2021 motor test series is of 10-16-21

the objective of this test series is to identify the impact of the much touted 24 mm square motor that the people on remotor & regear site are so excited about.

The particulars of the test bed engine & motors are spelled out here:

7-19-21 new motor test series initiated on 5-19-21

The plan is to run these motors by themselves with no external load & then in the HoB chassis

The engine tests will include:

1. 2 gear ratios
2. 3 motors in each set- one Nigel, one 2020 & one from one shaft stash
3. 3 engine weights- base, +154g & +306g
4. 3 supply voltage inputs- 10, 12 & 14
5. 3 grades-1.5, 2.5 & 3.5% (Engine only & selected train length tests will also be done on zero grade)

This will allow the same DOE design configuration as the 2020 tests, thus the same spread sheet software will apply.
in particular, the DOE design is as follows:

(7-15-21) as discussed below this plan is being modified.
The tests will start with one gear ratio (the fastest), then run all motor sets.  The beauty here is that all of the other parameters for a given motor can be run with the current installation. Then the series will be repeated with the second gear ratio.

In addition to Nigel’s motors(from Remotor & Regear), a few of the motors from the 2020 motor test series will be included as well as the Hobbytown of Boston motor.  I also have three single shaft motor candidates and an additional dual shaft motor that will be included.

The total number of motors will likely  be 12 to 15( there were 15 in the 2020 series)

The test series will be similar to the 2020 series:

1. G&TL test plan
   1. Focus on nominal train length
   2. Include max number
   3. Define several points along the way
      1. Three grades possible
      2. Three supply voltages
      3. Three engine weights
         1. The base weight will be the same for all motors
         2. the chassis will have weight added to equalize the base configuration weight
         3. the second & third weights will be achieved by adding the appropriate weight to the top of the engine shell.
2. DC Engine only test plan
   1. Min to 16 volts
   2. Zero grade
   3. The three weights
3. DC nominal train data
   1. three power settings
   2. three weights
4. (8-4-21) because of interest in how the speed & power changes with number of cars on a level grade, additional car lengths will be tested.
   1. 28,34,40 & 46 cars
   2. three power settings
   3. three weights
5. additional interest in how the motor drives the engine at low power with ten cars.
   1. to explore this, the engine will be examined like the engine only runs with 10 cars.
   2. 14, 12, 10, 6, 4, & minimum volts.
      1. The minimum will decide which low end voltages are actually run.
   3. three engine weights
      

Depending on how this proceeds, there may a few other motors to test.  (Nigel has indicated the he is sending 2 additional & I purchased a new dual shaft).
mad of 8-4-21, the planned motor count is 21. With the Minebea 10 mm square motor falling off the list.

On 6/5/21 the testing started with the HoB can motor. The first three DOE runs were completed. Because this is the first time the test bed chassis has been used, these data will be examined in detail. It may be determined that the assembly of this chassis is causing more internal torque loss than should be there. The decision to proceed should be made soon.

6/6/21 examining the data, there are several issues:

1. There is more internal torque loss
2. Two of the three tests did not pull a nominal train up the grade

The first is still a question. The second can be remedied by adding weight to the base engine.
A second run with 3-4 ounces added to the base engine will be appropriate.

Will run the current configuration with the amount of weight to allow the engines to pull the nominal train on all three variations. That will then be the configuration that is carried on to the other motor tests.
6/7/21 Four ounces were added to the engine. This puts the base weight option on line with modern engine weights. Now the two runs that did not pull the nominal train length before exceeded it with this weight. The idler wheels were also left off. This may have impacted the previous result. Additionally, the configuration is now crawling at less than 1 SMPH. Thus is where it needs to be for a meaningful test series. The rest of the test went well. The minimum sustained velocity is still higher than previous experience and the low voltage current draw is higher than expected. Thus implies that there is more internal torque
To overcome in the drive. Will go on to the next motor & see what that looks like.

The mabuchi 266SA is shown installed on the chassis. Chalk was used to mount the motor becaus it does not have screw holes for the provided mount. Slightly more than a 1/4 ounce has been added to make up for the lighter motor. Testing started today, all looks good so far.

6-12-21 The testing was basically completed on the 266SA. I say that because the rear fly wheel bearing split during this test. Examining the results that were taken are interesting. While I will rerun this test to verify where the data is valid, but what is indicated between the two engines thus far is the 266SA pulls substantially more cars than the stock HoB can motor. As the pre test RPM result indicated he SA runs slower. Both engine are disappointing at low power. The performance criteria on either is poor. This problem may be the test bed. This should become clearer with additional motors are tested, particularly the three from the 2020 test series.Will wait for replacement parts to continue the test series.

