New Novak Stock Brushless
07-06-2006, 03:07 PM
#46
Even if the motor cost me $100 it would still be less than running brushed. I don't rebuild my motors at the track, I swap them... I run 1 motor for qualifying and 1 for the main and usually have 1 backup... With the brushless I'd have 1 motor and the only motors in my case would be an assortment of different winds instead of multiples of what I'm running...
07-06-2006, 03:30 PM
#47
"horspower" limitations wont work for rules. Like someone stated above, too easy to submit a subpar motor for testing, then have "GOOD" motors for sale, and worse yet, "really good" motors for "TEAM" drivers. Hey, look at that, right back where you started, unfair advantage to the team guys! 
NASCAR, NHRA, etc, etc are all based upon mechanical limitations for the motor rules. Engine displacement, size of carb, size of turbo, size of supercharger, how much compression, etc, restrictor plate or not (NASCAR). Your job is to make as much horspower as possible with the mechanical limitations given to you. The problem with brushless IMO, is the possibility of getting a "good" motor or a "bad" motor. It can happen, just like the current stock motors. If you went and bought five stock motors (non aftermarket tuned) off the shelf from say Hobby People, its guaranteed that not all five are going to run the same. Thats where the motor tuners come into play. Whats going to happen when your 13.5 brushless doesnt run as good your buddies? Are you going to go over the parts counter and spend $60 bucks on another 13.5 and hope that its faster? Probably not, but if your regular stock sucks out of the box, you throw in some better brushes, maybe change the springs, and bingo, better motor. Sure, if the brushless gets to be more reliable (which it doesnt sound like it is right now) then in the LONG RUN, it will be more cost effective.....for now. But the initial cost is still going to be out of reach for some "beginners" just getting into the hobby. Eventually, someone will figure out how to "tweak" the brushless motors, or come out with "team" versions, then you'll be spending $60.00 per motor to be competitive in "stock" class racing. I do believe that Brushless is a great thing, (longer run times, less maintenance) but I dont think its going to completely replace the brushed motor industry. This is a competitive "sport", even in club racing. To take away "tunable" brushed motors isnt going to happen. And you still have batteries in the equation, better batteries still mean more horspower and more run time. IMO, brushless should be a "SPEC" class, use a "spec" type battery pack, and limit the "winds" of the motor for that class (in this case 13.5 for the NOVAK stock). Make all the manufactures label their brushless the motors the same for ease of classification. Thats how you will have a relatively inexpensive class that is competitive. The above is just my OPINION, I could be totally wrong in the way I see the what will happen.
By the way, here is something to think about....How long have brushless been available, and how many drivers are actually using them at the on-road worlds? There has to be a reason why not everyone is using them... probably because they still arent as good as a tuned modified motor? Not sure, what do you think?
NASCAR, NHRA, etc, etc are all based upon mechanical limitations for the motor rules. Engine displacement, size of carb, size of turbo, size of supercharger, how much compression, etc, restrictor plate or not (NASCAR). Your job is to make as much horspower as possible with the mechanical limitations given to you. The problem with brushless IMO, is the possibility of getting a "good" motor or a "bad" motor. It can happen, just like the current stock motors. If you went and bought five stock motors (non aftermarket tuned) off the shelf from say Hobby People, its guaranteed that not all five are going to run the same. Thats where the motor tuners come into play. Whats going to happen when your 13.5 brushless doesnt run as good your buddies? Are you going to go over the parts counter and spend $60 bucks on another 13.5 and hope that its faster? Probably not, but if your regular stock sucks out of the box, you throw in some better brushes, maybe change the springs, and bingo, better motor. Sure, if the brushless gets to be more reliable (which it doesnt sound like it is right now) then in the LONG RUN, it will be more cost effective.....for now. But the initial cost is still going to be out of reach for some "beginners" just getting into the hobby. Eventually, someone will figure out how to "tweak" the brushless motors, or come out with "team" versions, then you'll be spending $60.00 per motor to be competitive in "stock" class racing. I do believe that Brushless is a great thing, (longer run times, less maintenance) but I dont think its going to completely replace the brushed motor industry. This is a competitive "sport", even in club racing. To take away "tunable" brushed motors isnt going to happen. And you still have batteries in the equation, better batteries still mean more horspower and more run time. IMO, brushless should be a "SPEC" class, use a "spec" type battery pack, and limit the "winds" of the motor for that class (in this case 13.5 for the NOVAK stock). Make all the manufactures label their brushless the motors the same for ease of classification. Thats how you will have a relatively inexpensive class that is competitive. The above is just my OPINION, I could be totally wrong in the way I see the what will happen. By the way, here is something to think about....How long have brushless been available, and how many drivers are actually using them at the on-road worlds? There has to be a reason why not everyone is using them... probably because they still arent as good as a tuned modified motor? Not sure, what do you think?
