Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Electric On-Road
What is the next big motor? >

What is the next big motor?

Like Tree57Likes

What is the next big motor?

Old 06-26-2020, 03:45 PM
  #46  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (9)
 
IndyRC_Racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,022
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

The speed control wars were not a good period of brushless racing. Thankfully the r/c racing community was able to implement some common sense and blinky was a result of that. However once Tekin had to compete on a level playing field, they had several controversies surrounding their non-approved blinky firmware. It was such an issue that many large race events implemented rules and procedures to confirm that people with any programmable ESC's (Tekin) had approved firmware during the event. To be fair, there have been other r/c manufacturers that have had their own scandals over the years.
IndyRC_Racer is offline  
Old 06-26-2020, 04:36 PM
  #47  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (17)
 
liljohn1064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Deerfield, WI
Posts: 5,872
Trader Rating: 17 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by IndyRC_Racer View Post
The speed control wars were not a good period of brushless racing. Thankfully the r/c racing community was able to implement some common sense and blinky was a result of that. However once Tekin had to compete on a level playing field, they had several controversies surrounding their non-approved blinky firmware. It was such an issue that many large race events implemented rules and procedures to confirm that people with any programmable ESC's (Tekin) had approved firmware during the event. To be fair, there have been other r/c manufacturers that have had their own scandals over the years.
Vegas 2.28?
liljohn1064 is offline  
Old 06-26-2020, 04:44 PM
  #48  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 539
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

This is the esc that started all the dynamic timing thing which subsequently led to blinky being implemented. That was the esc with the ridiculous price tag. Tekin simply responded by providing a free software update that gave their escs dynamic timing. There are esc's that have built in dynamic timing profiles that are locked into safe settings, but to get the most from it you will need to make adjustments yourself. Spec racing needs to stay with blinky. As a side note I currently run 55į of dynamic timing on my 17.5 buggy I run on my back yard track. A full battery of practice when it is 80į outside makes my motor, esc, and battery come off at 100į, with only a single fan on the motor.

There is always going to be a new motor that is a tiny bit faster, but being a good enough driver to actually use that extra power is another thing entirely. I've bought a used motor that was one generation old, and kept winning with it until it was 2 generations old. It was a 17.5 and now my newest 21.5 is indistinguishable from it on track. I kept winning with that motor by out driving everyone else who had better motors. I would probably have benefited from a faster motor, but the one I had was working so why change it?
Lonestar likes this.
waitwhat is offline  
Old 06-26-2020, 11:06 PM
  #49  
Tech Champion
iTrader: (29)
 
STLNLST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,423
Trader Rating: 29 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Dane View Post
To add, remember the KO BMC ESC before the Tekin RS? Now THAT had people scrambling in the same way for a minute there.
that speedo was horrible.....along with the Black Diamond 😁

STLNLST is offline  
Old 06-27-2020, 08:28 PM
  #50  
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 782
Default

Here is a great question. Has there ever been a speedo that controls motor speed rather than approximating torque?

That would be great for the next big motor. it would be great for any old motor too. Half throttle would be half speed no matter what.

I have a feeling this one is going to stump a few people.
Bry195 is offline  
Old 06-28-2020, 01:31 AM
  #51  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
gigaplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 3,183
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Bry195 View Post
Here is a great question. Has there ever been a speedo that controls motor speed rather than approximating torque?

That would be great for the next big motor. it would be great for any old motor too. Half throttle would be half speed no matter what.

I have a feeling this one is going to stump a few people.
The only way that would work is if it was a mandatory spec ESC. It would effectively be RPM limiting, and some ESCs do have that (but without the proportional half throttle means half RPM). The current (non RPM limited) ESCs just give the motor full voltage with a proportional duty cycle and the motor will go as fast as it can handle.

The big problem with an ESC that aims for a certain RPM is that it need to be properly matched with the motor. Either the motor is being held back by the RPM that the ESC is aiming for, or the motor isn't powerful enough to reach that RPM. It would be pretty rare for the motor to peak at exactly the RPM that the ESC is targeting.

