Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I doubt they made the motor in house... it's most likely a motor bought from a misc Chinese vendor.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Possibly. My thoughts are 100% based on the picture of the motor on FIRST Choice. I don't have one handy. However, it's based on the assumption that 1) it's a picture of the actual motor, and 2) Banebots isn't buying knockoff parts that are marked the same way.

http://firstchoicebyandymark.com/fc15-124

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

There doesn't seem to be any machubi specific markings. The RS-550 motor is very common in battery powered tools and is made by tons of manufacturers. I wouldn't call RS-550's made by other manufactures "knock offs".

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

??

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Not a big loss. It's not as if there aren't other 500 series options. I prefer the AM-9015 to the BB550.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I'm referring to the RS550VC-7525 part number. The only places I see using that number is Mabuchi and knockoffs on alibaba.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Sean, I respect your opinion, but for the sake of those that may not know why you prefer the AM-9015, can you please explain why?
Explanations of why make learning much easier and more complete than just knowing "Sean Lavery prefers them."

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

With the very loose motor restrictions now, hunting for the most power out of motors is less important than it used to be (plus the old FP beat the 550s in that regard, anyway). So even though the 550s have more total power than the 9015s, we opt for the 9015s for a few reasons.

For high torque applications, we gravitate towards the CIM family of motors. Thus the higher stall torque on the 550s over the 9015s doesn't really come into play.

We'd consider the fan cooled 500 series motors for high speed, low torque applications. However, I have yet to find an application that actually needs anywhere close to the ~19000rpm free speed of the 550. The ~16000rpm free speed of the 9015 will typically let us to get the desired speed for our application using less reduction.

Last, but certainly not least, we trust AndyMark products and customer support a lot more than we trust BaneBots products and customer support. While the 540/550 family never had the issues of the 775s or other BaneBots products, we usually try to shy away from risk that could cost us a match.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I would say I'll miss the power/size ratio from a 550 and a BB planetary. By wattage it was second only to the CIM and 550's aren't especially fragile in my experience. Even with the addition of the mini-CIM the size and weight of a 550 with planetary sill beats it in several applications.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

The lack of thermal mass and the speed at which they burn or have led us to move almost exclusively to cims and bags.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I'm curious if you allowed for proper air intake in your gearbox design? That was a leading cause of failure I found a few years ago. Some of the gearboxes for the RS775 and RS550 actually blocked the intake and required some machining of air slots.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Yep. But 550s will fry after only a couple seconds at stall. Up until this past year with current monitoring we had no easy way to monitor them. When one Loss is the difference between 1st and tenth, it's just nice to know an accidental stall won't cost a match.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Having used (and abused) the RS550 this year in our claw, we finally switched to a BAG motor at championships simply due to the fact that we had burned 5 of them at that point. When we used the closing of the claw to help reorient fallen bins into the preferred orientation (bottom of the bin pointing at the robot) it would demand too much from the RS550 and the motor would burn. A larger gear reduction wasn't an option since the claw still had to open promptly during the automated stacking and our drop off sequence, and making sure to line the robot up perfectly to the bin just wasted time. Switching to the BAG we found more power to close the claw and a larger margin for error on how long the claw operator could stall the motor to grip a bin that had slid out to the tips of the claw (which would prevent the claw from being able to cam over and lock shut).

I liked the RS550 for things like the shooter flywheel on our 2012 robot or the conveyor belt running through this year's robot, but for applications that can put a decent sustained load on the motor it was less than desirable.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I'll be missing the RS550s quite a lot... they had plenty of power at a low weight. Our team has used them quite generously (this year's robot with only 6 motors, all CIMs, being an exception).

Our ideal use for them was on our 2013 FCS. 2 RS550s in a CIM-u-LATOR had all the power and torque we wanted, at a very low weight (less than a MiniCIM)... it was fabulous.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I may be missing something, it seems like the majority of people in here don't really mind if these aren't available. They have one of the highest power ratings for their size and weight (higher max power than either the Bag OR the MiniCIM, and higher than any of the AndyMark 9015s), at least according to the specs I gathered. I have been a little hesitant to use them for high torque applications if stalling was going to be standard, but they are one of two or three small form factor motors legal in FRC.

We got into a situation this year where it appeared that the simplest way to increase performance of our elevator was to replace a Bag with a 550 because the size was similar. I guess that won't be an option anymore.