|
Post by atsfan on Jul 30, 2015 2:41:33 GMT -8
We even have Rob Pisani of Atlas saying the same. Is that just trash talk on the Internet? You go ahead and buy them and tell us how it works out. Well,as you should know there is a lot of trash talk on the Internet and I would rather check this motor for myself under my conditions not Joe "the all knowing expert" said. Here's why. The N Scalers trashed talked the Scale Speed Motor that Atlas uses and after several rather hot topics it came to light the biggest issue with the motor was the trains couldn't run at Mach 5 around the layout. Please do test them. Would love to see the results. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jul 30, 2015 3:00:50 GMT -8
Please do test them. Would love to see the results. Thanks ------------------------------------- Any of the Trainman GP39-2s have this new motor?
I been wanting a CSX GP39-2 and I will video the engine in action both switching and main line running..
|
|
|
Post by powerglide on Jul 30, 2015 6:03:22 GMT -8
Motorgate!
|
|
|
Post by scl1234 on Jul 30, 2015 6:38:43 GMT -8
I have no idea how much 30 grams is.Most of it make no sense from an engineering point of view. Comparing the bolded and underlined statements above tells me you’re probably not an engineer (you’d understand how to convert grams to ounces if so). The initial drawbar test (at stock weight) is conducted so the maximum pulling force is measured just before the drive wheels begin to slip. Measure drawbar force with no weight added. Then, additional weight (1 lb) is added to determine whether the motor has enough “headroom” to supply sufficient torque so the new drawbar force is high enough to compensate for the additional pound of weight. Measure drawbar force with one pound of weight added. Because the results of both of his comparisons yielded nearly the same drawbar force, very little if any additional “torque headroom” is available with these motors (i.e. the motor was unable to supply enough torque to cause the drive wheels to slip regardless of how much additional weight was supplied). Stated in terms most modelers can understand, it means the locomotives with these motors may well have issues with pulling more than 3-4 NMRA weighted cars up an incline of ~1-2 percent. (i.e. models sold for display only in my book) Thanks for the info. carrman
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jul 30, 2015 7:40:41 GMT -8
Stated in terms most modelers can understand, it means the locomotives with these motors may well have issues with pulling more than 3-4 NMRA weighted cars up an incline of ~1-2 percent. (i.e. models sold for display only in my book) ------------------------------------------ Only if one follows RP20.1 will the engine not be able to tote more then 3-4 cars.
Oddly ehough this is a old vaudeville song and dance routine I've heard several times over the years about various locomotives having pulling power.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jul 30, 2015 10:12:40 GMT -8
I have no idea how much 30 grams is.Most of it make no sense from an engineering point of view. Comparing the bolded and underlined statements above tells me you’re probably not an engineer (you’d understand how to convert grams to ounces if so). The initial drawbar test (at stock weight) is conducted so the maximum pulling force is measured just before the drive wheels begin to slip. Measure drawbar force with no weight added. Then, additional weight (1 lb) is added to determine whether the motor has enough “headroom” to supply sufficient torque so the new drawbar force is high enough to compensate for the additional pound of weight. Measure drawbar force with one pound of weight added. Because the results of both of his comparisons yielded nearly the same drawbar force, very little if any additional “torque headroom” is available with these motors (i.e. the motor was unable to supply enough torque to cause the drive wheels to slip regardless of how much additional weight was supplied). Stated in terms most modelers can understand, it means the locomotives with these motors may well have issues with pulling more than 3-4 NMRA weighted cars up an incline of ~1-2 percent. (i.e. models sold for display only in my book) Thanks for the info. carrman I am and can, but so what. Americans know weights by ounces not grams. Same as temperature. So how much does 317 grams weigh? Who knows what to compare it to.
|
|
|
Post by Donnell Wells on Jul 30, 2015 14:57:32 GMT -8
I am and can, but so what. Americans know weights by ounces not grams. Same as temperature. So how much does 317 grams weigh? Who knows what to compare it to. Atsfan, you really should stop. In the amount of time you spent arguing your point, you could have easily gone to Google and searched for a grams to ounces conversion table or calculator and found your answer.
For everyone else, is this motor really that bad? How would it compare to a "blue box" motor in your opinion? And lastly, for those of you who plan on making a motor swap, would you consider donating (or selling) the offending motors to fellow modelers who aren't overly concerned with desiring a superior, higher torque motor?
