Kinetic/Ballistic Systems

[himalaya]

540A current spec came from the FET's spec @25°C trans.temp. 180Ax3=540A.

The 180A is listed in IR's IRF6691 datasheet, which was employed in earlier batches of Novak's GTB ESC, but later GTB switched to STK850 which did not mention this spec in its datasheet but Novak continued using it.

It's good Novak didn't quote this spec in red circle, they can improve the ESC performance to 260*3= 780A ESC simply by this.


I have to agree with lutach, a 90A rating for this small ESC would make Novak look more realistic and of a down-to-earth flavor, at least to those who know what the ratings are talking about.

[NovakTwo]

We took a vote at Novak and are dropping all of those "current" specs.

They are meaningless, confusing and unnecessary.

[JERRY2KONE]

Originally Posted by NovakTwo

We took a vote at Novak and are dropping all of those "current" specs.

They are meaningless, confusing and unnecessary.

I would believe that the trick is not to just drop all of your spec info, but to give us something that we can all rely on for accurate comparison. One of the main reasons we all come to forums like RCM is so that we can get the straight skinny from people who really do know what all of this info means. We are sure that alot of the companies use info that is not only somewhat untrue, but also very confusing. If you guys cannot really tell us what the truth is then how can anyone expect us to know what the truth is?

It would be nice if the major players in this could put your heads together and come up with one standard for everyone to go by, which would make things much simpler for the rest of us. Kind of like when all of the auto manufacturers came together and came up with OBD11 for computer analysis in trouble shooting codes, which is now a world wide system. I know that nothing like this is ever simple, but nothing changes if no one steps up and tries to make things better. With all of this goofy ESC info out there how can anyone figure things out?

[NovakTwo]

I don't want to repeat myself, but we adopted the soon-to-be-deleted transistor current info years ago when other makers of (probably) brush controllers were making ridiculous claims for their escs current handling.

Expecting all mfgs to adopt esc current rating standards would probably be expecting too much... Maybe where speed control current ratings are concerned there is no "truth", only "it depends".

We will continue to rate our controllers by the motor wind limit and number of cells; anything exceeding that range could damage the electronics.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by NovakTwo

I don't want to repeat myself, but we adopted the soon-to-be-deleted transistor current info years ago when other makers of (probably) brush controllers were making ridiculous claims for their escs current handling.

Expecting all mfgs to adopt esc current rating standards would probably be expecting too much... Maybe where speed control current ratings are concerned there is no "truth", only "it depends".

We will continue to rate our controllers by the motor wind limit and number of cells; anything exceeding that range could damage the electronics.

Didn't Novak just follow the same claims? We need data to back up such claims or at least the correct rating. Look at Castle and Tekin, they don't rate like you do. For example, the Tekin R1/RS ESC is rated for 104A when using the Ta 25C 26A rating and 76A when using the Ta 85C 19A rating of the On Semi NTMFS4833N. Now if I use he Tc 25C 191A rating the ESC would be a 764A and the Tc 85C 138A rating it would a 552A, but here is where things get interesting. The NTMFS4833N has a Pulse current of 288A which would give you a 1152A rating. How did I get those numbers you ask? Simple, the R1/RS uses 8 MOSFETs per phase, but I only multiplied the AMP number by 4 due to the H bridge design of a brushless ESC. Now the R1/RS has a total of 24 MOSFETs. If it's possible to get the part number for the MOSFET you use in your Kinetic ESC, we could come up with a better rating for it. Will it be less then the 540A rating yes, but I would respect the true rating more then the 540A out of the blue rating.

BTW, we are still waiting for an explanation on how Novak came up with the 540A rating.

[NovakTwo]

Originally Posted by lutach

Didn't Novak just follow the same claims? We need data to back up such claims or at least the correct rating. Look at Castle and Tekin, they don't rate like you do. For example, the Tekin R1/RS ESC is rated for 104A when using the Ta 25C 26A rating and 76A when using the Ta 85C 19A rating of the On Semi NTMFS4833N. Now if I use he Tc 25C 191A rating the ESC would be a 764A and the Tc 85C 138A rating it would a 552A, but here is where things get interesting. The NTMFS4833N has a Pulse current of 288A which would give you a 1152A rating. How did I get those numbers you ask? Simple, the R1/RS uses 8 MOSFETs per phase, but I only multiplied the AMP number by 4 due to the H bridge design of a brushless ESC. Now the R1/RS has a total of 24 MOSFETs. If it's possible to get the part number for the MOSFET you use in your Kinetic ESC, we could come up with a better rating for it. Will it be less then the 540A rating yes, but I would respect the true rating more then the 540A out of the blue rating.

BTW, we are still waiting for an explanation on how Novak came up with the 540A rating.

For more info, email Bob.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by NovakTwo

For more info, email Bob.

I think a few people here would like to see some answer in the forum.

[JERRY2KONE]

Originally Posted by lutach

I think a few people here would like to see some answer in the forum.

