1 motor Mogo vs 2 motor 4-bar

which is better and why? On one hand I’d say the 2 motor mogo is better for skills but is totally unnecessary for regular matches. On the other hand i personally feel like 2 motor 4-bar(on top of dr4b) is much better than a 1 motor 4-bar in a typical match. My team is currently using 2 motor mogo and 1 motor 4-bar, I’m wondering if it’s worth the switch?

During a match you use the 4bar much more often than the mogo lift, so it should be faster. Also during both skills and matches, you can just start outputting the mogo earlier as you drive up to the zones, so it doesn’t really take any more time.

Absolutely make the switch. If you’ve seen any videos of one motor 4-bars, you know that they’re either floppy or slow. A mobile goal intake, on the other hand, is meant to be slow, but a 4-bar is supposed to be fast.
Your mobile goal intake will need to run 8 times a match maximum. In skills, 16 times. However, the chainbar, for some better teams, anyway, needs to run upwards of 50 times. You can always gear down the mogo lift in return for the fast 4-bar. Please, please, please, don’t be one of the teams whose robot is great at mogos but can’t stack because of their crappy 4-bar.
Overall, yes, it is absolutely worth the switch, 1 motor mogo is better, so on and so forth. Good luck, by the way!!!

Ha. You’ve described me. I would make the switch, but my current mogo lift isn’t conducive to 1 motor, and it would involve a major redesign to switch.

This may not work for everybody, but 2 on both and passive intake is also an option.

My team uses two motors for both systems… are we doing something wrong?

Same, we’re simply too lazy (not really, our next tournament is too soon for a major redesign) to change the motor distribution

I guess I’m in the minority when I say that a 2 motor mogo intake is more efficient than a 2 motor secondary lift.

The fastest ratio you can run on a 1 motor mogo intake (and still be able to handle a decent amount of cones) is 1:7. On a 2 motor mogo intake, you can run 1:5 with ease, even 1:3. This essentially halves the amount of time needed to pick up / put down mogos. Since you’ll be using this mechanism anywhere between 4 to 8 times in a match (and 16 times in skills), being able to do so twice as fast is a huge time saver.

To answer the inevitable argument of the same applying to stacking and a 2 motor secondary lift saving time — a 1 motor mogo lift can function on a 1:3 hi-speed ratio, which is plenty fast. Plus, a good programmer with a good auto stack function will be moving the lift and secondary lift AT THE SAME TIME, so any time you save from a higher ratio is irrelevant because you’ll be moving it at the same time as your lift, anyway, so they will both finish at the same time. I could see a case against this for lower cones where you don’t need to raise your lift at all, but as the season progresses and we need to get higher stacks, this very much applies.

Just my two cents.

Well, I guess my mogo intake on 1m 1:5 HS is impossible lol.

Like others have said, it mainly comes down to 1 question: What do you use more?

I redesigned my mogo lift in 1 day, and used the next day to perfect it.

Not worth it in my opinion.

It’s not worth my time on this iteration of my robot. When I do a major redesign, I will of course make the switch.

Up to how many cones can your intake handle?

You can just start lifting your mogo lift earlier, saving time as well. Also, even with autostack, the secondary lift must wait for the primary lift to be all the way up to complete the motion to avoid bumping the cone into the stack, so there is still some time to save with a faster 4bar.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. An efficient auto stack routine starts the secondary lift while the primary lift is still in motion, so if you time it right, a lift with a slower ratio will finish motion at exactly the same time as a faster ratio (with the exception of the lower cones as previously stated).

Basically if you time it right, the secondary lift will finish exactly at the same time as the primary finishes, regardless of gear ratio.

Not quite. The secondary must finish slightly after the primary, because if it didn’t, the claw/end effector would bump into the top cone of the stack, probably knocking it off. Granted, it’s not much after the primary lift, so the actual difference between a fast secondary lift and a slow one is not that great. However, this only applies if the secondary lift needs to wait for the primary at all. At low heights, they would start at the same time.

Rightly so. I’d say the marginal difference on stacking is less than the large difference when picking up mogos. Even if you multitask when putting it down, you’re still wasting time on 4-8 mogos when picking up, and a 1:5 or 1:3 ratio helps a lot for that.

Sure, but while stacking up to ~5 cones, a secondary lift that is twice as fast will lead to a cycle time nearly twice as fast, all else being equal. That gives around 10 times a match where something is twice as fast, and many, many times where it is a bit faster. Compair to around 2 times where something is twice as fast, and at most 8 times where that thing is a bit faster. (Super relative “data” I know, but you get the point).

I get the point, but we’re talking comparisons in terms of ratio. We should be talking comparisons in terms of actual seconds saved. 2-4 times where something is 1:3 instead of 1:7 saves a lot of seconds, where many times something is marginally faster saves fractions of a second each time. The real question is which of the two adds up to higher savings in raw seconds.

You have to take into account the length of the arm when discussing gear ratios. The shorter the arm, the more torque. A one motor turbo mobile goal lift os possible, but it would not reach very high. Ours is 1:5 speed and reaches high enough