07-06-2006, 03:38 PM
#48
Originally Posted by Jason B
I'll admit that I don't know jack about the technical side of motors - brushed or otherwise. I realize that there could potentially be opportunities for cheating, but if cheating is the barometer to be used for whether a motor is permitted or not, then we should just eliminate stock racing altogether. Cheating is already rampant, especially since today's brushed motors are rarely tech'ed, and if they are, it's simply to make sure the arm reads "27" and there are no bearings. Other than that, it's a free-for-all... and even THOSE rules are violated.
If a cheating method surfaces for brusheless motors, then let's cross that bridge when we get there. I've never been a fan of the Slippery Slope argument, especially when the problems at the bottom of said slope already exist with the current situation.
There are simply way too many benefits to ignore this step. In my eyes, this is the same leap that was taken from MSC's to ESC's. If people looked at that advancement 15 years ago the way some are viewing brushless, then the electric side of this hobby would be deader than a doornail today and nitro would be much smaller from not having electric turnover.
If there are already perceived issues with regards to standardization and/or cheating, then let's address those issues head-on. Simply casting the technology aside at the first sign of trouble seems narrow-minded to me at best, and the furthering of a personal agenda at worst.
Let's give it a chance before we just chalk it all up to failure. The technology is there, the people are DEMANDING it, and far larger obstacles have been cleared (or ignored) than this.
I know there are other interests at play here, specifically, motor tuners and manufacturers. But we have textbook supply and demand at work here. There has been CRAZY demand for a stock brushless class, and Novak met it.
It's up to companies like Novak, Trinity, LRP, and Reedy to furnish the supply to meet the demand. Several companies have spent years trying to engineer and "guide" demand to cater to their own supply, and I think people have had enough of it.
If a cheating method surfaces for brusheless motors, then let's cross that bridge when we get there. I've never been a fan of the Slippery Slope argument, especially when the problems at the bottom of said slope already exist with the current situation.
There are simply way too many benefits to ignore this step. In my eyes, this is the same leap that was taken from MSC's to ESC's. If people looked at that advancement 15 years ago the way some are viewing brushless, then the electric side of this hobby would be deader than a doornail today and nitro would be much smaller from not having electric turnover.
If there are already perceived issues with regards to standardization and/or cheating, then let's address those issues head-on. Simply casting the technology aside at the first sign of trouble seems narrow-minded to me at best, and the furthering of a personal agenda at worst.
Let's give it a chance before we just chalk it all up to failure. The technology is there, the people are DEMANDING it, and far larger obstacles have been cleared (or ignored) than this.
I know there are other interests at play here, specifically, motor tuners and manufacturers. But we have textbook supply and demand at work here. There has been CRAZY demand for a stock brushless class, and Novak met it.
It's up to companies like Novak, Trinity, LRP, and Reedy to furnish the supply to meet the demand. Several companies have spent years trying to engineer and "guide" demand to cater to their own supply, and I think people have had enough of it.
But for now, I like my motors the way they are. And the fact that I'm getting back into racing with speed controls that are 9 years old!! 
07-06-2006, 03:39 PM
#49
Who cares what is a Dyno and what is not.... My point is there is too much room for fudging. A simple wattage maximum WILL NOT WORK. Move on, come up with another way.
You refuse too see what point I am trying to make , so let me try again if I was not clear.
A motor manufacturer can send a motor, or a Dozen motors for that matter to be Dyno'd, knowing that the motor is not as strong as the ones they want to sell. Some people call it sandbagging. So the motor they get approved is really capable of more.
