Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 791

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    So does anyone really care to argue with the reasoning Darin has listed? It sounds just about a simple as it can get, excludes no manufactures and gives everyone options to tune their boats with.

    Its about as common sense as it can be without overly complicating things.

    Well stated Darin.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    I'm sorry, I forgot one more thing:


    Proposed P-Limited Motor Specs:


    MAX Motor Dimensions: 36mm Diameter x 60mm Length without water jacket
    Maximum Weight: 260 Grams without water jacket (Include contacts??)
    Poles: 4 or 6 poles allowed
    Max KV: 2050
    SENSORLESS, FIXED Timing motors only. No Sensored motors allowed.


    I would NOT allow sensored motors or adjustable end-bell timing. Both, easily verified.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    or
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    I'm in, who wants to write the proposal?
    Brian "Snowman" Buaas
    Team Castle Creations
    NAMBA FE Chairman

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    We did this with N2 Sport at the club level. 2 pole, max kV, max can size. It worked. Sort of. Until some of us found Lehner motors that fit the spec. Tough to compete with a Lehner when youre running a $50 Fiegao. We just got tired of high amp boats that were hard to finish with.

    I would love to know how this "intimidation" thing works and who the "NAMBA brass" is. Is that Robert Holland or maybe Fred? He's the only FE guy I know that sits on the BOD.
    Noisy person

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Neither organization is built to make rules by commity. How would you choose the panel of experts? Appointment? Election? Straws?

    I'll think on Darin's idea. Does it need an MSRP limit as well?

    I do dread the thought of KV checking a 100 or more entries at a race.
    Noisy person

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    or
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    I just like the fact that it silences the poor quality complaints and removes any manufacturer ties. Those are the two common complaints that have been the load stones of this debate.

    The RTR manufacturers are beginning to install motors that fall outside the existing rules, so they may not be in the picture for long anyway.

    Run what ever level of quality you want as long as it fits the specs. Motors can come in and out of production and it won't matter, move on to the next motor that's within spec. No seasonal debates, no changing part numbers, no board of motor experts.
    Brian "Snowman" Buaas
    Team Castle Creations
    NAMBA FE Chairman

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    or
    Posts
    1,088

    Default

    Put a $150 cap on them. That keeps the Lehners, Neus, Hackers, Kontroniks, Megas etc. out of the mix but allows just about any asian alternative you'd care to run.
    Brian "Snowman" Buaas
    Team Castle Creations
    NAMBA FE Chairman

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    its funny that everyone has a different opinion on this subject.i do think there are variables to just havng a can size limit..though I do agree with being sensorless only...again its going to come down to the fact we are going to push the limits on any approved motor..dougs variable included..obviously there is a concern..but what happens when this comes up again because we are burning up those motors..some are going to be better than others..i don't agree at all with a spec prop..that wont work on every hull..and different limited classes..i agree with tyler on the fact that it can be limited through a amp draw,,say 75 amp..but that also has its drawbacks..i have been doing a lot of testing this year..and have stepped away from the 2030s..not that I didn't like them..but I have exclusively gone the way of the dynamite 1500s..and those that have seen my boats wont think they are slow..i have on average picked up 2 to 5 mph over my 2030 setups..and at nats this year had 2 boats thar came in repeatably over 150 degrees..no burnt wires or anything..but enough of that rant..i don't agree with a 150 dollar or even a 100 dollar price..we all need to maybe sit down and figure it out..and again..it will never change unless it is submitted and voted on..i myself have no problem with the current selection of approved motors..and yes..i have tested dougs tp suggestion..all of the bickering is killing and dividing us..lets remember these are a hobby and we are racing for fun and or trophies..except maybe the few who might make money doing this..that being said..hope to see you all at a pond someday..lets race

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    oh..and the kv limit..would that be rated..or tested..we all know the aq 2030 is no where near a 2030..ive never tested one over 1965..

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    wi
    Posts
    232

    Default

    In my opinion the KV needs to be lower. That is one of the reasons I think Darin could have helped testing the TP motor. The aquacrat motor is a lot lower then the 2030 it claims. The TP appears to be close to what is stated. The boats are on the edge now because of length limits. If you add another 1,000 rpm you will only separate the ready to run and new people even further. As it is now getting nitro cross overs is difficult because of the speed now. Doug got his p spec combined with nitro 40 to make a class run and he lapped them on a long course, they were not scrub racers either.
    I try and avoid paste eaters.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    KV tech on site. Ughhhhhhhhh.

