|
Re: Uses of CIMS and associated reductions
Our team has used a CIM outside of the drivetrain in 2009,2010 and 2011.
In 2009 used 1 CIM for our eall polycord elevator and 1 CIM for our dumper roller. For this we used a 16:1 banebot planetary with another chain reduction that i don't remember. For the dumper we geared the direct output of the CIM down 3:1 i think. I was not part of the team that year, so I dont know why those were the choices made but they worked well.
In 2010 we used a CIM to power our kicker. We used a 128:1 Banebot planetary which was attached to a cable spool to pull the kicker back. In theory this worked well. In execution it did not, and we did not kick a ball at all in 2010.
In 2011 we used a CIM to power our arm mechanism. The CIM was attached to a 64:1 Banebot, which then had a 4:1 reduction going up to the arm. The hard part of this design was finding a big enough sprocket to give us this reduction. The only problem this system had in execution is that during championships we blew out the final stage of the gearbox because our arm had a major shock load every time autonomous happened.
If you have any more question ask away.
__________________
All statements made are my own and not the feelings of any of my affiliated teams.
Teams 1510 and 2898 - Student 2010-2012
Team 4488 - Mentor 2013-2016
Co-developer of RobotDotNet, a .NET port of the WPILib.
|