Your a genius bro you pined it right on ! No one wants to talk about the moment of inertia. Accelerating and de accelerating a known mass can consumes vast amounts of energy . In PID controled motor this can be thousands of times in a minute. I have two identical Chim 7s , one (primary flyer) with $50 2508 1200k, and on my other ( back up ) with $14 2306 1400 k. What kept me up at night and baffled was to why the back up was so nicer to fly ! Smooth , nibble and better tracking and even flies 2 minute longer 🤔. Looking at the two big 7s on desk when i built them I thought SELF ! You screwed up putting them puny 2306 motors on this big bird, never leave the ground with that brick on top .It's was so visually rejecting to. Science and nature are incredible !. Cheers from Canada .
Hey Chris, just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate the work you do and that I think that your data driven approach to things is exactly what we need to see. Your analysis helps me infinitely more than some fanboys of a brand saying "this and that is better because of the FEELS". Don't let those people get to you. I know exactly how it feels when people try to invalidate your work, it sucks, but as you said in another comment, data always wins. Just so you know where I'm coming from. I am still relatively new to FPV, but I've flown RC helicopter for half my life and have eventually progressed from being a pilot into the development side of things. I develop high performance carbon fiber rotor blades for 3D helicopters, from concept to flight testing, and EVERYTHING I do is data driven, from the initial blade concept to the final product that hits the shelves. I merely do flight testing to validate the data, not to decide if I need to make changes. There is no "oh yeah, maybe let's make the blade 5g lighter or move the spanwise CG 3mm inwards because it feels better", I calculate the exact properties of the blade before the manufacturer even starts cutting molds and laying up blades, and the final products so far have agreed with the previously calculated data 100%. And people are loving it. The blades I design are the only blades on the market that achieve consistent control feel across all sizes. Data is crucial and key to success, and people who love data, like you, are what pushes the envelope of what's possible further and further. Keep making these videos. I and many others are learning a ton. You're providing insane value to the people of this hobby. Thank you Chris.
Hey Jonas, I really appreciate you taking the time to write that lovely comment. You made my day! I take exactly the same approach with my frame design. Performance is determined through simulation and flight testing is done only to gather blackbox logs to validate the simulation results. 👍💪 At the end of the day the data-driven approach will always win out because if we know what the goal is we can get there faster and more consistently than trial and error 😎
I have most of the top brands but still my favourites are the emax eco 2 2207 1900 and the emax rs2 2206 1900 both on light weight 5 inch. Top work Chris. Cheers.
Yup, even back to the Tachyon days, that's the biggest selling point of those motors. It's dead weight, until you smash things up, then that silly O ring pays for itself massively
I flew fpvcycles for a while but kept breaking them so went with regular 2207s for a while. The last few months Ive been flying 2107+ 1980kv and love them. Been running juicy props and its just a crazy responsive feel
I agree with everything you said. The 25mm motors might not be the best for 5 inch, but I've had a 2506, and 2407 5inch, and they were 2 of my favorite quads, maybe because I did use a lot of high throttle, and catching high dives at the last second at that time.
I love the technical stuff. I'd love to see Rosser powerlooping something when the weather gets better. It's very cold in Blighty right now and I'm longing for "sendage" 😩 In any case, a great video as usual 👍 😀
I have just received a set of Wasp Major motors in green (amazingly nice live) with 1860 kv. As a strange coincidence I have opted for them after doing a comparison based on publicly available thrust and power draw figures. Have created an Excel sheet where I have projected the afore-mentioned values onto a common prop size and pitch and then made a graph with "thrust per ampere" and "thrust per weight" figures. For the weight I had to watch a lot of reviews, where people put the motors on scales and then do a projection for a common wire length based on typical weight of the 20 AWG wires. In the end for me at least the Wasp Major has won. Will try to make a presentation of my findings and compile it into some video, it might help some others in the same shoes as me.
