Savage Flux XS Castle Electronics Question

[fastbaja5b]

Lets hope they do the right thing by those of us who already bought the truck and offer a direct swap (although with the HPI distributor in Oz I won't hold my breath)

I put my Castle 3800 motor in the Flux XS and top amp draw was 115 Amps, so I dropped 30-40 amps of stress from the Battery / ESC at very little if any cost of performance. Motor also ran a lot cooler. Makes me wonder what sort of magnets this HPI thing has, cheaper quality obviously, but I'd call them fridge magnet quality at best with this data.

To double check I threw the 4000kv HPI motor in my Hyper 10SC geared for 35mph, again, 151 amp spikes and threw the fan of my HPI Q Base (MMP) esc on within a matter of minutes.

I have to wonder what Castle was thinking, how can you build a reputation for 'good quality' motors etc then cheap out to appeal to a large manufacturer like HPI, produce a product that is clearly less efficient but still allow your brand name to be plastered all over their advertising for the truck. A lot of people would be attracted to the XS as it has "Castle Electronics" but at the moment, I wonder if it's less efficient than the old 2 pole Traxxas VXL motor.

[slimthelineman]

Dude baja what's with tha cc bashing? It's already been stated the motors were built to HPI specs and pricing not castles.

The motor is a slightly less expensive version of the 3800kV motor, with just a slightly less expensive stator and rotor. The main differences are the stator laminations (.35mm on the HPI, .2mm on the Castle) and N35UH magnets instead of N38UH magnets. Not a big difference like with the 1517B motor and the 1515.

Patrick del Castillo
President, Principle Engineer
Castle Creations

honestly the thickness of the stator laminations will have a bigger effect on price and performance than magnets will. So ease up a little dude. Ultimately you should be asking HPI why they speced a cheaper motor for such a large truck.

[fastbaja5b]

At the end of the day though it's still Castles name thats pushed in all the online adverts and magazine spreads etc.

If it's built by Castle to HPI spec, thats fine, but then it's not really a Castle motor is it? castle motors have a reputation that has been built up over time, but if Mercedes went out and built a Kia spec car, would they still slap a Merc badge on it?

[Pdelcast]

Originally Posted by fastbaja5b

At the end of the day though it's still Castles name thats pushed in all the online adverts and magazine spreads etc.

If it's built by Castle to HPI spec, thats fine, but then it's not really a Castle motor is it? castle motors have a reputation that has been built up over time, but if Mercedes went out and built a Kia spec car, would they still slap a Merc badge on it?

OMG -- did you ever think that the difference might be from the different Kv? Or did you just run two different motors with the same pinion side-by-side?

Cmon -- if you have constructive criticism, that's fine. But to come in here and just bash and bash for no reason (and without good cause) is just abusive.

[brian015]

Originally Posted by fastbaja5b

I put my Castle 3800 motor in the Flux XS and top amp draw was 115 Amps, so I dropped 30-40 amps of stress from the Battery / ESC at very little if any cost of performance. Motor also ran a lot cooler. Makes me wonder what sort of magnets this HPI thing has, cheaper quality obviously, but I'd call them fridge magnet quality at best with this data.

To double check I threw the 4000kv HPI motor in my Hyper 10SC geared for 35mph, again, 151 amp spikes and threw the fan of my HPI Q Base (MMP) esc on within a matter of minutes.

This doesn't sound like Castle-bashing to me - it sounds like actual data from testing in applications that these motors are designed for. I would be unhappy with this 4000kv motor if it was giving these results.

I also agree that the 200kv difference should not be a major factor here. It's a 5% difference.

I'm running almost all CC escs and motors and am a great supporter of the company. But if these are real results - then I agree with fb5b that CC maybe should reconsider building parts to other company's specs if the Castle name is on it. Am I bashing CC for saying this here?

[Pdelcast]

Originally Posted by brian015

This doesn't sound like Castle-bashing to me - it sounds like actual data from testing in applications that these motors are designed for. I would be unhappy with this 4000kv motor if it was giving these results.

I also agree that the 200kv difference should not be a major factor here. It's a 5% difference.

I'm running almost all CC escs and motors and am a great supporter of the company. But if these are real results - then I agree with fb5b that CC maybe should reconsider building parts to other company's specs if the Castle name is on it. Am I bashing CC for saying this here?

It's anecdotal evidence from a single person who loves to post negative comments about Castle products.

We have dyno tested this motor, and are fine with it's performance. It peaks around 88% efficiency.

It's a different motor than the 3800kV Castle motor -- but that doesn't make it a bad motor. It's better than pretty much any other motor out there in that form factor -- except perhaps for the Castle 3800kV motor.

And the difference in performance between the two motors is around 2% efficiency.

For Castle, that 2% is worth the extra cost. For a high volume product in an OEM RTR, it's not.

[BrianG]

Originally Posted by Pdelcast

...For Castle, that 2% is worth the extra cost. For a high volume product in an OEM RTR, it's not.

Personally, I agree. That "measly" 2% can make a pretty big difference when we are talking about the power levels we run. At 88% efficiency, a motor drawing, say, 500w, but would have 440w of usable output, with 60w wasted as heat - a lot considering the physical motor size. An extra 2% reduces wasted power to 50w - still a lot, but even that 10w difference can translate to a few degrees in reduced temperature and/or increased runtime.

[RC-Monster Mike]

Originally Posted by BrianG

Personally, I agree. That "measly" 2% can make a pretty big difference when we are talking about the power levels we run. At 88% efficiency, a motor drawing, say, 500w, but would have 440w of usable output, with 60w wasted as heat - a lot considering the physical motor size. An extra 2% reduces wasted power to 50w - still a lot, but even that 10w difference can translate to a few degrees in reduced temperature and/or increased runtime.

I always like to put it into a perspective similar to this. The 2% efficiency increase is somewhat misleading - 2% doesn't sound like a lot, but if you go from 88% efficiency to 90% efficiency, you could also express this as going from 12% inefficiency to 10% inefficiency.....or a 16.7% difference in efficiency and therefore heat. :)