FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...or-controllers

Eight, count them, EIGHT legal motor controllers!

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Whoa...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Losing the 550's and 775's is going to be a major blow to FRC teams if they do not find another supplier. Right now there is a VERY large gap in the motor chart between 150W and 300W. And with the 300W motor being a CIM, you are basically limited to 150W for any single motor, unless you have room to fit a CIM. I hope they can find a new supplier for a ~220W-250W motor, in 775 size.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I'm assuming the AndyMark versions of the 500/775 will still be available. They're still listed on the AM website.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I was literally about to order around 10 775 motors today. Thank god I procrastinate sometimes....

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Yes they are, however they are nowhere close to the power provided by the banebot motors. The 9015 is 179W vs 253W, and the AM 775 is only 150W vs 273W. So there are similar size motors, but nowhere near similar power. That means if you want more then 250W in a motor you either need to double up motors, or go to a CIM, where there just sometimes isn't space.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Does anyone else dislike that it feels like they tried to stick the information about the 775 and 550 into a blog post? It's like they didn't want us to notice or something. This is a fairly large deal that teams need to know about and it feels like an add-on to a blog post that not everyone would normally read.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Where would you suggest they put this kind of information? Blog posts are one of the more effective means of communicating to the teams. I'm sure it will come out later in an e-mail blast to the teams, just the blog post came out ahead.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

In my mind they're doing us a favor. They're under no obligation to tell us what motor controllers or motors are legal until the manual is released.

I am surprised about the decision concerning 775s. Banebots discontinuted the motor but still has ~2300 in stock, and I imagine lots of veteran teams have big stockpiles of these motors.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

That's exactly how I feel. I'd much rather know now in a blog post than to read it in the rules.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

+1 I feel like letting us find out Kickoff Day is their regular MO, so this is great.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

That's assuming you trust the banebots power rating. Many people suspect they were over rated performance wise.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

He's talking about hiding in a blog post that is talking about something else. It's like a rider on a bill.

The news of the motors being disallowed was going to make teams upset, so I figure they wanted to temper that by informing us in an otherwise very positive blog post.
Too bad that the focus is on this instead of REV and MindSensors' new products.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

If I remember correctly when we lost Fisherprice motors in 2013 we didn't know until kickoff.

The banebots issue has been on the horizon for a while if you read this thread.

As far as motors go we have been pretty spoiled the last few years having MiniCIMs, BAGs, AM motors, BB motors, and more. There a lot of people who don't remember the days of designing arms that were powered by van door motors. Don't get me wrong I love more motor power as much as the next guy, namely because I think it makes the robots more entertaining but if we have to go without for a few seasons teams will adapt.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Happy to see the competition for this non-optional FIRST part!
I'll buy at least one of each of the new products for my R&D bots.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I have designed a ton of applications with those 775 motors using the specs published by Banebots (Scorpion, Overclock's robot from last year, had 14 of those bad dads on her), I have never had a case where I said to myself, "those specs are messed up!" When we design our lift to raise 6 totes at 2ft per second, the lift raised 6 totes at 2ft per second.

Of course there is variation from motor to motor but nothing out of the normal manufacturing tolerances (typical for this style of motor is +/-15%).

If you knew what your were doing, those motors were amazing. More power than a Mini-CIM at less that half the weight and volume.

I will serious miss those motors.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

The 550 is where I noticed performance differences. We never ran the 775s on anything critical so I'm unsure on them.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I'm confused what the point of designing a motor controller for 60 amp continuous is if the largest breaker we are allowed to use is 40 amps. I understand the higher peak, but the I was under the impression that breakers would snap once you get above 40 amps for more than a few milliseconds. It would make sense if these were already being produced and are just now being approved for FRC, but the blog post makes it sound like they were developed specifically for FRC teams.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I guess that explains why there were so many 775s, 550s, and P60s available in FIRST Choice this year.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

We've used lots of 775s and they were always fairly close to what we had calculated them to be. What made that motor so great was it was an 18v motor so it ran super cool even at stall because it was only 12v. That motor surely will be missed by many teams.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Your millisecond estimate is the part that is incorrect. Here is the data sheet for the 40 amp snap action breaker. They can sometimes hold 200% over the rating for a maximum of almost 4 secs.

