P-Limited Motors - Im going to jump on the hot seat.

[rayzerdesigns]

any updates

[raptor347]

We're hard at work prepping for the November SAWs at Legg. Probably not going to see a lot of effort on this until after the SAWs. Darin has more important things to do, breaking 80mph on 1 cell being the most important.

[Brushless55]

Hmmm... Doing some more searching...

Here is an interesting consideration from Neu that might fit.

It's 36mm x 57mm, 205g, 1850KV.

Will have to test to know:

http://neumotors.cartloom.com/shop/item/25324

http://cartloom.s3.amazonaws.com/neumotors/25324_58955048aa140bac3a05e9b2e8ce6d64_mid.png


Here is the description:


The 1410/2Y/SE is designed as a lower cost version of our popular 14XX series motors. It has a little smaller rotor diameter rotor but to makeup for that the stator is a bit longer. The Kv for this motor is 1850 with a no-load current of 1.4 amps. Weight is 205 grams. Diameter is 36.5mm and is 58mm in length. The output shaft is 5mm. We are offering a limited time special on these motors of $99. This motor is a good match for the MidiFan running 6 or 7S and drawing 60-80 amps with thrust in the 70-90oz range. The 1410/2Y also will make a prop plane move right along too with a 8x5 prop and a 3S battery it will draw 50 amps and with 7x7 prop 45 amps.

I have one of these motors in my possession
was trying to test it last month but did not get around to it yet
the motor is a little smaller for most coolers but the Proboat 1500kv one fit perfectly :biggrin:

[Brushless55]

Thank you for your hard work Darin! Several times I almost bought one of the NEU's but, balked. I'll test the SK3-1900kv motor I have.

----

The SK3 can't be taken apart unless people know more than me. I can still measure the rotor length and field length.


Turnigy SK3-1900kv

Rotor length 39.6mm

Winding length 46mm

4 poles

D wind

35.8mm Can OD

60mm exterior Length

This motor is packed with copper compared to an AQ 2030, 1800 or PB motors I've had.

This motor I did get to test in my JAE last month and felt as though it did not have the same power or speed as the AQ 1800kv motor

pictures are a pain to upload or I would post some

[ray schrauwen]

Nice test stand

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__84687__Turnigy_Thrust_Stand_and_Power_Analyser_v 2.html

[properchopper]

Nice test stand

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__84687__Turnigy_Thrust_Stand_and_Power_Analyser_v 2.html

Good find - me wants one. Hmmmm...

[Fluid]

Outrunner only unfortunately. And 5 kg of thrust restricts the power level for FE motors. A Neu 1521/1.5D on 4S will develop 5.5 kg at 200 amps. A Neu 1527/1Y on 6S produces 6.4 kg at 150 amps. Cool idea for smaller motors and lower cell counts.



.

[ray schrauwen]

yep... ah well...

[Darin Jordan]

Darin has more important things to do, breaking 80mph on 1 cell being the most important.

:thumbup:

I have been putting my test platform to work a bit, in this regard... You know, just to verify that it's going to be up to the task...

I'm thinking that pulling 385-Amps for 5-6 Second pulls on my 1-Cell setup pretty much proves the stand will hold up. :thumbup1:

Should hold up to the P-LTD stuff.

In that regard, I got word that there are a few more motor options coming my way. After we get back from the November SAW event in LA, I'll put a solid effort into some testing of these motors and will provide all the data.

[Brushless55]

I have a few

http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww39/filmmaker2009/plimited%20ul1edf_zpsalykjz91.jpg (http://s703.photobucket.com/user/filmmaker2009/media/plimited%20ul1edf_zpsalykjz91.jpg.html)
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww39/filmmaker2009/plimited%20pb%20neu_zpsx2rkjji8.jpg (http://s703.photobucket.com/user/filmmaker2009/media/plimited%20pb%20neu_zpsx2rkjji8.jpg.html)
Much more copper
http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww39/filmmaker2009/plimited_zpsni3zwh4b.jpg (http://s703.photobucket.com/user/filmmaker2009/media/plimited_zpsni3zwh4b.jpg.html)

[Darin Jordan]

Received a "care-package" from OSE and TFL Hobbies yesterday. I think I have all the motors I need for now.

Heading to the LA SAW event tomorrow morning and will be gone for about a week. Once I get back and get settled in again, I'll start testing these and get the results published.

138744

[Darin Jordan]

Bench is about cleared off. Going to start dedicating some time to testing all these motors this week. Results should start getting posted shortly there-after.

[TRUCKPULL]

Darin

Could you post a list of the motors,
???? KV
# of wind , "Y" or "D"

Would the Timing setting be #0 for "D" and #12 for "Y"

I say #12 for "Y" because on the UL1 the ESC came preset to 12 Degrees.

Larry

[Darin Jordan]

Darin

Could you post a list of the motors,
???? KV
# of wind , "Y" or "D"

Would the Timing setting be #0 for "D" and #12 for "Y"

I say #12 for "Y" because on the UL1 the ESC came preset to 12 Degrees.

Larry

When I get everything organized, I'll list EVERYTHING, and document everything I do.

Not sure about the timing settings, but I believe all of these motors are Y Winds. Not sure of many RTR style motors, or even upgrade motors, that use "Delta" winds.

I'm NOT going to test each of these motors to it's ragged edge. I'm going to test them on a COMPARATIVE bases, as a couple or a few different load levels. You'll be able to see how they compare to current approved motors, and also how they compare to each other. You'll be able to see the better motors based on idle currents, etc..

[RandyatBBY]

watching :laugh:

[longballlumber]

Darin

Could you post a list of the motors,
???? KV
# of wind , "Y" or "D"

Would the Timing setting be #0 for "D" and #12 for "Y"

I say #12 for "Y" because on the UL1 the ESC came preset to 12 Degrees.

Larry

The AquaCraft 60amp controller is set to 10 degrees.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXVSV4&P=ML

Later,
Ball

[TRUCKPULL]

When I get everything organized, I'll list EVERYTHING, and document everything I do.

Not sure about the timing settings, but I believe all of these motors are Y Winds. Not sure of many RTR style motors, or even upgrade motors, that use "Delta" winds.

I'm NOT going to test each of these motors to it's ragged edge. I'm going to test them on a COMPARATIVE bases, as a couple or a few different load levels. You'll be able to see how they compare to current approved motors, and also how they compare to each other. You'll be able to see the better motors based on idle currents, etc..

Darin
according to this thread;
http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?53511-Timing-for-Dynamite-2000kv-4-pole-motor&p=648845#post648845

Horizon says that the Dynamite 3650 2000kv 4 pole motor is a "D" wind.

Larry

[Darin Jordan]

Darin
according to this thread;
http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?53511-Timing-for-Dynamite-2000kv-4-pole-motor&p=648845#post648845

Horizon says that the Dynamite 3650 2000kv 4 pole motor is a "D" wind.

Larry

The 4-Pole motor isn't the Dynamite 2000KV that comes standard in the BJ29, etc... That's a 6-Pole... And I don't really know what wind it is.

[TRUCKPULL]

The AquaCraft 60amp controller is set to 10 degrees.

http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXVSV4&P=ML

Later,
Ball

Nice find on the Info.
Sorry - I was told long ago that it was 12 degrees.

Larry

[T.S.Davis]

Pretty anxious to see how these pan out side by side

I recently heard about a club allowing a 4075 motor in P limited because the kv was within 10% of a 2030. Totally different animal. That's rated at 2400 watts. Think the 2030 is rated for 950 or something. Apples and cinder blocks. The 4075 motor wins of course. How could it not.

I get allowing other comparable motors at a club level but make sure they're comparable. Close at least. Or call your class something else like the Wisconsin guys did. No real confusion that way.

[Darin Jordan]

I recently heard about a club allowing a 4075 motor in P limited because the kv was within 10% of a 2030.

Just shows a clear and complete LACK of grasp on electrical motor understanding, and, frankly, the rules... ALL dimensions need to be considered for the motor to be allowed by the CD. It's pretty clear.


My "Thesis Statement" on what the outcome of this motor testing is going to show is: "The motors most appropriate to be included in the P-LTD Specifications are all 36-50 sized motors."

It is clear, when you get all thee side-by-side, that the TP3660-1950 and others in that size range are CONSIDERABLY more motor than any of the currently allowed P-LTD motors.

[T.S.Davis]

Just shows a clear and complete LACK of grasp on electrical motor understanding, and, frankly, the rules... ALL dimensions need to be considered for the motor to be allowed by the CD. It's pretty clear.

I didn't want to call them out specifically. I was hoping they would see this here.

[T.S.Davis]

Isn't the 2030 already 36-56?

Did you notice how small the rotor is inside the SSS can? Struck me as weird.

[Darin Jordan]

Isn't the 2030 already 36-56?

Did you notice how small the rotor is inside the SSS can? Struck me as weird.

The CAN is that long... but when you actually take all these apart and measure, they are all around 30mm Stator length (that's 36-50 size).

Size DOES matter, but it's the size INSIDE the can, not the can itself, which should be obvious, but...

[Steven Vaccaro]

The CAN is that long... but when you actually take all these apart and measure, they are all around 30mm Stator length (that's 36-50 size).

Size DOES matter, but it's the size INSIDE the can, not the can itself, which should be obvious, but...

I recently tested a motor from a new company a 4082 1600kv, they said it was identical to a Leopard. After testing it didnt match up. I took it apart, less wire, lower weight. When asked they said oh, we will see what we can do. So I agree, whats on the outside is just that, only part of the equation.

[Darin Jordan]

Well, bottom line: I'll have all the FACTS, shortly... We'll go from there.

[properchopper]

While size (rotor diameter & length) is important, a seriously not to be overlooked determinant of output strength is the gaussian flux density of the
rotor magnets. Since samarium cobalt and other rare earth metals are getting scarce [and said scarcity driving up the cost of the raw material and believe it or not Tesla is a major consumer in this equation], design engineers must determine during the pre-production stage just what combination of component dimension andmaterial raw cost will be introduced into the final design. Most all products are built to a target raw cost which determines the cost of individual components, among other things, obviously. This final raw cost, once all the other costs are added in e.g marketing, warranty escrow holdback and such, sets the final selling price. In most cases, this normally works in reverse : A product is conceived to hit the market at a predetermined price point and then the design is built up to culminate cost-of-manufacture-wise to the target market price.
One motor under discussion here has, once the producer left his association with another motor manufacturer, started a new company and set his products' target price (and resultant cost of manufacture) at an attractively accessible price point and hence required a less expensive cost of manufacture**, resulting (very likely) in less performance.

Darin's testing may back this up.

**Terry, I think you're on to something in post # 523 :spy::spy:

[RaceMechaniX]

Wow Tony, that is some deep material there. However, we are using Neodymium magnets in the RC motors while larger companies are using SmCo for their cheaper price and higher heat tolerance. However they have much lower flux density. China has the huge percentage of rare earth metals, so as long motors are coming from China the costs are reasonable. Also the amount of rare earth material is pretty low in our motors.

TG

[T.S.Davis]

**Terry, I think you're on to something in post # 523 :spy::spy:

Yeah, all the hand wringing over 50mm/56mm/60mm really doesn't mean a danged thing. If the can is empty there's no power. If the can is filled to capacity there is. There would be a weight difference.

I have a 2215 motor that has a bigger can than my 2217 motor. By a lot. Not sure why it was built that way. The thing is huge.

[Doby]

Well, bottom line: I'll have all the FACTS, shortly... We'll go from there.

"Facts" get in the way of snap decisions and opinions....

[rayzerdesigns]

I think we can all agree testing is needed.. And a viable replacement or just acoupleof options are needed..we need to try and work together to make thishappen.. I for onedo not want the linited classes to go away

[RandyatBBY]

I think we can all agree testing is needed.. And a viable replacement or just acoupleof options are needed..we need to try and work together to make thishappen.. I for onedo not want the linited classes to go away

I totally agree, it needs to get done It is some of my favorite racing. If I can run a H-10 again I will be happy

[rayzerdesigns]

I run h10 and s15 randy

[ray schrauwen]

I run h10 and s15 randy

Yes but, how thin is it? ;)

[RandyatBBY]

I run h10 and s15 randy

Those are the ones for Sport Hydro and Hydro. but the last two years of motors are so inconsistent some times you have to go threw a lot of them to find one that will hold up. I did not want to waist the money finding one that will hold up. So I ran a aluminum CNC 444. It was slower that the rest of the competitors and I tried to be cleaner driver. It worked and I won one of the four classes. I also did not miss a race all year.

Yes Ray they have been thinned, which reminds me I need to work on the S15.

[rayzerdesigns]

you forget I run the 1500s

[Darin Jordan]

Let the testing begin!

First step, baseline runs with a load that pulls around 50-55Amps. 5.5x5.5 Graupner Carbon Prop.
139167

[Brushless55]

Pretty anxious to see how these pan out side by side

I recently heard about a club allowing a 4075 motor in P limited because the kv was within 10% of a 2030. Totally different animal. That's rated at 2400 watts. Think the 2030 is rated for 950 or something. Apples and cinder blocks. The 4075 motor wins of course. How could it not.

I get allowing other comparable motors at a club level but make sure they're comparable. Close at least. Or call your class something else like the Wisconsin guys did. No real confusion that way.

I was talking with someone up in the NW several weeks back, and he said any 36mm can works in P Limited up there, and thought dang !
that would be an unfair advantage running the 3674 motors :confused1:

[TRUCKPULL]

I was talking with someone up in the NW several weeks back, and he said any 36mm can works in P Limited up there, and thought dang !
that would be an unfair advantage running the 3674 motors :confused1:

NEU makes a 36mm motor also.

Larry

[rayzerdesigns]

The 36x74 are way more motor than a p
Limited.. I ran one in p cat at nats and won..

[Darin Jordan]

I was talking with someone up in the NW several weeks back, and he said any 36mm can works in P Limited up there, and thought dang !
that would be an unfair advantage running the 3674 motors :confused1:

I don't know who you are talking too, but that's not true.

