Ready to Optimize Your Maintenance? 🚀 Try It Free
For 30 years, I have been a dedicated supporter and integrator of Rockwell products. While I have encountered some quirks along the way, my recent experience with commissioning 30 Kinetix 5700 axes for a startup has been challenging. Two 2198-P141 bus converters failed to boot, with a manufacturer defect involving cured urethane on the 24DC controller supply pins. Additionally, 5 out of 18 2198-H2DCK Hiperface to DSL converters were faulty out of the box due to voltage differentials, which were resolved by switching to universal bus connectors. Other issues included a malfunctioning 2198-D012-ERS3 and a problematic MPL-B230p motor that would trigger a thermal fault upon activation. Despite enjoying startup challenges, these obstacles with Rockwell products have been frustrating. I expect better quality from new equipment.
The transition to automated equipment is a challenging process that many are facing. With each upgrade and migration, there is a noticeable improvement in usability but a potential decline in quality. Personally, I have found myself replacing numerous 525 power modules within a short period of time. Despite facing booting issues with the 40p, I have never had to deal with PWM failure. While individual experiences may vary, it is important to address potential equipment failures proactively.
I am frustrated by the lack of consideration in the product design regarding ease of migration. It is inconvenient to have to drill new holes for a PowerFlex 753 when the mounting plate could have been designed with the same spacing as a 70 model. The similarities are so close, yet make a significant difference in installation. This issue is also present with panel views, requiring the purchase of adapter plates or enclosure modifications.
Patrickmoneyy expressed dissatisfaction with the product design's lack of consideration for easy migration. Why should one have to drill new holes for a powerflex 753 when the mounting plate could have been designed with the standard spacing at 70? The same frustration is felt with panel views, requiring adapter plates or enclosure modifications. While Rockwell's lack of backward compatibility is a concern, this issue is not unique to them. It is a common frustration in various industries, seen even in DIY projects at home where fittings and fixtures never seem to align perfectly. This drives users to seek alternative VFD suppliers for a hassle-free experience and cost-effective solutions.
While Rockwell is a well-established company with strong capabilities in various aspects of user experience, the issue of powerflex mounting holes stands out as a significant concern. This particular issue appears to be easily preventable, which can be frustrating for users.
Patrickmoneyy mentioned that while Rockwell is a large company excelling in various areas of user experience, the lack of powerflex mounting holes is a significant issue. This oversight could potentially lead to a loss for Rockwell as customers may opt for a cheaper VFD due to the inconvenience of having to create new holes. This shortsightedness is a common problem across industries, attributed to a lack of experience and exposure. Designers often overlook maintenance issues, resulting in beautifully crafted machines that are difficult to maintain.
I feel your pain, mate. I've been working with Rockwell products for the better part of two decades now and I've seen my fair share of these hiccup-style issues. It seems like quality control should've caught these problems on the factory floor before they got to us! However, in my experience, despite these frustrating setbacks, Rockwell's customer service and troubleshooting resources have been invaluable in resolving such issues. And let's be honest, no product line is perfect - it's all about how the company supports you when issues pop up. But I agree - for new equipment, we should never be facing these many issues. Perhaps it's an indication of the need for better in-house testing?
I empathize with your frustration. As an integrator, those unexpected defects can certainly throw a wrench in the smooth operation of startup commissioning. Rockwell typically delivers reliable products, so your experience is surprising and disappointing. The throughput and quality control in manufacturing should definitely be better. Have you reached out to their technical support or requested replacements? Hopefully, they can provide effectively solutions, as well as take this feedback to prevent such quality issues in future.
I completely understand your frustrations. As a fellow user of Rockwell products, I've had my fair share of product glitches too. It's fairly disappointing, especially when you expect top-notch quality after investing a hefty amount into seamless, new equipment. Have you tried corresponding directly with Rockwell about these defects? It's essential to provide them with such feedback for improvements. Could there have been issues during transportation causing these problems, or perhaps an oversights during manufacturing? It'd seem Rockwell needs to tighten up its quality control. Also, consider reaching out to other integrators about their experiences. This might help identify whether it's an isolated issue or if it's more widespread. Hang in there, startup challenges can be tough but they also provide avenues for growth and learning.
Issues in manufacturing and design can significantly impact end user costs. These issues include lack of experience, cutting back on specifications to save costs, intentional design choices that may make repairs difficult and lead to replacements instead, and the constant evolution of hardware and software which can limit backward compatibility. For example, in the UK, houses built in the 60's and 70's often featured picture windows from top to bottom of the ground level. Despite buyers not liking this design and the need for modifications to increase living space, some designers continued using it until the late 80's. As a builder's son, I know that there was no cost saving in these windows, yet they were still used. This highlights how certain design choices can impact the overall value of a property without necessarily saving on material and labor costs.
It is puzzling to me why Rockwell continues to maintain its status as a leading company in the industry. While I can understand how they initially achieved this status, it is unclear to me why they still hold this position today. It appears that their success is primarily due to lingering brand loyalty. Personally, I prefer using Automation Direct whenever possible due to their superior business model. Automation Direct offers more cost-effective solutions compared to Rockwell, who is known for their higher prices. Additionally, Rockwell's ordering process is lengthier as it requires going through a distributor, who may not always provide efficient service. On the other hand, Automation Direct provides instant pricing and fast shipping, allowing for a smoother procurement process. In terms of software, Rockwell's pricing is exorbitant while Automation Direct offers their software for free. Over the years, Automation Direct has improved their hardware quality while Rockwell's quality has declined. The customer support provided by both companies is top-notch, with Rockwell offering paid support and Automation Direct offering free support. One area where Rockwell excels is their documentation, although some of Automation Direct's documentation may be lacking. However, in order to uphold a reputation as the best in the industry, a company must consistently deliver on that promise. It is evident that Rockwell falls short in this regard. Despite clients insisting on using Rockwell products, I find it hard to justify the higher cost, longer lead times, and potentially lower quality. Ultimately, customer satisfaction should be the top priority, even if it means choosing a different supplier.
