Go to Post Never Underestimate the power of zip ties! - tonyargote [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Technical Discussion
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-01-2013, 18:45
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 803
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

I want to be able to believe the numbers I get when I do drive train calculations. But I think I'm doing something wrong.

Let’s say I’m using 6” wheels and I want to optimize a robot’s gear ratio to travel 15 ft distances as quickly as possible.

What I try:
Plug the numbers into a spreadsheet (JesseK, JVN, etc) and figure out what ratio minimizes the travel time. I also plug them into a spreadsheet that I made that basically traces JVN's first drive train spreadsheet (my sheet attached below).

Acceleration Spreadsheet.xlsx

What I get:
I find that a ratio of about 7:1, providing a theoretical top speed of about 20 ft/s, gets me there in 1.26 seconds from a stop. This is in a range of gear ratios that get me the approximate shortest sprint time. I plug those numbers into JesseK’s spreadsheet and get a similar time. According to the spreadsheet I made (mostly copying JVN’s original spreadsheet), the robot gets up to around 17 ft/s by the time it crosses the 15 foot line. And according to the numbers in my spreadsheet, it’s traction limited, because the gearbox can provide more force than my maximum tractive force in the first few instants of acceleration.

Those results seem wrong. What gives? I assume that a 20 ft/s drive with a CoF=1.1 is not traction limited, so what did I do wrong? Based on what I just calculated, my design decision would be to completely throw out those numbers and design something that’s perhaps 12-13 ft/s, because based on experience that seems like a nice speed that’s not too fast or too slow. I’d like to figure out what’s going on with my numbers so I don’t have to ignore the math.

Turning
I understand that in the end, the need to turn will constrain me into choosing a slower gear ratio than what I’d choose if I’m only considering sprint time over a certain distance. That means I can forget these problems to some extent. But I still want to understand what’s going on. If I’m designing for a strafe wheel (we may consider this depending on the game), I don’t care about the same sort of turning math anymore. Then I’ll be back to a case when I just want to know what ratio is the fastest over a certain distance. I want to know how the slower acceleration balances out with a faster top speed over a certain distance, and how hard we can push the motors without frying them or tripping breakers.

Speaking of tripping breakers,

Current Constraints?
I am basically ignoring the 40 amp limit, because the motor is going to spike initially anyway and the breakers can handle temporary overages. How should I decide exactly how much I dare to push those current limits? According to my spreadsheet, I’m pulling more than 40 amps for the first 0.70 seconds if I floor it from a stop, including a span of 0.29 seconds over 80 amps. That’s fine, right? The snap action breakers can handle (if I’m looking at the right spec sheet) a 200% overload for approx. 1.5-3.9 seconds, or 300% overload for 0.5-1.1 seconds. How much do I push that? Are there any good rules of thumb for figuring out how much you can push an RS-550 or FP motor?

Inefficiencies

Right now I have a 0.85 gearbox efficiency and a 0.93 carpet to wheel efficiency built into the spreadsheet. What other terms eat up power and slow down the robot? I lifted that 0.93 directly from JVN’s spreadsheet, and I have no idea if it’s anywhere close to a realistic number.

Thanks in advance for any guidance you may decide to offer.
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-01-2013, 22:19
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is online now
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,632
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

When gearing for 15 ft specifically, the "Time to Travel 15ft, vs. Gearing" curve is mostly flat from a ~5.5:1 ratio all the way to a ~9:1 ratio (assuming a 148-lb robot). Then consider that a robot on the field won't go in a straight line too many times during a match, particularly in elimination matches where there will be plenty of defense to get around.

The same negligibility applies when doing comparative 'drag race' graphs. A robot geared 5.5:1 won't gain any worthwhile distance on a 9:1-geared robot over 15 feet.