PSFEMBC has opened up the classes to some options, but they are examples like the TP3660-1950, or the Turnigy 3659-1900KV.

There may be guys trying other things, but if they do, they are generally running for no-points.

[Darin Jordan]

NEU makes a 36mm motor also.

Larry

I'm testing the Neu 1410-2Y. Seems about in line with other motors of it's general size.

Testing continues.

Thus far, I've run the 16 sample motors I have through the following:

NO LOAD
5.5x5.5 Prop Load (~45-50A load on AQ1800)
6.0x6.0 Prop Load (~60-65A load on AQ1800)

Next up is a 7.0x6.0 Load, which on an initial test run, pushes the AQ1800 motor into the 85-Amp load range.

We'll see how everything looks after that set of tests as to whether I push these even further. Not really interested in blowing anything up on the bench, and turning a prop like this at 20,000+ RPM is a little nerve wracking.

[rayzerdesigns]

Sweet

[T.S.Davis]

We'll have data overload.

"Yes yes Basil, but what does it all mean?"

Kinda looking forward to having some data instead of speculation.

[Darin Jordan]

OK, guys... here are the results of my initial motor tests. I haven't drawn any conclusions from these yet, through a picture is forming.

First a quick note on the test setup parameters:

1) Two 4S packs were used, both ThunderPower 70C 5000mAh 4S cells
2) Batteries were charged before testing EACH motor, with voltage verified and recorded for each pack, and each cell in the pack, using a HYPERION Battery checker.
3) ESC used was a Castle EDGE 100, with 5-degrees of timing, and water cooling installed.
4) MOTOR, ESC, and BATTERY temps were recorded before each test run and tests were run using CONSISTENT temps. +/- 2-degrees in most cases.
5) TEMPS were taken on the motor endbells, ESC power board, and Battery end near the wires. In other words, the same locations for each test.
6) EACH engine pull was 6-7 seconds.
7) DATA (AMPS, VOLTAGE, RPMS, ETC), were recorded based on a 5-second sample of data, taking the average across that time span.
8) PRESENT P-LTD Approved motors are listed in WHITE cells with RED text.
9) Motors tested were as follows:



AQ1800 - AQUACRAFT
AQ2030 - AQUACRAFT
DYNM1500 - DYNAMITE/ProBoat
DYNM1800 - DYNAMITE/ProBoat
DYNM2000 - DYNAMITE/ProBoat
LBP3650-1840 - LEOPARD
LBP3660-1900 - LEOPARD
NEU1410-2Y - NEU Motors
SSS3650-1500 - TFL
SSS3650-1968 - TFL
SSS3660-1500 - TFL
SSS3660-1800 - TFL
SSS3660-1968 - TFL
TP3650-1950 - TP Power
TP3660-1950 - TP Power
TURNIGY SK3 3659-1900 - TURNIGY


TEST #1: NO LOAD
PURPOSE: To determine the REAL KV for each motor.
NOTE: The Idle Current from this test could provide insight as to motor efficiency, but in many cases was too low to be recorded, so I'm ignoring it for now.
139207


TEST #2: 5.5x5.5 Prop Load
PURPOSE: To determine motor power under a mild loading, near the motors "factory rating" for loaded amps.
139208


TEST #3: 6.0x6.0 Prop Load
PURPOSED: To determine motor power under a loading near a "normal use" loaded amps.
139209


TEST #4: 7.0x6.0 Prop Load
PURPOSE: To determine the motor power under a heavy, near 100-AMP load.
NOTE: Do to the wide range of KVs and motor sizes, ONE load isn't going to equally load EACH motor to the same AMPs. This test will simply show how each motor responds to a SPECIFIC load. Later testing will attempt to load EACH motor to the SAME AMP load, which should provide a more direct comparison of power output.
139210


COMING UP: The next set of tests will take a bit longer to run each. Based on the data gathered so far, I'm going to vary the loads on each motor in order to test EACH at an AMP load at or very near 100A. I'm going to run these for a much longer period of time, measuring the temperature before and after the run. I will be paralleling the batteries in order to provide a more stable voltage supply (Sorry, I wish I had a high-amp variable power supply, but those are REALLY expensive, so batteries will have to suffice).

The goal will be so try to record 60-seconds of data for EACH motor, with starting/ending temps, etc. Ultimately, THIS will tell us which motors are equivalent and which are clearly outside of the present P-LTD performance range. Based on the data thus far, it's pretty clear which motors currently appear to exceed the present performance levels. More data will make clear exactly where each stands.

Sorry it's taken/taking so long, but there is a LOT involved in doing this right.

OH, and just so it's clear and I'm being transparent, here is an example of the full data taken, including starting battery/temp parameters. This was done for ALL test. Leaving this data out of most postings, simple because it's clutters the results.

139211

[covedweller]

Quote from Red Dwarf "but what IS it?" Great work Darin, that had to take some time and effort, and for that, thank you! Entire books could be written on what I do not know about electronics, and loads there of, but you have posted information that will be helpful even to me. Now I can go on to guessing about props, hulls, weight, batteries, esc's, and wire size and connectors.

[properchopper]

In the last few years I've been living in (and watching grow) the "Ltd" class. Tried everything. Based lots of trial/effort/bucks on "seat of the pants" guesstimating. Now FINALLY some empirically backed up lab results.

Darin for President :buttrock:

[Darin Jordan]

Quote from Red Dwarf "but what IS it?" Great work Darin, that had to take some time and effort, and for that, thank you! Entire books could be written on what I do not know about electronics, and loads there of, but you have posted information that will be helpful even to me. Now I can go on to guessing about props, hulls, weight, batteries, esc's, and wire size and connectors.

Don't guess just yet... This preliminary testing is to try to determine what MIGHT be considered for an "approved motor list"... Nothing at all has been officially determined.

[T.S.Davis]

Fascinating.

I know you have a ton more work to do but something that caught my eye on the last 7.0x6.0 test. Same load for all the motors and the output varied as much as 870 watts or 1.16 hp.

I can't draw any conclusions yet either. Great stuff though so far.

[RandyatBBY]

Thanks Darin, so much data my head hurts after looking at it for 10 minutes. You have a good anilical skills.

[T.S.Davis]

bahaha I'm positive Randy means analytical. Nearly peed myself.

[Darin Jordan]

Fascinating.

I know you have a ton more work to do but something that caught my eye on the last 7.0x6.0 test. Same load for all the motors and the output varied as much as 870 watts or 1.16 hp.

I can't draw any conclusions yet either. Great stuff though so far.

Exactly. That's why Tyler suggested that I try to vary the load to get EACH motor pushing around 100-Amps, and stretch the time out to 60-seconds to get a good read on the heat build-up, etc.

The motors that survive that test will likely narrow the list down a lot.

It would appear, however, that the 3650-sized motors are more representative of the P-LTD power levels than the 3660-sized. We'll see more clearly if that's the case after the next tests.

[rayzerdesigns]

awesome work darin, im liking my dynamite 1500s even more now..lol..that last load test is crazy, some motors well over 100 amps

[T.S.Davis]

The Turnigy and TP 60 series motors put out a lot of power if they can take the heat.

[rayzerdesigns]

wish dynamite would bring back their 1800

[RandyatBBY]

bahaha I'm positive Randy means analytical. Nearly peed myself.

Ya that is what I meant. My spelling sucks and spell check some times get it wrong. LOL

[Darin Jordan]

awesome work darin, im liking my dynamite 1500s even more now..lol..that last load test is crazy, some motors well over 100 amps

Yup...

I was trying to find a prop that would load the DYNM1500 up to around 100A last night, and took it a LITTLE too far... :doh:

139212


Motor IS still in one piece, however... :w00t:

[ray schrauwen]

Nice data, thank you!

[ray schrauwen]

The Turnigy and TP 60 series motors put out a lot of power if they can take the heat.

I noticed that too. I like that Turnigy motor. The winding's are skewed like some Neu motors.

[Doby]

Thanks for taking the time (and $$) to do this.

[TRUCKPULL]

Darin
What prop did you try, to get it to 186A and 112 F in about 13 seconds??

According to your first picture of your setup, you have water cooling also on the motor. Was this working??

Larry

[Darin Jordan]

Darin
What prop did you try, to get it to 186A and 112 F in about 13 seconds??

According to your first picture of your setup, you have water cooling also on the motor. Was this working??

Larry

I haven't been using water cooling for these tests. Not necessary, since I haven't been running them more than 10-seconds each test run.

I have been water cooling the ESC in order to keep it consistent and not a factor.

These final tests will also be done without water cooling the motor. I want to be able to measure the actual starting and ending temperatures.

The prop was "BIG"... I don't think I'd recommend running a motor like this at those kind of amps. Likely wouldn't last a lap. Not to mention, did you notice the massive RPM drop? Definitely overloaded!

[Darin Jordan]

Darin
What prop did you try,

Also, keep in mind... when I'm talking "Prop"... I'm talking about an AIRPLANE Prop... something to provide a specific load.

[T.S.Davis]

Yup...

I was trying to find a prop that would load the DYNM1500 up to around 100A last night, and took it a LITTLE too far... :doh:

2600 watts!:scared::scared::flashfire:......:doh:

That last one is actually Darin checking to see if his eyebrows are still there.

Darin, are you thinking about using a gears to tweak in the right amperage? I might have an old turbo trans kicking around.

[Brushless55]

The Turnigy and TP 60 series motors put out a lot of power if they can take the heat.

I've run the Turnigy motor in my JAE with the same setup as my AQ2030 and AQ1800, and in 2 laps the Turnigy motor when I brought it in to check was 159*f :huh:

[ray schrauwen]

Wow, thats hot!

Did you change your timing to zero since it is a D wind compared to the Y wind of the others?

[Brushless55]

Wow, thats hot!

Did you change your timing to zero since it is a D wind compared to the Y wind of the others?

yes Ray I did change the timing to make sure I was testing the motor correctly from the start and to be as fair as I could with it :biggrin:
I dropped it to 0 or 3.75* from the 11.25* that I was running with the AQ motors with a T120 esc
I would need to power up the boat to check to be 100% sure

[rayzerdesigns]

Yup...

I was trying to find a prop that would load the DYNM1500 up to around 100A last night, and took it a LITTLE too far... :doh:

139212


Motor IS still in one piece, however... :w00t:
Funny thing.. I have had a couple of these motors constantly above 160.. They still run fine.. At nats in colorado in p limited offshore i ran all 4 heats with same motor.. Temps were right at 170 after 4 minutes.. That motor is still in my mono running strong.. Im a believer

[T.S.Davis]

That's what I meant. If they can take the heat there's more available power. I get my Neu motors hot with little fear. If you you take a 2030 to those temps you need a new 2030.

[Darin Jordan]

That's what I meant. If they can take the heat there's more available power. I get my Neu motors hot with little fear. If you you take a 2030 to those temps you need a new 2030.

I would NOT expect these motors to "take the heat" like that for more than a lap... I ran this on the bench for only about 13-seconds... That's not even to the back straight on a pace lap if it were on the course...

Guys... do NOT take these tests as planning material for your next race event. I'm purposefully pushing things to their maximums under controlled conditions in an attempt to glean some info that will let potential be compared between various motor options. I can assure you that if you try to push 175+ amps through one of these in your boat, well.... :flame42:

Don't be "newbs"... think critically and take the info for what it is... :thumbup1:

[ray schrauwen]

Funny thing.. I have had a couple of these motors constantly above 160.. They still run fine.. At nats in colorado in p limited offshore i ran all 4 heats with same motor.. Temps were right at 170 after 4 minutes.. That motor is still in my mono running strong.. Im a believer

I've gotten close to that temp with my AQ 1800. I push a df 33 around in p-spec sprint and I have propped down for offshore to make it last 4 minutes.

[Darin Jordan]

I have completed the first set of 60-second @ ~100A load test runs.

The following data represents the 4 of the most popular, currently allowed P-LTD Motors:


AQ1800
AQ2030
DYNM1500
DYNM1800

I will expect to compare all the other motors to these.

For these tests, I did the following:


BATTERY: 4S2P ThunderPower 70C 5000mAh packs (Total 10,000mAh), fully charged prior to each test run, and allowed to return to "normalized" temperature before each test.
Battery's were paralleled in order to attempt to maintain 15.0V +/-0.2V for the entire 60-second pull.
ESC: Castle Hydra EDGE 100 with water cooling on to maintain a consistent ESC temperature.
LOAD: Loads were applied using various arrangements of airplane propellers to achieve a ~100A, hopefully within +/- 5.0A, load.
TEMP: Temperature was monitored using a Spektrum DX-9 with AR400 RX and TM1000 Telemetry module, using a band style temp probe (normally used for wrapping around a cylinder head or exhaust tuned pipe).
Temperature was recorded within 1/4" of the forward endbell by taping the probe to each motor in exactly the same manner.
Temperature was recorded prior to each run, and again after each run, once it had climbed to it's maximum, determined by the point where it no longer increased (Absolute maximum recorded).
Temperature on the Castle Graphs are of the internal ESC Temperature.
LOADED VOLTAGE, MAX RPM, WATTS, and AMPS, were taken as an average over the course of a minimum of 40-seconds, starting approximately 10-seconds after the start of each run. Starting point is determined based on the point on the graph where the values are stabilized. You can see on the graphs below where the motors initially loads up and then tapers down to a steady state, generally after about 5-10 seconds at full throttle.
I am including the actual data graphs to be transparent and allow you to see what the nature of the test is. Enjoy. :)
I will consider this data to the be baseline by which EVERY other motor will be compared. Once a complete data set is available, a more direct comparison of these motors should be possible.




Here is the baseline data:

139219


Here are the Castle Graphs for each motor in the Baseline test:

AQ1800:
139220

AQ2030:
139221

DYNM1500:
139222

DYNM1800:
139223

[JimClark]

That is quite a KV drop for those four motors

[Darin Jordan]

That is quite a KV drop for those four motors

It's quite a massive load, Jim.