6-16-21 received the replacement bearing parts from Nick at Hobbytown of Boston. He has be very helpful in getting these tests run. The 266SA tests were repeated. The data appears more consistent. However the min sustained sustained velocity conditions are higher than previously demonstrated on other engines.
The consistency of the run was much better. The HoB can motor will also need to be rerun. However, because of the low power results, the next motor, the Mashima 1833 from the 2020 series, will be run next. The three motors from that work demonstrated better low power characteristics. It will be interesting to see how they perform in this environment.

Two additional motor from Nigel were added today. They are Mabachi motors lol SZ-286XB-1880 & RK-370CA. As with the other single shaft motors these have strong magnetic flux & a large number of poles. The SZ motor showed a large amount of low speed variation in the motor no load tests. These will be inserted towards the last part of the first gear ratio tests.

6-18-32 The Mashima 1833 motor was run through the grade portion of the test series. The level surface tests will be completed in the next day or so. The current damtaw on this motor is higher than the previous two. How ever, the engine only & nominal train speeds are both much faster than the 266SA motor. The big question about how the new high torque high magnetic strength motors would compare with the 2020 motors seems to favor the old versions at this point. The Mashima 1833 motor pulled an average of 28 cars in these tests. The corresponding result for the Mabuchi 266SA was an average of 22 cars. A difference of 27%. This is a similar result to what was seen for the high torque low speed motors in the 2020 series.
These results are for an average grade of 2.5%. The projected level surface maximum car numbers are 78 & 61 respectively. Both of these number are exceptional. It will be interesting to see how the other motors compare.

The motor that will be run next is the best motor from the previous series, the Atlas China motor. The downside is that the motors from the 2020 series are no longer in production. All of the new motors in this series are still being produced in large quantities. Hopefully one of these will compete better than the 266SA.

6-19-21 after examining the plan, the next motor choice will be changed to the 24 mm square Minebea SE 24M1LLCH. This is the most popular of the recently discussed replacement motors.It is anticipated to be better at train length & in low speed running. It is a good result to have early.

6-22-21 the 24 inch square motor was put through the entire test series.

1. The results were a bit disappointing. The average number of cars pulled was poorer than the Mishima 1833.
2. The top speed for 12 volts is as the motor only RPM indicated. Here it measured 35 SMPH.
3. the motor did well with a train in tow. Not losing much speed
4. it did achieve the lowest minimum EO speed of any motor yet. The voltage for sustained movement is 3.6 volts & the speed was around 7 SMPH.
5. The motor current draw is the lowest of the motors tested so far. However this also indicates that the motor never was challenged in this application.

At this level of examination, the Mashima 1833 is still the motor of choice.

The next motor to be tested is the Igarashi 182331 dual shaft motor that is new to this series.

6-25-21 The 182331 is now the leader of the pack. It pulls more cars, has a better overall performance criteria value & it has the highest average engine only speed. It is early to dig into the speed loss & power details.
During this test series the data for the motor pulling 46 cars on a level grade was added to the standard set. This will require some retesting of earlier motors if it holds up as a interesting result. This is the longest train that can be practically tested on the test track. This configuration was running at 35 SMPH with this train length. The nominal train runs nearly 90 SMPH.

The next motor on the docket is the Mabuchi 266 SF. This is a slower sister to the earlier tested. If my theory holds, this slow speed motor will pull less than the earlier version. The tests will bear this out., but so far all of the low ROM motors have fallen short of expectations.

7-6-21 The Mabuchi 266 SH & the Fualhaber 2224U012S have been completed.

• The SH does better than its cousin the Mabuchi 266 SA at pulling cars. However they are fifth & sixth out of the seven tested on this parameter.
• The Fualhaber motor is a close third in pulling capability
• The 266-SH is the slowest motor tested so far. The average scale speed at 12 volts is under 30 SMPH at the gear ratio the test bed Hobbytown of Boston PA
• The Faulhaber motor runs just under sixty scale miles per hour. It is fourth fastest up to the point.
• The 266 SH and the Faulhaber are one and two in the lowest current draw for the current test engines. When normalized by the stall current, the Faulhaber motor is using the smallest amount of the the motor capacity.
• The 266 SH requires the most voltage to sustain initial motion of any of the seven motors tested. The Faulhaber requires the least.
• From an overall perspective, the Faulhaber is the best motor tested so far.

The Mabuchi FK180SH motor has been completed on 7/10/21. This motor had the highest stall current & 12 volt no load rpm of the proposed motors in this series.

