Motor/ESC experts please chime in: Motor vs ESC Timing, which is better?
#1
Motor/ESC experts please chime in: Motor vs ESC Timing, which is better?
I searched and didn't come up with an answer to my question in the onroad and offroad threads. I've always wondered, if you wanted 20 degrees of timing (or whatever), is it better to do it in the motor itself or do it through the ESC?
What I'm wondering is if one is more efficient than the other, if one way yields more rpm or torque than the other, etc. Or do they provide EXACTLY the same results?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
What I'm wondering is if one is more efficient than the other, if one way yields more rpm or torque than the other, etc. Or do they provide EXACTLY the same results?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
#3
Wow, I didn't know that the motor loses timing with rpm...this is great info! Are there any articles, per chance, that you can point me out to this? I've been searching and although I've come across great motor OR ESC articles, I haven't really found anything talking about timing.
#4
By the way, I found this Novak article, but it doesn't really answer my question...
http://teamnovak.com/tech_info/view_article/20
http://teamnovak.com/tech_info/view_article/20
#5
Tech Elite
iTrader: (37)
It doesn't. Fixed timing on the endbell is exactly that: fixed.
ESCs have the advantage that they can vary the timing with motor speed; the faster the speed, the more the timing is advanced. That's called, depending on the manufacturer, "dynamic timing", "boost timing", or "ramping". The result is a wider motor powerband than fixed timing gives.
ESCs have the advantage that they can vary the timing with motor speed; the faster the speed, the more the timing is advanced. That's called, depending on the manufacturer, "dynamic timing", "boost timing", or "ramping". The result is a wider motor powerband than fixed timing gives.
#8
Tech Regular
1) Mechanical Endbell" timing" is always present (be it zero or wherever).
2) For a sensored motor ESC "timing" is always present (be it at zero, or wherever) and triggered from the sensors. (unless the ESC switches to sensorles).
Last edited by ic-racer; 02-23-2015 at 05:00 AM.
#10
So no one's really answered my question... If I just want fixed timing across all RPMs, is ESC or can timing better AND WHY?
#12
Tech Master
iTrader: (1)
There is an ideal point when each motor phase is fired in relation to the rotor position. This ideal moment changes as RPM increases, so dynamic ESC timing is more efficient than static timing.
If you set your ESC to apply all the timing at 0 RPM, as if it was static timing like it would be if it was set from the endbell, they should, in theory, perform the same, but only can timing is allowed for spec class racing.
#13
if you only want 20 d then go with the motor timing as the brakes will be better,tbf 20d isnt a lot unless your running a low wind mod motor
#14
Tech Elite
iTrader: (5)
Consider this quote from the Novak website:
"The time required to attain the rotor position from the Hall Effect sensor is on the order of a few micro seconds. If a motor's rotor is turning at 80,000 RPM, that would be 1333 revolutions per second, or 1.33mS per revolution. Compared to a microprocessor running at 20MHz (or 26,600 clock cycles @ 50 nanoseconds per cycle), that is a very long time, which means that the microprocessor is capable of executing many instructions during that time frame."
Source: http://teamnovak.com/tech_info/view_article/24
Theoretically there should be no loss in timing with RPM increases. The example provided by Novak considers a motor at 80,000rpm, which in North America is very uncommon since we mostly all run some type of stock motor . A 17.5t spins about 17,000rpm +/- 2000.
"The time required to attain the rotor position from the Hall Effect sensor is on the order of a few micro seconds. If a motor's rotor is turning at 80,000 RPM, that would be 1333 revolutions per second, or 1.33mS per revolution. Compared to a microprocessor running at 20MHz (or 26,600 clock cycles @ 50 nanoseconds per cycle), that is a very long time, which means that the microprocessor is capable of executing many instructions during that time frame."
Source: http://teamnovak.com/tech_info/view_article/24
Theoretically there should be no loss in timing with RPM increases. The example provided by Novak considers a motor at 80,000rpm, which in North America is very uncommon since we mostly all run some type of stock motor . A 17.5t spins about 17,000rpm +/- 2000.
#15
Consider this quote from the Novak website:
"The time required to attain the rotor position from the Hall Effect sensor is on the order of a few micro seconds. If a motor's rotor is turning at 80,000 RPM, that would be 1333 revolutions per second, or 1.33mS per revolution. Compared to a microprocessor running at 20MHz (or 26,600 clock cycles @ 50 nanoseconds per cycle), that is a very long time, which means that the microprocessor is capable of executing many instructions during that time frame."
Source: http://teamnovak.com/tech_info/view_article/24
Theoretically there should be no loss in timing with RPM increases. The example provided by Novak considers a motor at 80,000rpm, which in North America is very uncommon since we mostly all run some type of stock motor . A 17.5t spins about 17,000rpm +/- 2000.
"The time required to attain the rotor position from the Hall Effect sensor is on the order of a few micro seconds. If a motor's rotor is turning at 80,000 RPM, that would be 1333 revolutions per second, or 1.33mS per revolution. Compared to a microprocessor running at 20MHz (or 26,600 clock cycles @ 50 nanoseconds per cycle), that is a very long time, which means that the microprocessor is capable of executing many instructions during that time frame."
Source: http://teamnovak.com/tech_info/view_article/24
Theoretically there should be no loss in timing with RPM increases. The example provided by Novak considers a motor at 80,000rpm, which in North America is very uncommon since we mostly all run some type of stock motor . A 17.5t spins about 17,000rpm +/- 2000.