P-Spec Motors

[Darin Jordan]

Our Club had it's winter meeting on Saturday, November 21st... During the meeting, we discussed the P-Spec power class, and there were suggestions to add to the approved motor list the Scorpion motors, as well as an AMMO 36-56-1800...

We voted down the Scorpian, the reasons of which should be obvious to anyone looking at the motor specs... and while the AMMO was initially approved, after I did some further research on the specs, this motor too is going to be disallowed, or at least so I was told.

For those of you who think additional motors should be allowed, you need to keep in mind that it needs to involve WAY more than just cost... I've put together a table of specs for all of the approved motors, and have included the Scorpions and the AMMO motor. When you analyze the specs and compare them, you should clearly see why those of us who pay attention to such things KNOW these motors don't fit.

I'm still looking for some pieces of data from several of the motors to complete this chart, but if we focus on some important parameters, you can clearly see the additional power available on the Scorpion and Ammo motors... Weight is another factor... the AMMO is almost 3oz heavier in mass than the other Spec motors, giving it additional capabilities.

I'm hoping to find the Watts info for the AQ motors to give a better comparison, but in the meantime, it should still be fairly apparent that we can't be including motors that make 1100 or 1400Watts, when the current spec motors are 600W motors.... How can anyone think that's reasonable???

Fire away, guys... I'm not wearing my flame suit, but I have data, facts, and figures, so fire away... ;)

[bigwaveohs]

This chart doesn't print very well...too hard to read.

[properchopper]

Darin,

I have some thoughts & "seat of the pants" info to share on the Scorpion 3026/1900. After seeing one in person in Jan's DH, and watching it perform,I bought one. First, I installed it in the VS-1 which was using a Hydra 120 [ v1.04 with timing set to low- 4.75 deg. advance]. Same prop as when the UL-1 motor was used; Grim 42/55. No big increase. M445 - no big increase. M545 -cogged. Put the UL-1 motor back in the VS-1. Put the Scorpion in the UL-1 with a CC BAC 80. M445- no big increase. Put the Scorpion back on the UL-1 with the UL-1 SC and the Grim 42/55 and performed on par with the UL-1 motor. Haven't tried bigger props yet to try out the potential for using the supposed more torque. Apparantly, I've heard, the UL-1 SC has more advance [ possibly 11 degrees-according to what Greg Schweers told me] and I'm hearing that the Scorpion likes advance. Of course, as you've observed, a big wheel on an OPC can cause some issues. My conclusion is that the Scorpion for OPC, at least, won't create any unfair advantage.
On the subject of "max watts" maybe this analogy might dispel what seems to create an unfair comparison: Loudspeakers have max watt ratings. Take one rated at 100 watts and one rated at 200 watts. This rating is what they can [I]handle[I] before voice coil deformation. With the same amplifier power, the 100 watt speaker will actually likely play louder. A 150 mph/rated tire will go just as fast as a 200mph/rated tire on the same car. The way I interpret the "max watts" rating on the motors is what they CAN put out before degradation. The Scorpion may just be built to Take more, not PUT OUT more. That's my read, anyway.
I'm not trying to advise here, just giving my 1.5 cents. I'm usually wrong anyway ! Plus it looks like I need to shell out more dough for a Blackjack motor [which now looks like the "flavor of the day"] to race LSO in AZ next month and I'm running out of money :help:

[Darin Jordan]

This chart doesn't print very well...too hard to read.

Once I get more data, I'll do something a little more readable...

Basically what it shows is that the current P-Spec motors are rated at 50A/600W. Still looking for all the data for the SV27 and UL1 (Grim??? Can you help??).

The AMMO 1800KV motor is rated at 50A/1100W, with a burst (5sec) of 90A/2000W.

The Scorpion 1900KV motor is rated at 80A/1400W, with a burst (5sec) of 80A/1400W.

[Ub Hauled]

Darin, I think your club chose well... it's obvious that the Scorpion motors and the Ammo don't suit your clubs situation. No need for any "outsiders" to flame you guys. I can say that IF these rules one day become the standard NAMBA Spec class, it would be a good choice of motors...
now Darin, what are the rules as far as ESCs go? Do you have battery specs or any hull specs?
I may know the answer but just wanted to "spill the beans" so to speak.

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, what are the rules as far as ESCs go? Do you have battery specs or any hull specs?
I may know the answer but just wanted to "spill the beans" so to speak.

No special rules on hulls, ESCs, or batteries... P-Class battery specs... ESCs are open, and hulls follow P-Class rules...

746W = 1HP...

[Darin Jordan]

I can say that IF these rules one day become the standard NAMBA Spec class, it would be a good choice of motors...

That's fine... but the "choice" of motors need to be simliar in specs... 600W vs. 1400W is hardly apples to apples...

[Ub Hauled]

That's fine... but the "choice" of motors need to be simliar in specs... 600W vs. 1400W is hardly apples to apples...

absolutely!
that was an easy decision (to me at least)...

[ozzie-crawl]

just a thought wich maybe way of course but i see the ammo 1800 specs as 50a 1100 watts constant, this suggests a 6s motor,being that its a plane motor desigened for planes running gear drives (im assuming) would its capacity in a direct drive boat be the same, as i take the sv and bj motors to be made more specifacly for boats

[Ub Hauled]

Scott, all these motors have it's max wattage estimated with max voltage input... that being said,
if one has a higher wattage motor it would too have a higher wattage at 4s even w/o running max cell count.
The SV, BJ and UL1 motors are made for boats, they have a higher amount of poles for max torque with direct drive.

[ozzie-crawl]

okay iam just missing the big picture i guess as i dont race and not sure on your spec classes.
i assumed (and you know the saying "assumption is the mother of all") that they are restricted to a 4s setup
if all motors are capable of 50 amps constant draw and everyone is limited to 4s then to me none of them can produce more than around 740 watts (nominal volts) this is once again assuming the motor specs given by manufacturers are correct :spy:
if a motor has a 50 amp constant capability i dont see if it matters that it could produce 1850 watts at 10s if its restricted to 4s and can still only produce 50 amps constantly
WHAT AM I MISSING

[Greg Schweers]

Darin, at yesterday's meeting you said the Amo wouldn't be able to compete against the Black Jack and UL1 motors because it was only a 2 pole motor and wouldn't have enough torque. Basically, we only have a 2 motor choice right now because no one is going to purposely buy an SV motor. Like I said, I don't like supporting one company - what happens when you can't buy a UL motor, you'll be stuck buying a motor you don't want. I just checked Tower and the Amo 1800 is only $49.99. The reason we voted it in is to see how well it will compete - now you're trying to ban it before we ever get a chance to test it. The Amo might not even work - this could be a moot issue.

[Scott T]

Just an observation, but a lot of people have installed the Ammo 36-50-2300 as an upgrade to the Sv27 motor. I've seen both motors in 26" monos, and the Ammo wins every time. So rather than the 36-56-1800 (which to me would have more power again), you'd be better off nominating or testing a 36-50-1500? Similar weight, power and revs to the Proboat motor (obviously different # of poles).

Unfortunately it's more expensive than the 36-56-1800, but it seems to tick the right boxes and offers an alternative.

[Fluid]

What everyone apparently has chosen to overlook is that for a number of years we had two-motor LSH and LSO classes and they worked rather well. The choices? The SS-1 and the 700 SC. We did have a larger pool of 700 motors to choose from, but all serious racers used one of the above two motors - the most expensive two.

All the hand-wringing aside, these are LIMITED classes. Open the door to a large number of motors and the result will be just as before - all serious racers using the one motor which provides the greatest performance, regardless of the cost. Listen folks, history is speaking to us.



.

[Steven Vaccaro]

What is driving the need for new choices in the class?

[Norman2]

That's fine... but the "choice" of motors need to be simliar in specs... 600W vs. 1400W is hardly apples to apples...

Darin, Your club's rules are right on. We had a meeting several in our local club
to discuss the same thing and decided only SV27, BL26, and UL-1 motors were
allowed and only 4S lipos. The only change we made was to include hull that
are 32". A few members had HOTR mono and cat hulls and the initial rule was
26-30". Your new rules are fair and should be adopted by NAMBA.
Norman2

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, at yesterday's meeting you said the Amo wouldn't be able to compete against the Black Jack and UL1 motors because it was only a 2 pole motor and wouldn't have enough torque. Basically, we only have a 2 motor choice right now because no one is going to purposely buy an SV motor. Like I said, I don't like supporting one company - what happens when you can't buy a UL motor, you'll be stuck buying a motor you don't want. I just checked Tower and the Amo 1800 is only $49.99. The reason we voted it in is to see how well it will compete - now you're trying to ban it before we ever get a chance to test it. The Amo might not even work - this could be a moot issue.


Greg, I changed my mind after seeing the specs.... and realizing that the motor Jim had been running, and the one I thought it was, weren't the same motors... There is also an AMMO 36-50-1500KV... Which is 770W... that's what I though were were talking about here...

Let me put it this way... as soon as Brian found out the AMMO would be legal, he was perparred to order them for ALL his spec boats...

I'm not trying to do anything... Just putting the info out there.

The P-Spec classes are finished, however, if this type of motor is allowed. Where will it end?

[Darin Jordan]

What everyone apparently has chosen to overlook is that for a number of years we had two-motor LSH and LSO classes and they worked rather well. The choices? The SS-1 and the 700 SC. We did have a larger pool of 700 motors to choose from, but all serious racers used one of the above two motors - the most expensive two.

