Go Back  R/C Tech Forums > General Forums > Radio and Electronics
17.5t Motor comparison using only dyno data >

17.5t Motor comparison using only dyno data

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Like Tree33Likes

17.5t Motor comparison using only dyno data

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-04-2018 | 01:53 PM
  #1  
EbbTide's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Elite
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,264
From: Bay Area, Ca
Default 17.5t Motor comparison using only dyno data

I recently got two motors from Rotor Ron and both have been tuned by him and I saw some interesting differences between the two motors. And strictly based on the numbers here, I wanted to pick everyones brain as to what motor you consider to be the better one of the two and why would you pick that one? I am pretty new to the whole dyno tuned motor theme so it would be nice to get some input from others who have experience tuning motors using similar data.


EbbTide is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 03:55 PM
  #2  
JayL's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,111
From: Ca
Default

can't compare: 41 vs 46 timing
Should have set them both at the same timing, if you want to compare
JayL is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 04:19 PM
  #3  
EbbTide's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Elite
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,264
From: Bay Area, Ca
Default

Originally Posted by JayL
can't compare: 41 vs 46 timing
Should have set them both at the same timing, if you want to compare
I'm just wondering based on the RPM and torque/rotor numbers. This is assuming the ideal timing numbers for each motor were set during the dyno session. These are Ron's numbers that he included with each motor.
EbbTide is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 04:21 PM
  #4  
Bri
Tech Regular
 
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
From: United States
Default

From what I read, Rotor Ron sets the timing of each motor for optimal power. The 41 is the better motor, it has an edge in rpm, efficiency, more watts and uses less amps than the 46 motor.

Best regards,
Brian
EbbTide likes this.
Bri is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 04:49 PM
  #5  
the rc guy's Avatar
Tech Elite
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,433
From: Detroit
Default

Originally Posted by JayL
can't compare: 41 vs 46 timing
Should have set them both at the same timing, if you want to compare
in the same boat no comparison with 5 degrees difference.
TheRay57 likes this.
the rc guy is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 05:18 PM
  #6  
hanulec's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Member
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,641
From: @ the post office
Default

Rotor on the left looks to be cheater... Is that a mod rotor?
stator on the right is better.
Timing board on the left is better.

Basically these motors couldn't be any more different -- ignore the timing
Randy_Pike likes this.
hanulec is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 05:31 PM
  #7  
RC*PHREAK's Avatar
Tech Champion
iTrader: (147)
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,404
Default

i'm gonna say the one on the left is trinity punisher and one on right is either: V16 R1 or V3R fantom. whatever is on the left clearly has a rotor that is not legal for ROAR spec racing.

i really have no idea how he comes up with the timing numbers. seems like motor on left still has some performance in it. it is at 74% efficiency at it's power peak while motor on right is 66% at max power. what would motor on left look like with more timing?
EbbTide and JPAPA26 like this.
RC*PHREAK is offline  
Old 06-04-2018 | 05:32 PM
  #8  
EbbTide's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Elite
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,264
From: Bay Area, Ca
Default

Originally Posted by hanulec
Rotor on the left looks to be cheater... Is that a mod rotor?
stator on the right is better.
Timing board on the left is better.

Basically these motors couldn't be any more different -- ignore the timing
The rotor on the left is factory stock so I'm not quite sure what they'd consider it. The motor on the right was treated with aluminum screws and timing ring which I thought would give an edge on efficiency. But im looking forward to trying each one on track to see if the numbers make sense out there.

Thank you for the input so far fellas
Cain likes this.
EbbTide is offline  
Old 06-05-2018 | 10:36 AM
  #9  
Cain's Avatar
Tech Legend
iTrader: (304)
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 35,030
From: West Fargo, North Dakota
Default

Anyone got a nice breakdown of what each field on the sheets shown mean and how to use them for tuning?

So what do you guys look for as far as an overall since of "power" and what parts of the dyno sheet do you look at for a given RPM for a given track?

so for example, running on a short track, lots of 180s so you want torque. Same example in reverse, etc.

funny thing is if the motor on the left is the one I think it is, sounds like the common timing range is like 46 to 48 degrees.
EbbTide likes this.
Cain is offline  
Old 06-06-2018 | 08:57 PM
  #10  
GerryH's Avatar
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 978
Default

With most motors and timing, you get to a point where torque and power are somewhat optimized. There's a fairly narrow band of timing that will shift the power band up or down in the RPM range on a specific motor. It's within this narrow range, you shift the timing based on the track. More timing when you spend more time high in the RPM range and vice versa.

