NAMBA P-Ltd Motor discussion

[Shooter]

a spec class always involves pushing the limiting factor to the edge of disaster. This will happen regardless of what motor is chosen.

yes.

[Darin Jordan]

Actually, if they had included the rating on the motors in their literature then 60 amps would have been the law.

As it was, we allowed the PB motors without ever knowing what they were rated for.

You guys have really lost sight of the facts here.... AQ and PB motors DEFINE this class. The motors ARE the class. The class didn't "allow" the motors.

[Brushless55]

edit....

[RandyatBBY]

Darin When I first previewed the class in 2008 Nats the reason was price of motor and a decent amount of power at that price. There was not Leopard's on the market. If we as racers were to change it up in the district....all the better, Doug just might come up with cost savings. Nothing is written in stone, we as a group can make it what ever we want.

[Brushless55]

Darin When I first previewed the class in 2008 Nats the reason was price of motor and a decent amount of power at that price. There was not Leopard's on the market. If we as racers were to change it up in the district....all the better, Doug just might come up with cost savings. Nothing is written in stone, we as a group can make it what ever we want.

is that the thread of the TP motors ??
I'm wanting to try one in my P-ltd hydro

[RandyatBBY]

David N...

IF' AquaCraft was to update the 2030 for more durability would it have to be re-certified (if that's the process) for NAMBA Spec class racing.

Thanks in advance.

Grim

Now this is what I am looking for. make it and we will buy it. I applaud YOU!

[T.S.Davis]

You guys have really lost sight of the facts here.... AQ and PB motors DEFINE this class. The motors ARE the class. The class didn't "allow" the motors.

Without the rule set there is no class though. It's just a bunch of like minds getting together. The trouble is the specs on the motors are smoke and mirrors... haha Sorry bad choice of word. How about an illusion? Even if PB had put a rating on their motors it might not have been based on the same test procedure that AQ uses, or Neu, or Leapord, or TP. I don't believe there is a standard. Would be cool of such a thing did exist. A "Brushless Motor Rating standard".

Now that the Dynamite motors are history we'll want/need to add some motors somehow. How to match? IDK Might just come down to get close and hope for the best.

A club can still do exactly what Doug's gang is doing. Find something sane and make it their club spec. Then if it works share the findings. That's how the limited classes came to exist. That's how any class comes to be.

Is nobody going to ask? Mike, how are the motors being updated? I remember we exchanged some ideas last winter but I'm sure some of my ideas were less than practical.

[Grimracer]

I will be out of the shop for a few days getting my "sanity on" (the Indy Masters of Hobart).. No motor bitching at that race…. (it’s a piston race)
After that I will post up the changes with pictures.
So you know some of the changes were changes that FE races were asking for, others necessary dew to unforeseen changes.
Also just to clear this up.. the color of the anodizing means nothing more than the color is different. It does not mean a generation change or.. slower.. or faster or… whatever..
And to Doug,
The information tower sales associates have on any product they sell are the same information you see in the “notes” in the bottom of the product page. You can also see “product status” on the bar to the right. You have the same info they have..(well besides personal information that they “of course” cannot release).
That’s all I know about Tower (Im not even in that building).. Except the cat that heads it up is a really nice guy and works his tail off trying to manage all those people and products..

Update and pics when I get back..
Grim

[Darin Jordan]

I don't believe there is a standard. Would be cool of such a thing did exist. A "Brushless Motor Rating standard".

Good Luck with that one, my friend. Would just add cost to the motors anyhow!

As has been mentioned in this thread a couple of times now, we're a pretty small group. These manufactures aren't going to change their ways for NAMBA or IMPBA or model boating in general. AND, our organizations are pretty limited on resources, so developing and maintaining one on our own may not be feasible.

So, what do you do?

One would think by now that we should know, especially one with some experience in the area of testing these motors, that worrying about "spec'd amps", "rated watts", or even "spec'd KV", is really kind of a waste of time, given motors that are identical dimensions, weights, number of poles, rotor/stator lengths, etc. You are only going to get a limited amount of power out of the package. You might do it with KV, or with torque, but either way, the final output is going to be about the same. And without more mass, a different number of poles, more windings (=more weight), longer rotors and stators, etc., well... that's it. Watts is Watts.