All the hand-wringing aside, these are LIMITED classes. Open the door to a large number of motors and the result will be just as before - all serious racers using the one motor which provides the greatest performance, regardless of the cost. Listen folks, history is speaking to us.



.


Thanks Jay... I completely agree....

[Darin Jordan]

What is driving the need for new choices in the class?


People don't want to be tied to a specific manufacturer... Some want to buy performance they aren't able to tune for... Others just like to experiement... Others want "cheaper" alternatives... Some just hate the RTR industry and cringe when it comes to supporting it.... Some just can't stand not having the latest, greatest "next best thing".... Some worry about supply...

[T.S.Davis]

haha Steve, the obvious question. I asked that somewhere once and the red board blew up. It's coincedence but it still made me chuckle.

Weren't all of the 700's Mabuchi motors I think. Wasn't that relying on a single manufacturer? Those classes were a huge success. Guys, your thinking too hard on this. The 700 motor classes only lasted a few years before something better came along. We were all running Graupner 700bb 8.4's and 700 Neo 9.6 motors when the SS1 hit the market.

The exact same thing is going ot happen again. New motors are going to come out. I believe that's Darrin's motivation. He's trying to collect data so that we know the parrameters. Then as new players come along we'll have some idea how or even if they fit in with what we already know.

[Darin Jordan]

...you'd be better off nominating or testing a 36-50-1500? Similar weight, power and revs to the Proboat motor (obviously different # of poles).

Unfortunately it's more expensive than the 36-56-1800, but it seems to tick the right boxes and offers an alternative.


The 36-50-1500 is also only rated at 35A/770W constant 80A/1775W Surge... so it's more inline with the other P-Spec motors... It's weight/mass is also more inline, at 8.6oz/243g... I'm not sure what the surge watts are on our Spec motors now... I'm trying to get that info, as well as the base power for the two Aquacraft motors...

This is the motor I thought we were discussing in the meeting...

I actually suspect we'll find that the UL1 motor is rated a bit higher than the other three, but we'll have to see. It's mass is only 212g... and it's max surge current is 80A, so it's still inline with the others... overall power wise.

[Darin Jordan]

As Terry eluded to, here is my motivation:




P-Spec Power Specifications

1) Motor Specifications


The intent of the P-Spec Power Specifications is to define a motor package to be used in P-Spec and Limited class racing. These rules are intended to either supersede, or be in addition to, any rules pertaining to motors for a given class, as specified within the rules for that class.


Motors in these specifications shall be based on readily available parts from past, current, and/or future Ready-to-Run offerings by various manufactures. Only motors on the approved motor list shall be allowed. Other motors that meet similar specifications to the motors on the Approved Motor list may be considered at the discretion of the Club. These motors shall be run initially on a trial basis for ½ points until the Club decides to approve and add them to the list, or to reject them.


Motors are intended to be used as they are supplied. Therefore, no alterations or modifications are allowed, unless specifically stated in these rules. Motor shall be directly connected to the output drive shaft, no gear/belt over/under drives will be allowed.




We have to know the specifications, before we can know if the motors should be allowed...


So to further address Greg's concern, NOTHING should be approved to be added to the list without having all the specifications available to the best of our ability. Just going off of "so-and-so ran it and it looked fine" isn't really good enough... even if I'm saying it...

[properchopper]

okay iam just missing the big picture i guess as i dont race and not sure on your spec classes.
i assumed (and you know the saying "assumption is the mother of all") that they are restricted to a 4s setup
if all motors are capable of 50 amps constant draw and everyone is limited to 4s then to me none of them can produce more than around 740 watts (nominal volts) this is once again assuming the motor specs given by manufacturers are correct :spy:
if a motor has a 50 amp constant capability i dont see if it matters that it could produce 1850 watts at 10s if its restricted to 4s and can still only produce 50 amps constantly
WHAT AM I MISSING

Thanks ! That was the point I was trying to present. Power IN has to equal power OUT minus efficiency losses. I'll just back off and listen. [Besides, even if I competed with a supposed "better spec'd" motor, my driving inexperience would handicap my chances.] I'm all for spec classes for obvious reasons- I just wanted to contribute to the fray by pointing out that motor specs be better understood, plus I have some water time with the Scorpion and wanted to present my experiences to see if they would help.

[sailr]

Exactly! You are right on the money. For example, the UL and SV motors are 600 watts? At 50A that means they can only run 12V? (watts/A = V) BUT they are designed for 14.8V? On the other hand, the higher watt motors, at 50A will take higher volts? Something doesn't add up here.

The motors will only produce the watts depending on the amps drawn and the volts used! So if you used a scorpion or an ammo, at 14.8V and it drew 50A, the watts are EXACTLY the same as the SV and the UL1, 740.

The watt ratings you see are only the MAX they can produce, not what they actually put out. What they put our depends on the volts and amps.


okay iam just missing the big picture i guess as i dont race and not sure on your spec classes.
i assumed (and you know the saying "assumption is the mother of all") that they are restricted to a 4s setup
if all motors are capable of 50 amps constant draw and everyone is limited to 4s then to me none of them can produce more than around 740 watts (nominal volts) this is once again assuming the motor specs given by manufacturers are correct :spy:
if a motor has a 50 amp constant capability i dont see if it matters that it could produce 1850 watts at 10s if its restricted to 4s and can still only produce 50 amps constantly
WHAT AM I MISSING

[sailr]

This discussion reminds me of the early days of slot car racing. In the beginning, there were only a couple of choices of motors, so everyone was pretty evenly matched. But as time went on there were more and more and more motors available. It became a stupid game...whoever could afford the latest and greatest motor...sometimes buying a new one every week.

IMHO, the SPEC classes should be left alone! They were designed to give everyone a fairly level playing field by limiting to the SV, Proboat, and UL motor. I would really hate to see it turn into the "motor of the week" syndrome. It would cause confusion. The SPEC classes were set up to encourage more participation as the costs are low and the equipment reliable.

It seems like every time a good thing comes along, somebody wants to start screwing with it. Again, IMHO....I think the SPECS should be left alone.

[Darin Jordan]

What they put our depends on the volts and amps.

... and EFFICIENCY.... ;)

[sailr]

Yep, and efficiency.


... and EFFICIENCY.... ;)

[Hydromaniac]

IMO I am all for some new motor options, I am not looking for increased performance or "EDGE" I race seriously and run several spec class boats, This results in the use of several motors through a race season. In the past race seasons since the allowance of the current motors the manufacturers have been unable or unwilling to keep up with the demand for them. This has resulted in short supply of the allowed motors. I don't like racing with weak, worn motors or having to bounce motors from hull to hull in order to compete. If other optons were made to us this may lessen the drain from the supply available. With another option or two there may always be an ample supply of motors and I prefer that over the past shortages we've had.:confused2:

[Doug Smock]

:popcorn2::smile:

[Darin Jordan]

:popcorn2::smile:

CHICKEN!! :hug1:

[Ub Hauled]

WHAT AM I MISSING


Thanks ! That was the point I was trying to present.

the more headroom the motors have larger the high efficiency curve will be... the Ammo has a surge of 90amps, UL1 80amps, the others are a mystery, but I am sure they are either 80 or less amps... with a higher max amp rating, since they are running any ESC, there is a higher amp constant possibility while running w/o any melting, for example, if you had a motor that was 50amps constant and 60amps bursts, it would not be very efficient out of it's constant rating. If you had motor that had 50-100 amps rating then you could push it harder out of the constant rate... does it make any sense or am I rambling?

[Darin Jordan]

I think the only real way to get an accurate evaulation would be to dyno each motor being considered.

Devise a base load to put them each under, and evaluate the results based on that data.


I've already done that for the 4 subject motors for P-Spec... That's why they are on the list and appropriate. I ran them each unloaded and loaded, using a standard 4S pack for power, and a standard SV27 ESC for control. This gave solid baseline and consistent numbers from which to evaluate from.

I think that, if anything else was to be considered, it would need to undergo the same testing. However, I do think that we need to limit the list to JUST approved motors and to a VERY few of them... Otherwise, it's just P-Class Lite, and what's the point...

The idea was to have a place where RTR boats and those just getting started could have a place to come play with the rest of us... If you start putting in motors that are above and beyond the "cheap Chinese" stuff that comes in the RTR boats, then you're blowing the class up... and again, what's the point...

[Steven Vaccaro]

I think the only real way to get an accurate evaulation would be to dyno each motor being considered.

Devise a base load to put them each under, and evaluate the results based on that data.


I've already done that for the 4 subject motors for P-Spec... That's why they are on the list and appropriate. I ran them each unloaded and loaded, using a standard 4S pack for power, and a standard SV27 ESC for control. This gave solid baseline and consistent numbers from which to evaluate from.

I think that, if anything else was to be considered, it would need to undergo the same testing. However, I do think that we need to limit the list to JUST approved motors and to a VERY few of them... Otherwise, it's just P-Class Lite, and what's the point...

The idea was to have a place where RTR boats and those just getting started could have a place to come play with the rest of us... If you start putting in motors that are above and beyond the "cheap Chinese" stuff that comes in the RTR boats, then you're blowing the class up... and again, what's the point...

Please don't take this the wrong way, because i do applaud your testing and desire to keep things right. But if you truly want a spec class. A single spec motor should be considered. Otherwise you run into differences in power. For instance, look at Tony's testing of the Scorpion motor. With one esc it ran just ok, with another it came alive. There really isn't time in the world to test each setup and setting to make sure they are all the same.

