2 motor flywheels work fine.
So we might get to pull off a 1 motor V5 flywheel!
The V5s are roughly 3ish times as powerful, about 2ish times more powerful. So in terms of just power and what it can accomplish, if 3 393s can handle it, then 1 V5 should be able to.
A three motor flywheel (built correctly) would send the ball flying far far away.
A two motor flywheel should be able to shoot full court.
A one motor flywheel, I believe, would be able to shoot mid/close range.
Built well, that is.
EDIT: A one motor V5 == 2.5 motor 393, so I think a one motor V5 will be more than enough.
+1
Using one 323 motor will probably not work, thinking back to nbn our team and all others we met used 2-4 motors for flywheel. However from beta-testing we know that one v5 motor does do the trick. It does overheat if you use it too intensely for too long but those things really pack some power, we could see the rubber forcing off the wheel from the force lol.
Don’t act like you guys built the fly wheel ;). One V5 motor will work just fine for a fly wheel especially since the balls are so light and less RPM is needed when compared to NBN. The V5 motor that we tested didn’t burn out from spinning the flywheel, I just switched the direction it was spinning while it was fully spun up and it did not like that, but it was fine after it sat for a minute.
This topic was already explored at length by @technik3k 's team in NBN. I think you’ll find a lot of interesting videos on his channel.
Having played NBN, you can shoot as far as you care on one 393 motor essentially, the real issue is fire rate. We played around with motor allocation most the time we ran a 4 motor 393, high speed motors on a 1 to 21 (in to out) ratchet on a 4 inch flywheel. Friction is the enemy. If you can’t make a viable 1 motor v5 flywheel … frankly your doing it wrong. If you are really cleaver you can probably get the flywheel running and its feed off one motor. If you want to be even more meta you can find a way to power your lift off 2 motors and your flywheel off those same motors but I don’t know how you’d do that. Side note these balls weigh the same as the ones in NBN and I’m not completely sure but my gut says they will require roughly the same amount of flywheel energy to shoot the same arcs. In this game it seems like there is less emphasis on fire rate, but accuracy will be a pain. Even close up the highest flags will be a tough shot, caps first this season.
I’m pretty sure nothing but net balls were 49 grams so although I agree that you only need 1 v5 motor for the flywheel, the turning point balls are heavier.
@Mystical Pie and @theone1728 are correct - one 393 motor has plenty power to shoot across the field but it takes few seconds to recover the energy. For faster launch rate you need more motors. We experimented with this and found 3 motors were optimal if you have low friction and 4 motors were enough for majority of teams.
However, dedicating that many motors to flywheels only made sense with large number of balls being primary scoring objects. Also, net opening was relatively big and easy target and you had to score from multiple points on the field. This season has much smaller targets (flags) and having flywheels that shoot across the whole field at high rate is not necessary.
Small range 1 motor flywheel or 1 motor puncher is, probably, all you need this season. With same motor driving both flywheel or puncher and also intake and the second motor powering feeder / indexer.
You can even do a 1 motor (total) ball picking-up arm / puncher combination, which would recharge puncher’s elastics as the arm moves down and triggers puncher when it moves all the way up. It may also be doable with a single motor catapult…
I’m intrigued by this idea, but how would that work? I don’t have great experience building multifunctional mechanisms.
It depends how far you are shooting. We had a 2 motor flywheel in NbN that could shoot into the net from the middle of the field, and it’s not like it was that optimized because it literally squeaked… I’m not proud.
Check out this BNS 15" robot at 1:00
Also 8059A NbN reveal at 0:37
@technik3k So do those catapults recharge as the intake is running? And they shoot when you run it the other way? Or am I wrong
I don’t know how those teams did it. You could have one motor driving intake and another charging elastics and triggering the catapult, or you could try to figure out how to do everything with a single motor using ratchets. That would be an interesting challenge.
The original members (of 8059a) that did the catapult has already graduated (unless Tom is still lurking in the forum).
But off hand, they used slip-gear to crank up the catapults. I couldn’t remember the gear ratio or the cut of the gear though.
@meng and those wanting to create a catapult via slip gear simply determine how you will power it, CRITICAL STEP, then fully assemble the catapult with a non-shaved gear, then determine your desired range of motion on the boom arm, the axle that drives the boom arm should have at least two gears, one full and normal such that you have a connection to the power source and a gear that will become a slip gear, on the gear that will become a slip gear, track and mark which teeth are involved in drawing the boom arm down. Then once you have those teeth marked keep those and get rid of the rest.
As someone who’s only made a few of these with slip gears, if anyone else knows of an easier, more precise, or more efficient method please post it and let people know.
Fair warning don’t take this process step for step until you can think through and see if this is actually going to work. Sorry guys but hopefully this helps people be able to adapt to their specific build needs.
lol… oh no… i dont intend to build a catapult or slip gear.
I was just telling them this was what my team (i.e. 8059) did for that 4-ball catapult that @Impulse Theory was asking about 