Such a setup would be ideal for spec racing. It's far easier to build consistent ESCs to a prescribed specification than it is to build consistent motors. But it'll also probably kill the motor industry as there would be no need to ever buy a new motor unless you break your old one.
gigaplex is offline  
Old 06-28-2020, 08:42 PM
  #52  
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 782
Default

Originally Posted by gigaplex View Post
The only way that would work is if it was a mandatory spec ESC. It would effectively be RPM limiting, and some ESCs do have that (but without the proportional half throttle means half RPM). The current (non RPM limited) ESCs just give the motor full voltage with a proportional duty cycle and the motor will go as fast as it can handle.

The big problem with an ESC that aims for a certain RPM is that it need to be properly matched with the motor. Either the motor is being held back by the RPM that the ESC is aiming for, or the motor isn't powerful enough to reach that RPM. It would be pretty rare for the motor to peak at exactly the RPM that the ESC is targeting.

Such a setup would be ideal for spec racing. It's far easier to build consistent ESCs to a prescribed specification than it is to build consistent motors. But it'll also probably kill the motor industry as there would be no need to ever buy a new motor unless you break your old one.
Lots of great points. The ESC can calculate max rpm or the ESC can run a test on the motor. Matching speed is a magnitude easier than the tech it takes for a servo to move to a position. A servo has to control velocity before it can control position. PWM is the lowest level followed by a velocity loop then followed by a position loop. So the tech is within reach. I bring up points as to how easy it is but i dont believe it would ever happen.

How the motor market appears now would change. A velocity loop alone wouldnt stop people from cooking motors. in fact it would probably make it easier to burn up a motor. If someone added a thermal model to the firmware you wouldnt cook motors. there isnt a good way for an esc to create its own thermal model internally. so to use the thermal model it would probably require that you use motors that the ESC knows. Or the other option is to run a manual thermal test and racerx would have to play with a computer. If the thermals are managed on the fly and the velocity was closed loop then you wouldnt have motor failures. But the motor game would be different. everyone would probably have 2 motors for each class. a short stack and a long stack (or torque versus rpm) they would only fail from maintenance issues.

this path has been taken in the industrial world. for the last 20 years the motors can develop 30% more torque or get smaller every 5 years. commutation, tolerances, knowledge, and features galore improve the motors. Some of them useful and some of them hype. Some people will still chase hype and get the new thing and some will stick with tried and true. A mfg will release a quantum leap every 5 to 7 years. RC already has about 30 years of quantum leaps that it can pull from before it has to develop anything new.

The latest and greatest innovation is a waste in allot of cases. But if the RC community made it possible for these developments the good ones make it easier, smaller, more powerful. But in the end you could focus on driving. Its even possible for a motor to run in a horsepower limited mode. Not easy to do when you have 1 processor that executes sequentially and you have to control torque at an rpm to limit horsepower but it has been done allot and the tech is available...its all internal code.

at some point a motor is just a tool to get you what you want. Right now people are focused on timing and resistance which are very complicated as it relates to driving. if RC had been following the trends in the industrial world your big decisions would be based on size and where you want the power. low rpm or high. Heat and fdr would be the only thing to watch. Timing, boost, turbo, KV, 6 amp method... nobody would have the urge to look at this again. Anybody who did would only do it to laugh at it like feathered hair in the 80’s.
dtr likes this.

Last edited by Bry195; 06-28-2020 at 08:54 PM.
Bry195 is offline  
Old 06-28-2020, 10:44 PM
  #53  
R/C Tech Elite Member
iTrader: (315)
 
nexxus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,805
Trader Rating: 315 (100%+)
Default

Zzz sorry

I have gotten lazy as I race with my son

My motor, RCRA timing mandated to 2400kv, only 'need' it for RCRA events but I honestly CBF taking it out, the motor is 2.5 yrs old, still works
My ESC, it's in blinky mode, easy. (R1)

My Minipro dyno and motor analyser haven't been used in months, for club racing even if I give up a bit of top end to the latest 21.5's (Actinium V3 is untouchable at our large outdoor track in 21.5) I can still muddle around and come top 3 in most events.

Think about motors less, have fun and the world gets happier.

Just a thought.

PS anyone wanna buy a dyno?
dtr likes this.
nexxus is offline  
Old 06-29-2020, 06:47 AM
  #54  
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 782
Default

Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
Zzz sorry

I have gotten lazy as I race with my son

My motor, RCRA timing mandated to 2400kv, only 'need' it for RCRA events but I honestly CBF taking it out, the motor is 2.5 yrs old, still works
My ESC, it's in blinky mode, easy. (R1)

My Minipro dyno and motor analyser haven't been used in months, for club racing even if I give up a bit of top end to the latest 21.5's (Actinium V3 is untouchable at our large outdoor track in 21.5) I can still muddle around and come top 3 in most events.