[Hydromaniac]

Personally If we are forced to be using RTR equipment as spec I think the esc should be included but thats a whole new can of worms.:tape:

[Steven Vaccaro]

Personally If we are forced to be using RTR equip as spec I think the esc should be included but thats a whole new can of worms.:tape:

I would agree, but I dont race with them. The esc is the fuse, run to large of a prop and pop goes the fuse. Keeps things equal.

[Ub Hauled]

I am sure they are running 120+ ESCs, I cannot see them running the spec RTR Speedos since there's no regulation on them... I run the original 60amp speedo on my "spec boat" with the UL motor. I've clocked her at 51.1mph and there was not excessive heat on the ESC, the motor was a bit hot, but expected in racing conditions.

[Greg Schweers]

Darin, you always bragged about how our club is a Black Sheep Club because we're always trying something different (which is a good thing). Your acting like this is going to be voted on by NAMBA in the next few weeks. I know you want nothing but motors that come out of RTR boats; which is good for the SV class, and if you had strictly a UL class, that would be fine. But our LSH class has 4 or 5 different makes of boats (including tunnel and spec rigger). Even if the Ammo is 5 mph faster, Darin if you do your job at driving, that boat will not go around you. As you've always said, "Setup is key." And, if this motor turns out to be ridiculously fast, you and I would have had a heck of a race, and all we have to do is vote it out. By the way, I own 3 UL motors and 2 BlackJacks.

[Darin Jordan]

I know you want nothing but motors that come out of RTR boats; which is good for the SV class, and if you had strictly a UL class, that would be fine.

I've never said any such thing, or even indicated it... The HiMax motor is there because I wanted it to be, so I clearly don't have an aversion to aftermarket suppliers... It's also CLEARLY in line with the others, and it's specs and performance bear that out... I have said I believe it should be EQUIVALENT motors... JUST like the 700s were, for the most part... The AMMO and the Scorpion are CLEARLY more than this... based on their specs.

My goal here isn't to EXCLUDE... it's to find a formula or some guidelines to INCLUDE... All I've done is state the data and specs...



Even if the Ammo is 5 mph faster, Darin if you do your job at driving, that boat will not go around you. As you've always said, "Setup is key." And, if this motor turns out to be ridiculously fast, you and I would have had a heck of a race, and all we have to do is vote it out. By the way, I own 3 UL motors and 2 BlackJacks.


I'm not sure how you being 5mph is going to make me think we've had a "heck of a race"... I wouldn't even be on the same lap at the end of 1-mile... A heck of a race is what we have when the motors are more evenly matched...

The current rules for our club include the following line, as I posted above...



Other motors that meet similar specifications to the motors on the Approved Motor list may be considered at the discretion of the Club. These motors shall be run initially on a trial basis for ½ points until the Club decides to approve and add them to the list, or to reject them.

I'm against the two motors in question currently, because it's obvious that they are clearly higher power than the other 4, but if you feel you have to run them, then go for it... make the investment, run them for 1/2 points, and let the club decide. I'd be happy to give them a dyno run here on my bench as well, if you'll supply the motors....

My goal here is to try to come up with a way to more accurately evaluate them without getting into these pissing matches. More information gathered into one place will help that.

[RandyatBBY]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because i do applaud your testing and desire to keep things right. But if you truly want a spec class. A single spec motor should be considered. Otherwise you run into differences in power. For instance, look at Tony's testing of the Scorpion motor. With one esc it ran just ok, with another it came alive. There really isn't time in the world to test each setup and setting to make sure they are all the same.

The problem with this is that when the manufacture runs out of the one motor in the middle of summer we as racers are screwed. We need several motors that put out the same power as close to each other as possible in similar price ranges.

I have 4 of the UL-1 motors two of the SV27 motors and one of the BJ motors. I have several ESC that run my boats. I would hope that I would not have to buy a whole new set for 2010 due to a new motor being on the list that is more powerfull. Although when the nats come up I allways replenish stock for my racing to be ready.

[Doug Smock]

CHICKEN!! :hug1:

Not really, but I have been enjoying the peace and quiet. LOL
Thanks Darin,

Doug :tiphat:

PS. Any idea what the specs are on a Feigao 540 12 or 13 L? I Haven't been able to find a chart that I can read.

[Darin Jordan]

There really isn't time in the world to test each setup and setting to make sure they are all the same.

Steven, I don't think you have to... I don't think you have to test EVERY setting... If we have 1) A set of guidelines on the basic motor parameters, and then, if there are questions, 2) a baseline test under controller conditions... I don't think that's that big of a deal. The first test should weed out 90% of the motors out there, if it's formulated correctly. The second test is a little more involved, but as I've shown before, if a moron like me can make it happen, then it can't be that difficult... It's not like we should be considering many, many motors here.

[Darin Jordan]

Not really, but I have been enjoying the peace and quiet. LOL
Thanks Darin,

Doug :tiphat:


I know... just razzin' ya... stay out if you can!! :zip-up: :beerchug:



PS. Any idea what the specs are on a Feigao 540 12 or 13 L? I Haven't been able to find a chart that I can read.

I don't... I know that Newland was testing these just for this type of consideration. I'm still looking for actual specs, however.

[Greg Schweers]

If the UL motor were rated at 1100 watts, would we be running this motor today? Of course we would. If ProBoat brings out an RTR sport boat, and the motor puts out 1100 watts, are you going to tell the racer to go home - because as a club, we don't run P-Sport class right now? The only reason I'm making a big deal out of this is because there will be more motor shortages - that's a fact! The part I don't understand is why do you want to pay more for something and get less? I like having motor choices, while some people don't have those choices.

[Ub Hauled]

I don't... I know that Newland was testing these just for this type of consideration. I'm still looking for actual specs, however.

12 and 13L you say?

12L = 51amps and 2159Kv (55 x 14.8 = 814w)
13L = 47amps and 1999Kv (51 x 14.8 = 754.8w)

I could tell you more details about an 8L since I have it, but the 12 and 13 turns I don't own... let me know if the 8L become relevant and I'll get the numbers.

[Doug Smock]

It took some work but here it is.

[D. Newland]

The 12L was tested as a heads-up comparison to a UL-1 motor. Same rigger, same prop. The 12L was hands down faster, pulled somewhere near 1300 watts, but got to 170 degrees.

I was looking for a drop-in replacement to the UL-1. The 12L isn't it, but I bet the 13L or maybe the 14L would be a good substitute. I stopped my testing, but still have a 13L on the shelf.

There are three things I keep going back to when SPEC discussions come up.

1) I feel it's important to keep motor parity w/the RTR market (at least with LSH/LSO...maybe we can branch out a bit w/OPC and riggers?? I'm still chewing on this one).

2) FE will continue to see new motors and new RTR's (with new motors) hit the market.

3) The top guys will continue to be the top guys, no matter what is allowed to run.


I don't know what the answer is, but I do have my compromise hat on FWIW.

[Darin Jordan]

I think people have lost track of WHY this power level was created in the first place. We did this in RESPONSE to the great RTR boats that were coming available... Without much interest in N1, we needed a place where a guy could take a boat off the shelf and come race.

However, we didn't want it to become a "spec hull" class too, so we put together a power spec that would do two things. 1) Give the RTR owner a good place to compete, and 2) provide a cheap power system that could be used in any other hull to compete alongside them.

I think we've accomplished both.

If we deviate from this formula, then we lose the place for the RTR boats to run, and let's face it, they NEED to have a competitive place to run, or we lose a viable source of new drivers. For OUR club, the RTR market has provided MANY new faces, and they quickly get hooked. That would NOT happen if they were having to chase new motors every month, or had to totally change their equipment to be competitive.

In my opinion, if we just wanted a cheaper version of P-classes, we could have done like the Colorado club did with N2... spec motors that are basically L-series motors and under a certain cost. But THAT wasn't what we were trying to do.

The REASON why P-Spec OPC exists is BECAUSE of this P-Spec Idea... the REASON why people are racing to get their JAE .21 FE boat plans or kit is BECAUSE of the existing P-Spec Idea... LSO and LSH are viable BECAUSE of the existing P-Spec rules...

I don't see that changing... UNLESS we kill it by overcomplicating things and by making people chase motors and spend money they otherwise don't have. Then, just like with the standard NAMBA classes, participation becomes frustrating and expensive and falls off the map...

If we can figure out a couple more equivalent motors, that would be a good compromise, in my opinion. Anything more than that, and we'll kill the spirit of the class, make the RTRs non-competitive, and participation will fall off.

Just Sayin'....

[Doug Smock]

David, Darin, Thanks!

[RandyatBBY]

I think people have lost track of WHY this power level was created in the first place. We did this in RESPONSE to the great RTR boats that were coming available... Without much interest in N1, we needed a place where a guy could take a boat off the shelf and come race.

However, we didn't want it to become a "spec hull" class too, so we put together a power spec that would do two things. 1) Give the RTR owner a good place to compete, and 2) provide a cheap power system that could be used in any other hull to compete alongside them.

I think we've accomplished both.

If we deviate from this formula, then we lose the place for the RTR boats to run, and let's face it, they NEED to have a competitive place to run, or we lose a viable source of new drivers. For OUR club, the RTR market has provided MANY new faces, and they quickly get hooked. That would NOT happen if they were having to chase new motors every month, or had to totally change their equipment to be competitive.

In my opinion, if we just wanted a cheaper version of P-classes, we could have done like the Colorado club did with N2... spec motors that are basically L-series motors and under a certain cost. But THAT wasn't what we were trying to do.