The initial assessment: (7/10/21)

1. as expected this motor drives the drives the engine at speeds over 100 SMPH.
2. What is surprising is the current draw level. It is near the highest measured in the series
3. it must mean that the torque capacity of the motor the motor requires more current to provide what is required.
4. The motor pulled the most cars to date.
5. the level grade 46 car train test speed is the highest measured so far. This implies that it will pull that it will pull more cars.
6. High RPM seems help with the maximum torque capacity when it comes to pulling cars. The wheels all slip at nearly the same torque for a given weight since the wheel & track surfaces are the same. Need to see how this holds in these tests.
7. Looking at the power ratio, the power supply current draw divided by the stall current. These are all under twenty five percent for maximum usable power. They all have the capacity to pull more cars with more weight, rougher wheel surfaces(traction tires) or perhaps some discrete voltage selection ( PWM?)
8. There is a difference in pulling capacity, a fifty percent spread over all. Still looking for the why.

On to the Minebea 10GORTME motor. This is a very small motor with a lot of RPM capacity. The Maximum torque is 2/3 of the average of these motors. The Mabuchi FK180SH for reference is eighty percent higher than the average.(The highest of all the motors in the series). This begs the second gear ratio. configuration. Maybe appropriate to elect the “fast motors” for that portion of the tests.

(7-12-21) the 10 mm square motor did not run after installed on the engine. It apparently failed during the preliminary motor only tests. A new motor has been ordered. It will likely be available in 4-6 weeks. The notification that it had been shipped. So it may not take that long. Things from China are taking longer right now. (7-20-21) Tracking implies the motor is in Orlando, so it should be available soon)
In the meantime, the next tests are being done on the Minebea 15HOSLTP. This motor tests were initiated this afternoon. This motor is a low torque & low RPM motor. The initial test indicated a 44 SMPH and the initial runs indicate a torque short fall.

(7-15-21) Finished the testing on the Minebea 15 mm square motor. The initial assessments are:

1. Motor is one of the lowest current draw results in the series. The Mabuchi SF-266SH & the Faulhaber motors run at lower current draws.
2. The motor is right in the middle in pulling capacity. Doing better then the 266SH but not as well as the Faulhaber.
3. It nominal train speed is near the slowest, with the 266SH being the slowest.
4. These are interesting results because it has the lowest stall torque of all of the motors in the series. This shows up in the power ratio examination. To do as well as it does, it is working much harder than the rest of the motors.
5. Overall the motor is on of the poorest in this gear ratio series. It falls near the Mabuchi SF-266SA & the HoB 1933 in this regard.
6. This motor is definitely under powered for this weight & size engine. It is probably better suited for a small scale, but the 15 mm width will make it a tight fit and likely limit the places where it will work.

Nigel requested that the Mabachi SZ-286XB-1880 motor be tested next. He has tome professional reasons why the data is of interest. So, that motor is being installed on the chassis & will be examined next.

A new project came my way this week and It will likely be a supplement to this activity. The specifics are to upgrade a Tenshodo GN 2-8-8-2 engine. This includes but is not limited to a motor change. In addition, I have two Brass steamers that need the same action. One is a Tenshodo GN 2-8-8-0 the other is an Oriental NP 4-8-4 engine. For this series, I am thinking about doing two things.

1. Add the three motors from these brass engines to this activity running on the Hobbytown of Boston PA chassis. This would give a quantifiable eason for the motor change. It also would help select which motor of these would best fit the steamer. The 2-8-8-0 motor may be the same and the 2-8-8-2, but it would give a variation between models. The 4-8-4 motor is a Sagami unit that was probably added along the way before I got it.
2. The second option or extension would be to use one of my steamers as a second test bed to see how the better motors from this activity perform in that application.

The more I think about it the more value I can see in doing both of these items. They make more sense than running the PA chassis at a lower gear ratio. That option could be delayed until these later tests are completed.

The initial gear ratio plan will be completed first with the addition of these three motors. Then the subsequent activity will be readdressed. Should be fun.

(7-20-21) The Mabuchi SZ motor completed its tests today.the following are the early conclusions are as follows:

• This motor provides a middle ground engine speed. six run faster & three run slower.
• it’s current draws are running about .26 amp with a long train in tow, this puts it in the middle of the item motors tested to date.
• it pulls 24 cars on grade, again not indicative of the high torque available, six motors do better.
• it does have an exceptional low speed low power capability. Moving the engine at the lowest speed & lowest voltage of any to date.

Some of these motors will be tested in both the 2-8-8-2 engine & the 2-8-8-0 engine. This plan and any results will be tested in a different set of posts. Because of the upgrade activity in the 2-8-8-2, several additional motors will be reported here and as appropriate in those subsequent posts. Those motors are being acquired at this time & will be discussed upon arrival.

