NeveRest 60 in FRC

[bobbysq]

"A little disclosure: Any motors you see available in Round 1; you can assume they’ll be legal on your robot."

Does this mean that we will be seeing new motors for FRC this year???

The FTC NeveRest motor is in the parts list...

Minibots confirmed?

Edit: Original text of this post:
http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/fc17-020

On the blog, it stated that motors in FIRST Choice would be legal for 2017. Is it viable for use in FRC, possibly for some very light actuators or with a VP gearbox instead?

[AdamHeard]

The FTC NeveRest motor is in the parts list...

Minibots confirmed?

boooooooooooooooooo

[PayneTrain]

The FTC NeveRest motor is in the parts list..

eh...

Minibots confirmed?

https://media.giphy.com/media/gPTTdOsD3lEQw/giphy.gif

[SenorZ]

The FTC NeveRest motor is in the parts list...

105rpm baby!

[saikiranra]

The FTC smoke generator is in the parts list...

Minibots confirmed?

FTFY

[AdamHeard]

FTFY

Eh it's a new motor that is larger and appears to be higher quality.... so it might not be garbage?

It's also sourced by AM versus whoever sourced the first one, so I trust it's quality a lot more.

[bobbysq]

boooooooooooooooooo

eh...

[IMG]

Something tells me that minibots aren't as fun as I thought they were.

Edit: For discussion of the motors themselves, I made a thread in the Motors subforum about them:
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1617079

[bobbysq]

http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/fc17-020

On the blog, it stated that motors in FIRST Choice would be legal for 2017. Is it viable for use in FRC, possibly for some very light actuators or with a VP gearbox instead?

Edit: Could a mod move this back to being the OP? I don't want this thread to be focused on the minibots speculation, otherwise I would have put this in Rumor Mill.

[AdamHeard]

It has very, very low output power at 14W.

However, it does get you a low RPM output w/ integrated encoder for $28.

There might be some narrow applications that this is a good choice for (low load shooter angle adjustment?, shot hardstop adjustment?).

[AllenGregoryIV]

I agree with Adam, there maybe be a few useful places for them. The really nice things is it makes it easier for FTC teams to move up to FRC since they already have parts that interface with them.

All we need know is simple cable to go from these encoders to the SRX data port.

[bobbysq]

All we need know is simple cable to go from these encoders to the SRX data port.

The cables for these are the same as the PG encoder cables, so if you already have those and breakout boards, it shouldn't be too bad.

[Jay O'Donnell]

They'll probably get similar usage as what VEX 393's got when they were legal.

[Cothron Theiss]

They'll probably get similar usage as what VEX 393's got when they were legal.

So for those of us who weren't around then, what kind of usage did they get?

[jnicho15]

Maybe they could be used for something that needs more than a servo but less than a real motor?

[Billfred]

The FTC NeveRest motor is in the parts list...

Minibots confirmed?

Eh it's a new motor that is larger and appears to be higher quality.... so it might not be garbage?

It's also sourced by AM versus whoever sourced the first one, so I trust it's quality a lot more.

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor (http://www.andymark.com/NeveRest-60-Gearmotor-p/am-3103.htm) is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here (http://archive.firstinspires.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/2011FRCMinibotInspectionChecklistRevA.pdf), PDF link.)

We may be biased here at AndyMark, but we think it has been a net positive for FIRST Tech Challenge teams. :)

Sent from my desk at AndyMark

[mman1506]

Maybe they could be used for something that needs more than a servo but less than a real motor?

With the widening of the servo rules you could get a similarly powerful servo and not have to purchase another motor controller.

[Andrew Schreiber]

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor (http://www.andymark.com/NeveRest-60-Gearmotor-p/am-3103.htm) is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here (http://archive.firstinspires.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/2011FRCMinibotInspectionChecklistRevA.pdf), PDF link.)

We may be biased here at AndyMark, but we think it has been a net positive for FIRST Tech Challenge teams. :)

Sent from my desk at AndyMark

I think this post is a lot of words saying "My name is Billfred and I approve MiniBots 2017"

[Tom Line]

So for those of us who weren't around then, what kind of usage did they get?

They saw very little usage. I saw a couple used for infeeds for shooters, a couple other folks tried to gear to do shifting because they were more powerful than the servos allowed at the time if I recall correctly.....

[AdamHeard]

They saw very little usage. I saw a couple used for infeeds for shooters, a couple other folks tried to gear to do shifting because they were more powerful than the servos allowed at the time if I recall correctly.....