The REASON why P-Spec OPC exists is BECAUSE of this P-Spec Idea... the REASON why people are racing to get their JAE .21 FE boat plans or kit is BECAUSE of the existing P-Spec Idea... LSO and LSH are viable BECAUSE of the existing P-Spec rules...

I don't see that changing... UNLESS we kill it by overcomplicating things and by making people chase motors and spend money they otherwise don't have. Then, just like with the standard NAMBA classes, participation becomes frustrating and expensive and falls off the map...

If we can figure out a couple more equivalent motors, that would be a good compromise, in my opinion. Anything more than that, and we'll kill the spirit of the class, make the RTRs non-competitive, and participation will fall off.

Just Sayin'....

LOL! Thanks for giving a little back ground to the P Spec racing that we created for the 2008 Nats. It was so much fun that it was continued this year. i do really love the class and I know it will grow.

[Greg Schweers]

The only thing I'm really upset about is that this issue was discussed on a national forum instead of being handled by phone or e-main because this was only a club matter. Even though 20+ club members voted in favor of this, we did not know the specs of the motor. We were convinced that the motor (being 2 pole) would not have enough torque to compete, the motor was in the right kv range. With that being said, I am going to test the Ammo and the Scorpion and recieve only 1/2 points for running them.

[RandyatBBY]

The only thing I'm really upset about is that this issue was discussed on a national forum instead of being handled by phone or e-main because this was only a club matter. Even though 20+ club members voted in favor of this, we did not know the specs of the motor. We were convinced that the motor (being 2 pole) would not have enough torque to compete, the motor was in the right kv range. With that being said, I am going to test the Ammo and the Scorpion and recieve only 1/2 points for running them.

It seams to me that if the vote was done in the club that is what you guys should do. That is the point of the NAMBA rules. To have clubs run it first and then after a year of running if it is well liked it is passed on the the National membership to be voted on. After the vote by national voteing if passes it becomes a national rule.

I hope that makes sence.

Good to see you hear Greg, Please come to the boards more.

[Darin Jordan]

The only thing I'm really upset about is that this issue was discussed on a national forum instead of being handled by phone or e-main because this was only a club matter. Even though 20+ club members voted in favor of this, we did not know the specs of the motor. We were convinced that the motor (being 2 pole) would not have enough torque to compete, the motor was in the right kv range. With that being said, I am going to test the Ammo and the Scorpion and recieve only 1/2 points for running them.

OK, well I'll plead guilty to that. Sorry... I should have thought about it a little more before posting... but the truth is that NONE of us went about this the right way.... The club matter was handled, as far as I'm concerned, via phone calls and e-mails... very shortly after the meeting ended and we actually got to LOOK at the specs for this motor. Having had all the actual specs in front of everyone, I wonder how they'd have voted? I know that I didn't know what the specs were and though it was the lighter weight motor he was using...

Again, sorry I didn't think before I typed, but this DOES affect the rest of the clubs... so here it is.

The club was squarly against the Scorpion, so, if we are going to follow our own rules, you can't even run that on a trial basis... but if you feel that the vote should stand for the AMMO, then go for it. I won't stand in your way...

But... if it's clearly faster than the others, then the club doesn't have an obligation to approve it ultimately to be allowed on the list of approved motors.

The fact is that if everyone starts doing this, then the P-Spec idea is dead, and we might as well just go back to normal P-classes.... Same people will win... it'll just cost more to do it...

[teach]

I liked what we did in Colorado when I first started. N-2 hulls with the "spec" systems, speed controls included. Cheapish, fast, and very equal in performance. It worked.

[Darin Jordan]

We had that... Not sure anymore.

My entire point to this thread is to gather enough information so we don't have to get into these pissing matches to consider motors again... If we can put together a reasonable set of guidelines, then this crap won't become a question in the future... it'll either fit, be close to fitting, or won't... Those that fit or are very close, can be tested, and ultimately approved or disapproved. I'm talking about on our Club level... What the rest of the country does can be up to them...

Sorry if this generated so many bad feelings... certainly not my intent...

[raptor347]

Since clubs are all going different directions and these aren't official classes anyway, we aren't going to run them at nationals next summer right?

[teach]

Since clubs are all going different directions and these aren't official classes anyway, we aren't going to run them at nationals next summer right?

:rofl: We actually are just going to use the rules they used in the nats this year.



Sorry if this generated so many bad feelings... certainly not my intent...

Hope that wasn't at me. I actually admire the time and effort to make some ground rules.

[raptor347]

:rofl: We actually are just going to use the rules they used in the nats this year.

From section 6 A of the NAMBA rule book.

3. To be classified as a Nationals a diversified selection of classes will be presented, which will adequately offer as many nationally approved classes that can be run during the event. Emphasis will be made on the classes which are popular in the area/district in which that Nationals is held.

If we are going to use the rule book, we should probably use all of it.

[teach]

From section 6 A of the NAMBA rule book.

3. To be classified as a Nationals a diversified selection of classes will be presented, which will adequately offer as many nationally approved classes that can be run during the event. Emphasis will be made on the classes which are popular in the area/district in which that Nationals is held.

If we are going to use the rule book, we should probably use all of it.

Even that confuses me. I just hope folks go home smiling.

[ozzie-crawl]

the main problem you will find in any spec (restricted) class is even if its original intention is to get beginners in or people on a budget
there is those with deep pockets as well, some people will load there gear and hope it will last a season were others may have 10 or more motors to last a season so they will push the gear to the max not careing if they have to change a motor every race meet
the only way to avoid this unfortunatly is to spec every thing
hull/hardeware motor/esc battrys/prop
gets kinda boring then :rules:

[bigwaveohs]

We had that... Not sure anymore.

My entire point to this thread is to gather enough information so we don't have to get into these pissing matches to consider motors again... If we can put together a reasonable set of guidelines, then this crap won't become a question in the future... it'll either fit, be close to fitting, or won't... Those that fit or are very close, can be tested, and ultimately approved or disapproved. I'm talking about on our Club level... What the rest of the country does can be up to them...

Sorry if this generated so many bad feelings... certainly not my intent...

Darin,
You are on the right track...don't give up! If you limit the class to a few motors, the best will prevail and everyone will be running one or two motors tops.

[Hydromaniac]

Since clubs are all going different directions and these aren't official classes anyway, we aren't going to run them at nationals next summer right?

Brian I am not sure I understand your question can you be more specific , "them" what rules or classes are you refering to?

[Hydromaniac]

From section 6 A of the NAMBA rule book.

3. To be classified as a Nationals a diversified selection of classes will be presented, which will adequately offer as many nationally approved classes that can be run during the event. Emphasis will be made on the classes which are popular in the area/district in which that Nationals is held.

If we are going to use the rule book, we should probably use all of it.

:confused:Help me out here, what is your point? I missed something that brought the 2010 FE Nats classes in to this conversation. If we use "all" of the rule book we would have to run 700 motors in spec classes:eek: as that is how the rule book reads at this point in time. Just trying to get a clear direction of whats in question so that as the CD I can give you a clear answer.

[Hydromaniac]

Brian Not sure but let me see if I can give some light on the "P" spec classes that we are planning for the nats. This is only for P spec as that is the topic of the thread.
OPC
OFF SHORE LSO(4 MINUTE MARATHON)
HYDRO
SPORT HYDRO LSH/SSH
CRACKERBOX( EXHIBITION IF FILLED)
As per P class, hulls can be no longer then 34 inches, Motors allowed will be 700 /brushed, PB Black Jack 26, AQ SV-27 and AQ UL-1. No esc restriction. 4s (14.8)volts 10000 MAH max No paralelling limit. This is the plan for "P spec classes at this time. If any changes happen ( Which I doubt) We will get the information out in plenty of time. Hope this helps.

[T.S.Davis]

Since clubs are all going different directions and these aren't official classes anyway, we aren't going to run them at nationals next summer right?

Define FE nationals. Technically it's not even in the book. It's one race with all the fuel sources at one event.

Just call them exhibition classes for your race Rod. Make sure you toss the rule set for P spec into your announcement somewhere.

Clubs can do like Morris County and Puget and do what they want but once you travel you need to be on the same page as your hosts. Eventually we'll get all this figured out. The actual rule book will read like we want so that there will be no need to stress about what we'll find when we get to a race. In theory of course.

[Jeff Wohlt]

Don't get me wrong but...you all should have this post in the club forums.

[Norman2]

Brian Not sure but let me see if I can give some light on the "P" spec classes that we are planning for the nats. This is only for P spec as that is the topic of the thread.
OPC
OFF SHORE LSO(4 MINUTE MARATHON)
HYDRO
SPORT HYDRO LSH/SSH
CRACKERBOX( EXHIBITION IF FILLED)
As per P class, hulls can be no longer then 34 inches, Motors allowed will be 700 /brushed, PB Black Jack 26, AQ SV-27 and AQ UL-1. No esc restriction. 4s (14.8)volts 10000 MAH max No paralelling limit. This is the plan for "P spec classes at this time. If any changes happen ( Which I doubt) We will get the information out in plenty of time. Hope this helps.