Strantor expressed confusion over Rockwell's continued dominance in the industry, suggesting that their success is primarily due to long-standing brand loyalty. Personally, they prefer using Automation Direct due to its superior business model and more affordable pricing. Automation Direct offers instant pricing and fast shipping, unlike Rockwell, which requires going through distributors with slower response times. While Rockwell may excel in documentation, Automation Direct surpasses them in terms of software pricing and hardware quality. Despite Rockwell's top-notch tech support, which comes at a cost, Automation Direct provides excellent free support. Overall, Strantor believes that Rockwell falls short in delivering the best value for customers, particularly when compared to Automation Direct. However, they do acknowledge Rockwell's dedicated tech support team, particularly during regular business hours.
Robertmee commended Rockwell's exceptional technical support team, particularly the 7-5pm group composed of engineers involved in the design and creation of tech notes. I have always been impressed by their ability to solve any issue through discussion. This skill of troubleshooting vicariously through others requires more than just technical knowledge. It is incredible to speak to an engineer who was part of designing the product I am inquiring about. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to Rockwell's top-notch support due to not having a TechConnect contract. This is why I rely heavily on their documentation for assistance.
In industries like automotive and powertrain, it is crucial for small manufacturers to offer safety controllers, PLCs, and safety I/O. Systems such as Guardlogix/CIP safety from Rockwell Automation and Profisafe from Siemens are essential for the successful operation of large-scale projects. Basic hardware signals are not sufficient for these complex systems. The advanced features provided by Siemens and Rockwell Automation are what set them apart as industry leaders.
Strantor mentioned that experiencing challenges with technical issues allowed him to benefit from the expertise of others. This ability to problem-solve through collaboration is a valuable skill that goes beyond technical competency. It was impressive to learn that the person he was speaking to was the Engineer who designed the product he was inquiring about. In the past, Strantor had access to quality assistance through a TechConnect contract with Rockwell, which allowed him to become familiar with their documentation. However, he now finds it difficult to get in touch with an engineer at AD, as their Technical Support serves as a barrier. Once past basic troubleshooting, it can be challenging to connect with an engineer directly, leading to delays and confusion for customers.
While I may not be the biggest supporter of Rockwell Automation (RA), I must acknowledge their advantage of having direct access to engineers for technical support. Unlike other companies like Automation Direct (AD), where their technical support acts as a middleman between the customer and engineer, Rockwell allows direct communication with the brains behind their products. The pay-to-play model for tech support is a double-edged sword. While it can be frustrating to have to pay for support that should come standard, Rockwell's level of support is unmatched in the industry. The ability to speak directly to the engineers who designed the products is a unique offering that sets RA apart from their competitors. In my experience with AD's tech support, they have been responsive and helpful, but there is a limit to the level of technical assistance they can provide. This is where Rockwell's premium support shines. Although it would be ideal to have the option to tap into the minds behind AD products, the complexity and cost of implementing such a system may not make it a feasible option. In the end, Rockwell Automation emerges as the winner in terms of documentation and support. Their premium support services set them apart in the industry, providing a level of expertise that is hard to find elsewhere.
In the automotive and powertrain industries, safety controllers and safety I/O systems like Guardlogix/CIP safety and Siemens/Profisafe play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth operation of large systems. Without these advanced features, working on complex systems can be challenging as traditional hardware signals may not suffice. Companies like Siemens and Rockwell Automation are known for offering top-of-the-line safety solutions that are widely used in the industry. While smaller manufacturers like AD may not have initially offered safety controllers and PLCs, they are continuously improving their products to meet industry standards. The Productivity PLC line from AD, for example, has evolved significantly and is now considered a serious competitor in the market. If the same level of attention is given to their safety controllers, they may soon rival established brands like GuardLogix and ProfiSafe. It's important to consider the specific requirements of your system when choosing a controller, as not all may meet your needs. Keeping an eye on advancements in the industry can help ensure you are equipped with the best solutions for your applications.
While I have previously been a supporter of RA, my opinion of them has drastically changed in the past year or two. There have been two major changes that have contributed to this shift. Firstly, RA has transitioned to a SaaS model for their software support. This means that if I purchase a new copy of RS Studio, I am now required to pay for support separately from my existing TechSupport agreement. This new system raises concerns about how support will be handled if there are compatibility issues between two pieces of RA software, one with support and one without. It seems like a money-grabbing tactic rather than a logical solution. Secondly, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of support provided. While it is understandable that they may be impacted by recent waves of retirement, customers who are paying a premium should expect a higher level of service.
Are Rockwell distributors lacking in pre-contact technical support, or is their support simply not up to par? Is it worth your time to reach out to Tech Connect for assistance instead?
Harryting expressed his disappointment with Rockwell Automation (RA), highlighting two major changes that have soured his opinion. Firstly, RA has transitioned into a Software as a Service (SaaS) model, requiring separate payment for software support instead of incorporating it into existing TechSupport agreements. This shift seems more focused on increasing revenue rather than providing logical solutions for customers encountering issues between different RA software products. This SaaS approach, not unique to RA, hints at the company's profit-driven motives. Despite the financial gains, the demand for this approach remains high, possibly due to brand loyalty rather than compelling reasons. This scenario reflects a common trend in the industry of prioritizing profit over customer needs. Additionally, harryting noted a decline in the quality of support provided by RA, possibly influenced by recent workforce changes. Despite charging premium prices, RA's support services have not met the expected standards, reinforcing the need for improvement in this aspect.
