What is the rule on pneumatics on v5?
Disco speed*
@Paul Copioli what would be the estimated weight of the v5 motors?
@Mystical Pie maybe. Right now we went with a 6:1 first stage and a 3:1 and 6:1 2nd stage giving us 6:1 (600 RPM), 18:1 (200 RPM) and 36:1 (100 RPM) cartridges. Since the first input sun is connected to the encoder wheel inside the motor the 6:1 first stage is fixed so we would have to make different second stages.
The rule on pneumatics is being heavily debated.
They are color coded: 100RPM = red; 200 RPM = green; 600 RPM = blue
Dang they must be good for only being allowed to use 8.
I can see a lot of good uses for pnematics, it will be a shame to see them discontinued from vex.
slightly disappointed, but at the same time it does seem to me completely fair and reasonable. This raises another question, how do pneumatics come into play? Do they go in place of 2 V5 motors? Will they be allowed at all with the use of V5 motors? Will the rules for teams using 393s and pneumatics change? oops, saw you’re response about pneumatics after writing this
that’s a relief, it will make things much easier for us.
sounds great. What will the actual cables be like? Will they be the same kind of cables or similar to what IQ uses? how big are the new motors?
Also, thanks for answering all our questions, I’m really excited about the new system.
@Paul Copioli Are you able to tell us a little more about the technical characteristics of the motors? I’m specifically interested in knowing their stall torque at their nominal voltage, the resolution of the encoders and what frequency we can expect to set/query data to/from the motors.
Thanks!
Does this mean that if you use the new motors you cannot use 393 motors or does it mean that if you use the V5 at all, you cannot use the 393 motors? As I understand it, the 393 motors will still be compatible (at least partially). Will the servos and earlier motors be compatible in any way?
Will the restriction against 393 motors also extend to servos and earlier Vex motors?
If using v5, you can’t use 393’s at all.
600RPM on 4inch wheels can cross the field in a little over 1 second… just saying.
That will burnout the motor, maybe if you use 8 it won’t lol
Will be very interested to know peak power output and the stall torque of these motors.
What connector will the new batteries for v5 use? What about the new motor cables, what connector will they use? Will there be different lengths of cables that we can purchase?
@Maddog13524 The motors appear to be using RJ11 cables, I don’t know about the batteries though.
I just realized that with a 14 volt battery, you can probably make a 2 motor drive!
If they are RJ11, it would be really cool if we’re allowed to crimp our own cables to length. @Paul Copioli Otherwise tucking away unused cable or hooking multiple extensions together could be a bit tricky.
RJ11 cable is probably one of the easiest connectors to crimp, and VEX could either sell a kit or let us buy it from pretty much any hardware or electronics store.
Thoughts and reactions (Note: for an odd reason, I happen to know some yet unreported details)
Well, but why? For example a passive mogo lift means you need 6 individually-addresable ports just for the drivebase. With significantly more powerful motors, you could use just one for MoGo and 4 for drivebase. And only 3 different control values, though forget about Y cables in V5.
IMEs? Noone in the know for obvious reasons coughI2Ccough.
Quads, pots? Half of the motors for all teams that want to stay relevant.
Now consider that you’re getting the promise of the IMEs with precise axle tracking but without an additional cable and/or more input ports consumed, while also enabling extra features of fast local PID, motion planning and system voltage compensation for free. And using reliable, industry proven communication bus that is actually suitable for the task, unlike I2C.
14V battery (higher system voltage generally) is what enables the RJ11-like connector, I’d be worried about passing the motor currents through that contact spring otherwise.
Can’t wait for those off-the-shelf curled cables on the long lifts. As long as the standard RJ11 fits the bill and not a different, custom-made one to support the motor currents. But 14V battery (higher system voltage generally) should make that more realistic.
Happens in many industries all the time. It’s called progress.
Also, sticking to outdated tech is usually the more expensive option. Plenty of 8bit micros of yesteryear are currently more expensive than better, faster, more efficient and easier to work with ARM MCUs, for example.
Actually, I wonder what will be the coding options for V5 and what will be published of the internal architecture? Besides VEX Coding studio (which, from what can I find looks more like ModKit with text option), I would expect RobotC as well. What about community options, like PROS? My students were about to start migration to PROS, but given the new hardware and likely architecture in V5, that might take time to catch up…
See this. I promised to not share more before the reveal, but this was public before. Also that piece was a prototype…
with the power that the V5 motors I could probably accomplish the same things with about the same performance, just very differently. As for why I need 10 individual ports now, well I might do a reveal later (if it ends up working well enough to be worth it).
PROS support has been confirmed