The current ratings on these types of breakers tell you when they won't trip, not when they will trip.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Banebots 775s have always matched the advertised specs for us (modulo case shorting issues in 2011).

Banebots 550s have always provided substantially less torque than advertised for us.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Check out the spec sheet for the 40A breakers in the kit. They can sustain 200% of their rating (80A) for over a second before tripping, and often do when the robot is accelerating. Edit: Allen got me ::ouch::

Which is the Andymark 775 that's rated at 150W? I only see the 9015 (~179W) and the motors used in PG gearboxes, which are closer to 40W. :confused:

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Breakers exist to protect the wiring, not the device. Breakers can and will pass current in excess of the rated current. If you draw 80 amps, the 40 amp breakers used by FRC will not trip before 1 second passes.

For what it's worth, the Victor 888, Victor SP, Talon SR and Talon SRX are all also rated for 60A continuous. If I remember correctly, most of the components in the Talon SR are rated for 100 amps continuous. I think it's good that a device designed for use by high schoolers is rated for more than the expected conditions.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

When someone wants to design a motor controller for FRC, FIRST will provide you a document with their required specifications. One of those requirements is 60 amp continuous operation.

While this may seem like over kill when you do have a 40amp breaker, a factor of safety is a very common thing for equipment like this. It is easy to under estimate the power of 40 amps because we are around it so much on robots but this amount of power density can be extremely dangerous if not done correctly. Back in the "old days" it was not uncommon to see a robot fire or two at a regional event.

We test our controllers to failure at 100amps, to make sure they are as solid and reliable as possible for teams.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Is anyone else excited about the new speed controllers? They're $45 and $50 respectively. This is an awesome thing for the vast majority of teams as it means you can execute your plans and make mistakes for cheaper. I'm still waiting for $20 speed controllers for the automotive motors. It's also really nice that teams can use the older motor controllers for the same reason.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

So many new motor controllers but no new relays? :(

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

What do we need relays for anymore? (Note that Spikes are discontinued.) The pneumatic compressor runs through the PCM, and if you absolutely need relay-type control for something, programming a speed controller act like a relay is trivial.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

That, and there are only 4 relay ports on the rio now.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Spikes are $10 cheaper than the least expensive motor controller, and most veteran teams have bunches of them.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

This is in the blog post:
Having just ordered four Talon SRX's from AndyMark, I would expect them to be legal, but I don't see the AM part number like in the Talon line above it. It's AM-2854. I would expect it's just an oversight on Kate's part.

Also, I agree with Joe. I like the 775s and I will miss them.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Was hoping for a <$20 60A relay for intakes, internal rollers, etc. Flywheels as well, if you can get acceptable performance out of a bang-bang controller.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I feel like this is asking for a lot. It would have to be an electrical relay, since mechanical relays can't switch fast enough for bang-bang control. At that point, most people would have a hard time distinguishing an electrical relay from an actual speed controller.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Actually a Blog post is not that good of a way to share this kind of important information as overall not that many people look there on a regular, consistent basis, if at all.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I don't see them being legal if there if not an option for all teams to get them or something equivalent during the season.

We stopped using spikes for anything besides window motors because of the annoying tendency to blow the fuse with the bigger motors.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Your concern has been answered. :]

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I'll concur with this assessment. We originally used two 550s on our elevator this year only to have them not have enough torque to perform to our expectations. Using the BB specs, it should have been no problem for us.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Any chance that Spikes will be disallowed this year, based on their lack of availability? Might drive us to buy more speed controllers.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Given that, I would expect that Spikes will not be legal for switching motors. They may still be permitted for LEDs and other CUSTOM CIRCUITS, however. Most custom circuits can be more efficiently and less expensively switched with a relay module. You can replace 4 spikes for around $20 unless you need more than 10A per relay.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Im pretty sad about not having the use of 775 and 550's anymore.
This is also why I need to STOP stockpiling motors (just like the old FP motors).

