R1 Wurks brushless motors
#377
Yes!!! I agree. Motor analyzers and dynos for setting motors only goes so far..... but a nicely setup and tuned motor can make a huge difference.
#379
Tech Addict
iTrader: (14)
I went back and did some additional dyno runs at the lower timing settings. I started at 20* and went up in 1* increments, this particular motor showed normal expected progression numbers as the timing was increased. It was interesting to find the motor took a big dip in performance numbers at 27* but took a decent jump at 28*. I redid these settings a couple times just to confirm the distinct changes and this was confirmed, not sure why the big dip but its there.
Regardless, I ran the motor at both the preferred timing settings of 28* and 41*,taking the average readings thru the entire load settings and found the following. At 28* the motor averaged 3% more efficiency, 1 watt higher and .7 higher torque. The motor set at 41* had 8% higher rpm.
At the track, I ran the car at the 28* timing and adjusted the gearing. The car now had a lot lower temps, in the range of 120 to 140. I still have not been able to get close to the lap times that I can when the motor is set at 41*. At 28* the motor just has a different feel to it, I can't describe it, but it feels flat, or at least not the punch that I was expecting. The gearing difference between the 2 settings is 5 teeth bigger when running 28*.
So Jorge, I'd say I'm seeing the same sort of results as you're seeing, and yes the motor seems to have more of a flat curve performance wise. And also seeing the jump at that lower timing setting, just can't seem to hit the performance on the track with that setting. I'll have to do more on track testing.
Regardless, I ran the motor at both the preferred timing settings of 28* and 41*,taking the average readings thru the entire load settings and found the following. At 28* the motor averaged 3% more efficiency, 1 watt higher and .7 higher torque. The motor set at 41* had 8% higher rpm.
At the track, I ran the car at the 28* timing and adjusted the gearing. The car now had a lot lower temps, in the range of 120 to 140. I still have not been able to get close to the lap times that I can when the motor is set at 41*. At 28* the motor just has a different feel to it, I can't describe it, but it feels flat, or at least not the punch that I was expecting. The gearing difference between the 2 settings is 5 teeth bigger when running 28*.
So Jorge, I'd say I'm seeing the same sort of results as you're seeing, and yes the motor seems to have more of a flat curve performance wise. And also seeing the jump at that lower timing setting, just can't seem to hit the performance on the track with that setting. I'll have to do more on track testing.
Mike, I agree; the same principle applies when using 1:1 race car dynos.
Dyno to zero in on motor timing settings and/or boost in case of turbo engines.
The final tune is done at the track.
Last edited by Jorge T; 07-14-2017 at 03:46 AM.
#380
Thanks Gary. I'm not crazy then. Just wanted to see if it was an anomaly but it seems the power is there. Although it may be not practical to use.
Mike, I agree; the same principle applies when using 1:1 race car dynos.
Dyno to zero in on motor timing settings and/or boost in case of turbo engines.
The final tune is done at the track.
Mike, I agree; the same principle applies when using 1:1 race car dynos.
Dyno to zero in on motor timing settings and/or boost in case of turbo engines.
The final tune is done at the track.
I think, and I'm not confident enough to use all the information off the MD2 dyno, but, the number that seems consistent is the time to peak RPM. So, moving the timing around just shortens or lengthens the acceleration time. In my case, having such a short straight, wants that quicker acceleration to peak RPM. For example, and I don't have the info broken down to small timing increments, but at 30* timing peak RPM took 1.38 seconds, and at 45* timing it took 1.18 seconds. But with this reading, it probably should be sampled several times and then averaged out. It is interesting to see that the time to reach peak torque always stays about the same, which for electric motors, makes sense.
Regardless, always good to compare notes and info.
#382
#383
Tech Addict
iTrader: (14)
Nope not crazy at all, definitely see that jump at the lower timing setting, and it should in all thoughts work, I'm just not able to take advantage of it on my track.
I think, and I'm not confident enough to use all the information off the MD2 dyno, but, the number that seems consistent is the time to peak RPM. So, moving the timing around just shortens or lengthens the acceleration time. In my case, having such a short straight, wants that quicker acceleration to peak RPM. For example, and I don't have the info broken down to small timing increments, but at 30* timing peak RPM took 1.38 seconds, and at 45* timing it took 1.18 seconds. But with this reading, it probably should be sampled several times and then averaged out. It is interesting to see that the time to reach peak torque always stays about the same, which for electric motors, makes sense.
Regardless, always good to compare notes and info.
I think, and I'm not confident enough to use all the information off the MD2 dyno, but, the number that seems consistent is the time to peak RPM. So, moving the timing around just shortens or lengthens the acceleration time. In my case, having such a short straight, wants that quicker acceleration to peak RPM. For example, and I don't have the info broken down to small timing increments, but at 30* timing peak RPM took 1.38 seconds, and at 45* timing it took 1.18 seconds. But with this reading, it probably should be sampled several times and then averaged out. It is interesting to see that the time to reach peak torque always stays about the same, which for electric motors, makes sense.
Regardless, always good to compare notes and info.
17.5 start so fast that rpm will jump from 1000 to 5000 in less than 1/50 sec. And was suspicious of getting wrong data.
I cannot ramp up the motor since I have to dump the log into an excel and will not calculate correctly. I have tried many ways and best is to max out the throttle input from pc.
Another thing I ran into was each test I did had to to cool or wait for the motor to get to the same starting temperature or next run would be lower even if the next timing setting I chose would be higher.
Thanks for comparing notes
#385
I would start out at 41 degrees internal timing . Small adjustments from there can make a pretty big difference but that is a great starting point for tc .
#387
41 degrees timing will make optimal power-rpm x torque. If you want to soften the bottom end punch and add rpm , then turn the timing up a degree or two at a time.
#388
Tech Champion
iTrader: (2)
There's been quite a bit of discussion over the new ROAR rules, mainly centred around the new IR limits. The R1 V16 21.5 was quoted a few times as a motor that may straddle the limits. That got me thinking... has the 21.5 actually passed ROAR approval yet? I'm hoping it is, as when I bought mine, it was advertised as ROAR approved, but then I saw in this forum that the 21.5 was still waiting on approval.
#389
Tech Regular
iTrader: (16)
The new Trinity Monster Max motors seem to have set the limit. My random off the shelf 17.5 max nails the lower limit and nearly matches the measurement shown in the Trinity promo picture. Doubling the 21.5 measurement shown in the same picture again just about nails the 21.5 min requirement.
Mike
#390
Tech Master
iTrader: (41)
There's been quite a bit of discussion over the new ROAR rules, mainly centred around the new IR limits. The R1 V16 21.5 was quoted a few times as a motor that may straddle the limits. That got me thinking... has the 21.5 actually passed ROAR approval yet? I'm hoping it is, as when I bought mine, it was advertised as ROAR approved, but then I saw in this forum that the 21.5 was still waiting on approval.
idbdoug