View Single Post
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 17-12-2006, 01:02
Joel J's Avatar
Joel J Joel J is offline
do you..
no team
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,445
Joel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond reputeJoel J has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Big CIM Impressions

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Guzman View Post
I want someone to clarify something for me.

The specs that FIRST gave in 2006 were:

Stall Torque:

Small CIM 343.4 oz-in
Big CIM 570 oz-in

So how come most people are saying you get more torque using small CIMs? What am I missing? Please explain this to me as I have always used the stall torque to determine how much total torque the gearboxes have.
The big CIM is about half the speed of the small CIM, when those numbers are calculated. If you gear the small CIM such that its running at the same speed as the big CIM, then you'll get a much higher torque than 343.4 (maybe 725 oz-in?). The big CIM has less power.
__________________
Joel Johnson

Division By Zero (229) Alumni, 2003-2007
RAGE (173) Alumni, 1999-2003