Achieving a large market share is crucial for companies to establish dominance and secure their position in the industry. However, this can lead to complacency and the misuse of accumulated goodwill over time. Take the example of Boeing, a company that has been a prominent player in the Seattle area for many years. It takes continuous effort and strategic decision-making to maintain market dominance, as well as a focus on long-term success rather than short-term gains. Neglecting the input and value of employees who drive the company's success can lead to a gradual decline in reputation and market share. While change may not be immediate, eventually, people will take notice and a shift will occur in the industry. This process may take years to unfold, but it is essential for companies to prioritize their employees and long-term goals to sustain success.
In recent times, safety controllers have become common in the automation industry. However, it is questionable whether the current AD safety controllers would meet the specific requirements of the systems you are dealing with. It is mere speculation on my part as I have not had personal experience with them, but it is likely that they lack the versatility and customization options that you may be used to. It is possible that the specifications of your system are tailored to a particular type of controller, meaning that using a different controller may not meet the necessary standards. AD is consistently striving for improvement, as evident in the evolution of their Productivity PLC line. If the same level of development is being applied to their safety controllers, they may soon rival established options such as GuardLogix/ProfiSafe. It is worth noting that the current AD safety controllers resemble smart safety relays in comparison to what PILZ offers. They may lack certain functionalities like servo control and fieldbus connectivity at the moment. However, every journey has to begin somewhere.
Rockwell Automation is known for its high-quality PLCs and user-friendly PLC programming software. While their other products may be considered average by some, it ultimately comes down to personal preference.
Where have all the enthusiasts of Rockwell products disappeared to? It seems like the once passionate supporters have scattered. I've held my opinions on this topic for quite some time, but I haven't engaged in discussions about it in years due to the negative comments I used to encounter. However, I have noticed a shift in the tone of recent discussions. It appears that some people are now hesitant to defend Rockwell products. This mature and informative thread is a refreshing change from what I'm used to. It's surprising to see a civil discussion with logical arguments being made. I'm not sure what sparked this change, but I'm definitely appreciating it.
dwoodlock asked whether Rockwell distributors offer sufficient technical support before resorting to contacting tech connect. In my experience working with distributors across the US, it can be hit or miss. Some distributors are helpful, while others seem to be more focused on sales. When I do need technical support, it is usually in the middle of the night at a job site, so I go directly to the source. However, even after-hours support is often inadequate, leading me to wait until morning to contact the main group. This usually results in confirmation of my initial diagnosis, but it is necessary to document a ticket for the customer to initiate a return process.
When I encounter technical issues, I usually rely on my local distributor before reaching out to TechConnect. Recently, I faced a malfunction with a MicroLogix 1400 PLC where the inputs were showing abnormal readings. After consulting with the local distributor, they directed me to RA for a warranty exchange, following a 24-36 hour email exchange. Although I appreciate the expertise of our local distributor, I am concerned about the aging of their staff in the future. An example of a troubleshooting situation involved a DriveLogix system that experienced bus overvoltage trips during operation. Through collaboration with RA support, we identified the issue as a faulty encoder. Based on my experience with various PLC tools such as AB, Siemens, Beckhoff, and HMI tools like Red Lion, Maple, and Exor, I have developed a preference for AB PLCs and Red Lion HMIs. As for drives, I find AB drives the easiest to integrate with AB PLCs. To ensure smooth operation and minimal downtime, it is crucial to prioritize software versioning and preventive maintenance, especially when working with challenging systems like Siemens. In my experience, Siemens PLCs have shown high reliability, while AB PLCs have required the fewest replacements. For HMIs, I have encountered minimal issues with AB and Red Lion, making them my preferred choices. In conclusion, based on ease of programming, startup efficiency, and long-term reliability, I recommend using AB PLCs, Red Lion HMIs, and compatible drives for seamless industrial operations.
In a recent discussion, joseph_e2 mentioned the ease of integrating AB drives into an AB PLC compared to other brands, while noting that Mitsubishi servos with AOIs are also user-friendly. Commissioning experiences with ABB drives have been positive, especially when networked with a PLC. One project involved networking a Micro1400 with explicit messaging, which, despite being slightly outdated, worked well with adjustments to IP addresses. AB/Rockwell products, though well-regarded, have faced criticism for pricing strategies. TechConnect support has been helpful in the past, with local Rockwell representatives proving knowledgeable and supportive.
The emphasis on the SaaS model by the company has me concerned about needing additional licenses in the future. Their previous method of activation, similar to Siemens, was user-friendly. However, I have had negative experiences with online activation and annual subscriptions in large corporations. Make it simple for users to access your products to increase sales.
In a recent forum post, user joseph_e2 expressed frustration with a software as a service (SaaS) model being pushed by a company, expressing concerns about the complexity of online activation processes and annual subscriptions. The user emphasized the importance of ease of use in software products to drive sales. The post also mentioned a shift in the company's approach to subscriptions, leading to increased difficulty for users to bypass payment. The potential consequences of trying to circumvent subscriptions were highlighted, including legal implications for large corporations. The post also discussed changes in company leadership and a perceived shift towards prioritizing marketing over product quality. Furthermore, the post critiqued the introduction of politically correct culture within the company, expressing a desire for a focus on product functionality rather than cultural sensitivities. Despite frustrations with new software versions, bugs, and product reliability, the user still holds a preference for Rockwell/AB products.