I'll poke around in your spreadsheet now. [edit -- seems fine]
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub

Last edited by JesseK : 03-01-2013 at 22:41.
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-01-2013, 22:29
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,606
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

One of the big things missing from most of those drive train calculators is electrical resistance. I'm pretty sure most of them assume a constant voltage power supply with superconducting wires. In reality, your battery and your wires have non-zero resistance which limits the maximum current available to your motor to something less than stall current. Sometimes significantly if you're doing a bad enough job of wiring. See this thread for the glorious details and possibly a better drivetrain model:
paper: Battery Voltage in Robot Drivetrain Simulation and Modeling
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-01-2013, 22:48
JesseK's Avatar
JesseK JesseK is online now
Expert Flybot Crasher
FRC #1885 (ILITE)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 3,632
JesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond reputeJesseK has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Getting a precise measurement for a specified system is all well and good, yet when considering the end results of controllable decisions, the resistance of the battery & wiring doesn't necessarily effect two outcomes of the same FRC robot differently. Thus can we assume that, given gearing choice A and gearing choice B, the wiring/battery resistance is the same and doesn't need to be modeled?

Though taking the battery resistance into account would provide better results on modeling systems like rotary arms as they relate to desired performance metrics (current spikes & time of rotation). Thanks for pointing it out Kevin, I hadn't noticed that spreadsheet.
__________________

Drive Coach, 1885 (2007-present)
CAD Library Updated 5/1/16 - 2016 Curie/Carver Industrial Design Winner
GitHub

Last edited by JesseK : 03-01-2013 at 23:36.
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-01-2013, 10:06
apalrd's Avatar
apalrd apalrd is offline
More Torque!
AKA: Andrew Palardy (Most people call me Palardy)
VRC #3333
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 1,347
apalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK View Post
Getting a precise measurement for a specified system is all well and good, yet when considering the end results of controllable decisions, the resistance of the battery & wiring doesn't necessarily effect two outcomes of the same FRC robot differently. Thus can we assume that, given gearing choice A and gearing choice B, the wiring/battery resistance is the same and doesn't need to be modeled?
The voltage drop across a wire (which we can assume is the same resistance, the resistance is a constant) is dependent on current. A different gear ratio would pull a different current over time as it accelerates. So modeling that is good.

The original JVN calc had several battery voltage steps, which gets 'close enough'. The point is that a battery will drop down to at least 8v or lower during launch, the time it stays low is determined by the gearing and current draw. Essentially, torque = acceleration, a faster gear ratio gets you less total motor torque to the wheels, so you will stay at high torque output longer. Torque is proportional to current, also.


It would be hard to use the battery simulation with mechanisms because the current draw is (comparatively) so low that drivetrain motions would screw up your nice voltage simulation. It could be done, but this would be more an RT software kind of challenge (battery voltage compensation for control loops) then a simulation one. Just assuming you are running under a lower voltage and being pleasantly surprised when the voltage is higher is usually good for mechanisms.
__________________
Kettering University - Computer Engineering
Kettering Motorsports
Williams International - Commercial Engines - Controls and Accessories
FRC 33 - The Killer Bees - 2009-2012 Student, 2013-2014 Advisor
VEX IQ 3333 - The Bumble Bees - 2014+ Mentor

"Sometimes, the elegant implementation is a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." ~ John Carmack
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-01-2013, 10:21
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 803
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

I never even thought of the battery voltage drop. I'll have to find that math. I'll add voltage to the spreadsheet. I might have to come back and ask for help on how to estimate that voltage drop, though. It seems like that should help me get a more realistic estimate of how fast the gearing can be while still being traction limited.

Related to post 2, I did notice how flat that curve is for 10-15 ft sprint times. I don't really understand why anybody would want to be on the fast side of that sweet spot. What is a good reason for gearing it to 17 ft/s when 12 ft/s gets you there just as quickly?
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-01-2013, 11:03
IKE's Avatar
IKE IKE is offline
Not so Custom User Title
AKA: Isaac Rife
no team (N/A)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,148
IKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond reputeIKE has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by apalrd View Post
...