Also, that's REAL KV minus the resulting calculated KV. Pretty typical.

The more efficient/powerful the motor, the less KV Drop you'll see.

[JimClark]

Thanks for splaining it better. That Dynamite 1500 looks very good then compared to the others. More efficient for sure.

[Darin Jordan]

Thanks for splaining it better. That Dynamite 1500 looks very good then compared to the others. More efficient for sure.

I agree... but what do I know. ;)

Some indicators to look at are going to be KV Drop, Temperature Delta, and resulting MAX RPM.

A more efficient, more powerful motor, should provide more KV and should probably have less temperature gain over the test time.

However, that could be skewed by the motor construction. It's possible for a motor to be POWERFUL, but heat up do to the materials/mass of the motor.

Guess we'll figure more out about that as we get through these tests.

[Brushless55]

I agree... but what do I know. ;)

Some indicators to look at are going to be KV Drop, Temperature Delta, and resulting MAX RPM.

A more efficient, more powerful motor, should provide more KV and should probably have less temperature gain over the test time.

However, that could be skewed by the motor construction. It's possible for a motor to be POWERFUL, but heat up do to the materials/mass of the motor.

Guess we'll figure more out about that as we get through these tests.

that is what I am paying attention to :thumbup1:

[Darin Jordan]

Concluded testing with the 3650-sized motors last night, with predictable results.

Same test parameters as described above.

Physically, these motors are representative of the actual rotor/stator size to our present P-LTD motors. However, being 4-Pole vs. 6-Pole, they have less torque, and therefore don't appear to handle the 90-100A currents well.

One motor finally bit the dust as well. The SSS3650-1500 motor, when loading it enough to push it into the test range (90-100A), started smoking at the 25-second mark. Data shows it was only pushing 74.0A and 1100W.

Event the Neu 1410-2Y didn't hold up well. To be fair, this isn't a "real" NEU 1410... It's one of their "cheap motor" line ($49.95) and not really a "Neu".

Anyhow, if the goal was to reign in the performance of the class (would have to limit setups to 75 or 80A max), the 3650-sized motors might be an option. In comparison to the present P-LTD motors, they aren't. I won't be testing this size any further.

Here is the Data as of now. I'll start testing the 3660-sized motors tonight.

DYNM2000:
139239

TP3650-1970:
139240

LBP3650-1840:
139241

NEU1410-2Y:
139242

SSS3650-1500:
139243

[Darin Jordan]

Here is the updated Data Chart for the 60second LOAD Tests:

139244

[ray schrauwen]

Where did your test AQ2030 come from??? Steve, AQ, ???

[ray schrauwen]

Also, what is the part # for the DYNM1500 You are testing please?

[TRUCKPULL]

Hello Darin

In your test results, under Motor load you list;
G7 x 6
7 x5G + G5 x 5
8 x 6G cut
and again a 7 x5G + G5 x 5

What do these numbers mean?
I would suspect Dia. & pitch?
Is one prop 10% or 20% more load then the other??

Larry

[T.S.Davis]

Ray, pretty sure that's a DYNM3835.

I baked one just before the water got cold. My fault. I was screwing around with too much pitch. Finally pissed it off enough to kill it. They're solid motors but your boat needs to be setup for bigger props. My opinion at least. Your not going to run a 42x55 on it is what I'm saying. Sure runs nice in a 10th scale.

[ray schrauwen]

Ray, pretty sure that's a DYNM3835.

I baked one just before the water got cold. My fault. I was screwing around with too much pitch. Finally pissed it off enough to kill it. They're solid motors but your boat needs to be setup for bigger props. My opinion at least. Your not going to run a 42x55 on it is what I'm saying. Sure runs nice in a 10th scale.

I was curious a since I've seen some pretty inexpensive on line. If I can turn a m447 on a AQ 1800, I figured I could adjust easily with one of these for spare.

Back to the mad scientist Darin Jordan... Nice data so far!

[Darin Jordan]

Hello Darin

In your test results, under Motor load you list;
G7 x 6
7 x5G + G5 x 5
8 x 6G cut
and again a 7 x5G + G5 x 5

What do these numbers mean?
I would suspect Dia. & pitch?
Is one prop 10% or 20% more load then the other??

Larry

Larry, I'm not sure how to answer your question to your satisfaction, but my version of "load" is however much it takes to push the motor into the 90-100A range. These designations mean things like "Graupner 7" x 6" Prop", or "7x5 Gray Prop plus Graupner 5x5", etc...

The point is to push each motor to a similar POWER output (WATTS) and see how they stand up. That lets you compare a 1500KV motor to a 2000KV motor, because POWER is what matters, ultimately.

[Darin Jordan]

I was curious a since I've seen some pretty inexpensive on line. If I can turn a m447 on a AQ 1800, I figured I could adjust easily with one of these for spare.

Back to the mad scientist Darin Jordan... Nice data so far!


That 1500KV motor is the standard, "direct from Horizon Hobby", part... they are actually relatively "cheap"... $69.95, if I recall correctly.

Best motor in the bunch if you know how to tune a boat. ;)

[JimClark]

Correct on the price http://www.horizonhobby.com/DYNM3835?utm_medium=display&utm_source=criteo&utm_campaign=productremarketing&utm_content=DYNM3835&CA_6C15C=320011980000365447


That 1500KV motor is the standard, "direct from Horizon Hobby", part... they are actually relatively "cheap"... $69.95, if I recall correctly.

Best motor in the bunch if you know how to tune a boat. ;)

[TRUCKPULL]

Also, what is the part # for the DYNM1500 You are testing please?

Hello Ray

Terry is correct, the part # is DYMN3835 1500Kv - 6 Pole

You want the NEW motor -all one color Blue
NOT the one with the gray barrel and the blue end caps.

The NEW one is even better then the old one, Better output wires also.
Look at the picture in Darin's post #537, it is the NEW motor.

Larry

[Darin Jordan]

Hey guys. I received a suggestion that I add a "% KV Drop" column so it might be easier to see just how much the load is affecting the RPM.

Here is the above chart with that adjustment. Does make it easier to compare.

139258

[Darin Jordan]

The NEW one is even better then the old one, Better output wires also.

Larry

The new one is also better than the original BJ26 one! :)

[ray schrauwen]

This http://www.ebay.com/itm/191717747608?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Picture my not be accurate???

[Darin Jordan]

This http://www.ebay.com/itm/191717747608?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Picture my not be accurate???

Same picture that's on the Horizon site. I don't know where these are coming from, however. Horizon ONLY has the good ones in stock.

The picture is NOT accurate. The picture posted above, with the heat shrink and better wires, is.

[ray schrauwen]

Thanks Darin!

[TRUCKPULL]

This http://www.ebay.com/itm/191717747608?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Picture my not be accurate???

Looks like the same picture that Horizon Hobby uses?????

Larry

[Darin Jordan]

It took way more time than anticipated to get all the loads just right on the next group of motors, but I got it worked out and was able to get very close to the loads tested for the P-LTD motors.

Tested the TURNIGY SK3 3659-1900, TP3660-1950, and LBP3660-1900. They all were loaded to 100-105A for 60-seconds. The Turnigy and the TP are clearly higher powered than any of the present P-LTD motors. At the same loads, they gain about the same temperature, but have ~2000 and ~1600 RPM higher. With the Turnigy and assuming a 3.0" Pitch Prop, that would equate to a 4mph advantage. I think I posted awhile back how a 1-MPH increase equates to over 1/4 lap over a race distance.

The Leopard LBP3660-1900 is about equivalent in performance to an AQ2030, but gains a tick more heat.

I still need to test the SSS3660 motors (1500, 1800, 1968) and I might retest the AQ1800 to increase it's amp-load to be a tick over 100, like the others.

Here are the graphs and updated data chart. I went ahead and hid the 3650-sized motors for now. They clearly can't be operated at these AMP loads.

TURNIGY SK3 3659-1900:
139323

TP3660-1950:
139324

Leopard LBP3660-1900:
139325

DATA CHART:
139326

[zooma]

Darin, are you intentionally propping each motor for approx 100 amp loads to get the comparison data? If so, did you pick 100 amps because it's the typical draw of a P-limited race boat?

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, are you intentionally propping each motor for approx 100 amp loads to get the comparison data? If so, did you pick 100 amps because it's the typical draw of a P-limited race boat?

Basically, Yes. For example, my P-LTD OPC Lynx, with AQ2030, averages about 85A "continuous". For 2-Lap or it pulls more. Monos might pull more, etc. The idea is find out how much power these motors can put out reliably.

Also, it was asked why do I need to test EACH motor at 100A. My goal is to measure the motors ability to produce power. Power... WATTS... Horsepower... is determined by Voltage and Current (P = Voltage x Current). By getting each motor to 100A and attempting to maintain a similar voltage under load, EACH motor is putting out the same Power. From there, heat build-up, KV drop, Max RPMs, etc., can then be more directly compared. Ultimately, speed is determined by Power available, regardless of the KV or RPMs. How you put that power the the water is determined by those other factors (small prop vs. larger prop), but either way, performance potential is determined by the available power.

Hopefully all that makes sense.

Have the three TFL SSS motors left to test, and then I think I'll be done for now. At this point, I'm really only seeing ONE motor that could potentially "fit in" with the existing motors, and that would be the Leopard LBP3660-1900. I'd expect, if they had a 1500KV version, that might fit too. The TP and Turnigy have more power potential than the others. In trying to determine the correct 100A load for the Turnigy, for example, I made one 60second pull at over 115A continous, and the motor temps only went up to the low 140s... Also saw some other pulls where it was pulling over 135A, and the temp still didn't increase as dramatically, though it was starting to get "warm".

I can imagine that a couple of the options would be to: 1) Do nothing, let the class run as is and die off once motors aren't available, 2) Accept that the existing motors are fading off, approve some quality options, and let the class "re-level" itself over a year or so (which has the con of negating the present investments of most competitors in the short term), or 3) Approve the smaller 3650-sized motors and slow the class down that level. Probably maximum of 80A, or 4)... well... Not sure if there is a 4.

[ray schrauwen]

Thanks Darin. I have an idea what motor I'll use for club pond running and what I'll use for sanctioned events.

[rayzerdesigns]

if you were to ask me I have no problem slowing the class down, im not sure about others, but my p limited speeds are not far off p speedsand for those of you that don't know I am running nothing but the 1500s,.. my 1/10th scale modern was clocked at 59mph today in az club race..on a shorter than legal course..i wont say what my other hulls are running, but will be ready for nats

[Darin Jordan]

if you were to ask me I have no problem slowing the class down....

Yes, that's definitely option. Implementation would be interesting to say the least. A LOT of boats out there in P-LTD that simply wouldn't be suitable for the lower power.

But, it's a path to consider.

[Darin Jordan]

I've wrapped up the motor testing for now. Finished up by testing the SSS3660-1968 motor, and the SSS3660-1800 motor.

The SSS3660-1968 motor actually tested fine. Just a tick less power than the TP and Turnigy SK3.

However, the SSS3660-1800 motor burned up on the stand after about 50-seconds at only 94-Amps. Didn't fully self-destruct, but the windings show that they did get a little hot and must have shorted.

Not sure what to think of this, but it seems that with the SSS motors, when you try to load the lower KV motors up to the power levels of the higher KV stuff, they burn. Recall the same thing happened with the SSS3650-1500 motor (it looks VERY toasty inside!).

I decided not to even test the SSS3660-1500. Tired of my garage getting stunk up and frankly, I don't think it would fair much better. The 1968KV version, like I said, actually looked good. There are a couple different ways to get KV out of a motor, or to lower KV in a motor, and it's clear that the SSS motors seem to build resistance as the KV goes down.

Anyhow, here are the final data graphs and complete data chart for the tests. A couple of conclusions can be drawn, but the one that really stands out is that we actually did a REALLY good job of "equating" motors in P-LTD for the original motor set. They are all relatively close in power output potential, etc.

The second conclusion that might be drawn is that there simply aren't a lot, if any, "equivalent" replacements out there for these motors. You can either go UP in power, or down, but nothing really achieves an equal performance level. The one most obvious choice by many, at the given power levels, is 1620RPM higher, and there is still room to push that option.

I guess now it's time to discuss.

Here is the data.

SSS3660-1968:
139372

SSS3660-1800:
139373


DATA CHART:
139374

[Darin Jordan]

A while back, this discussion got a little "heated" when people were suggesting motors like the Leopard 4074, or even allowing the new Dynamite 3930-1750 from the IM31 V3 (40x68 1750KV).

To help understand WHY allowing the larger, 40mm or ??? motor sizes into P-LTD cannot possible be done fairly, I ran two 60 second load tests on the Dynamite DYNM3930, one at the standard ~100A load (TRIED to get it right there, but ended up "only" being 97.00A... Close enough, but for you nit-pickers out there... sue me! ;) ), and the other at 140A.


At 100A, you'll see that the temperature increase is over 30-degrees LESS than any of the P-LTD motors. KV drop is only 14%, the RPMs are about the same as an AQ2030, as is the power output of around 1500W (2.0HP, approximately). SO, Yes, you could run this motor with the same prop and, in theory, have about the same top speed, with cooler temps. You WOULD, however, enjoy the advantage of stronger acceleration, as the torque of the larger motor would spool up the load harder.

At 140A, well, that's the difference in a big motor. While the rest of the P-LTD motors are smoking in the infield, the 40mm motor is still only around 170-degrees (on the test bench with NO water cooling), pushing out over 2000 Watts, 2.75HP, according to the test run, or 3/4HP MORE than any of the P-LTD motors. I'm pretty sure if you ran 140A through any of the other P-LTD motors for 60-seconds, they'd end up smelly. Anyone who has pushed one beyond 100A for an extended period of time can attest. MIGHT get away with 115-125A for a few races, but eventually the motor is going to bake.