Think about motors less, have fun and the world gets happier.

Just a thought.

PS anyone wanna buy a dyno?
I dont think you have to worry about it changing. I think it would be silly to convince someone who knows how to squeeze some power out of a motor to move on to something easier. it works for you , fairly easy, you know how to solve most problems as they arise and you don’t need more power. My point is that more people who enter the hobby will stay or get competitive quicker if the barrier to competition wasnt so high. Its really just an opinion based on a gut feeling. I could be wrong. the physics of setup and aerodynamics and motors just seems like allot for a kid who just wants to have a car that can compete in the straight or doesnt traction roll.

Yea, my minipro feels like a waste of money too because it gets used almost never. Im not sure why it would be needed once you get the data you need out of a motor. well at least until you get a new motor. I put a giant electro magnet on mine to act as a brake on the flywheel so that I could use it as a load dyno. I havent perfected it yet and kind of lose interest. it would help to work out the thermals on a chassis/ motor combo.
Bry195 is offline  
Old 06-29-2020, 08:59 AM
  #55  
Tech Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 539
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by Bry195 View Post
Lots of great points. The ESC can calculate max rpm or the ESC can run a test on the motor. Matching speed is a magnitude easier than the tech it takes for a servo to move to a position. A servo has to control velocity before it can control position. PWM is the lowest level followed by a velocity loop then followed by a position loop. So the tech is within reach. I bring up points as to how easy it is but i dont believe it would ever happen.

How the motor market appears now would change. A velocity loop alone wouldnt stop people from cooking motors. in fact it would probably make it easier to burn up a motor. If someone added a thermal model to the firmware you wouldnt cook motors. there isnt a good way for an esc to create its own thermal model internally. so to use the thermal model it would probably require that you use motors that the ESC knows. Or the other option is to run a manual thermal test and racerx would have to play with a computer. If the thermals are managed on the fly and the velocity was closed loop then you wouldnt have motor failures. But the motor game would be different. everyone would probably have 2 motors for each class. a short stack and a long stack (or torque versus rpm) they would only fail from maintenance issues.

this path has been taken in the industrial world. for the last 20 years the motors can develop 30% more torque or get smaller every 5 years. commutation, tolerances, knowledge, and features galore improve the motors. Some of them useful and some of them hype. Some people will still chase hype and get the new thing and some will stick with tried and true. A mfg will release a quantum leap every 5 to 7 years. RC already has about 30 years of quantum leaps that it can pull from before it has to develop anything new.

The latest and greatest innovation is a waste in allot of cases. But if the RC community made it possible for these developments the good ones make it easier, smaller, more powerful. But in the end you could focus on driving. Its even possible for a motor to run in a horsepower limited mode. Not easy to do when you have 1 processor that executes sequentially and you have to control torque at an rpm to limit horsepower but it has been done allot and the tech is available...its all internal code.

at some point a motor is just a tool to get you what you want. Right now people are focused on timing and resistance which are very complicated as it relates to driving. if RC had been following the trends in the industrial world your big decisions would be based on size and where you want the power. low rpm or high. Heat and fdr would be the only thing to watch. Timing, boost, turbo, KV, 6 amp method... nobody would have the urge to look at this again. Anybody who did would only do it to laugh at it like feathered hair in the 80ís.
The problem is there are so many different classes which all use 540 size motors per ROAR/IFMAR. A motor could end up in a 1/12th scale pan car or a short course truck. Obviously, making motors for specific chassis' would allow you to optimize the motor, but then you are stuck with a motor that only works for one type of vehicle. Where do you draw the line? If you optimize a motor for a car right at the minimum weight, anyone running a car heavier than minimum would be at a greater disadvantage. I doubt rc motor manufacturers would want to have to deal with a different motor design for each class. It would mean growing their supply chain by a couple orders of magnitude. It would just add "bought the wrong size motor" to the list of things new people could get wrong.