(7-26-21) The Tenshodo 2-8-8-2 engine open frame motor was added to this series as a cross check and an indicator as to how the newer motors should fare in that engine. The early indications are:

• Four of the earlier motors out pull this open frame motor. The Mabuchi FK-180SH has the most advantage on this motor with the Igarashi 18233 motor a solid second.
• This motor runs the fastest of any of the other motors in the series. The same two motors are the closest in speed to this motor. The Mabuchi FK 180SH may be the only one that would be acceptable with out a gear ratio change on the 2-8-8-2 engine.
• This open frame motor is a real current hog. Far worse than the others in the series. The two that are favored above also have higher current draws, but 50-60% of this motors levels.
• Because of the high stall current, the actual use area on this motor is similar to the newer motors.

This examination is encouraging in that several motors are reasonable candidates as motor replacements for the old open frame motor. The Mabuchi RK-370CA is next. Its no load parameters imply that it could be like the Igarashi motor above. It has a higher stall current, but under 2 amps. Another Mabuchi motor model, RF-370, has a no load set that appears to be a very good match for this open frame motor speed at better current draw levels. It is on the way & will be tested when it arrives.

(7-28-21) The Mabuchi RK-370CA tests were completed. The initial impressions are as follows:

• It is near the top as a puller. Runs near the FK-180 motor.
• The train speed is third fastest. Essentially the same as the Igarashi 18233 motor.
• Its current draw levels are fourth from the lowest. Which is quite desirable.
• It does this well and uses less than the average of the total motor capacity/

This motor is a very good candidate for any remoter activity.

This makes the examination of its sister RF-370 even more interesting. That will happen when it arrives from China.

Meanwhile, he next motor to be tested here will be the NWSL 18336-9. The no load values make it look a bit better than the Faulhaber motor. We will see how it does with the strain of the train behind it.

(8-1-21) several things have happened over the last couple of days. Additional emphasis has been placed on finding a good 15-17 mm motor. The initial rpm goal is around 10,000. In that regard, three additional motors have been identified & procurement has begun. Those will be discussed more when they are in hand & the actual no load info is available.

Secondly, the realization that the 24 mm square motors really have a limited use in HO engines. The large steam engines that I am upgrading can not accept a motor with a width greater than 20 mm.

Finally, the testing on the NWSL 18336-9 motor for the 2021 DOE has been completed. Again another surprising result:

• This configuration pulled the most cars of any so far.
• the nominal train speed is in the middle of the pack. It may be acceptable for certain applications, but it is down by about 1/3 as the no load rpm indicated.
• The current draw for this option is fifth from the lowest. Substantially lower that the other motors that pull nearly as many cars.
• the overall results for the motor are good , not the best in this series, but in the top two or three.

A replacement for the Minebea 10 mm square motor has arrived from across the Pacific. It has been installed on the chassis & will be run in the next day or so.

(8-3-21) another disappointing result with the Minebea 10 mm square motor. This time your the motor would not start in the engine at 12 volts with no other load. The initial troubleshooting did not find a problem with the drive. By removing the shell and tweaking the flywheel, the motor would drive the chassis. It ran at a much slower speed than the no load rpm would indicate. It’s current draw was elevated implying a lot of external load.
After the motor was removed it ran as expected. This implies that the motor does not have the capacity for this application. Further investigation will be made to better understand this issue.

in the meantime the Atlas China motor has been installed & will be the next motor to be run.
(8-5-21) Well into the testing of the Atlas China motor in this series. Very early impressions indicate that as was the case in the 2020 work, this motor will be on if the best pullers if not the best. The current draw levels are also very competitive.
At the suggestion from some people, the power characteristics fit a 19 car train on a level grade would be of interest. . Unfortunately, in DC this activity does not have much meaning. The train is visibly smooth at the minimum sustained speed condition, even when that speed is 12 SMPH. The problem that people are worried about is associated with a PWM signal associated with a pure DC signal and with a DCC signal. The frequency of the PWMhas a lot to do with this issue as well as the inertia in the drive The motor may contribute to this, but it is unlikely that it is the largest factor.

probably will finish this version in a day or so.

A Nichibo 1532 motor version has been acquired for this study. This is one of the 15 mm options for many potential applications. Additional, the motors on hand available for tie series are: P1K can, Tenshodo 2-8-8-0 Pittman style open frame & Sagami round 4-8-4 . These will be examined as time allows.

(8-7-21) Did some more checking on the 10 mm square motors.  What I have determined is that their 12 volt stall torque is 20% of the average of the other motors.  These are the smallest torque levels.  The next smallest torque is produced by the 15 mm square motor.  1.8 times the 10 mm motor.  The inference is there is a minimum torque required to drive the chassis.  That level is some where between these motors, likely closer to the 10 mm motor level, because the 15 mm motor is competitive with the other motors.  It does use the highest percentage of the available torque or power used of those tested so far.  Excessive torque capacity, does not necessarily translate into excessive pulling capacity.  I tend to see the higher rpm motors pulling more than the lower rpm motors.  It may be as simple as the initial actual velocity level.  The higher rpm motors have a higher initial speed.  Prior to wheel slip, there is a shallow velocity degradation with increasing external load(cars).  At the point of initial wheel slip, that degradation slope steepens.  The wheels do no fully slip at this point.  It appears that the degradation is nearly linear until a speed under 3 SMPH.  At that point it tends to flatten holding on for several additional cars before movement ceases. Total wheel slip occurs.  If the slopes of these first two curves are the same, then the higher rpm motor will pull more load.  The slopes are likely a function of the torque capacity and possibly speed.  However if the slope changes are small, then the higher rpm motor will still pull more load.
This will be worked more to see if there are equations that help understand what the data is saying.