Great to see you've done some proper research on it. The Wasps are great motors, hugely powerful for the weight. You'll want to feed in the throttle smoothly to avoid sucking too many amps ;)
@@ChrisRosser im using wasps 1860kv n 2020kv both on similar setups, 2020kv sucks too much but give its as thrust. Im glad to see more recognition for Rcinpower but everybody wants to see em comparing with Tmotor F tbh😅 Rcinpower for the win🦾🦾
Great video! Was hoping to see the new Tmotor pacer 2505 motors tested. It’s the only 25mm motor that I’m aware of that weights only 31g. Which would negate some of the negatives of the other 25mm motors. Hopefully next time!
There are many thrust tests for different motors, but there is not one test that takes a motor and holds it under load to see the rate of temperature change. I believe the motor quality is more about the material used, the wire grade resistance and chemical composition and the insulation and thickness of the wire. In oher words at what temperature do these units fail by shorting the insulation.
The RCinpower 2107 Plus has really caught my attention. Plan to build a 5" racer with a light Rotorama frame. According to the official datasheet that motor gives more pull than some 2207 ones. Its active length is actually 7,5 mm. It is similar to the GTS v2 2207 in this regard, that also has been a 7,5 mm long motor. I have purchased one just to "feel it" in the hand. The weight is very attractive, nearly identical to my other favorite, the XNOVA Lite Racing 2207. That one has insane cogging (similar to the FPV Cycle 1606 motor). Have already and Excel list for the racing quad, just need to plan the acquisition of the parts. Probably will wait until electronics prices stabilize a bit, currently it is crazy prices...
One bad thing about rcinpower is that they don't provide info for quality of the materials and components they put in their motors, i use smoox 2306 plus (plus stands for extra .5 so actually they are 2306.5) the bearings failed after couple of test flies, I had to replace them and was surprised to see that the stock bearings were very poor quality, motors had o rings installed and that isn't provided as info from the manufacturer. And I have to state that their customer service is terrible. I liked your test, I find one important characteristic missing, that is shaft diameter, for instance most of the motors use 4mm shaft, xing2 uses 5mm shaft which makes it more crash durable. I appreciate your work, thanks.
@@mode2fpv the bearing code to look for is: 684ZZ ( size is 4x9x4 mm) preferred top quality japanese brands are: EZO, NSK and NMB, I'm limited to chinese market and there are a lot of counterfeits from the above brands so i went for chinese brand Rain&Dew, I use them for several months and the bearings run smooth and I have no issues so far. It's pretty shame that rcinpower is not providing info for the brand and model (size) of the bearings in their smoox series like most manufacturers do, despite the fact that smoox 2306 plus are not low budget motors.
Thank you SO much, for taking the time to lay all this out. Great food for thought, and I recently started looking at old air plane engine design, so the wasp major name is MUCH more interesting. The name being applied to a motor that is such a standout in it's category, is fitting. Am I being swayed by marketing, like ppl who bought a PT cruzer? I hope not, but it DOES make me want to start a fresh build around a fresh set of those Wasp majors!!
Thank you Sir! What I love about your work is that it removes all the BS 'opinion-based' stuff that you hear in this hobby, you know the "so and so is better" type comments that have no actual basis in any testing or data. I'm guessing, that what we often 'feel' is better, is a placebo affect, being born out of our own initial bias. This actual data stuff, you cannot argue with it, it is what it is - end of discussion.
