View Single Post
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 31-12-2014, 18:48
timytamy's Avatar
timytamy timytamy is offline
Registered User
AKA: Tim
FRC #3132 (The Thunder Down Under)
Team Role: Electrical
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 293
timytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant futuretimytamy has a brilliant future
Re: paper: Cyber Blue 234 Drive System Test - Performance and Power

This is great!

I find it really interesting that on paper, the 4 + 2 CIMs are comparable, and sometimes beats the 6 CIM option.

Quick question, am I correct in assuming that the "Peak Amps - 1 Motor" for the 4 + 2 CIMS was a Mini-CIM? (as "Peak Total Amps" for 4 + 2 is higher than 6, but "Peak Amps - 1 Motor" is lower)

I'm not sure hard it would be to organise, but from that data I'd be really interested in seeing how more combinations of Mini-CIMs (say 2CIMs + 4 Mini-CIMs) stack up.

It seems that even though the CIMs are higher power, by operating the Mini-CIMs closer to their MPP they perform noticeably better. This implies that in some drive trains, Mini-CIMs would actually perform better than standard CIMs. However it should be noted that (assuming the same gearing form CIMs and Mini-CIMs) the closer you get towards the CIMs MPP, the closer you get to the Mini-CIMs stall condition.
__________________
Tim W
FIRST® Team 3132 - The Thunder Down Under
Sydney, Australia
Website | Facebook | Youtube
Reply With Quote