April Propwash 2018 web.pub

I'd actually take it one-step further and simply list a set of motor parameters and let you choose; kind of a "Free Market Capitalistic" approach to racing. But people in RC boating have shown, quite clearly, that that requires more thought and consideration than they are generally wanting to provide to the process, so it's easier just to give them a specific list of choices, which is more like the "Socialistic" approach to boat racing. The one motor allowed is an example of people not wanting to put ANY thought into what they are competing with and just flat out want to be told. To me, that would be the full on "Dictatorial, or Fascist" way to go about this, but it definitely makes for a "spec" class. I measured up several of the motors I have available here at home. The results are below. NOTE: All of these are motors I would feel very comfortable with having fit into the "P-LITE" class. Of these, the largest Diameter is 36.3712mm (Pro Boat Dynamite 1800) and the longest Length is 61.1378mm (SSS 3660 2050KV). P Limited Motor Tests By Darin Jordan (Continued from page 21) At 140 amps, well, that's the difference a big motor makes. While the rest of the P-limited motors are smoking in the infield, the 40mm motor is still only around 170-degrees (on the test bench with NO water cooling), pushing out over 2000 watts, 2.75 hp, according to the test run, or ¾ hp more than any of the P-limited motors. I'm pretty sure if you ran 140 amps through any of the other P-limited motors for 60-seconds, they'd end up smelly. Anyone who has pushed one beyond 100 amps for an extended period of time can attest. You might get away with 115-125 amps for a few races, but eventually the motor is going to bake. Every electric motor can be pushed to some limit, but testing this small sample of them wouldn't really tell us anything other than what this particular sample motor could hold up to. Would the next one? I'd need a lot more motors to find that out. I'm really only seeing one motor that could potentially "fit in" with the existing motors, and that would be the Leopard LBP3660- 1900. I'd expect, if they had a 1500 KV version that might fit too. The TP and Turnigy have more power potential than the others. In trying to determine the correct 100 amp load for the Turnigy, for example, I made one 60 second pull at over 115 amps continuous, and the motor temps only went up to the low 140s... Also saw some other pulls where it was pulling over 135 amps, and the temp still didn't increase as dramatically, though it was starting to get "warm". I can imagine that a couple of the options would be to: 1. Do nothing, let the class run as is and die off once motors aren't available. 2. Accept that the existing motors are fading off, approve some quality options, (green rows in the chart) and let the class "re- level" itself over a year or so (which has the con of negating the present investments of most competitors in the short term). 3. Approve the smaller 3650-sized motors (orange rows in the chart) and slow the class down that level. Probably maximum of 80A. 4. Select a single motor, like some of the clubs across the country have already done. In lieu of having a viable motor or two to include, the only of these 4 options that actually maintains the class is to just leave it alone. The other options completely alter the present performance levels of the class. One thing my testing should have shown people is that KV DOES NOT MATTER in regards to power output. The overall power output for two motors of the same weight and physical dimensions, and manufacture, ARE NOT DIFFERENT. Only the RPM is different. Load them both to 100 amps and the watts are the same. So it then becomes a hull-tuning and prop selection issue. One motor let's you compete with a hull that likes a small, fast spinning prop. The other let's you compete with a larger hull that performs well with a larger, higher- pitched prop. Both go 60 mph. PROPWASH Page 22 April 2018 DYNM 390-1750 Data Chart