That is the perfect rule to follow for Spec Class. Our club has identical rules and
it is the class where we have more entries and more fun. I think that talking about
adding more motors is non productive. Just my comments. Regards
Norman

[Doug Smock]

:popcorn2::beerchug:

[Darin Jordan]

:popcorn2::beerchug:

HAHAHAHahahahHAHAHAHAHahahaha!!! :rofl::roflol::rofl:

:hug1:

[raptor347]

Brian Not sure but let me see if I can give some light on the "P" spec classes that we are planning for the nats. This is only for P spec as that is the topic of the thread.
OPC
OFF SHORE LSO(4 MINUTE MARATHON)
HYDRO
SPORT HYDRO LSH/SSH
CRACKERBOX( EXHIBITION IF FILLED)
As per P class, hulls can be no longer then 34 inches, Motors allowed will be 700 /brushed, PB Black Jack 26, AQ SV-27 and AQ UL-1. No esc restriction. 4s (14.8)volts 10000 MAH max No paralelling limit. This is the plan for "P spec classes at this time. If any changes happen ( Which I doubt) We will get the information out in plenty of time. Hope this helps.

Rod,
Thanks! That's just what we needed. This in essence is the official national rule for P-spec. It's what will be run at nationals for 2010. :biggrin:

Terry,
Yes, I know there are huge holes in the book. Probably better than most. :wink:

[sailr]

PERFECT! In my opinion we need to keep it right there! NO MORE MOTOR additions. If a club wants to open it up to other motors, that's up to them to run as a 'club class' but as far as the National rules, it needs to stay right where you have listed it.


Brian Not sure but let me see if I can give some light on the "P" spec classes that we are planning for the nats. This is only for P spec as that is the topic of the thread.
OPC
OFF SHORE LSO(4 MINUTE MARATHON)
HYDRO
SPORT HYDRO LSH/SSH
CRACKERBOX( EXHIBITION IF FILLED)
As per P class, hulls can be no longer then 34 inches, Motors allowed will be 700 /brushed, PB Black Jack 26, AQ SV-27 and AQ UL-1. No esc restriction. 4s (14.8)volts 10000 MAH max No paralelling limit. This is the plan for "P spec classes at this time. If any changes happen ( Which I doubt) We will get the information out in plenty of time. Hope this helps.

[Littlescreamers]

I find this very unfair?? I have spend mass time and money to bring new water jacketed outrunner motors to the market and now you tell me they will not allow it to run in the races?? GREAT! I know it can be ran in the unlimited class but Man, I hope this is just for stock classes.

Scott

[Hydromaniac]

I find this very unfair?? I have spend mass time and money to bring new water jacketed outrunner motors to the market and now you tell me they will not allow it to run in the races?? GREAT! I know it can be ran in the unlimited class but Man, I hope this is just for stock classes.

Scott

This conversation and class discussion is only about the current "P"spec class and does not pertain to other classes. The motors can still be ran in several other classes.:rockon2:

[sailr]

Scott,
Chill. Only talking about the current P Spec classes. Nothing to keep anyone from using your motors in other classes. I applaude you for your efforts. The outrunners are certainly on everyone's mind and will find great success in a myriad of applications....just not the current P Spec classes. K?

Jim


I find this very unfair?? I have spend mass time and money to bring new water jacketed outrunner motors to the market and now you tell me they will not allow it to run in the races?? GREAT! I know it can be ran in the unlimited class but Man, I hope this is just for stock classes.

Scott

[BILL OXIDEAN]

From section 6 A of the NAMBA rule book.

3. To be classified as a Nationals a diversified selection of classes will be presented, which will adequately offer as many nationally approved classes that can be run during the event. Emphasis will be made on the classes which are popular in the area/district in which that Nationals is held.

If we are going to use the rule book, we should probably use all of it.

I'm behind this statement. :buttrock:

[BILL OXIDEAN]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because i do applaud your testing and desire to keep things right. But if you truly want a spec class. A single spec motor should be considered. Otherwise you run into differences in power. For instance, look at Tony's testing of the Scorpion motor. With one esc it ran just ok, with another it came alive. There really isn't time in the world to test each setup and setting to make sure they are all the same.


Steve, that is SO true!!! Any half technical sanction would laugh all night at the idea of a sanction "speking" motors of different wind, length, and magnet constructions

How are you gonna spec a 2-pole motor with a 6? LoL..

A spec motor like a ROAR stock or 19-turn have all the same length, diameter, magnet size, and wind. Yes, there are many choices from different mfgrs, but they all fall under the same strict guidelines

THERES NO WAY MOTORS OF DIFFERENT WINDS ARE SPEC PERIOD!!!!! :doh:

Spec stuff is great for club races, but the nats need to showcase all of NAMBA's wonderful sanctioned classes.

LSH, LSO are already a staple in our programs, but as much as I love the spec classes and have done well with them, I think that 5 exibition classes crammed into an already hectic race schedule is not an affective use of time.

[Hydromaniac]

Steve, that is SO true!!! Any half technical sanction would laugh all night at the idea of a sanction "speking" motors of different wind, length, and magnet constructions

How are you gonna spec a 2-pole motor with a 6? LoL..

A spec motor like a ROAR stock or 19-turn have all the same length, diameter, magnet size, and wind. Yes, there are many choices from different mfgrs, but they all fall under the same strict guidelines

THERES NO WAY MOTORS OF DIFFERENT WINDS ARE SPEC PERIOD!!!!! :doh:

Spec stuff is great for club races, but the nats need to showcase all of NAMBA's wonderful sanctioned classes.

LSH, LSO are already a staple in our programs, but as much as I love the spec classes and have done well with them, I think that 5 exibition classes crammed into an already hectic race schedule is not an affective use of time.

IMO These are the classes with the largest turnout of racers in the past and are the most popular as well as what is mostly raced in this area so, as per the rules, emphasis should be placed in those areas correct? This is only one power group and there will be other Classes as well.

[Hydromaniac]

:thumbup1:Not sure how but this thread is heading towards a discussion of the 2010 FE Nationals and that is off topic of the original thread. We have a plan for the Nationals and the classes that will be ran. So there will be information forthcoming as things get finalized, This information will be presented in 2010 FE Nationals driven threads, discussion and corespondence.

[Littlescreamers]

Thanks you for clearing this up :D I was worried there for a sec. I want to bring new powerful and inexpensive water jacketed outrunners to you all for sport and racing.

Thanks again.

Scott

[Darin Jordan]

A spec motor like a ROAR stock or 19-turn have all the same length, diameter, magnet size, and wind. Yes, there are many choices from different mfgrs, but they all fall under the same strict guidelines

This pretty much what I'm trying to get at here... Basic parameters are currently:

Can Length: 50-56mm
Can Diameter: 36mm
Weight: Maximum 8oz
KV: 1500-2050KV
Power: 600W continuous
Amps: 50A continuous
Poles: 6

That's still a LOT of range, and those are just rough numbers for power... but that's what we currently have spec'd, and depending on the application, they seem to play together OK...

In my opinion, the UL-1 motor is still an outlier, but we've seen that, while it has more KV, it can't swing as big a prop as the others, so things balance out depending on the package you put together (hull and power system)...

I think when you start trying to stuff 2-poles, or Outrunners into the mix, you no longer have a "spec" class... you have P-Lite, and that's not what this was suppose to be about...

[Grimracer]

:popcorn2:

[Littlescreamers]

The motors will only produce the watts depending on the amps drawn and the volts used! So if you used a scorpion or an ammo, at 14.8V and it drew 50A, the watts are EXACTLY the same as the SV and the UL1, 740.

The watt ratings you see are only the MAX they can produce, not what they actually put out. What they put our depends on the volts and amps.


This is a very true statement!
Scott

[properchopper]

A note on trusting "specs" : There are sooo many ways "specs" can be arrived at. A good example of how specs can be misleading is in the stereo industry. One amplifier can be rated at 300 watts. This measurement is done at 1K Hz with 5%
THD. Another is rated at 50 watts, but at 20-20K Hz with less than .05 THD. The second rating is known as RMS (root mean square)watts. In this case the 50 watt amp is a better performing unit. This is still common, especially with cheap home or car stereos. Before trusting motor power ratings such as "continuous" or "max", the testing methods, and of critical importance the definition(s) of what constitutes "continuous" and "max" and many other parameters need to be known to make sure that they are the same. I doubt that they are.
Realistically, the # of poles, weight, KV, and physical dimensions can provide some realistically relevent ways to determine parity. The power ratings, which are really the bottom-line comparator, may not accurately reflect such parity.
Please understand that I'm all for spec racing (and the rules for fairness). I applaud all the efforts and concern to make this a bigger part of the sport and personally am gratefull to everyone that strives to push it foward. :hug1:

[Ub Hauled]

Can I have an "amen" for Mr. T-Bone?!

[properchopper]

Can I have an "amen" for Mr. T-Bone?!

Thanks Bro, I knew you, as an Audio Engineer, would understand !! :biggrin:

[Doug Smock]

:popcorn2:

You're in good company.:roflol:

Doug :popcorn2::beerchug:

PS Steven, better pop some more.:banana:

[Ub Hauled]

You're in good company.:roflol:

Doug :popcorn2::beerchug:

PS Steven, better pop some more.:banana:

Doug, don't hog the popcorn, pass it over dude!
:laugh:

[raptor347]

LSH, LSO are already a staple in our programs, but as much as I love the spec classes and have done well with them, I think that 5 exibition classes crammed into an already hectic race schedule is not an affective use of time.

Will,
Remember that LSH and LSO haven't officially been run as they appear in the rule book since 2006. The 2007 nats ran them as unoffical classes because they ran with LiPos before they were officialy legal. The 2008 nats ran with P-spec power rather than the legal brushed 700's. 2009 again ran P-spec power and LSO magicly became a 4 minute race instead of 10 laps. So in essence, those classes haven't actually been run for the last 3 seasons. We should stop using the class names for something they aren't.

