sintered rotors
 

Anyone up on these ? My question is, if I put the new sintered rotor in my novak 6.5 brushless motor, will it still have the performance as a regular 6.5 motor, similarly, if i put one into my 4.5, will it still have the same performance characteristics as a 4.5 ?

Is it simply more efficient, but essentially the same performance, or am I missing something, I read on the Novak site they run cooler and the braking effect is better. If it means the speedo / motor will run cooler, but essentially have the same performance than I might get a couple, anyone ?

Ta. Andy

they run cooler, better brakes and more power with the benifit of not effected by heat and dont fail as easy

And arnt currently BRCA legal ;)

I seem to recall reading somewhere that they will be in Feb ?

So, do they not alter the chracteristics of the motor you put them in as regards spec, with brushless is it the exact opposite to brushed, i.e the can dictates the spec of the motor, rather than the arm ?

Andy, 2nd of April they are legal.

I believe they make the motor more powerfull, but by how much I'm not sure.

G

PS, still got your ProCat part :cool:

I have been running the sintered rotor in my 5.5 for last two meeting's, you notice lot more punch and top end, runs lot cooler and the brake's are far stronger. These will be legal for the nationals.
The rotors can go into any of the diff motors, so i would say that the can determines the wind etc...

Which two? :confused:

G

yup not legal till april

the rotor is just the magnets the can holds the windings

Thanks chaps.

That confirms what I thought. Looks like it will be well worth investing in a couple then. Will the Novak rotor go into a LRP / Nosram motor I wonder ?

G. Will most likely see you at the Supercup for my 'part' if that's ok.

Mr.Lowe. Spotted your BJ with Brushless ! Are you converted ?

Andy.

before you start going rotor swapping,

I am waiting an email back from Paul Worsley about this.

I asked the question for legality of motors, do you have to use the rotor that comes with the motor out of the packet?

in effect, are we allowed to use 'hybrid' brushless motors?

I have not had a response yet, but I believe that the COMBINATION of rotor and can are homologated, so putting a sintered rotor in a can that would normally come with a bonded rotor would make it ilegal as that combination has not been homologated - but that is just my interpretation of the rules

once I hear something back from Paul I will let you know

Not just yet, that was the first time I'd run it so I've got a bit of messing about with gearing ect to do. It felt ..... different :eh?:
The brakes are a bit bizzare and it wasn't as fast as I was expecting, it was about the same speed as my Checkpoint 11x2 :confused:

not sure how it works with brush less, but I'm sure as long as its from the same manufacturer its OK to swap rotors,in brushed anyway

I didn't think that was the case Carl, so you can run a 'big comm' arm in a non laydown can? I know it might not work that well, but just as an example.

novak is differant but the nosram will fit lrp/reedy

Don't worry Northy haven't ran them at any Regionals etc....
Only winter series meetings, Kiddie and Stotfold.
Im sure the rules on BRCA web site just say Sintered Rotor's will be allowed, but it doesn't say anything about different can etc..
From BRCA Website:
9.7 The Rotor: Shaft diameter must be 3.175mm. Only one piece, two pole bonded Neodymium or Ferrite magnetic rotors are permitted until 01.04.07. From 02.04.07, sintered Neodymium or Ferrite rotors are also allowed. Magnet minimum length 23.0 mm, maximum 27.0 mm. Magnet minimum diameter 12.0mm, maximum 15.5mm.

I'm not 100% sure on this either, but based on the info that i have had in the past, i suspect that Chris may be correct.

However, if i was a manufacture, i would release all of my motors with sintered rotors as well. So if i were LRP i think i would offer a 6.5 with sintered and bonded, and 5.5 with both etc. GM have done this i believe. They have the Evo 2 range that are generally bonded, and the Evo 3 that are sintered.

They will have different power bands. For example, at the first big European Touring car event of the year (using 2007 rules, so sintered legal) - Ronald Volker won with an LRP 4.5 fitted with bonded rotor - despite sintered having theoretically more power. The rest of the LRP runners in the final ran sintered!!!

