sburro

05-09-2004, 05:12 PM

I am interested to find out what most teams cruizin speed/gear ratio is. I thnk this would be helpful to most other teams trying to build a transmission. Thanks in advance for the responce.

View Full Version : how fast are you

sburro

05-09-2004, 05:12 PM

I am interested to find out what most teams cruizin speed/gear ratio is. I thnk this would be helpful to most other teams trying to build a transmission. Thanks in advance for the responce.

Corey Balint

05-09-2004, 05:16 PM

We top off at about 14 feet per second with a gear ratio of 4-1(to get more complicated it's, 60:24:12)

Jeremiah Johnson

05-09-2004, 05:17 PM

Our robot cruises at about 7 fps. I don't know the gear ratio. This was our fastest bot. Others can match @ top speed.

p.s. what is up with the name stealing? j/k

p.s. what is up with the name stealing? j/k

sanddrag

05-09-2004, 05:27 PM

We have a theoretical top speed of 9.4 fps. We run on drills and Chias. The Chias are geared down to match the speed of the drills (in low gear), then the drills are geared down 12/32 to the 12.5" diameter wheels.

Steve W

05-09-2004, 05:57 PM

Team 188 has a low speed of 4 fps and top speed of 17 fps.

Andrew Rudolph

05-09-2004, 05:57 PM

We ran a test witha mostly full battery and we are at about 11 fps

Cory

05-09-2004, 07:01 PM

Our robot's original top speed was 15 fps.

It's now down to around 9.5 fps.

Cory

It's now down to around 9.5 fps.

Cory

Alex Cormier

05-09-2004, 07:10 PM

high gear 15 forward 300 RPM

low gear 9-9.5 forward 231 RPM

low gear 9-9.5 forward 231 RPM

edomus

05-09-2004, 07:24 PM

well....I have run a mile in 4:30:)

Arefin Bari

05-09-2004, 07:39 PM

our bot goes 11.9 ft. per second on high gear... and 3.4 feet per sec...

here are some specifications of the tranny...

Gear Ratio:

High Gear = Output/Input

59.1 drill

17.5 atwood

Low Gear = Output/Input

206.8 drill

61.1 atwood

Torque(tranny)=Torque(motors)*Gear Ratio * Efficiency of Gearbox

T(in lb) 3172 low gear

T(in lb) 906 high gear

here are some specifications of the tranny...

Gear Ratio:

High Gear = Output/Input

59.1 drill

17.5 atwood

Low Gear = Output/Input

206.8 drill

61.1 atwood

Torque(tranny)=Torque(motors)*Gear Ratio * Efficiency of Gearbox

T(in lb) 3172 low gear

T(in lb) 906 high gear

Brandon Holley

05-09-2004, 07:47 PM

our robot (cims and drills), goes 9.5 ft/s...i believe the ratio is 4:1...

Andrew Rudolph

05-09-2004, 07:52 PM

Yeah we tried doing some theoretical calculations, but thoes we wrong. Holonomic was unpredictable to say the least.

Cory

05-09-2004, 08:00 PM

our bot goes 11.9 ft. per second on high gear... and 3.4 feet per sec...

here are some specifications of the tranny...

Gear Ratio:

High Gear = Output/Input

59.1 drill

17.5 atwood

Low Gear = Output/Input

206.8 drill

61.1 atwood

Torque(tranny)=Torque(motors)*Gear Ratio * Efficiency of Gearbox

T(in lb) 3172 low gear

T(in lb) 906 high gear

Are you sure you did your torque calculations right?

3172 inch-lbs is as much torque as some cars have. I don't think your bot has as much torque as a car (That would be pretty cool though, wouldn't it :))

Cory

here are some specifications of the tranny...

Gear Ratio:

High Gear = Output/Input

59.1 drill

17.5 atwood

Low Gear = Output/Input

206.8 drill

61.1 atwood

Torque(tranny)=Torque(motors)*Gear Ratio * Efficiency of Gearbox

T(in lb) 3172 low gear

T(in lb) 906 high gear

Are you sure you did your torque calculations right?

3172 inch-lbs is as much torque as some cars have. I don't think your bot has as much torque as a car (That would be pretty cool though, wouldn't it :))

Cory

Arefin Bari

05-09-2004, 08:06 PM

Are you sure you did your torque calculations right?

3172 inch-lbs is as much torque as some cars have. I don't think your bot has as much torque as a car (That would be pretty cool though, wouldn't it :))

Cory

the torque title says "efficiency of the gearbox" the calculation was done right... it was checked by 3 engineers... so the transmission itself has torque of 3172... but i dont believe our robot has that much torque... if we did then we would be pushing around almost every single bot... :)

3172 inch-lbs is as much torque as some cars have. I don't think your bot has as much torque as a car (That would be pretty cool though, wouldn't it :))

Cory

the torque title says "efficiency of the gearbox" the calculation was done right... it was checked by 3 engineers... so the transmission itself has torque of 3172... but i dont believe our robot has that much torque... if we did then we would be pushing around almost every single bot... :)

BillyGoats

05-09-2004, 08:08 PM

dont know the gear ratio but we make it from one side of the feild to the other in 6 seconds of less

Max Lobovsky

05-09-2004, 08:47 PM

I am interested to find out what most teams cruizin speed/gear ratio is. I thnk this would be helpful to most other teams trying to build a transmission. Thanks in advance for the responce.

