for electrical components?!

Therefore the "unfair advantage" arguement doesn't make sense, as it's internally inconsistent with other FIRST rules.

UPDATE:
If these companies have generously supported FIRST, and this is FIRST's way of returning the favor, I see no problem with it. I just wish I knew why specifically we've been restricted to certain arbitrary component suppliers.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by phrontist

I just wish I knew why specifically we've been restricted to certain arbitrary component suppliers.

We haven't been restricted to those suppliers, just the components they sell. And as for the "magic components," the cost limit might not take care of that. Sometimes these "magic components" are not expensive, just hard to find or available only in limited quanities.

[Specialagentjim]

Originally Posted by phrontist

Right, I understand they don't want teams gaining an advantage by purchasing magical parts, but that's what the cost limit is for! If the cost limit is enough to ensure equality as far as mechanical components go, why isn't it enough for electrical components?!

Therefore the "unfair advantage" arguement doesn't make sense, as it's internally inconsistent with other FIRST rules.

UPDATE:
If these companies have generously supported FIRST, and this is FIRST's way of returning the favor, I see no problem with it. I just wish I knew why specifically we've been restricted to certain arbitrary component suppliers.

Just about anything tangible to be used on a robot can be found from these vendors. FIRST does not want you buying the "Magical Robot Control System with super duper sensors built in an all-in-one black box" electrical system from a vendor that no one else would have access to. If you want to build a decent control system, you have to do it piece by piece and maybe (the horror) have the students learn something.

...or so my thoughts go

[Nick Fury]

Originally Posted by phrontist

If a component is not offered by one of those vendors, it is not allowed.

The rule says, and I am quoting:

"or equivalent to those available"

This means you *do not* have to buy from those vendors but instead you have to buy parts that those vendors also carry. This is to keep it so that parts are readily available to other teams. It's not that big of a deal at all really.

If you can find parts that are not available through one of those vendors and can point me to them then I will begin to see the reason for getting rid of the rule but I can't think of anything that isn't available on digi-key or through hack shacks corporate part supplier end.

[Max Lobovsky]

There are thousands of niche ICs not sold through one of those suppliers that could be (extremely) useful to teams. Many of these are available online and available to anyone.

[Gdeaver]

Both Newark and Digi-key will special order parts that they do not stock if they are from one of their first tier vendors. The lead time may not be good for our build time window and they may have minimum order amounts. Newark will special order a PNI digital compass. It's not in their catalog. Is it allowed? Can I buy it direct from PNI ?

[phrontist]

The rule should mandate "electrical equivalence" for saftey reasons, but otherwise it's unessicarily restricting innovation.

[Max Lobovsky]

I think the real reason for this rule is the same as the reason for the maximum single electrical part cost. FIRST does not want teams putting a small PC or other powerful computer on the robot as it would drastically change the playing field.

Regardless, I think FIRST should just use the price limit and not restrict manufacturers as Phrontist said.

[Rickertsen2]

I personally think this rule is unnecessary and overly restrictive. I have run into problems with this rule several times. The selection of sensors from the approved vendors is rather limited. I think a better rule would be one that limits the max price per part, and states that the part must be available to all teams.

[Nick Fury]

Originally Posted by Rickertsen2

I personally think this rule is unnecessary and overly restrictive. I have run into problems with this rule several times. The selection of sensors from the approved vendors is rather limited. I think a better rule would be one that limits the max price per part, and states that the part must be available to all teams.

Out of curiosity, what parts? I mean, I can't think of much that you can't procure through digi-key or hack shack's corporate end. True, specialty IC's but you don't need to build a computer on the 'bot.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I can answer this one.
Way back when, you could do just about anything on mechanical but you were highly restricted on electrical. Those of us electrical types petitioned FIRST, through the feedback process, to give a little more leeway in electrical design by allowing more vendors. The current list is a progression of that request and further year's changes. By limiting the number of vendors, all teams are somewhat restricted to using the same components that are readily available to everyone. Inspectors are more able to make rational decisions when they see components that are available from a small list of vendors. Any questions as to availability can be easily answered on line or by phone. Everyone benefits! Add to this list, parts that are available through regular suppliers, i.e. McMaster-Carr and you have a lot of electrical stuff at your fingertips.