Arpus4KM highlighted the decision made by a higher authority to crack down on the unauthorized use of subscriptions, making it harder for average users to bypass the system. However, this move to restrict access in hopes of boosting sales overlooked the potential impact on hardware sales. The EVmove system and disk activations may allow for easy duplication of activation files, but the risks involved for larger companies caught in the act could lead to legal consequences and loss of access to essential supplies, resulting in bankruptcy. The shift in strategy towards a subscription-based model disregarded the original factors that contributed to the company's success. With the departure of the core team members who helped build the company, there seems to be a loss of expertise and mentality. The new management appears more focused on superficial marketing tactics, prioritizing a flashy website over product functionality. The intrusion of PC culture within Rockwell, evident in diversity campaigns and sensitivity to certain terminology, has raised concerns among users who simply want reliable products without unnecessary distractions. Despite these frustrations, Rockwell and AB products remain preferred choices, although the continuous rollout of new versions with technical glitches may sway loyalty in the future. The controversy surrounding the usage of terms like "Master/Slave" and "Male/Female" in the tech industry reflects the ongoing cultural shifts. Some individuals find it challenging to adapt to these changes, fearing the implications of a rapidly evolving society.
Joseph_e2 commented on the aging trend within the realm of RA technology, expressing uncertainty about its future in the next decade. He emphasized the importance of user-friendly products as a key to increasing consumer adoption. While modern software has embraced this concept, legacy software systems appear to lag behind. Joseph_e2 reflected on his personal experience with RA products, noting the high barrier to entry and complexities associated with them. Despite some positive aspects, such as superior ladder editing capabilities, he found it challenging to navigate. This observation led him to believe that RA may struggle to attract new users, relying instead on the loyalty of existing customers and institutionalized learning in technical schools. In contrast, the Codesys model was praised for its accessibility and flexibility. Offering a free IDE and the option to simulate real runtimes for a limited duration, users only pay for what they need when they need it. Additionally, advanced features can be accessed through a small annual fee, providing a cost-effective and user-centric approach to software solutions.
durallymax pointed out that a trend in the world of RA (robotic automation) is emerging. While modern software has embraced this trend, legacy software appears to be lagging behind. As someone with no PLC (programmable logic controller) background who decided to learn on their own, RA initially seemed unattainable. The barrier to entry with RA was high, with complexities like virtual machines and frequent software updates. Despite encountering RA products in a work setting and acknowledging their advanced features, it didn't seem to offer much value. This anecdotal experience suggests that RA may struggle to attract new users, focusing more on maintaining its existing user base and tech schools. On the other hand, the Codesys model stands out for its accessibility and flexibility. Users can access the IDE for free, with the option of simulating with real-time for a limited trial period or paying a small fee for unlimited access. Additional advanced features can be unlocked with a nominal annual fee. Similar to Codesys, Ignition is gaining recognition as an industry leader in Scada systems. Its appeal lies in being a superior product that is largely open-source, developed using Java and Python. Users can download and use the development platform and modules for free in 2-hour trial increments. The only costs incurred are for gateway and module licenses, which can be tailored to the client's needs. As an integrator, the upfront cost for utilizing Ignition is zero, and access to developer-monitored forums ensures easy access to answers and solutions.
Strantor mentioned that while AutomationDirect (AD) now offers safety controllers, they may not be suitable for the systems you're currently working on. It is likely that these safety controllers lack the flexibility and features you are used to. Your system specifications may have been tailored for a specific controller, making it hard for any other controller to meet the requirements. However, AD is continuously improving their products, like the Productivity PLC line which has grown in capabilities over the years. If the same level of development is applied to their safety controllers, they could soon rival top brands like GuardLogix/ProfiSafe. The safety relay masters from AD appear to match the safety performance of GuardLogix, which is impressive considering the cost. Despite this, some may still have reservations about relying on hardware from AD for critical safety functions. It is true that programmable safety relays cannot match the flexibility of a dedicated safety PLC, a product currently not offered by AD. Safety PLCs are far more intricate and advanced compared to programmable safety relays.
JLand shared their reluctance to inform customers that their safety depends on hardware purchased from AutomationDirect, despite having confidence in its quality. This is a common concern among small business owners who source production lines from overseas with limited English documentation or rely on second-hand equipment. While larger corporations may prioritize well-known brands, the perception of using "lesser" hardware may eventually shift as downtime due to supposed "world-class" equipment becomes more frequent. In these scenarios, individuals may wonder about alternatives to renowned brands like Rockwell Automation, especially if they hold biases against Siemens. For those seeking alternatives, Omron PLCs and Yaskawa drives are seen as reliable choices, even though they may not be as widely recognized in the industry as AutomationDirect.
Strantor mentioned that he frequently works with small businesses that purchase production lines from Shenzhen and Guangzhou without English documentation, or they assemble them from second-hand auction items. While this may not be the norm for Fortune 100 companies, the stigma surrounding quality hardware may shift when downtime due to supposedly "top-tier" equipment surpasses that of using "inferior" alternatives. It seems like we may be nearing that turning point based on the discussion so far. In a scenario where someone typically prefers Rockwell Automation (RA) hardware but is now unsure, and alternatives like Allen-Bradley (AD) are not taken seriously, what other options are available if they dislike Siemens? What is currently considered the top choice among industry insiders? Prior to switching to AD, the individual primarily used Omron PLCs and Yaskawa drives, which they still believe to be reliable despite not being as popular. This remains their go-to when considering hardware choices to avoid any potential ridicule. It seems to be a consensus that Siemens is not a preferred choice among the group.
I don't engage with the question of "where are all the Rockwell defenders" because it quickly turns into personal attacks. While I am not easily affected by being called names like stupid or unsophisticated, I still remember the humiliation of a colleague making fun of my skills in front of others. With thirteen years of experience at Rockwell Automation, I dedicated my time and effort, including nights and weekends, to provide top-notch service to customers. Therefore, the derogatory comments about Tech Support being unintelligent are disheartening. I have worked closely with colleagues from around the world, including in Singapore and Australia, to ensure customer satisfaction regardless of the time zone. Despite my reservations about the failure rates mentioned in the original post and the complexity of SaaS platforms like Studio 5000, I am ready to tackle problems head-on without dwelling on past grievances.