Donnell
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 30, 2015 15:06:58 GMT -8
I am and can, but so what. Americans know weights by ounces not grams. Same as temperature. So how much does 317 grams weigh? Who knows what to compare it to. Atsfan, you really should stop. In the amount of time you spent arguing your point, you could have easily gone to Google and searched for a grams to ounce conversion table or calculator and found your answer.
Donnell www.metric-conversions.org/weight/grams-to-ounces.htm317g= 11.18185oz
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Jul 30, 2015 15:19:19 GMT -8
I am and can, but so what. Americans know weights by ounces not grams. Same as temperature. So how much does 317 grams weigh? Who knows what to compare it to. Atsfan, you really should stop. In the amount of time you spent arguing your point, you could have easily gone to Google and searched for a grams to ounces conversion table or calculator and found your answer.
For everyone else, is this motor really that bad? How would it compare to a "blue box" motor in your opinion? And lastly, for those of you who plan on making a motor swap, would you consider donating (or selling) the offending motors to fellow modelers who aren't overly concerned with desiring a superior, higher torque motor?
DonnellPut it this way, put about 35-40 cars behind a Bowser C630 with the craptacular motor, and see what it does when it hits the first grade. The train will slow and slow and the motor will stall right out. No wheel spin or slip, no movement, it just stops. I've tried this before with multiple units. Now put 40 cars behind one with a re-engined motor, say with a traditional Atlas motor, and it'll have enough torque to spin the wheels if the train stalls out on the grade, and enough get-up-and-go to make a run for the hill and crawl up it, spinning away without the motor stalling. The stock motor is weak and just quits when loaded down. And that 'ain't trash-talk, that's experience. You can run it in a circle by itself or a dozen cars with little trouble (aside from it seeming slower to accelerate than other models with better motors), but when put to work it doesn't perform. A blue-box motor, while some can be erratic, noisy, and run rough, will at least pull what you put behind it. I'd hazard a guess that it's worse on 6-axles due to all the extra drag created by the extra sets of axles and gears. It might not be as big a deal on an S2 or RS3 (I haven't tried either), but it sure as hell is on a C630 or SD40-2W.
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jul 30, 2015 15:24:16 GMT -8
I have a Athearn BB SD40-2 to Intermountain SD40-2 comparison in reparation. I will be posting it on my site in a few days. I will summarize the highlights here when I have them in the appropriate form. Larry www.llxlocomotives.com
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 30, 2015 15:29:29 GMT -8
I'd hazard a guess that it's worse on 6-axles due to all the extra drag created by the extra sets of axles and gears. It might not be as big a deal on an S2 or RS3 (I haven't tried either), but it sure as hell is on a C630 or SD40-2W. For pulling power among other things, the Intermountain SD40-2W(CN Rainbow Expo 86 at least) is a gutless wonder. The one I had struggled with 10 free rolling freight cars on a flat as pancake layout. I would have hated to see the thing try to tackle a grade. Mine was a factory sound and DCC model with the Tsunami board if that makes a difference.
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jul 30, 2015 16:07:37 GMT -8
Actually, it may be significant. This is the main reason I try to stick with DC models in what I test. With a decoder on board, you have a pandoras box of additional potential variables. What is the maximum voltage the motor is seeing? Is that the reason for the measured performance?
You can be sure that this equivalent voltage will vary from decoder to decoder. Particularly from manufacturer to manufacture.
Judge is right, these motors do not seem to have the capacity to get out of the way. Neither the IM SD40-2 or the Bowser C636 had much wheel spin, if any. The system can not produce the torque to break the adhesion, even with the relatively slick NS wheels.
It is possible that the electronics are the problem. At this time I'm not ready to strip these engines to find out. It would be better if I could find a motor and compare with other motors in a slave chassis where the only variable is the motor. I'll keep looking for a candidate.
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jul 30, 2015 17:23:58 GMT -8
Thank you Larry, Jim and Judge Doom, etc. for the more detailed explanation.
I have a brand new Intermountain Rio Grande (single stripe) F7 that may indeed have the wimpy motor.
I'm not sure the exact time they were made, but it has the symptoms...lower speed, little pulling power...even on the flat.
Lee would not have specified a new motor for Bowser if there were not a legitimate issue with the previous one. I have not spoken to him lately, but I am sure they will be able to provide separate brand new motors at some point if not already available. The issue is due to specifications/dimensions being slightly different they may not be an exact drop-in replacement for some earlier units, but may require some adjustment. Those who want to try another motor would be best to contact Bowser or other suppliers directly regarding availability (and suitability for your particular application). In Bowser's case, ask for Lee. He knows his stuff and would be able to advise which models the new motor should drop right into or else what minor modifications (mounts, shaft length/worms, etc.) would need to be made to make it work.