As Chris said it is all about interpretation of the rules at the moment. However you have to ask why the BRCA would pass the sintered rotor as being legal, on its own ?
So if there is not a written rule saying you are not allowed to change the bonded rotor for a sintered version, well change away.

this should clear some things up...

Sintered rotors are available in some motors off the shelf, out of the packet (LRP 4.5 for example)

Here is an edited quote from Paul worsley in reply to my email on the topic of rotor swapping

------------------------------------
brushless motors using sintered rotors are legal for use at BRCA sanctioned events from April 2nd.
This includes Off-Road Nationals, as brushless was accepted at our Section AGM for 2007.
Allowing the sintered rotor was an EB decision at a later date, so that we are the same as EFRA.
I am not yet convinced that it is what Off-Road needs, but it would not be viable to have different Sections running to different rules within the same class of motors and policing the rotors would be impossible.

Swapping rotors :- This is not easy for me to answer yet, I need to see the new motor versions using sintered.
The situation has been complicated by the further rule change that allows Delta wind.
It is possible that the manufacturers will make the sintered motors with Delta wind. If this is the case, then swapping the rotor would create a 'hybrid' motor as you would not be able to purchase (or previously have purchased) a 'Wye' wind with a sintered rotor. This effectively means that you have a motor that has never been produced.

Certainly, you will not be allowed to swap rotors with different manufacturers. (EB Rule 4.5)

I will update you when we know more about the situation.

All the best,

Paul.
--------------------------------

so basically, the situation is not clear about rotor swapping, neither does it need to be until they are legal for 2/april/2007

Hope this clears things up

as far as i can see manifactures will just submit both, but i think its a farce if i carnt fit a nosram sintered rotor in a nosram 6.5 motor its hardly hybrid is it
can i take a epic based 12 turn motor and fit an epic 7 turn arm? yes!

but if epic do a 7 turn arm, and its also available as a complete motor (7 turn epic complete motor) then all you are doing is 'making yourself' what is all ready available off the shelf

putting a sintered rotor in a 6.5 you are making something that you can't buy off the shelf

read my first sentance!
its a farce as all that will happen is the eb will get double money for homlogating more motors or the manufacture will just supply sintered so there wont be a choice
if nosram supply sintered as standard and homlogate it, then the lrp guys can use sintered as the can is marked vtec the same is it not only the decal diferent :confused:

as i read the rules it says they are allowed, no where does it say they can not be fitted as an after market item?

whats more there is no way of telling if a sintered rotor is from nosram/lrp/reedy and its the same part

I can see why there is a degree of ambiguity and confusion here. If you were to take the brushed rules regarding armature/can combinations,
5.3 Replacement armatures are allowed, providing they have been approved and are available from the manufacturer of that motor.
It would be possible to create and legally run a motor which was impossible to buy off the shelf, even though you probably would not want to.
For example to put a Reedy Ti arm (small comm motor, stand up, brush dual magnet) in a Reedy KR can (Large comm motor, laydown brush, quad magnet).

I can see why we need to wait for clarification on the matter.:wtf:

I think its best just to wait and see what they set as thier rules.

I can see both sides of the coin.

I thought I would post up the reply I got from Paul (EB) just so you know what he is thinking/doing

unfortunatly those rules mention nothing about rotors, and brushless dont use a armature! so unless the EB are making the rules as they go................................................ ..................

The problem here is one of cost. There is a price limit on motors - and if you have to buy a motor, then a sintered rotor....................It's going to push cost up. I think this is a situation that should be avoided.

matt the nosram 4.5 motor is sintered, and its the same retail price as the 5.5 6.5 7.5., the sintered rotor is the same price as the standard rotor, im sure all will come with sintered after april, but those without sintered should be given the freedom to upgrade to the latest level.

Well if the 5.5 - 7.5 are resubmitted with sintered then where is the problem?

there isnt, thats my point but why do they need re submitting other than put more money in the eb pot? (every motor sent in requires a payment to the eb)

all that needs doing is a rule saying "a standard or sintered rotor may be used providing that manudfacture supplies one to the public".
we all know the motors are legal now, and will be with sintered after april, so where is the problem?
the list of motors is their and the rules state sintered rotors may be used after the date, are we that sad we need everything writting down and telling us what can and carnt be done?
tc has rules for eveything, off road does not need to go there! let common sence prevail.