Ken Roach mentioned that he had a thirteen-year tenure at Rockwell Automation. I was unaware that there were Rockwell employees in this forum. Even if I had known, my comments would have remained the same. There were no derogatory remarks made about Rockwell employees. In fact, Rockwell's tech support has been consistently praised in this discussion. While some have expressed concerns about its quality in recent years, I still believe it upholds the gold standard for tech support. If you were part of that support team, I appreciate your efforts. I did not intend to single out Rockwell employees in my previous comments. My remarks were aimed at past experiences of encountering Rockwell users online who displayed a sense of superiority and defensiveness towards criticisms of Rockwell products. I was curious about where these individuals had gone, as they would typically flock to discussions like this one. If my words seemed directed at you, I sincerely apologize.
My main issue with the product is the requirement to pay for it, which is essential for sustaining my livelihood. It bothers me when people claim they shouldn't have to pay, as it devalues the hard work I put into developing and maintaining it. While some may prefer the cost of support to be bundled into the hardware price, addressing customer inquiries and meeting productivity goals is a constant challenge. I am sensitive to this topic, so let's switch gears - any predictions for how A&M will perform this season?
Unfortunately, in today's world, it seems like everyone is trying to take advantage of the population for financial gain. This can be seen in various examples, such as the increasing fees associated with obtaining a mortgage. Back in the 70's, getting a mortgage from a building society was a straightforward process with no additional fees. However, nowadays, the same process can come with fees amounting to £900 just to arrange the mortgage, not to mention other miscellaneous charges. Additionally, when it comes to property transactions, there are often unnecessary expenses that can add up. For instance, a solicitor may recommend optional searches, like an extended flood survey, that can end up costing extra money. Despite the fact that the area in question has never experienced flooding, there may still be pressure to pay for additional surveys. Another example of overcharging can be seen in the realm of property rentals. A short break in a caravan on the coast may seem reasonably priced at first, but extra charges for bringing along pets can quickly inflate the cost. In this case, the charge per person is £35, while the charge per dog is a staggering £50. Finally, in the world of technology, companies may take advantage of customers by charging exorbitant prices for upgrades and support services. In one instance, upgrading a system from a defunct original equipment manufacturer (OEM) cost around £46,000, with additional charges for technical support. However, with a bit of research, the solution to a technical issue was found online within a matter of days. As a result of these experiences, some individuals choose to take their business elsewhere, leading to significant financial losses for the companies involved.
One common complaint about RA tech support is their business-oriented policies, such as pricing, operating hours, and location. It is unusual to encounter a technician who is not knowledgeable, and if you do, it could mean you dialed the wrong number. As a side note, I disagree with the negative comments about Australian support staff. I have purposely delayed calling in order to speak with an Australian agent, as they are usually highly skilled and their accent and demeanor always brighten my day.
In terms of RA tech support, the most common complaints I've heard tend to revolve around business-related factors like pricing, hours, and location. It's rare to encounter a technician who lacks knowledge, but if you do, it might be because you contacted the wrong department. I personally appreciate the quality of support provided by Australian representatives, as they often bring a positive energy and competence to the table. While some may argue about the efficiency of after-hours support from locations like Asia or Australia, it's important to note that the primary tech support and engineering teams are based in Ohio and Illinois. The offshore teams may not have the same level of expertise, leading them to recommend reaching out to engineering support for more complex issues.
Robertmee mentioned that there seems to be a misunderstanding as we appear to be following different discussions. He clarified that his previous comment about after-hours support being occasionally less responsive when routed to Asia or Australia is not meant to be anti-anyone, but rather a factual observation. He pointed out that the primary technical support and advanced engineering teams are located in Ohio and Illinois, which may offer a higher level of expertise compared to non-US groups. In cases where the issue exceeds their technical knowledge, they recommend reaching out to the engineering support. Apologies for the confusion earlier, it seems we are actually on the same page.
I highly appreciate their expertise and reputation, especially in the past when I first encountered their equipment. However, their delayed response to my inquiries after spending a significant amount of money left me feeling frustrated. Despite this, I must commend their outstanding reputation and support, especially from their knowledgeable representative in the UK. Although I have not used their equipment in years, I would consider them as a last resort for future projects.
While taking my morning shower, I couldn't help but envision troubleshooting as a wrestling match after learning that Ken Roach worked at Rockwell. In my mind, contacting support is like tagging in Ken Roach, who then jumps into action like a pro wrestler, using the Devicenet bible to slam your issue into submission. This mental image stuck with me, so I just had to share it!
I have consistently found their technical support for PLCs and drives to be extremely beneficial. They go above and beyond by following up via phone and email even after resolving the issue to ensure everything is working smoothly. However, I agree with OkiePC's assessment that their other products like HMIs and safety relays can be subpar, and their long lead times are a significant drawback. For basic panel design, my go-to combination is usually an AB PLC, C-more HMI, and then electrical devices from Banner, Keyence, Automation Direct, or IFM such as proxes, cables, and relays.
I was surprised to discover that a renowned AB manufacturer produces inductive sensors that are prone to failure when exposed to heat, as discussed in a recent online forum. As for programmable logic controllers (PLCs), I cannot provide much insight as this particular brand is not widely used due to its high cost reputation.
RA's product lineup includes a variety of items that are manufactured or rebranded by external sources. One recent example that stands out is their gate switches, which are essentially Euchner models with RA's unique firmware installed.