Thanks Cliff I couldn't agree more. Humans just aren't great at comparing things, we have too many biases and limitations. That's why we invented technology to measure this stuff with inhuman accuracy, precision and repeatabilitly. That's how we get to the truth and how we make progress. 💪
Hello, Chris. I've watched this video and your previous motor videos thoroughly and I've read through many of the comments and your responses in the comments section of this video. While I appreciate your testing, I do not think conclusions can be drawn from this test alone. While I do believe in "just go out and fly it" testing, I understand that you want to use purely objective test methods. There is no doubt in my mind that the thrust stand which most accurately reflects the properties of a quad is, in fact, the quad itself. So I offer you what, to me, is an objective method of testing motors in a real-world scenario. The test should be conducted as follows: Place the quad at a given height and pitched forward a bit. I would recommend 25 degrees as it is a common uptilt angle for freestyle. The quad is armed and from there, the quad is dropped (preferably by some contraption that can drop the quad in a consistent manner instead of by hand.) When the quad has descended to a predetermined height, punch the throttle. Repeat the test for each motor. I think this test would best be done in a gymnasium or other large indoor space to remove as many variables as possible. This test should be done with different throttle values for both the drop and the punch. For example, try dropping the quad at idle, then 10% throttle, 20%, 30%, so on and so forth. And then punching to different values as well. To keep the punches consistent, it may be necessary to put throttle on a switch. Data can be gathered from blackbox, DVR, and los. What I am interested in is whether the quad increases altitude, continues to decrease, or shoots straight forward. This maneuver, done in regular flight, is where many people will say a motor has either good or bad low throttle feel. I'm no academic. I've never done any testing where my peers would review my methods and results. So if the test seems unreasonable for any reason do tell me! I'm just a guy with a quad who wants to learn. Regardless of whether this test is useful or not, follow up testing is important. Many feel that your testing and conclusions are controversial and it may be necessary to verify your results with real world testing to quell any doubts. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my comment, and happy flying
Another thing I just thought of: Since you advocate for optimizing the hardware and tuning for feel in software, it would be good to test your throttle curve setup against these motors to see if you can truly mimic the feel and performance of the other motors
That sounds like a good test provided you can control for battery voltage and, most critically, the weight of the quad. Adding 30g to the AUW by using a bigger motor is going to damp the throttle response somewhat. It's not a test that I am able to do but it is one that I would certainly value if you are able to do it. Even just a flight where you do exactly the same moves in the same order and take blackbox logs would be interesting. In my 2306 vs 2207 testing it was relatively easy to find a value of throttle scale for the 2207 which made the two motors behave the same.
@@ChrisRosser Thank you for your reply, Chris. I appreciate that you think my test idea is good, but I disagree with the extent to which you wish to control for factors such as voltage and weight. I assume you meant that it would be best to eliminate those variables. If so, I disagree; those variables ought to be controlled not eliminated. I agree that voltage affects thrust output and that adding an extra 30g of motor weight to the quad will have a likewise effect. A motor's effect on these variables is an inherent property of the motor and therefore such variables must be considered when choosing a motor. This is where I believe real-world testing differs from your bench testing. I would love to conduct some tests of my own, but due to financial constraints I am unable to do so. I do recall you mentioning in a previous video that throttle curves can achieve the same effect as switching from a 2207 to a 2306. I would like to see you compare the two in flight in a blind test.
Another note, I do appreciate your testing. While I agree with some opinions that differ from your own, I can respect you taking the time to add to everyone's fpv knowledge when you could just fly instead. While some can come off as being too enthusiastic, let's say, about their opinions, it is important to challenge anyone's findings in search of the truth. Keep testing and best of luck!
You used a high pitch 5" prop when most freestyle pilots are using 5.1" low pitch props. How would this have impacted the results? More slanted towards a larger motor or less? Also, how much does the load on the prop impact the results? If someone is flying a 780g quad in the air vs a 650g quad in the air, is there an additional benefit to a larger volume motor?
A higer pitch prop is going to favour larger motors. I purposefully used a relatively high pitch prop to give the larger motors every opportunity. Motor volume is dependent on the prop not the weight of the quad. Larger, pitchier props and more blades need a larger motor. Heavier quads tend to spend more time higher in the throttle so a wider flatter motor is beneficial for cooling but you don't need more volume if the prop is the same. People loading up their already heavy quads with 160g of motor and running light props are not doing themselves any favours.
@@mouseFPV Personally, I think kv is mostly related to the weight of the build. A higher kv motor will draw more current to generate the same amount of torque. A heavier quad will require more torque to accelerate the prop, since the quad will accelerate slower and the motors will take longer to unload. Therefore, a lighter build can tolerate a higher kv motor without killing the battery every time the motor accelerates. What Chris seems to be saying is that a heavier build doesn't favor a larger or smaller motor. But if a heavier quad unloads slower, couldn't it benefit from a motor that can generate more torque?