Because - If an approved type/range of motor is changed in any substantial way, it must be resubmitted for approval.

Has already happend with Brushless.

Puts more money in the BRCA pot more like and I can read that each motor requires a fee, it is in the rules after all.

Yes, we are that 'sad' that we need everything written down for us.
All you will get otherwise is the same questions being asked over and over. How many times to you see that on Forums? LOTS!

Since when has commonsense had anything to do R/c cars?

When you submit a motor to the EB, do you need to send every possible armature on sale, for that particular can & endbell? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.

So if one Novak sintered rotor is made legal (for example), why should all the other rotors need to go through the EB again?

I think this is Mark's point... which I agree with.

First point -
Manufacturers and Importers should note, that if a range/type of motor is to be retailed with a choice of armature design, then a sample of each armature design (up to a maximum of three) must be submitted. The design samples are required to accompany the motor when it is submitted for homologation. All variants homologated must be available for retail purchase.
They don't supply each wind but the different web designs - torque or rpm which have different web thicknesses.
The all have different rotor designs and some even have specific rotors for winds!

What Mark is suggesting that they are all just allowed across the board regardless if the manufacturer supplies them with the motor. They will have to be submitted by LRP and Nosram. Look at all the Stock motors - they individually homologated despite coming out of the same factory in the Far East.

Just to get things straight, even after April 2nd comes no motor will be legal with a sintered rotor as no motor currently on the list is homl with a sintered rotor.

Tom,

You make ace posts, you should make more of them!

Dan

Still say he should get his bloody hair cut though! :)

G

I did last week :D

ah i get it now

so we can own a brushless motor on the list now and use it, from april we can all have sintered rotors as they will be legal, but we carnt use em together LOL:D

You might laugh but it makes sense.

How would you like this example:

Someone finds a loophole in the regs, they make a new battery/motor and it instantly makes them much quicker than what they were. However, only they can run it, the rules allow it but its not available to anyone but them.

Is that what you want? Or would you like to have the EB homl it so that it is available to everyone at a reasonable price. So not one person has this advantage.

Its the same with sintered rotors. they may only be available to team drivers, not available in the UK, etc, etc hence why we need to the EB to homl them and ensure that they are available to everyone at a reasonable price.

No offence to you Mark but you are trying to fight a proven system with both Lipo at Regionals and this.

im not fighting anything
i pointed out that the lipos were insured at club/regional use, which some say they are not as there not on the eb list.

the sintered are available to all, CML have them, Nosram are due in stock and im sure helger will , they cost the same as the standard rotor, brushless from my experience has leveled the field on power and cut down on maintanence cost. the motors are legal (that have been homlogated) and as from april so are the rotors, it makes sence to allow the two two be used togeter by all, no black magic, no voodoo just an item that levels the playing field and is available to all. at a reasonable cost
i dont run my mamba at regionals as its not aproved. i play by the rules, but this issue does seem a bit of a farce, i can not fit a novak rotor in a nosram so no hybrids

i blew a nosram std rotor to bit, and its being replaced by a sintered (which wont be used till april) you do know the sintered are less liable to fail and to over heating? makeing them even better value!

and no offence taken i have thick skin

Just having another quick look at the rules as I said in the Lipo thread.

EB Rules State:

Manufacturers and Importers should note, that if a range/type of motor is to be retailed with a choice of armature design, then a sample of each armature design (up to a maximum of three) must be submitted. The design samples are required to accompany the motor when it is submitted for homologation. All variants homologated must be available for retail purchase.

Your argument is that a brushless motor has a rotor not an armature. Well a quick search of wikipedia shows that:

In electrical engineering, an armature is one of the two principal electrical components of an electro-mechanical machine--a motor or generator. The other is the field winding or field magnets.

So using a brushless motor as an example would mean the armature is the magnet, also known as the rotor, and the field winding is the wire/can which is the second principle component.