(8-8-21) The Nichibo 1532 motor turned out to be a disappointment. It was supposed to have a 12 Volt no load rpm of 9000. Instead it could only muster 4500 rpm. Thus was unacceptable and was returned to the vendor and will not be a part of the series. An option is to use the Kato coreless motor that was acquired in 2020. It may be to small. If not it will be an interesting addition to the study.

(8-9-21) The Atlas China motor completed it tests in this series. As it was in the 2020 series, this is one of the better motors in the activity so far:

• It is the second best puller, only beat out bu the NWSL motor by a fraction.
• The maximum zero grade train speed if an acceptable 83 SMPH leaving lots of room for realistic operation.
• The current draw competes with the other newer motors under load.
• Its overall performance is second only to the RK-370CA motor in this application.

A second activity has been reviewing & testing several coreless motors that were acquired for the 2020 series. One was successfully finished no load testing. Unfortunately it torque levels are similar to the Minebea 10 mm square motor. Whish means that it will not work for this application. The Kato coreless motor is also in the mix. To make a statement about that motor, I need to get a sleeve or sleeves that will attach a coupling to the small diameter motor shaft. Will see if I can identify that soon.

(8-14-21) examined a couple of small coreless motors. These actually produced less torque than the Minebea 10mm square motor. They will not be run as part of the series. The initial test of the Kato coreless required a small diameter sleeve to mount the coupling. This arrived yesterday & the initial tests will start tomorrow.
Four additional motor candidates have been identified and acquisition begun. These are coming from the US or from the faster China shipping port. Some should be here next week.

The P1K motor has completed its testing in the series. The initial assessment is as follows:

• A new best puller, this time it pulls 33 cars on the 2.5% grade
• The train speed is respectable, but not close to the highest. Actually the sixth fastest.
• The operating current draw is a very competitive level. Again it is sixth lowest pulling a train at grade.
• The amount of the motor is also near the lowest for this series.
• Overall it is second only to the Mabuchi RK-370CA motor. That one is 24 mm in diameter. The P1K will fit in a number of places where that one will not.
• The current draw variation as it runs is larger than most. This may not be good for a DCC application. Otherwise it is an excellent option.

(8-17-21) several things have happened in the last few days:

Three of the small coreless motors that were acquired for 2020 study were tested as unloaded motors to identify their characteristics.

all are to small to be used as is. Their 20:1 gear ratio torque is not sufficient.

The two made by Tramfabriek need a gear ratio of 40;1 to be used in this application directly.

clearly two back to back would exceed the torque requirements. They run fast, so some additional gear ratio change would be required to match the application needs.

the third coreless motor is the Kato motor used in the P42 truck power. Here again the torque available was less than required for this application. This motor rpm yields a 20:1 speed of over 200 SMPH. Again, if the gear ratio is tripled, the torque would be adequate and the speed would be acceptable. In order to use this motor here the lower speed option is required. This may candidate for the the latter part of the study.

additionally three new motors arrived:

Mabuchi FK-260SH- this has similar characteristics of the FK-180SH which is one of the best tested so far. The 20:1 speed is down from 120 to 84 SMPH. During this test the motor made more noise than desired. Before it runs in the chassis, the bearing will be lightly lubricated.

Mabuchi FF-130SH- this has similar characteristics of the Minebea 15 mm which is marginal for torque at a 20:1 gear ratio. It runs almost twice as fast as the 15 mm square motor. Thus a small gear ratio increase would allow this motor to fit better in this application.

