Thread: pic: Iso view
View Single Post
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-09-2004, 17:38
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,422
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Re: pic: Iso view

Quote:
Originally Posted by JVN
Or... maybe I'm just wrong.
Thanks for sharing, Andy.

You heard it here first, folks. 70% is where it's at.

John
OK, I need to clarify my background. In '99, '01, '02, and '03, we designed treaded drive systems. These systems had much more drag and lower efficiency than wheeled systems. In '04, we did a wheeled system. I *think* that 75% was a good number for us to use, but I may be wrong. We did not do any after-the-fact testing to verify this number.

Also, Max has a good point. We used CIM motors and FP motors for our '04 wheeled drive base, so the CIM motor was doing the majority of the work on the system. Since we did not have two balanced motors on the drive system, this may be the reason that our "working speed" % number was lower.

If we used 2 equally powered motors, I can see this number jump from 75% to 80 or 85%.

Andy B.