That being said, I'd say the left motor will perform better. Torque is about the same through the RPM range listed and the left one has more power at same RPM points except for the very top end. Generally the motor with more power over most of the RPM range will perform better. But it's very dependent on your track layout. If it was an oval track, the right motor would probably be better.

Then you have to figure out gearing. Way too many variables to figure out on paper. Check your lap times and make adjustments from there.
EbbTide likes this.
GerryH is offline  
Old 06-07-2018 | 04:56 AM
  #11  
Davidka's Avatar
Tech Lord
iTrader: (86)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,890
From: Midwest
Default

Originally Posted by the rc guy
in the same boat no comparison with 5 degrees difference.
The motor set at 41* appears to be stronger. Assuming Ron knows what he is doing, it would get worse with more timing. Likewise, the other motor would get worse with less.

Timing is meant set optimally for each motor. How a motor runs at a given timing setting is not a measure of it's capability. That's why timing is adjustable. As racers, we only care about how are motors run at their best.
Davidka is offline  
Old 06-07-2018 | 07:57 AM
  #12  
EbbTide's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Elite
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,264
From: Bay Area, Ca
Default

Originally Posted by Davidka
The motor set at 41* appears to be stronger. Assuming Ron knows what he is doing, it would get worse with more timing. Likewise, the other motor would get worse with less.

Timing is meant set optimally for each motor. How a motor runs at a given timing setting is not a measure of it's capability. That's why timing is adjustable. As racers, we only care about how are motors run at their best.
That was my thought process as well, if he set the timing to be at its peak efficiency then it won't matter that the timing is different on each motor because each motor is putting out as much power as it can according to the dyno. Thank you for the insight Its looking like the left one is taking the lead! Both will be tried but I'm actually really pleased with these results so far. I will say the left motor is much cheaper.
EbbTide is offline  
Old 06-07-2018 | 08:16 AM
  #13  
Bri
Tech Regular
 
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 340
From: United States
Default

Can you let us know what motor the one on the left is?

Best regards,
Brian
Bri is offline  
Old 06-07-2018 | 08:21 AM
  #14  
EbbTide's Avatar
Thread Starter
Tech Elite
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,264
From: Bay Area, Ca
Default

Well since we have had some good feedback here on the blind data sheets above I'll reveal the motors

The motor on the left is the Maclan Team Edition v2 17.5 with nothing added to it
The motor on the right is the Wurks r1 v16 17.5 with every option possible (aluminum screws, aluminum timing ring and upgraded bearings)
EbbTide is offline  
Old 06-08-2018 | 03:14 AM
  #15  
dvaid852456's Avatar
Tech Regular
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 383
Default

I only have a motor analyser that checks KV, volts, amps and RPM under no load. I am thinking of building a full motor dyno to get some power/efficiency graphs under load to compare my motors.

The issue I wonder if people could help me with is regarding increasing timing. I increased the timing by 1 degree at a time on my 17.5 motor, checking the actual timing on the motor analyser. I then took readings in the table below.



Obviously as the timing increased so did the KV and the amps. I know this is under no load but amps and KV just keep going up as you increase the timing. If the motor was under load would you see a point where additional timing yielded no increase in KV and only an increase in amps? Is this how you would set the timing using a dyno and where the motor is at max power? Also how is the motor efficiency calculated?

From testing on track, 52 degrees seemed to give the best performance and the motor was coming off around 80C on a very warm day. With the motor analyser it all feels like guess work and I'm not sure if I am running too much timing and hence not getting the maximum power from my motor. My current method is to set the timing so the unloaded motor pulls 6A and then fine tune timing and gearing on track according to lap time and temperature. Would using a Dyno let me set my motor to it's maximum power and then simply tune gearing on track?

The manufacturer said this particular motor is at peak power at 65W with 51 degrees of timing and will be around 6A. I saw an improvement in lap times at 52 degrees at 7A which is higher than the manufacturer's recommendation. Is this for saftey margin so they don't provide settings that blow the motor? Is it correct to simply keep cranking on timing and tune gearing to keep temps below 80C?
dvaid852456 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.