|
two separate decisions
I think you made a great point Matt about each team needing to decide if they really need to add the complexity of a shifting system. It depends on the game, the field, and your strategy (none of which we know until after Jan 10th). You shouldn't add it unless you really need it. The simplicity and reliability gained by having a non-shifter is at the very least worth considering, especially for teams who are doing it for the first time.
Regarding whether or not there are benefits to multiple motors: there are. Adding the extra motor per side allows you to pick a numerically lower gear ratio that allows a higher top speed. Or if you choose to leave the ratio the same you will have more torque. Yes, it draws more current, but since a lot of the time you are in transient high current situations (i.e., just passing through a high current operating condition), you don't risk tripping the breakers. There are some teams that play it riskier than others, and those of us that have taken the risks can usually recall instances where we paid the price (ours was in 2002 where our 6-motor drive was in high gear and we tried to turn the goal 180 degrees - the main breaker tripped; this would not have happened in low gear).
2002 was the killer year. You needed speed (to get to the goals) and torque+traction (to move the goals). If ever there was a drivetrain-intensive year that was it. Multiple motors and shifting transmissions were very helpful.
I'd consider adding an extra motor before considering adding an extra gear ratio.
Ken
|