John
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 30, 2015 20:04:30 GMT -8
Thank you Larry, Jim and Judge Doom, etc. for the more detailed explanation. I have a brand new Intermountain Rio Grande (single stripe) F7 that may indeed have the wimpy motor. I'm not sure the exact time they were made, but it has the symptoms...lower speed, little pulling power...even on the flat. Lee would not have specified a new motor for Bowser if there were not a legitimate issue with the previous one. I have not spoken to him lately, but I am sure they will be able to provide separate brand new motors at some point if not already available. The issue is due to specifications/dimensions being slightly different they may not be an exact drop-in replacement for some earlier units, but may require some adjustment. Those who want to try another motor would be best to contact Bowser or other suppliers directly regarding availability (and suitability for your particular application). In Bowser's case, ask for Lee. He knows his stuff and would be able to advise which models the new motor should drop right into or else what minor modifications (mounts, shaft length/worms, etc.) would need to be made to make it work. John Old motor on the left, new one on the right. No fuss, no muss at all dropping it in. Dave Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jul 31, 2015 4:19:48 GMT -8
Put it this way, put about 35-40 cars behind a Bowser C630 with the craptacular motor, and see what it does when it hits the first grade. The train will slow and slow and the motor will stall right out. ----------------------------------- Judge,I should hope so..The engine is pulling against the cars that by nature wants to roll down the hill..Of course the engines or engines will slow and maybe even stall as it climbs the grade while fighting the freight car resistance.Ever notice how locomotive manage to pick up speed going down grade? The cars are pushing the engine(s).
Next time your train crests a grade look at the couplers-the front half the slack as ran in while the last half of the train the slack is still out.
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 31, 2015 5:18:14 GMT -8
Put it this way, put about 35-40 cars behind a Bowser C630 with the craptacular motor, and see what it does when it hits the first grade. The train will slow and slow and the motor will stall right out. ----------------------------------- Judge,I should hope so..The engine is pulling against the cars that by nature wants to roll down the hill..Of course the engines or engines will slow and maybe even stall as it climbs the grade while fighting the freight car resistance.Ever notice how locomotive manage to pick up speed going down grade? The cars are pushing the engine(s). Next time your train crests a grade look at the couplers-the front half the slack as ran in while the last half of the train the slack is still out. You missed the point entirely. The old gutless wonder used by Intermountain, Atlas and Bowser when climbing a grade with cars not only stalls, which can be expected due to laws of gravity trying to pull the train back, but lacks the torque to spin the drivers. Even old Athearn blue box locomotives would stall but continue to spin the drivers. Today's nickel-silver wheels don't have the adhesion of the old Athearn sintered iron wheels. So your locomotive is far more likely to stall when climbing a grade, but at the same time it should spin the drivers, because of the lower friction between the rail and wheel. Stalling and continuing to spin the wheels is torque. Stalling and the wheels stopping is lack of torque. The former motors used by the manufacturing trio were severely lacking in torque. Torque equals pulling power. Torque even when stalled on a grade will overcome the friction between wheel and rail and spin the drivers. Lack of torque limits the number of cars a locomotive can haul up grade and on level track. Even on level track the former motor couldn't over come the friction between wheel and track to spin the drivers. The fact is the old motor flat out lacked torque. Slack and force on the couplers has nothing to do with whether a motor has sufficient or insufficient torque.
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 31, 2015 5:40:47 GMT -8
Something else I noticed, the old motors would love to really gain speed on a downhill unless the back EMF was activated. The new motors, nowhere near as bad as the old.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jul 31, 2015 6:04:37 GMT -8
Just to be clear, the blue box motors are some of the most powerful motors ever produced for HO. The Round "jet" motor will compete with any HO motor for shear power. It should, it has a 16 volt stall current of 3+. Only the Rivarossi C-liner motors are higher, close to 4 amps at stall. Some older can motors actually deliver more torque, but they were sized to better fit the need. The maximum capacity are not nessarily higher.
Because of the current budget and the desire to hear the sound program, we have to have less power. Power is VI. That won't all be delivered to the rails, because of the system losses. As Pogo said "We have met the enemy, and we are it"
Understand, power is force times speed and torque is force times lever arm. The symptoms for this motor indicate that it is operating in the envelope range that maximizes toque at lower RPM. Thus the power is down. This is also near the torque limit boundary on the motor performance map. This is how an undersized motor would respond to these load requirements.