Isn't the ratio useless without knowing the wheel diameter?

Isn't the ratio useless without knowing the wheel diameter?

Max Lobovsky

05-09-2004, 08:59 PM

the torque title says "efficiency of the gearbox" the calculation was done right... it was checked by 3 engineers... so the transmission itself has torque of 3172... but i dont believe our robot has that much torque... if we did then we would be pushing around almost every single bot... :)

The calculation does appear to be correct, just go to http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/2004/specsheets.htm and try the calculations yourself.

The calculation does appear to be correct, just go to http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/2004/specsheets.htm and try the calculations yourself.

Joe3

05-09-2004, 09:04 PM

Our top speed this year was about 8 ft/sec. However, we were a little underpowered with only the two bosch motors for drive.

Tristan Lall

05-09-2004, 09:04 PM

3172 inch-lbs is as much torque as some cars have. I don't think your bot has as much torque as a car (That would be pretty cool though, wouldn't it ;))Actually, Blizzard 5 (that's our robot...) outputs 500.6 lb-ft (6007 lb-in) at the drive wheels in low, and 116.4 lb-ft (1397 lb-in) in high--though that's before factoring in the estimated 86% efficiency--so let's call it 5166 and 1201 lb-in, respectively. Given that it's using the Fisher-Price motors in addition to the Bosch and CIM motors used by mechman108's robot, and given that its torque was calculated using a similar method, it looks about right. (Also note that these are stall torque ratings--the robot would most definitely not like being stalled for very long. 670 A will do that to you.)

A car's torque rating is measured at the crankshaft--but with a multi-motor drivetrain in a robot, there's no equivalent. So we measure torque at the drive wheels. The true test of car vs. robot involves factoring in whatever gear ratios exist in the car's transmission and differential, and comparing those figures.

Incidentally, like Steve said, we do 3.8 ft/s in low, and 16.5 ft/s in high (with 8.5" diameter wheels).

A car's torque rating is measured at the crankshaft--but with a multi-motor drivetrain in a robot, there's no equivalent. So we measure torque at the drive wheels. The true test of car vs. robot involves factoring in whatever gear ratios exist in the car's transmission and differential, and comparing those figures.

Incidentally, like Steve said, we do 3.8 ft/s in low, and 16.5 ft/s in high (with 8.5" diameter wheels).

Max Lobovsky

05-09-2004, 09:24 PM

Actually, Blizzard 5 (that's our robot...) outputs 500.6 lb-ft (6007 lb-in) at the drive wheels in low, and 116.4 lb-ft (1397 lb-in) in high--though that's before factoring in the estimated 86% efficiency--so let's call it 5166 and 1201 lb-in, respectively. Given that it's using the Fisher-Price motors in addition to the Bosch and CIM motors used by mechman108's robot, and given that its torque was calculated using a similar method, it looks about right. (Also note that these are stall torque ratings--the robot would most definitely not like being stalled for very long. 670 A will do that to you.)

A car's torque rating is measured at the crankshaft--but with a multi-motor drivetrain in a robot, there's no equivalent. So we measure torque at the drive wheels. The true test of car vs. robot involves factoring in whatever gear ratios exist in the car's transmission and differential, and comparing those figures.

Incidentally, like Steve said, we do 3.8 ft/s in low, and 16.5 ft/s in high (with 8.5" diameter wheels).Both these torque ratings are impractical because they are torques at stall and when 2 CIMs and 2 Drills stall the current draw is over 450A with each drawing 100A so it would be a very short time before several fuses blow. Add two FPs and getting to stall torque is even less possible. It would be more appropriate to list the torque at realistic currents like 40A per motor. Torque is basically proportional current so that is about 1/3 the torque listed for each of those robots. Supposing they could be at stall for more than a very short time, something would surely give to lower the torque very quickly, be it wheels slipping or the finger of the poor kid who got to close to the chain.

The fact that these are ratings at stall is another reason that they are incomparable with cars because internal combustion engines usually have max torque at higher speeds (at their highest speed?).

interesting little calculation: 500.6lb/ft on 12 inch wheels yields a force of 1001.2 lb per side. This would require wheels with a coefficient of friction of (1001.2)*2/130 = 15.4 to harness that power. The highest CoF i have seen in any context is like 3 or 4

A car's torque rating is measured at the crankshaft--but with a multi-motor drivetrain in a robot, there's no equivalent. So we measure torque at the drive wheels. The true test of car vs. robot involves factoring in whatever gear ratios exist in the car's transmission and differential, and comparing those figures.