    Adding to Jeff's point......motors are rated different by each maker. Lehener rates under load. So when your looking for a motor to fit you have to make sure. Joe new guy will show up with some random, get it wrong, now he's pissed and the rule mongers are the problem.

    Pretty sure Darin picked 2050 so that the 2030 could stay legal forever but if you checked it to fit for instance a 2k rating it would still be legal.

    I'm not running any 2030 motors anymore either. All 1800's with bigger blades in the drink.

    Ray, are you thinking lower $ threshold?
    Noisy person

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    842

    Default

    It has been reported that the actual KV of the 2030 is between 1925 and 1965. The engineer at TP told me the 3630 1950 actual KV is 1950 +/- .25. Now you want to include motors with manufacturer "printed" KV specs of 2050. Good golly.

    All you guy's thought the TP motor would upset the apple cart. Didn't happen. Won't happen. More Clubs are seeing the value.

    Allowing a higher "actual KV" is a guaranteed train wreck. Have at it.
    Doug Peterson
    IMPBA 19993
    www.badgerboaters.com

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    634

    Default

    How are you guys measuring actual kv? For example, I have used the "drill press" method to measure AC current and plug into a formula. I often get close to the manufacturer's rating, but not on the mark. I also have a Hobby King RPM/KV meter, but it is wildly inaccurate, off by hundreds, even when set for the correct number of poles.

    So, what kind of method and equipment would produce accurate results?

    BTW - The drill press method showed my AQ 2030 at 1979kv.
    Ron - The Villages, FL

    https://castawaysboatworx.org/

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    People arguing about a few KV here and there...who cares....pretty sure Darin just picked the 2050 max as a suggestion for a good place to start for a max kv rating. People want to run a max KV allowable motor...go for it...better make sure your boat is set up and tuned for it ...if not ..boom...but again, if someone fries motors its a good way for them to learn that maybe higher kv doesn't always win races...I like the 1800 AQ motors (for now) in my cats and monos.. Beat a lot of 2030 motors at the Cup this year....just saying...just bragging...

    Peterson...you should be happy, this thread actually shows promise of spec motors expanding to allow more selection...something you wanted all along...

    Don't worry...be happy

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    I also have a bit of a chuckle about the KV testers.....has anybody calibrated one of these to actually see if they are accurate??

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    9,384

    Default

    Not true. Neu as I've pointed out has had a 36mm x 58mm 1850 kv motor selling for $50 US for over a year. Falls within specs of other motors mentioned.

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



    Quote Originally Posted by raptor347 View Post
    Put a $150 cap on them. That keeps the Lehners, Neus, Hackers, Kontroniks, Megas etc. out of the mix but allows just about any asian alternative you'd care to run.
    Nortavlag Bulc

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    1,580

    Default

    Ray probably to small. I would venture it would get to hot.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    446

    Default

    ok my 2 cents


    1) Doug send me one of the motors I will beat the dog snot out of it to help with the fact finding
    2) I must of missed something last year between a few people
    3) I like where this is going we need to come up with something
    4) Davis with NAMBA you don't have to tech every motor only the ones that people file a protest on they need to put up they money or shut up, ask a few people who said something at the Nats we held. never got any money or heard a word from them again.
    5) I am the only all FE guy that is on the BOD for NAMBA that I know of

    to get it in the books we need to test more then just one motor that fall in the spec's that Darin has I like the idea, a few from across the US each takes a different motor and then one guy from each area get with the other and put it one paper and send it in

    If you guys would like I would be willing to be the point of contact on this to put it on paper and get it in

    Doug, Darin, Terry, Ray ,you guys up for this, who else could we use



    I would like to know how to kind out the kv of a motor I am still in the dark age

    Fred
    When all else fails floor it

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Just to clarify something for those of you fixated on KV....

    Given 2 identical dimensioned motors, when you change KV you are only changing the "sweet spot", otherwise known as the point at which you can prop it for a given setup before overloading it. The two motors still put out similar "power". This is why Ray and Terry and Pags and I have had good success running 1800 and 1500 motors. You just have to know how to prop them.

