New CRIO in the KOP next year?

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Don't quote me but it seems I heard a rumor that NI was working on a stripped down (less $$$) version for the future. I would really like to see some imbedded analog and digital modules if some enterprising company would like a project. I don't have anything against the current hardware, just would like to miniaturize and simplify the hardware for rookies.

They actually had a much cost reduced version on display at the booth so it isn't a rumor.

[oddjob]

Originally Posted by ebarker

They actually had a much cost reduced version on display at the booth so it isn't a rumor.

If it's a lot smaller and lighter, that's a big advantage. The cRIO is a boat anchor and not well suited to a size and weight limited robot where inches and ounces are precious.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by oddjob

If it's a lot smaller and lighter, that's a big advantage. The cRIO is a boat anchor and not well suited to a size and weight limited robot where inches and ounces are precious.

I have trouble considering it to be a boat anchor...I have too much old tube gear laying around

The cRio does have an interesting design, not quite how I would do it, but it takes up far less real estate on our electronics board than the power distribution and speed controllers do, as usual. We took the time to figure out how to mount the cRio down low, with the connections easily accessible, and it really wasn't a size/weight issue at all.

[Greg McKaskle]

Originally Posted by squirrel

I have trouble considering it to be a boat anchor...I have too much old tube gear laying around

The cRio does have an interesting design, not quite how I would do it, but it takes up far less real estate on our electronics board than the power distribution and speed controllers do, as usual. We took the time to figure out how to mount the cRio down low, with the connections easily accessible, and it really wasn't a size/weight issue at all.

Glad to hear someone has a normal boat that can't be held in place by 929 grams.

Anyway, to explain what was in the NI booth, we actually had three generations of the cRIO. The drop test was the original generation of modular system. It consists of a cpu module, a backplane module, and the I/O modules. The backplane has the FPGA and comes in four and eight slot sizes. This rectangular packaging allowed the controller to fly to around 4000 ft in a rocket -- slides into the tube like a loaf of bread along with the battery.

The FRC cRIO is called the integrated unit. It is lower weight and lower cost because the cpu and backplane are integrated into one PCB. It wasn't officially released when discussions about its use began.

The third generation on demo is often referred to as the single board RIO. It has the module connectors on the edges to flatten the product from a loaf of bread into a pizza, and in fact doesn't come with a housing since it is designed to be integrated into a cabinet on large machinery, etc. This product was also under development when discussions began, but wouldn't be released early enough, doesn't have an enclosure, etc.

Greg McKaskle

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by oddjob

If it's a lot smaller and lighter, that's a big advantage. The cRIO is a boat anchor and not well suited to a size and weight limited robot where inches and ounces are precious.

It is a fraction of the weight of the cRIO

[Foster]

We also face the need to take demo robots out on tour, and it is a shame to have $3K street value of electronics sitting idle for most of the year or from year to year.

The cRIO does not lend to quick mount/dismount from one robot to the next. (OTOH, I'd love to see your quick change design on your robot). The daughter boards make it a little easier to reuse the modules. But I was (and still) am surprised about how kludgey the new system is to wire.

I'd love to give high marks to the Power Distribution system. The spring loaded connections are nice, we did not have a failure all year. Which is good, because it's a real pain to need 6" of clearance around the board to get a screwdriver and a hand into the space to be able to maniuplate the connector. (Why yes, I'd love to see your custom Z bent tool you came up with)

[ChrisMix]

I would think that it is going to include a new one, however after hearing how much NI had to donate to incorporate them into last year's kit, I don't know how long they could keep it up. Although, I don't know how much of the MSRP is already a hefty markup.

[EricVanWyk]

Originally Posted by Foster

I'd love to give high marks to the Power Distribution system. The spring loaded connections are nice, we did not have a failure all year. Which is good, because it's a real pain to need 6" of clearance around the board to get a screwdriver and a hand into the space to be able to maniuplate the connector. (Why yes, I'd love to see your custom Z bent tool you came up with)

Here you go: http://www.wago.us/products/2453.htm

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Foster

The cRIO does not lend to quick mount/dismount from one robot to the next...

No? Two bolts. One power connector with two small screws. One standard RJ45 network connector. Two to six snap-in modules. Seems pretty quick to me.

Or you could go all out like we did this year, and make the entire electronics subsystem a self-contained box. A pair of anderson powerpole connectors for each motor, a DB-25 for connection to sensors and the signal light, and four mounting holes. (The battery does need to be mounted outside the box.) Our second control system, built to the same design, was occasionally connected to the competition robot's sensors using a DB-25 extension cable for program testing.

I'd love to give high marks to the Power Distribution system. The spring loaded connections are nice, we did not have a failure all year. Which is good, because it's a real pain to need 6" of clearance around the board to get a screwdriver and a hand into the space to be able to maniuplate the connector. (Why yes, I'd love to see your custom Z bent tool you came up with)

We mounted our Power Distribution on several-inch-high standoffs to get it up where the supplied Wago tool could be used without running into other components. The space underneath ended up being a convenient spot for the accelerometer and yaw rate sensor boards.

[Speeder]

Basically, the KOP has remained consistent from year to year. The elimination of a Control System would be a substantial deviation from the 'norm'.

Until this past weekend, we hadn't given it a second thought about not being supplied another Control System next year. After hearing about the large contribution NI has made to provide these components and software to the teams, a duplication of this KOP item may not be included each year.

Being this system is going to be used in the coming years, our Team will definitely want to have at least (1) additional complete system for spare and testing. If we're not going to receive another within the 2010 KOP, we'll re-allocate some funds to purchase another soon. But, by no means, can we justify doing this if it the system will be supplied in the 2010 KOP.

Anyone know who the FIRST contact would be on this issue? Please send a link to this thread so our concerns can be noted.

[Nate Smith]

Based on this post on Bill's Blog about reusing components from the new control system, it appears that there are plans to reuse the cRIO and some other components from year to year. I remember seeing somewhere later about a plan for every other year to get a new cRIO, but that may have been someone's idea and not an official announcement.

That being said, there have been the DS issues this year that are getting teams a new DS for next season. What effect this will have on the rest of the system being used remains to be seen...

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

If leaving the cRio out of the KoP allows FIRST to reduce entry fees by $750 (the discounted price of a replacement cRio) then teams would have the option to either pay $6,000 and get a new cRio, or pay $5,250 and re-use their old one.

If FIRST makes replacing the entire control system optional, then entry fees, perhaps could be reduced by even more than the $750 discounted cost of the cRio...

Originally Posted by Cory

That would be awesome...But what are the odds of FIRST actually charging us less when we receive a lesser product, instead of just continuing to charge us the full cost for less?

Well, if I was a gambling man I would bet a HEFTY sum that we will NOT get another cRIO next year, AND that the registration/kit "price" will also NOT be reduced ...

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

Im with you whole heartedly on this Cory. We purchased a complete system at the beginning of this season so that we can always have 2 robots up and running. Now if FIRST does not include a control system next year in the KOP, the entry fee better be reduced. I along with, I believe, many people are already slightly leary about the finances of FIRST and this would just solidify things in my mind. From what Dean said, NI donated all of the systems so I don't see what we would be paying for next season if we dont get another system...

I wholeheartedly agree on the questionable FIRST finances concern. I think there needs to be much more DETAILED transparency (or maybe I just need to do a bit more research).

And, if the fact that the original KOP cRIOs were 100% donated should make a difference in next years team fees, then why were the fees not reduced this year??

[MrForbes]

I've had it in the back of my mind all season that we would not get a new cRio next year.

As to the KoP price vs. what's in it....I've never been bothered by the robot parts cost, it's relatively trivial compared to what we spend on travel. Yes, I'm involved in fundraising for the team.

[heydowns]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

And, if the fact that the original KOP cRIOs were 100% donated should make a difference in next years team fees, then why were the fees not reduced this year??

That was my thought exactly when this was mentioned during the speeches in Atlanta.... I was kind of shocked to hear that. Though, I suppose it is possible that the "cushion" provided by the donation may have simply allowed FIRST to absorb other increases and keep entry fees fixed. As an outsider, it is really hard to say - everything is simply speculation.

A significant barrier to team entry and continuation is the cost of the program. If teams could realize an optional cost reduction in exchange for reuse of some of the more durable parts, I would be all for that.

Personally, I would like to see the cRIO and its IO modules reused year-to-year (with option to replace at FIRST discounted prices, as NI currently offers), but be issued new PD, sidecars, bumpers, etc.
The connections made at the IO modules to the bumpers/sidecars are quick and easy to change out and would make moving the cRIO between robots easy.

I like this approach not only for cost reasons, but for "green" reasons.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

Well, if I was a gambling man I would bet a HEFTY sum that we will NOT get another cRIO next year, AND that the registration/kit "price" will also NOT be reduced ...

Based on my conversations with many folks during the season, there is a very large and (temporarily?) quiet component of the full FIRST community that has exactly the same concern. If this is indeed ever revealed to be the plan, I hope that EVERYONE impacted by such a decision will let the FIRST Board Of Directors know loudly and clearly what they think. **

Originally Posted by Stu Bloom

And, if the fact that the original KOP cRIOs were 100% donated should make a difference in next years team fees, then why were the fees not reduced this year??

Although the cRIO may have been donated, the rest of the new control system wasn't. We still had to pay for all the other parts, such as the speed controllers, power distribution boards, digital sidecars, breakout boards, cameras, routers, drivers stations, etc.). And for all those components that were custom-designed for the FRC competition, there was the cost of the development and production set-up for those items. Only a portion of the development costs were donated by the suppliers - the remainder had to be recovered from our registration fees.

-dave

** Because it will be the Board, not the FIRST staff, that will make this decision. Right now, the Board is seriously disconnected from the teams in FIRST. They don't understand how "small" costs like these really impact this community. There is little direct, personal understanding of the impact of their decisions on the teams. During the recent combined Board Of Directors / Executive Advisory Board meeting in Atlanta, the question was asked "how many of you work directly with a team and have experience as a mentor?" Out of the entire room of people, only one hand went up. I think that is a huge problem.



.