Although it’s doable, making slow motors is more difficult.
Without doing any math (but having designed motors from scratch before), I suspect an optimized single stage planetary on a falcon will be smaller and lighter than this fantasy motor.
that being said, I personally would like a motor that is 4 krpm or less, the power of ~2 falcons, and up to 3.5" in diameter to allow a single motor per drivetrain. This would require FIRST allowing larger snap action breakers, OR motors with parallel power bus wires.
I’m with @Andrew_L on this - something along the lines of the joint actuators currently being used on prosthetic assist devices or robotic arms, but that would be suitable for and compatible with the FRC ecosystem would be a great solution for a lot of manipulators. A Falcon or NEO nested inside a planerary gearbox might be a good way to do this. But it would be great if the form factor was as low as possible to avoid the issues with a multi-stage gearbox+motor cantilevered off of thin walled aluminum structure…
Using the internal IMU is something that we have gotten feedback on and do have on the roadmap to work on improvements/better document the internal IMU for the Control/Expansion Hubs. At the moment there have been a few higher priority projects but having feedback on pain points is always welcome. If you have specific feedback here sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org will help us log it and take things into consideration.
I have no idea where this would fall on the safety front, but I would love a full on neo (or Falcon 500) with the neo 550 design philosophy… put that motor mass to better use as flywheel. But… it is a wish for a reason.
I guess what I was really getting at is I would love to just toss a flywheel on the motor rotor, sans shaft. But it is such a niche use case that it would never be a thing. It would package SO nice though…
Yep, a lot of our mechanisms at work (filter wheels and arm joints and stuff) look like they have some kind of magical high-torque motor. But they’re actually brushless frameless motors, coupled to one or more strain-wave reductions.
IMO, CTRE have kind of designed themselves into a corner on this one. It would be pretty hard to fit all of the motor control electronics into a small enough package to be called a 550 motor, and having an ecosystem with one integrated-controller motor and a different motor that requires a separate controller would be weird. Rev hit the mark with a single motor controller that can handle various motors, even if you do pay the price of more total volume.
I actually really like this idea. Maybe a 550 class motor with an integrated gearbox on the side, similar to the versaplanetary 180 degree box but smaller. This would make mounting on intakes a lot easier, ours had some worryingly long motor/gb stacks.
We just recieved our first Falcon, but they are excellent. I would like the ability to swap out a TALON FX if something happened. I know the chances of thia are almost zero, but for piece of mind, we would purchase a few just in case (of course this may not be lucrotive for CTRE because as this is something that would probably never happen, I do not see teams buying many after the first couple.
I know this exists, and that is useful for converting “upwards” , I guess how I’d say it.
But, it’s not what I’m looking for.
I have classroom sets of Vex Cortex supplies. Everything in that set has a 1/8" square shaft bore. And some of that stuff would be really useful to me in building up my FTC supplies (I really like the wheels).
Same with the output of their motors/servos, which have a receiver for their 1/8" square shaft.
An easy way to convert that shaft bore to the current FTC environment is my dream. A converter or hub for their servos would be a nice step one.
(Vex sells these hubs, but that only works for their items with their mount hole pattern, which the wheels do not have.)
I think there is a case for a Falcon 550. We love our NEO550s and a similar motor that was more compatible with the CTRE ecosystem would be an excellent addition to a lot of robot designs.
A couple of things that have been reported with the NEO550 is that the shafts are maybe undersized for a lot of the use cases that teams have for them. It might be better to design the interface around the 775 standard rather than the 550 standard (shaft size, flange, etc.) to get that extra level of strength to go along with the motor power. But I think I would still target a similar power and speed range that the NEO 550 fits in. Too much bigger and the use case would overlap with the Falcon IMO.