[aldaeron]

This product looks like something that was developed by someone with limited FRC experience. The features being touted as benefits are actually detractors in my mind:

- Lightweight (The difference is negligible in my mind. If we get to the point where we need to save a fraction of a pound, we get out the big drill or hole saw. I also question what was skimped to get the weight loss.)
- Low Cost (REV Spark is $5 cheaper and has fewer issues that I can see. Honestly this controller would have to be under $40 for me to consider buying over the REV.)
- Multi Bank Option (Sure we need a bank of controllers for the drive train, but sometimes they need to be placed creatively to get the rest of the bot to work. I can mount them touching each other just fine by myself without the need for the bank. Also there is no air gap between controllers. I like a small air gap, especially if these are the drive train motors that will producing a good deal of heat.)

Things I like:

1) Well labeled (colored) inputs and outputs

2) Robust screw terminals for a ring type connector or bare wire

Things I dislike:

1) Single 16 pin male connector with no cable retention. It is very easy to plug the PWM into the limit switch pins or vice versa. Do I use a standard PWM connector (3x1) and two 2 pin limit switches connectors? Or do I make my own 16 pin custom connectors? How do these stay in during the season (please no more hot glue)? How do I keep the exposed male pins safe (especially from student hands when they are rooting around in the belly pan)? Also I am not sure why connectors are mounted parallel to the mounting face instead on normal to it (this will increase the part footprint quite a bit when it is used).

2) Brake/Coast & Cal under the mounting face. To me this is inexcusable. If I want to change/control the mode or re-cal a controller I have to demount these (by unscrewing them from the bottom - see #3)?! Why not use the spare 8 pins on the connector for these features?

3) Lack of thru hole mounting. I can't zip tie these down to something temporarily. Grrrrr.

4) Heatsinking. The test data shows a test at 50A continuous and does not reach steady state in the data provided. Not sure why you used 50A and not 60A (since the specs say 60A continuous). We want a controller we can practice with for long sessions, not just one FRC match. Based on your test data it looks like you will hit a steady state temp of 140-150C on the heatsink, curious what junction temp you will hit on active devices. If you are relying on a thermal pad or thermal grease to keep your ICs cool, what happens over a period of time as these degrade? We want to keep these controllers for a few years! Your test needs to be repeated many times at different loading profiles to convince me you have a proper passive thermal cooling design (and at 60A continuous like the spec sheet says). If you can truly run the controller at 60A continuous (and are not just copying the IC's specs) then show multiple 15-20 minute tests of a single controller at 60A.

5) 3D printed case. Other plastic manufacturing methods would make more consistent parts for cheaper and with better properties (at the right manufacturing quantities).

6) No CAN. I don't expect this in a low cost controller, but would love to have it.

As others have noted, these concerns lead me to believe there will be reliability problems when using this controller during FRC season. It is a great prototype, but needs some major packaging rework.

-matto-