Bottom line is the application of this motor is very limited. Little resistance to the engine. That means little or no grades, very broad curves and short/light trains. The lack of force can be compensated for by adding units, at $200+ each. The train speed will still be limited, but does that really count?
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 31, 2015 7:11:18 GMT -8
In a service manual by EMD for the model F7 locomotives, it stated under load, or getting a train moving or upgrade, it takes amperage. It takes volts to keep a train running at speed. The motors in our models are DC motors just like the traction motors and generator in that F7. That is why the amperage spikes on getting even our models moving or working up a grade and drops when the train is cruising at track speed.
Back forty years ago the motors in our models were different. Today the motors have much lower amp draw AND a lot of that is to keep from burning up the attached DCC board. DCC and sound adds a completely new wrinkle to how our trains perform. You'd need a G-scale DCC decoder to handle the old Athearn wide-body motor at its peak amperage. An HO scale decoder would burn up at the amps those old Athearns sucked up under load.
The decoder connected to the motor has a lot to do with operation. Just ask anyone that has screwed up a CV setting.
But it is also up the manufacturers to pair a motor that operates at sufficient capacity with the decoder which is such an integral part of models.
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jul 31, 2015 7:45:50 GMT -8
The fact is the old motor flat out lacked torque. Slack and force on the couplers has nothing to do with whether a motor has sufficient or insufficient torque. ----------------------------------------
Force has a lot to do with a locomotive performance going up a steep grade.. I have had Athearn,LL P2K, Atlas and my Atlas/Kato to stall without wheel slip on the club's front roller coaster type layout-the club has two layouts that is joined by connecting tracks and since I run on the front layout I think I have experience on stalls and wheel slips caused by force.
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Jul 31, 2015 10:20:59 GMT -8
The reason for my post above is that I think Lee may have verbally stated that some of the older Bowser engines from several years back may not be an exact drop in motor replacement. There were other motors in use at that time, prior to the "craptacular" motor, for which the newest motor might not be an exact drop in replacement. So if I were taking a Bowser engine from several years ago (well beyond say the last 5) and desired to replace a motor, in that particular instance it might be wise to place a phone call to Lee to see if any adjustment would be required.
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 31, 2015 10:23:04 GMT -8
Agreed, I doubt it would be a drop in replacement for whatever motor Stewart used toward the end for example..
Dave
|
|
|
Post by llxlocomotives on Jul 31, 2015 10:33:26 GMT -8
Larry, Depending on the weight and wheel traction, all motors will fail to spin the wheels up to a certain voltage level. Voltage is the independent parameter. Current is the dependent parameter. Based on the resistance of the motor it will draw current via Olhms law. The motor resistance varies directly with speed, so at 0 rpm the resistance is lowest and the current is highest. As Jim indicated torque is a function of current and rpm a function of voltage for a given motor.
At low average voltage, the current draw will not provide the necessary torque to spin the wheels. The required torque is dependent on the resistance parameters, load, engine weight, grade, curve sharpness, etc. Thus the motor will stall if the the required torque exceeds what the motor can produce at that voltage level. Motors with sufficient head room, will spin its wheels over a larger part of the possible operating space than one that does not have it.
