image.png

From what I heard the DRC rules for flat-flex PCBs are usually better for thin lines (I dont fully understand the reason yet though), so you might want to switch to a stiff flat-flex PCB if you have problems with your normal PCB.

This is really a cost cutting exercise. I could have paid 6 times the price for the correct track/space but I wanted to know of oshpark standard service would work.

Yes, paying 6 times less for a slightly lower yield likely pays off a lot.

It's an experiment. The chips are basically priceless so in some sense I don't care about the PCB price

I've been advertising the fact that the bump pitch was chosen to accommodate cheap 2-layer boards, so it's nice to see that put into practice.

I think if I'd paid more attention to the pinout I could have just used the outside ring of IOs and avoided even the risk with the thin traces.

Not to rain on your parade, but that layout looks flipped. The PCB landing pattern must be the mirror image of the bump bond layout. See https://caravel-harness.readthedocs.io/en/latest/supplementary-figures.html "PCB example route pattern".

oh no

image.png