Plus, there were 7 exhibition classes at the nats in 2009, the 4 spec classes plus production, ultimate offshore and sprint. Backing it down to 5 will be an improvement.

[Ctonez]

Honestly, I was originally surprised we allowed the UL-1 motors in the same class as the BJ and SV27 motors. In certain hulls, however, I have seen the SV motor be right on par with the UL-1 motor when propped right for the application.
I'm sure the thought of Brian re-outfitting his fleet is alarming, but that simply means that we should test and reconsider before including it with our other spec motors.
Was it a hasty decision? maybe, but we are at club level and not bound by this vote.
More research is necessary for sure, thanks for your work so far Darin.

I run SV motors, because I have so many and don't NEED any replacements yet, but when I do, as Greg mentioned, I won't be gettin an SV motor. I'll get whatever gets me the most bang for buck, which hopefully will be a tough decision due to parity...so I would be disappointed if the 1800kv Ammo whomps butt, but would probably get one if we allow it, so I get the point.

I am, however, completely with Greg on the point that this should not be continued online. Call me anytime, or let's dicuss it via club email.

[Ctonez]

This pretty much what I'm trying to get at here... Basic parameters are currently:

Can Length: 50-56mm
Can Diameter: 36mm
Weight: Maximum 8oz
KV: 1500-2050KV
Power: 600W continuous
Amps: 50A continuous
Poles: 6


So to appease those that want more selection, what, if any other motors fall into this range? ...I guess that's the big Q.
Doesn't price deserve to be a parameter since it helps define the spec further?

Another concern is supply longevity. We've seen periods of more demand than supply in the past, is there anything that can be done to assure the approved motors are around and plentiful for awhile? Maybe the popcorn eaters can answer that one...

[raptor347]

Cory,
Don't worry about the motors. I've talked to the AC guys about supply (I'm pretty sure Darin has talked to the ProBoat guys). The run on motors was a suprise. They stocked enough to support the product they were supplied in, not expecting them to be used in most of the race boats built that summer. They are aware of the demand now, with no plan to stop building them in the near future.

I have an interesting question: Why is the cost of the motor so important but nobody cares if you use a $250+ ESC? For that matter, how about battery price (40C thunder power packs for spec :olleyes:)?

Last season I ran UL-1 motors in rigger, tunnel, sport hydro, BJ26 in the mono. UL-1 escs with an added capacitor. $86 4S 4100 mah 25C Neu cells. No failures and better than average performance:wink:. Maybe the motor is the least of the concerns for the spec class.

[Ctonez]

I have an interesting question: Why is the cost of the motor so important but nobody cares if you use a $250+ ESC? For that matter, how about battery price (40C thunder power packs for spec :olleyes:)?

Last season I ran UL-1 motors in rigger, tunnel, sport hydro, BJ26 in the mono. UL-1 escs with an added capacitor. $86 4S 4100 mah 25C Neu cells. No failures and better than average performance:wink:. Maybe the motor is the least of the concerns for the spec class.

Good to know about the supply issue.
To answer your Q - it depends who you ask.
I run SV motor and ESC in everything except my Pmono - all with inexpensive 2-year old 30c Elites, that's four boats. Also no failures and I'd say better than average performance, so at least we're getting close to the mark. I have no plans to change my setups, because they work, they're competitive in our club, and I still have spares. I believe our goal is to keep it so my setups are still competitive with your setups and Gregs/Darins.
The 1800kv was approved because there was no advantage demonstrated by the one member who ran it last season...we did not take into account the fact that that class uses a spec prop too.
The 1800kv Ammo may indeed be able to spin a prop that makes it much faster in classes where prop is open.

[Ub Hauled]

I think having a few motors (about 3) would be great, if the ESC was spec'd as well (ESC from the RTR boats), then it would be awesome... that would keep the price of the class very affordable and easy to find

[BILL OXIDEAN]

Will,
Remember that LSH and LSO haven't officially been run as they appear in the rule book since 2006. The 2007 nats ran them as unoffical classes because they ran with LiPos before they were officialy legal. The 2008 nats ran with P-spec power rather than the legal brushed 700's. 2009 again ran P-spec power and LSO magicly became a 4 minute race instead of 10 laps. So in essence, those classes haven't actually been run for the last 3 seasons. We should stop using the class names for something they aren't.

Plus, there were 7 exhibition classes at the nats in 2009, the 4 spec classes plus production, ultimate offshore and sprint. Backing it down to 5 will be an improvement.

Yes, backing it down to 5 will be an improvement.
I would like to see classes run by the books, I'm just not excited about so many classes spec'd out to a series of power plants that are far from spec.

I don't care all that much, because whatever the turnout, I'll have fun racing. The Gold motor should be the only one unless there's another of the same poles, wind, length, and diameter. Rotor specs don't matter as much whereas they can be left as a "tuning" option

I've got a concept brewing that hopefully racers will adopt that features true spec perameters, and thrilling oval speeds

Furthermore, I've got news for those using high amp high dollar speedos for UL1 motors. WASTE OF TIME. a heavy speedo becomes a resistor at low current, the UL1 speedo is enough, a 70 amp speedo is perfect.

[raptor347]

Yes, backing it down to 5 will be an improvement.
I would like to see classes run by the books, I'm just not excited about so many classes spec'd out to a series of power plants that are far from spec.

I don't care all that much, because whatever the turnout, I'll have fun racing. The Gold motor should be the only one unless there's another of the same poles, wind, length, and diameter. Rotor specs don't matter as much whereas they can be left as a "tuning" option

I've got a concept brewing that hopefully racers will adopt that features true spec perameters, and thrilling oval speeds

Furthermore, I've got news for those using high amp high dollar speedos for UL1 motors. WASTE OF TIME. a heavy speedo becomes a resistor at low current, the UL1 speedo is enough, a 70 amp speedo is perfect.

Actually changing the rotor in the 4 and 6 pole motors makes a huge difference. That's how we tuned the old aveox 1409/1y's I wound in the 90's (F5D pylon motors). I had a dozen rotors where I'd machined the steel core block to change the air gap in .005" steps. That one wind would run 3800-4800kV depending on which rotor I put in. That's just changing the mechanical air gap between the rotor and stator stack. It really gets interesting when you start playing with magnet material.

I believe Neu has different rotor designs for D and Y wind motors.

The size of the esc isn't the issue, it's the adjustability. You can get an extra ~10% if you get the timing and swiching rate right. Remember with higher pole count you get more switching losses.

[Darin Jordan]

The Gold motor should be the only one unless there's another of the same poles, wind, length, and diameter. .


I can't agree with this... you pick one motor like this, and you end up with one or two hulls that'll work... As was found last year, there are plenty of applications where the "blue" motors are more than a match for the gold ones. You just have to match the hulls to the power system, and then find that final 10% or so with the right prop....

The motors spec'd now put out similiar power, just in different ways, so it keeps many different hull combos viable.

I think the real problem would come if motors were spec'd that are completely different designs, or that deviate considerably from the basic motors currently spec'd....

.... but what do I know.... :closedeyes:

[Littlescreamers]

Darin,

I have a motor I would like you to Dyno. for NAMBA Is that possible?

Scott

[BILL OXIDEAN]

I can't agree with this... you pick one motor like this, and you end up with one or two hulls that'll work... As was found last year, there are plenty of applications where the "blue" motors are more than a match for the gold ones. You just have to match the hulls to the power system, and then find that final 10% or so with the right prop....

The motors spec'd now put out similiar power, just in different ways, so it keeps many different hull combos viable.

I think the real problem would come if motors were spec'd that are completely different designs, or that deviate considerably from the basic motors currently spec'd....

.... but what do I know.... :closedeyes:

True, I for one confess that my opc just cant take the gold motor so I run the blue and its PERFECT! good point
Darrin, I also have to confess that I copied you by printing my sponsors at the bottom in all those colors

[Brushless55]

Ok, so between the BJ motor SV motor and UL-1 motor, what motor do you all like best?

[raptor347]

Ok, so between the BJ motor SV motor and UL-1 motor, what motor do you all like best?

It depends on the boat. For boats that like big props, run the bj26 or sv27 motor. If you're running a boat that likes small props, go with a UL-1 motor.

[Darin Jordan]

Ok, so between the BJ motor SV motor and UL-1 motor, what motor do you all like best?

I'd choose between the BJ and the UL-1 motor, and the answer would depend on what hull and class you are referring to, and what type of race... It all depends. There is NOT a concrete answer to this question, which is exactly the point of the spec the way it's currently written in the first place... :tiphat:

And, the only reason why I shy away from the SV27 motor, is that I've had a lot of trouble trying to solder contacts to the wires for this motor. Power-wise, it has a TON of torque, and can power a BIG prop on a decent sized hull.... Still VERY competitive with the correct setup!

[Brushless55]

I'd choose between the BJ and the UL-1 motor, and the answer would depend on what hull and class you are referring to, and what type of race... It all depends. There is NOT a concrete answer to this question, which is exactly the point of the spec the way it's currently written in the first place... :tiphat:

And, the only reason why I shy away from the SV27 motor, is that I've had a lot of trouble trying to solder contacts to the wires for this motor. Power-wise, it has a TON of torque, and can power a BIG prop on a decent sized hull.... Still VERY competitive with the correct setup!


