Page 2 of 3

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2026 4:37 pm
by servobre20
@mohammed64 From what I've seen: 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. 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Sun May 17, 2026 12:11 pm
by rossi30
@servobre20 Small correction on one detail: 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. 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Mon May 18, 2026 2:03 pm
by jlefebvre
@rossi30 I can speak to this a bit. 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. 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Fri May 22, 2026 3:27 pm
by joseph_sing
This lines up with my experience. 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. Makes me wonder how this looks in another five years.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2026 11:24 am
by sarah.santos3
@joseph_sing This is exactly the kind of context I was looking for. 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. 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2026 10:57 am
by ethan17
Related question - 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. 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2026 4:52 am
by jlefebvre
@ethan17 Thanks for laying this out, genuinely useful. 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. 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2026 4:50 am
by emma_whit
From hands-on experience, 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. Totally unrelated but has anyone else noticed how fast component costs are dropping this year.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2026 2:42 pm
by smartinez
New to this, so forgive me if this is obvious - 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.

Re: What's underrated: motor design or gearbox design, for overall performance?

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2026 8:43 pm
by freya.smith
This matches what I've seen too. 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.