These were very cheap and took up such a small volume. Worst news I heard all year........:mad:

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I am assuming both new motor controllers don't do CAN? Neither website says anything to either effect.

EDIT: I see on the CD thread for the SPARK that it doesn't support CAN.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Am I sad to see the 775 go? Yes it was a great little motor.

On the other hand I think the massive expansion of motors the last few years has not been a good thing. I would love to see a big reduction of available power via motors for the design challenge.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

So with the Banebot motors out of FRC (R.I.P.) what would be the new go to motors in terms of power?

Edit: Quick research yields that the Andymark 9015 Motor might be the next strongest that is not a CIM-class motor. Is this correct?

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I want to know whether or not the dual- and quad-bank SD540s will come at a discount with respect to buying two or four of the singe units...

Also, what happens if I manage to fry one out of a bank of four?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Very excited about additional motor controllers. A bit concerned about the lack of "vented" motors on the list. 550s and 775 had their issues with stall, but when done right, the air cool was nice for consistent performance.

Anyone have issues with BAG motors overheating in heavy competition? I would assume they get and stay hot similar to CIMS which is a bit concerning when you have back to back matches. Any experience?

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

From the picture on the website, It looks like just 4 independent circuits inside one large 3d printed case (instead of 4 single cases). I would imagine you could remove a burnt out one, buy a single replacement, and do a drop-in.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Ditto for us in 2015.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I think that many teams face enough of a design challenge just fielding a robot without adding more restrictions to motors.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I'd argue that the teams who have trouble fielding a robot are definitely not running into the motor power limit.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I agree with Knufire. WARNING: You just woke up a geezer!

[geezer]Back in my day, we didn't have no stinkin' 775 motors! Didn't have more'n TWO, count 'em, TWO, CIMs! Unlimited motors? HAH! We was lucky ta get more'n two of any one motor! And we didn't have all this selection of controllers either--all we had were Victor 884s! And Spikes! And don't get me started on the gearboxes! You think more restrictions means harder challenge, you're darn right, maybe it's ACTUALLY a challenge now! You young whippersnappers these days...[/geezer]

All right, back to seriousness... You get two drill motors, two CIM motors, two Fischer-Price motors, two Globe motors with attached gearbox, two window motors, and one van door motor. Build a robot that can play Recycle Rush. I can do it with two drills, one CIM, and one van door motor (and a couple of pneumatic cylinders). Won't be very fast, but I'm pretty sure that it'd be a second-rounder for consistency. (Hint: I've done it--2003.) By the way, that's the actual motor list from around '03-04 timeframe--we didn't get the second pair of CIMs until '05 and lost the drill motors to get it. And somehow, everybody showed up with a robot that--at least in general--ran, and most of them actually ran pretty well.

This whole "unlimited high-power motor" thing has been kind of... well, I don't know. It is what it is, but I'm thinking that it was about time for it to end. Maybe we'll get some contact back next year with the power dialed down...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Remember, they are trying to get more people into FRC. A big part of this is making the viewing experience intense and/or exciting. While a more difficult challenge may make for interesting and complex designs, the last thing I would want to do to a game like RR is slow down the speed with which teams can make stacks. People want to see robots not only working, but continuing to work faster and faster until they are making record pace. People want to see these robots doing things that humans can't (or at least that's what we are always asked to show at demos and such.) Limiting motors limits robots capacities to accomplish these feats, and while some teams will be able to work around these constraints, a majority of teams will just have another constraint pushing them towards having mediocre rather than competitive robots.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

The roboRIO brownout schedule isn't harsh enough for you?

I wouldn't be surprised if we see flywheels on the top teams' robots next year to provide that eleven* when the roboRIO and bumpers are in the same game.

* - reference to the movie Spinal Tap. Though the Poofs and Simbotics and RoboWranglers are likely to get around seventeen.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Limiting motors does not limit a robot's capacity to perform any feat (at least, in FRC it does not--in the real world, it probably would).

