
02-09-2003, 12:59 AM
|
 |
Clones Are Good
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. George, Utah, USA
Posts: 123
|
|
That is some great info! Now, if we could figure out how to measure the torque...
How about we move the decimal two places to the right on the MicroHP rating. It wouldn't change anything, except to make it sound more to scale.
Eg: MicroB 1.0: 1.50 MicroHP would read 150 MHP!
It just sounds more exciting.
Not that it matters!
|

02-09-2003, 01:23 PM
|
 |
Hulk smash!
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,193
|
|
|
Hehe, that's not a bad idea BenCloned, and I believe there's a name for that...Nano (for 1/1,000,000th)
Hmmm, 150 NanoHP, that's got a nice ring to it!
I think I'm going to pickup an AC-to-VDC adapter from RadioShack and do the tests over again, this time with no PCB variations so we can get a more precise look at what the motors can do and what they need to do it.
|

02-09-2003, 03:28 PM
|
 |
smoove operator
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: East Coast Reprezent'n
Posts: 1,049
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Namuna
Hehe, that's not a bad idea BenCloned, and I believe there's a name for that...Nano (for 1/1,000,000th)
Hmmm, 150 NanoHP, that's got a nice ring to it!
I think I'm going to pickup an AC-to-VDC adapter from RadioShack and do the tests over again, this time with no PCB variations so we can get a more precise look at what the motors can do and what they need to do it.
|
I'm gonna start callin' you Dexter lol... ' Uh oh Back to the Lab Again', 'Oh no Back to the Lab again'... the Mad scientist never sleeps!
|

02-10-2003, 11:05 AM
|
 |
Hulk smash!
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,193
|
|
|
Alright, I pretty up the numbers and put it all on the original post.
Enjoy.
|

02-10-2003, 06:36 PM
|
 |
Clones Are Good
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. George, Utah, USA
Posts: 123
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Namuna
1 horsepower = 746 Watts
Watt = Voltage X Amperage
Tomy 1.0 = 1.50 MicroHP (30mA avg. draw)
Tomy 2.2 = 3.40 MicroHP (80mA avg. draw)
Tomy 2.6 = 3.49 MicroHP (30mA avg. draw) *efficient AND quick!*
TinyRC R-Spec = 4.01 MicroHP (105mA avg. draw)
TinyRC 3.8 = 3.92 MicroHP (80mA avg. draw)
ZipZaps Green (Performance) = 1.81 MicroHP (20mA avg. draw)
ZipZaps Red (Turbo) = 3.22 MicroHP (27mA avg. draw)
ZipZaps Yellow (NOS) = 2.65 MicroHP (33mA avg. draw)
Clone Pink (OEM ZipZaps) = 2.98 MicroHP 25mA avg draw)
|
Namuna- When you posted these #'s in the chart on your original post, you changed the values from this post. What happened?
Also, are you calculating wattage from the no-load figure or the loaded draw?
|

02-10-2003, 11:24 PM
|
 |
Hulk smash!
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,193
|
|
Crap, you're right BenCloned...That's NanoHP for NO LOAD.
Alright, gotta update...Again.
|

02-10-2003, 11:57 PM
|
 |
Hulk smash!
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,193
|
|
|
It's late, I'm going to bed...Here's the updated chart...I'll fix it on the main page tomorrow.
|

02-11-2003, 09:37 AM
|
 |
Clones Are Good
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. George, Utah, USA
Posts: 123
|
|
|
Thanks. For a moment there, I thought my math teacher had failed me.
Usually when a manufacturer lists the specs on an engine, they list peak power as a selling point. How about it, Tiny? Maybe another stat to add to the names of the motors you sell, since there was the whole motor naming contest - we may have something here.
|

02-14-2003, 01:33 PM
|
 |
0reZepyT
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 804
|
|
|
just to clarify things, micro means onemillionth or 1/1,000,000 and nano means one-billionth or 1/1,000,000,000. i could post up a quick chart of those prefixes if anyone cares
|

02-14-2003, 03:54 PM
|
 |
Hulk smash!
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,193
|
|
|
Thanks for the correction, I've updated the pic on the original post.
|

02-19-2003, 01:58 PM
|
 |
Retarded Stunt Driver
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Piksberg
Posts: 1,974
|
|
|
namuna i think your pink clone motor is different than the one i have because there is now way that the tomy 2.6 gets more horsepower.
|

02-20-2003, 08:36 PM
|
|
Master Debater
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 312
|
|
More watts = more torque right? I want to know because I'm doing a project and I need a motor with a TON of torque. What would you get for that? I have a zip zap and it's getting a 2 cell mod if that matters.
now that I look at that chart it looks to me like the rspec has more torque than the every other motor. even the lower rpm ones. is that correct?
Sorry for being such a newbie but I really need to know.
Last edited by Jtskty; 02-20-2003 at 08:40 PM.
|

02-21-2003, 07:40 AM
|
 |
Clones Are Good
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. George, Utah, USA
Posts: 123
|
|
|
Your PCB has as much to do with usable torque as the motor does. Zips put out less current than Bits, and some clones deliver even more. The R-Spec is your best bet if your PCB can handle it. Early Zips can't without PCB mods.
|

02-21-2003, 07:47 AM
|
|
Master Debater
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 312
|
|
So if the pcb can handle it the rspec has the most torque out of all the motors tested? Even the 1.0?
 vs.
|

02-21-2003, 08:05 AM
|
 |
Clones Are Good
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: St. George, Utah, USA
Posts: 123
|
|
|
A 1.6 is supposed to have lots of torque, but Namuna didn't have one to add to his test. Of the motors tested, the R-Spec seems to draw the most juice, and should therefore have the most torque.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.
|
|