P-Spec Motors

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bigwaveohs]

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

[properchopper]

Darin,

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ub Hauled]

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

746W = 1HP...

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

[Ub Hauled]

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

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

[ozzie-crawl]

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

[Ub Hauled]

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

[ozzie-crawl]

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

[Greg Schweers]

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

[Scott T]

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

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

[Fluid]

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

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



.

[Steven Vaccaro]

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

[Norman2]

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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



.

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

[T.S.Davis]

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

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

As Terry eluded to, here is my motivation:

P-Spec Power Specifications

1) Motor Specifications

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


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


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

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


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

[properchopper]

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

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

[sailr]

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

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

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

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

[sailr]

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

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

What they put our depends on the volts and amps.

... and EFFICIENCY....

[sailr]

Yep, and efficiency.

... and EFFICIENCY....

[Hydromaniac]

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

[Doug Smock]

[Darin Jordan]

CHICKEN!!