In an industrial environment you can size motors for the exact job they have to do. Even still, you have to have a range of working capability. You could optimize a motor size for a robot arm to move v1 of a product and if v2 of the product is heavier by enough you are now outside of your optimal operating conditions. So you have different motors which give you different capabilities and different limitations. You can keep cost in control by buying the smallest motor that will get you the results you want under your current parameters, but the next size motor will give you the flexibility to work within a larger operating window, so the question becomes "Do we optimize for now, or leave ourselves some overhead for the future?" Sometimes it is a physical constraint where you can't fit the optimum motor, so you are forced to use something else and make other adjustments to the system to help the wrong motor work. Similarly, 540 sized rc motors have to work in a variety of vehicles and conditions. Instead of size we optimize with gearing, timing, esc settings, rotors, 2/4 pole, and cooling fans.

The thing is, people always claim to want more power (especially in spec racing), but rarely can they use it. They think the reason they are slower is down to their motor and that is rarely the case. Instead of keeping the car the same and improving their driving ability, they are always changing something about the car, hoping the next change will magically erase the on track deficits.

We would need a fundamental shift in rc racing to go to a system where we could optimize motor size for particular classes. Get rid of spec classes at the same time. First hour of race day is controlled timed qualifying practice where you are ranked by your fastest 3 consecutive laps among your vehicle type. Top 1/3 go to Expert, middle 1/3 go to Intermediate, and the rest go to Sportsman. Newbies go to Novice class where you can run whichever chassis you want. It would make electric racing much more like nitro where everyone runs a .21 engine in their 1/8th scale and you include a clutch bell with the kit because every motor will work with that clutch bell. That would be great, but I doubt ROAR/IFMAR would ever do anything like that, so we've got what we've got and people will continue to ask where to set their timing and what pinion they need.
gigaplex likes this.
waitwhat is offline  
Old 06-29-2020, 08:45 PM
  #56  
Tech Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 782
Default

Originally Posted by waitwhat View Post
The problem is there are so many different classes which all use 540 size motors per ROAR/IFMAR. A motor could end up in a 1/12th scale pan car or a short course truck. Obviously, making motors for specific chassis' would allow you to optimize the motor, but then you are stuck with a motor that only works for one type of vehicle. Where do you draw the line? If you optimize a motor for a car right at the minimum weight, anyone running a car heavier than minimum would be at a greater disadvantage. I doubt rc motor manufacturers would want to have to deal with a different motor design for each class. It would mean growing their supply chain by a couple orders of magnitude. It would just add "bought the wrong size motor" to the list of things new people could get wrong.

In an industrial environment you can size motors for the exact job they have to do. Even still, you have to have a range of working capability. You could optimize a motor size for a robot arm to move v1 of a product and if v2 of the product is heavier by enough you are now outside of your optimal operating conditions. So you have different motors which give you different capabilities and different limitations. You can keep cost in control by buying the smallest motor that will get you the results you want under your current parameters, but the next size motor will give you the flexibility to work within a larger operating window, so the question becomes "Do we optimize for now, or leave ourselves some overhead for the future?" Sometimes it is a physical constraint where you can't fit the optimum motor, so you are forced to use something else and make other adjustments to the system to help the wrong motor work. Similarly, 540 sized rc motors have to work in a variety of vehicles and conditions. Instead of size we optimize with gearing, timing, esc settings, rotors, 2/4 pole, and cooling fans.

The thing is, people always claim to want more power (especially in spec racing), but rarely can they use it. They think the reason they are slower is down to their motor and that is rarely the case. Instead of keeping the car the same and improving their driving ability, they are always changing something about the car, hoping the next change will magically erase the on track deficits.

We would need a fundamental shift in rc racing to go to a system where we could optimize motor size for particular classes. Get rid of spec classes at the same time. First hour of race day is controlled timed qualifying practice where you are ranked by your fastest 3 consecutive laps among your vehicle type. Top 1/3 go to Expert, middle 1/3 go to Intermediate, and the rest go to Sportsman. Newbies go to Novice class where you can run whichever chassis you want. It would make electric racing much more like nitro where everyone runs a .21 engine in their 1/8th scale and you include a clutch bell with the kit because every motor will work with that clutch bell. That would be great, but I doubt ROAR/IFMAR would ever do anything like that, so we've got what we've got and people will continue to ask where to set their timing and what pinion they need.
Philosophically good points. I could debate the details but there are examples and counter examples to everything and we could both get off in the weeds. The idea is to make it easier and more dependable. I dont think anyone wants to make it more complicated. You are 100% right about people thinking a modification will solve their problems. Practice does make perfect. I think that practice creates understanding even if its only in applying a technique rather than applying the science. A technique works pretty damn well for allot of people. the science works for less people. In either case people are satisfied with the situation. Im satisfied with the situation because I can do either and know that the knowledge im missing is primarily going to come from fixing a problem on track and remembering it the next time.