If you don't think that is a "performance advantage", well... I'm not sure we can have a rational discussion.

Here is the data from the larger motor test.

Pro Boat Dynamite DYNM3930-1750KV ~ 100A:
139375

Pro Boat Dynamite DYNM3930-1750KV ~ 140A:
139376

DYNM3930-1750KV DATA CHART:
139377

[Darin Jordan]

I can imagine that a couple of the options would be to: 1) Do nothing, let the class run as is and die off once motors aren't available, 2) Accept that the existing motors are fading off, approve some quality options, and let the class "re-level" itself over a year or so (which has the con of negating the present investments of most competitors in the short term), or 3) Approve the smaller 3650-sized motors and slow the class down that level. Probably maximum of 80A, or 4)... well... Not sure if there is a 4.

Thought of a 4th option... Select a single motor, like some of the clubs across the Country have already done.

In lieu of having a viable motor or two to include, the only of these 4 options that actually maintains the class is to just leave it alone. The other options completely alter the present performance levels of the class.

[ray schrauwen]

Thanks Darin. I didn't get an answer for one question: Where did you get the AQ2030 motor from for your tests? I might want to check out the newest version for next season. For now I will keep beating up on the used one I bought a year or more ago.

Do you think the reason for the lack of 3rd party comparable motors is because the AQ and PB motors are 6 pole motors and the rest were 4 pole if I remember correctly??

[Darin Jordan]

Thanks Darin. I didn't get an answer for one question: Where did you get the AQ2030 motor from for your tests? I might want to check out the newest version for next season. For now I will keep beating up on the used one I bought a year or more ago.

I bought two motors from Steven about 1 1/2 years ago. This was one of those.




Do you think the reason for the lack of 3rd party comparable motors is because the AQ and PB motors are 6 pole motors and the rest were 4 pole if I remember correctly??

Probably. There is definitely a difference in motors of equal size, one being 4-pole and the other 6. I haven't sat down to try to quantify the difference, but I think we've all seen the difference when we went from 2-Pole Nemesis/Fiego motors to the Neus and such, so it's obviously a torque difference. It did appear that the 6-Poles could turn a similar load with less Amps.

[rayzerdesigns]

heres my thoughts or two cents as some say, im with darin as in leaving it as is with the 3 motors, yes the aquacraft motors are more expensive and in my eyes and darins testing the dynamite 1500 is 20 dollars cheaper and a better motor..again just my thoughts..i dont have a problem with clubs using a motor for club level the only thing is if you set your boats up with such motor, then have to change out if you decide to run a national event, or run for records, you have to change back..so my 2 cents is leave it until we start seeing a shortage of these 3 motors..

[T.S.Davis]

Too bad PB doesn't make the 1800 any more. I'm surprised how close in performance the PB and AQ 1800's are. Spooky.

The Turnigy and TP3660 are pretty close to each other too. Although both are a bit more motor than the existing list.

[Darin Jordan]

The Turnigy and TP3660 are pretty close to each other too. Although both are a bit more motor than the existing list.

I'd quantify it as a bit more than a "bit"... That Turnigy SK3 would be worth 5-6mph in a Hydro.

[rayzerdesigns]

I wish dynamite would bring 1800 back.. But in all honesty im comitted to the 1500s..

[T.S.Davis]

I'd quantify it as a bit more than a "bit"... That Turnigy SK3 would be worth 5-6mph in a Hydro.

I was trying not to kick the cage.

I use all three. Not everything Ty and run liked the same setups. His Delta for instance gets weird on larger props and I'm just not moving the strut on it again. The option is nice.

[Darin Jordan]

I wish dynamite would bring 1800 back..

Yeah, unfortunately that ship has sailed...

And, as you can see, the 2000 isn't the magic bullet.

[rayzerdesigns]

Im sure i will duprise some people at nats in 2016 eith the 1500s.. Opened a few eyes in colorado this year.. Lol

[Darin Jordan]

Im sure i will duprise some people at nats in 2016 eith the 1500s.. Opened a few eyes in colorado this year.. Lol

You forget that I "introduced" them to these motors first... :spy:

Those here locally have already been "indoctrinated"... :thumbup1:

[ray schrauwen]

Im sure i will duprise some people at nats in 2016 eith the 1500s.. Opened a few eyes in colorado this year.. Lol

May I ask some advice on what prop to use for df33 used in both spec Sprint and spec offshore? Just a starting point so I don't wreck a motor too fast :lol: I'm running the AQ 1800 now with about an M447'ish for Sprint, m445'ish for offshore.

[rayzerdesigns]

May I ask some advice on what prop to use for df33 used in both spec Sprint and spec offshore? Just a starting point so I don't wreck a motor too fast :lol: I'm running the AQ 1800 now with about an M447'ish for Sprint, m445'ish for offshore.

For those motors or 1500s??

[rayzerdesigns]

You forget that I "introduced" them to these motors first... :spy:

Those here locally have already been "indoctrinated"... :thumbup1:

Well phooey on you.. Lol.. But did find a couple little secrets.. ��

[ray schrauwen]

For those motors or 1500s??

1500's please, thx.

[rayzerdesigns]

Start with a 450 2 blade..droending in temps 447 /3 or 450/3

[TheShaughnessy]

So the conclusion thus far is we are where we were at the start of all this? No suitable replacements?

[Darin Jordan]

So the conclusion thus far is we are where we were at the start of all this? No suitable replacements?

All I'm doing is putting the data out there (well... I guess there has been a "conclusion" or two stated from my perspective, but....).

I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but the data shows that, of all the motors in the tests, there really isn't anything that can be considered "equivalent" to what we already have.

You either have noticeably HIGHER performing, or noticeably less.

[ray schrauwen]

Start with a 450 2 blade..droending in temps 447 /3 or 450/3

Cool, thanks!

[Darin Jordan]

Start with a 450 2 blade..droending in temps 447 /3 or 450/3

I concur. On my IM31 V3, I used the 1500 with an X447/3 that's been "slightly tweaked" and the boat FLIES (in a good way).

Find a prop (diameter/blade shape) the boat likes, maybe the 450/2 or the X447/3, and if temps look good, then start tweaking on THAT prop to get the pitch where you want it.

[zooma]

Any downside to running a three blade prop? Cavitation? Torque roll? Prop walk? Drag? Speed loss?

[Darin Jordan]

Any downside to running a three blade prop? Cavitation? Torque roll? Prop walk? Drag? Speed loss?

The only reasonable answer to that question is honestly: YES/NO. It's all about hull, setup, and prop prep.

[zooma]

Is the tested Dynamite 1500 motor this one?

http://www.horizonhobby.com/a3630-1500kv--6-pole--water-cooled--marine-motor-dynm3835

[properchopper]

Alright - I applaud these tests :beerchug: I've learned lots of what will help me next year (given that D19 holds to the original NAMBA list of approved motors). BUT what I'd like more data on is one of the original causes of this entire search : that "Ltd motors" as specified in the rulebook, notably the original most go-to'd motor, the AQ 2030, began to melt down on the oval course as replacement production worked its way in. A load test for one minute helps but how about a simulated heat race duration test to see the survival factor under (somewhat) simulated race conditions ?

Alternately ( I know this is a stretch:ohmy:) but here's some data I'd like to see :The FLAME-OUT Test :let each motor run under load until the smoke comes out with the timer running. See which one will survive the longest :noidea:
( ain't having fun 'till you dial 911 :flashfire:)

[rayzerdesigns]

Tony as the electric chair for d19 thrre are no plans to step away from the current spproved list of p ljmited motors..

[properchopper]

Tony as the electric chair for d19 thrre are no plans to step away from the current spproved list of p ljmited motors..

Didn't I just say that above ? : "(given that D19 holds to the original NAMBA list of approved motors)"

Probably better said as " given that D19 has presently decided to continue to hold .... " OR better yet : "since D19 hasn't added any updates to the approved list......."

BTW the first SCSTA/Nitro ( with a new name) will offer PLSH & PLC on Sun 1/24/16

[Darin Jordan]

AA load test for one minute helps but how about a simulated heat race duration test to see the survival factor under (somewhat) simulated race conditions

Tony, For racing, we all water cool our motors. 1-Min running at 100A WITHOUT any water cooling should be more than enough to help determine "survival factor".

Now, I suppose I could do it again, simulating on/off throttle, etc., but I'm not really sure what that would show us. I think we can see what we need to see.

Besides, I'm still having to vent my shop from the two SSS motors that went "kaput"... :flashfire: :thumbup:

[RandyatBBY]

I am with Tony! Where is too far, the burn up point.

Did you test the 3662 2000Kv? A lot of the guys in district are running them in stock PB boats.

[Darin Jordan]

I am with Tony! Where is too far, the burn up point.

Not interested in that info, Randy. I'm interested in peak power output and ability to hold up under higher than normal loads. THAT is what I tested.

I tested these at 100A, for 60-seconds, WITHOUT any water cooling. All of the P-LTD legal motors came in at under 150-degrees. A typical P-LTD run in a 1-mile race is around 2:00, give or take. (well, for my P-LTD OPC, it's more like 1:30, but ... :tongue_smilie: ). With water cooling, I'm pretty sure any motor that survived my testing will survive the heat. :thumbup:

EVERY Electric motor can be pushed to some limit, but testing this small sample of them wouldn't really tell us anything other than what THIS particular sample motor could hold up to. Would the next? I'd need a lot more motors to find that out.


Did you test the 3662 2000Kv? A lot of the guys in district are running them in stock PB boats.

You'll have to be more specific on the brand, etc. Not sure what a "3662 2000KV" means.

[rayzerdesigns]

Didn't I just say that above ? : "(given that D19 holds to the original NAMBA list of approved motors)"

Probably better said as " given that D19 has presently decided to continue to hold .... " OR better yet : "since D19 hasn't added any updates to the approved list......."

BTW the first SCSTA/Nitro ( with a new name) will offer PLSH & PLC on Sun 1/24/16
I will be there tony.. When are they gonna post the classes??

[Doug Smock]

The FLAME-OUT Test :let each motor run under load until the smoke comes out with the timer running. See which one will survive the longest :noidea:


That would be valuable information for the "stator bakers" among us. With proper planning they would never be just one motor shy of getting through a weekend of racing or a Nationals. :wink:

We certainly appreciate your time and trouble on this Darin. Thank you sir.:tiphat:

[trigger]

:thumbup: A lot of hard work and lots of good data, thank you. Wish we got to the happy ending, but, at least we have the facts. Again Thanks :thumbup:

[RandyatBBY]

You'll have to be more specific on the brand, etc. Not sure what a "3662 2000KV" means.

This is the one.
http://www.rcchiefhobbies.com/Parts/Dynamite-2000Kv-6-Pole-Brushless-Marine-Motor-36x62mm.html

[Darin Jordan]

This is the one.
http://www.rcchiefhobbies.com/Parts/Dynamite-2000Kv-6-Pole-Brushless-Marine-Motor-36x62mm.html

Randy, Yes... that was tested. Look at the data under "DYNM2000". It got over 234-degrees on the 60sec @100A test.

[TheShaughnessy]

If all the motors relied on air cooling but some have vented endbells and some don't would that affect ∆H significantly?

[Darin Jordan]

If all the motors relied on air cooling but some have vented endbells and some don't would that affect ∆H significantly?

Maybe if the vents were exposed to the airflow, but as you can see by the picture below, the prop adapter shields the front of the motor. Due to the size of the props, the motors ran in the "calm spot" of the airflow. Eye of the storm, so to speak.

139449

[TheShaughnessy]

That's the pic I wanted to see, thank you.

[Darin Jordan]

That's the pic I wanted to see, thank you.

I tried to be as "scientific" and keep everything as controlled as possible. Hopefully most see these tests as having been conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

[zooma]

Is the tested Dynamite 1500 motor this one?

http://www.horizonhobby.com/a3630-1500kv--6-pole--water-cooled--marine-motor-dynm3835

bump

[Darin Jordan]

bump

Yes. That's the only one available these days. And, that picture is wrong...

[Darin Jordan]

Yes. That's the only one available these days. And, that picture is wrong...

I just put in a request with Pro Boat/Horizon Hobby to get the website picture updated. They have submitted the request.

[TheShaughnessy]

I tried to be as "scientific" and keep everything as controlled as possible. Hopefully most see these tests as having been conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

I appreciate the trouble you went through. A while back I was trying to figure out why some of my batteries would show a full charge but wouldn't power a boat for more than 30 secs. I put a 5x5.5 on a 1515 1y which generated about 60 amps and put a watts up meter in line so I could watch the voltage. The point there is that the sound of an airplane prop spinning that fast is a bit scary in and of itself. I believe you did a great job with the report of how you conducted the experiment and how you put everything into a spreadsheet for easy comparison. I'm sure a fair amount of time went into that alone.

I was expecting the dynm 2000 to fair a bit better because of the slightly larger can size so that's why I asked about the endbells. It doesn't appear biased to me at all. I can remember you talking about 1500 kv motors since 2011 and probably before that.

[zooma]

Yes. That's the only one available these days. And, that picture is wrong...

Well, I just ordered one . So I guess that I'll get the right motor, but it will look different. I was thinking of your thread on the Impulse V3, where you switched to the 1500. The one in your picture looks like the one on the Horizon site.

[Darin Jordan]

Well, I just ordered one . So I guess that I'll get the right motor, but it will look different. I was thinking of your thread on the Impulse V3, where you switched to the 1500. The one in your picture looks like the one on the Horizon site.

No, it doesn't. Look more carefully. The right motors have crimps outside the endbell. I just shorten my wires to just 1" or so from the crimps.

[T.S.Davis]

Weird.
I just got two of these in the mail. No crimps.

[Darin Jordan]

Weird.
I just got two of these in the mail. No crimps.

From Horizon?

[Darin Jordan]

I just ordered and received 4 from Horizon this week and this is what they are.

139469

They have also been shipped with black package labels, so it's clear Horizon is still stocking these as they run low.

