|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#61
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
And that's with the older, less powerful (if the specs out there right are to be trusted) FP. With 2 of last year's, the 00673, you are much closer to CIM performance. 289W vs only 172W (approx).
|
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
![]() |
|
#63
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Have any teams used two RS-550s in a CIM-U-LATOR in place of a CIM? If so, what were your results?
I've seen a lot of posts in this thread with grievances towards the RS-775 (and case shorts), so I'm wondering about experiences with the RS-550s, if anyone can share. |
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Today we tested an RS 775 into a CIMulator with a 10 to 42 sprocket reduction (#25 chain) to 8 inch wheels. Gear ratio of 11.3, calculated free speed at tip of wheel of 40 ft/s. The wheels didn't appear to spin down very noticably on shooting the ball, but we don't know yet exactly what the exit velocity was or where we are for making some of the shots we need (top goal from key, half court, etc.). We are sticking with the FP/775 substitution plan, and at worst might need 4 of such motors. Hoping for only needing 2. It's too important to keep our CIMs in the drivetrain.
|
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
|
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
Quote:
Yes I'm still bitter about that, you had an AMAZING robot that year! Haha can't wait to see what you guys put out this year! |
|
#67
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
CIMulator is a gearbox that will mount 1 or 2 BB 775s and give you an output shaft and output mounting holes of a CIM motor (Basically it allows you to fit BB775s where you'd use a CIM motor). Specs can be found here. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
Also, when people talk of using the 775s for shooting, should I assume you mean the RS-775-18v? Pardon my ignorance, but I was wondering what is meant by the numbers before the motors. I know it has something to do with size or power, but I don't know much more than that. Could someone give me a brief explanation? Thank you. |
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
We would certainly use the 18V motors since they are less likely to fry due to the higher volt rating. I haven't actually looked at the specs for the 12V, but I imagine they can't be much better than the 18V at 12 volts. The 550 or 775 business (or 00673, 9015, 9012 if you're talking about the FPs) is for the most part just a part number. The first digit implies something about the size, as the 550s are 500 series motors, a common DC motor size (the FPs are as well, and will mount in many of the same places as the 550). The 775 is a bit bigger and more powerful, as the bigger number implies, but there is no overarching protocol of any sort determining these numbers (that I'm aware of....) |
|
#71
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
Based on the results of our testing, we made the following adjustments: The single 340Watt CIM, driving 8" wheels, reduced 1.8:1 with chain sprockets will be replaced by 2 250Watt RS550s attached to a 5:1 reduction CIM-Sim from AndyMark. The output will either be direct driving the shooting wheels or go through a 1:1.8 chain sprocket increase. Either way will work out, but the 1:1.8 increase should have the motors running at about 50% power. We plan on using and encoder and PID loop to maintain the desired RPM. Running the motors at 50% power will allow us plenty of overhead to control RPM during shots and when the battery starts to fade near the end of a match. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
In our testing, the 550 appears more than enough to handle our 12" shooting wheels.
Quote:
-Mike |
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
|
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Ah, I see I was a little more vague than I intended to be.
Our intent is to run the motors as close to (Max No Load RPM/2), technically at or near the motors maximum power point. So, my statement was termed incorrectly. I should have simply said 50% of max RPM. Thanks for calling me on this. Clarifying this point does make a HUGE difference. |
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: CIM Motor Sacrifice
Quote:
See my earlier post in another thread on this same design question. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|