Id love to see a step towards easier but I dont need it. I guess i was hoping that some of you old timers that have been racing would see a benefit in terms of building a bench of future racers in simplifying. none of that would really matter in the short term though because a manufacturer would have to release a product without a monetary justification.

An open source ESC that could compete at some level would allow racers to build evidence. For the most part there isnt allot of intellectual property in the software of ESCs that someone would be putting in danger by opening up the hardware to software development. in fact a community of development could create allot of IP for the mfg.

Even in the world where an ESC (drive) and motor can do fast fourier transformation and manage 12M pulses of resolution per revolution the difference in hardware isnt much. its all in the code. Most of the open source stuff I see comes out of Germany. Maybe a german ESC mfg will create such a monster.

Ive been a hopeless dreamer for a long time. Ive seen too many of those dreams come true to disregard the possibility. But it always starts with someone saying something and a few people deciding its possible. Its a little too soon for a new direction but I hope its never too late.
Bry195 is offline  
Old 06-29-2020, 09:28 PM
  #57  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (6)
 
Billy Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far south suburbs of Chicago area
Posts: 12,162
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by waitwhat View Post
The problem is there are so many different classes which all use 540 size motors per ROAR/IFMAR. A motor could end up in a 1/12th scale pan car or a short course truck. Obviously, making motors for specific chassis' would allow you to optimize the motor, but then you are stuck with a motor that only works for one type of vehicle. Where do you draw the line? If you optimize a motor for a car right at the minimum weight, anyone running a car heavier than minimum would be at a greater disadvantage. I doubt rc motor manufacturers would want to have to deal with a different motor design for each class. It would mean growing their supply chain by a couple orders of magnitude. It would just add "bought the wrong size motor" to the list of things new people could get wrong.


We would need a fundamental shift in rc racing to go to a system where we could optimize motor size for particular classes. Get rid of spec classes at the same time. First hour of race day is controlled timed qualifying practice where you are ranked by your fastest 3 consecutive laps among your vehicle type. Top 1/3 go to Expert, middle 1/3 go to Intermediate, and the rest go to Sportsman. Newbies go to Novice class where you can run whichever chassis you want. It would make electric racing much more like nitro where everyone runs a .21 engine in their 1/8th scale and you include a clutch bell with the kit because every motor will work with that clutch bell. That would be great, but I doubt ROAR/IFMAR would ever do anything like that, so we've got what we've got and people will continue to ask where to set their timing and what pinion they need.
Iíve read this a few times since posted. Iím not sure I follow. Maybe Iíve not seen classes big enuff to visualize what you mean. Saturday was the most people Iíve ever been around in one class. We had 17 for VTA. Iím fairly sure they split up the heats by the few practice laps run. We had 9 classes running over the day. The first two qualifiers, then the mains. They seemed to sort us out of the two qualifiers. Buts itís not like it would be possible to have every class just out running for an hour. Thereís something Iím not understanding in this idea.
Billy Kelly is offline  
Old 06-29-2020, 09:33 PM
  #58  
Tech Lord
iTrader: (6)
 
Billy Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far south suburbs of Chicago area
Posts: 12,162
Trader Rating: 6 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by waitwhat View Post
The problem is there are so many different classes which all use 540 size motors per ROAR/IFMAR. A motor could end up in a 1/12th scale pan car or a short course truck. Obviously, making motors for specific chassis' would allow you to optimize the motor, but then you are stuck with a motor that only works for one type of vehicle. Where do you draw the line? If you optimize a motor for a car right at the minimum weight, anyone running a car heavier than minimum would be at a greater disadvantage. I doubt rc motor manufacturers would want to have to deal with a different motor design for each class. It would mean growing their supply chain by a couple orders of magnitude. It would just add "bought the wrong size motor" to the list of things new people could get wrong.