How do you police the manufacturers after approval ? It is not practicle or cost effective to do so.
If you have physical limitations, then there can be no sanbagging, it is very clear, either it is legal or not. We have enough gray area in this hobby, we do not need any more.
You refuse too see what point I am trying to make , so let me try again if I was not clear.
A motor manufacturer can send a motor, or a Dozen motors for that matter to be Dyno'd, knowing that the motor is not as strong as the ones they want to sell. Some people call it sandbagging. So the motor they get approved is really capable of more.
How do you police the manufacturers after approval ? It is not practicle or cost effective to do so.
If you have physical limitations, then there can be no sanbagging, it is very clear, either it is legal or not. We have enough gray area in this hobby, we do not need any more.
Originally Posted by James35
Many racers don't know this, but most racers don't use a real dyno. A real dyno has a controlled load, not just a flywheel. A Fantom or Robitronic Dyno uses a flywheel and math calculations to try to "predict" what the power output is. They are not true dynanometers. Currently, there is only one true dyno for brushed motors: the Competition Electronics Turbo Dyno. For anyone who wants to learn about all of the technical stuff, head over to Big Jim's forum who was the authority on motors.
Racers that have the CE Turbo Dyno's don't notice much of a fluctuation since it's a true dyno. Maybe 1% or 2% difference at most. Manufacturers would then submit motors to ROAR providing room for this small variance so they can still qualify. The new ROAR classification rules that I propose could specify that all models of a given motor (pre-production and production) must be under x amount of watts.
Racers that have the CE Turbo Dyno's don't notice much of a fluctuation since it's a true dyno. Maybe 1% or 2% difference at most. Manufacturers would then submit motors to ROAR providing room for this small variance so they can still qualify. The new ROAR classification rules that I propose could specify that all models of a given motor (pre-production and production) must be under x amount of watts.
07-06-2006, 04:04 PM
#50
Jason, your missing the point. We are looking at trying to eliminate the issues before they arise, not stifle the technology.The more issues we have at the beginning, the slower it takes to get adopted. Listen, as Brushless tech becomes more widley used at the grassroots level of racing, it will be a filter up effect. Local tracks can adjust thier rules accordingly, the cream will come to the top, and will be heading in a new direction.
Tech at all levels from Regional on down, is light, and justly so. If you have a guy running a motor that "looks" like a 19t it prolly is. I have seen cheating in my years in the hobby, but I would not say it is rampant. More often then not, accused cheaters, are just that much better.... what the discussion here is that we do not "Legalize" a motor that totally will outclass a given formula.
While I can apprecate your comparison with the ESC revolution, I think it is apples and oranges. There is alot at stake for the current industry, and the turns need to be planned as much as possbile.
We have yet another issue on the horixon, and that is battery tech. The current Lipos are 3.7 volts per cell, What are we going to do with the packaging and voltage issues related to them ? Is 4 cell going to die ?
I hate to say it, but we need to take small steps in the right direction, not a huge leap... We all want to get there....
back to what I said earlier in the thread,
IF a 13.5 Brushless is similar in output to a 27t brushed, then we use that as a framework and go from there....Something like that is a Physical parameter that rules can build on. I am not saying that is the right number, but I think you get the idea.
BTW, these are my own ideas and not that of ROAR
Tech at all levels from Regional on down, is light, and justly so. If you have a guy running a motor that "looks" like a 19t it prolly is. I have seen cheating in my years in the hobby, but I would not say it is rampant. More often then not, accused cheaters, are just that much better.... what the discussion here is that we do not "Legalize" a motor that totally will outclass a given formula.
While I can apprecate your comparison with the ESC revolution, I think it is apples and oranges. There is alot at stake for the current industry, and the turns need to be planned as much as possbile.
We have yet another issue on the horixon, and that is battery tech. The current Lipos are 3.7 volts per cell, What are we going to do with the packaging and voltage issues related to them ? Is 4 cell going to die ?
