Motion modules · Model-level data
Compare integrated robot actuator models using source-verified torque, speed, ratio, mass, control, and interface data. Each model record includes a product reference, original 2D drawing, and source performance map for engineering review.
Total Models (13 Planetary, 1 Harmonic)
Peak Output Torque Span
Reduction Ratio Range
Integrated Actuator Mass
Compare 13 planetary robot actuator models by rated output, peak torque (>3 s), reduction ratio, speed, weight, and verified interface drawings.
This catalogue entry is unusual in the set because both Model 1 and Model 2 columns are populated. The source lists different ratios, torque, speed, and mass for those columns, but does not explain their relationship. Compare each column as a separate source configuration and confirm the intended build before choosing one.
The source publishes one configuration with a 40:1 reduction ratio, 10 Nm rated torque, 30 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” table label, and 88 rpm peak speed. Its ratio and output-speed figures should be screened together against the required joint motion profile.
The Model 1 table lists 20 Nm rated torque and 70 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label at a 36:1 ratio. The catalogue also mentions a custom steel output plate for high-impact conditions, including ankle-joint examples; request the exact option drawing and validation basis before treating it as a project fit.
The feature notes specify a 9 mm through-bore and say that a brake is not supported. The Model 1 table lists a 16:1 ratio, 10 Nm rated torque, and 25 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label. Confirm that the drawing, cable-routing need, and no-brake boundary match the assembly.
The source pairs a 39:1 reduction ratio with 25 Nm rated torque, 76 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label, and 100 rpm peak speed. It also lists 1.2 Nm backdrive torque. Treat that value as a catalogue parameter to review under the intended mechanics; it does not by itself establish a QDD classification or a backdrivability guarantee.
The Model 1 table lists 16 Nm rated torque, 50 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label, a 36:1 ratio, and 67 rpm peak speed. The source also mentions a 100 KV version without defining its full configuration; ask for the exact winding/version data before comparing it with the listed table.
Both Model 1 and Model 2 are populated, and the source gives both a 36:1 ratio. The visible table still lists separate electrical and output values, so compare the complete columns rather than assuming the labels mean interchangeable options. Model 1 is listed at 82 Nm peak torque and 64 rpm peak speed.
The catalogue notes a 9 mm through-bore and says the standard configuration does not support a brake. Model 1 is listed at 30 Nm rated torque, 90 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label, a 25:1 ratio, and 88 rpm peak speed. Other KV versions are mentioned but need exact configuration confirmation.
The source lists an 18.33:1 reduction ratio with 30 Nm rated torque, 90 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label, and 190 rpm peak speed. Check torque, speed, and duty together; the single peak value is not a continuous operating point.
The Model 1 values are 33 Nm rated torque, 110 Nm peak torque for more than 3 seconds, an 18:1 ratio, and 160 rpm peak speed. The source states standard CAN and EtherCAT communication and separately notes a 100 KV version; confirm the interface and exact motor version for the intended controller.
Both source configuration columns use a 10:1 ratio, but the remaining electrical and output values differ. Model 1 is listed at 40 Nm rated and 170 Nm peak torque with 192 rpm peak speed. Review the full Model 1/Model 2 tables and ask which configuration produced the performance map.
Model 1 lists 60 Nm rated torque, 300 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label, an 18:1 ratio, and 106 rpm peak speed. The source says a brake can be customized and the standard configuration has no through-bore. Treat the brake as a project option requiring confirmation, not as included hardware.
The source lists 80 Nm rated torque and 400 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label at an 18:1 ratio, with 80 rpm peak speed and 2,220 g mass for Model 1. It states no standard through-bore or brake support. Validate the required torque duration, mounting envelope, and mass in the actual mechanism.
Review the harmonic model’s 100:1 reduction ratio, source-listed torque and speed, original interface drawing, and the catalogue’s stated through-bore, brake, and torque-sensor customization options.
This is the harmonic-drive record in the set. Model 1 lists a 100:1 ratio, 108 Nm rated torque, 304 Nm under the source’s “Peak torque (>3 s)” label, 62 rpm peak speed, and 1,600 g mass. The catalogue mentions through-bore, brake, and torque-sensor customization; request the exact option stack and resulting drawing before selection.
01 · Torque and speed
Compare rated and peak labels with acceleration, peak duration, repetition, reversal, and thermal conditions.
02 · Interfaces
Match the drawing, mounting, load path, cable route, voltage, connectors, protocol, encoder, and brake requirements.
03 · Evidence
Request the current drawing, applicable performance map, test conditions, and validation evidence for the configuration being reviewed.
Send the target torque and speed profile, duty cycle, mounting/interface drawing, supply and control requirements, project stage, quantity range, and validation needs. An initial review identifies missing inputs without assuming a model is suitable.
An initial review identifies missing inputs and next steps. It does not by itself confirm feasibility, performance, price, or delivery timing.