All of them are crimped.

[JimClark]

guess I should order one or two 1500's

[zooma]

I just ordered and received 4 from Horizon this week and this is what they are.

139469

They have also been shipped with black package labels, so it's clear Horizon is still stocking these as they run low.

All of them are crimped.

So, by "crimped" you mean battery leads spliced to the motor leads, right? Mine hasn't come yet. Do you, then, take the crimps apart and solder bullets to the motor leads?

[Darin Jordan]

Do you, then, take the crimps apart and solder bullets to the motor leads?

NO! Trim back the real wire a bit if you like, but leave the splices alone. Those attach to the motor windings and you'll never get a good solder joint to that.

Here is the other packaging I mentioned above.

139470

[ray schrauwen]

Go-Nitro hobbies changed their picture for me and everyone to the crimped version. They took one out of package and changed the picture on their EBay page. Very nice of them to do that.

I remember Aveox motors ran very well with their crimped connections.

[photohoward1]

Man you guys spend a lot on spec Motors.

[ray schrauwen]

It's worse in Canadian dollars plus tax and some duty on top.

[T.S.Davis]

Amazon.

Was there more than one generation of the 1500? Maybe these were on someones shelf a while. Who knows what I have now.

I removed the crimps on one of the 1800 motors. Darin's right. Not worth the effort. Just makes a mess. If anything it made the motor more fragile.

[TRUCKPULL]

Terry

Are these the motors you got ( with the gray can and blue endbells)????

Larry

[T.S.Davis]

No but I have one of those somewhere. We raced those in 2008 I think.

[Darin Jordan]

Terry

Are these the motors you got ( with the gray can and blue endbells)????

Larry

Those are both the older ones.

This "generational changes" thing is one of those downsides of the P-LTD formula, but then, it's always that way with stock or spec type racing.

[Coug90]

I just weighed in with a proposal to NAMBA to add a couple of motors for 1/10th scale. We'll see where that goes. I have liked reading this thread and know it's a common theme in spec classes. I've been racing in Classic Thunder for over 20 years. Things were much easier for us with just one spec motor. We do that in our Division 1 (vintage boats of the 50's and 60's), but you can only do that if you are willing to cut bait when that motor or a decided comparable motor is no longer available. You'll always be at the mercy of the hobby industry, regardless of the choice you make. At some point you may have to make a decision to go with another affordable, available motor that meets your performance goals in the class (ie to slow the boats down to improve racing, knowing speeds always go up over time due to things that are not spec.). It's tough to promote the class that has a moving target for spec motor selections. I found myself caught up in that when looking at the future of the class outside of club racing. That's what led me to try and have other motors added. I gave up on the notion of having NAMBA voters agree on one motor to go with, but I want to promote the class. Our second spec motor class in CT is Division 2 (modern design w/open cockpits) which includes one of the motors currently approved in the NAMBA rulebook for 1/10 scale and P-LTD. We chose that motor and another motor we believed to be comparable when we made it a spec class two years ago. I also allowed the other motor to be run with NAMBA approved motors in our NW Triple Crown Series this year as a way to see the motor in competition against motors currently approved in NAMBA. Based on what we saw over the last two years and independent performance testing on the water, I made my proposal to add that motor and one other for NAMBA approval in 2016. I don't know where the proposal will go from here, but we'll see. It's the first proposal I have made since 1/10 scale became a NAMBA class. Maybe I should have gone with my gut, but I just didn't see a one motor proposal being accepted by the masses. Classic Thunder also has a Division 3 (modern design with canopies) which is open to any motor selection. All three CT classes run on 4s power and are open to any prop selection at this time. We all run under the same rule book. There is a class for just about every preference for performance and motor selection, but nothing's perfect. My opinion is that if it's a spec motor class, then specify a motor (or maybe a couple if you find that they are really made in the same factory but sold under different names). It's much easier in a club setting, but much more difficult to do in NAMBA. I wasn't brave enough to propose it, but maybe you guys in P-LTD can give me hope that it could happen someday. I think having affordable equipment is the most important thing. It doesn't matter how fast you're going if you're deck to deck with five other boats. It's going to be fun. The difference is in the preparation and the tweeking of non-spec items and the personal skill you put into it that makes it fun for me. That's the stuff you can learn, share and teach to others in a spec class. Hopefully that's the goal in a spec class like P-LTD and 1/10 scale. Maybe we need to set the goals of the class (outside of performance and competition) first. Maybe then the decisions get much easier to make. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Love that people care enough to talk about it though.

[rayzerdesigns]

as much as it would make the racing more equal I don't see the one motor thing ever passing..too many people would complain that its favoritism..i do currently like the motors available in 1/10th scale classes per namba..I don't feel the need for any others..but that's my opinion..the scales are well past 50mph now and that is pushing limits of hulls..my modern was radared at 56mph at nationals this year..which is plenty fast..I know a lot of people that run the himax motor or proboat/dynamite motor..i forget what other motors are namba legal for scale classes but I don't see need to dwindle or grow the list..as for spec classes per namba the list is still up darin did a lot of testing but didn't find any comparable..i for one am happy with the selection available for p limited and scale per namba the way it is

[Coug90]

as much as it would make the racing more equal I don't see the one motor thing ever passing..too many people would complain that its favoritism..i do currently like the motors available in 1/10th scale classes per namba..I don't feel the need for any others..but that's my opinion..the scales are well past 50mph now and that is pushing limits of hulls..my modern was radared at 56mph at nationals this year..which is plenty fast..I know a lot of people that run the himax motor or proboat/dynamite motor..i forget what other motors are namba legal for scale classes but I don't see need to dwindle or grow the list..as for spec classes per namba the list is still up darin did a lot of testing but didn't find any comparable..i for one am happy with the selection available for p limited and scale per namba the way it is
I guess I don't understand that statement. Favoritism towards whom? I would think limiting to one affordable motor seems to me like it would be the least act of favoritism if you're devoted to keeping a spec motor class. Frankly, I don't see it happening at the NAMBA level either. Given that, I wonder if it doesn't need to go a bit the other way, if done wisely. I do think it is possible and that it might be prudent, proactive, long term planning. There are no guarantees against change, but does anyone ever worry that the majority of the spec motors are tied to RTR boat model offerings? Unexpected elimination of production of some of these motors could be a problem considering the lengthy process involved with getting new rules passed. Has there been much discussion about a desire to diversify with a couple more affordable comparable selections outside of the RTR boat selections? If so, what has been the concensus? Is this something people worry about?

[rayzerdesigns]

there was discussion about going to one motor but the overwhelming majority thought it would be favoritizm towards a single manufacturer..i see that point, but i do think the only way you make it fair is to have one motor..and this whole thread was to try and see if there was any viable replacements to the current line of p limited motors..darin spent a lot of time testing just about every motor that should have been comparable..either way under or over..so there in lies the problem..i for one am ok with the current supply of motors..now is that going to change in the futre..im sure..as it seems to be that manufactures are heading in the direction of bigger and faster rtrs..at the time now the current motor list still has suppliers and distributors to keep the p limited class going..

[Coug90]

I'm beginning to see why this is such a frustrating subject for so many. It seems to me that you should only serve one master if you want a true spec motor class. That master has to be the class itself. If a spec motor class is your goal, then you can't have loyalties elsewhere. Maybe the biggest problem is that the decision making for spec is left to the racers to set. Spec motor classes might be easier to manage if the only thing set by the racers is the fact that they want a spec motor class and maybe the basic performance they want in that motor. If 56 mph is out of control for a boat size you have, then you need an affordable motor for your class that will give you a point in the 45-50 mph range to promote the type of racing you want to have. What if NAMBA had a board established for motor evaluations and the spec classes left it to them to find x amount of motors that would meet the class needs when a need arose. If all motors meet the criteria, the final decision could be made by a witnessed random drawing. We don't have enough of the industry market share to warrant loyalty of a manufacturer, so there isn't any loyalty to boat racers. Why do we care about favoritism of a manufacturer in the first place? They will be loyal to what's profitable. If the spec motor board makes their needs known to the industry, then any manufacturer can submit their offering to the board for testing. If it makes the cut, then it goes into the drawing. When the choice is made, that is your new spec motor for as long as it's available or until there is a need to change the performance parameters of the class and the process happens again. I'm just saying that maybe NAMBA should play a bigger role in managing the spec motors and we trust them to evaluate how the class is doing and what the class needs. I don't see a new motor selection happening every year, but when it's needed, it should be something that can happen fairly quickly if the process is set up wisely and fairly by people that we elect to do that. I don't see spec motor classes finding the right answer if we never ask the right questions. I still say if what you want is a truly spec motor class, then you have to be willing to burn it to the ground and start over with that in mind. Right now I'm not sure NAMBA has any true spec motor classes. They are more like semi-open motor classes. I'd be willing to give up some control in order to have the means to establish and maintain a true spec motor class where the health of "the class" is what matters the most. It's a philosophical problem, not a technical motor problem. We can't find this answer on the shop bench. However, I'd put guys like Darin on my short list of people to serve on a spec motor board. Wish I had his knowledge and equipment. It would take some teamwork and group thinking, but if we're willing to ask NAMBA to go there...

[Darin Jordan]

IF I were starting this class over, I'd change the parameters of the power systems slightly in order to use the more popular and generally available 36-60-XXXX sized FOUR-POLE motors... This would open the class up to several options. I'd pick three brands and the 3 popular KVs of each brand and those would be what you could choose from.

One thing my testing should have shown people is that KV DOES NOT MATTER in regards to power output. The overall power output for two motors of the same weight and physical dimensions, and manufacture, ARE NOT DIFFERENT. Only the RPM is different. Load them both to 100A and the watts are the same. So it then becomes a hull-tuning and prop selection issue. One motor let's you compete with a hull that likes a small, fast spinning prop. The other let's you compete with a larger hull that performs well with a larger, higher-pitched prop. Both go 60 or whatever...

I'd actually take it one-step further and simply list a set of motor parameters and let you choose; kind of a "Free Market Capitalistic" approach to racing.

But people in RC boating have shown, quite clearly, that that requires more thought and consideration than they are generally wanting to provide to the process, so it's easier just to give them a specific list of choices, which is more like the "Socialistic" approach to boat racing.

The one motor allowed is an example of people not wanting to put ANY thought into what they are competing with and just flat out want to be told. To me, that would be the full on "Dictatorial, or Fascist" way to go about this, but it definitely makes for a "spec" class.

And, in case you are wondering, yes, the political references were my attempts at joking around a bit, so don't get all bent out of shape, even it the references are dead-on true... :)

[ray schrauwen]

"You American Capatalist Pig! ", Lol... I'm with you! For now I'll stick with what you found to be the most efficient motor from the standard Socialist list. :bounce:

[RandyatBBY]

I really like the ideas of Mitch and Darin and kind of blend them. The real reason for the for keeping the production spec boats in the mix is to bring in the newbie to RC Boating. In our district we are talking about a Sports man class with in P LTD racing. This will help bring them in and give them a place to win at the same time. It will have the same rules basically but be on a district level only if it can be supported by newbie over the years.

This is my thought on how to run it. it is a P LTD Sportsman class to these hulls: Momo, Catamarans, OPC and sport hulls. No riggers allowed. Any one can run in the class until you have won for two year, at that point you you move up to P LTD classes that are not restricted. It would be good for seasoned vet to run in it to start it up but guys like me would not be allowed. I am sure others can be more articulate at pounding this out than I am. Just a thought.

[Coug90]

The one motor allowed is an example of people not wanting to put ANY thought into what they are competing with and just flat out want to be told. To me, that would be the full on "Dictatorial, or Fascist" way to go about this, but it definitely makes for a "spec" class.

And, in case you are wondering, yes, the political references were my attempts at joking around a bit, so don't get all bent out of shape, even it the references are dead-on true... :)
That's exactly what I'm saying. Thanks Darin, for the comments. I believe a spec motor class should be absolutely specific on the motor selection by rule. What is "dictated" is the motor. Do what you want with everything else or define what can be done with things that define the class, like hull type, what scale, prop, whatever. It simplifies the motor subject. It's not that we don't want to think, it's that we want the thinking done by those who govern the class. We have elected or appointed folks in NAMBA to do other things. Why not have group assigned to choose a spec motor for any spec motor class when needed? The real thinking of the membership would be deciding what the performance range, price range, and other goal to set for the best interest of the class. Isn't that why spec motor classes exist? I saw another thread somewhere about the "intent" of P-LTD, but I didn't read it yet. It may have to do with that issue. Define the intent first and foremost, then design a procedure to maintain that intent. There are other classes for those who want to think about their motor choices in some of their boats. In a spec motor class, you should be thinking about everything else except what motor to use. It's like the Pinewood Derby in Cub Scouts where you get the same official kit as everyone else, the rules set much of what you can add, but you have to use the stuff in the kit for the most part. You still get a really cool variety of cars and good, fun racing because there's still enough stuff you can mess with and you know everyone started at the same place with the same stuff. The difference in success was how they built and prepared their cars. I think it would make spec motor classes even better and easier to manage if a good motor selection process were proposed for the NAMBA rule book. Why not?

[zooma]

I don't believe that people are to lazy to think or do some research. I believe that the new or up-and-coming racers should not have to buy and try a half dozen motors just to find out what works.

[T.S.Davis]

I don't believe that people are to lazy to think or do some research. I believe that the new or up-and-coming racers should not have to buy and try a half dozen motors just to find out what works.'

They don't really have to if they would just listen. Most clubs have guys in them that have already tried all half dozen motors. You would be shocked how often you tell a new guy exactly what to do with a particular boat and then on race day they've gone a different direction. They're smarter, or read something on line, or some guy at the hobby shop said "this setup is better". Then when they burn it up they're frustrated. So are the guys trying to help him. Eventually you quit trying to help them.