The REAL limitation on the robot's capacity is the TEAM that builds it saying "we don't have X, that means that we can't do Y like we usually do, maybe we shouldn't do Y" instead of saying "we don't have X, we are going to have to find some other way to do Y that doesn't involve X". There are usually quite a few ways to accomplish the exact same goal, and this is particularly true in FRC. (Unless you count driving in '09.)


Go watch some of those older game videos. See just how good these teams were with what they had back then--and remember, they did what they did with a prohibited materials list that was longer than the allowed materials list, a far more restrictive motor/speed controller set, and in many cases virtually no pneumatics (those were limited too!). Even in '06, there was a pretty strict motor limitation--sure, BB supplied some gearmotors, and sure there was an extra type of CIM (the Big CIM), and sure 4 CIMs were legal--but can you argue that that wasn't an exciting game? There were still some pretty limited motors that year...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Can't feel too bad about the 550s as long as the AM 9015 is still available. The loss of the 775 18v is saddening though; they were my go-to motor for shooters and powerful manipulators. Now I have to switch to the 3x as heavy minicim for my stuff, not to mention their much larger size.
I have seen videos of many old games, and I have to say that the newer styles would knock the old ones out of the park. Today's 254 or 1114 or 148 (etc) could beat entire championships alliances of back then from what I can see. It was definitely a slower game back then.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Bag motors are awesome in terms of durability. In fact we swapped out our 550 and later 775 with a bag motor on our 2014 catapult, because the bag motor can handle comparatively long periods at stall without giving up the magic smoke. We swapped all our intake mechanisms to bag motors that year too.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I can appreciate what you're saying-- especially with people who have been around a while, I think adding more challenge is an appealing thing. If I was working with a different team, I might even be of the same opinion.

I realize this may be me being a "youn'in" but loose motor restrictions help lower resource teams build better robots. The robot 2667 built this last year wouldn't have been possible for the team to build before the 6-CIM era-- and the team did not have the technical knowledge to apply a different motor to the same tasks we used a CIM for (drive motors and an elevator).

While I'm currently working with my team to start building up a better knowledge of technical subjects, there are plenty of teams that are in that boat every year (probably mostly rookies and not nearly 7-year veterans, but still). I understand the argument that applying more motor constraints would force these teams to learn more, but people learn at far different paces and teams without major technical mentors have serious difficulties building up a knowledge base for the things that people on Chief Delphi and moderately successful teams take for granted.

Coming from the other end... frankly I don't really care to put limits (that generally seem quite arbitrary and can be worked around) on what teams like 254 and 1114 can do with their robots. I like to see robots that move and do things quickly, and the public generally finds those kids of robots more exciting. More motors (and no power limit) helps make that possible for more teams.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

There's still the miniCIM and several COTS gearboxes that can be mounted and interface with components in nearly the same way a CIM can. One even comes with a very easy-to-read guide on how to use it without breaking it.

I understand what you're saying about lowering the technical barrier of entry for teams, but I don't think that motor allotment is something that greatly affects this barrier, especially with the availibity of COTS products that will let you use almost any legal motor in any scenario. There's so many legal motors right now that a reduction in what's allowed will only affect the top level of teams; a team like 2667 would simply swap two CIMs for miniCIMs or another motor in a gearbox and be on their way. A team running a swerve drive and 3-4 additional mechanisms now requires a much bigger design change.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Remember that the likes of 254 and 1114 have always found their way around any such limitations. Those two teams, in 2010 when motor rules were still rather strict, built more sophisticated drive gearboxes with a power takeoff to power their climbing mechanisms, and still achieved very fast drives and climbers with the limits that were imposed. Other teams came up other ingenious ways around the rules to get high performance (gas shocks, etc.). Lower level teams don't have the fabrication capabilities or engineering help to compete with this.

This sort of argument comes up quite a bit. In general, relaxing the rules gives lower level teams more options to do what the high level teams were doing anyway, sometimes at great cost.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I think we're defining lower level teams differently; a team that is attempting to compete with the top tier but without quite as many financial or machening resources is what I would call a mid-tier team. I concur that relaxing motor rules does allow this level of teams to compete at a higher level than they previously would by giving them the "throw more power at it until it's fast enough" solution.