|
|
|
Post by steveturner on Jul 31, 2015 11:25:53 GMT -8
Guys my latest purchase was two Bowser DRS 44 1000 units or RS12. I gather these have the motor in question. I have no issues pulling 12 cars on my layout. Of course i dont run long trains 40 plus cars. I do have two Intermountain F units on order which are the high seas and should land soon.I am curious to see how they perform with whatever motor is in them as they have a heavy frame. I am wondering if the motor issues are with extreme lengths of trains which are used to old heavier motors.I guess you cannot compare to n scale because its smaller overall.Steve
|
|
|
Post by carrman on Jul 31, 2015 12:38:48 GMT -8
Pop the hood and look to see for sure what you have.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Great-Northern-Willmar Div on Jul 31, 2015 13:07:42 GMT -8
Guys my latest purchase was two Bowser DRS 44 1000 units or RS12. I gather these have the motor in question. I have no issues pulling 12 cars on my layout. Of course i dont run long trains 40 plus cars. I do have two Intermountain F units on order which are the high seas and should land soon.I am curious to see how they perform with whatever motor is in them as they have a heavy frame. I am wondering if the motor issues are with extreme lengths of trains which are used to old heavier motors.I guess you cannot compare to n scale because its smaller overall.Steve The chassis on the Intermountain F-series may be why my Intermountain F7A's and FP7A's have outperformed the sorry excuse for a model which I consider Intermountain's SD40-2W. Not a lot of weight on the SD40-2W and with a sound board and afterthought LED lighting from the factory adding weight is difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Doom on Jul 31, 2015 14:59:30 GMT -8
Guys my latest purchase was two Bowser DRS 44 1000 units or RS12. I gather these have the motor in question. I have no issues pulling 12 cars on my layout. Of course i dont run long trains 40 plus cars. I do have two Intermountain F units on order which are the high seas and should land soon.I am curious to see how they perform with whatever motor is in them as they have a heavy frame. I am wondering if the motor issues are with extreme lengths of trains which are used to old heavier motors.I guess you cannot compare to n scale because its smaller overall.Steve The chassis on the Intermountain F-series may be why my Intermountain F7A's and FP7A's have outperformed the sorry excuse for a model which I consider Intermountain's SD40-2W. Not a lot of weight on the SD40-2W and with a sound board and afterthought LED lighting from the factory adding weight is difficult. The FP7 I have that was purchased a number of years ago has a nice smooth can motor that is almost identical looking to the Proto 2000 SW can motor that LL was using, which was a pretty nice motor IMHO. What they put in the recent ones is anyone's guess. Like I said before, it could probably haul 12 cars around easy, but put a decent-sized train behind it, and that's when it fails to perform. The extra axles and gears it needs to turn on the 6-axle units probably compound the problem, so a 4-axle unit might perform better than a 6-axle with the same motor. Put them in an 8-axle DDA40X and its guaranteed to be a dud. The fact is the old motor flat out lacked torque. Slack and force on the couplers has nothing to do with whether a motor has sufficient or insufficient torque. ---------------------------------------- Force has a lot to do with a locomotive performance going up a steep grade.. I have had Athearn,LL P2K, Atlas and my Atlas/Kato to stall without wheel slip on the club's front roller coaster type layout-the club has two layouts that is joined by connecting tracks and since I run on the front layout I think I have experience on stalls and wheel slips caused by force. The difference is, when you increase the power, those locos running at low speed that stalled will start to spin their wheels or move again. The Bowser/IMRC motor will not, even if you give it full voltage when stalled. 14 volts full power and not a lick of wheel-slip. An identical unit repowered with a better motor will - I've tried this test numerous times before. Honestly, I think you need to go out and buy one of these yourself, then maybe you'll see what the rest of us here that actually own units and have run and tested them have been talking about for a while now on this and other threads.
|
|
|
Post by alcoc430 on Jul 31, 2015 15:35:08 GMT -8
The latest run of atlas rs32's comes with the mabuchi clone motor (confirmed by removing shell). I only bought it because I got a good deal on a conrail unit. I already have an older version pc unit. I tested it on a test track and it runs smooth and quiet. The led runs brighter than the PC "sandra kan" unit. I measured the pulling power using a hand held force gage and it consistently pulled 75 grams (that's right grams) with the wheels spinning. The sandra kan version pulled 60 grams with the wheels spinning. As far as speed goes with in the confines of a 3 foot test track they seem very close in speed over that short run. Needless to say I was shocked
I have no problem busting atlas, but the motor in at least this particular run seems good.
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Jul 31, 2015 18:09:44 GMT -8
Honestly, I think you need to go out and buy one of these yourself, then maybe you'll see what the rest of us here that actually own units and have run and tested them have been talking about for a while now on this and other threads. --------------------------------------- If I do this (that's a very good chance) I will back my findings up with video not just words.
|
|
|
Post by atsfan on Jul 31, 2015 18:21:12 GMT -8
The latest run of atlas rs32's comes with the mabuchi clone motor (confirmed by removing shell). I only bought it because I got a good deal on a conrail unit. I already have an older version pc unit. I tested it on a test track and it runs smooth and quiet. The led runs brighter than the PC "sandra kan" unit. I measured the pulling power using a hand held force gage and it consistently pulled 75 grams (that's right grams) with the wheels spinning. The sandra kan version pulled 60 grams with the wheels spinning. As far as speed goes with in the confines of a 3 foot test track they seem very close in speed over that short run. Needless to say I was shocked I have no problem busting atlas, but the motor in at least this particular run seems good. Is the clone motor the junk motor or the newer replacement of it?
|
|