Thanks Darin! :thumbup1:

[Ctonez]

I run SV power in 4 seperate classes. My boats run "VERY" competitively in all four as long as I drive decently. As Darin says, that's the point of the spec class. Motor choice allows us to play around with our setups and see what works best for different hulls and situations, but we all run similar speeds when the boats are setup well. I run a different prop on every boat despite running the same power system. The cool thing about running the same power setup in several boats (besides always having spares) is that you learn a lot about hull handling and dynamics and how to drive different hulls in race conditions.
Why I've stuck with SV power? I know it. I trust it. I already have it.

[Ub Hauled]

I like the "blue can" as well... what ESC do you use Corey?

[Ctonez]

original SV also:thumbup1:. When Steve put the combo deal on sale, I got a few.
Reliable, durable, strong, inexpensive...some other reasons I like both the ESC and motor.
I do have one SV motor that I've been running for 3 racing seasons in my spec SV that is showing some wear, but it's still one of the quicker SV's in the club...often called "the cheater boat" by fellow club members because it is so well dialed. The irony is that it's more "spec" than most of the boats in our club if one were to tech all the SV's.
There is 1/4 inch endplay in that motor...I run thrust bearings to see if I can prolong it's life, but I expect next year may be its last. I'll run it 'til it slows or blows:rockon2:.Not bad if you ask me.

[Ub Hauled]

I have a couple of those and one can spin a big tricked wheel with it and no heat issues.
It amazes me that it seem to be pulling more then the 45amps that the ESC offers, but it
does not flinch.

[T.S.Davis]

It depends on the boat. For boats that like big props, run the bj26 or sv27 motor. If you're running a boat that likes small props, go with a UL-1 motor.

Yep, me too. I haven't had any luck pushing a big fat boat with the UL setup. It just wont do it. The blackjack rips in a fat boat. I'm going to build something around the SV motor for spite now. Maybe OPC will be the one. 2 boats built, 4 to go before spring. haha.

Will mentioned running "by the book". I don't care about "by the book". I want us to run what will put the most boats on the water....and then change the book to represent what's actually doing that. We don't have the numbers to ignore what will get people to want to race. If we wanted to go "by the book" limited sport anything would have died out ages ago.

Brian is right. We never should have called these exhibition classes LSH and LSO. It's confusing. I tried to get people to call them Super Sport Hydro and Super Sport Offshore but guys kept calling them by the old names so I gave up. The term "P spec" sport hydro, hydro, OPC, Offshore, even mono seems to register with most everyone that races now.

[Darin Jordan]

I have a couple of those and one can spin a big tricked wheel with it and no heat issues.
It amazes me that it seem to be pulling more then the 45amps that the ESC offers, but it
does not flinch.

When I tested the SV27 motors on my bench, I found that, while not the most efficient motor, it has a TON of grunt...

Using a stock SV27 ESC, and a 4S1P 4500 mah pack, it would run unloaded at 1565KV... Then, under the same conditions, only using a 7x3.5 airplane prop for a load, it only dropped down to 1545KV... The others dropped more KV under the same load... with the UL1 dropping off significantly more than the rest (of course, it started a lot higher, but still...)...

Also, the SV27 and the BJ26 (and Himax) only pulled around 26-amps under that load... the UL-1 pulled about 39amps under the same load...

The point being that the first three motors can use more prop loading than the UL1, so they favour a larger hull or a hull that LIKES more prop... You CAN achieve the same speeds as the UL-1 with the other motors... you just have to build a PACKAGE that works together... Which is MOST of the fun of this class! It brings Building, Prep, and RACING, all back together as one unit... as opposed to just buying more HP, like the other classes seem to be.

Corey's boats are an excellent example of making the package work! You should see his SV27 powered Vac-u-Pickle!! ;)

[Darin Jordan]

The term "P spec" sport hydro, hydro, OPC, Offshore, even mono seems to register with most everyone that races now.

If we just defined a "P-Spec" power class in the general rules, and made a couple of tweaks to the Sport Hydro, Offshore, and OPC rules, then you'd automatically get:

P-Spec Mono, Sport, Hydro, Offshore, and OPC...

Then LSH and LSO could just remain as they are, and be archived to the back of the book, just like 1/10th Cracker and the rest of the "specialty classes"... :thumbup:

You also would have the power class defined in a SINGLE location, and not have to repeat it under all of the special rules listed (LSH, LSO, OPC, etc...)... Any hull type or specialty class from that point forward could refer to the established power class... (like 1/6th Cracker, etc.) without having to redefine or relist the specs under their special rules... If a motor spec changes, it would automatically be updated for all of them this way...

[T.S.Davis]

Yep, I'm with ya Darin.

I don't think it's an issue for us but I'm going to encourage the MMEU gang to run under what you and I know as P spec. They're already doing it accept for allowing 2p. We've pretty much determined 2P doesn't provide an advantage. A bunch of fuel is just weight you can't get the energy out of withthese motor combos. UL motors in offshore too. We haven't been doing that but I don't think that's an ideal setup anyway. It could work with the right combination but the BJ and SV motors will likely provide the best setups for offshore.

[Ctonez]

Will mentioned running "by the book". I don't care about "by the book". I want us to run what will put the most boats on the water....and then change the book to represent what's actually doing that. We don't have the numbers to ignore what will get people to want to race.

Well said. I think that's the common goal that is shared by both those who want to add motors and those who wish to keep them limited to a select few. Affordable parity seems to be the answer.
In difficult times, cheaper is better for most people. All the options we currently have are relatively cheap, durable, and easy to come by. I think we're (PSFEMBC) all happy with what we currently run as P-Spec.
I think we may have jumped the gun a bit by voting in the Ammo1800, but we shouldn't disallow or discourage the testing of alternatives in my opinion. Some might work, some might not...certainly we'll be discussing it within the club in further depth because allowing advantage is just not "in the spirit" of Spec-anything.
I'll offer to replace my spec SV's motor with the Ammo1800kv and/or the shorter canned 1500kv and race for no points just to see how they compare. Our LSH Class has the best mix of setups (BJ/UL/SV) though, it would also be a good test bed but for the variation in hulls.

cheers,
-Corey

[Ctonez]

Corey's boats are an excellent example of making the package work! You should see his SV27 powered Vac-u-Pickle!! ;)

I know it'll do 2 Laps 1/6 mi. course in 22.67sec.:cool:

An observation:
There are 2 classes we run where I see a slight advantage in certain power systems...the Riggers like the UL's rpm. The Tunnels seem to behave similarly from what I've observed. That's fine, I don't run those classes (yet), nor does anyone else with an SV system that I am aware of...pretty sure Darin runs the Proboat ESC/BlackJack;) in his Tunnel though, and his Tunnel is as fast as those running UL's.

[Brushless55]

When I tested the SV27 motors on my bench, I found that, while not the most efficient motor, it has a TON of grunt...

Using a stock SV27 ESC, and a 4S1P 4500 mah pack, it would run unloaded at 1565KV... Then, under the same conditions, only using a 7x3.5 airplane prop for a load, it only dropped down to 1545KV... The others dropped more KV under the same load... with the UL1 dropping off significantly more than the rest (of course, it started a lot higher, but still...)...

Also, the SV27 and the BJ26 (and Himax) only pulled around 26-amps under that load... the UL-1 pulled about 39amps under the same load...

The point being that the first three motors can use more prop loading than the UL1, so they favour a larger hull or a hull that LIKES more prop... You CAN achieve the same speeds as the UL-1 with the other motors... you just have to build a PACKAGE that works together... Which is MOST of the fun of this class! It brings Building, Prep, and RACING, all back together as one unit... as opposed to just buying more HP, like the other classes seem to be.

Corey's boats are an excellent example of making the package work! You should see his SV27 powered Vac-u-Pickle!! ;)


Awesome, with all this good talk about the SV motor, then I'm glad because I have 3 of them and will use one in my Titan 29 next season...
just not sure what prop to use :confused2:

[Doug Smock]

If we just defined a "P-Spec" power class in the general rules, and made a couple of tweaks to the Sport Hydro, Offshore, and OPC rules, then you'd automatically get:

P-Spec Mono, Sport, Hydro, Offshore, and OPC...

Then LSH and LSO could just remain as they are, and be archived to the back of the book, just like 1/10th Cracker and the rest of the "specialty classes".



Personally I like "Limited Sport ", Mono, Hydro, OPC ( O/B Tunnel) better.
Sounds cooler donchathink??? :hornets_nest::zip-up::laugh:
And, it will look better on the wood!:thumbup:
Just my buck and a quarter. LOL
Doug :popcorn2::beerchug:

[Darin Jordan]

Personally I like "Limited Sport ", Mono, Hydro, OPC ( O/B Tunnel) better.

I could do that as well... except that you'd have "Limited Sport Sport Hydro" and "Limited Sport Hydro"... :huh:

Would look odd amongst all the Ns and Ps and Qs, however...

I think we should rename the whole bunch, but that's just me!

P-Spec makes more sense in our current scheme to me...

[Doug Smock]

LSH as it was is done, here anyway. That's another thing that needs to be addressed in the IMPBA, eventually.
No hurry here, things are working out.
And really the only reason I chimed in on this one is that we would like to see NAMBA and the IMPBA keep similar class structures, even at the club level.

Doug:popcorn2:

[highndry]

In our microcosm of a club, that is probably representative of many small groups, we do this:

LSH = AQ (Ul-1, SV) , PB ( BJ) power. Any hull, esc, etc..

LSO = same as above power, offshore course.

