"solves the argument"

*very next post tries to argue*

That's funny to me.

One thing though, if anyone else has a better testing method, or better data... they can just make a video showing it. But let's not kid ourselves, people would rather argue even though the data is staring them in the face.

True, it's bassed off friction. In the videos discription, I mention that. If i would have only did a thinner pinion, then people would have argued that the wieght or material was the reason for better performance. With this test. You see its all about the fruction. To note, I used light weight pinions in this test.

I ordered a thin plastic pinion to test the difference. I should have it by the end of the week. I'll try to get that video up next weekend.

Very true!
​​that's this video, there's no question about it. With my motor testing videos, I always add that my findings are my personal opinions. I will have 1 or 2 people say I'm wrong, but they never explain why.

I'm not trying to convince people that one motor is better than another. I just want to get the data out there so people can see the differences in the motors.

And when you use 2 same materials for the gears the friction is high. That is because 2 equal surfaces on microscopic level do grab into each other giving a much higher resistance than using gears of different materials. With that knowledge you should understand the wear of the gears of a same material is much higher.

To do a rough prediction I would expect the difference of a full touch and half touch with one plastic pinion much smaller.

If you want to do it right you want DLC coated pinions.

There is no such thing as "doing it right." No matter how I do it, someone else will have a different opinion on what it right. For example, this last video. Its obvious some are missing the point.

My point is, same gears, positioned differently, will produce a noticeable different outcome.

I did not miss the point. You called it a test of X but you actually did test Y.

However, its still valuable and interesting. You just should have done the test back to back with a thin pinion. And Roelofs point is very valid as well. Rcs are very small, so any difference any change, all details matter.

Though Junkie your test was interesting. It isolated just the gear friction aspect of power loss. So you cant call it a thin pinion test, because even an aluminum thin pinion is signifigantly lighter. Also as Roelof pointed out metal on metal is the worst case scenario for that. But you're just 1 test shy of having a full data set, maybe 2 tests if you can test a plastic spur vs metal pinon. Or a thin aluminum pinion and thin plastic pinion.

So you have your original test, the pinion moved for half engagement, and then a true thin plastic pinion for the best case scenario. But with a 7 KV difference between the first tests, it really is a small difference.

So, at the tracks, you have the guys with the thinner aluminum gears talking about the performance differences they have noticed. The guys with the wider pinions don't believe there is a difference. I have some thin plastic pinions, but they are worn. However, this was not about what is lighter or what material is better. As I stated in the video, it is based off of friction and only friction. I didn't even put any lube on them because that's not the point. Maybe that could be part of my next video. Maybe I'll slap some dry silicone or some lead on the gears.

Like my other videos, about upgrading motors, I wanted to show step-by-step data on where the actual performance is coming from. If I would have just slapped on a thin plastic pinion, I would of have people screaming "The performance is due to it being plastic." while others are screaming "No, it's due to less surface area," and then the other group claiming, "It's because of the lower rotating mass." Soooo... I am trying to eliminate those discussions.

Anyhow, I have another plastic pinion on its way. I'm hoping to get it this week and have the video up by the end of this weekend.

Thank you for the complement about the video having good valuable and interesting content, which is my goal. I know I will not have all the information in my videos, but I try to do the best I can with what I have.

To prevent further confusion, I changed the name of the video.

You Tube

You can rename the video but still it is an unreal setup and so the outcome is a bit misleading.
If you have a heat cam you can also compare the friction based on the produced heat.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Really dude?
Because a heat cam will make so much more sense out of the reason for the outcome, and the setup is "unreal?" Sure, I can put the setup in an actual RC, but it's still the same thing. Two gears rubbing against each other while turning a load. I can put a heat cam on the gears. Guess what, people don't care about the temp of the gears. They are smart enough to know that there is friction and friction causes heat. I can throw an oscilloscope into the mix, but people will still be looking for the final current draw, kV, and RPM. Those are the only things that matter. The heat of the gears, the way of the setup, and 2 hours worth of further testing will not change the final outcome, which is, the slightest bit of extra contact will lead to a loss of power.

Let me ask you something. By seeing the video, do you feel that a thinner gear will contribute to obtaining a higher speed? If not, please explain.

Some people's kids...

You’re making awesome videos, right or wrong, so keep it up and thank you for sharing the content. I agree taking a shortcut to shift the position of the pinion was a little odd, but I still enjoyed it. It’s kind of like abbreviating a word instead of just typing it out - just type it and do it right. It doesn’t take that much longer. If you’re going to use a thin pinion, just use a thin pinion. It’s not like you had a deadline to publish the video a couple days sooner, right?

Where's your video?

Again, the video is about an unrealistic use of 2 metal gears showing a higher friction than expected with a normally used metal pinion and a plastic spur which by itself has a lower friction. Then the difference between a wide and a small contact surface between the gears will also be lower. And then... on the track you will face more resistance from the tires belts, bearings, weight of the car and and aerodynamics of the body. Not only resistance but also unbalance from tires and other rotating parts play a role, so then the question is how much total difference will be left over on only the gears compared by your static stand only trying to test some gears with some load on it.

And if you want to show differences of gears then I think the pitch size will be more interesting. Like in the 1/8 onroad gas racing all brands did go from mod-1 to mod 0.8 which did gave more fragile gears and to me stil a doubt of a better performance than only one gain, a better finetune on the gearing ratio. The same we see with electrics, going from 32pitch to 48 pitch to 64 pitch and not long ago a brand was busy with 80 pitch but probably that was no succes. Yes, we use 48 and 64pitch while most go for the 64 pitch because the commercial story is that they have a lower friction but how much lower?

Do not get me wrong, such tests do show the public true gains and can give some prove we drivers are only lead by commercial gains of manufacturers but these test must be done in a realistic condition.

Before writing such a question it would be better to find out more about me.
Beside that, open a dictionary and look op the meaning of the word "forum", it is a place to discuss, if you like it or not.