[zooma]

'

They don't really have to if they would just listen. Most clubs have guys in them that have already tried all half dozen motors. You would be shocked how often you tell a new guy exactly what to do with a particular boat and then on race day they've gone a different direction. They're smarter, or read something on line, or some guy at the hobby shop said "this setup is better". Then when they burn it up they're frustrated. So are the guys trying to help him. Eventually you quit trying to help them.

Well, I see your point.

[Coug90]

After some serious thinking about what I think a spec motor class should be, I decided to forgo my proposal to add any more motors to the NAMBA spec motor list for 1/10th scale (or any spec motor class for that matter). This and many other conversations I read in the older threads on this subject have helped me. I know it frustrates the hell out of many people how things are done currently in NAMBA "spec" classes as it relates to motors, but I now believe it would add to the problems if more choices were added and get further away from how I believe spec motor classes should be managed. Maybe an inexpensive one motor (or possibly two verified same factory and design motors sold under different names) concept will never fly, but I'm not going to give up on it. I truly believe it's the best way to manage it long term if the class performance goals are initially well defined for a good baseline and NAMBA remain true to a technical, controlled process of testing for viable motor candidates for said class. As long as the final selection process is random, the class can't lose. There can be no brand loyalty or favoritism in a spec motor class run in this fashion. Maybe I should start working on that proposal for the future instead. It would take a serious commitment to do it. I think it would be time well spent if the intent is to find a way to maintain true spec motor classes into the future.

[TRUCKPULL]

Mitch

You had mentioned before, that NAMBA should look in to and come up with more choices, (or something along that line)

NAMBA - or the people in Voted positions have nothing to do with it.
We the members are the ones that get together on this Forum and maybe others and put together a proposal, that NAMBA buts out to all the members for a vote.

Larry

[Coug90]

Mitch

You had mentioned before, that NAMBA should look in to and come up with more choices, (or something along that line)

NAMBA - or the people in Voted positions have nothing to do with it.
We the members are the ones that get together on this Forum and maybe others and put together a proposal, that NAMBA buts out to all the members for a vote.

Larry

Thanks Larry. I understand that part, but I guess I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around what I've read in the NAMBA rulebook as to how rules get proposed and voted on. I contacted our district rep about a rule proposal and he asked me to provide proof that it had been voted on by my club and that it passed at that level. I since decided to forgo that proposal. I may have misunderstood what I read, but I thought you sent the proposal to the district rep so that it could be voted on at the district meeting to see if it can be sent on to the next level and eventually voted on at the national level. I'm generalizing of course, but is that the basic idea? What if a NAMBA member doesn't have a club and wants to make a proposal? The things I have been talking about changing in this thread is a process to be applied to spec motor classes and make them easier to maintain. It's a huge undertaking to sit down and put on paper and I wouldn't do it alone. I think it's worthwhile and might help break the cycle that I see in spec motor classes that seem to frustrate a lot of people who want to continue to run in them. I think I need to get with some of the folks like Darin Jordan and Jim Bickford who are used to dealing with NAMBA classes and have a history running and trying to manage spec motor classes and rule proposals. I think there may be a better way, but I have to go to school first to see how to go about starting a proper proposal. Can you guys share some knowledge and give a brother some insight?

[Doug Smock]

Ok Darin the A3630 is out of stock. Fix it please sir! :wink:

[rayzerdesigns]

are you talking dynamite doug?? and is that the 1800?? if so it has been discontinued for quite some time now...the 3835 which is the 1500 is still available

[Doug Smock]

I was looking at the Proboat 3630-1500 (DYNM3835) I think I have found one or two.

[Darin Jordan]

ok darin the a3630 is out of stock. Fix it please sir! :wink:

umph!!

[Brushless55]

Im sure i will duprise some people at nats in 2016 eith the 1500s.. Opened a few eyes in colorado this year.. Lol

I was impressed with how well those motors ran in your boats :thumbup1:

[Brushless55]

I don't know who you are talking too, but that's not true.

PSFEMBC has opened up the classes to some options, but they are examples like the TP3660-1950, or the Turnigy 3659-1900KV.

There may be guys trying other things, but if they do, they are generally running for no-points.

That's the first thought that came through my mind when he told me this

[Brushless55]

wish dynamite would bring back their 1800

is this the motor your talking about Ray ?

http://www.e-fliterc.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=DYNM3830

[JohnZ]

Since I haven't had the time to read through all the replies and after looking through the list of accepted P motors, does the list imply that if I use a Leo 3660, 2050 KV motor for my JAE 21 FE, would it or would it not be allowed? The motor has the same specs as the AQ.

[raptor347]

The Leo is not legal.

[Doby]

Since I haven't had the time to read through all the replies and after looking through the list of accepted P motors, does the list imply that if I use a Leo 3660, 2050 KV motor for my JAE 21 FE, would it or would it not be allowed? The motor has the same specs as the AQ.

Nothing else is legal other than whats listed in the NAMBA rule book.....any other motors discussed in this thread are just wishful thinking.

[Tamelesstgr]

Darin, would you please tell me that part number of the prop that gave around a 50 amp load? I need to do a similar simulation if a load so u can take amperage readings to calibrate my modified Eagletree datalogger.

[rayzerdesigns]

So who all here would be interested in a single manufacturer maybe 2 motors or 1.. Make it a true spec class??

[Steven Vaccaro]

Ray until everything is the same it won't be a spec class. Hulls esc motor props and hardware. Like Michigan runs their sv27 class.

[RandyatBBY]

So who all here would be interested in a single manufacturer maybe 2 motors or 1.. Make it a true spec class??

To make it a true spec class?? Motor and prop would do it, no mods to either. That is the best way to make it real evan. If you made it specified hull I would drop out, any hull would be my vote.

[Darin Jordan]

To make it a true spec class?? Motor and prop would do it, no mods to either. That is the best way to make it real evan. If you made it specified hull I would drop out, any hull would be my vote.

That's not a "SPEC" class. Like "Spec Miata", One car, One motor, etc...

I'm to the point where I'm ready to let P-LIMITED whither and go away, like LSO and LSH did. Too many arguments, too many complaints, too many different opinions on what is "right".

If someone wants to promote a "one-hull" class, like the Spec SV27, that's fine. I do NOT think it should, however, EVER be a "National" class. My reasons for that are likely similiar to why Randy would be against this: You'd be pushing "one-guy's" stuff on everyone, and the class would be at the mercy of that single manufacturer.

Great idea for CLUBs and "exhibition". TERRIBLE idea to wrap "National" rules around.

NOW, if someone wants to further discuss the concept of a "LIMITED" motor class, based on MOTOR SPECIFICATIONS, NOT MANUFACTURERS and PART NUMBERS... LET's talk...

"Any Motor not exceeding 36mmx61mm, 4-Pole"... Something like that. Forget worrying about KV, Motor Weight, etc... (all those things that are difficult or impossible to TECH)... If you want to try to run a 2500KV motor for 6-Laps in a 33" Mono... go for it...

When we get there... I'm all ears.

[RandyatBBY]

I think there should be one of the P LTD classes that is geared more towards entry. The Entry class is more to get new be's and less skilled a place to grow as always. This may be more important for the growth of clubs and Nationals. A super stock P LTD could have a more rock solid motor and esc but still limit the size of prop and it can be worked.

[properchopper]

Without drawing any conclusions, I'd like to (remind and) point out that within the context of these discussions that the NAMBA rules governing equipment specifications are ONLY mandatory for National level contests, be they Sprint, 2-Lap, or SAW. Most Club racing either [A] conforms exactly to the rulebook, or has their own looser interpretation (which I know occurs in L.A. Sprint Ovals) and I theenk in Randy's backyard - not that I have any problem with that for now. Here in L.A. we're lucky that some new blood from the IC ranks are getting into Ltd. racing but seem to be unschooled in NAMBA Ltd. restrictions which, for now, [B]aren't being monitored.** I know as of late that some HV packs are showing up at Club Sprint events(whether they're being upcharged or not hasn't been looked at yet) and I confess that some of my spare "spec" motors have been resuscitated with the dreaded motor wire shrink wrap retro-fix to keep them useable. Before putting me in front of the firing squad for such a dastardly crime know that, like a good little boy I actually (after being advised to do so by the NAMBA Police:angry:) filed 1/16" off the tips of my Cheetah before the last 2-Lap National Points event.

While it seems that limiting motor choice to one or two units would simplify and make monitoring easier the supply logistics are likely to be inconsistent enough to make this impractical.

P-Ltd as it exists now, be it NAMBA RULE PURE, or Club Interpretation Mod is helping racing at large. And YES I'm all for one-design racing AS WELL :thumbup1:

** Also note that a newbie that wants to get into P-Ltd Cat (the MOST popular class fairly universally) and chooses the quite promising PB BJ 29, he will have a motor NOT (unless I'm missing something - happens a lot:unsure:) that isn't (2000KV) on the NAMBA approved list. What to do ??

[properchopper]

I think there should be one of the P LTD classes that is geared more towards entry. The Entry class is more to get new be's and less skilled a place to grow as always. This may be more important for the growth of clubs and Nationals. A super stock P LTD could have a more rock solid motor and esc but still limit the size of prop and it can be worked.

YES !!!

Here the "Rookie" (gas) Class is for newbies who are just starting and don't have to race with the more experienced guys who will pretty much dominate and perhaps, most likely, discourage the newbie. Once the "Rookie Class" racer wins a certain amount he then transfers into the "regular" classes.

An FE "Entry Class", perhaps bone-stock to keep it easy and simple for the newbie would help grow things. Great Idea :thumbup1:

[Darin Jordan]

I think there should be one of the P LTD classes that is geared more towards entry. The Entry class is more to get new be's and less skilled a place to grow as always. This may be more important for the growth of clubs and Nationals. A super stock P LTD could have a more rock solid motor and esc but still limit the size of prop and it can be worked.


YES !!!

Here the "Rookie" (gas) Class is for newbies who are just starting and don't have to race with the more experienced guys who will pretty much dominate and perhaps, most likely, discourage the newbie. Once the "Rookie Class" racer wins a certain amount he then transfers into the "regular" classes.

An FE "Entry Class", perhaps bone-stock to keep it easy and simple for the newbie would help grow things. Great Idea :thumbup1:

I'm feeling very "Devil's Advocate" today, so I'll say this...

These sound like PERFECT "CLUB RACING" ideas... No National rules required.

Have you SEEN the number of people actually willing to travel, or attend, a "Nationals" these days? I have SERIOUS doubts that any "Newbie" oriented class is going to be bait to get someone to attend an event that would require a NATIONAL rule change to make the class happen.

NOW... as a local CLUB... Participation... THAT'S YOUR JOB!

Bring them up right, regardless of the classes offered, and they'll get the experience, and either learn to love, or to hate, racing. If they love it, then the Ken Haines' and Terry Davis' of the world are formed, and they'll move up to traveling to events, or even attending a local National, should that be an option.

Sorry to sound a bit down on P-LTD... you KNOW I think it's a good idea to have around, and having a common set of rules is also a VERY good thing. BUT, the hassle, bitterness, in-fighting, and general PITA of trying to maintain this type of class does little positive for the overall unity of our organization.

I'm all for you guys making your "one hull" classes, etc. I've been there, and loved that. I just think this is a function of the local clubs. The aim should be getting people involved, then moving them into already defined NAMBA classes, much like our Nitro friends have done.

[T.S.Davis]

Not sure how to take that? haha You mean super freaks?

Darin, you know I have a cure for what ales us but I'm just not ready for the drama. To say that Kens incident has really affected me doesn't quite cover it. Honestly it was Fede's response more so than Ken's. The way that the racing community responded made me very proud. If anything I'm even more focused on making our hobby better. Some things I was previously annoyed about seem of little relevance anymore.

I talked to a lot of people over the weekend about my idea and guys I thought would be pissed were Johnny on the spot with "I'm in!". We'll see. I'll talk to my gang of misfits about it for next season. Maybe I'll discuss it with a few other good sized clubs to see if they want to give it a go too. Nothing to life altering guys. Just maybe something that keeps us running what we own but also allowing new comers like Promarine in on the fun with a bit less hoop jumping.

[rayzerdesigns]

I don't agree on the one hull idea.. But also don't agree on one prop either.. But I do think to make it completely and totally fair there should be one motor or maybe two.. But same mfgr ..I'm sure there are companies that could keep up with the demand.. I don't think it needs to go any faster than the speeds we have now.. Maybe leopard or tp could keep up with the demand..I do like having a beginner class..something a person can come into out of shelf.. I would agree on cat or mono or even combined.. Anything to get new people to learn about racing.. But on national level I think p limited needs to be a spec motor from one maker.. Only way it's completely fair..again who actually travels to nationals these days..I also think the p limited records should go away until this happens.. Or completely..I myself love the p limited classes because that's where the most competition is.. Yes I love my faster boats and classes.. But I prefer to race with more competition than 3 or 4 other..these are my thoughts.. And I also have no problem writing up a proposal if warranted..and another thing.. I think there should absolutely be tech at a national event..yes they are fun.. And people are gonna cheat.. I got a fact know of some people in scale that are honing and recoating staters in spec motors and changing bearings.. Which by the way is illegal..why people want to cheat is beyond me.. But it's out there.. Again these are my opinions...hope to see you all at the races

[T.S.Davis]

I'm prepared to walk away from the P limited specification entirely. Replace it with something easier to deal with but also not full on open either. Like I said, it will need some proof of concept work.

[Doby]

Terry:

How many "p-limited" boats of various classes did you have this year at the cup?

[T.S.Davis]

I'm not sure. I'll dig into that later. All those boats would not be rendered irrelavent. Not interested in anyone junking their fleets.

