NeveRest 60 in FRC

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

The FTC NeveRest motor is in the parts list...

Minibots confirmed?

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Eh it's a new motor that is larger and appears to be higher quality.... so it might not be garbage?

It's also sourced by AM versus whoever sourced the first one, so I trust it's quality a lot more.

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here, PDF link.)

We may be biased here at AndyMark, but we think it has been a net positive for FIRST Tech Challenge teams.

Sent from my desk at AndyMark

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Billfred

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here, PDF link.)

We may be biased here at AndyMark, but we think it has been a net positive for FIRST Tech Challenge teams.

Sent from my desk at AndyMark

I think this post is a lot of words saying "My name is Billfred and I approve MiniBots 2017"

[bobbysq]

Originally Posted by Billfred

The AndyMark NeveRest 60 motor is not the same as the Tetrix motor used for minibots in 2011. (Tetrix part numbers specified on the 2011 minibot inspection checklist here, PDF link.)

I was more going off of that minibots were made of FTC parts in general, although, I guess the definition of "FTC parts" has expanded quite a bit since 2011.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by bobbysq

I was more going off of that minibots were made of FTC parts in general, although, I guess the definition of "FTC parts" has expanded quite a bit since 2011.

Quite a bit, indeed!

2010-2011 FTC Rules (R5 is the approved materials)

2016-2017 Game Manual Part 1 (RM01 is the start of what's approved.)

In theory, the husk of an FTC robot might not have changed all that much for a DIY team since you could try and do it out of angle and flat aluminum. But if you're low-fabrication type like many FTC teams are, there are now many more options for structure, motors, wheels, gears, and other motion components--AndyMark, Rev, Actobotics, and Matrix are all making parts explicitly for FTC teams, and BaneBots and VEXpro parts are starting to make some inroads where their qualities are helpful.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

RE: Neverest 60 gearmotors (all the Neverest motors are the same motor with different gearboxes, correct me if I'm wrong, Billfred)

The actual motor is compatible with anything (okay, I've only seen them in VPs and Banebots) that will take a 550 motor. This has become popular in FTC this year-- I know some teams running them through VersaPlanetary gearboxes and one of the FTC Robot In 1 Weekend teams used them on their shooters with Banebots gearboxes.

I think that FRC teams that use them (presuming they're legal), will be very pleasantly surprised compared to the old garbage Tetrix motors. I've seen a Neverest 40 stall for a full two minutes and perform just fine for the rest of a tournament. Compare this with the Tetrix motors that burned out if you looked at them funny, they're a major improvement. I would hesitate to call these guys "magic smoke generators" after watching teams abuse the different flavors of Neverest for the past few years. The only failure mode I've ever seen on them is due to improper/uncareful use of set screws, not due to the motors themselves.

The two things I've seen that tend to do in NeveRests are:

1) Set screw hub maladies. We released D-bore Nubs this year to help solve this problem.
2) The NeveRest 20 gearhead is less tolerant of shock loads than the 40 and 60 gearheads. (The number is the reduction from the bare motor: 20:1, 40:1, 60:1.) However, per Kate's blog post, only the NeveRest 60, am-3103, as pictured here has been announced as legal at this time and (as far as I've seen) FIRST hasn't announced whether switching (or removing) the gearhead will be an approved modification for the 2017 FIRST Robotics Competition. So that may be a moot point.

Originally Posted by EricH

Question for anybody who has some older motor specs lying around:

Can someone do a quick comparison of the Globe motor/gearbox setup (discontinued for FRC purposes about a decade ago) and the NeveRest 60? Seems like somewhere around the same power and form factor, off the top of my head--think the Globe might have had more power, though.

This white paper shows the Globe has a free speed of 79.87 RPM and 3195 oz-in of stall torque (at 21.58 amps). The NeveRest 60 has a free speed of 105 RPM and 593 oz-in of stall torque (at 11.5 amps).

[EricDrost]

We've been doing FTC for three years and I think we've seen every possible failure these motors can have. Less common failures I've seen are magic smoke (only once and it was totally our fault), and cold solder joints under the black plastic caps (two times). Billfred is spot on about the two most common failures:

Originally Posted by Billfred

1) Set screw hub maladies. [...]
2) [...] shock loads [...]

We've tried a lot of solutions to the D-shaft/set screw issue, a lot of which had slipping issues we couldn't solve. The most effective solution we found that still used the NeverRest gearheads was mounting these to the D-Shafts, then drilling through hex adaptor and the D-shaft and tapping to 4-40. About 90-95% of the D-shafts were hardened steel and required a carbide drill bit, 5-10% were mild steel. Before we settled on this solution, we lost ~5 motors in one season because a set screw would round out part of the D-shaft.

We didn't try the nubs because the above was more effective at converting D to 0.5" Hex in our opinion.