And instead of telling us to email BOB who's email we do not have, why not get him to chime in here himself and answer some questions for us. Why turn this into some secret rocket science when all we want is some raw data on how these ESC's are being rated. Don't get upset just because we are searching for some truth here. Help us understand your specs and get this straight.

[lutach]

Originally Posted by JERRY2KONE

And instead of telling us to email BOB who's email we do not have, why not get him to chime in here himself and answer some questions for us. Why turn this into some secret rocket science when all we want is some raw data on how these ESC's are being rated. Don't get upset just because we are searching for some truth here. Help us understand your specs and get this straight.

+1. We're not asking for much and we don't want to upset anybody.

[Arct1k]

Guys - Novak Two's being reasonable and based on feedback they've decided to drop the current ratings and stick to motor / setup limits...

This seems like a step forward - You could say thank you and leave it at that!

[JERRY2KONE]

I'm sorry. THANK YOU, and leave it at what??? We still have not heard or read any accurate data to answer the question of just what these ESC's are truly capable of. Maybe I'm missing something here. If you put a product out on the market and cannot tell your customers what it can do, then who wants to buy it? I'm confused. Castle came up with the Mamba Monster and not only got excited about their newest product, but shared some real time data with us to bost just what it will do in our various setups. This has become a very competitive business and if you wish to win over people to your products then one would think that sharing some data would be tops on their list of things to do in order to make that happen. Thank you for what?? I am not trying to piss in anyones weaties here. If anyone of us is going to spend our hard earned money on anything, then we deserve some kind of specs that make sense don't you think? I am not one of the tech heads on here, but people in this hobby are smart enough to go with the products that can speak to us and convince us that they have the better data to make the grade. That just seems like simple marketing stratagy to me if any business is going to be successful. Sorry if my direction has upset someones fragile sensibilities. I did not start this line of questioning, but now that it is out here and we are curious, is anyone going to step up and clear the static in the air? I thought that was what this site is all about. Getting answers. If this was a question of our Governments operations there would be a congressional panel setup to get to the bottom of it, and someone would more than likely lose their job over it. Of course then our Gov would probably be paying $10K for this $200 item.

I am sorry, but I hate to see threads that end without a proper answer to the question.

[lincpimp]

Jerry, tell us how you "really" feel!!!!

I agree that some sort of universal rating would be nice, but it is just like lipos, not a snowball's chance in hell that every mfg would comply. And if everyone does not comply there is no point in anyone doing it. So you get back to having to research products, and you get to read the rcm forum!!!! And hopefully use the search button, or just ask 5 billion repeatitive questions like some people...

[JERRY2KONE]

Sorry to disagree James, but I have been taught throughout most of my working life that the only way we solve real issues is to push in the right direction in order to achieve the best result for the common good of all involved. Burrying our heads in the sand and saying that it will never get fixed, or it has always been that way just does not fly anymore. For God's sake this is 2009 and we still cannot get a straight answer about just what a product can do from it's own manufacturer??? Please explain to me what kind of marketing strategy that falls under, and how that equates to a solid profit or company growth. Surely this cannot be the policy of any company if it plans to stay in business for any length of time.

I am sure that the majority of the auto makers were not in agreement about the OBD11 at the start of it all, but they did it for us. It made sense to simplify things for everyone, and setup a generic way to access and troubleshoot ALL domestic vehicles on the road worldwide. Any business today that uses proprietary stragities ends up losing in the long run, because there will always be someone else out there to do it better, cheaper, and easier and run you right into bankruptcy.

[Arct1k]

Jerry - They have said here that they used basic FET current multipliers to come up with their current ratings and they are dropping them in favor of their preferred method motor wind limit and number of cells...

Castle don't quote current ratings now and prefer to also design controllers for specific uses - The "masses" don't have eagletrees and just want to know a setup that works.

An objective set of standards for Lipo and ESC testing would be ideal but until that happens i see this as a step forward that NOVAK is deleting the artificial high ratings.

Originally Posted by NovakTwo

I don't want to repeat myself, but we adopted the soon-to-be-deleted transistor current info years ago when other makers of (probably) brush controllers were making ridiculous claims for their escs current handling.

Expecting all mfgs to adopt esc current rating standards would probably be expecting too much... Maybe where speed control current ratings are concerned there is no "truth", only "it depends".

We will continue to rate our controllers by the motor wind limit and number of cells; anything exceeding that range could damage the electronics.

[NovakTwo]

I'll email a link for this thread to Bob. His email is a really big secret--- bob@teamnovak.com He only reads forums if someone calls them to his attention.

Lutach, to whom I was addressing my comment, has emailed Bob previously; I expected that Lutach would re-post his questions, and Bob's response here.

Originally Posted by JERRY2KONE

And instead of telling us to email BOB who's email we do not have, why not get him to chime in here himself and answer some questions for us. Why turn this into some secret rocket science when all we want is some raw data on how these ESC's are being rated. Don't get upset just because we are searching for some truth here. Help us understand your specs and get this straight.