Papa wrote: ↑
Feb 17, 2018 10:50 pm
I certainly understand your frustration IDing specific differences between various generations of Cute motors. But it's vitally important that we avoid replicating assumptions. Among the many internal images I've seen, I have noted many obvious changes between the 1st gen Q100 and the later Q100H. [edited for brevity]
Ratio Formula I used... https://woodgears.ca/gear/ratio.html
. (scroll down a tad)
Yeah, trying to confirm the specs of a motor that's evolved over the past 5 years is hard. I absolutely agree that we shouldn't perpetuate previous assumptions or measurements that are years old and non-applicable any longer. I really wish they gave these motors version numbers so that it would be easier to track changes.
I like that gear ratio calculator! I've added it to my bookmarks, thanks for sharing that. If I use that formula I get the following:
(15t x 23t) : (36t x 78t) = 345 : 2808 = 8.14 : 1
which really isn't very far off from my calculated ratio of 8.125 : 1. In both cases they'd round down to 8.1:1 or 8:1 if you were using it to try to figure out the effective pole pairs for the Phaserunner Suite.
My bigger concern is why BMSBattery says that this is a 12:1 ratio motor when in fact by both of our measurements
, its only an 8:1 ratio motor... And why do we have the same gear ratio if we have supposedly different RPM motors? I guess I'd need to fully disassemble my motor to check the windings to know for sure, and I really don't want to do that. If you can explain that to me I'd be hugely appreciative (and I imagine future Q100 builders will be as well).
All of this being said, I've made some adjustments to the Phaserunner settings and the motor is spinning much nicer now. I'll detail that in my next post.