What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
Trying to organize my own thinking on this, so bear with me.
Compliant wrists that absorb impact during a bad approach or misjudged contact reduce mechanical stress on the whole arm, which matters a lot for long-term reliability even though it's a less visible feature than the hand itself. Vision-based grasp confidence estimation (predicting success before attempting a grasp) and tactile-based confirmation (confirming after contact) are complementary rather than competing - vision helps you choose a grasp, tactile tells you if it actually worked.
Let me know if I'm missing something obvious.
Opinions my own, not my employer's.
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
@barbara50 Genuinely curious -
Cable routing through a wrist joint with multiple degrees of freedom is a genuinely tricky mechanical design problem - tendons and wiring both need enough slack to avoid binding through the full range of motion without tangling or fraying over thousands of cycles. Wet, oily, or otherwise low-friction objects are still a genuine edge case for most current hands, since tactile sensing and grasp-force controllers are typically tuned and validated on dry, higher-friction test objects.
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
Sorry if this is a basic question, but
Imitation learning from human demonstration video (without robot teleoperation data) is an appealing way to scale up training data cheaply, but it runs into the embodiment gap - human hand kinematics and force profiles don't map directly onto a robot hand's very different mechanism. Grasp planning for deformable or non-rigid objects (bags, cables, cloth) remains one of the genuinely unsolved problems in manipulation - rigid-body grasp models simply don't capture how the object will behave once contact starts.
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
Not sure I fully agree here.
Bimanual manipulation - two arms coordinating on one task - is harder than it looks mostly because of the added degrees of freedom and the timing/force coordination required; a lot of 'two-handed' demos are actually closer to two independent single-hand tasks done in sequence.
they/them
-
freya.smith
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2026 5:28 pm
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
I'd take that specific number with a grain of salt, honestly.
A lot of the manipulation shown in production demos still leans heavily on teleoperation, particularly for anything involving fine force control or novel objects - autonomous grasp success rates on genuinely unstructured, previously-unseen clutter are still well below what teleoperation can achieve. Tendon-driven fingers let you move the heavier actuators back into the palm or forearm, keeping the fingers themselves light and fast, but they introduce cable routing, tensioning, and long-term wear problems that direct-actuated fingers don't have.
she/her
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
Genuine beginner question -
Object occlusion by the robot's own hand during the final approach to a grasp is a common and annoying perception problem - the closer the hand gets to a good grasp position, the more it blocks the camera's view of exactly what it's about to grab.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
benjaminsanchez
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2025 1:58 am
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
@yuki71 This matches what I've seen too.
Figure's fourth-generation Dexterous Hand (on Figure 02/03) reportedly offers 16 degrees of freedom per hand with sensors integrated into each finger, aimed at fine force control tasks like handling small electronic components without crushing them.
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
@benjaminsanchez Speaking from personal experience here,
Payload-to-hand-weight ratio varies a lot across current dexterous hands, and it's a meaningful tradeoff - more DoF and finer sensing generally means more actuators and mass in the hand itself, which eats into the arm's usable payload budget. Underactuated hands (fewer actuators than joints, using mechanical coupling to shape the grasp) are a reasonable engineering compromise for robust power grasps on a budget, but they generally can't do fine in-hand manipulation the way a fully actuated hand can.
he/him | robotics hobbyist since the DARPA Grand Challenge days
-
ananya.novak
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2026 9:07 pm
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
@yuki71 Agreed, and I'd add:
In-hand reorientation (repositioning a grasped object without setting it down) is one of the more advanced manipulation skills, requiring either a highly dexterous hand with enough DoF or clever use of gravity and controlled slipping - it's an active research area rather than a solved problem.
Currently: 3D printing my way to bankruptcy.
Re: What torque range do finger joints actually need to cover for general tasks?
Ran into exactly this myself.
Bimanual manipulation - two arms coordinating on one task - is harder than it looks mostly because of the added degrees of freedom and the timing/force coordination required; a lot of 'two-handed' demos are actually closer to two independent single-hand tasks done in sequence. Imitation learning from human demonstration video (without robot teleoperation data) is an appealing way to scale up training data cheaply, but it runs into the embodiment gap - human hand kinematics and force profiles don't map directly onto a robot hand's very different mechanism.