Shock load causing the individual gears to shear teeth is the most common problem (in my experience) with 20s, 40s, and 60s. The gearheads share the same design as the 2011 tetrix gearheads with spiraling pairs of spur gears held together by hopes and optimism. We lost ~15 motors in one season due to shock load, mostly in drive train applications.

Originally Posted by Billfred

FIRST hasn't announced whether switching (or removing) the gearhead will be an approved modification for the 2017 FIRST Robotics Competition. So that may be a moot point.

I can't imagine it would be illegal as swapping the gearhead isn't an electrical modification. I sincerely hope this is legal because the two most common failures are gearhead failures, not motor failures.


My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead. As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead. As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

For FRC this seems like a pretty unoptimal choice. By going into a VP you're barely saving any weight over a BAG/775 (and no weight over a 550) and giving up a HUGE power advantage.

For FRC applications where you desire a motor w/ low speed, low power (to be more robust) and integrated encoder, the PG71's motor on a versaplanetary fits the bill much better.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

For FRC this seems like a pretty unoptimal choice. By going into a VP you're barely saving any weight over a BAG/775 (and no weight over a 550) and giving up a HUGE power advantage.

I'm in total agreement.

The point of my post was to alleviate some of the headaches for a team that chooses to use them. The biggest advantage I can see (the integrated encoder) also disappears when you put them into a VP because of the new encoder stages available for VPs.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

I can't imagine it would be illegal as swapping the gearhead isn't an electrical modification. I sincerely hope this is legal because the two most common failures are gearhead failures, not motor failures.


My recommendation to any team using these motors in FRC (or FTC) is to remove the gearhead/buy the version without the gearhead. As others have said, these motors integrate very well into VersaPlanetary gearboxes. We put 2 of our 8 NeverRest motors into VP gearheads last season and experienced zero failures with them. This season we have put every single motor on the robot into a VP and have had zero failures so far.

TL;DR: The motors are pretty good but replace the gearhead for serious use.

There's precedent - the Window and Globe motors both had what FIRST deemed "integral" reductions on them and we were not allowed to use the motors w/o the reductions. Could have a similar ruling here. That being said, if the NR60s are allowed I'd hope the 20s and 40s would be too.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

There's precedent - the Window and Globe motors both had what FIRST deemed "integral" reductions on them and we were not allowed to use the motors w/o the reductions. Could have a similar ruling here. That being said, if the NR60s are allowed I'd hope the 20s and 40s would be too.

You might be recalling incorrectly - we were allowed to modify the globe motor geartrain. Many times we glued the planetaries to the sun and ground the outside ring teeth off to remove a reduction.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

You might be recalling incorrectly - we were allowed to modify the globe motor geartrain. Many times we glued the planetaries to the sun and ground the outside ring teeth off to remove a reduction.

You're probably right, the globes got removed right about when I started doing things other than pure software. I'm pretty sure window motors were no mods though.

[marccenter]

Dear CD,

As a robot inspector last year, I found one team had used the AM NeveRest motors on their robot so I had to have them remove the part before competing (and felt bad in the process because I suppose another inspector may have missed it, but felt better realizing that it may have gotten caught in a later inspection and they had ample time to swap out before their first match)

So, from an inspection standpoint, this solves potential issues when FRC teams borrow FTC components that may be illegal. To me, this is the biggest win for FIRST by making the inspectors job easier and teams less likely to make this mistake.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by marccenter

Dear CD,

As a robot inspector last year, I found one team had used the AM NeveRest motors on their robot so I had to have them remove the part before competing (and felt bad in the process because I suppose another inspector may have missed it, but felt better realizing that it may have gotten caught in a later inspection and they had ample time to swap out before their first match)

So, from an inspection standpoint, this solves potential issues when FRC teams borrow FTC components that may be illegal. To me, this is the biggest win for FIRST by making the inspectors job easier and teams less likely to make this mistake.

Every year we have to tell teams a motor they are using is illegal. We still catch Globe motors everyone now and then, I caught a couple Fisher price motors last year.

This will help the problem some but it won't cure it.

[bobbysq]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Every year we have to tell teams a motor they are using is illegal. We still catch Globe motors everyone now and then, I caught a couple Fisher price motors last year.

How does that even happen? Globe motors have been illegal for years, right?

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

You might be recalling incorrectly - we were allowed to modify the globe motor geartrain. Many times we glued the planetaries to the sun and ground the outside ring teeth off to remove a reduction.

With the general allowance of 'automotive motors' how does a team determine what is deemed an integral gearbox such as the window motor vs a non-integral gearbox like we saw with the mini-bot motors etc. For example I saw teams use door lock actuators last year, those have an integral gearbox. Could it be modified? The rules were not very clear last year, did anyone get an answer?