When I think lower level teams, I think of the 10-12 kid teams who's single mentor is their shop teacher. These team aren't greatly affected by motor rule changes as they generally have a kitbot + 1-2 simple mechanisms.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Agree. When I started things like this didn't exist. There wasn't a blog and information like this wasn't widely distributed.

I just go the weekly email, I do feel that the timing of the blog post to the email could be better coordinated so that the information goes out together. So more teams get the info at the same time.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

We use the BB RS540 for our swerve steering. I wonder if all BB motors are going to be illegal at a late date. With all BB motors listed as discontinued and new Planetary gear boxes from BB, they may have a new line for 2016. Time will tell. We have used the BB products for years and have liked the small light weight solution they provide. We design with in spec. The Vex pro planetary maybe nice but heavy and larger foot print.

For those who complain about motor controller prices, look at the other commercial shipping controllers for hobby robotics. These companies are providing high quality devices for a fantastic price. The Talon SRX with it's program ability is an unbelievable bargain compared to the other market options. Sub 50$ controllers is fantastic.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Our kids are designing a swerve and was getting ready to purchase the parts which included BB parts. I'm thinking Saturday will be looking at redesign or other motor options.

I'm very happy to see motor controllers going down in price over the last few years.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

We burnt out at least 10 on our practice robot before we switched them to different motors before out 1st comp last year.

Edit:

After several PM's I should note that we were not using the BAG's properly and that our systems last year were extremely inefficient with lots off loss to make up for, as well as several times the motors were stalled for an extreme amount of time.

We will continue to uses BAG's in the future as they are excellent motors when used properly(crazy how that works).

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

This.

If FRC goes back to a game which encourages vigorous interaction similar to that of 2014, expect "we had that match until we browned out!" or "we suddenly stopped moving, I have no idea why" to become a common refrain.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Many engineers would benefit from watching "Apollo 13" -- with special attention to the intense effort required to develop a critical procedure that satisfied the electric power constraint. When failure was not an option.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Agreed. This should be a huge consideration for all teams. However I worry that the teams who barely have time to finish a moving/functional robot are not going to have the resources to dedicate to power management solutions to avoid brownout conditions. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but we as a community will need to work hard to educate teams about this constraint.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Agreed. We're going to end up with some mentors and students working on power management based around current monitoring from the PDP. Hopefully we can write a whitepaper about it once we've figured out how to implement it.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

No, they're certain they know why. It's because the FMS is broken or the FMS hates them.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I for one am very happy that the PDP now has this feature.
After so many years of this I am glad that a function that can help with this is actually legal on the robot on the competition field and basically included.

In past years any attempt by myself to determine these factors was actually limited by my ability to get someone to leave the robot alone long enough to do the measurements or by the fact that I couldn't legally put my gear on the competition floor. Now the tools are there one merely needs to use them.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Can we start with someone providing the voltage at which the roboRIO (or anything else critical) drops out and resets?

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

And for folks who just want it and don't wanna download a PDF...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Also listed here in the WPILib Docs

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I love this thread. Three responses with answers for the question in a row but all in different forms.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

In theory it should work like that, but in practice more often than not the voltage drops so fast that none of the brownout stages really take effect and the radio just reboots.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

For Most drive teams:
12-7.3V = :)
7.3-4.5V = :confused:
4.5-0V = :mad:

For some:
12-7.3V = :)
7.3-0V = :mad:

I did not see this much last year (compared to previous years of CRIO or radio resets), but of course last year was a very different type of game.
Primary times I saw it occur were due to teams gearing robots too fast (say 40 FPS) or poor battery management/connections.
Most teams started angry with the field, and then once explaining/showing root cause were less upset.

Are there any data sheets available for the SD540 controller? With all those pins it must have more than just pwm communication. Some dimensional info would be great too.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Those are heatsinks actually. And I'm a bit worried by their proximity to that 3D printed mount though.

