Puller Pro V2 timing adjustment

[TheLetterJ]

I have a Holmes Hobbies Puller Pro V2 540 3500kv and would like to try taking some timing out of it. There are lines on the can and an arrow on the endbell, but no numbers. On other sensored motors I've had, they'd only allow retarding timing to ~20 degrees of advance, or up from there. The arrow is currently pointing at the center line (as shipped) but I don't want to take timing out of it if it's already at zero degrees so I kinda need to know what the endpoints are. Does anyone know what the minimum/maximum timing advance is within the mechanical adjustment range?

The reason for wanting to play with timing retard is that although I'd generally consider this particular car to be pretty smooth, I drove Dred805's similarly equipped (mambaX with slate 2850kv on 4s, dx5 radio, similar throttle curves programmed in the esc's, nearly identical weight/gearing/tire size) car the other day and the startup on his was significantly smoother, almost "brushed" like. My puller pro vs his slate, along with mine having over/under vs his with just one gear ratio changed, were the only really significant differences (relevant to this discussion anyway.) I'm hoping to get every last little bit of smoothness I can out of my setup, and I'm willing to lose a little power and/or peak rpm to get it. It's easier to change timing than ring & pinions, so I figured I'd start there.

[midwest_rippa]

changing the timing wont have any noticeable effect on the start up. i would really just recommend going to a lower pinion gear. it will give better start up, better drag brake, better motor temps, and lower top speed like you said you are okay with. it really is the best option here

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[mikemcE]

If the slate drives smoother it’s due to the higher Kv. I don’t run the 3500PP now, I went to the 2700PP, with the same castle/JRH curves the 3500 is too much for my 1.9 rigs geared way down. (Is perfect on my 2.2 Wraith )
Timing increases rpm in racing.
In crawling do it with gears.


Hang up and Drive

[TheLetterJ]

I run a 9t pinion, 60t spur (6.67:1) on a 3 gear transmission (2.6:1), rear axle is ar44 based (3.75:1), front is ar60 (2.92:1) for a final drive of 65:1 running 5.75" tires. The other car was not geared as low, but due to the difference in kv, they're about the same speed. I might consider throwing my ud gears in both axles (3.31 for the ar60 and 4.125 for the 44) but that's not going to drop the final drive by a huge percentage (71.5:1, or about 9% lower, far less than the change from a 3500kv to a 2700 or even 2850kv motor) and that's pretty much the end of the road for gearing down (without switching to 48p pinion/spur which I'm opposed to with that much power and that little tooth contact.) Like I said, it's way more work to change both gearsets vs 3 screws to change motor timing.

If nobody knows the answer for sure, I'll just give it a shot tomorrow and see how it goes. All that said, I'd still like to know how many degrees of timing advance the 7 lines on the can correlate to.
@JohnRobHolmes

[Voodoobrew]

Timing is in the esc settings.

Holmes motors are mostly created for smoothness. They are not designed to have the same power density as a castle motor.

So working as intended?

Also overdrive will cause binding which decreases smooth start.

Also in the esc turn startup power down. Holmes recommends high. But I always use low. Then I tune any dead throttle out in the throttle curves.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[TheLetterJ]

I'm specifically asking about the mechanical timing advance, which is adjustable on the Puller Pro V2. My understanding was that any change in esc timing was in addition to the motor's mechanical timing, ie: 10° of static/mechanical motor timing and 10° of timing from the esc would equal 20°, is that not correct?

I'm also saying that the Slate was the smoother of the 2, so my puller pro is not as smooth by comparison, which is the big reason I thought it was the right choice, so no, not working as intended. I've driven other cars with slate motors, but this was the closest setup vehicle to mine that's in question so it was kind of eye opening... did I just drink too much koolaid using HH motors in 7 of my crawlers and not diversifying?

I'm going to try the startup power on low as you suggested and see if that makes any difference too. One change at a time though and I'd still like to start with timing. If more timing hurts startup, I'd think less should help (to a point, which is still likely greater than 0°.) I'm not expecting drastic changes from any of the changes discussed here, just wanting to eek out every last little bit of smoothness I can, preferrably using what I've got.

[Voodoobrew]

I need a bit to read this over, on the computer instead of the phone.

[Voodoobrew]

I will leave this here for now

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

I’ll have to circle back for the revolver bearings. I don’t have one at home to measure.

Puller motors are timed at lowest amp draw and not physical timing. Part of this is because zero isn’t always zero due to variations in the armature. The other part is the magnet design. It does not allow for timing advance, motor efficiency goes down faster than power goes up. The motor is specifically designed for crawling, so the magnetic circuit trades off timing changes for much much smoother startups. Brush wear and arcing is not an issue at “zero” like normal motors, which is also due to the magnetic design.

The Puller is non standard in this regard. Everything you would normally assume about timing advance does not apply.

Edit: Derp this is probably brushed pullers...
I am pretty sure I read Holmes talk about this some where.
Edit v2: I just read one of the changes to the PP V2 is adjustable timing, I only have the v1, so yea, change it, just mark it first, in a way that wont come off. a sharpie can wipe off, scratch it in there IMO, if it isn't already marked.

