External can measurements do not really mean much, stator measurements and on the other hand and weight to a certain degree mean more.
I would summarize “technically” to mean it measures out to 70mm max diameter.
If we subtract the wheel diameter from 70mm it doesn’t leave much thane?
Now if we take the claimed max thane depth and subtract that we get another answer prob. closer to reality.
I haven’t heard any reports of the vesc6 failure aside from a hand full of beta testers that “cookied” theirs running parallel ppm(Y) without removing the shared 5v. Which would cook any version…
There’s always going to be improper use cases like this. Or the guy in the vesc6 thread that more then likely flashed the wrong firmware and cooked it.
External diameter of the rotor is proportional to stator diameter, air gap and magnet thickness. If Anyone of these has an increase in OD the rotor OD scales with it.
When you increase the stator size, assuming the magnet and rotor thickness remains the same, inevitably the motor diameter increases. Also the weight increases. It’s all related.
In summary, larger stator diameter (among other things) means more torque. Faster acceleration.
Currently nothing on the market compares to the R2 motors, when something better does come along I’ll build a bigger and better propulsion system.
If there was a fixed formula for design, but there isn’t. Some motors are more… some are less…
& Every manufacturer uses slight variations in specs. for gaps, material, material thickness… otherwise every motor would be identical.
When a stator size is claimed though I have found it measures up. There are no variables between the measurement and the size of the stator so it is correct and there is nothing to fudge. It is a bit like fuel efficiency ratings for a car.
Can/bell size tends to be marketing to people who do not understand brushless motors, where as the internal technical measurement of the stator tends to be for people who understand how the motor works and the relationship they have.
Believe it or not. The stator diameter, air gap, magnet thickness and rotor thickness are all related… It’s like a magic ratio for torque output.
Assuming you simply go with the standards set by most china factories (all of the existing outrunner motors on the market) then you are better off measuring stator diameter as a Benchmark.
Just remember, these common motors are not designed for maximum torque outout, they are designed for maximum Power to (motor/vehicle) weight ratio. This is great for airbourne vehicles. However completely wrong use case for esk8.
If you ain’t designing your own esk8 motor you are already 2yrs behind…
110% refund if unsatisfied with Raptor 2 performance is not a marketing strategy, it’s a performance promise.
I’m 120% happy with my Raptor 2 after 500km, still insane power, even only with 30 amps batt max.
That raptor seems to be the best of the best, if they are available for immediate shipment in the summer I probably won’t be able to resist the urge…
on the one hand I agree loopy, on the other hand I don’t. You just said every thing is the same, then said it would be different. Even if we take that all the china factories are different, your different and a single other different nobody is different too. Lets now imagine the China factories make things that look similar but have little differences. Now everything is different.
As I said the can/bell measure is extrapolated from the stator using a bunch of variables, so it varies. As you agreed, there are differences in motor performance so where does that come from if not the stator measurement and the weight (of copper wound)?
As for raptor performance you are the only one discussing that.
I do believe My Raptor 2 will be fast when ever they decide to ship mine and I’ll probably be satisfied with it as a second board but I don’t think it will have the power to compete with serious DIY builds especially if it’s 12-13s set ups.
Its a marketing hype. You forgot to place the *** with hidden text that says that you have to pay restocking fees which mean that you don’t even see 100% back. Lol
Why make such a specific comment when you obviously didn’t even read the terms yourself…
Let me help you… Regarding the 110% performance promise It says:
A service & handling fee up to 20% may be deducted from final refund amount if there are missing parts, damaged parts or damaged packaging.
Pretty reasonable I think…
Did you mean “refund?” I honestly think it’s really subjective if 20% off service and handling counts towards the extra 10% refund
Our terms are all clearly defined here.
http://www.enertionboards.com/Enertion-boards-Terms-Conditions.html
So thats how you keep some money.