Us and 33 used them for shooter angle adjustment.

[bobbysq]

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor (http://www.andymark.com/NeveRest-60-Gearmotor-p/am-3103.htm) is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here (http://archive.firstinspires.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/2011FRCMinibotInspectionChecklistRevA.pdf), PDF link.)

I was more going off of that minibots were made of FTC parts in general, although, I guess the definition of "FTC parts" has expanded quite a bit since 2011.

[Michael Blake]

So for those of us who weren't around then, what kind of usage did they get?

Cothron... 3481 Bronc Botz in 2012 designed our shooter hood to adjust angles with VEX 393's driving VEX lead screws but then FIRST ruled that adding the optional VEX 393 integrated encoder constituted a motor modification (was a completely baffling decision) and we had to scrap that approach and go with a fixed hood and variable speed on the flywheel shooter.

--Michael Blake

[FrankJ]

With the widening of the servo rules you could get a similarly powerful servo and not have to purchase another motor controller.

Not a insurmountable problem but the 5V bus current limits you regardless of the rules. As a personal thing I try not to put motor loads on a controls power bus anyway.

[bobbysq]

FIRST ruled that adding the optional VEX 393 integrated encoder constituted a motor modification (was a completely baffling decision)

Isn't that closer to a gearbox modification though? Did they also ban the Turbo gear set?

[AdamHeard]

Cothron... 3481 Bronc Botz in 2012 designed our shooter hood to adjust angles with VEX 393's driving VEX lead screws but then FIRST ruled that adding the optional VEX 393 integrated encoder constituted a motor modification (was a completely baffling decision) and we had to scrap that approach and go with a fixed hood and variable speed on the flywheel shooter.

--Michael Blake

Oooops.... We ran them all year.

[GeeTwo]

Same speed and similar power to a window motor, with an encoder - yes, we've had an application most years where this would have done the trick. At least twice we've had parts which we needed to deploy outside of the frame perimeter at startup, but that were then held in place with a latch or gravity, and several internal feeders and game piece controllers for which this would be a great fit. At $28 or 20 FC points each, they're also a fairly inexpensive encoder, even if you don't use the motor. And hey, they already have power poles installed if you do!

[Richard Wallace]

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor (http://www.andymark.com/NeveRest-60-Gearmotor-p/am-3103.htm) is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here (http://archive.firstinspires.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/2011FRCMinibotInspectionChecklistRevA.pdf), PDF link.)

We may be biased here at AndyMark, but we think it has been a net positive for FIRST Tech Challenge teams. :)

Sent from my desk at AndyMark

I don't have test data on this motor, yet. As the one who published data on the 2011 Minibot motors (aka smoke generators), I believe that the new motor is a significant improvement; this is based on a visual inspection of an early sample motor at Andy's desk during a visit to AM a few months ago, and on review of the data furnished by the motor manufacturer. I expect the Andymark engineers will be publishing their own test results soon. We should all suspend judgement about the NeveRest 60 for a while -- AM data will go a long way toward building my understanding of its real capability, and of course a season of in-situ performance will go even further.

All that said, there is data already available on the AM site. And that data supports what Billfred said above.

[Peyton Yeung]

I'm pretty sure I've seen some turrets driven by a 393 motor in 2012.

[Jay O'Donnell]

So for those of us who weren't around then, what kind of usage did they get?

Motions that didn't require much power. I think I remember 11 using it to push frisbees into their shooter.

[GeeTwo]

The FTC Smoke Generator is in the parts list...

The theme is STEAM - and smoke looks somewhat like steam, so maybe it will be really useful this year!

[Billfred]

All the NeveRest 60 discussion in the FIRST Choice thread (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152348) is now part of this thread, in the name of good thread hygiene as suggested by a user. :)

[cadandcookies]

RE: Neverest 60 gearmotors (all the Neverest motors are the same motor with different gearboxes, correct me if I'm wrong, Billfred)

The actual motor is compatible with anything (okay, I've only seen them in VPs and Banebots) that will take a 550 motor. This has become popular in FTC this year-- I know some teams running them through VersaPlanetary gearboxes and one of the FTC Robot In 1 Weekend teams used them on their shooters with Banebots gearboxes.