Incidentally, like Steve said, we do 3.8 ft/s in low, and 16.5 ft/s in high (with 8.5" diameter wheels).Both these torque ratings are impractical because they are torques at stall and when 2 CIMs and 2 Drills stall the current draw is over 450A with each drawing 100A so it would be a very short time before several fuses blow. Add two FPs and getting to stall torque is even less possible. It would be more appropriate to list the torque at realistic currents like 40A per motor. Torque is basically proportional current so that is about 1/3 the torque listed for each of those robots. Supposing they could be at stall for more than a very short time, something would surely give to lower the torque very quickly, be it wheels slipping or the finger of the poor kid who got to close to the chain.

The fact that these are ratings at stall is another reason that they are incomparable with cars because internal combustion engines usually have max torque at higher speeds (at their highest speed?).

interesting little calculation: 500.6lb/ft on 12 inch wheels yields a force of 1001.2 lb per side. This would require wheels with a coefficient of friction of (1001.2)*2/130 = 15.4 to harness that power. The highest CoF i have seen in any context is like 3 or 4

MisterX

05-09-2004, 09:30 PM

We have a mathematical cruising speed of 10.5 on our one speed at peak parabola howvere at NAts when we put in onthe dynometer we tipped their scales or something and wernt getting an accurate read (we havea torwque of 0? ) but the thing was saying like 11.5

Max Lobovsky

05-09-2004, 09:32 PM

We have a mathematical cruising speed of 10.5 on our one speed at peak parabola howvere at NAts when we put in onthe dynometer we tipped their scales or something and wernt getting an accurate read (we havea torwque of 0? ) but the thing was saying like 11.5

Well if you were checking your top free spinning speed, then hopefully the dynamo is free spinning. Hence 0 torque.

Well if you were checking your top free spinning speed, then hopefully the dynamo is free spinning. Hence 0 torque.

aaronbr28040

05-09-2004, 09:57 PM

Our robot (Team 900) had a theoretical top speed of a little less than 10 ft/sec but we started this high so that with efficiency loss we would be down to around 8. We had a little too much speed so during our regionals we swapped out our 40 tooth sprockets for some 45 tooth sprockets. This put us down to 6.7 ft/sec on the dyno at nationals. We used both the Bosch and the Chip with an output to a 10 tooth sprocket-----to a 45 tooth.

-Aaron

-Aaron

Tristan Lall

05-09-2004, 10:33 PM

Both these torque ratings are impractical because they are torques at stall and when 2 CIMs and 2 Drills stall the current draw is over 450A with each drawing 100A so it would be a very short time before several fuses blow.Also note that these are stall torque ratings--the robot would most definitely not like being stalled for very long. 670 A will do that to you.Correct! And that's why we don't like stalling motors. The whole point of the exercise is not to stall the motors--if we were to do that, we'd be lucky if we had 5 seconds before the main breaker went off (if the chart Bussman provided is any indication). And it is perfectly legitimate that the coefficient of friction limits the amount of torque that can be effectively used--once again, if the full torque were used, the motors would stall.

greencactus3

05-09-2004, 10:58 PM

well....I have run a mile in 4:30:)

theoretically... my mile would be around 3:20... my 100m 11.65....

but... im sure not able to run a mile that fast....

well our robot was theoretically 8fps....

how accurate theoretically it is, i have no idea

theoretically... my mile would be around 3:20... my 100m 11.65....

but... im sure not able to run a mile that fast....

well our robot was theoretically 8fps....

how accurate theoretically it is, i have no idea

Josh Fritsch

05-10-2004, 07:57 AM

Our robot went about 7-8 fps in low gear and 18 fps in high. heh we had no need for it but it was fun to drive. :)

Ali Ahmed

05-10-2004, 08:45 AM

H.O.M.E.R(that's the robots name) does 12 ft/sec in high and 4 ft/sec in low using 2 Drills and 2 Atwoods/CIM/Chips with 6" wheels.

sburro

05-10-2004, 09:32 AM

Isn't the ratio useless without knowing the wheel diameter?

you are right. the wheel size is a factor, but I just wanted to see what the average speed and what people might have used for reductions. Maybe a better question would be what is the overall ratio.

you are right. the wheel size is a factor, but I just wanted to see what the average speed and what people might have used for reductions. Maybe a better question would be what is the overall ratio.

Alex Pelan

05-10-2004, 02:45 PM

We have two speeds - 4 fps in low gear and 15 fps in high gear

rswsmay

05-10-2004, 04:25 PM

Our bot this year was designed at a little more than 14fps with an overall gear ratio of 20.25:1 using 2 CIM motors. Actual performance was about 12.89 fps which gave us an overall drivetrain efficiency of about 86%.

vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.