In an industrial environment you can size motors for the exact job they have to do. Even still, you have to have a range of working capability. You could optimize a motor size for a robot arm to move v1 of a product and if v2 of the product is heavier by enough you are now outside of your optimal operating conditions. So you have different motors which give you different capabilities and different limitations. You can keep cost in control by buying the smallest motor that will get you the results you want under your current parameters, but the next size motor will give you the flexibility to work within a larger operating window, so the question becomes "Do we optimize for now, or leave ourselves some overhead for the future?" Sometimes it is a physical constraint where you can't fit the optimum motor, so you are forced to use something else and make other adjustments to the system to help the wrong motor work. Similarly, 540 sized rc motors have to work in a variety of vehicles and conditions. Instead of size we optimize with gearing, timing, esc settings, rotors, 2/4 pole, and cooling fans.

The thing is, people always claim to want more power (especially in spec racing), but rarely can they use it. They think the reason they are slower is down to their motor and that is rarely the case. Instead of keeping the car the same and improving their driving ability, they are always changing something about the car, hoping the next change will magically erase the on track deficits.

We would need a fundamental shift in rc racing to go to a system where we could optimize motor size for particular classes. Get rid of spec classes at the same time. First hour of race day is controlled timed qualifying practice where you are ranked by your fastest 3 consecutive laps among your vehicle type. Top 1/3 go to Expert, middle 1/3 go to Intermediate, and the rest go to Sportsman. Newbies go to Novice class where you can run whichever chassis you want. It would make electric racing much more like nitro where everyone runs a .21 engine in their 1/8th scale and you include a clutch bell with the kit because every motor will work with that clutch bell. That would be great, but I doubt ROAR/IFMAR would ever do anything like that, so we've got what we've got and people will continue to ask where to set their timing and what pinion they need.
Originally Posted by Bry195 View Post
Philosophically good points. I could debate the details but there are examples and counter examples to everything and we could both get off in the weeds. The idea is to make it easier and more dependable. I dont think anyone wants to make it more complicated. You are 100% right about people thinking a modification will solve their problems. Practice does make perfect. I think that practice creates understanding even if its only in applying a technique rather than applying the science. A technique works pretty damn well for allot of people. the science works for less people. In either case people are satisfied with the situation. Im satisfied with the situation because I can do either and know that the knowledge im missing is primarily going to come from fixing a problem on track and remembering it the next time.

Id love to see a step towards easier but I dont need it. I guess i was hoping that some of you old timers that have been racing would see a benefit in terms of building a bench of future racers in simplifying. none of that would really matter in the short term though because a manufacturer would have to release a product without a monetary justification.

An open source ESC that could compete at some level would allow racers to build evidence. For the most part there isnt allot of intellectual property in the software of ESCs that someone would be putting in danger by opening up the hardware to software development. in fact a community of development could create allot of IP for the mfg.

Even in the world where an ESC (drive) and motor can do fast fourier transformation and manage 12M pulses of resolution per revolution the difference in hardware isnt much. its all in the code. Most of the open source stuff I see comes out of Germany. Maybe a german ESC mfg will create such a monster.

Ive been a hopeless dreamer for a long time. Ive seen too many of those dreams come true to disregard the possibility. But it always starts with someone saying something and a few people deciding its possible. Its a little too soon for a new direction but I hope its never too late.
For us non technical people, can you simplify this. I’m sure each brand would claim there’s something proprietary in their stuff they’d rather not share with everyone. Even if not true.

I still can’t figure out how the multi quote thing works.
Billy Kelly is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 01:35 PM
  #59  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (9)
 
IndyRC_Racer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,022
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

A company called G-Force out of Japan does/did make a brushless motor rev limiter. It was released in 2014. Here is a link on RCTECH discussing it - Rev Limiters - The Next Step for Spec Racing?

I'm not suggesting this as a solution and I doubt many people have heard of it. But I'm not surprised that this hasn't become an option in organized racing.
IndyRC_Racer is offline  
Old 06-30-2020, 05:52 PM
  #60  
Tech Elite
iTrader: (2)
 
gigaplex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Posts: 3,183
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Originally Posted by IndyRC_Racer View Post
A company called G-Force out of Japan does/did make a brushless motor rev limiter. It was released in 2014. Here is a link on RCTECH discussing it - Rev Limiters - The Next Step for Spec Racing?

I'm not suggesting this as a solution and I doubt many people have heard of it. But I'm not surprised that this hasn't become an option in organized racing.
ETS does use rev-limiting ESCs. The Hobbywing Justock XR10 ESC that gets lots of recommendations for being a great inexpensive ESC has a couple of firmware options to add RPM limits.
gigaplex is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.