...
The next design iteration included the integrated motor rather than just simulating it previously. Since general cleat and four bar features stayed the same, the relative kinematics presented for the first design also apply to this case. However, there were some design changes to obtain Design II shown in Figure 3. First, L3 in Design I was very large, so this was eliminated in Design II to make the device more compact. Also, the motor was integrated with this design, but the tie rod was not used to reduce complexity of the system. Alternatively, the team chose to impart a direct torque on L2 using the servo motor. Lastly, the grip operation was blind when reaching and grabbing for ropes due to the orientation of the cleat sliders. This was rotated 90 degrees in the new design, which allowed the user to have a different hand position that was more natural for rope gripping.
Figure 3:Top: Design II in the closed position, Bottom: Design II in the open position
Even though the torque output required by the motor is higher in the new design, it is still well within the maximum output of the servo motor.