[Voodoobrew]

Ok so by "smoother" do you mean slower initial startup speed?
or do you mean it holds it speed under load better? you can increase this by gearing down and volting up, dont know what batteries you both run, but that's a huge difference.
To me I read it as spongey/sluggish speed changes, (like how a train changes speeds), which I'm sure is not what any one is asking for. My puller pro is jerky, the opposite of smooth imo, because it has tons of power and is geared low. you can reduce this by changing the "speed" in a spektrum remote, or turning down the punch, oh thats it, smooth is the opposite of punch IMO.
I really dislike this term "Smooth", I have no F&%@ing idea what it means and everyone uses it.
Or does smooth mean less cogging?

I am assuming you mean slower initial startup speed?

everything after the picture in my first post talks about reducing startup speed, I think it took that long before my brain woke up.
Something didn't seem right so I came back to check. Ignore what I said before the picture,

The startup power, from my experience increases the minimum startup speed, basically like cutting the bottom 5-10% off your throttle. I would get with your friend and compare esc settings, because they can make a huge difference.
The esc timing only effect's top end speeds not craw speeds, so ignore what I said about that too.

If you want to mess with the motor timing, (personally I wouldn't, no idea what those sensors are going to do(well I suppose you loosen these when you clean inside the motor right? so it shouldn't hurt to change it)) make sure you mark the can and housing clearly first.

I only ever messed with timing on brushed motors, so you would probably know more then me. but I left the can a little bit loose and just kept moving it till I found the lowest throttle position that made the motor turn (to me this meant most torque and probably close to zero timing since more timing means less torque and more rpms from what I read.), then tightened it up.

Sorry if this isn't helpful. I am not very focused today... or maybe ever.

[TheLetterJ]

I suppose by "smoother" I mean a few things:

1) less jerky at small throttle positions. I wouldn't call it cogging (which I'd describe as being jittery/twitching back and forth instead of rotating all while staying under power) but it's like the power is on, then off, on, off, etc... more like riding a motorcycle that's experiencing clutch drag in a clutch-heavy scenario (if that means anything to you)... you want to inch forward, but you let the clutch out 1mm and it bites and lunges out from under you, so you pull it back in and try again, where you'd normally just slip the clutch a tiny bit and have no issues... kinda sounds like it might be the same thing as:

2) lower startup rpm

3) less of the spongey feeling you describe under load. Switching to a higher powered 540 PP from a stubby PP (haha, stubby pp!) helped tremendously with that sensation.

[mikemcE]

Originally Posted by TheLetterJ

I suppose by "smoother" I mean a few things:

1) less jerky at small throttle positions. I wouldn't call it cogging (which I'd describe as being jittery/twitching back and forth instead of rotating all while staying under power) but it's like the power is on, then off, on, off, etc... more like riding a motorcycle that's experiencing clutch drag in a clutch-heavy scenario (if that means anything to you)... you want to inch forward, but you let the clutch out 1mm and it bites and lunges out from under you, so you pull it back in and try again, where you'd normally just slip the clutch a tiny bit and have no issues... kinda sounds like it might be the same thing as:

2) lower startup rpm

3) less of the spongey feeling you describe under load. Switching to a higher powered 540 PP from a stubby PP (haha, stubby pp!) helped tremendously with that sensation.

What you’re describing sounds like you need to check out a revolver….2200-2500

Because that’s the difference to me between my PullerPro’s and my revolver.

I went as small of a pinion as fit and never had the really creepable control until the revolver. With Holmes new silent Esc you might be happy


Hang up and Drive

[TheLetterJ]

I have an 1800kv Revolver (and 2700kv PP, and a handful of HH brushed motors) and it definitely has more grunt/no spongeyness, but I wouldn't say the startup is any smoother. You're right about the new hh esc being needed to make me happy with that though, the noise when using a mambaX wore me out! I don't want it to sound like there's a problem with any of these motors/esc's/radio's, I just want to try some changes to see if things can be even better.

Voodoobrew: you've given me good food for thought on the programming side of things. I've always been on the same page as you (and JRH) as far as gearing down as low as possible and upping voltage, hence the 65:1 and 3500kv on 4s.

...but I still want to know how many degrees of timing the hash marks on the motor represent.

[durok]

Just a thought, but you could try a 64 or 68t spur...

[DRED805]

Heh. Stubby PP.

We can do a motor swap real quick this weekend and narrow down if it’s the motor or just the drivetrain binding up and letting go with all that OD.

[Steve g]

I'm leaning towards the overdrive front axle, at least being partialto blame. I've got 2 identical wraiths both with a mamba x, and tried tried variety of motors in both.. Only 1 has underdrive in the rear, and it is slightly, but still noticeably rougher on the start up "smoothness". Might not make it perfect, but should help trying same gear ratios for the axles (if possible).

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[TheLetterJ]

I agree with you Steve, and that was my very first thought before starting down the rabbit hole of timing/ further esc setting changes. Swapping the front r&p is on my short list, especially considering that I generally run on pretty high traction rock, and have dig, so I could get away with less. I feel like the results of making changes in the electronics will be more obvious to me if I leave the od/ud setup in it for now. Then, once it's running the best I can get it, I can change the r&p to have less overdrive and decide which is more important to me.

I just changed the start power to low, so I'll see how that changes things. I'm still not clear as to the difference between start power and punch control, but hopefully the effects, good or bad, will be obvious.

I appreciate everyone's input!