1724 coreless- this is the unbranded tatoo gun motor. It was recommended on Repower and regear group. It has a 20:1 torque that is nearly the best of any of the motors tested in the series. The rpm of the motor yields a 20:1 speed over 100 SMPH. This motor was recommended because of its low speed capabilities. Eva use of how it looks, this motor will be the next one tested.

another surprise happened with the Tenshodo Pittman style 2-8-8-0 motor. This engine had some issues. When the motor was run in the no load tests, it appeared to be fine, actually producing more torque than the larger similar motor from the 2-8-8-2 engine. When installed in the test chassis, it would not start on its own at any voltage. A slight spin of the fly wheel allows the motor to start and run continuously. The same is true on rollers. It will not start with out this extra spin. This means that the motor does not have sufficient starting torque to overcome the inertia of the drive. The motor is of questionable integrity and will not be tested any more.

the no load tests have been examined over a range of voltages. These motors have been listed in descending order by 20:1 torque. This list includes the 2020 and the 2021 motors. The characteristics are also listed in this chart. The initial version of this chart will be included here. The ongoing version will be included in the 2021 ongoing results post being added to as more data becomes available

(8-19-21 another busy day;

• The testing was started on the unbranded 1724 coreless motor . It should be finished in a day or two.
• the Chinese 1524 motor arrived. Actually five of these were ordered. That is how they are sold. I plan on doing all five no load tests to see how much variation exists. The “best” will be used in the test series.
  the actual gear ratio was thought to be 20:1. That was in error. The HoB gear ratio that is being tested is 12:1. That is the same as the Athearn BB models used in the 2020 series. The second slower gear ratio for the HoB chassis is 21:1. The torque ratio in the earlier chart is not affected. The speed levels seemed inconsistent with that gear ratio. An error was found in the calculation from rpm to smph. The chart has been upgraded and will be found on the results post.
  Utilizing the data in the from the results of both studies, the data is showing consistent trend of increasing cars pulling capability with twelve volt EO velocity. This has been suspected, but the data is now showing the trend. Again the chart will be posted in the results post.

(8-23-21) Several item accomplished:

• The Minebea motors, PWN 10EE24EA & SA-18K1ETZC arrived. The latter is the 18 mm square motor that there has been lots of discussion about.
  • The PWN motor nearly has enough torque & also runs slow. It will be interesting to see how it impacts the pulling capacity vs either engine speed or RPM. These charts have been added to the results post.
  • The SA-18 motor has the second highest torque. However like the 24 mm square motor before it, the rpm & speed levels are quite low which gives me pause about how it will perform in this application. In this case it would be good it some of the torque could be given up for a speed increase. Some how change the gear ratio of the drive from 12:1 to perhaps 9:1. Not sure how to do that right now.
• The testing on the unbranded 1725 coreless motor has been completed, some of the results have been posted on the results post:
  • The motor provides a competitive pulling capacity. It is seventh best at 29 cars on the average grade. The best is 33 cars.
  • It is the third fastest in level surface train speed. Running 88 SMPH.
  • the operating current draw is fourth lowest. This is particularly important for DCC operation.
  • this is done using the least amount of the motor capacity. This should be favorable for motor life.
  • this motor shows the fifth highest torque capacity with the highest 12 volt speed of those five.
    Where this motor really shines is at low speed, it s initial sustained velocity conditions are the lowest of any motor in the 2021 series.

The next motor to test is the Mabuchi FF-130SH-11340 version. This motor falls at the low side of what appears to be the required torque. It no load rpm is 13233. This should power the engine near 100 SMPH at 12 volts. This will be too fast, but how will it do pulling a train & how will the low power conditions look? Should be of interest. Still have 5 additional motors waiting in the line, with five others on the way from the far east.

(8-30-21) As indicated in the initial results post, the FF-130SH motor has completed testing. The results show the following:

1. It is 10th out of 17 motors tested in this series for train pulling on a grade.
2. Its max nominal train speed was disappointing low for the measured no load rpm.
3. It lost nearly the most 12 volt speed from no load to engine only conditions.
4. It is ninth lowest in current draw, respectable, but not exceptional.
5. The amount of the motor used is nearly the highest of the group. This follows from the torque being on the low side. Adequate, but the motor will likely run hot & have life issues.
6. On an overall basis, the motor is near the lowest for this application.
7. Basically not appropriate for this application.

This is the second 15 mm width motor that did not fair well in these tests. This is an important consideration because the drive for dimensional accuracy is driving an number of models inside width to close to this level.

To get a better understanding of this, the motors that have been tested in both the 2020 & the 2021 series have been examined for no load 12 volt rpm & torque ration against the width. This indicates the following:

