Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

There are many 775s on the market and the banebots ones are nothing special. I'm sure the market will fill the hole.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Hopefully but it has to happen fast enough for FRC to allow them into the rules for this next season or it will hurt some teams.

Latest reply from the RobotShop technical team. I'm still hoping they will carry the RS775-18.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Latest news from RobotShop, they should have them eventually it seems. I'm a little concerned that they can't seem to get the motor names/numbers correct.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Hopefully they figure it out. What I absolutely do not want is another 2012, where superior motors (the Fisher Price 0673) were legal, but were all but unobtainable if you didn't already have them.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I think I must be the only one who misses the more restrictive motor selections of FRC past. The power wars are absurd currently. I much preferred it when teams had to be more selection about their applications of high powered motors.

This is fully agree with.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I agree with this, but not having a high powered motor thats not a CIM to choose from wouldn't be ideal. Without a single motor 250W+ motor option, alot of things teams have been doing in the past few years wouldnt be possible.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I remember teams doing a lot of impressive feats prior to the 775-18 or the FP-0673 being legal motors.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Between the CIM, miniCIM, am-9015, and BAG motors, I think there's plenty of power available. Especially when you have several COTS gearboxes on the market that will take two am-9015 or BAG motors as inputs.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I don't believe that 3946 has ever competed with a Banebots motor. We did, however, trust the specs and try to use one as a mostly horizontal part of our Ultimate Ascent (2013) climber. After smoking it on the very first climb attempt, we wound up replacing it with a CIM - at the same gear ratio. We found Banebots motors to be more properly name Botsbane.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

There's your problem! The banebots motor with the most torque still has over 3 times less torque than a CIM motor. By switching to a CIM motor and keeping the same gear ratio, you're giving the banebot motor a 3 to 1 disadvantage.

It's totally possible to vertically climb something at a reasonable rate using banebots or similar drill motors. Check out some 2004 robots for examples.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I believe 1986's 2013 climber was 4 550s or 775s.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Sure you're not thinking of the FPs? THOSE were the days! Drills in the drive, the odd CIM in some random place, and FPs and Globes for everything else. (Well, unless you needed a window or van door motor...)

The FP motors (Fischer-Price motors, from say a Barbie jeep) were some really good climbers if you ran 'em through their stock gearbox. Long as you didn't stall 'em, you were golden. They could also be used in the drive to back up the drill motors (though I do recall a team a few years later using 2 CIMs and 1 FP on each side--poor little FP didn't stand much of a chance). And, they were fairly tough to kill off, though not as tough as the CIMs.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

I remember that the 2005 FP had absurd power on paper as we were over volting it from the rated spec, but even so the 775's are dramatically superior to the 2005-2006 era FP's in any situation where they are under appreciable load.

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

'04 wasn't bad, for an FP--that's what we ran in '05 (legal per the rules updates). As I recall we didn't get 775s until at least '06 (and needed to get the gearbox with them).

Re: RIP Banebot RS550
 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. We designed for the Banebots, but it didn't come close to meeting the spec, or at least our understanding of it. Not having enough time before bagging to get a new gearbox, we swapped to a CIM without changing gears, other than the pinion. Fortunately, we had only used four CIMs otherwise.