    Having a KV limit at all is really just a "feel good" insertion to the limits in my opinion. The KV max is really self limiting, given the physical limitations of the motor AND the hull size limits.

    Is someone REALLY going to run a 33" mono on 4S with a 2400, 2600, 3000 KV motor? Not for long they won't, and certainly not with a prop that will make it competitive or faster than a more reasonable 1800 or similar setup.

    It would come into play for records, so the KV limit makes sense there.

    Anyhow, if you read the suggestion carefully, you'll see that all of the measurements are actual. Manufacturer's specs are for reference only. The onus is placed on the competitor to assure that their equipment is legal, JUST LIKE IN NITRO. If legality comes into question, actual measurements are used, again, JUST LIKE NITRO.
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Make it 2k then. Size and weight are the real limiting factors.

    Surely somebody here knows how to engineer an accurate kV checker.

    I'm willing to test something but I'm not sure its needed.
    Noisy person

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    GB
    Posts
    2,726

    Default

    Darin, what is your reasoning behind no sensored motors and no motors with adjustable timing? We do not need torque from a standstill like some cars do, and which is the only advantage for sensored systems. As I see it for our uses the sensors just take up space in the can, meaning a given can size will have a smaller rotor in it which is a disadvantage. With sensorless we have dynamic adjustable timing in the ESCs anyway, so why rule out another more basic way to adjust timing. Cars are the most popular form of RC racing so banning the types of motors they use seems like it would limit people crossing over for no reason.

    I don't understand baring 2 pole motors either, as some of the cheapest motors available have 2 poles and have been for some time, there are probably plenty of people with otherwise legal Feiago motors sitting in draws. If you want to ban Lehners just ban them specifically, along with the other premium motors like Neu and Plettenberg.
    Last edited by NativePaul; 08-23-2015 at 12:36 PM.
    Paul Upton-Taylor, Greased Weasel Racing.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    842

    Default

    Fred - Cost me around 3 grand to get 100 TP motors sent out for evaluation. That's my limit. Pretty sure there are 4-5 TP motors already in the hands of your club members. I dropped my NAMBA membership so it would be improper for me to participate in your actual rule proposal development. There are a number of IMPBA clubs yet that are unwilling to do their own homework and just simply adopt NAMBA P-Limited rules for there use. This influence causes us to voice our opinion across the Association lines. Here in IMPBA D4 we have already addressed the motor issues and are experiencing success in expanding our guidelines into surrounding Districts and Clubs. Small piece of advice - proactive management always trumps reactive management.

    For the record - It keeps being said that this is my motor. It's not. This motor was suggested by a fellow OSE forum member that it may be a good substitute for the AQ 2030. Turns out it was. That's it. As time goes on we are looking forward to testing other brands.

    So now we are up to $125.00 MSRP and 2050 KV. Highend RC Typhoon anyone. This is up from an $80.00 motor with a true KV of around 1950. I guess if I was a SAW guy I would be licking my chops too. 1500 more rpm's to the prop. Slap a stock prop on and start writing your name in the P-limited record book. P-Limited records - another big a$$ mistake.

    Other than physical specifications, there are no methods available to validate KV and performance of a motor other than data logging on the water. This is where it counts anyway. The eye opener for me was watching Sean Kewely do the Eagle Tree data logging comparison with 3 runs on the AQ 2030 and 3 runs on the TP 3630. The data shows the actual comparison on water without bias. He posted this for everyone to see. I am sure some of you missed this, some of you forgot it and some of you ignored it. The only thing that will convince me of any motor being compatible for P-Limited going forward will be this data logging. Do yourself a favor and find a techy person to show you this. No theories, no inflated or deflated manufacture numbers, just on the water performance facts. Find 3 tech guys from various parts of the Country to do this, compare the data and you have your Tech committee. Oh wait - too simple and fair.
    Last edited by DPeterson; 08-23-2015 at 07:29 AM.
    Doug Peterson
    IMPBA 19993
    www.badgerboaters.com

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    9,384

    Default

    Larry Jaques has a physical rpm gauge that you touch the shaft with. His gauge is accurate but, I've never tried to use it on a motor, he has a while back in the SS1 motor days. I'll try to see if he still has that thing and check some motors.
    Nortavlag Bulc

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    6,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DPeterson View Post
    So now we are up to $125.00 MSRP and 2050 KV. Highend RC Typhoon anyone. This is up from an $80.00 motor with a true KV of around 1950. I guess if I was a SAW guy I would be licking my chops too. 1500 more rpm's to the prop. Slap a stock prop on and start writing your name in the P-limited record book. P-Limited records - another big a$$ mistake.
    We aren't anywhere Doug. We're having a conversation. Tossing around ideas. Those of us that know you are catching your implication though.

