pic: 3992 Drive Train

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by ksafin

We had the previous drivetrain (the 80/20 one) driven, and it seemed to be fine.

I'm not particularly sure what the software team did, its possible that they set a cap on the motor output speed (such as setting 75% as a max for the motor controllers).

The speed you have on your speed controller's will never help you with torque. You WILL NOT have enough torque to turn your wheels, and decreasing the current won't help that. You need to change your gearing. Have you tested your drive train? If not I would HIGHLY suggest it.

My team had direct driven Macanum's (6in from CIMple boxes) in 2011 and we could only drive forward/backwards and turn, we couldn't strafe because we didn't have enough torque to turn the wheel opposite to eachother. PLEASE CHECK YOUR DRIVE NOW!!! Before it's too late and you're a sitting potato on the field.

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

The speed you have on your speed controller's will never help you with torque. You WILL NOT have enough torque to turn your wheels, and decreasing the current won't help that. You need to change your gearing. Have you tested your drive train? If not I would HIGHLY suggest it.

My team had direct driven Macanum's (6in from CIMple boxes) in 2011 and we could only drive forward/backwards and turn, we couldn't strafe because we didn't have enough torque to turn the wheel opposite to eachother. PLEASE CHECK YOUR DRIVE NOW!!! Before it's too late and you're a sitting potato on the field.

What do you characterize as not being able to strafe?

Did you not have enough torque to strafe period?

When we tested this on the previous drivetrain, it succesfully strafed, albeit it a slight angle rather than directly perpendicular.

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by ksafin

What do you characterize as not being able to strafe?

Did you not have enough torque to strafe period?

When we tested this on the previous drivetrain, it succesfully strafed, albeit it a slight angle rather than directly perpendicular.

it would attempt to strafe, and would kinda move, but not really.
There was not enough reduction, usually people would use toughboxes on macanum's we were dumb and didn't
did you have 150lbs on that robot? that's when you need to the torque.

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

it would attempt to strafe, and would kinda move, but not really.
There was not enough reduction, usually people would use toughboxes on macanum's we were dumb and didn't
did you have 150lbs on that robot? that's when you need to the torque.

What about putting a Mini-CIM in each gearbox for additional torque? Or RS-775's on CIM-U-Lators?

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by ksafin

What about putting a Mini-CIM in each gearbox for additional torque? Or RS-775's on CIM-U-Lators?

Thats not a bad idea, and probably the fastest switch, but switching to Toughbox Mini's would give you the best results.

[ksafin]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Thats not a bad idea, and probably the fastest switch, but switching to Toughbox Mini's would give you the best results.

We'll see what we can do.

We'll test with this and a heavy load on the chassis and see if the results are poor enough to warrant the switch.

If anything, I think we'll switch to toughbox Nanos. The mini has a front plate bigger than our actual plate so it'd be an odd fit.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by ksafin

We'll see what we can do.

We'll test with this and a heavy load on the chassis and see if the results are poor enough to warrant the switch.

If anything, I think we'll switch to toughbox Nanos. The mini has a front plate bigger than our actual plate so it'd be an odd fit.

TB Nanos are also a good choice, I like them.