I think that FRC teams that use them (presuming they're legal), will be very pleasantly surprised compared to the old garbage Tetrix motors. I've seen a Neverest 40 stall for a full two minutes and perform just fine for the rest of a tournament. Compare this with the Tetrix motors that burned out if you looked at them funny, they're a major improvement. I would hesitate to call these guys "magic smoke generators" after watching teams abuse the different flavors of Neverest for the past few years. The only failure mode I've ever seen on them is due to improper/uncareful use of set screws, not due to the motors themselves.

[EricH]

Question for anybody who has some older motor specs lying around:

Can someone do a quick comparison of the Globe motor/gearbox setup (discontinued for FRC purposes about a decade ago) and the NeveRest 60? Seems like somewhere around the same power and form factor, off the top of my head--think the Globe might have had more power, though.

[Billfred]

I was more going off of that minibots were made of FTC parts in general, although, I guess the definition of "FTC parts" has expanded quite a bit since 2011.

Quite a bit, indeed!

2010-2011 FTC Rules (http://archive.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FTC/Game_Info/2010/Game_Manual.pdf) (R5 is the approved materials)

2016-2017 Game Manual Part 1 (http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/ftc/2016-2017-season/game-manual-part-1.pdf) (RM01 is the start of what's approved.)

In theory, the husk of an FTC robot might not have changed all that much for a DIY team since you could try and do it out of angle and flat aluminum. But if you're low-fabrication type like many FTC teams are, there are now many more options for structure, motors, wheels, gears, and other motion components--AndyMark, Rev, Actobotics, and Matrix are all making parts explicitly for FTC teams, and BaneBots and VEXpro parts are starting to make some inroads where their qualities are helpful.

[Jared Russell]

Question for anybody who has some older motor specs lying around:

Can someone do a quick comparison of the Globe motor/gearbox setup (discontinued for FRC purposes about a decade ago) and the NeveRest 60? Seems like somewhere around the same power and form factor, off the top of my head--think the Globe might have had more power, though.

NeveRest 60 is 11.5W max power.

Globe Motor was 47W.

BAG motor is 149W.

[Billfred]

RE: Neverest 60 gearmotors (all the Neverest motors are the same motor with different gearboxes, correct me if I'm wrong, Billfred)

The actual motor is compatible with anything (okay, I've only seen them in VPs and Banebots) that will take a 550 motor. This has become popular in FTC this year-- I know some teams running them through VersaPlanetary gearboxes and one of the FTC Robot In 1 Weekend teams used them on their shooters with Banebots gearboxes.

I think that FRC teams that use them (presuming they're legal), will be very pleasantly surprised compared to the old garbage Tetrix motors. I've seen a Neverest 40 stall for a full two minutes and perform just fine for the rest of a tournament. Compare this with the Tetrix motors that burned out if you looked at them funny, they're a major improvement. I would hesitate to call these guys "magic smoke generators" after watching teams abuse the different flavors of Neverest for the past few years. The only failure mode I've ever seen on them is due to improper/uncareful use of set screws, not due to the motors themselves.

The two things I've seen that tend to do in NeveRests are:

1) Set screw hub maladies. We released D-bore Nubs (http://www.andymark.com/AndyMark-Nub-p/am-nub.htm) this year to help solve this problem.
2) The NeveRest 20 gearhead is less tolerant of shock loads than the 40 and 60 gearheads. (The number is the reduction from the bare motor: 20:1, 40:1, 60:1.) However, per Kate's blog post (http://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/frc/blog/2017-first-choice), only the NeveRest 60, am-3103, as pictured here (http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/fc17-020) has been announced as legal at this time and (as far as I've seen) FIRST hasn't announced whether switching (or removing) the gearhead will be an approved modification for the 2017 FIRST Robotics Competition. So that may be a moot point.

Question for anybody who has some older motor specs lying around:

Can someone do a quick comparison of the Globe motor/gearbox setup (discontinued for FRC purposes about a decade ago) and the NeveRest 60? Seems like somewhere around the same power and form factor, off the top of my head--think the Globe might have had more power, though.
This white paper (https://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2034?) shows the Globe has a free speed of 79.87 RPM and 3195 oz-in of stall torque (at 21.58 amps). The NeveRest 60 has a free speed of 105 RPM and 593 oz-in of stall torque (at 11.5 amps).

[EricDrost]

We've been doing FTC for three years and I think we've seen every possible failure these motors can have. Less common failures I've seen are magic smoke (only once and it was totally our fault), and cold solder joints under the black plastic caps (two times). Billfred is spot on about the two most common failures:


1) Set screw hub maladies. [...]
2) [...] shock loads [...]