It would be hard to use the battery simulation with mechanisms because the current draw is (comparatively) so low that drivetrain motions would screw up your nice voltage simulation. It could be done, but this would be more an RT software kind of challenge (battery voltage compensation for control loops) then a simulation one. Just assuming you are running under a lower voltage and being pleasantly surprised when the voltage is higher is usually good for mechanisms.
That being said, it is often prudent to do your analysis for a mechanism at a lower than 12V Voltage to see how it may operate. This is especially true for end-game mechanisms as the batteries are often getting tired towards the end of matches.
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-01-2013, 17:29
Michael Hill's Avatar
Michael Hill Michael Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #3138 (Innovators Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,567
Michael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
I never even thought of the battery voltage drop. I'll have to find that math. I'll add voltage to the spreadsheet. I might have to come back and ask for help on how to estimate that voltage drop, though. It seems like that should help me get a more realistic estimate of how fast the gearing can be while still being traction limited.

Related to post 2, I did notice how flat that curve is for 10-15 ft sprint times. I don't really understand why anybody would want to be on the fast side of that sweet spot. What is a good reason for gearing it to 17 ft/s when 12 ft/s gets you there just as quickly?
Battery voltage drop shouldn't be too difficult. I imagine you take your current you're running at and multiply it by your battery's internal resistance, and you end up with the drop in voltage. Say, for example, if you're pulling 150 Amps and your battery's internal resistance is 20 mOhms, you'll have a voltage drop of 3 Volts, so instead of supplying 13V (which seems to be the typical charge at the start of a match), you're really supplying only 10V.

Don't "quote" me on that, but I think that's how the math would work out. Anyone with more authority on the subject care to tear my analysis apart?
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-01-2013, 17:33
Michael Hill's Avatar
Michael Hill Michael Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #3138 (Innovators Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,567
Michael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

btw, my assumption for current is way high, but you get the idea. It comes out to a nice round number :-)
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-01-2013, 23:12
Kevin Sevcik's Avatar
Kevin Sevcik Kevin Sevcik is offline
(Insert witty comment here)
FRC #0057 (The Leopards)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 3,606
Kevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond reputeKevin Sevcik has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Kevin Sevcik Send a message via Yahoo to Kevin Sevcik
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hill View Post
btw, my assumption for current is way high, but you get the idea. It comes out to a nice round number :-)
Your current assumption is actually too low. A stalled CIM will draw 100A+ at 12V, assuming no resistance. So a four CIM drivetrain will be trying to suck down 400A or so if you floor it from a dead stop. The only reason it won't be able to is all the added resistance from the battery, wires, PDB, speed controller, etc.
__________________
The difficult we do today; the impossible we do tomorrow. Miracles by appointment only.

Lone Star Regional Troubleshooter
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2013, 01:03
Michael Hill's Avatar
Michael Hill Michael Hill is offline
Registered User
FRC #3138 (Innovators Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,567
Michael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond reputeMichael Hill has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik View Post
Your current assumption is actually too low. A stalled CIM will draw 100A+ at 12V, assuming no resistance. So a four CIM drivetrain will be trying to suck down 400A or so if you floor it from a dead stop. The only reason it won't be able to is all the added resistance from the battery, wires, PDB, speed controller, etc.
Well, there you have it. I remember seeing our Battery drop to at least 8.5 Volts, but we had some bad batteries (internal resistance was 35 mOhms), so I guess we were drawing ~240A.
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2013, 08:47
apalrd's Avatar
apalrd apalrd is offline
More Torque!
AKA: Andrew Palardy (Most people call me Palardy)
VRC #3333
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
Posts: 1,347
apalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond reputeapalrd has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

In all of the data logs I took on our 2012 practice robot, a straight-line accel always dropped the battery to 8v on launch. The time under voltage was highly dependent on the gearing and battery state of charge, but the low-voltage peak was always around 8v or lower.