1. The no load motor rpm tends to vary inversely with motor width. The smaller the width, the higher the rpm.
2. The torque ration tends to very directly with the motor width. The larger the width, the higher the torque.
3. These are explainable from the geometry perspective.
4. There appears to be a lot of variation, particularly in the 2021 series.
   1. The later series has by design more magnet strength, pole & Wire/ slot turn variations which are likely causing some of this.
   2. The five motor variation shows that there is significant variation in motors of the same vintage & model number purchased at the same time.
5. The torque function appears to be similar between the older series & the newer series motors.
6. The no load rpm function currently is showing a large difference between the two series motors.
7. Taking this to the minimum sustained engine speed for the two series is also interesting:
   1. This speed varies inversely with torque ration & directly with no load rpm for both series.
   2. The 2021 shows a stronger variation in each case, with more data spread. Likely due to the above differences i the motors.
8. Taking this to the pulling capacity the results are more mixed. In the case of cars pulled on a 2.5% grade function with 12 volt no load rpm:
   1. Both series pull more cars with increasing rpm.
   2. The 2021 pulls more cars. It is an average heavier by roughly 100 grams. the 2021 series also has more data scatter as noted above.
9. The torque impact on the number of cars pulled on the grade is where things are really mixed:
   1. The 2020 motors tend to have a small direct relationship between torque & cars pulled at grade.
   2. The 2021 actually has a slightly inverse relationship. The more torque the fewer cars. The data scatter makes this questionable, but that is what the trends show for now.

The next motor to be tested is the Chinese 1524 #2 model. This is one of the five that were examined in the earlier data. This is the third of four or five 15 mm motors that will be tested in this series. Nick at Hobbytown of Boston is interested in finding a 15 mm motor. So this is the least I can do for his support of this effort.

(9-02-21) Finished the testing on the Chinese 1524 motor. The motor is shown installed in the following pix:

The following are the initial conclusions for the tests:

1. This is the third 15 mm motor tested in the series.
   • The motor torques are on the low side.
   • The magnitude of speed loss from the no load to the actual is large, 34%.
   • The minimum sustained velocity is high, greater than 15 SMPH.
2. It is a good train puller. Pulling just under 30 cars on the 2.5% grade.
   • This make it sixth best in the series, tied with the Igarashi 18233 motor.
3. Because of the large speed loss indicated above, it does not do as well with the nominal train speed on a level surface.
   • Here it falls to 12th of the motors tested.
4. It does well in the current draw, showing to be sixth lowest.
5. To do this job it requires more of the motor capacity than most in the series.
   • Fifth highest pulling a nominal train at grade
   • The actual load requirements will likely be greater than this, causing the motor to run hot and leading to a questionable reliability situation.
6. Because of the poor low speed results, this motor does not show well overall.
   • It is near the bottom in the performance characteristics calculation.

Based on this discussion, this motor is not a good candidate for this application. The speed results do not indicate that much can be traded for gear torque to improve the low speed situation.

This seems to be the quandary for the 15 mm motors. Because a number of modern application have body shells that could use a 15 mm motor. However, at this point it appears that the performance losses are to great.

The next motor to be tested is the Minebea SA18K1ETZC square 18 mm motor. This is a six pole very strong magnet motor. It shows to be the second highest in torque capacity, but has a low no load rpm. It will be interesting to see how this one does in the tests. The high pole Minebea motors thus far have not done very well.

(9-09-21) Completed the testing on the Minebea 18 mm square motor. The results are as follows:

1. It is the second highest torque producing motor of the series with a ratio of 1.738.
2. It has a low stall current of 1.14 Amps.
3. The percent power used on the grade is second only to the 1725 coreless motor.
4. It pulls a respectable 29 cars on grade. This compares to the P1K motor which pulled 33cars & the Minebea 24 mm square motor that only pulled 25 cars.
5. The only negative for this motor is the nominal train speed which is the third slowest measured so far. This is a case where it would be desirable to reduce the gear ratio. This would give up some torque to add some train speed.
6. The current draws are the second lowest measured in the series, which is an excellent result.
7. The lack of train speed leads to an overall performance result that is far below the 1725 coreless high bar. This motor is actually seventh out of the twenty motors tested thus far.
8. The place where this motor shines is in the minimum sustained speed result. Because of the torque, it has nearly the lowest measured speed. This may be good for yard switchers & possibly steam engines.

As indicated this motor is a very good candidate, the second best so far.

Next up is the Mabuchi FK-260SA 14280. It has a torque and speed character similar to the P1K motor from the 2020 test series.

Three additional motors arrived the last few days. These are two additional Mabachi motors & a Johnson motor. One of the Mabuchi motors is a dual shaft 15 mm wide motor. To fill out the 15 MM motor options.

This leaves three motors in transit. All of these have been taking a long time so they may not be part of this test series.

Still looking for options to change the gear ratio. The second gear set I have for this chassis is 21:1. It would be better if it was closer to 16:1. A third option is a 7:1. This is close an 8:1.

The higher gear ration slows the speed potential while raising the torque. This may allow the Minebea 10 mm square motor & some of the small coreless motors to be players in this application.

The lower gear ratio options increases the speed potential while lowering the relative torque capacity. Here, the slow speed high torque motors are candidates. There are only a few of the tested motor that are really candidates. The 1725 Coreless speed would increase from 88 to 150 SMPH. The relative torque capacity would drop from 1.39 to 0.81. The speed is just too much. Still considering options.