We've tried a lot of solutions to the D-shaft/set screw issue, a lot of which had slipping issues we couldn't solve. The most effective solution we found that still used the NeverRest gearheads was mounting these (http://www.banebots.com/product/T40H-SM62.html) to the D-Shafts, then drilling through hex adaptor and the D-shaft and tapping to 4-40. About 90-95% of the D-shafts were hardened steel and required a carbide drill bit, 5-10% were mild steel. Before we settled on this solution, we lost ~5 motors in one season because a set screw would round out part of the D-shaft.

We didn't try the nubs because the above was more effective at converting D to 0.5" Hex in our opinion.


Shock load causing the individual gears to shear teeth is the most common problem (in my experience) with 20s, 40s, and 60s. The gearheads share the same design as the 2011 tetrix gearheads with spiraling pairs of spur gears held together by hopes and optimism. We lost ~15 motors in one season due to shock load, mostly in drive train applications.



FIRST hasn't announced whether switching (or removing) the gearhead will be an approved modification for the 2017 FIRST Robotics Competition. So that may be a moot point.


I can't imagine it would be illegal as swapping the gearhead isn't an electrical modification. I sincerely hope this is legal because the two most common failures are gearhead failures, not motor failures.


My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead (http://www.andymark.com/Motor-p/am-3104.htm). As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

[AdamHeard]

My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead (http://www.andymark.com/Motor-p/am-3104.htm). As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

For FRC this seems like a pretty unoptimal choice. By going into a VP you're barely saving any weight over a BAG/775 (and no weight over a 550) and giving up a HUGE power advantage.

For FRC applications where you desire a motor w/ low speed, low power (to be more robust) and integrated encoder, the PG71's motor on a versaplanetary fits the bill much better.

[EricDrost]

For FRC this seems like a pretty unoptimal choice. By going into a VP you're barely saving any weight over a BAG/775 (and no weight over a 550) and giving up a HUGE power advantage.

I'm in total agreement.

The point of my post was to alleviate some of the headaches for a team that chooses to use them. The biggest advantage I can see (the integrated encoder) also disappears when you put them into a VP because of the new encoder stages available for VPs.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I can't imagine it would be illegal as swapping the gearhead isn't an electrical modification. I sincerely hope this is legal because the two most common failures are gearhead failures, not motor failures.


My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead (http://www.andymark.com/Motor-p/am-3104.htm). As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

There's precedent - the Window and Globe motors both had what FIRST deemed "integral" reductions on them and we were not allowed to use the motors w/o the reductions. Could have a similar ruling here. That being said, if the NR60s are allowed I'd hope the 20s and 40s would be too.

[Billfred]

We've tried a lot of solutions to the D-shaft/set screw issue, a lot of which had slipping issues we couldn't solve. The most effective solution we found that still used the NeverRest gearheads was mounting these (http://www.banebots.com/product/T40H-SM62.html) to the D-Shafts, then drilling through hex adaptor and the D-shaft and tapping to 4-40. About 90-95% of the D-shafts were hardened steel and required a carbide drill bit, 5-10% were mild steel. Before we settled on this solution, we lost ~5 motors in one season because a set screw would round out part of the D-shaft.I never knew about these adapters, but I'm impressed! (The true low-buck method is to take churro tubing, hacksaw one end about an inch down, jam it in place, and then use a shaft collar to clamp. Worked well enough to get through Fight Night for a few of us.)

My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead (http://www.andymark.com/Motor-p/am-3104.htm). As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

To achieve a 63:1 reduction with a VersaPlanetary costs $84.95 ($89.95 if you want 1/2" hex)--base stage, two ring gears, 7:1 and 9:1 stages. That buys you six NeveRest 60 gearheads (http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-3107.htm) (and most of the 7th), which also tucks into a smaller space (shorter, and the diameter is basically that of the motor itself). If you have means to protect against shock loads in the design, the packaging and budget advantages of the stock gearhead may be attractive to you.

(And at the risk of being a broken record, FIRST has still not announced whether removing or changing the gearhead is an approved modification.)

Sent from my desk at AndyMark

[Libby K]

To achieve a 63:1 reduction with a VersaPlanetary costs $84.95 ($89.95 if you want 1/2" hex)--base stage, two ring gears, 7:1 and 9:1 stages. That buys you six NeveRest 60 gearheads (http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-3107.htm) (and most of the 7th), which also tucks into a smaller space (shorter, and the diameter is basically that of the motor itself). If you have means to protect against shock loads in the design, the packaging and budget advantages of the stock gearhead may be attractive to you.

I think it's a difference worth spending for teams that can afford it - That $85 is the means (for our FTC teams) of protecting against the shock load. Our FTC teams were so thankful when buying them without the gearhead became available. The spiraling spur gears don't hold up well on the small robots, I'd be really worried about FRC team applications. Releasing latches or other servo-like replacements work with the gearhead on, but anything more heavy-duty, in our experience, is less reliable.

(And at the risk of being a broken record, FIRST has still not announced whether removing or changing the gearhead is an approved modification.)

Yep! Definitely something teams will have to pay attention to. Our mods come from the FTC world where it is legal. Hopefully they allow for it in FRC - the modifications our FTC teams have learned to make have made their robots significantly more dependable. If there's a situation where teams need to use them (cue the 2011 flashbacks) I hope teams will be able to customize in a way that lets them play their best.

[FTC5110]

I think it's a difference worth spending for teams that can afford it - That $85 is the means (for our FTC teams) of protecting against the shock load. Our FTC teams were so thankful when buying them without the gearhead became available. The spiraling spur gears don't hold up well on the small robots

It really comes down to how you treat them. We've used NeveRest motors since they arrived on the scene and gearbox failures aren't an issue. Our team has given these motors death in drivetrains and lift systems but always made an effort to minimize shock loads through control systems.

Okay the 20:1 is a bit weak (we broke 2 last season) and some emit funny noises but they're cheap and don't leak smoke.

Never had an issue with the spiraling spur gears. What on earth are you doing to them!

[xjschwen]

We are playing the FTC game this year and have blown out 4 of the Neverest 20 gearboxes. This was because the middle school teams did not set them to float at motor power 0.. W hen the motor power was set to zero the brake would come on and there was enough inertia in the shooter to trash the 20:1 gearboxes.

We took the gearboxes off and put an FTC motor collar directly on the spur gear.

So instead of attempting to gear up from 300 RPM to about 1800, we now start at 6000 RPM and gear down to 2000 RPM. We have a far better shooter than we had. The gear train is far simpler... less friction.. more reliable.

In 3 years of FTC we have burned out only 1 of these motors but have trashed many gear boxes.

[Tom Line]

Something tells me that minibots aren't as fun as I thought they were.

Edit: For discussion of the motors themselves, I made a thread in the Motors subforum about them:
https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1617079

Imagine designing a game where 20-40% of the game score can hinge on the last 15 seconds of the game. Then require the teams to use parts that none of them have in stock for their minibot in a somewhat misguided attempt to bring middle-school kids into FRC. Then act surprised when teams spend thousands and thousands of dollars developing faster and faster minibots, so the point where the fastest ones were thousandths of a second apart. Then design a system that doesn't always register when a minibot finishes, so that the entire crowd can HEAR the minibot hit the finish plate but the system never registers it. Then, ask the refs to watch and try to enforce a rule that the minibots are not crossing an imaginary starting plane ahead of time.

It was a fiasco - one that I still grumble about. You can go back and watch some of the 'fastest' minibots cross the plane well ahead of the light change using youtube slowmo. Those poor refs.

[Tom Line]

There's precedent - the Window and Globe motors both had what FIRST deemed "integral" reductions on them and we were not allowed to use the motors w/o the reductions. Could have a similar ruling here. That being said, if the NR60s are allowed I'd hope the 20s and 40s would be too.

You might be recalling incorrectly - we were allowed to modify the globe motor geartrain. Many times we glued the planetaries to the sun and ground the outside ring teeth off to remove a reduction.

[Andrew Schreiber]

You might be recalling incorrectly - we were allowed to modify the globe motor geartrain. Many times we glued the planetaries to the sun and ground the outside ring teeth off to remove a reduction.

You're probably right, the globes got removed right about when I started doing things other than pure software. I'm pretty sure window motors were no mods though.

[marccenter]

Dear CD,

As a robot inspector last year, I found one team had used the AM NeveRest motors on their robot so I had to have them remove the part before competing (and felt bad in the process because I suppose another inspector may have missed it, but felt better realizing that it may have gotten caught in a later inspection and they had ample time to swap out before their first match)

So, from an inspection standpoint, this solves potential issues when FRC teams borrow FTC components that may be illegal. To me, this is the biggest win for FIRST by making the inspectors job easier and teams less likely to make this mistake.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Dear CD,

As a robot inspector last year, I found one team had used the AM NeveRest motors on their robot so I had to have them remove the part before competing (and felt bad in the process because I suppose another inspector may have missed it, but felt better realizing that it may have gotten caught in a later inspection and they had ample time to swap out before their first match)

So, from an inspection standpoint, this solves potential issues when FRC teams borrow FTC components that may be illegal. To me, this is the biggest win for FIRST by making the inspectors job easier and teams less likely to make this mistake.

Every year we have to tell teams a motor they are using is illegal. We still catch Globe motors everyone now and then, I caught a couple Fisher price motors last year.

This will help the problem some but it won't cure it.

[Mike Schreiber]

You might be recalling incorrectly - we were allowed to modify the globe motor geartrain. Many times we glued the planetaries to the sun and ground the outside ring teeth off to remove a reduction.

With the general allowance of 'automotive motors' how does a team determine what is deemed an integral gearbox such as the window motor vs a non-integral gearbox like we saw with the mini-bot motors etc. For example I saw teams use door lock actuators last year, those have an integral gearbox. Could it be modified? The rules were not very clear last year, did anyone get an answer?

[bobbysq]

Every year we have to tell teams a motor they are using is illegal. We still catch Globe motors everyone now and then, I caught a couple Fisher price motors last year.

How does that even happen? Globe motors have been illegal for years, right?

[GeeTwo]

How does that even happen? Globe motors have been illegal for years, right?

The same way you get motors which were never FRC-legal:
::rtm:: := FALSE;

Edit: I see we have one two on the way from FIRST Choice! It's always easier to see how something might fit a job if you have one in hand. A window-motor class gear motor with FRC style mountings and a built-in encoder - sounds like we'll find a good use for it! (I'd be surprised if they couldn't raise those flags in the field drawings the past couple of years which weren't used.)

Edit2: Considering FTC motors to be smoke generators is a function not only of the only FTC motors previously allowed, but the function they were required to fill, and the value of being a hundredth of a second faster than the other guy. Not even excepting the can grabbers in 2015, my impression of reading old posts and attending Karthik's game strategies presentation in 2015 is that the minibot race for LogoMotion was the steepest arms race in FRC history. Liquid nitrogen baths - really?

[Cog]

Idk about these being smoke generators. The tetrix motors definitely let it out easily. But these can stall for like a minute and stay fully functional.

[Cog]

I don't have test data on this motor, yet. As the one who published data on the 2011 Minibot motors (aka smoke generators), I believe that the new motor is a significant improvement; this is based on a visual inspection of an early sample motor at Andy's desk during a visit to AM a few months ago, and on review of the data furnished by the motor manufacturer. I expect the Andymark engineers will be publishing their own test results soon. We should all suspend judgement about the NeveRest 60 for a while -- AM data will go a long way toward building my understanding of its real capability, and of course a season of in-situ performance will go even further.

All that said, there is data already available on the AM site. And that data supports what Billfred said above.

I worked with these motors all through my time in FTC. They can stall for more than a minute with no sweat. These motors seem weak until you take a look at all the simple mechanisms people use in FTC to great effect.

[Christopher149]

...smoke generators...

I have to assume the OP who brought it up didn't remember the 2011 motors as Tetrix motors, just as "FTC" motors, and now that an "FTC" motor is coming to FRC, has a bad but vague memory.

I'm told we managed to get smoke from a Neverest 60 (I wasn't in the room), but that was from having too-long face mounting screws, and it still works fine.

[Andrew Schuetze]

RE: Neverest 60 gearmotors (all the Neverest motors are the same motor with different gearboxes, correct me if I'm wrong, Billfred)

I too defer to Billfred. Be careful just a bit as your statement is probably 90% true. AM has a new Neverest 3.7 motor gearbox combo which has a different output configuration due to the low reduction gearbox plus I've just read the recent product release on the 3.7 stating it has a different motor encoder magnet setup. So yes you are correct that the neverest line of 20:1 , 40:1, & 60:1 are all the same motor with a different gearbox.

