sintered rotors

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by DoughtyUK.net

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

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

[Oscar]

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.

[Chris Doughty]

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

[Slowcoach]

4.4 If an approved type/range of motor is changed in any substantial way, it must be resubmitted for approval, and must be available at retail outlets incorporating such changes. Examples:- can colour, label design, brush dimensions, orientation of the brushes or design change of end bell assembly major components. This will include any design changes or additions to the armature or commutator by the manufacturer.Addition or removal of screw-fixing heatsinks is allowed. Change of end-bell colour is allowed providing all design features are maintained.

Having changed a bonded for a sintered rotor, I can tell you that they are two completely different items.

I have seen that Novak are going to go all sintered. If that is the case and their motors are resubmitted, with no other changes, then there is no reason why you can't retro fit a sintered rotor (to the Novak at least).

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Oscar

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.

Originally Posted by Slowcoach

4.4 If an approved type/range of motor is changed in any substantial way, it must be resubmitted for approval, and must be available at retail outlets incorporating such changes. Examples:- can colour, label design, brush dimensions, orientation of the brushes or design change of end bell assembly major components. This will include any design changes or additions to the armature or commutator by the manufacturer.Addition or removal of screw-fixing heatsinks is allowed. Change of end-bell colour is allowed providing all design features are maintained

Having changed a bonded for a sintered rotor, I can tell you that they are two completely different items.

I have seen that Novak are going to go all sintered. If that is the case and their motors are resubmitted, with no other changes, then there is no reason why you can't retro fit a sintered rotor (to the Novak at least).

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

[MattW]

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.

[mark christopher]

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.

[Slowcoach]

Originally Posted by mark christopher

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?

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Slowcoach

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.

[Slowcoach]

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?

[LiamD]

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.

[Slowcoach]

Originally Posted by LiamD

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.

[Cockerill]

Originally Posted by mark christopher

we all know the motors are legal now, and will be with sintered after April, so where is the problem?

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.

[super__dan]

Tom,

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

Dan

[Northy]

Still say he should get his bloody hair cut though!

G

[Cockerill]

I did last week

[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Cockerill

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.

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

[Cockerill]

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.

[mark christopher]

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

[Cockerill]

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.