I hate to say it, but we need to take small steps in the right direction, not a huge leap... We all want to get there....
back to what I said earlier in the thread,
IF a 13.5 Brushless is similar in output to a 27t brushed, then we use that as a framework and go from there....Something like that is a Physical parameter that rules can build on. I am not saying that is the right number, but I think you get the idea.
BTW, these are my own ideas and not that of ROAR
Originally Posted by Jason B
I'll admit that I don't know jack about the technical side of motors - brushed or otherwise. I realize that there could potentially be opportunities for cheating, but if cheating is the barometer to be used for whether a motor is permitted or not, then we should just eliminate stock racing altogether. Cheating is already rampant, especially since today's brushed motors are rarely tech'ed, and if they are, it's simply to make sure the arm reads "27" and there are no bearings. Other than that, it's a free-for-all... and even THOSE rules are violated.
If a cheating method surfaces for brusheless motors, then let's cross that bridge when we get there. I've never been a fan of the Slippery Slope argument, especially when the problems at the bottom of said slope already exist with the current situation.
There are simply way too many benefits to ignore this step. In my eyes, this is the same leap that was taken from MSC's to ESC's. If people looked at that advancement 15 years ago the way some are viewing brushless, then the electric side of this hobby would be deader than a doornail today and nitro would be much smaller from not having electric turnover.
If there are already perceived issues with regards to standardization and/or cheating, then let's address those issues head-on. Simply casting the technology aside at the first sign of trouble seems narrow-minded to me at best, and the furthering of a personal agenda at worst.
Let's give it a chance before we just chalk it all up to failure. The technology is there, the people are DEMANDING it, and far larger obstacles have been cleared (or ignored) than this.
I know there are other interests at play here, specifically, motor tuners and manufacturers. But we have textbook supply and demand at work here. There has been CRAZY demand for a stock brushless class, and Novak met it.
It's up to companies like Novak, Trinity, LRP, and Reedy to furnish the supply to meet the demand. Several companies have spent years trying to engineer and "guide" demand to cater to their own supply, and I think people have had enough of it.
If a cheating method surfaces for brusheless motors, then let's cross that bridge when we get there. I've never been a fan of the Slippery Slope argument, especially when the problems at the bottom of said slope already exist with the current situation.
There are simply way too many benefits to ignore this step. In my eyes, this is the same leap that was taken from MSC's to ESC's. If people looked at that advancement 15 years ago the way some are viewing brushless, then the electric side of this hobby would be deader than a doornail today and nitro would be much smaller from not having electric turnover.
If there are already perceived issues with regards to standardization and/or cheating, then let's address those issues head-on. Simply casting the technology aside at the first sign of trouble seems narrow-minded to me at best, and the furthering of a personal agenda at worst.
Let's give it a chance before we just chalk it all up to failure. The technology is there, the people are DEMANDING it, and far larger obstacles have been cleared (or ignored) than this.
I know there are other interests at play here, specifically, motor tuners and manufacturers. But we have textbook supply and demand at work here. There has been CRAZY demand for a stock brushless class, and Novak met it.
It's up to companies like Novak, Trinity, LRP, and Reedy to furnish the supply to meet the demand. Several companies have spent years trying to engineer and "guide" demand to cater to their own supply, and I think people have had enough of it.
07-06-2006, 04:15 PM
#51
Tech Master
phew alot of information good and bad on here!
ok in 4 cell oval the 4300 motor and a ultra bird 19 turn with adjustable timing are less than 2 seconds apart after a 4 minute run on a huge oval.
on smaller ovals the 4300 is not on the same lap with the brushed motors but real close.
in touring cars the 4300 doesn't seem to be as close to a 19 turn? i'm not sure of the logistics it just isn't.
the new brushless "stock" motor on a huge oval seems to be a bit faster than a c27 stock motor,again not sure why it just is.
the same brushless stock motor in a touring car is just not as fast as a brushed stock motor.
would it be cool to allow a brushless race with a brushed motor in stock or 19 turn? no way! they just are not the apples and apples.... i agree in open mod anything goes but not in the control motor classes. just my .02
ok in 4 cell oval the 4300 motor and a ultra bird 19 turn with adjustable timing are less than 2 seconds apart after a 4 minute run on a huge oval.
on smaller ovals the 4300 is not on the same lap with the brushed motors but real close.
in touring cars the 4300 doesn't seem to be as close to a 19 turn? i'm not sure of the logistics it just isn't.
the new brushless "stock" motor on a huge oval seems to be a bit faster than a c27 stock motor,again not sure why it just is.
the same brushless stock motor in a touring car is just not as fast as a brushed stock motor.
would it be cool to allow a brushless race with a brushed motor in stock or 19 turn? no way! they just are not the apples and apples.... i agree in open mod anything goes but not in the control motor classes. just my .02
07-06-2006, 04:38 PM
#53
Its So Unfair!!
