What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Harmonic drives, quasi-direct drive, series elastic actuators, motor selection, gearing, and everything that makes joints move.
rao91
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2025 1:55 am

What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by rao91 »

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but here goes. 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. Torque sensing is frequently integrated directly into the actuator housing via strain gauges near the output flange or spring element, rather than bolted on as an external sensor, to save weight and reduce noise from mechanical slop. 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. Would appreciate any first-hand accounts.
he/him
servobre20
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2026 6:16 am

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by servobre20 »

Just to be precise about one thing: 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.
Ex-automotive, now full-time robots.
young56
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2025 5:26 pm

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by young56 »

@servobre20 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.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
barbara.jones
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2025 6:12 pm

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by barbara.jones »

@young56 Slight correction, though the overall point stands: 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.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
shill
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2025 3:09 pm

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by shill »

I see it a little differently. Motor cogging torque (the 'notchy' feel from magnet-to-slot interactions) shows up as small periodic torque ripple that can translate into visible joint jitter at low speeds - it's usually mitigated with skewed magnets, better current control, or software compensation tables. 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. Kind of makes me think about how different this all looked even three years ago.
ananya.novak
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2026 9:07 pm

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by ananya.novak »

@shill I'd push back on this a bit. 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.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
nicole57
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2024 1:29 am

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by nicole57 »

Appreciate the detailed answer. Field-oriented control (FOC) tuning directly affects how smooth torque output feels - poorly tuned current loops show up as audible whine and jerky low-speed motion, while well-tuned FOC can make even a geared actuator feel fairly fluid. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
she/her | grad student, biped locomotion
nicole10
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2025 9:48 am

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by nicole10 »

@nicole57 I dealt with almost this exact situation. Backdrivability is the property that lets an external force move a joint without destroying the gearbox or the motor - it's central to both safe human-robot contact and to letting a leg comply naturally when the robot stumbles. Reminds me a bit of the early drone hobbyist scene, honestly.
he/him
scott21
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:57 am

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by scott21 »

Just to be precise about one thing: 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. 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.
she/her
jchen
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2025 2:19 pm

Re: What torque-to-weight ratio should a DIY builder realistically target?

Post by jchen »

I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly. Cycloidal drives are a less common but real alternative to harmonic drives - lower cost at high ratios, decent efficiency, but historically bulkier for the same torque density, which is part of why they haven't fully displaced harmonic drives in commercial hips and knees.
"The best actuator is the one that doesn't overheat."
Post Reply