Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 26 of 26

Thread: Trane Interface

  1. #14
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Originally posted by junkman
    Originally posted by sysint
    ....score another one for LNS Lonworks then jti-.

    Some Teletrol guys wrote a driver that kisses the BCU goodbye. Fieldserver has to have something I'm thinking as well.

    ... if you are smart enough it's not so hard. I mean, their engineers did it so really ....

    sysinit, your a professional member?
    Love the way you bad mouth Trane at every turn. Very professional.

    You do know that people have problem's with Lon, LNS, JCI and every other manufacture out there right?
    And yes, even Trane. Get a clue, it's not the hardware (*most of the time). It's the people that program it and use it that make a control system successful.

    Take a look at the posts again and get a clue yourself. You will see exactly what my problems with Trane are and in fact it is not all hardware.

    • I don't like Trane's proprietary screws. Why do it?
    • When they outsource hardware/software - I let people know.
    • I don't like the BCU Boat anchor. (neither do they I hear lately)It's way overpriced for what it does.

    So I recommend alternates. At the same time, I speak favorably about other Trane products such as their little programmable controller. (This would be good-mouthing I guess)

    What I do find is alot of guys running around saying "get a clue" talking Trane like they invented everything including the wheel and sliced bread when it isn't the case. (Trane-washing)

  2. #15
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    .... For instance, consider what it takes to get that Trane system to the web... BCU and server (third party server BTW).

    For many thousands of dollars less you can find an alternate. I have had a local Trane branch call me on finding an alternate and have given them advice on hardware to help them out. So, even the branch realizes the shortcomings.

    Personally, I have more concern for my customers than that and point them to an open platform where competition takes over and costs are less. If Trane would get rid of the proprietary screws I'd gladly buy and recommend much of their stuff.

    But, they don't.

    And, in all fairness, the other OEMs mostly stink too in regards to open, but they aren't advertising that they do. Trane does, and therefore I am holding them to a higher standard.


  3. #16
    All I am saying is that YOU seem to like to point out that TRANE is big and bad... YOU point it out in most of your posts. I thought this message board was an open source of information to help our industry grow. YOU insist on putting a bad spin (and that is exactly what it is) on a specific company (TRANE). I guess the big targets are the easiest. One way to make your product offering look better is to bad mouth the big guy on the block.
    Open is Open, BACnet is Open, Trane supports BACnet at the system level, and Lontalk at the unit level.
    Trane has been in the controls business long before anyone ever thought of an open protocal and needs to support those customers (and the legacy DDC Controls). Its takes MONEY to do that. If you can do it cheaper, great, put widget x into your customers building and be done with it. I just don't get why YOU have to be the ONE at every turn talking trash about Trane. Let the market wash it out of the system.
    Talking trash about a specific company doesn't help anyone. The people who have Trane BCU's are lucky because they know the company is going to be there, Trane products work with it, and many Lon products work with it also. (I didn't say it would be cheap) we are afterall in the business of making money right?

  4. #17
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    If accurate is bad it is what it is.

    I don't say a BCU doesn't do it's job, just that it is extremely expensive for what it does. You interpret that as trash talking, your problem.
    BACnet is Open, Trane supports BACnet at the system level, and Lontalk at the unit level.
    Rhetoric and an incorrect statement. BACnet implementation is not necessarily open, and at times Lontalk is not necessarily open. Trane specifically will absolutely not tell you what some of their LON variables do. The variable is there, but they aren't talking. BACnet vendors have differing amounts of adoption. Even some BTL listed devices have limited amounts of "open". (many posts on this from others)

    I'm not the only one here speaking against some of Trane's policy. I seem to recall even a group a contractors and a lawsuit awhile back about chillers. Absbrtek and others point out some of their tactics in other areas, I relate the controls side.
    The people who have Trane BCU's are lucky because they know the company is going to be there
    If they had really open product it wouldn't matter because legacy issues would be mute. I can go on and on on the seriously high upgrade costs on Trane after 5 years of service on installations. In an open system, those high costs aren't realized. Hopefully they have improved in this area.

    Yea, don't forget the "making money" part. Also don't forget an honest job for your customer either. Our customers have completely open product so long after we could be gone, they still have recourse without us. We have to provide competitive pricing, and good service and support. Trane guys can get by (not all of them do) from simply installing a BCU and some proprietary COMM mixed with some open and locking their subsystems down. - there's your "making money" insurance.

