Lightweight motors...

[tklatti]

In the quest for lighter rigs. Just curious if motor builders have looked into different materials to cut weight.

[Erin]

Talk to Eddie at Brood.....and bring your wallet

[EddieO]

I sell lightweight options for your motors....I can shave about 5 grams off most endbells with lightweight timing rings, spring posts, heatsinks and screws.

For the cans, I have gotten them lathed down saving about 18 grams or so a motor.

We are just a little under an ounce a motor......I made some motors called the stubby, which save nearly 2 ounces, but I dunno if I can ever release them because of the cost ($600 or so a set)....

I have some other stuff in the works, but materials are limited to a degree because of how our little motors work.

Later EddieO

[AR Fabrication]

For $600 I would drop in a V8 and call it good.

[TedBull]

I own a total of 5 of Eddie's lightweight Vapor motors that I run in my 2.2, super, and sporty. He builds top notch motors. In the future im sure I will drop the cash for a pair of his stubby motors. Well worth the $$$ for the weight saved and the excellent build quality. Thanks again Eddie for upping the game.

[Grimreeper]

I wonder if anyone has tried aluminum wire to wind a motor. I'm no expert so it just seems like something new. Maybe the cons outweigh the pros.

[JohnRobHolmes]

There are plenty of ways to cut weight, for sure. I have been working on the same goals for a while and haven't publicly shown the work. Aluminum wire would cut weight, but the increased resistance washes out the gain. Silver wire would be the way to go on that front.

By nationals I should have some lighter brushed motors to show. The first version is about an ounce lighter and *is estimated* to be a $30 price increase on any base motor, an affordable choice with regular parts. The second version is two ounces lighter with *an estimated* $100 retail, but without any performance losses as compared to the typical lightening techniques. In fact the performance should be much better. The third version of light motors we are working on won't have a huge weight savings, but the torque density will be increased quite a bit. These motors *are expected* to retail about $110 each. All are being developed for high performance competition rigs, although choice two and three will be great choices for every day use too.


Then there are the sensored outrunners. The Revolver Stubby version is 3.5 ounces, about a three ounce loss. Not the best for competing MOA yet, as the controllers aren't as light so the total system is a wash on weight. Super awesome for shafties and scalers though.

[EddieO]

We did it in the racing days, they simply blew up every run within a minute or so, as there is no reliable way to solder aluminum to copper that can handle the stresses an rc motor would put out. I probably spent nearly $1000 on special solders.

We then tried copper clad aluminum wire.....same story basically. The copper clad is so thin, it comes off so easy when you scrape the insulation off. The motors worked on the bench, but they would basically last a 5 minute run on the track and as soon as they cooled down they were toast, assuming they did not explode. They were pretty fast, especially on tight tracks.

The big problem too is they are much less efficient, as aluminum isn't as a good a conductor as copper. So to gain the same power, we would need to drop winds, but then the torque gets all screwy.

Orion tested some as well, as did Big Jim.......all met with failure.

Basically, its a waste of time...though I am sure someone will still try it again.

Later EddieO

[tklatti]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

There are plenty of ways to cut weight, for sure. I have been working on the same goals for a while and haven't publicly shown the work. Aluminum wire would cut weight, but the increased resistance washes out the gain. Silver wire would be the way to go on that front.

By nationals I should have some lighter brushed motors to show. The first version is about an ounce lighter and just a bit more expensive. The second version is two ounces lighter with a modest increase in price as well, but without any performance losses as compared to the typical lightening techniques. In fact the performance should be much better. The third version of light motors we are working on won't have a huge weight savings, but the torque density will be increased quite a bit.


Then there are the sensored outrunners. The Stubby version is 3.5 ounces, about a three ounce loss. Not the best for competing yet, as the controllers aren't as light so the total system is a wash on weight.

Looking forward to the future motors comming out! Sounds cool.

[JohnRobHolmes]

I have waaaay too many designs on the table right now, I'm looking forwards to it too Losing a worker for the past few months and losing my motor winder kinda screwed up my mojo on rolling out the new designs.

[EddieO]

I think I am within the rules

As per Jason

"If your post is to the effect of "We are looking at producing XYZ, we anticipate the cost to be around $50" I have no problem with that.

If your post is, "We now have this new XYZ available, priced right around $50" That is not ok, you have the product done, you know what the price is, put it in the vendor thread."

