Kinetic/Ballistic Systems

[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.

[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.