(9-11-21) The testing on the Mabuchi FK-260SA 14280 was completed and the initial dat posted. The results are initially summarized as:

1. The motor run in the no load condition was noticeably louder than most of the others. Because of this the dB assessment on the no load running at 12 volt will be added to the results. Will be posted in the near future.
2. This motor is of interest because it has a good blend of torque & speed. The pulling capacity is a competitive 29 cars at grade. The best is 33 cars & the average is 26 cars.
3. Interestingly, the motor lost a fair amount of the no load speed potential when run as a nominal train on a level surface. Because of this it run 69 SMPH compared to the average of 64. The fastest is 104, so it is only a bit above the average in speed.
4. The current draw levels is the sixth lowest at .186 amps for a train at grade. This compared to the average of .222 amps.
5. The amount of the motor used for a train at grade is 13.6% which is well below the average for the series of 17.8%.
6. In spite of these aspects, the motor is only average overall.

The loss in speed with load, 28% versus the average of 23% did not serve this motor well. The motor will be put aside as just an average option.

The three recent acquisitions have been tested for their no load aspects. Two of these have high torque levels. These have unacceptable tall current levels. Bot have high speed as well. The torque & speed make it worth the test to see has the actual results turn out. The third is another 15 mm motor. This one is dual shaft, Mabuchi FK-130SH. This motor torque level is between the Minebea 10 mm square & the 15 mm square motors. The 10 mm did not produce enough torque to move the drive. It will be interesting to see how this Mabuchi motor performs.

The next motor to test will be a Minebea 14 mm motor, PWN10VEE24EA. It has similar no load data to the previously mentioned 15 mm motor.

(9-27-21) Changed the order. The Mabuchi FK-280SA motor has completed its testing. It has the attributes that has it near the top in torque and also near the top in rpm/velocity. It does this by having a high stall current level (3.6 amps)

The results are as follows:

1. The pulling capacity did not fair as well as the speed would previously indicate. It is the sixth best puller thus far pulling just one 30 cars at grade. This is a disappointment.
2. It does show to be the third fastest in maximum nominal train speed. It lost more of the no load implied speed than some of the other motors.
3. The current draw character for this motor places it fifth highest of the motors tested so far.
4. It does use less of the motor than any tested so far. with a maximum nominal train at grade using under 10% of the motors capacity.
5. The motor no load results show it to have the third highest torque capacity
6. This torque does lead to a good set of low end characteristics. With a min sustained velocity just over 5 SMPH.
7. The overall result place the motor second only to the unbranded 1725 coreless motor.
8. The motor noise is louder than the other motors tested so far. Which is a draw back for this application.

The motor is good overall, but will have limited application because of the noise.

As the charts indicate, There are several additional motors that have bee added to the test series for various reasons. The addition of another unbranded coreless motor is probably the most interesting addition. This one is a 1630 version. Longer with a smaller diameter. Again this is mainly used in a tattoo gun application like the 1725 version. It has not arrived as of yet, so that comparison will have to wait.

The next motor to test is the Minebea PWN10VEE24EA that was planned earlier. This motor should be close to the Minebea 15 mm square motor. the 14 mm side makes it work in the applications.

(10-15-21) Have had other priorities, the most recent testing took longer than usual. The Minebea PWN10VEE 24 EA completed testing a week ago. The following summarizes these results.

1. The overall performance is near the bottom of the motors tested in this series. It is slightly better than the Minebea 15 mm square motor in this chassis. Fifteen of the motors are better, some significantly. Not a good fit with this application.
2. It pulling capacity is reasonable, just over 28 cars on a 2.5% grade. Ten of the motors all less. The best is at 33 cars.
3. Speed is where this motor is lacking. Only three motors run slower with a nominal train on a level surface. Forty scale miles per hour is at this condition is just to slow.
4. The current draw is the second lowest of all the motors. Which is in its favor.
5. The down side to this is that it is using more of the total motor capacity than all but one or two of the other motors. The torque level is just marginal for this application. any extra load would likely push this motor beyond its capability.
6. The minimum sustained speed in over 10 SMPH. This is too high to be a serious contender in this application. This is another reason why the overall performance is low.
7. Finally, the motor looses is rpm capability as load in applied. The delta V over V is nearly 30%. Seven other motors have more, but this motor has the lowest loaded velocity of those that have a higher speed loss.

This motor was an interesting test, but the 14 mm min width & other design choices make this motor a mismatch for this application.

The next motor up is the unbranded 1630 coreless motor. like the 1725 coreless motor, this model is used in tattoo gun applications. The no load torque for this motor is 30% less than the 1725 version. The no load rpm & therefore speed is quite high. Projecting 155 SMPH at 12 volts. This is a likely candidate for the higher gear ratio option. Should have the data in a few days.

More to come as testing proceeds.