At T0 where v=0, current in a 4-CIM drivetrain would be around 500a or so.
__________________
Kettering University - Computer Engineering
Kettering Motorsports
Williams International - Commercial Engines - Controls and Accessories
FRC 33 - The Killer Bees - 2009-2012 Student, 2013-2014 Advisor
VEX IQ 3333 - The Bumble Bees - 2014+ Mentor

"Sometimes, the elegant implementation is a function. Not a method. Not a class. Not a framework. Just a function." ~ John Carmack
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-01-2013, 14:29
Ether's Avatar
Ether Ether is offline
systems engineer (retired)
no team
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 1969
Location: US
Posts: 8,031
Ether has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond reputeEther has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by apalrd View Post
In all of the data logs I took on our 2012 practice robot, a straight-line accel always dropped the battery to 8v on launch. The time under voltage was highly dependent on the gearing and battery state of charge, but the low-voltage peak was always around 8v or lower.

At T0 where v=0, current in a 4-CIM drivetrain would be around 500a or so.
It would be if there were 12 volts at the motors. But not with 8 volts.



  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-07-2013, 17:51
Nemo's Avatar
Nemo Nemo is offline
Team 967 Mentor
AKA: Dan Niemitalo
FRC #0967 (Iron Lions)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 803
Nemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond reputeNemo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

The 8 CIM thread got me interested in this again. I had added battery voltage to my calculator earlier in the year without getting it to produce sane results, but today I gave it another run:

Acceleration Spreadsheet Nemo V2.xlsx

Embarrassingly, somehow I missed Andrew's white paper link in Post #3 when this thread was new. Now that I've read that, it's very helpful to see what he did, and I think I am attempting to do something similar with this spreadsheet, albeit without having voltage data to give me a reality check. Logging some voltages is something I'd really like to do with one of our robots this fall. Knowing that 33's voltage was consistently dipping below 8 V or so is a really handy thing to know.

I'll add a quick link to Al's post from another thread in which he explains how to calculate resistance losses.

As before, my spreadsheet is based on copying the process from the modeling tab in JVN's 2004 spreadsheet.

I still don't really trust what the spreadsheet tells me without doing some quantitative tests on actual robots. But the results seem more reasonable than before.

From playing around with this spreadsheet, here are some of the things it tells me based on some of the various inputs I've tried:
  • 6 CIM drive can do sprints around 10% faster than 4 CIM drive, assuming both drives have gear ratios optimized for sprint speed
  • 6 CIM drive can be traction limited at about 3 ft/s faster gearing than an equivalent 4 CIM drive
  • If 4 CIM drive drops voltage to 7.8 V, a 6 CIM drive drops it to 6.8 V and an 8 CIM drive drops it to 5.8 V.
  • A trio of similar 18 ft/s drives with 4, 6, and 8 CIM's would initially pull 344, 441, and 514 Amps (it would be academically interesting to see how long one could drive an 8 CIM drive hard without tripping the 120A breaker, wouldn't it?)
  • Adding an extra foot of 12 AWG wire (0.5 ft black + 0.5 ft red) causes a loss of about 1% of a robot's pushing force.
  • Given the same gearing, 2 CIM drives take a significant hit (10-20%) to their spring speeds and a huge hit (30-40%) to their pushing force. No wonder it's so easy to push 2 CIM robots around.

Those are all pretty interesting to me if they're true.
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-07-2013, 18:20
Gregor's Avatar
Gregor Gregor is online now
#StickToTheStratisQuo
AKA: Gregor Browning
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,447
Gregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond reputeGregor has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Drive Train Calcs - Not trusting my results

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
  • 6 CIM drive can be traction limited at about 3 ft/s faster gearing than an equivalent 4 CIM drive
At about what speeds are these according to your calculations?
__________________
What are nationals? Sounds like a fun American party, can we Canadians come?
“For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity.” -Jean Dubuffet
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein
FLL 2011-2015 Glen Ames Robotics-Student, Mentor
FRC 2012-2013 Team 907-Scouting Lead, Strategy Lead, Human Player, Driver
FRC 2014-2015 Team 1310-Mechanical, Electrical, Drive Captain
FRC 2011-xxxx Volunteer
How I came to be a FIRSTer
<Since 2011
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:01.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi