P-Spec Motors

[Ub Hauled]

WHAT AM I MISSING

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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


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

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

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

[Steven Vaccaro]

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Hydromaniac]

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

[Steven Vaccaro]

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

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

[Ub Hauled]

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

[Greg Schweers]

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RandyatBBY]

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

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

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

[Doug Smock]

CHICKEN!!

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

Doug

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

Doug

I know... just razzin' ya... stay out if you can!!

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

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

[Greg Schweers]

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

[Ub Hauled]

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

12 and 13L you say?

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

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

[Doug Smock]

It took some work but here it is.

[D. Newland]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

I think we've accomplished both.

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

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

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

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

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

Just Sayin'....

[Doug Smock]

David, Darin, Thanks!

[RandyatBBY]

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

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

I think we've accomplished both.

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

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

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

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

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

Just Sayin'....

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

[Greg Schweers]

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

[RandyatBBY]

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

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

I hope that makes sence.

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

[Darin Jordan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[teach]

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

[Darin Jordan]

We had that... Not sure anymore.

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

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

[raptor347]

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

[teach]

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

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

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

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

[raptor347]

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

From section 6 A of the NAMBA rule book.

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

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

[teach]

From section 6 A of the NAMBA rule book.

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

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

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

[ozzie-crawl]

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

[bigwaveohs]

We had that... Not sure anymore.

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

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

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