View Single Post
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-07-2013, 23:16
KrazyCarl92's Avatar
KrazyCarl92 KrazyCarl92 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Carl Springli
FRC #0020 (The Rocketeers)(EWCP)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Posts: 523
KrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond reputeKrazyCarl92 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Comparing both of your spreadsheets, I see that your first one gives different results than the second. This appears to be due to the fact that you use voltage as a variable in determining the gearbox output torque.

However, I have observed robots which experience voltage drops when initially engaging in a pushing match then quickly recover. This would mean that the second spreadsheet would be misleading for determining traction limits because this only considers sprints, assuming that the traction limit occurs during the initial drop while disregarding the recovery of battery voltage during a pushing match.

For example, a robot may drop to 8V when initially engaging in a pushing match, then within half a second rise back up to 11V and remain there for the duration of the pushing match. Therefore, the traction limit should be evaluated at 11V and not 8V.

Seems like hard experimentation should be explored before blindly trusting any of these models.
__________________
[2017-present] FRC 0020 - The Rocketeers
[2016] FRC 5811 - BONDS Robotics
[2010-2015] FRC 0020 - The Rocketeers