What pisses me off is that when I try to run w/ brushless motors, whether the Novak stock, or for modified the 5.5, or 4.5, those using brushed motors suddenly jump up and say its not legal, and brushless motors are so much more powerfull, and that's its not fair, etc. One guy even threatened to drop out of a race if I didn't immediately remove my brushless motor, even through its perfectly ROAR/IFMAR legal, and have been raced at big national events, like the Snowbirds, alongside brushed systems in their classes...then we get guys like the ones at this forum who say that its not they are more powerful or faster, etc, its just that we have to wead out cheaters, etc...its ridiculous, and it seems more obvious that its just the brushed guys who know how to tweak and set up brushed motors to gain advantages over others, these folk are the ones scared that these advantages are now being taken away from them, since novice drivers using brushless, or even veterans, can now also 'hang' with the savy brushed drivers, and their adge gap is seriously closed. Also, Hobby shops and manufacturers will lose lots of money, and will have to also convert or find ways to make their motors less maintanance free, to keep up w/ brushless systems.
07-06-2006, 04:54 PM
#54
Originally Posted by Exterminator
Does it use bearings? Stock motors must use bushings.
Does it use Neo magnets? Stock motors must use ferite magnet's.
Does it use Neo magnets? Stock motors must use ferite magnet's.
Oversized Front Bearing (3/8” x 1/2”) for extra durability and extended life (also used in Velociti-series motors)
Magnet: One-piece, multi-pole cylindrical high-strength neodymium
07-06-2006, 05:21 PM
#55
some questions
are the sizes same with the silver can motor?
what are their speed? SS13.5? and the faster ones?
how much are they with the esc?
thanks
are the sizes same with the silver can motor?
what are their speed? SS13.5? and the faster ones?
how much are they with the esc?
thanks
07-06-2006, 05:29 PM
#56
I think maybe my eyes just rolled out of my head.
Explain to me, again, why is anybody clinging to brushed motors? The only possible decent excuse I can think of is the size of the ESC, and balancing chassis with heavier motors and ESC's.
Brushless is more consistent during a run, uses less power (longer run times), requires less maintenance, has a smoother throttle response, doesn't require hundreds of dollars in supporting equipment to maintain, shuts off before melting itself (can be disabled), is quieter, has the potential to be faster and could quite possibly leave a lot less room for "tweaking" giving people an unfair advantage. So, again why are we arguing about this?
Oh, that's right. Old men afraid of change. Old men afraid to lose the precious speed secrets they've gathered over the years that give them a speed advantage over younger, more talented drivers. Rednecks that can't see the world past their own nose, unable to comprehend anything that isn't spoon fed to them. Guys that don't know the value of a paragraph. Mouth-breathers, the bane of R/C.
Jon Orr was on his way to winning the 1/12th world championship with a brushless motor before he made a mistake and gave it away to Spashett. It's very much a contender in mod, and will get there in other classes as well, once a standard is settled upon.
Clubs need racers as much as racers need clubs. If your club refuses to embrace new things, take your business elsewhere. They deserve to be replaced by a club that embraces things that will clearly improve this hobby.
Explain to me, again, why is anybody clinging to brushed motors? The only possible decent excuse I can think of is the size of the ESC, and balancing chassis with heavier motors and ESC's.
Brushless is more consistent during a run, uses less power (longer run times), requires less maintenance, has a smoother throttle response, doesn't require hundreds of dollars in supporting equipment to maintain, shuts off before melting itself (can be disabled), is quieter, has the potential to be faster and could quite possibly leave a lot less room for "tweaking" giving people an unfair advantage. So, again why are we arguing about this?
