I would certainly argue that most V5 robots have a 4 motor drive, and most V2 robots have a 6 or 8 motor drive. This leaves us with 4 and 4 or 4 and 6, which clearly shows the superiority of V5.
1 Like
Please see this post for versioning.
Yes, V5 motor power is exaggerated but it does have longer time at its peak power. Its gearing is also far superior to 393. If your running 393 motors and planning to bash and dash, I would consider having a refurb kit for each motor on my drive.
This is a nice list (and I am not being sarcastic), but I was there. The “versions” are being back-described to make a messy list seem linear. Until Bob Mimlitch shows up to correct us all, I believe that all of this is speculation.
At several competitions I have seen, many robots with Cortex and 393 motors out perform some V5 robots. It really comes down to design/build/driver. If you really have to compare apple to apple (meaning same design, build and driver), V5 wins.
As @goofnrox said, a mediocre bot that is not driven well will always beat a great bot that isn’t piloted well. If a V5 robot and a cortex robot both can achieve all of the tasks of the game, whichever is driven better will win. At my last competition, my team and my sister team won, us both being cortex boys. Even a cortex bot can play defense on a V5 bot, as long as you drive well
I think you misphrased. 
Sure, everything comes down to driving. But my perception of this thread was to envoke strategies for similarly driven robots, one Cortex, and one V5.
Threads like this always boil down to driving skill. Any chance we can be divergent and talk strategically? Or, we can rehash the various driving practices that leads to great teams.
Your right i was not there nor did i create the list. But, i’m going to trust James Pearman, a post from 2008, and a pdf of the Vex 2.0 release also with 9/15/2008 time stamp.
on topic now.
a 6 motor 393 HS drive at our last/first tourney was the best bot there. it had a great flywheel and auton. It pushed the 2 motor V2 200 rpm bot our team had around so much that they decided to pull off the intake and launcher to add two more motors.
ermm… i am not saying we shouldn’t believe James Pearman… we should.
but… you know who is @Rick TYler right?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-tyler-601b488
he meant it when he says he was there… from the beginning (and beyond)…
1 Like
Yeah @Rick TYler has been there from the start pretty much
I have a lot of respect for both of them but James Pearman linked to a posted with a PDF dated 9/15/2008 showing VEX 2.0 (V2) as Cortex w/ VEXnet. It looks like an official press release, no?
The point isn’t who is who, but what the product names are so we refer to them w/o getting confused. Maybe I took Ricky’s post the wrong. I initially read it as we should call cortex V3. But re-reading it sound more like a history lesson. I apologize if I’ve ruffled anyone feathers.
You didn’t ruffled any feathers.
Just that the way you phrased made it sound like you are not gonna believe rick.
More of a eyes-wide-opened look than anything… no one is angry,
I’m certainly not angry. Here’s a happy face . I think it’s important to inject occasional “how things are in the world” in this forum. Product names are chosen for 1) marketing potential, and 2) I can’t think what #2 would be. Did you all notice that the iPhone went from model 8 to model 10 (excuse me, “X”)? Part of that might be that the Samsung Galaxy S9 was coming out soon, and 10 is bigger (and better!) than 9. I think they missed a bet by not jumping straight to 11.
While VEX did originally call the Cortex generation VEX version 2, after it was released I don’t remember anyone (including VEX) calling it anything other than “Cortex” and the V.5 system “PIC.”
My amp goes to 11.
Windows Nein being my fave.
please don’t revive dead topics. If nobody has posted in a topic for months, then you don’t need to respond
1 Like
wait v2 is cortex? or am i missing something
“V2” is not a real thing. Neither is “V4” as some people call it. The most succinct name that is accurate and avoids confusion is “Cortex system” or “Cortex control system.” If you want to be pedantic, it is the “VEX ARM® Cortex®-based Microcontroller electronics platform and control system,” but even VEX is calling it the “Cortex control system,” shortened down to “Cortex” when context allows:
See here for more information (from an official source even!) on VEX microcontrollers throughout history:
7 Likes
thanks for the clarification. i always called cortex “v4”, but then when someone said “v2” i was like wut
The reason I’ve avoided calling it “Cortex” is because the V5 Brain also contains an ARM Cortex CPU (a dual A9 if I remember correctly, as well as a M0 to do the ADI I think…) So calling something the “Cortex control system” is a bit misleading as it implies the V5 system doesn’t have a Cortex onboard.
But v4 (or v2 for that matter) isn’t that descriptive either, and can be ambiguous. I’ll probably stick with calling it v4 because it’s obvious that v4 comes immediately before v5.
3 Likes
I know that. I agree that “Cortex” is ambiguous too, but very few people seem to actually know (or care) that the V5 Brain is powered by Cortex CPUs. Also I have yet to see anyone actually confused about V5 being Cortex-powered too, especially considering how much marketing VEX did for everyone to know it as “V5.”
I think it is arguably more important to use the same naming convention used by VEX on their own website, which is “Cortex control system.”
3 Likes