[dethow]

I hear you Terry... and that's kinda what my thoughts were a long time ago in this thread. At that time is this discussion I was jumped by many for insinuating that everyone should just "junk their fleet". :hide:

I like the talk on just letting the local clubs manage their newbies with various classes they see fit to get people started and gain experience to enter the recognized (faster) classes. But I think there is a happy medium that still lets off the shelf have a place at Namba events but also simplify the issues as far as rules are concerned. :Praying:

I could see the national rules simply allowing for a P-Spec and a Q-Spec class. Single motor monos and cats run together. This would allow for many off the shelf boats to run in a class. No modifications allowed other than picking your batteries, prop and different tx/rx. Not even changing connectors would be allowed. But any part that a manufacture upgrades, a racer can upgrade to stay competitive with the same boat that is a model year newer. IOW... if Aquacraft puts a better ecs and/or motor in the Lucas Oil... older boats can be upgraded. But a Motley Crew can not change if the off the shelf boat as not changed.

These Spec boats should be purchased from any means which anyone has access to purchase the same if desired. And the boat should be RTR from the manufacturer, not a local hobby shop or any other supplier. IOW... a local hobby shop can't just start putting better motors/speedos in a boat and sell them as spec class boats just because anyone can buy them.

To me, the best thing about this… it MAY start to drive the manufactures to get more competitive. At first there may be a noticeably faster boat and thus will be the choice for the class. As other manufactures see this they may redesign to be more competitive and gain some sales back.
We’d never have to change the rules again. The class would be dictated by what the manufactures are putting out there.

If the manufactures step it up to much and start building open P boats than maybe we talk about a max prop size and pitch for each class as well. Not specific, just a max. Much like max battery sizes.

Two blade props only. P-Spec could have a max of 45mm and 1.4 pitch. Q-Spec could have a max of 50mm and 1.4 pitch. Material, rake, tongue and cupping can vary as long as those two maximums are not exceeded.

[madmikepags]

how bout "handout" motors like we used to do at car racing events? you pay extra for your limited entries and get a motor for each entry. The host club would make extra motors available in case of "boom" each motor is engraved so yo know everyone is running a handout motor.

[Darin Jordan]

One, very simple, very fair, and hassle-free change that would eliminate the need to revisit this topic again.


1) All current P-LTD motors would still be perfectly legal and competitive.
2) Tech'ing would be simply a matter of measuring the Diameter and Length per Figure ##.
3) Sizes shown are maximums. If you want to run 40mm motors, go run regular P. If you want to run a 28XX Leopard or something smaller than the allowable dimensions, have at it.
4) KV, Weight, number of poles, etc... who cares. If you know what you are doing, you'll know the limits. If you don't, you'll find them.
5) Inrunner? Outrunner? Who Cares. Pick your Poison.

When we get to this point, let me know.


144205

[T.S.Davis]

Yep, that's what Brian and I talked about. We even talked about not limiting the KV because doing so is a nuisance to tech. Sure it can be done but really the boats dictate the KV for heat racing. You can buy a 2500kv 36 mm motor and throw it in a Pursuit but it will bake or you wont finish.

For those thinking everyone will run out and equip their entire fleet with Neu motors. The 1415 is actually 36.5mm.

The cool thing about this idea (that's all it is at this point) is that everyone's existing fleet stays viable. If you burn up your AQ motor, get another, or go out and buy a $40 Turnigy that fits the dims. New boat manufacturers wouldn't have to get their motors tested and approved by some un-named tester. The motor fits the dims......it's in. If Aquacraft leaves the 2030 behind it doesn't matter. They can do so without any regard for it's impact on racing. Not that they would make a decision based on us. We all know better. If Promarine wants to offer a "ready to race" instead of a "ready to run" they look to the dimensions and they're in. Far be it for me to help PM but you get my point. More boats available is more gooder for the hobby.

I wanted to call it "P Light" or something and just not run P limited anymore. We could run and test it at clubs all over without forcing an immediate fleet flushing. Let the motors upgrade over time. Then clean the book up and get rid of some of the rot we don't run anymore. Get Ecco out of there. Crackerbox can go. You can still run that stuff but get it out of the book so nobody falls for a class that is completely underpopulated.

Stew on it some guys. It's still just another idea. I'd like to see us have an intelligent conversation about it instead of our typical finger pointing and name calling.

On a positive note.....I didn't see any motor melt downs in limited over the weekend. I could have missed some though. I was pretty busy.

[Fluid]

Our "club-spec" class is N-2 Sport hydro, been around for over 6 years. We originally spec'd one legal motor and handed out the props, but of course by now the original motor is no longer available. There was a 'comparable' replacement for awhile, but now there are no new motor options, forcing everyone to buy a new motor to be competitive.

IMO any single motor choice will require a change every few years, making the old motors obsolete. This is probably manageable on the club level, but a nightmare at the National level. Imagine the NAMBA "motor committee" having to decide on a replacement motor every few years! :scared:


.

[T.S.Davis]

ahhhh Yeah Jay, can you imagine the bickering over which motor to hand out for Mikies idea?

Then how do you do your testing and such for a handout motor? Someone still has to pick the brand/kv/size. The racers buy some for setup and such. Then there will be all the "These motors suck dude!" Wait! Let's just make Brian pick one. That will go over like a fart in church.

Dimensions.......done.

[dethow]

Dimensions sound easy...
I foresee a big time leap to everyone buying an $80 TP 3630 1950kv.
But you're right... there would also be many $40 to $50 motors from Leopard, Turnigy and others that would be competitive.

Only problem is, that I could also see Neu going down the road of building a motor that fits the rule. But I think the $80 TP will be able to compete with the $200 Neu motor. Yeah... the Neu will have a slight edge. Just as the existing $310 1521 Neu has a slight edge on a $120 TP 4060. Slight edge... Many classes were won at the MI Cup with TP motors.

But yes... Mike P's boats with Neu had a slight edge over the TP powered boats. Or that could just be that Mike's boats are set up better. Wink...Wink...

Bottom line is that a P boat can only go so fast and be in control. A TP can get a P boat to that edge. Bigger boats can handle more and thus those Neu motors show themselves more there.

Just what my Newbie eyes see... I may be wrong.

[Darin Jordan]

Just like with present P-LTD motor allowances, everyone has their "go-to" motors. Some discover them. Others follow those that did. But, one way, or the other, people end up finding motors they are happy running.

You can only make SOOO MUCH power from any motor. It's limited by several factors, but ultimately it's physical size limits the maximum power you will get. If you could somehow, magically, make a motor that is 100% efficient, that would define the ultimate power limit for a specific motor size. The differences between a Leopard vs. a TP vs. a Neu vs. a Turnigy vs. a SSS vs. a ??? is going to be quality of materials and efficiency.

Again, I say pick your poison and go race.

Someone, somewhere, is going to show up with a motor that is slightly better quality and will probably have a slight power advantage, at first, anyhow. Those that follow, well, will. Others might go try to find something even better. Ultimately, however, things are going to be fairly balanced, and defined, and no matter WHAT new version of a 36mm x 61mm motor becomes available, you will NEVER get more power out of it.

In the meantime, we've all been happily racing along, not arguing about heat-shrink, or bearings, or whether or not a motor has been opened up. We've not concerned ourselves with "in-line" production changes, part numbers, getting another motor approved, supply chains, or....

We've just raced and, hopefully, had a beer or two afterwards.

[T.S.Davis]

I'm finding more and more that you have to be able to drive the danged thing.

Example. Ty ran a $120 TP in P sport this passed weekend. I had to talk him out of lapping the guys that were running the Neu motors. It's all in the setup. I have a hotter Neu motor for P sport but driving it is really tough.

I doubt seriously that Steve would build motors just for us. He's got a bigger client base to keep happy than FE racers. We're not even a blip on the rc market radar.

[rayzerdesigns]

I'm in with the spec size.. Let guys run what they want kv then..I don't run what everyone else runs anyways.. What about limiting dpeedo to 120 amp??

[Rookieboater]

I have read every page of this discussion and believe that allowing a certain size motor is the best way to go. However looking at the NAMBA rules I believe, and I could be wrong, but every sanctioned race allows for this option.

P Limited rules as per the NAMBA Rulebook,

d. P-Limited Approved Motors
i) The motors shall be used as shipped from the manufacturer, with the
exception of creating a drive shaft flat spot, adding water cooling, and
allowing the motor to be connected to the ESC by any means.
ii) Currently approved motors
Brand Model Description
AquaCraft AQUG7000 L36/56 7.2-18V – 6 pole brushless
AQUG7001 36-56-2030 – 6 pole brushless
AQUG7002 36-56-1800 – 6 pole brushless
Himax HB3630 1500 brushless – 6 pole brushless
ProBoat PRB3310 A3630-1500 – 6 pole brushless
PRB4017 A3630-1800 – 6 pole brushless
DYNM3835 A3630-1500kv – 6 pole brushless,
water cooled, marine motor
DYNM3830 A3630-1800kv – 6 pole brushless,
water cooled, marine motor
iii) In addition, the CD has the discretion to allow the following:
(a) An aftermarket motor that is a re-labeled and exact copy of any
approved motor.
(b) Any generational change of an approved motor, or a motor that
is used in a Ready To Run (RTR) offering from a manufacturer
that produces over 100 units of said offering, as long as there is
no more than a 5% increase in any of the following
manufacturers specifications as compared to any single
approved motor: Kv, maximum constant amperage rating,
mass, and MSRP.
(c) The race flyer shall list additional allowed motors for the event

Seems to me you guys could just list a spec size at your local races, still be under NAMBA rules and see how it goes. If your local area likes the added motors then you could propose a more defined rule for it. Just advertise you are going to allow these motors at the race and your good to go.

Am I missing something here????

[Fluid]

Spec sizing would not follow the existing NAMBA rules. If TP had a motor the same size as a ProBoat A3650 it would not be legal under the rules, it is not equivalent (4 poles). It would also not be legal as it is not a generational change. A local CD listing a TP motor as legal does not meet NAMBA rules for all events, just that one.

There is no perfect answer. Size limits are probably the best, and the racers will find out which specific motor gives the best overall performance. What if that motor costs $200? Nothing is a perfect answer....


.

[Darin Jordan]

What about limiting dpeedo to 120 amp??

NO... unless you have a foolproof way to tech it...

[Darin Jordan]

What if that motor costs $200? Nothing is a perfect answer....


.

If a racer thinks they need to spend $200.00 on a motor to be competitive... more power to them.

That's what I think... :tiphat:

[Darin Jordan]

Just advertise you are going to allow these motors at the race and your good to go.

Am I missing something here????

Local clubs generally don't sanction their monthly or ?? races.

Either way... local clubs can already do whatever they generally want.

My thought above is in NO WAY an attempt to "fix" P-LTD... I would leave P-LTD exactly like it is... make NO changes to it for the long-term... No additions, etc... No further arguing necessary. ;)

The "P-LITE" thought would be an entirely different entity. It would ELIMINATE the need to specify ANY PARTICULAR motors... Define a MAX Length and Diameter.

Teching would be done with a go/nogo gauge or a pair of calipers. If you want to run an outrunner... fine... it still needs to fit into the 36mm x 61mm mold (by the way... these are approximate... might need to make them 36.3mm or something like that... but you get the point.)

P-LTD boats would still fit the mold... so they'd could competitively race the class as-is. Definitely just run it at a Club level initially. If it gains momentum, maybe take the next step.

My guess is that it would end up taking over P-LTD and P-LTD would go away. That would be ideal, honestly. People would NOT have to retool entire fleets, but now the options are opened up and the class would literally be a more limited performance version of "P" (Single vs. multi-motor, and drastically limited in motor size).

Seems like a solid way forward in my opinion.

[T.S.Davis]

Also, the NAMBA brass is under the impression that failure to comply with class rules "could" result in the loss of insurance coverage. They're wrong of course but this is why I was suggesting we just walk away from "limited" in favor of P Lite or what ever we call it.

If we call the classes "P limited" but allow non compliant motors.....by they're interpretation we're taking a risk. With P lite we would be running P classes with a self imposed limitation. Keeps the brass off or a$$es while clubs try it out.

[dethow]

Darin... I like it.
The simple fact is that no matter what change is made their will be a certain few that will oppose it. And I get that there will be some growing pains and minor problem the first year or two. But the end result of the measurements only idea will be the best long term fix that will adjust itself out over a couple race seasons.

I personally would prefer to just replace "Limited" with this "Lite", but I can see the thought process of just adding "Lite" and letting "Limited" just die off on its own by either people sick of burning up those motors or lack of supply for one reason or another.

[Steven Vaccaro]

This will not stop people from burning up motors. But will allow a greater range of motors. Could be good, could be bad. Racing this past weekend you could see that many of the boats were similar in speed, the better drivers won.

[Doby]

This will not stop people from burning up motors. But will allow a greater range of motors. Could be good, could be bad. Racing this past weekend you could see that many of the boats were similar in speed, the better drivers won.

Wow..imagine that...you need to be able to drive...who wudda thunk dat??????:beerchug:

[Steven Vaccaro]

I hope you understood what I was getting at. It's wasnt an arms race, and it wasn't who spent the most money.

[Doby]

I hope you understood what I was getting at. It's wasnt an arms race, and it wasn't who spent the most money.

I get it totally Steve...agree with you 100%.

[Darin Jordan]

I hope you understood what I was getting at. It's wasnt an arms race, and it wasn't who spent the most money.

I get that... But I think one would find, in this case, that it wouldn't have to be an "arms race"... If someone thinks they need a $200.00 motor to compete, who am I to stop them. Do I think my choice of motor, which may only cost me $100.00, will be a disadvantage? Nope... To each their own. I just don't think that there is THAT much advantage to be gained there.

And, Steven is absolutely right about not keeping people from "burning things up"... That's going to happen regardless of what we do, short of spec'ing an entire boat system (hull, motor, prop, esc, etc... the "one hull" idea).

As for the "Lite" vs. "Limited" thing... the "Limited" part still applies... Motors are being limited, both in number and physical size. Heck, I wouldn't even change the name... Change one box in the rules and add one figure and it's done. :)

Just trying to keep things simple... (with NAMBA rules??? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA..... that's funny right there. :hide: )

[ray schrauwen]

Local clubs generally don't sanction their monthly or ?? races.