P- Spec rigger = same as above power

P Mono = generally accepted P requirements

Q Offshore = generally accepted Q requirements, offshore course.

OPC Spec = Same as LSH power, no other limitations

This structure allows entry level $$ to compete, as well as, those who are more committed dollar wise to air it out.

I understand this structure is probably over-simplified relative to the details ya'll are struggling with but it works for us.

[ray schrauwen]

Just because I can toss a wrench, why not, lol...

I like this puppy, have one on B/O. HK can barely leep them in stock.

Same range of Max amps and Wattage, around 55 amps max and 700-800 watts.

I's just not going to fly because its an outrunner.

Nice 1800-1900 KV motor for $29. Helicopter guys are loving these!

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idproduct=9258

[properchopper]

Awesome, with all this good talk about the SV motor, then I'm glad because I have 3 of them and will use one in my Titan 29 next season...
just not sure what prop to use :confused2:

Todd, I just put the SV 27 motor in my Titan 29 to rig for WW VI LSO & will begin prop testing this week .I'll let you know.

[RandyatBBY]

Geez, You guy's are killing me I want to read all that goes on in my world of RC and the Net, 17 post on this topic alone today! I never get to work without the internet at home and it is shut off until the recessions is over..

[Alfa Spirit]

FSD motors, better than Feigao and not very expensive

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3968/feisudamotors.jpg

[ray schrauwen]

I would not agree. Feigao motors show Rm to be slightly lower.

People like Brian Baus have tested them (fesuda & others) until they pop.

[Ub Hauled]

FSD website for us please?

[Ub Hauled]

Nice 1800-1900 KV motor for $29. Helicopter guys are loving these!

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idproduct=9258

Ray, I saw that as well, will try it one of these days...

[ray schrauwen]

EEEEEBaaaaayyyy...


http://cgi.ebay.ca/2075KV-electric-brushless-motor-with-water-cool-jacket_W0QQitemZ300329454437QQcmdZViewItemQQptZRad io_Control_Vehicles?hash=item45ed07cb65

[Ub Hauled]

EEEEEBaaaaayyyy...


http://cgi.ebay.ca/2075KV-electric-brushless-motor-with-water-cool-jacket_W0QQitemZ300329454437QQcmdZViewItemQQptZRad io_Control_Vehicles?hash=item45ed07cb65

Well... there it is $42 and $11 for shipping... must be a heavy motor!:laugh:

[domwilson]

FSD website for us please?

http://www.fsd-motor.com/en_index.asp

[Ub Hauled]

thanks Dom

[Alfa Spirit]

FSD motors are great, they have high quality ball bearings and the casing of the motor is fixed with screws, not glued

[Ub Hauled]

Alain, where did you get yours?

[Alfa Spirit]

XPower from RCWOrldwide are FSD motors, here' s the link. Mine is a 540 XL 11 turns / 1510 kV

http://stores.shop.ebay.fr/rcworldwidehk_Brushless-Motor-ESC-Parts_W0QQ_fsubZ1091829017QQ_sidZ944560777QQ_trksi dZp4634Q2ec0Q2em322

[Steven Vaccaro]

FSD motors, better than Feigao and not very expensive




:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Keep trying. Real world testing and use shows the complete opposite.

[Alfa Spirit]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Keep trying. Real world testing and use shows the complete opposite.

You' re a feigao dealer ..... :thumbsdown:

[ray schrauwen]

Now now boys, play nice or I'll take your toys away. :)

[Rumdog]

Alfa, have you even ran this motor yet? I remember you asking about them, then you bought one. I've seen it in plenty of your pics, but not in a boat. Just curious as to why you are so sure it's better than a Feigao. I wanna see the evidence!

[Brushless55]

Todd, I just put the SV 27 motor in my Titan 29 to rig for WW VI LSO & will begin prop testing this week .I'll let you know.


Thank you very much! :beerchug:

[Brushless55]

You' re a feigao dealer ..... :thumbsdown:

And you keep trying to sell us on motors that most do not want!
You are ripping on someone who not only sells them but this is his site if I'm correct.. :zip-up:

[properchopper]

And you keep trying to sell us on motors that most do not want!
You are ripping on someone who not only sells them but this is his site if I'm correct.. :zip-up:

Well said !!

[Rumdog]

Is he really suggesting these as p-spec motors, or does he just not know where to post?

[Brushless55]

Is he really suggesting these a p-spec motors, or does he just not know where to post?

He jumps on our threads, any thread to post links to sell these motors...

[Alfa Spirit]

Only a Gibson is good enough

Only a Lehner is good enough

FSD, KEDA and may be Feigao are good for the price


http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/8493/ztuning1432.jpg

[Brushless55]

What a way to jack a thread! :ThumbsDown01:

[Doby]

Must be getting kickbacks.....

[Rumdog]

lolololol! cool buddy. Got any more charts?

[Jeff]

Well, AC has their new cat coming. It has a 1500k motor in it. This motor will be between the UL-1 motor and the SV(not entirely cause of can length). You asked for more choices........

[sailr]

As I recall, Steven at OSE DROPPED the KD motors! 'Nuff Sed"!


What a way to jack a thread! :ThumbsDown01:

[Brushless55]

As I recall, Steven at OSE DROPPED the KD motors! 'Nuff Sed"!


Yep! :biggrin:

[bigwaveohs]

Our Club had it's winter meeting on Saturday, November 21st... During the meeting, we discussed the P-Spec power class, and there were suggestions to add to the approved motor list the Scorpion motors, as well as an AMMO 36-56-1800...

We voted down the Scorpian, the reasons of which should be obvious to anyone looking at the motor specs... and while the AMMO was initially approved, after I did some further research on the specs, this motor too is going to be disallowed, or at least so I was told.

For those of you who think additional motors should be allowed, you need to keep in mind that it needs to involve WAY more than just cost... I've put together a table of specs for all of the approved motors, and have included the Scorpions and the AMMO motor. When you analyze the specs and compare them, you should clearly see why those of us who pay attention to such things KNOW these motors don't fit.

I'm still looking for some pieces of data from several of the motors to complete this chart, but if we focus on some important parameters, you can clearly see the additional power available on the Scorpion and Ammo motors... Weight is another factor... the AMMO is almost 3oz heavier in mass than the other Spec motors, giving it additional capabilities.

I'm hoping to find the Watts info for the AQ motors to give a better comparison, but in the meantime, it should still be fairly apparent that we can't be including motors that make 1100 or 1400Watts, when the current spec motors are 600W motors.... How can anyone think that's reasonable???

Fire away, guys... I'm not wearing my flame suit, but I have data, facts, and figures, so fire away... ;)

Did you ever update this table?

[Darin Jordan]

Did you ever update this table?

Nope... Interesting you should revive this thread, because we just had our Winter meeting to get setup for the 2011 season, and the Scorpion's were brought up again for the 1/10th scale classes. I abstained from commenting, but even without my opinion, the club decided not to include them.

Standard, in the books NAMBA 1/10th scale rules currently specify the SV27, BJ26, or Himax 3630-1500 as the legal NAMBA motors.

However, what exactly constitutes an "SV27" motor these days, since the 1/10th rules didn't specify??

Our club has added to it's P-Spec motor list the SV27R 1800 motor, as well as the PB Stiletto 1800KV motors, and they decided to allow them both in 1/10th scale as well, since an "SV27" motor is now an 1800KV motor.

Also, with the "blue" SV27 motors on their way out of production, it made sense.

You'll have to ask them (PSFEMBC members) why they didn't want to allow at least the Scorpion 1210KV motor, which is what Classic Thunder specs for their Division 1 (Classic Roundbows up to 1970-vintage) boats. I think they just wanted to stick with what is currently NAMBA legal for P-Spec, minus the UL-1 option (which would be a silly choice for a 1/10th scale anyhow...)...

[bigwaveohs]

Interesting that the UL-1 is out...

[Alfa Spirit]

And you keep trying to sell us on motors that most do not want!
You are ripping on someone who not only sells them but this is his site if I'm correct.. :zip-up:

This an old answer :tongue_smilie:

I bought NEU Motors and other parts from Steven, he is a great guy and he is very serious with his buiseness :thumbup1:

Anyway the FSD is a geat motor for the price, put oil in BB is not a "luxe"

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9475/datafsd.jpg

[Darin Jordan]

Interesting that the UL-1 is out...

Not my call... the current NAMBA 1/10th scale rules were done by a committee of members from all the 1/10th clubs in the area. It's a minimal set of rules that they could all agree on, from what I understand. There are HOLES all over them, but that's what they could make happen.

The UL-1 motor would be a silly choice for 1/10th scale anyhow... Unless you like buying motors.... Not too many props that are right-hand twist that could be made to work with it on a boat that large...

[bigwaveohs]

Not my call... the current NAMBA 1/10th scale rules were done by a committee of members from all the 1/10th clubs in the area. It's a minimal set of rules that they could all agree on, from what I understand. There are HOLES all over them, but that's what they could make happen.

The UL-1 motor would be a silly choice for 1/10th scale anyhow... Unless you like buying motors.... Not too many props that are right-hand twist that could be made to work with it on a boat that large...

I meant for something like P-spec OPC....

[Darin Jordan]

I meant for something like P-spec OPC....

For P-Spec... there are no National rules... Not yet, anyhow....

Our club has the following motors listed as legal for P-Spec/P-Limited racing:




SV27 (Blue Can)
SV27R (Gold Can)
BJ26
STLO (Stiletto)
UL-1
Himax 3630-1500