Internal differences, such as magnet shapes, etc., are really NOT going to be controllable, able to be specified, etc. They are what they are.

All of the dimensions I mentioned above are easily measurable/comparable.

Our current P-LTD rules are setup around motors that are fairly equal in the measurements and standards that count. Even the can length (56mm for AQ vs. 50mm for the PB/DYN offerings) are negligible and insignificant, since the rotors and stators measure to be the same length. AQ just has/had (The last batch of PB/DYN motors increased the can length to 56mm) more room for the wires exiting the can.

I think I would start any power system discussion by finding a list of motors in the appropriate/desired KVs that meet these very basic dimensions.

If you start altering pole counts, then I suspect some kind of allowance or ??? is going to have to be discovered that will keep things similar.

Obviously, some actual testing of the proposed motors would need to take place.

[T.S.Davis]

Darin, we're actually trying to find some 50mm TFL motors as we think the 60mm version is/has TOO much potential.

Mass, dims, KV, mass produced and distributed in RTR's? Should get us close in theory.

A 3650 Leopard might be close too but it isn't available in an RTR which is still part of the equation in my opinion. Same problem with the TP 3630 10D. Too much potential. Plus that exceeds the 5% size increase and isn't available in an RTR. A Neu would be like taking gun to a stick fight IMO. You could push that till the flex shaft breaks. Plus no RTR distribution.

Darin, see if PB is interested in the SSS or Leopard motors. Known quantities and would save a ton of headache.

[Darin Jordan]

...but it isn't available in an RTR which is still part of the equation in my opinion.

While I share your opinion on this, it does make you wonder about the last of the 3 options on that listing in the rules:

(c) The race flyer shall list additional allowed motors for the event.

I'm sure we don't need to get into "rule lawyer-ing", but the way that rule is written, a), b), and c) are three separate and distinct options for:

iii) In addition, the CD has the discretion to allow the following:

In other words... the CD may allow the following: a), b), and/or c)...

Am I correct or off base on this? Hmmmmm....

[D. Newland]

Darin, you're exactly right. That rule verbage is only for motors to be allowed to race that aren't on the "approved" list. I put it there to help get a motor "legal" while we worked through the actual rule proposal to get it on the list.

Terry-Your district can propose a Neu 1527 1D to the P-Ltd Motor list in the next NAMBA Propwash, if you think it's a good idea. it will ruin the class, IMO, but you guys can do it. And, I'm using the 1527 as an extreme example.

ANY motor that gets proposed better be vetted. There are just as many that will leave P-Ltd racing if the rule is changed as there are threatening to leave if nothing gets done. Please understand that.

As I've stated many times, I don't feel P-Ltd needs a motor list change right now.

And, we went with our gut, as well as some simple parameters, regarding the current motor list. Weight, size, Kv, and what we were seeing on the water. We didn't dive into the Manufacturers specs to see if they should make the list, or not, for the reasons stated earlier in this thread.

[T.S.Davis]

Dave, I get it. The motor we're looking at isn't some power monster that would offset the class to pieces. I'm out on a limb suggesting it would become an RTR offering. I can suggest all I want but if the numbers don't jive it wont happen no matter what I think.

I should have thrown "reasonably priced" in my other post. Size, weight, KV, available RTR, and price.

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, you're exactly right.

Well... THAT sure doesn't happen very often! Don't let my wife know!

As I've stated many times, I don't feel P-Ltd needs a motor list change right now.

I don't think so either (not sure if that's clear from my postings)... I'm certain that additional motors will become available naturally over time anyhow, which may exercise part b) of the rule.

I don't think it hurts, however, to have some groups/clubs do some testing just to see what future options might be available/viable. Seems prudent.

I do think it's a mistake, however, for clubs to start venturing off in distinctly different directions from a "let's all race together" standpoint (Nationals, etc.), but those only happen once a year, so it's probably not that important for the overall hobby.

[R.J.S]

Darin,don't think anyone has asked and I was just wondering...what motor is PB putting in IM31's and BJ29's these days?