My stubby motors are not available, I may produce them, but I doubt I will and like I had said, they would be north of $600 a set if I did.

And my current lightening techniques have not shown any loss in performance, in fact most users have reported the motors being more peppy with no loss in drag brake or torque.

Later EddieO

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by TEDBULL

I own a total of 5 of Eddie's lightweight Vapor motors that I run in my 2.2, super, and sporty. He builds top notch motors. In the future im sure I will drop the cash for a pair of his stubby motors. Well worth the $$$ for the weight saved and the excellent build quality. Thanks again Eddie for upping the game.

as do i

althought the stubby motors are expensive, there is just no better way to lighten a motor and keep performance.

i am running the stubbies in my "NEXT LEVEL" super and they are quite powerful, smooth, and actually solve some link issues because of the reduced can lenghth.

they really are "THE NEXT LEVEL"

for that they are, and have to in my opinion, be expensive....you dont see bmw or ferrari handing out their concept cars for the price of their base models do you?

although i am sponsored by eddie, it is well documented that i have been using his motors well before he ever started hooking me up and their is good reason for it.

his dedication to taking things a step farther than everyone else has been proven, once again, with these little stubby gems.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Fair enough, we can call it feeler or whatever. I just saw $$ signs

I would be interested to see the efficiency change and flux leakages you have measured, if no performance is lost then there will be no measurable changes. Certainly, performance loss on the bench and performance loss in the rig are different things, just as every single driver has their own idea of what performance entails. Torque and efficiency loss do occur with back iron thinning starting at 0.005. Thin the can, lose flux density from the reduction of magnet coupling.

Yes, you will have more pep with less magnet flux- KV goes up and more power will be put down if the rotor isn't in saturation. Drag or torque loss may not be noticeable on a very light rig. The rub is in the battery size, it has to be big enough to support the increased current flow needed to produce torque. Its a fine line, and I'm very glad to see you working that line and helping push the sport to the next level.

[Cordwood]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

By nationals I should have some lighter brushed motors to show. The first version is about an ounce lighter and *is estimated* to be a $30 price increase on any base motor, an affordable choice with regular parts. The second version is two ounces lighter with *an estimated* $100 retail, but without any performance losses as compared to the typical lightening techniques. In fact the performance should be much better. The third version of light motors we are working on won't have a huge weight savings, but the torque density will be increased quite a bit. These motors *are expected* to retail about $110 each. All are being developed for high performance competition rigs, although choice two and three will be great choices for every day use too.

Two ounches shaved off a motor with increased performance sounds a little far fetched, but never say never, I guess. I can't wait to check them out at Nats.

I am assuming youre using conventional parts for a 540 motor?

[JohnRobHolmes]

Conventional parts, the armature and brushes. Production versions will have specialized armatures that are cross compatible with my other 540 motor brands, prototypes are using off the shelf armatures.

[JohnRobHolmes]

More than three years ago I was winding and building 454 Pullers for lightweight competitors, there is nothing new about going light. 3.7 ounces ready to go. An example of testing from three years back. Cobalt 454 14t puller motor - YouTube

I essentially scaled it up just a smidge for better torque density.

[BigBlackCummins]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

More than three years ago I was winding and building 454 Pullers for lightweight competitors, there is nothing new about going light. 3.7 ounces ready to go. An example of testing from three years back. Cobalt 454 14t puller motor - YouTube

I essentially scaled it up just a smidge for better torque density.

I'm not trying to be negative, just wanted to point out that Crash pulled those motors out of his Bully because they were so jumpy, he tried everything and couldn't get the smooth start up that he wanted to "crawl" with them...



My pair of Team Brood Stubbys in my 2.2 Berg have super smooth start up with tons of torque. In my opinion, if you want controlled crawling performance, you really can't scrifice smooth start up for any amount of weight savings! Going light is one thing, going light with smooth control is quite another thing altogether!
I also agree with Krawlfreak, great performance will always come at a price, but I think Eddie nailed it with his Stubby motors!

[JohnRobHolmes]

Slotting helps the low speed control a lot on the 454s. They weren't a perfect motor by any means, no motor is. I completely agree, low speed control is very important. Much more so today than four years ago. Thats probably why the majority of my team use 5 slot or skewed arms at this point.