We can safely handle 17 cones. However, like Bryan said, that is only because of the lengths of our arms. Unless you are hole counting ( 
) your ideal ratios will be different than another robots.
If you can manage to make an effective passive intake then it is obviously best to have a two motors for each subsystem. I personally believe that it is better to have a two motor mobile goal intake rather than secondary lift if you have an active intake and are forced to make the decision. My reasoning for this is not actually time saved, I think almost all of us can agree that a 2 motor secondary lift is probably very slightly faster than the added speed to the mobile goal intake. One thing I have not seen taken into account, however, is consistency. Looking at teams that have recently set 150+ scores, specifically 202z and 1970k, you can see they are very consistent. They may not be the fastest because of the secondary lift being slightly slower, but they rarely drop cones and are definitely fast enough to compete at a high level. Their mogo lifts also never malfunction. A 1 motor mobile goal intake is much more difficult to build well than a secondary lift, so it is better to just stick with the consistency of a 1 motor secondary lift and a 2 motor mobile goal intake.
One of our middle school teams scores 104 in driving skills with a few seconds left using a mogo only robot and the mogo lift has only 1 motor. The drive only has 6. They are adding some things to the robot so they did not want to use more than needed for the mogo. There is absolutely no reason to have 2 motors on the mogo lift for skills. By the way, the added 2 points were from the pre-load being balanced on top of standoffs above the mogo intake and use of inertia to get it on the first mogo.
If you have extra motors, and you really need to the mogo to be super fast and have lots of torque, 2 motors might be a way to go.
Don’t underestimate the power of a good adjustment arm, we had a crappy 1:5 chainbar that had to flip 180 degrees to deposit at our last comp and we sucked because of it. We have since converted to a 2 motor 1:1 foubar that only flips 90 degrees and are much more pleased with the results.
I disagree that two motors make a swing less consistent. We use a two motor swing and the swing works the same say every time. Our 1 motor mogo lift also hasn’t failed us (yet). When we moved to a two motor swing, the speed increased by probably half a second or so, but when we use it 30-40 times in a match, it adds up.
We actually have a 1 motor mogo intake and 2 motor 4 bar.
I built my one motor mobile goal in one day back in September and I have multiple 140+ match scores. In my opinion a one motor mobile goal intake is better as you can use the other motor for something else.
If you want to see a fast 1 motor secondary lift here
And once again, 150 is not hard to achieve with two good stacking robots and with no defensive play from opponents.
are u guys 1:7 gear ratio torque, or 1:5? If you guys managed 1:5 how?
Just watch your arm lengths. I think I stated this before, but I was able to get 1:5 speed working. Just do some calculations and you can see that 1:5 and 1:5 HS are fine ratios
I mean 1 motor. The hole length is approximately 12 ~ 14 holes so its short enough. But doesn’t work with 1 motor 1:5
I built mine in two days just looking at your reveal vid.
can you post a photo?
No, but I’m picking up my robot later today, so I will then.
thanks!
nvm. the 9 volt battery I was using for testing had nearly run out. However even with the robot battery, the mogo lift can’t put down a 12 cone stack cause its so heavy.
We have a 1:7 gear ratio on the mobile goal intake.
This is definitely true, that one motor can be the difference between having 4 or 6 motors on your drive or 2 and 4 on your lift.
yeah. I got a 2 motor high speed lift working. so its the difference between a 6 motor and a 4 motor base… But I want a 6 motor base so I needed to have a 1 motor mogo
You don’t need a 6 motor base, 4 motor should be fast enough