    The $ limit was suggested by me. I'm the guy that would prefer there to be ONE motor. Debate ends.
    Last edited by Doug Smock; 08-25-2015 at 05:57 PM. Reason: housekeeping
    Noisy person

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    On
    Posts
    7,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DPeterson View Post
    For the record - It keeps being said that this is my motor. It's not.
    .
    Sorry Dougee, it is "your motor" as you were the one who pushed to get it out to the masses for testing etc..and don't take that the wrong way...its a great start, and needed to be done

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ON
    Posts
    9,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluid View Post
    The manufacturers' Kv ratings are often a joke. The actual Kv of the AQ2030 motor is closer to 1950, as you have found. With manufacturing tolerances and even different factories making the same model number motor, a motor's actual Kv will vary anyway. But Kv changes with voltage and load, the best way to measure the exact Kv of your motor is with a data logger on your setup.




    .

    Which data logger is the most accurate? How do we know how accurate it is?
    Nortavlag Bulc

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    9,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ray schrauwen View Post
    Since we are going down the HK road. I like this: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...90mm_EDF_.html

    It has skewed windings similar to a NEU or HET. Very smooth 4 pole motor. I have one and I should give it a go. People have pushed it on 6s and find it's pretty tough.
    That is an interesting motor !
    would fit like an AQ2030
    .NAMBA20...Caterpillar UL-1, P-Spec OM29, P-Mono DF33, P-Spec JAE, Aussie 33" Hydro-LSH, Sprintcat CC2028 on 8s, PT SS45 Q Hydro, PS295 UL-1 power, OSE Brothers Outlaw QMono 4-sale, Rio 51z CC2028 on 8s

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    477

    Default

    WOW this is some good stuff y'all. FYI i was at the Nats 2 weeks ago. the only reason anyone was burning up AQ2030 is, one it was way to hot. 2 the pond was packed with algae and other blods of green goo. I however am a fan of just keeping the motors to a size or weight spec. KV is nothing to worry about i got chewed up by 1500kv motors the whole time i was there. Also had to prop down 3 sizes that was the biggest challenge.


    I Feel there is going to be a Big change coming on this motor debacle.
    Its not the boat its the driver http://namba2016fenats.com/
    Whiplash,Sprint Cat, Pursuit, 83' Miss Rock modern hydro JAE21, Dragon M11 Tunnel, Mickey Beez Jet, CF JAE21

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    az
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by macace123 View Post
    WOW this is some good stuff y'all. FYI i was at the Nats 2 weeks ago. the only reason anyone was burning up AQ2030 is, one it was way to hot. 2 the pond was packed with algae and other blods of green goo. I however am a fan of just keeping the motors to a size or weight spec. KV is nothing to worry about i got chewed up by 1500kv motors the whole time i was there. Also had to prop down 3 sizes that was the biggest challenge.


    I Feel there is going to be a Big change coming on this motor debacle.
    wonder who would run a slow 1500..lol..cant wait for some cool water up there next year

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    8,335

    Default

    Sooooo....

    On the thought of spec'ing a single motor for P-LTD :

    Pros:
    1) Cut and dried as far as which motor you'll use.
    2) Can Select a motor with acceptable quality.
    3) Can control cost to purchase.
    4) Fairly easy to tech.
    5) Everyone has the exact same motor.
    Cons:
    1) Ties supply to a single supplier
    2) No guarantee of sustained quality
    3) Single KV available, limits variation of suitable hulls
    4) No guarantee of sustained supply.
    5) Will require periodic if not frequent revisiting of motor selection.

    Any other Pros/Cons you can think of?
    Darin E. Jordan - Renton, WA
    "Self-proclaimed skill-less leader in the hobby."

Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •