Originally Posted by omalleyj (Post 902913)

Team 1279 worked on the Black Jag Beta program and we did manage to blow up two with static discharge, one by accident, and one on purpose (under TIs direction). Last years robots were very static prone, and the encoder and potentiometer inputs are fairly exposed. I would recommend covering the inputs with empty connectors when not using them to prevent that type of failure.

I would note that we also blew up our Kwik Byte driver station's ethernet connectors when running tethered at a fundraiser, so the Jaguars are not the only static sensitive devices. Use due care with all your sensors, etc..

TI was very good to work with about the failures, and they seem committed to improving their product. I would say that any team who has a failure should contact TI, document the conditions, and return the blown part. The Jags have many cool features and I would very much like to see them become a reliable component.

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk (Post 899164)

FACT: The number of failed Jaguars is higher than what TI has reported. This is not attributable to malice; they simply are not psychic. I am at a loss as to why any team would choose to not tell LM/TI of a failure; why not get a free replacement?

FACT: The grey Jaguar has/had(?) a failure mode that silently disables one direction of motor control.

Jaguar failures that include emitting smoke are user induced.

Please note that clustered failures are much more likely to be indicative of the user than of the design. I did a lot of tech support last season, and almost all of the cases of multiple failures were user error. Most of these cases also featured the fabled line of "I've been doing FIRST for X years, of course I didn't read the documentation!" Actual Example:


Edit : The quote came from someone who plugged the battery in backwards.