Originally Posted by Oblarg (Post 1381857)

Strictly speaking, what you're doing is not simply dimensional analysis. Dimensional analysis would be multiplying the characteristic size of the wheel by the characteristic speed of the motor; it thus usually results in loss of dimensionless constants.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 1382021)

Isn't that only true if you construct the system using dimensionless constants? You can specify that you're looking for ft/s from rev/min, and use dimensions of ft/rev (from the circumference equation, so your π should be included there in the unit conversion) to keep everything consistent.

Originally Posted by Mk.32 (Post 1381799)

The CIM mounting holes are decently accessible, hard to see in this photo.

How do you know there is to much reduction? If you read the thread in entirely I believe I commented on it was on the slow side, but worked beautifully.

We are using 1/4-20s to hold the gb together (pretty standard in FRC AM uses it a lot), since that's what we had and they were alum bolts so they weighed nothing compared to the steel ones. I am sure 10-32s would have worked fine but what we had is what we had.

Why does the pocketing have to contour the spacers? It got a little weird since we needed to throw in all the slots which is what bolts it to the robot. And honestly I didn't really care much in the terms of aesthetics; it could have been pocketed more heavily but the mentors on the team wanted to be on the safe side. And the weight difference would have been in the grams.