Most motors have a shallow slope to 70% and a sharp slope down. The motor I tested that is the exception that is shallow up and shallow down was the r1 21.5 v21. This sounds great and it is but it means the thermals are more complicated. If you have a peaky motor that drops quickly after peak its easier to calculate the max rpm you will ever need and keep it below the negative slope and not be as concerned about the thermal dissipation. Why-because the motor turns into a dog abruptly which means it also generates a ton of heat quickly which is easier to observe than a slow taper up and down.

the motolyzer will not tell you torque or output power in units of measurement. If you are in the ballpark for efficiency current in has a linear relationship to torque out. Using the xy plot will give you extremely accurate numbers for what it is. You can compare one setting to another. You can compare one motor to another (unloaded). If you find peak efficiency or peak torque using the xy and someone told you what that peak torque equals on a motor dyno you could apply that same torque to other peaks on an xy plot.

in light of recent threads i would say that it is also a bad idea to compare values from 1 motolyzer to another motolyzer. I would think that comparing curves generated from one motolyzer to another could be compared if your comparisons are relative measurements based on the peak of each curve generated by different analyzers. I would assume that the differences from one analyzer brand to another is at least a problem in the current resolution and calibration. Absolute measurements like 5.8 is the peak efficiency on one maybe be 6 on another. But if you find peakE and then compare changes based on plus .2 amps to get peak power from the center point of efficiency the differences in calibration from 1 to another should be minimal.