Are you sure those pins on the front of the case are heatsinks? They look like header pins to me.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Oh my bad :o
I believe that is a port for a ribbon cable, which they also sell. Not sure about the protocol used though, so I can't tell if more than PWM is possible.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

"Power gap" or not, there is still an embarrassment of riches when it comes to motor selection in FRC.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Please say that again, I remember the days of window seat, window glass and FP motors...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

We are not a rich team and have invested in a variety of Banebots transmissions. It would be a huge waste of our funds and I imagine other teams funds to have to replace these transmissions.

Does anyone know how to interface an AndyMark 9015 motor with a P60 transmission?

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Yup! Here you go: http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-2890.htm

Both the AM 9015 and the BB 550 are RS-500 style motors so they should have the same mounting features and shaft size. As long as you can get the correct pinion gear on the 9015 it should work.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Per this post by NI, the brownout info in the NI RoboRio User Manual is incorrect, and the WPILib documentation should be considered authoritative.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Using this kit with an AndyMark 9015 motor requires some care, because that motor has a knurled shaft. Refer to the layout drawing provided on the AM site; measurement over the knurls is larger than the pinion bore by 0.002 inch at the tolerance limits. Be careful to keep the shaft square to the pinion and to the tool you are using to press.

Also, the AM 9015 has a longer shaft than BB500. Not sure if there is enough clearance inside the P60 to accept that shaft without trimming; in any case the pinion will have to be pressed further so that the AM 9015 shaft protrudes, not simply flush with shaft as you would for the BB500.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I don't see any reason to limit motors at all. The battery and robot weight limits enforce a practical limit on motors. If someone want's to build a robot with 28 CIMs, I say more power to them. Or rather exactly the same amount of power as the team that uses 2 CIMs. Good luck operating more than 6 to 8 of them simultaneously.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

The problem is that then somebody is bound to try to ignore those limits and complain all over the Internet that the battery/power distribution/control/whatever system isn't good enough and needs to be fixed. (Just like the limits on pit setup during load-in!) It's not that the system is lousy, it's that you don't know how to use it properly!

Sometimes, you just have to have easy-to-enforce limits in place to keep someone from hurting themselves.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Rahul and Richard:
Thanks for your comments!

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Just to argue the other way. It was kinda nice to stick with your favorite motors. Also, for 2015, I only used 3 CIMS and 2 550s , so next year I got to have another chance to go crazy with the motors.:D

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Heh. Reminds me of another "good reason" to make a change.

Ever notice how sometimes the GDC changes the size requirements, seemingly at random? Kinda makes you rework your favorite drivetrain to fit the new sizing. I seem to recall (way back in the day) rumors about rumors about teams pre-building a drivebase before the season, then putting manipulators on top. Next thing you know, the dimensions change...


Could be a move just to shake up everybody. That, and... *drumroll*

...FIRST has not announced a replacement for the 775s. Which could very well mean that there isn't one--or it could mean that they'll be springing it on us at Kickoff! Could you imagine watching Kickoff and finding out that there's a replacement motor in that class?

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Since FIRST is open to to adding speed controllers. I am willing to bet at least someone has been pitching a new motor idea for them to consider.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

That wouldn't surprise me one bit. I'd bet that if someone doesn't do it for 2016, there will be at least one pitched for 2017.


Ya know... There's a lot of folks who think brushless is a great way to go. The real question is, can you keep a brushless motor from stalling? And... is one in the same power class as a 775 at a reasonable price? (Actually, I'd bet the answer to the second question is "yes", and to the first is "it depends on what I'm using it for".)

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Unless teams start the match with their motors spinning there is no way to prevent them from stalling.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Just pitching a motor isn't sufficient. There needs to be enough donated for a motor (or other electrical component) to be made legal.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Ok... :rolleyes:

Keep them from obtaining an insurmountable load

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

What's wrong with stalling brushless motors?

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Brushless motors use completely different controllers (at least three wires to the motor, for one thing). So unless the list of legal motor controllers was partial, brushless motors would not be useful.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Magic smoke. Most of the brushless motors in the hobby market--a likely source for FRC-level motors--are designed to run at speed with light loading. If you put a heavier load on them, they have a hard time.

There was a thread about a year or two ago with a lengthy discussion on benefits/drawbacks of brushless motors.