They say this is advanced, but the reality is that what they're doing is putting force where it is needed by design instead of adapting off-the-shelf hardware. The more simple (direct) the drive train is, the better it works, the more efficient it becomes.
Swinging large masses around is going to create loss, period. The lighter a bot can be, the better it will perform. Falls won't be as fatal in a lighter bot unless the design is weak. It won't need as much power, meaning smaller and lighter batteries or more run time - but in best case scenario, and optimization of both.
Personally, I'm a fan of brushless motors built into wheels (this has been done on automobiles). Minimal gearing of a single motor per wheel is a close second. There's an electric "super car" that is pretty phenomenal that uses per-wheel gear driven motors.
If the motors and control system they've designed is as unique as they suggest, it will not be available to the general public for a very long time.
I'm guessing what they've done is to use a brushless design (neo magnets on rotor), but with no metal in the windings - like a reverse-coreless motor, likely with a large rotor diameter and more "steps" (coils) to get the torque. This is the best design I can think of. A slick control system would allow you to vary not only the drive current but the regenerative braking to get the "damping" variation mentioned.Statistics: Posted by PaulL — Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:17 pm
]]>