Motor Controllers

[Ari423]

My personal favorite is the Victor 888, but I chose the Spark because it does basically the same thing, costs about half, and it's still available. I would say the only case where I wouldn't use the Spark or Victor is if I wanted to do built-in PID control, where I would use the Talon SRX.

I've used Jaguars a number of times (against my will) and all I can say is NEVER AGAIN. They take up a ton of room, are prone to breaking (I had one that screeched at me), using CAN is practically impossible, and therefore it doesn't do much more than the Victor 888 or Spark.

Originally Posted by DaveL

Would like to here from others on how they connect the Talon green and yellow CAN wires together. Vex sells a nice device but it's expensive and it takes up a lot of room.

Can you not just crimp or solder them (cue debate on crimping vs soldering)?

[JPBlacksmiths]

Originally Posted by Ari423

I've used Jaguars a number of times (against my will) and all I can say is NEVER AGAIN.

Ya my team also despises Jaguars

[GeeTwo]

At this point, I'd still have to consider the Talon SR my favorite, based on the number of motors and hours we have utilized them with zero mishaps. Spike relays would be second for the same reason (no mishaps, fewer hours, though you may not consider them a controller).

It didn't take much use of the Talon SR to send the Jaguars and Victors (a few each 884s and 888s) into our "unused parts" collection.

Being a bit of a "never buy serial number 1 of anything" guy, I have high hopes for most of the various controllers on this list, but none of them has become a favorite yet. I really like the features of the Talon SRX; if it proves to be robust it will probably top my list next year. The Victor SP, Spark, and SD 540 are all in a runoff to displace the obsolescent Talon SR, with cost, reliability, and limit switch capability as ranking factors to be determined. The Jaguar is my least favorite ever controller since becoming associated with FRC in 2012, squarely behind both the Victor 884s and 888s. Every one that the team ever owned has died a painful, stinky death. As much as we wanted to stop using them, we couldn't stop using these fast enough to get any of them out of use before it went up in smoke.

For the record: no vote cast, because my only solid decision among the controllers listed is not jaguar.
Edit:

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

Wondering why Victor 884/888 was left out of voting yet Jaguar was included?

--Michael Blake

Ditto Talon SR.

[Michael Blake]

Wondering why Victor 884/888 was left out of voting yet Jaguar was included?

--Michael Blake

[JPBlacksmiths]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

Wondering why Victor 884/888 was left out of voting yet Jaguar was included?

--Michael Blake

simply because this is all of the current motor controllers, nothing as far as I know has been made to replace the jaguar.

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by JPBlacksmiths

simply because this is all of the current motor controllers, nothing as far as I know has been made to replace the jaguar.

Though they don't have the same name (because they're made by different companies IIRC) the Talon SRX effectively replaces the Jaguar. It does the same PID control, limit switches, etc with better CAN support. I wouldn't buy Jaguars new even if they still were for sale.

[philso]

Originally Posted by Ari423

Can you not just crimp or solder them (cue debate on crimping vs soldering)?

We used the 2-position "0.100" Latching Polarizing Connectors" from Hansen Hobbies for the CAN wires on the Talon SRX's last year and had zero problems throughout the competition season plus the 3 or 4 off-season events. The pins can be crimped with the same crimper used for the normal PWM cables. We also crimped Anderson connectors onto the input and output wires so that the whole motor controller can be swapped out quickly and easily (did not have to) or it can be re-used as is. Just be sure to do a pull-test immediately after each and every crimp and to have someone else inspect the work (and repeat the pull-test) to ensure it was all done correctly. We coiled up the excess wire and tied it up neatly using small cable ties. The connectors for the CAN connections were contained within the loop, guaranteeing that no physical strain is put on the connection.

http://hansenhobbies.com/products/co...nlpconnectors/
http://hansenhobbies.com/products/co.../pt1in_lp_1x2/

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by philso

We also crimped Anderson connectors onto the input and output wires so that the whole motor controller can be swapped out quickly and easily (did not have to) or it can be re-used as is

I wonder if the 2016 FRC rules will consider this a "FABRICATED ITEM" and disallow it's use, if it was terminated before kickoff?

So many fun things to consider....

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I wonder if the 2016 FRC rules will consider this a "FABRICATED ITEM" and disallow it's use, if it was terminated before kickoff?

The 2015 rules has a specific exception for wiring terminations to COTs devices. I would think the 2016 rules would have the same exception. We will see. As a robot inspector, this is not an area I would focus on unless told to anyway.

[philso]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I wonder if the 2016 FRC rules will consider this a "FABRICATED ITEM" and disallow it's use, if it was terminated before kickoff?

So many fun things to consider....

It is always a risk when "future proofing" something. What you may have done one year may not be legal the next. At the very least, one can use these motor controllers on a practice robot with very little effort.

[FrankJ]

Talon SRX are my favorite. Unless you need the advanced features of the Talon the Victor SP makes more economic sense. I will wait to pass judgement on the new 2016 controllers when they prove their durability.

Other than size the jaguars don't deserve their bad reputation. We found them reliable when connected correct and not filled with metal shavings.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I wonder if the 2016 FRC rules will consider this a "FABRICATED ITEM" and disallow it's use, if it was terminated before kickoff?

So many fun things to consider....

It would have been allowed last year under R12c.

Originally Posted by 2015 Game Manual

R12 Physical ROBOT elements created before kickoff are not permitted. Exceptions are:

• A. OPERATOR CONSOLE,
• B. battery assemblies per R4,
• C. FABRICATED items consisting of one COTS electrical device (e.g. a motor or motor controller), connectors, and any materials used to secure and insulate those connectors

However, this exception was not included for the withholding allowance; if you wanted a pre-terminated controller as a spare part, it needed to be included in the withholding allowance.

Originally Posted by 2015 Game Manual

R17 At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS, not bagged per R14, known as the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, that shall not exceed 30 lbs. to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE may only be brought into the Venue when the Team initially loads in at the Event. Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit.
For Teams attending 2-Day Events, these FABRICATED ITEMS may be used during the Robot Access Period and/or brought to the Event, but the total weight may not exceed 30 lbs. FABRICATED ITEMS constructed during the Robot Access Period and bagged with the ROBOT are exempt from this limit.
Items exempt from this limit are:

• A. the OPERATOR CONSOLE,
• B. any ROBOT battery assemblies (as described in R4).

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

However, this exception was not included for the withholding allowance; if you wanted a pre-terminated controller as a spare part, it needed to be included in the withholding allowance.

I wonder why they made that distinction. Is it too much of an advantage to have a drop-in replacement motor or controller ready to go?

I could see the first task for a student in the pit being to crimp some connectors onto a set of spare motors and controllers, ready to go.

In fact... *writes that down*

As for the poll, I voted for Talon SRX since it seems to offer quite a lot of potential advantages for the fairly minimal extra cost. Virtually every one of our robot failures last year, both on our practice field and unfortunately during our first regional, was some combination of our software addressing the incorrect PWM or DIO, the encoder wired incorrectly, read incorrectly, software values set/reset incorrectly, motors trying to run the forklift past the edge (e.g. we didn't have time to wire in a hard limit switch), etc. If we thought to use the limit switch and encoder functionality in the Talon SRX, and communicate over CAN instead of PWMs and DIOs, our code (and failure modes) could have been much simpler.