Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Harmonic drives, quasi-direct drive, series elastic actuators, motor selection, gearing, and everything that makes joints move.
benjaminsanchez
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:58 am

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by benjaminsanchez »

@samuel.adams Genuinely curious - It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
choi98
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2024 12:32 am

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by choi98 »

@benjaminsanchez To answer this directly: For dynamic walking and recovery, joint control bandwidth in the tens of Hz range is typically necessary to react to a stumble before the center of mass gets too far outside the support polygon. Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
Watching this space closely since 2019.
jchen
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2025 2:19 pm

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by jchen »

@choi98 Just to be precise about one thing: Anti-backlash techniques in production actuators range from mechanical preloading (spring-loaded gear meshes) to purely software compensation that models and corrects for known backlash in the control loop. Encoder resolution requirements scale with how tightly you need to control low-speed motion - coarse encoders are fine for open-loop swing phases but cause visible stutter during precise placement or fine force control.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
ramirez77
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2025 9:39 pm

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by ramirez77 »

Genuine beginner question - Series elastic actuators add a spring element in series with the drivetrain, which gives cheap, precise torque sensing (measure spring deflection) and passive shock absorption, at the cost of reduced control bandwidth and added complexity. It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
johnrossi
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2025 2:39 am

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by johnrossi »

Side note that might be relevant: A lot of the per-joint cost in a modern actuator isn't the motor - it's the combination of a precision gearbox, integrated encoders, torque sensing, and the driver electronics, all of which have to fit inside a housing the size of a fist.
she/her
young56
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2025 5:26 pm

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by young56 »

Pretty much this. One thing to add: Harmonic drives use high reduction ratios (often around 100:1), which gives excellent force density, stiffness, and thermal endurance for continuous-duty lifting - the tradeoff is low backdrivability and some backlash. It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
ethan17
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon May 19, 2025 8:21 pm

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by ethan17 »

I dealt with almost this exact situation. Harmonic drives use high reduction ratios (often around 100:1), which gives excellent force density, stiffness, and thermal endurance for continuous-duty lifting - the tradeoff is low backdrivability and some backlash. Boston Dynamics' commercial electric Atlas switched fully from hydraulic to QDD-style electric actuation, ending up quieter and lighter with comparable or better dynamic performance than the old hydraulic platform.
"Torque is a lifestyle."
james15
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2025 3:39 am

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by james15 »

Same conclusion I've come to. Also worth noting: Reflected inertia is what a limb 'feels like' to the outside world through the gearbox - a high-ratio harmonic drive reflects a lot of the rotor's inertia back to the joint, making the limb feel stiffer and less forgiving on unexpected impacts. Quasi-direct drive (QDD) actuators use lower gear ratios (roughly 6:1 to 10:1) paired with high-torque-density motors, trading some peak force density for backdrivability and low reflected inertia, which matters a lot for impact tolerance and fall recovery. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
jonathan.rao1
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2024 7:58 pm

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by jonathan.rao1 »

@james15 Counterpoint: It's common for a single humanoid to mix actuator types by joint - harmonic drives or hybrid geared actuators at the hips and shoulders where sustained torque matters most, and lower-ratio QDD-style actuators at ankles and knees where backdrivability and impact tolerance matter more.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
ananya.novak
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2026 9:07 pm

Re: Coreless vs iron-core motors for lightweight joints

Post by ananya.novak »

@jonathan.rao1 This lines up with my experience. Boston Dynamics' commercial electric Atlas switched fully from hydraulic to QDD-style electric actuation, ending up quieter and lighter with comparable or better dynamic performance than the old hydraulic platform. For dynamic walking and recovery, joint control bandwidth in the tens of Hz range is typically necessary to react to a stumble before the center of mass gets too far outside the support polygon.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
Post Reply