Chief Delphi - Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Motors (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=52)

- - Banebots RS-775 Case Short (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91733)

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by JVN (Post 1040008)

Unlimited CIMs. The weight of the motor plus the limited power of the battery provides a good enough tradeoff that teams won't get an "unfair" advantage from using lots of them. That motor is also easy to use, and there are lots of wonderful options available for inexperienced teams.

Veterans will be happy.
Rookies will be happy.
JVN will be happy.

No more garbage motors in the interest of "variety."

-John

I love this, with one caveat: I don't love all future roller claws I make weighing at least 6 pounds.

Unlimited CIMs and unlimited Globes, or unlimited CIMs and unlimited Windows would be better.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Unlimited CIMS, unlimited window motors. I like that. We have a dozen Denso window motors, never used them until this year.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by squirrel (Post 1040019)

If the motors said "Mabuchi" on them, then I would think they might be Mabuchi motors. Aside from that, the term "Mabuchi motor" has become slightly generic, referring to any motor that is a copy of the original Mabuchi style of motor.

I could be wrong...but I doubt it.

I was assuming that Mabuchi doesn't necessarily stamp their name on motors they manufacture for re-branders. I could be wrong.

Mabuchi is the world's number one manufacturer of small motors. So if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... unless you factor in that they probably wouldn't retain their dominant market leadership for very long cranking out junk. That's why I asked if your doubts were based on Mabuchi's reputation.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ether (Post 1040027)

While the part numbers and operating specs may match available Mabuchi motors, I wouldn't be surprised if the BaneBots motors were actually made by a Chinese clone manufacturer. Protecting intellectual property there is very difficult to enforce, and as a result their market is saturated with all kinds of inferior clone and knockoff products.

For example, none of the RS775 motors listed here listed Mabuchi as their manufacturer, but rather a variety of Chinese companies.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Art explained my thinking, thanks Art

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

I really like the range of motor options FIRST made available this year. I think a possibility might be that FIRST provides the specifications the motors must meet - but leaves the choice of supplier up to the team. I think it reflects a more "real world" approach. Virtually any company in business for the long run develops a preferred provider list because they know they will get the quality/quantity/delivery time/cost from those vendors. If FIRST had specified any RS-775-18 with free speed XX, stall torque XX, peak power XX, etc. I could have ordered directly from Mabuchi or a number of other vendors. I could provide specification sheet from the vendor to verify the motors comply to the specification.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by JVN (Post 1040008)

I can't wait to see two 8-CIM drive trains in a pushing match.

The only issue I have from an electrical point of view is trying to explain to rookies that unlimited CIMs doesn't mean that an unlimited number of CIMs will necessarily work.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by billbo911 (Post 1040016)

Your point is well stated, but I think the wording might not quite be accurate.
I believe a better choice might be:

Yes, thank you, I've edited my original post.

-Brando

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

I'd support unlimited CIMs if Andy Baker promised not to sell a 4-CIM gearbox except through 'custom' orders that wouldn't be FIRST-legal anyways. :rolleyes: :shudder:

This thread is making me a bit nervous. Our primary lift motor (the one that's bagged) is the FP-673 through an AM Planetary + CIMple box, yet our backup motors (the practice bot + spares) are all RS-775's through BB's gearbox and a CIMple box. Unless we tip, we've found it's not possible to stall/burn out our FP lift motor under normal operations (acme rod = higher torque, less speed, natural braking) so I don't forsee this becoming an issue. Yet perhaps we'll get a spare FP motor tomorrow.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Unless we tip, we've found it's not possible to stall our lift under normal operations

I hate to say it, but stalling/not stalling the motor has nothing to do with it.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Wright (Post 1040094)

I hate to say it, but stalling/not stalling the motor has nothing to do with it.

I meant that for the FP-673 motor that's currently installed on the bagged production bot. Updated it to clarify.

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by artdutra04 (Post 1040060)

While the part numbers and operating specs may match available Mabuchi motors, I wouldn't be surprised if the BaneBots motors were actually made by a Chinese clone manufacturer.

Mabuchi has 4 factories in China.

Quote:

Protecting intellectual property there is very difficult to enforce, and as a result their market is saturated with all kinds of inferior clone and knockoff products.

So the argument against the likelihood of the Banebots being Mabuchi comes down to price and "Mabuchi has a reputation to protect".

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Do chassis-faulted motors have different output power? Has anyone stuck them on a dyno?

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1040005)

That 8-10 day delay was posted about 10 days ago. We have not received the new shipment from F-P yet, but we will within a day. Once these are here, then we will open up orders. I really don't like opening up order for items like this until we see the motors here.

So, my best guess is that they will be available again at AndyMark by Wednesday, March 16.

And... yes, in a general sense, we are looking at this entire issue and seeking ways to improve things for the FIRST community next year. I don't want to go into specifics publicly, but I am very open for suggestions regarding what to do for 2012.

Andy B.

My vote would be for a limit of 12 motors.
Teams could choose between CIM,FP, Window with a maximum of 4 each.

with a variety of options already available commercially and team designed...FP motors can be used in most situations and gearboxes designed for CIMS... ( The same way that the banebots motors could...)

But honestly I see no advantage to Window motors... but for variety... fine..

I honestly don't think that all CIMS is a good idea... they are too heavy for many extended applications like a roller claw or something where the motor has to be moved... so the FP is a good substitute.. being lighter.

I like the banebot gearboxes so I think we shouldn't really toss Banebot out for one of their motors...

Our team is using the 550 motor... it seems to work quite well... and it could be substituted into most applications that teams were using the 575's for... we have never seen the case short problem in those motors.

I have used these motors in a number of other applications in classes and they are pretty decent as long as they are supported and the load is supported...they also have the advantage of being really cheap... the form factor is exactly the same as the FP...

We thought about using the RS-775 and ended up using something we had some experience with... the 550... it ended up to work quite well for our application. (An elevator)

I concur with everyone's complaint that Banebot should be standing behind their product. If you remember though, back a few years ago... they did do that... providing new plates for the transmissions that were provided to us...at quite a cost to them as I recall... so I wouldn't write them off... completely... I would imagine that this year was nightmare to them because of their shipping delays and this 775 issue.

They do provide a nice competitive gearbox in a number of ratios for use on our robots with either their motors or the FP.

I like having options... and I really missed having the option of 2 FP motors this year.

Just remember that if you are using the 775 and want to substitute the FP ... that you can substitute the 550 that this is perfectly legal and not too far off the power curve...
You can do that right NOW... without any special action by the GDC

We have never seen this case short problem with a 550...Has anyone else out there?

Good luck on the field...

Re: Banebots RS-775 Case Short

While you guys are wishing, remember that the current battery has only so much to give before it can't supply the needed current to keep the Crio happy.