[Billfred]

I too defer to Billfred. Be careful just a bit as your statement is probably 90% true. AM has a new Neverest 3.7 motor gearbox combo which has a different output configuration due to the low reduction gearbox plus I've just read the recent product release on the 3.7 stating it has a different motor encoder magnet setup. So yes you are correct that the neverest line of 20:1 , 40:1, & 60:1 are all the same motor with a different gearbox.

You're correct, there's a slight difference to the NR3.7 encoder (http://conta.cc/2huWef1) that we didn't catch. But the differences between the 20, 40, and 60 should be limited to the gearhead.

(Standard disclaimer: Only the NeveRest 60 has been announced as legal for the 2017 FIRST Robotics Competition at this time by virtue of it being in FIRST Choice. FIRST has not announced whether the other NeveRest motors will be legal, nor whether removing the gearhead will be a legal modification.)

[bobbysq]

I have to assume the OP who brought it up didn't remember the 2011 motors as Tetrix motors, just as "FTC" motors, and now that an "FTC" motor is coming to FRC, has a bad but vague memory.

I was under the impression that minibots were to be made only of FTC legal parts, and this motor is primarily used in FTC. However, I assume if minibots were to come back, AndyMark would have been briefed by FIRST to stock more FTC supplies, and they'd be staying quiet on this thread.

I was not around for the 2011 game, nor have I read the manual, I just watched the reveal video.

[Christopher149]

I was under the impression that minibots were to be made only of FTC legal parts, and this motor is primarily used in FTC. However, I assume if minibots were to come back, AndyMark would have been briefed by FIRST to stock more FTC supplies, and they'd be staying quiet on this thread.

I was not around for the 2011 game, nor have I read the manual, I just watched the reveal video.

Minibots were made of FTC legal parts, but I don't think the Neverest existed in 2011. Also, the list of FTC-legal parts has greatly expanded, and is now more like mini-FRC than anything.

[Bob Steele]

Minibots were made of FTC legal parts, but I don't think the Neverest existed in 2011. Also, the list of FTC-legal parts has greatly expanded, and is now more like mini-FRC than anything.

Having worked as a minibot inspector at CMP The ONLY thing from FTC on most minibots were the motors and the batteries.... I believe those were the only FTC parts that was required.... (if you wanted the minibot to have motors that is....) You could use an FTC motor controller and an NXT if you wished along with other FTC/TETRIX parts, sensors and even FTC servos.

Most minibots were completely fabricated from FRC legal parts listed in the minibot rule with the only FTC parts being the motors (allowed 2) and the FTC battery. There were some minibots that were made differently but in the end it was a weight game.... magnets, motors, battery.... some kind of switch or switches to turn on and off.... pretty minimal.

You are correct that the Neverest motor was not available in 2011. Only the Tetrix motor...

[Knufire]

There was a laundry list of materials you were allowed to make minibots out of, quoted below.

The following items are the only permitted materials for use on the MINIBOTS:
A. TETRIX components that are not in violation of any other rules, (Tetrix components are listed in Approved Tetrix Parts at www.usfirst.org/frc/competitionmanual),
B. no more than two motors (PN W739083/W739023) and an unlimited number of Tetrix servos),
C. no more than one 12V rechargeable NiMH battery pack identical to those supplied in the FTC kit of parts (PN W739057) except the 20A fuse may be replaced with an equivalent type of lower amperage,
D. No more than one HiTechnic DC motor controllers,
E. No more than one NXT controller with the Bluetooth functionality disabled,
F. Polycarbonate,
G. Polycarbonate glue,
H. Raw welding rod, aluminum sheet, 90° angle, u-channel, tube, bar, that is not sold in preperforated or pre-punched form.
I. rivets,
J. non-metallic rope or cord,
K. wire nuts, solder, and crimps,
L. cable ties,
M. limit switches,
N. no more than two common household light switches,
O. electrical hookup wire,
P. non-slip pad,
Q. PVC or CPVC pipe and fittings,
R. PVC cement or cleaner,
S. Mechanical fasteners (e.g. screws, bolts, etc),
T. Loctite or similar thread-locking product,
U. Rubber bands,
V. Surgical tubing,
W. Electrical tape and shrink tubing,
X. PWM extension cables,
Y. Universal security clips to hold the PWM connectors together,
Z. Hook and loop fastener (may not be used as tape),
AA. Magnets,
BB. NXT compatible sensors and related connectors/cables,
CC. Grease, and
DD. Non-functional decorations.


Non-slip pad was literally anything marketed as non-slip pad.