View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-08-2013, 21:52
techhelpbb's Avatar
techhelpbb techhelpbb is offline
Registered User
FRC #0011 (MORT - Team 11)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,624
techhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond reputetechhelpbb has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Low Cost Encoders

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard View Post
I wouldn't be so quick to say a lower quality encoder is sufficient for our use.

If the lower quality means an increased failure rate, we'd pass on that. The encoders we get from us digital aren't crazy expensive, and we'll always pay to not lose matches due to preventable failure.
We have no way of knowing the quality of anything until tested.
Even then even it's maybe 3 encoders out of who knows how many lots.

Frankly there are way more ways I can think of ruining encoders in general in FIRST than there are ways I can imagine these are complete junk from my first examination.

There is literally a bag of ruined U.S. Digital encoder parts floating around our workshop.
Each has a story.
However one way or another we have limited our exposure to the U.S. Digital encoders.

Not saying it's U.S. Digital's fault.
Just saying we'll be using sealed encoders where possible in the future.
Though they may or may not be the encoders in this topic.