My team (4004) ran a 4 NEO swerve drive this year geared for ~18fps free speed which was ~15fps on the field. We were very quick and we were able to push most other drivebases. We played defense a couple times and burnt out 3 other teams’ drive motors.
This is exactly our experience. We had two identical swerve bots (2018 comp and 2018 clone) in side by side drag race matchups with the only difference being miniCIMs on one and NEOs on the other (drive motors only). The NEOs were noticeably quicker to accelerate up to speed. The tops speed seemed about the same. The results got more pronounced after several runs - probably because the miniCIMs were getting hot and the performance was starting to fade.
We ran 6 NEOs this year, absolutely no regrets. We were upwards of 15 ft/s and could easily push multiple robots at once. We never had any problems with brownouts or overheating this year. I think that some teams may benefit from using 6 NEOs over 4 if they’re going to be playing very very heavy defense or something else of the sort.
my bad I must have been thinking of 5468
Not sure if it’s been answered but,
What do you do to go from 0 to (18 ft/s) in less than 3 sec? 2017 was a full field so a longer acceleration was ok, but 2019 was half which “required” a faster start up for that top speed.
Assuming you are working with KoP.
You don’t. Not in 2019, anyway. If you take a quick look at some of Zebra’s Dart data, this year no teams are hitting those speeds in matches. Most cap out at 12-13, some at 14-15. 95th percentile speeds are 10-11 ft/s. This is one such example thread: 2019 Chezy Champs Zebra's Dart Data Analysis.
There’s got to be a way to have fast acceleration. The 18ft/s is just a random high number
There are two ways to get a high acceleration (both of which are talked about in this thread already, iirc).
- More motors – means more force, means more acceleration
- More mechanical advantage ion the motors you have – this means a lower top speed
Short sprints like this year mean teams want high acceleration, resulting in lower top speeds than other years with more open fields (2017 and somewhat 2018).
You can also add shifting in to give you some more freedom in your top speed / acceleration trade-off. I’d recommend looking at what gear ratios top-teams use each year, along with the field and game task to get a feel for what’s right. 254 puts their gear ratios in their technical binder each year. Lots of CD threads (like this one) have good info as well. Play around with JVN’s drivetrain calculator and/or the various sprint time calculators.
1 Like
Traction is an intrinsic limiter on acceleration as well. You can only apply so much torque at the wheel before it slips. You’re going to be constrained by the fact that the robot weights 120lbs + battery + bumpers, and that you’re typically running on carpet.
The size of the field is also a constraint, you only have so much room to accelerate.
This is why we try to gear for a sprint time, rather than a top speed. We identify the most commonly traversed distance based on strategy, and gear to minimize the time to drive that distance.
1 Like
Do you use a particular design calculator for that?
2 Likes
If you make a robot that can pull 1 g of acceleration and still have a somewhat decent top speed I’d love to see it.
Not trying to be rude but I just haven’t been able to figure out a way without having a muti shift gearbox or a ton of motors.
- Reduce the mass/weight being accelerated.
F = M * A
3 Likes
So if I make my bot out of aerogel and put 2 four NEO gearboxes on it I could hit that 20 FPS mark?
You are confusing top speed and acceleration.
There are factors such as the available traction that may limit the maximum acceleration that can be achieved.
How rigid is aerogel? The performance might not be very good if the wheels don’t all point in the same direction.
2 Likes
If I made my bot out of aerogel it also would cost $32,000 so I’m not going to do that.
1 Like
Maybe you joke, but here is a demonstration of possible vs practical. It is possible to hit 20ft/s actual speed on a FRC field with a full-weight bot, but I’d argue that it isn’t practical without a game like 2008.
8-NEOs limited to 40A each with a 4.3:1 gear ratio on a 120-lb bot will net a very reliable 20ft/s in about 19 feet of acceleration. Unfortunately, the robot has to start braking about 0.5 seconds after hitting top speed in order to prevent robot splatter on the opposite side of the field.
Of course, one might say “well just throw the sticks in reverse, and we can stop any time we want!”. Yes, sort of. The pit crew may have some consequences to deal with, since the robot will skid for about 9 feet if it doesn’t topple over first.
An 80-lb bot does not fare much better (all else equal to the scenario above). While it is able to maintain full speed for almost a full second, it still takes about 6 feet to stop when thrown in reverse.
4 Likes
What is going on under the hood in all these lovely acceleration simulations?
Assuming 1g = 9.8m/s^2 = 32.15ft/s^2, this can be done with an 80-lb bot and 4-NEOs @ 60A (or 120lbs with 6 NEOs @ 40A) and a 6:1 ratio on 4" wheels. The hard limit here is the traction. This graph was created with a 1.1 coefficient of friction; 1.0 or less dipped below 1g of acceleration. At 1.1CF, even as I switch the gearing around the acceleration itself remained the same - only the top speed changed.
Interestingly, with 4 NEOs the current limit must be raised to 45A on a 80-lb bot or 60A on a 120-lb bot before the current draw is no longer the limiting factor to getting to 1g of acceleration. So it is possible with just 4 NEOs, but probably not pragmatic due to several live-match factors. For example, the individual 40A breakers could pop if the bot got into the slightest of pushing matches using this configuration.
Cheers!
3 Likes
Many thanks.