Motor Position Optimization

The forum’s getting boring, so I’m going to start yet another radical discussion: what is the best motor distribution for an in the zone bot?

4 motor base
4 motor lift
2 motor Mogo intake
2 or 1 motor Secondary lift depending on Active or Passive

I’ve seen a fair share of team do
6 motor base
2 motor lift
2 motor secondary lift
1 motor mogo intake
1 motor cone intake

4 HS base
4 HS/Turbo lift
1 Torque Mogo lift
2 HS/Turbo Secondary lift
1 Torque/HS Cone manipulator

  • 6 motor Hi-Speed/Turbo base (depending on how good your build quality is)
  • 2 motor 1:7 Hi-Speed lift
  • 1 motor 1:3 Hi-Speed secondary lift
  • 1 motor cone intake
  • 2 motor 1:5 Torque / Hi-Speed mogo lift (only run hi-speed if your PID is good enough to not drop cones)

I agree, I’m assuming that is because teams are wrapping up mid-season rebuilds.

4 motor drive (speed motors)
4 motor lift (speed motors) (1:7)
1 motor mogo intake (torque motor) (1:7)
2 motor secondary lift/internal stacker (speed) (1:5)
1 motor come intake

Just curious, what’s with the trend of most teams switching from a 1-motor secondary lift / 2-motor mogo lift to a 2-motor secondary lift / 1-motor mogo lift? Seems like you can get more speed increase from a 2-motor mogo intake than a 2-motor secondary lift, but that’s just me.

6 motor drive (speed)
3 motor lift (speed)
1 motor chain bar
1 motor cone intake (turbo)
1 motor mobile goal intake (turbo)

6 motor hs drive
2 motor hs 1:5 lift
1 or 2 motor translation arm
2 motor mogo intake
1 motor or passive intake

Our team started with a 2 motor mogo and 1 motor secondary but given how long our four bar is now and how wide it is, we like having a motor for each side of the four bar, it helps keep it balanced. We lose a little bit of speed on the mobile goal intake by having a one motor 1:7 but it is pleanty strong and hasn’t had any effect on performance.

I think it is more important to have a faster secondary lift, than a faster mobile goal intake. You have to use your secondary lift every time you want to stack a cone, but you would only need to use you mobile goal lift a maximum of 4 times (8 if you have a skills-centered robot).

4 motor base
2 motor lift (we only have a 4 bar .__.)
1 motor claw
2 motor mogo lift
and one extra motor. who knows, we might just add a spinning licence plat on the top. cuz why not.

I see where you’re coming from, although I’d like to think that a 1:3 external ratio on hi-speed motors is more than enough speed for a secondary lift, and this is very much able to be accomplished with a single motor geared in the center. Perhaps if the secondary lift was made of standoffs instead of c-channel, it would ease the weight a little bit. I guess it just depends on the length of the mechanism.

Personally, I like the motor on each side of the mogo four bar more than I do on the secondary lift four bar. I think it eliminates more weight from otherwise having to run your mogo gearing in the center of your drivetrain, although I guess I may be a little biased since my robot is also designed to run a very effective skills routine (we even switch our internal ratio to hi-speed for skills, while using torque motors for matches).

6 “turbo-ish” drive (3.25")
2 1:7 turbo lift
2 1:3 mogo lift
2 secondary lift (direct)
Passive intake

My personal arrangement goes as follows

  • 4 motor 1:7 turbo mogo lift (4 shared)
  • 6 motor 1:1 turbo drive (4 shared)
  • 4 motor turbo 1:5 lift
  • pneumatic top 4 bar

I have found this to be the better way to go so far. The extra lift motors helped up bring our cycle time way up. The Mogo being so slow does hurt skills, but better strategy does help.
An active manipulator also helps with consistency when looking at some active robots. Lining the cones up is much harder with a passive.

I am guessing the 1:7 ratio is needed for the mogo lift because of the way you are splitting up motors? If not, you could probably gear it up to 1:5, lol.


Won’t the pneumatics limit you to only a certain amount of cones?