Robertmee expressed shock at the prevalence of terms like "Master/Slave" and "Female/Male" in our society, and worries about the implications of this in our rapidly changing world. The issue of inclusive terminology is being addressed through Rockwell Automation's initiative, which aims to replace non-inclusive language with more encompassing terms. The correlation between focusing on appearances over functionality, in both products and individuals, is highlighted as a potential cause for failure in this evolving landscape. It's crucial to embrace inclusive practices in all aspects of life to ensure a more welcoming and equitable society.
In my experience, I generally lean towards AB PLC, Redlion, or Maple touchscreen along with Ignition for HMI, like many others. However, if I were to start a large manufacturing operation today, I would explore alternative options such as Beckoff for PLC. Despite personal preferences, my main focus is always on providing the best service for the customer, considering factors beyond just the initial cost, such as ongoing support. While many in the automation field are well-versed in AB PLC, it may take a significant amount of time for RA/AB to see a decrease in market share if they continue on their current path. I must acknowledge the high level of competence among the individuals at RA, and I believe they should be valued for their skills as true engineers rather than focusing solely on short-term financial gains from established customers. In terms of pricing, RA has experienced significant increases in the past 2-3 years, potentially due to COVID-related supply chain issues. Despite this, their support pricing remains reasonable, until the recent implementation of a new support licensing system which lacks internal consistency.
In today's consumer-driven society, the trend towards disposability has extended to all aspects of our lives, including industrial controls that were once thought to be durable for decades.
HarryTing mentioned that there is a new Software as a Service (SaaS) model for support with RS Studio from Rockwell Automation (RA). This means that purchasing a new copy of RS Studio requires separate support payment, rather than just adding a serial number to an existing TechSupport agreement. This approach may seem illogical if there are compatibility issues between different RA software pieces that have different support statuses. It appears to be a strategy to increase revenue. Additionally, Rockwell is exploring a web-based version of Studio, indicating a shift away from traditional installation methods. It is ironic to observe Rockwell's emphasis on cyber security while potentially introducing vulnerabilities by moving PLC development to the web. This is reminiscent of a past experience with GE, which requested exposing SCADA servers to the internet for license monitoring. This led to a decision to discontinue the use of iFix. It serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughly evaluating the implications of such changes in the industrial automation domain.
Cardosocea expressed concern about the potential negative impacts of Rockwell's decision to trial Studio on the web, implying that traditional installation methods may become obsolete. It is ironic to see Rockwell's cyber security expert advocating for closing systems for safety while the company itself is moving PLC development to the web, which could present significant security vulnerabilities. This shift in approach is not a new concept, as evidenced by similar instances in the past involving other companies like GE. In my own experience as a business owner, I have faced challenges with Microsoft and Intuit's attempts to steer users towards subscription-based web versions of software. Despite these pressures, I have chosen to stick with older versions of Office and Quickbooks to maintain control over my software usage.
Robertmee expressed a common sentiment that many share: a strong dislike for Siemens. If you have any projects related to this, feel free to send them my way.
There are mixed opinions towards Siemens as a brand, with some not fond of it while others appreciate its hardware and software. Personally, I have a preference for Siemens over Rockwell, despite initially thinking highly of the latter. The bugs in FTV, based on RSV32, over the past few years have led to a negative experience. Pricing and tech connectivity are other factors that contribute to this sentiment. In recent years, Siemens' hardware, particularly their HMI's and drives, have been seen as unreliable. My experience with Squre D, AB, and Siemens has been positive until encountering TIA, which might be due to a lack of exposure to it.
Parky mentioned Siemens, a brand beloved until experiencing TIA, likely due to a lack of exposure. TIA offers great benefits for those starting anew, boasting more functionality than Step7. Despite this, some still prefer Step7 for its familiarity and productivity. However, setting up certain functionalities in TIA can be complex, often requiring separate applications and settings to be configured. The main downside of TIA is its sluggishness compared to Step7, even when running Step7, Documentation, and WinCC simultaneously. Additionally, the loss of the Ctrl+Alt+Q shortcut is lamented. Despite these drawbacks, many still consider Siemens to be a superior platform when compared to Rockwell.
In comparison to older DOS S5 and another Windows-based system like S7, TIA seems like it was written in a basic programming language. This slow performance is likely due to the excessive features and dependence on the Microsoft Windows operating system. If Windows 7 and newer could be optimized to run on older hardware, the compile time would be significantly faster, allowing you to leave work in the evening and return in the morning to find the process completed.
Strantor expressed confusion over Rockwell's continued dominance in the industry, attributing it to lingering brand loyalty. He prefers using Automation Direct due to their superior business model and faster response times. In comparison, Rockwell is more expensive, takes longer to deliver through distributors, and has pricey software. While Rockwell may excel in documentation, Automation Direct surpasses in efficiency and quality. The only advantage of Rockwell seems to be their documentation. Strantor highlighted the ease of configuring systems, obtaining quotes, and ordering products quickly on the Automation Direct website. With no issues experienced in years, Strantor praised Automation Direct's products, such as the Durapulse drives and Ethernet IP cards used in a recent project.
One of the reasons why Rockwell Automation remains a top choice in the United States is due to American patriotism, with many companies in the UK and Europe also opting for US-owned companies like Rockwell Automation or Allen-Bradley. However, there are exceptions such as a major food manufacturer in the UK and Europe utilizing Siemens at most sites, except for one location in Ireland that uses Rockwell Automation. Despite the reputation of Rockwell Automation, one engineering project experienced a shift towards Mitsubishi hardware, indicating a potential move away from Rockwell Automation. This shift was not driven by cost, as the company in question is financially stable.
bob1371 recently shared his positive experience with his local sales rep from Kirby Risk, highlighting the convenience of accessing the AD website to configure systems, obtain quotes, and place orders efficiently. He praised the availability of CAD and 3D files on the site, emphasizing its significance in his dependency on AD. In his view, the traditional RFQ-Quote-order-ship model is outdated, questioning the need for distributors and complicated account tiers that involve manual adjustments of markup multipliers for customers. He finds this process slow and prefers the streamlined approach offered by AD, where project bids can be submitted the same day. For him, the old-fashioned practice of sales reps bringing donuts and consuming time does not appeal, as he values direct access to detailed product information and configurators provided by AD. While money plays a role in his preference, the efficiency and transparency of AD's model are equally important to him. He wonders if RA could benefit from adopting similar practices, but recognizes that their customer base may be resistant to change. The prospect of transitioning to an AD-like system could be perceived as alienating customers and dehumanizing the sales process.
parky remarked that Rockwell Automation (RW) is still dominant in the United States, likely due to the patriotic nature of Americans. The US market also prioritizes capitalist ideals and seeks good value. However, Rockwell may not offer the best value compared to other options available. Decision-makers in large companies, typically in their 60s and 50s, may resist change. However, introducing individuals with engineering backgrounds who are comfortable with coding may challenge Rockwell's position. This could lead to a swift erosion of Rockwell's market dominance as its limitations become apparent in comparison to more versatile platforms. It is important to note that Rockwell should also be evaluated against Codesys-based solutions.
Cardosocea recalled an incident from about 7 years ago when GE requested access to SCADA servers to monitor licenses, but it turned out to be unnecessary. This experience led to a decision to move away from iFix. GE does not provide license help without a valid support agreement, as discovered with a failed USB dongle. In contrast, Rockwell assists with licensing regardless of support status. Despite resolving the iFix license issue with GE, the preference now leans towards Rockwell for PLC due to limited options.
Do you recall when Rockwell's (formerly Allen Bradley) product was branded as "AB Quality," such as in the PLC 5 and PLC2 days? As a seasoned professional, I remember how durable they were, rarely experiencing failures. I still have 5 PLC Ethernet models (5/40E) in operation at the Plant, with enough spare parts from upgrades to sustain them for years to come as I gradually transition them out. Recently, we encountered a 1771-IFE failure from 1997, but we were able to quickly replace it and resume operations. In my 35 years on site, I have witnessed very few PLC 5 CPU's and 1771 series I/O failures, with less than 5 occurrences. At our peak, we had over 10 units installed, along with numerous I/O remote racks, showcasing the remarkable reliability of these legacy products.
Yes, I may be showing my age, but PLC2-5 systems were incredibly reliable. However, we did encounter a few issues with the SLC's after about 6 years of use. The plastic cases of the PV550's began to deteriorate, the HMI psu had a tendency to fail, and the PLC's developed various faults such as cracked solder joints on the backplane and psu failures leading to ram corruption or loss of programming. We also experienced power supply failures with the later PV+ models, as well as frequent drive failures. To address these issues, we replaced some drives with Mitsubishi and others with different models, all of which proved to be more reliable. Eventually, we replaced all drives with Mitsubishi and upgraded the HMI's to Beijers, after which we experienced no further problems except for the occasional mishap with operators using inappropriate tools to navigate the interfaces.
Harryting mentioned that he is gradually replacing iFix across the entire fleet. He plans to continue using Rockwell for PLC as there are limited alternatives available currently. This task feels like a divine mission, and the thought of completely eliminating iFix from his Fortune 250 company excites him to the point of walking around with pride for months.
Do you remember when Rockwell's (Allen Bradley) product was labeled as "AB Quality," such as the PLC 5 or PLC2 for those who have been in the industry for a while? Back then, these products were known for their durability and reliability, hardly ever failing. I still have 5 PLC Ethernet models (5/40E) operating in the Plant, with enough spare parts from upgrades to keep them running for several more years as I gradually transition to newer systems. Recently, we had a 1771-IFE module fail that was installed back in 1997. I replaced it with a spare from stock and everything was back up and running. In my 35 years on the site, I have rarely seen PLC 5 CPUs or 1771 series I/O modules fail - less than 5 times. At our peak, we had over 10 units installed with multiple I/O remote racks, showcasing the exceptional legacy of these products. Although I have only been working with PLCs for a few years and mainly dealt with the SLC platform from Allen Bradley, I can't help but notice the stark contrast in quality and reliability compared to the newer CompactLogix processors. While a card replacement might be needed for AC outputs or analog inputs due to sanitation procedures, the SLCs could handle heat and moisture with ease. A senior project engineer often praises the reliability of the PLC 5 series, and I wish I could have experienced working on them during their prime. However, the 5069 CompactLogix systems seem somewhat inferior to me. In my experience, I have seen more failures with these systems within a few months of operation or after a power loss at the plant, compared to the robustness of the SLCs. It's disappointing to see a dependable system like the PLC 5 being replaced for the sake of remote access, especially when inexperienced staff are involved. Just a personal observation.
I encountered an interesting case of water damage at a food factory where I used to work. There was steam and water everywhere, and even the SLCs were affected. We had a total of eight Mitsubishi Q series in one plant, and one of the analogue cards had a failed channel. After replacing the card, we discovered that it was covered in green fungus due to water leakage from a recurring issue with a central roof gutter. Despite the water damage, seven of the channels continued to work. Although I was unable to restore the failed channel, the remaining channels continued to function in a test rack for several years. This showcases the durability and resilience of the equipment.
In a former workplace at a food factory with a high presence of steam and water, even the SLC's were not immune to water damage. One particular incident involved 8 Mitsubishi Q series PLCs in a single plant, where a channel in an analog card failed due to water damage. Upon inspection, the card was covered in green fungus as water had been leaking into the panel for years from a recurring issue with a central roof gutter. Despite the damage, 7 channels continued to function, showcasing the resilience of the equipment. Cleaning the card with switch cleaner helped restore some functionality, but one channel remained non-functional. The experience mirrored similar occurrences with SLC cards, where a few channels would stop working but the overall performance remained solid. However, newer technology has not fared as well in wet conditions, with Ethernet systems being particularly sensitive to water damage. This highlights the importance of maintaining a dry environment for electronic equipment to prevent malfunctions.
