More infos: http://www.rctech.net/forum/electric...lx-vs-xl2.html

Hoping to see the Castle crew shedding some light on this for us soon.

just confirms the xlx is severly limited and not at all what it seems.

If this severe limiting is just to avoid warranty claims, there has got to be a better way to deal with it.... they all do datalogging now, so that could be used to determine if the ESC was abused. Or they could put a little jumper on the board, if you want max power, just cut the jumper (voids warranty), and easy to determine if it was cut.

I expect better from Castle! (I also notice that they have been silent about all this)

CASTLE, WHAT'S THE DEAL?!

I was just about ready to try a monsterX in my new truggy... guess I will stick with the old MMM and look elsewhere.

I posted about this in RCTech but figured I'd come over here in hopes Castle would see it.

There's really only one simple solution to this problem. Sell a dedicated, unrestricted esc that does not qualify for the warrantee program. Mold the case in a different color, etch the board with something to indicate it as well and let the user push it as hard as they dare. Now you don't have to worry about any hacking of a system to unrestrict the esc through Castle Link (you know there's people who would try and cheat just to get their esc repaired for free) and a bright red case lets everyone know what the esc is on the used market. The cost of changing the case color and etching the board should be pretty low and offset by the cost savings of less warrantee claims from misuse so the selling price should be about the same. The biggest cost to do this is likely the webpage for these unrestricted esc's and editing the firmware updates to accomodate being unrestricted. Obviously these would be low volume so probably only sold through Castle but it would keep everyone happy.

My opinion I think this is the way to go. The average user isn't going to try for 100+mph and will never see any fail safe kick in. The few that mess around trying to get there will hit the fail safe and start researching why or call Castle. It wouldn't hurt if there's some indication by LED or in the logs that the fail safe was hit as that doesn't appear to be the case now. When they hear about the fail safe most will probably be happy they didn't hurt anything. Those that are serious about going faster will then have to decide if they want to buy an unrestricted esc that they're responsible for not blowing up. If they are they'll go to Castle's website and find the page with the unrestricted MMX and XLX. Maybe do some sort of trade in program for those that don't want to be bothered selling their restricted esc to appease those that are complaining now and make it easier for those in the future.

Not a bad idea Overdriven! Bad part is this is posted in the Castle creations board and patrick replied once so he is aware of the thread here but they are chosing to ignore us. A simple answer is all we want. Why in the first place did they try and trick everyone? there was no warning of the safety they added. most companies make the consumer aware..

No one likes the silent treatment.

Well not to pat myself on the back too much but I thought it was a good idea and here it gets the most direct exposure to them. Btw I don't want any free stuff for coming up with this idea just for the Castle haters to quit whining about this whole thing. Please just issue an apology or whatever and say something is in the works to shut them up.

Seems last Monday a Castle Link update was released, with "Added initial production firmware for the Mamba XL X": http://www.castlecreations.com/downl...stle_link.html. I'm installing now and with a bit of luck I'll be testing it today.

Sweet! Is there a way to see what that does exactly?

Keep us posted Dr.

Hi guys, it seems there isn't any change in the firmware, as it is still v1.72 released 11/10/2015, see below... so not sure why that was listed in the Link update.

I ran my XLX ESC a bit in a 10 kg 4WD Maverick Vader buggy, geared for 63 mph on-road on 2x5Ah 6s 65C Turnigy Graphenes with a 1195 kv TP Power TP5670 6-pole motor. Test-drive ended early because of motor issue, so I don't have a whole lot of input yet.

Torque control and punch control were disabled, start power set to low and Current limiting set to insensitive (220A). It did reach a little over 200A draw, but somehow it feels as if the power kicks in a bit delayed, like turbo lag. Best graph of throttle response I got is shown below, but I was modulating a bit throttle too much to draw any conclusions on this I think.

Will change gearing now for 66 mph off-road on stock tires, 8S and with an 1165 kv Leopard 5698, while the TP's shaft is curing. Should be nice weather coming days, so might be able to run it before the weekend.

[youtube]xbJjhoWSnwo[/youtube]

http://www.rctech.net/forum/members/...x-firmware.jpg

http://www.rctech.net/forum/members/...-1st-log-2.jpg

Doesn't 'added initial production firmware' mean the firmware that the first ESCs come with shipped? I.e. no update?

Yeah, I guess so. I was getting over-excited based on the timing of this release and specifically mentioning XLX after all the debate going on.

Just did another quick run with the LBP5898-1100kv (1165kv measured), geared for 80 kph on 6S, off-road. Current limit at 220A, 2x5Ah 65C Turnigy Graphenes. Got some longer WOT bursts and performance actually didn't feel bad at all. The "turbo-lag" feeling I had earlier with the on-road testing wasn't noticeable anymore. Highest recorded peak was 237A. Controller temp and ripple were nice and low.

I need one more Turnigy HD 8S pack to be able to test 8S, but that's in the mail :); 8S brings this gearing to 106 kph no-load. And if temps stay good, I might increase the Current limit a bit. I know speed-wise this is obviously not in the same league as the hardcore speed-runners like Phill, but if I can get ~220A peaks running at ~30V (6600W=8.85HP), with a controller that stays nice and cool, I think that's not such bad performance after all.

http://www.rctech.net/forum/members/...2nd-test-1.jpg

http://www.rctech.net/forum/members/...2nd-test-2.jpg

http://www.rctech.net/forum/members/...2nd-test-3.jpg

http://www.rctech.net/forum/members/...5-img-0419.jpg