Yeah, i am interested in these dimensions as well.

the 7 or 8XL would be nice..

I have the 9xl. I would expect the 7XL or 8XL to be the same dims.

My motor measures:

73mm - Can Length
43mm - Can Diameter with fins
5mm - Shaft Dia.
17mm - Shaft Length
12mm - Shaft Collar dia.
1mm - Shaft Collar depth.

Thanks J..

so the fins are avtually 3.5 mm high. that's nice.

Thanks jhautz.

Hmmm, I might start adding motor dimensions to the Speed Calculator thingie. Not sure yet...

Woah, I'm confused. Those Feigao 540C 7XL? Is that the same KV/power as my Feigao 7XL (Purple with no heatsink)?

Yup.

Same motor inside, Just one has cooling fins on the outsde and the other has a smooth purple anodized can.

Can't forget the maintenance-friendly end-bell...

30x 3300 gp cells
This car has been around for a while, I think the record of 110mph has been broken??


http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7435/fastcarpl0.jpg

163mph is the unofficial record.. not made by this car.. :p

I have the feeling that 160mph+ car was this one. But I maybe wrong.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6185/160mphfk7.jpg

would this setup work in a rusty?

http://www.rc-monster.com/proddetail...540C_XL&cat=20
http://www.rc-monster.com/proddetail...7020controller

how well would it work? idk anything really about the quark controllers but there also alot more expensive and i dont need anything more than 40mph for now =)

No hayden, it was more of a 1/8th converted thing.

Nope, the motor is too long and too large in diameter. Take a look at the Mamba Max systems, they should be a much better choice.

Ok I’ll do some more research sorry GorillaMaxx360 for hijacking your thread:027: carry on….

Its cool man

I thought this guy hit the 134 mark, not 160?

His official speed was 134 with his "electrified" nitro TC3, but he hit an unofficial speed in the 160s with his 2wd oval (I think it was an oval) car. It was unofficial because he crashed it and couldn't make another run past the radar gun to verify the speed.

Well that sucks that it's unofficial, hopefully he can run again and hit that!

The 134 was still impressive in my book. Just think of a small movement in the
controller could be disasterous.

134mph is impressive when you look at the small circumference of the tires!

I didn't think of that. I wonder how many rpms the tires was turning. :002:

Somewhere near the 25k, if I'm not mistaking.
You think its possible to do a 100mph speed run with my RC10L3T car?
I'm thinking about using a 1920/14 with 6s and a Schulze 149.18.
What do you think?

Yes it it very possible. A local oval guy mike boylan ( puts on the snowbirds every year) use to have the world record at 95 MPH. He was useing either a rc10 L2 or L3 pan car on 9 or 10 cells with i belive a 9 turn hand wound modified. This was in the mid to late 90's , before brushless & lipo. They did the speed run in a velodrome.

Then, there's no need for the 1/8 brushless converted Mugen MRX-4R onroad car, though it's gonna be very durable in comparison to the RC10L3T.

Very impressive indeed! And yeah, I would love to see those tires upclose when it's flying like that!

I think i would rather have the converted MRX4 car in stead of the pan car. I think it would be more stable & easier to handle, plus you would have more tunning capability on the mugen. You have to remember they use to do the speed runs in a VELODROME. If you dont know what a velodrome is it is a banked concret oval that they race bicycles in. They use these in the olimpyics, they are real populer in europe & south america.

Hmmm..I got you.
A Mugen would cost me something like $1350 and the RC10L3T, which I already have, to make it ready for a real speedrun would only cost me something like $600-700. Quite a difference in term of expense.

has anyone thought about breaking 200 by doing like 4 lehners with 4 quarks with 5s on each quark on a drag strip using a street car like modified 1/8 scale street car can you imagine the speed.

They did a 200mph in a dragster( I think?) tied to a post with a rope. It was NOT funny at all.

I think I've seen that one. It was a gas car though right? IIRC, it looked like a large cigar with wheels. The motor started out with very low ropms and slowly built-up to the top speed. It was crazy watching how fast it was going. Imagine if that rope were to snap? From car to rocket!

IMO, that was cheating though. A tethered vehicle going in circles is simply a motor with no controls. Much more difficult to build a real R/C speedster...

I agree brian, let it go with some control and see what happens.

So is there a consensus of which is better or more efficient? NEU 1515 vs Lehner 1950 (or 1940)?

Or is it still primarily a difference in "feel" of the motors strong midrange torque vs strong top end performance?


I'm still leaning towards the NEU.

I think Mike carried the best motors available in the market and the choice returns to you in the end. You need the best in quality and design, the Lehners are alaways my choice. You need the supreme in effeciency and torque, the Neus gives them to you. Both have their own + and -, but I guess the Lehners are built to be a universal motor, unlike the Neu, which seems more suited to flight applications than car requirements.

From what Mike told me, they are same quality wise. Same efficiency wise. He said he was really into the Neu motor lately though, never really said why...
I would THINK that 2 pole motors would have a little better torque band, but i just don't know anything about the Neu. They are just too Neu to me. :005:

Personally, i would rather have a Neu motor, just my opinion. I like the look of them.

i might give a neu a try someday. but for now im a lehner guy, ill stick with my 1950.

Nope, a 4 pole neu (in about the same size of rotor/stator) would have got a higher torque than a 2 pole motor

1 pole more can be powered at the same time (with a little timeshift ofcourse)

Thanks for the clarification Serum. That was my understanding also.

You theoretically need half the amount turns PER pole in the same size rotor/stator/amount of copper. For the same switching frequency (commutating) you would have half the speed, twice the torque, same power... it's quite simple really.

There are several other motor types to try and counter certain motor effects... namely back EMF, inductance, magnetic resistance, etc. All effects which affect different motor types than others, each motor type being suited better for certain applications. Not that you have much choice in RC... :024:

So you now know that a 4 pole has got more torque than a 2 pole. You see, you learn every day..

Twice the torque? not entirely. You have got about the same amount of magnetic material, which can produce a maximum amount of torque, so a 4 pole won't have got twice the torque of a 2 pole. (it would be nice though)

The EMF is used to locate the rotors position. This EMF is produced (and needs to be high enough) while the motor is spinning at a certain RPM, which makes the signal high enough to make the controller decide where the rotor is located.

Most controllers start with a fixed RPM and expect the motor to follow, from there the EMF is used as a steering signal.

You forgot an important thing in you notings which makes a huge difference for motors.; internal resistance of the stator.