Oh, that's right. Old men afraid of change. Old men afraid to lose the precious speed secrets they've gathered over the years that give them a speed advantage over younger, more talented drivers. Rednecks that can't see the world past their own nose, unable to comprehend anything that isn't spoon fed to them. Guys that don't know the value of a paragraph. Mouth-breathers, the bane of R/C.
Jon Orr was on his way to winning the 1/12th world championship with a brushless motor before he made a mistake and gave it away to Spashett. It's very much a contender in mod, and will get there in other classes as well, once a standard is settled upon.
Clubs need racers as much as racers need clubs. If your club refuses to embrace new things, take your business elsewhere. They deserve to be replaced by a club that embraces things that will clearly improve this hobby.
07-06-2006, 05:30 PM
#57
Originally Posted by nekmiyevo2
some questions
are the sizes same with the silver can motor?
what are their speed? SS13.5? and the faster ones?
how much are they with the esc?
thanks
are the sizes same with the silver can motor?
what are their speed? SS13.5? and the faster ones?
how much are they with the esc?
thanks
3.5R (3.5 turns) [rumored, not yet available]
4.5R (4.5 turns)
5.5R (5.5 turns)
6.5R (6.5 turns)
7.5R (7.5 turns)
5800 (8.5 turns)
4300 (10.5 turns)
SS13.5 (13.5 turns) [available soon]
Crawler 18.5 (18.5 turns) [available soon]
07-06-2006, 05:33 PM
#58
What I find ironic is that when some new technology that makes brushed motors faster, more efficient, whatever comes around...it's a breakthrough.
Meanwhile, the brushless deal pretty much makes all the brushed guys' heads explode and all of a sudden new technology is bad and evil, will be the ruination of the hobby and will cause fire to rain down from the sky.
A new $200 brushed ESC is all good, but $200 for a motor and ESC is too much for brushless. A $40 27T mod motor that needs $5 a night in "maintenance" is just great, so they have 10 of them. A $70 motor that needs no maintenance ever needs to be cheaper.
The answer is to do what I do...quit racing electric at places that don't allow what you want to run...and only race at places that do. Vote with your wallet. The brushed guys are NEVER going to change on their own until they're outnumbered and they're never going to be outnumbered/outvoted until people force the issue and vote with their wallets.
Until then...nitro and 4WD mod offroad.
Patiently waiting...and having fun with my brushless and LiPos (racing gas guys) and my 1/8th scale buggy in the meantime.
Meanwhile, the brushless deal pretty much makes all the brushed guys' heads explode and all of a sudden new technology is bad and evil, will be the ruination of the hobby and will cause fire to rain down from the sky.
A new $200 brushed ESC is all good, but $200 for a motor and ESC is too much for brushless. A $40 27T mod motor that needs $5 a night in "maintenance" is just great, so they have 10 of them. A $70 motor that needs no maintenance ever needs to be cheaper.
The answer is to do what I do...quit racing electric at places that don't allow what you want to run...and only race at places that do. Vote with your wallet. The brushed guys are NEVER going to change on their own until they're outnumbered and they're never going to be outnumbered/outvoted until people force the issue and vote with their wallets.
Until then...nitro and 4WD mod offroad.
Patiently waiting...and having fun with my brushless and LiPos (racing gas guys) and my 1/8th scale buggy in the meantime.
07-06-2006, 05:55 PM
#59
Tech Adept
this new stock brushless motor seems to be the future of our sport! sound good but i have a question is this novak stock brushless motor compatable with a lrp brushless speedo or do i have to wate till reedy/lrp comes out with one!!!! or for that matter will any novak motor work with a lrp brushless speedo
07-06-2006, 06:01 PM
#60
Originally Posted by paul d
this new stock brushless motor seems to be the future of our sport! sound good but i have a question is this novak stock brushless motor compatable with a lrp brushless speedo or do i have to wate till reedy/lrp comes out with one!!!! or for that matter will any novak motor work with a lrp brushless speedo
The LRP and Novak motors are identical, sensor and hookup-wise. Thye're totally interchangeable that way...it's just a wind thing, just like with a brushed motor.