In fact, it was the Mitsi card that had the issue. My point is that the hardware following the plc2 & 5 appeared to be of lesser quality. While the SLC was not terrible, it did not compare favorably to brands like Mitsi, Omron & Siemens. In our plant, we had a mix of AB systems and others, but no PLC2 or 5. The failure rate of the SLC's, PV550, PV+ and drives like powerflex was significantly higher compared to other platforms. Our engineering buyer maintained a spreadsheet tracking the failure rates of different components, revealing that replacing PV's, drives, and even some PLC's led to an overall decrease in reported failures. Although this was not the primary reason for switching platforms, I had personal grievances with rockwell and aimed to reduce the number of spare parts we held. Initially, the company had no specific requirements for new plant orders, resulting in US-made systems with RW/AB equipment. While AB was commonly used in projects from my previous employment, I found that other brands offered better quality in terms of electronics. The mechanical side of the equipment was sturdy but bulky and used imperial fittings instead of metric. For instance, American-built rice cookers purchased in 1996 required multiple replacements of PV550's, SLC racks, PSU's, and cards over the years. These were eventually replaced by Beijers HMIs in 2003, resulting in significantly fewer hardware failures. Drive failures were also reduced after switching to Mitsubishi E series. Despite these issues, I never had to replace a processor or I/O card on any of the SLC's.
In my curriculum, I address the issue of 'The challenge of equipment miniaturization'. A significant portion of reliability issues stem from the physical size of components. In the past, output modules contained substantial aluminum heat sinks, whereas today's semiconductors are designed to withstand proper temperature ratings, provided they are kept clean. Attention is paid to ensuring proper voltage clearances, under the condition that everything remains clean and dry. However, challenges arise from the inability to shrink electrician's fingers or the fundamental units of electricity. The trend of fitting 16 I/O points in the space previously allotted for 8 leads to a significant increase in power density unless alterations are made. The currents in input modules have decreased significantly, and the use of 'Capacitive isolation' may not guarantee adequate isolation, especially in the presence of RF noise. Manufacturers seem to have forgotten that some users still rely on voltmeters for troubleshooting and maintenance. While there is a push for compact I/O modules, users often end up purchasing additional cable sets to connect to larger components. The practice of sacrificing space for compact design only to require additional accessories leads to inefficiencies. To address these challenges, it may be necessary to opt for oversized components such as VFDs with larger wiring compartments or MCC buckets. The focus should be on practicality and functionality rather than solely on maximizing equipment density. Ultimately, the key to success lies in addressing reliability and installation issues by considering the practical needs of users.
bob1371 recently praised AD's website, highlighting its convenience and user-friendly interface for configuring systems, obtaining quotes, and placing orders quickly. Access to CAD and 3D files on the website was also emphasized as a standout feature. He expressed satisfaction with the quality of AD's products, particularly mentioning a successful project using 27 Durapulse drives and Ethernet IP cards without any issues. However, recent support and product issues have caused bob1371 to reconsider his preference for AD, though he acknowledges it may just be a stroke of bad luck. He also noted challenges with installing E/IP cards on a GS20, describing them as a hassle and causing obstruction in STO wiring installation.
durallymax mentioned that while AD's website is user-friendly and offers a wide range of products, recent issues with support and products have led them to steer clear. They noted that installing E/IP cards on a GS20 can be frustrating and could potentially obstruct STO wiring. Additionally, the ferrite core may hinder Ethernet port access. They suggested using a longer cable to create more space for wires and the Ethernet jack, even though it may hang out from the bottom.
parky shared: I have experience working with PLC2-5 systems that were very durable. However, we encountered some issues with SLC's after about 6 years of use. The plastic cases of PV550's began to deteriorate, HMI PSU failures became common, and the PLC's developed various faults such as cracked solder joints and PSU issues leading to memory corruption or program loss. Later on, we also experienced power supply failures with PV+ and frequent drive failures. To address the lack of spare parts for the drives, we replaced some with Mitsubishi and others with different brands, all of which proved to be more reliable. Eventually, we switched all drives to Mitsubishi and HMIs to Beijers, resulting in trouble-free operation except for occasional misuse by operators. Currently, I am still dealing with PSU-related memory and corruption problems in older SLC systems that have been functioning for nearly 20 years, surpassing their expected lifespan. I am curious about Rockwell's decision to phase out the popular MicroLogix 1100/1400 series, which has been a reliable small platform, and replace it with what seems to be a less reliable option.
I have always found the ML series to be reliable without any issues. While the SLC's I worked with were older, the 505's stood out for their problems with components like the PSU, rack, analog cards, and processors. The PV series had even more issues, particularly with PSU components and cases. In my experience, the PV+ were the worst, often failing due to issues with the top board (potentially the PSU). After switching to Beijers E series for parts, all problems were resolved. Similarly, replacing drives with Mitsubishi solved any lingering issues.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Solve Your Operational Challenges with Oxmaint → Get Free Demo
Answer: The challenges included failed bus converters, faulty Hiperface to DSL converters, malfunctioning controllers, and problematic motors triggering thermal faults.
Answer: Yes, issues such as manufacturer defects involving cured urethane on supply pins, voltage differentials leading to faulty converters, and thermal faults in motors were common.
Answer: The issues were resolved by addressing manufacturer defects, switching to universal bus connectors for converters, and troubleshooting specific components like the ERS3 controller and problematic motor.
Answer: The integrator mentioned feeling frustrated by the challenges faced with Rockwell products, especially considering their long history of supporting and integrating these products.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.