    EDIT - and I will concede that of the OEM's they have the best opportunity to provide a very open system to their customers. Again, why I hold them to higher standard. They make it seem like they do something they don't.





    [Edited by sysint on 07-20-2005 at 10:14 AM]

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    31

    Frown

    Hey Junkman,

    I am mostly a reader, not a poster.

    Sysint contributions to this forum by far exceed mine, and his lonworks expertise is pretty obvious. Keep it up Sysint!

    I am pro-Lonworks and pro-LNS and pro-LNS plug-ins. But like Junkman, I do get tired of relentless preaching in the desert for open systems and insisting that Lonworks is better than BacNet. We got the message a long time ago.

    If this continues, I will have to find a way to filter out a user when I look at a topic.

    Have a nice day.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    717
    Originally posted by sysint
    BACnet implementation is not necessarily open, and at times Lontalk is not necessarily open. Trane specifically will absolutely not tell you what some of their LON variables do. The variable is there, but they aren't talking.
    [Edited by sysint on 07-20-2005 at 10:14 AM]
    Here is a link for the Functional profile for a DAC if you read through it you will notice that the points listed will have an M for madatory and O for optional.......M meaning in order for this device to be a cetified LON device it must "open" these to all vendors...... O is self explanatory.

    Well put youngwolf, I agree

  7. #20
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    For the record, I mentioned 2 solutions (proprietary) and also mentioned LNS. (open) I will be more than happy to stop talking open as soon as people stop calling the BCU open when it's only partially so. Also, that it would be required hardware in their system that is very, very expensive for what it does.

    My real focus was on costs.

    Q- why not explain the optional variables? Any reason for the secrecy? I didn't know "optional" was a synonym for "secret".

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    717
    Originally posted by sysint

    Q- why not explain the optional variables? Any reason for the secrecy? I didn't know "optional" was a synonym for "secret".
    Same as the BACnet protocol, there are mandatory points and optional points. It is up to each vendor to decide what goes and what won't. It is not a secret it is "optional".

    If you want Optional explained you are barking up the wrong tree, talk to Lonmark who developed the profiles.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Qtip - Could you be more evasive?

    It also has nothing to do with Lonmark. Lonmark has things to say about plugins and I don't see any from Trane so I don't think Lonmark has any hold on them in respects to what they do.

    Trane will not disclose what some variables are used for. Why is that? They use the variables, so they must have some importance. Why not disclose to the customer who buys their product what those variables do functionally?

    EDIT- Circon, Distech and Honeywell have many optional variables but also have documentation they will give you explaining each "optional" (not secret) variable. How come you don't get that from Trane?

  10. #23
    The tranevar that sysinit is refering to is more a combined point.
    For example, part of the snvt might hold the minimum damper position setpoint, and another part might hold discharge air temp setpoint.
    I don't know why Trane did this and not use the snvt's that outlined. It probably made the programming easier for them.
    It would have made it easier for use field guys if they would have left them out.
    They basicly hold no useful information for us is probably why you (and I) cannot get any information on those snvtTraneVar01 etc..

    We don't always need to see how everything works.
    If that was the case we would be riding bicycles and not driving cars, which have many computers and sometimes they put dumb subroutines in those. Here is my favorite example:
    Ford escort zx3 which my wife bought a few years ago:
    One day she couldn't get the key out of the ignition, and figured out the headlight was out.
    The computer wouldn't let you get your key until you replaced the headlight. So you need to leave your keys in your car while you go shopping or... way off topic I will stop, you get the idea, have a nice day.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Again, Evasive.

    Instead of might/could I'm looking for does/explanation.

    Honeywell lets you know what their I/O data variables are in each field. Why not Trane? (actually I'm referring to that 1401 variable.)

    What you subsequently don't have a proper sequence of operation for this device. If I'm a specification engineer, I cross that off my list as it should be unacceptable.

  12. #25
    I would figure if Lonmark.org certified it as DAC or SCC then bingo, let's rumble.
    Take what you can get, if it doesn't work, hold trane or the installing contractor accountable for making it work.
    It's that simple. I don't give a crap how it does what it does under the hood, just that it does what it is says in the manual.
    I will see if I can get an explanation of tranvar1401 for you. Is that a LCI-R or LCI-V, SCC or DAC?

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    so quick update.... ordered a BR2 and set it up today. the gateway works awesome! it saved me a boat load of money and works fast. I got all the points to pop up on our front end through bacnet discovery. thanks to all the post you guys helped alot. hopefully a few more days and i can close out this job with a nice bacnet running system.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event