Either way... local clubs can already do whatever they generally want.

My thought above is in NO WAY attempt to "fix" P-LTD... I would leave P-LTD exactly like it is... make NO changes to it for the long-term... No additions, etc... No further arguing necessary. ;)

The "P-LITE" thought would be an entirely different entity. It would ELIMINATE the need to specify ANY PARTICULAR motors... Define a MAX Length and Diameter.

Teching would be done with a go/nogo gauge or a pair of calipers. If you want to run an outrunner... fine... it still needs to fit into the 36mm x 61mm mold (by the way... these are approximate... might need to make them 36.3mm or something like that... but you get the point.)

P-LTD boats would still fit the mold... so they'd could competitively race the class as-is. Definitely just run it at a Club level initially. If it gains momentum, maybe take the next step.

My guess is that it would end up taking over P-LTD and P-LTD would go away. That would be ideal, honestly. People would NOT have to retool entire fleets, but now the options are opened up and the class would literally be a more limited performance version of "P" (Single vs. multi-motor, and drastically limited in motor size).

Seems like a solid way forward in my opinion.

I sort of like it too. What I like better is what some Quebec clubs went to for P sport, or lite??

What they did was chose the Leopard 3674, 2200kv boat motor, HW120 or 180 esc and one 4s pack of 6000mah'ish.

They are right in between p sport and p Ltd. They run the snot out of them and since Canada pays a premium for anything hobby related, it's more economical than both p sport or p Ltd.

These are their club rules and it's also very close to the Aussie style setups/rules.

Americans make up a large majority of all the FE runners out there and since they have more buying power, they seem to gravitate to the most HP that can be stuffed into a hull. I've done this in the past I've decided to scale back.

I'm merely rambling. Limited class racing I like, I'd just like more consistent motor supplies/parity that gets annoying when you hear xx changed manufacturers, etc, bla bla... I don't like paying top dollar for a spec motor if they just changed the motor to some cheaper faster blowing fuse, that's annoying!

[rayzerdesigns]

Ray not to bust ur chops but a 36x74 leopard is way stronger than any p limited motor..but again I think the idea of sizing would be great.. Seems to be the consensus here.. Darin I think is going to measure a couple motors as will I.. But 36.x50 is prob close

[Darin Jordan]

But 36.x50 is prob close

The 36x50 motors I tested were quite a bit LESS powerful than the present P-LTD bunch, but I think that's partially because they are all 4-Pole. vs. 6.

[Darin Jordan]

Darin I think is going to measure a couple motors as will I..

I measured up several of the motors I have available here at home. The results are below.

NOTE: All of these are motors I would feel very comfortable with having fit into the "P-LITE" class.

Of these, the largest Diameter is 36.3712mm (Pro Boat Dynamite 1800) and the longest Length is 61.1378mm (SSS 3660 2050KV)

144229

[T.S.Davis]

61.1378mm (SSS 3660 2050KV)

Is that the new Promarine motor? I think that one should be legal too.

[Darin Jordan]

Is that the new Promarine motor? I think that one should be legal too.

I don't have one here to measure, but I believe it is NOT... I can't recall exactly, but the Pro Marine motor I tested may have only been 58mm long... The one I listed here was a TP 3660-2050KV 4-Pole. The Pro Marine I think is a 3656 or 3659-2050KV 6-Pole.

Either way... if the sizes are defined correctly (as they would be :) ), it would fit.

[dethow]

So it seems your current proposal is to leave current "P-Limited" alone and add a whole new set of classes called (maybe) "P-lite".

Will this cause any problems at National events with many new classes? P-Lite Mono, P-Lite Cat, P-Lite Sport Hydro, P-Lite Hydro, P-Lite Offshore...
IOW... Will there be enough time in a weekend to run this many new classes?

I understand the desire to not rock the boat by leaving current P-limited alone, but doesn't this proposal create a whole new problem of too many classes for an event? And two classes "P-Limited" and "P-Lite" being so close together in terms of speed is ridiculous.

I feel that these measurements should just go ahead and be implemented as the new "P-Limited" motor rules. Let the local clubs set their own rules to stick with only certain motors if they want. But at National events all motors fitting the measurements should be allowed in "P-Limited".

IOW... LOVE the measurements idea, HATE the creating of a whole new set of classes.

Change the text in that box and add the measurements image... DONE

[T.S.Davis]

I hear ya Dave but if this works like I think it will it will be like we pulled the plug out of the wall on limited. Nobody will be running them.

It's not really a proposal at this point anyway. It's more of a "hey, what if we tried this?"

If at some point this proves successful it's time to flush some crap out of the book. We've never done this by the way. I would be comfortable myself with archiving some classes. Honestly, I see know point in there being any 2s classes in the book. I have a half dozen 2s boats but they make no sense in 2016. I can go the same speed on the 4s1p instead of 2s2p with a cheaper motor and speedo. That may be just me though. I discourage people from 2s because it's hard to go fast there.

[T.S.Davis]

Although.......Dave may have a point. I'm not hearing a bunch of hand wringing over this like I thought we would. Maybe we just run it with the understanding that the future is to replace limited with lite.

If in the end we find our idea just sucks we do nothing.

[dethow]

...but if this works like I think it will it will be like we pulled the plug out of the wall on limited. Nobody will be running them.

And I think that's my point...
We are getting all worried about leaving P-Limited alone so we don't have people crying. But in the end no one will be running them anyway once they have access to better and in some cases cheaper motors. So why even leave this set of classes in the book? Why make it so Nationals needs to include "P-Limited" classes AND "P-Lite" classes?

Guarantee that anyone with a "P-Limited" boat will run it in "P-Lite" as well... and be competitive.
Hell, Marc (HobbyMaster) won a heat of 'P-Sport Hydro' with his 'P-Limited Sport Hydro' Aquacraft UL-1 at Michigan Cup.

So what are we doing here? Lets' just get real and replace the motor list with motor dimensions. :beerchug:

[Darin Jordan]

We are getting all worried about leaving P-Limited alone so we don't have people crying.

I'm not worried about that. NOt sure who "We" is referring too, but it's not something I'm concerned with, since this present discussion wouldn't obsolete anyone's present investment. The way it's being discussed, P-LIMITED boats would drop right into P-LITE, and, frankly, would still be quite competitive there.

Like Terry said, all this is just tossing ideas around at this moment. I just like to put things down into "picture" form so people can discuss the ideas based on how they'll ACTUALLY look on "paper". Hopefully keeps the fear-mongering concerning those "magic motors" out there from coming up too much.

I've tested probably harder than most regarding gathering raw data for power systems, and from what I can tell... you limit the physical size of the system, and you ultimately limit the performance potential of the system. There will be good options and not-as-good options, but ultimately, they can only put out SO much power. I just don't see the "arms race" that others might, based on the facts and data I've studied.

[ray schrauwen]

Ray not to bust ur chops but a 36x74 leopard is way stronger than any p limited motor..but again I think the idea of sizing would be great.. Seems to be the consensus here.. Darin I think is going to measure a couple motors as will I.. But 36.x50 is prob close

I know, I was just rambling about what other places are doing. Not many people care about my silly posts anyway.

[dethow]

So is the "possible" proposal to leave current "P-Limited" alone and add a whole new set of classes called (maybe) "P-lite"?
Or... is it to eliminate "P-Limited" and make a new class called "P-Lite"?

And "We" is referring to the people in this thread that like the measurements idea. Your measurements idea goes back to the very first post you made Darin. But several times in this thread, when someone started crying about their fleet being eliminated and/or having to buy all new motors you/we have started pulling back to the list idea and only including motors that are more reasonably similar to the current list.

[Darin Jordan]

So is the "possible" proposal to leave current "P-Limited" alone and add a whole new set of classes called (maybe) "P-lite"?
Or... is it to eliminate "P-Limited" and make a new class called "P-Lite"?

Not sure at this point.

Were it up to me... I wouldn't even change the name. I'd simple change the wording of the rules to implement the "Lite" idea. Truly what would be happening is that you'd be "limiting" the size of the motor allowed, just still running them on 4S. Hence, P-Limited. :)

[Doby]

As P-Limited fit in to the P-Lite, no-ones current boats should be eliminated. Its basically a non-issue.

[dethow]

Personally... I think the only reason NAMBA should need to get away from the "list" and go with measurements is that NAMBA should NOT be dictating certain manufactures to racers. If I were TP Power, Leopard and others... I'd be upset that NAMBA has specifically cut them out of multiple racing classes.

[dethow]

Were it up to me... I wouldn't even change the name.

Okay, and that's where I'm at.
Leave the name, change the list of motors to measurements and add the diagram to show how measurements are taken.

Has been said several times... current P-Limited boats still fit and thus no ones boat is eliminated.

[T.S.Davis]

If I were TP Power, Leopard and others... I'd be upset that NAMBA has specifically cut them out of multiple racing classes.

It's hard to imagine but back in the day when we cooked that limited turd up there was no TP or Leapord motors. Brushless motors then were basically Hacker, Fiegao, and Lehner and that was about it. All of those 2 pole. We were looking for a replacement then for 700 brushed motors. We used the blue 1700kv motors from the original SV and the 1500kv grey motors from the original blackcrap cat. We didn't specifically exclude them. It wasn't deliberate is what I'm saying.

What we produced was a great spec for a number of years but with a shelf life. Newland and I have talked about that before. It held up longer than we thought it would.

Roll forward "x" number of years and we have just what Dave described. Exclusion. We're in effect keeping out new players like a Promarine for example. I keep coming back to Mike just because he's the newest guy to the market. Most know we have our differences but he should be able to produce something legal without some sort of divine intervention.

[dethow]

Yeah.. I understand it wasn't specifically done to exclude them. They didn't exist at the time.
I just saying that beside the various problems with the current list... the now existing exclusion should be enough reason to make a change.

And this measurements idea is the best way to make a change that should last the test of time allowing all current and future manufactures in if they fit the measurements.

[Darin Jordan]

And this measurements idea is the best way to make a change that should last the test of time allowing all current and future manufactures in if they fit the measurements.

And, absolute in interpretation and implementation when it comes to teching... GO/NOGO... Done.

[dethow]

And, absolute in interpretation and implementation when it comes to teching... GO/NOGO... Done.

:iagree: :hug1: So... how do we get this done, instead of going on for another 25 pages about it? :sarcasm1: LOL

[rayzerdesigns]

I'm thinking we need to write a proposal for the rule change

[madmikepags]

get er done

[Fluid]

.....If I were TP Power, Leopard and others... I'd be upset that NAMBA has specifically cut them out of multiple racing classes.
I think that those motor companies don't give a hoot about what a few dozen NAMBA Limited racers use to power their boats. Split this rather tiny market among three or four motor makers and it's nothing. Why are we worried about hurting their feelings? We should be worried about keeping the class viable.

There are a lot of things wrong with a measurement-only motor limitation, but I too believe that it is the least evil of the proposed motor limits. Maybe have a 1P limitation too.

I suggest that clubs start using this motor spec right now, so that we can make a rules proposal next year.



.

[TRUCKPULL]

I think that those motor companies don't give a hoot about what a few dozen NAMBA Limited racers use to power their boats. Split this rather tiny market among three or four motor makers and it's nothing. Why are we worried about hurting their feelings? We should be worried about keeping the class viable.

There are a lot of things wrong with a measurement-only motor limitation, but I too believe that it is the least evil of the proposed motor limits. Maybe have a 1P limitation too.

I suggest that clubs start using this motor spec right now, so that we can make a rules proposal next year..

Jay
A 1P Limit will not work in "P" Spec Offshore - 4 Min. race.

Also a lot of boats that are already built and being used right now are setup for 4S -2P for weight and balance.

Larry

[Doby]

Jay
A 1P Limit will not work in "P" Spec Offshore - 4 Min. race.

Also a lot of boats that are already built and being used right now are setup for 4S -2P for weight and balance.

Larry

You do not need 2P to finish a 4 minute offshore heat.

[TRUCKPULL]

You do not need 2P to finish a 4 minute offshore heat.

No you do-not if you want to buy all new batteries 8,000 mAmp. then destroy them running them down to 10% all the time.

Then your weight and balance will be all messed up also.

The race is 4 min., 1 full lap for the start, then bring it in.
In IMPBA it is also 1 full lap cool down.

So you have to be prepared to run about 5 Min.++

Larry

[Fluid]

Jay
A 1P Limit will not work in "P" Spec Offshore - 4 Min. race....
Of course it will work, it just requires the racer to actually test his boat to make certain he can finish with some battery left. The boats might be slightly slower, but isn't that the point of Limited classes? At the Michigan Cup there was just a 2 lap difference between P and P Limited Offshore, some PL boats actually did better than some P boats. Geeze, you don't need to buy 8325 mAh cells! 1P/5000 mAh limit...and 1P cuts battery costs in half.

As for those with "boats being built", all they need to do is use balast instead of a second pack. Why is the concept so difficult to understand? I guess too much change at once is just too challenging for some folks...no offense to anyone intended.

I really don't care about 1P or 2P, I doubt I'll be racing Limited boats anymore. But I wonder if all we do is change to more powerful motors, how much difference will there really be between P and "P-Lite"? Just look at the Offshore classes at the Cup to see how close they are now.


.

[TRUCKPULL]

Jay you are looking at total laps after three heats.
The full "P" boats are a lot faster therefore harder to drive.
One cut buoy is a full lap deduction.

"P" spec are easier to drive therefore the total lap count is higher in respective.

You did not comment on the 5+ Min. needed for IMPBA Offshore.

Larry

[JimClark]

Am I correct in my summation of this thread?
The classes affected would be:
P Limited Sport Hydro
P Limited Catamaran
P Limited OPC Tunnel
P Limited Hydro (rigger)
P Limited Mono
P Limited Offshore
The motors would be measured by diameter and length only.
Would it matter on the pole number (4 or 6)?
And 4s lipos