paper: JVN Calc + Apalrd's Time to Distance

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

JVN Calc + Apalrd’s Time to Distance
by: RyanCahoon

apalrd’s drivetrain simulation with an updated JVN calc

Based on suggestions made by Andrew Palardy, I’ve taken to designing drivetrain gearing using time-to-distance. The spreadsheet he posted uses an older, rather expanded version of JVN’s mechanical design calculator that I find difficult to use and even more difficult to teach to students, so I copied copied the simulation into a more recent version of JVN’s spreadsheet.

JVN-DesignCalc.20130105_TimeToDistance.xlsx (605 KB)

It would be interesting to see how the simulation compares to actual.

In 2012 we (33) did math using the old JVN sheet (before battery voltage calculation was added) assuming 11v instead of 12 or 13.2v (this was how we compensated for the voltage drop in acceleration). The model did not correlate well and we did not select the distances well for time-to-distance either, but it wasn’t all the models fault - the CAD for that robot had 8 drive motors, 2x CIM 2x RS550 per side, with the intent to run 3 of the 4 and decide which 3 later, but we only ran 2 CIM. Before CMP we did extensive data capture on the practice robot driving long straight lines with 3 gear ratios (AM shifter low, AM shifter high 2.56:1, AM shifter really high 4:1). Final drive was changed for 2.56:1 and 4:1 final drives so the real 2.56:1 was somewhere in the middle (I think theoretical free speed went from 18fps down to 14 or 13fps - from memory we swapped a 22t with an 18t final drive sprocket). As part of this we determined that our speed loss constant was actually much higher than 81%, we were achieving about 90% of our design speed, and we later exceeded 95% on designs with fewer gearing stages and wheels.

Based on all of that data, I wrote the voltage simulation and tweaked some of the constants a bit and the data matched really well. This is where the battery resistance came from.