Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Ainsworth
Would any one else like to see (8) MINI-CIM motors allowed so the swerves can be on par with the (6) CIM tank drives?
Looks like an 8 MINI-CIM motor swerve drive would be very close to power and weight of 6 CIM motor 6WD/8WD.
POWER
CIM 6 x 337 watts = 2022 watts total power
MINI-CIM 8 x 230 watts = 1840 watts total power
Within 10% instead of down 50%.
WEIGHT
CIM 6 x 2.80 lbs = 16.8 lbs
MINI-CIM 8 x 2.16 lbs = 17.28 lbs
Seems like the current rules favor a 6 CIM tank over a 4 CIM swerve for acceleration and top speed. I personally would like to see this somehow corrected. Maybe separating BAG motors from the MINI-CIM motors and a allowing 8 MINI-CIM motors?
This could be calculated by adding the watts of all motors used with a not to exceed. Or even more simply a CIM=1 and a MINI-CIM=.66 or .75 and a maximum of 6 when added up.
What's your thoughts?
|
While I'm all for having as many motors as we can get, I'm not sure I agree with your
specific reasoning here. You're asking for more Mini-CIMs based on your team's
specific swerve module design. While your swerve was absolutely beautiful and effective, there are ways to have the same power as a 6 CIM traditional 6WD via a coaxial setup. I don't feel that you are at a disadvantage by the rules at all by having a swerve - it was your choice, and the same amount of power is available to you. That being said, I would have to agree with Brendan about having difficulty of putting that power to the ground, even with 8 Mini-CIMS with two per module.
Personally, I would love to see the rules opened up to allow teams to use any number of a few models of motors, and it is up to them to design around tradeoffs of weight and battery consumption. I would never want to see an open field again if we had these rules, however. This year was violent enough.
-Nick