My testing is all static so the prop never deloads. If the higher KV motor can match the performance (thrust and responsiveness) with a quad of effectively infinite weight then deloading should only increase the advantage for the higher KV motor. I purposely set up the static testing with a relatively high pitch prop specifically to put the larger motors at a bit of an advantage.
Wonderful review. Thank you so much. I've been working on an F35 tri motor design that's 50% larger than Nicholas Rehms design. The front motor is running at a 50,% greater load than the rear motors. Overheating has been my problem. Your videos have been very helpfull.
great video! have been running iflight motors and have found them to be incredibly durable. just got the 2208s for my 5 and have the 2506 on my 6 extremely happy with both
It seems to be that motors of the same size and same kv are not much different from one another in performance. Differences in price, weight and durability are larger than performance. The Emax Eco 2s are impressive in level of performance per dollar spent. The Velox v2s are even a little cheaper than the Eco 2 and perform very well. I wonder which part of the quad is the most important and justifies spending a lot of money on. Aside from the video because obviously digital video is worth the money spent. It's hard to put a price on seeing where you're going. It's probably the frame that matters most if I had to guess. Followed by the ESC.
I would say you are right. the frame and esc's. Best frames on the market right now are the Rotor Riot Tanq & the KenFPV AT6 Aluminum frame. i have them both and and it's the only 2 frames i have never broken.
something that we have already experienced but well told and explained great test. Best racing motor for me is 2207 1950kv, i got 3 reace quads on this setup, fly great on GF 51466, witch is quite light prop
Was hoping to see a 2408. On my F40's(2306.5) and F80's (2408) I've never dropped a bell. Of which I'm really happy with my choice of F80 1950kv on my 5.5" build. Please continue to expand this with more motors and even other prop diameters.
I would say a 2408 is a 6" motor so I didn't feel it fits in the 5" motor testing (the only reason I included 25mm motors is because the FPVCycles are specifically marketed at 5"). I hope to expand to other sizes in future.
Hi Chris, I love your work, I tuned perfectly my filters on my drones and I'm very happy with it. I would like to see the best long range motor for 5, 6 and 7" quadcopters. You see some time ago I had a 5" with 2207 xing-e pro 1800kv and they were flyng good except that I wanted to carry a full size go pro hero 8. Since I had 45A ESC I wanted to check if was worthy to change the motors. What I discovered is that on long range drone you don't need to check the max peak thrust, but the range that goes from 50 to 70 and I found, searching on the iflight datasheet of the motor that they tested this motor with a 6045prop getting just 35A and 1899 grams of thrust. But the real thing is that at 50% I was getting a similar result with some bigger motor. So I wanted to give a try, I buyed some gemfan flash 6042x3 and transfered all the electronics to a 6 inch frame. With a LI-ION of 3000mah plus the full go pro powered by the LI-ION and a MTOM of 880 grams I was able to fly 13 mins landing at 2,8V per cell. So I'm happy with the result but I would like to get more if possible, but since I can't say the truth from the datasheet, I would like a video that talks about that.
The challenge on that is the applications start to become very divergent as you go bigger - are these for pure duration, are these for mountain diving, are these for flying 7 minutes at a time chasing drift cars or quick bicycles... in that area 'best' becomes remarkably tricky, whereas for 'median 5" freestyle quad built on an AOS5.5'', he can answer that more directly. The answer to 'best for 5" racing' is still basically the XNova/533 or Vanover/RCINpower type 2207's in ~1950KV where going as light as you can while still being capable of 2kg peak thrust ends up being best.
@@davidemele2842 For FR7/AOS7-F type flying, the real question is why to run anything other than 2808 1500KV or 3106.5 1496KV, because those are the same stator volume, and both work brilliantly. Bob's motors end up being a touch smoother and trend towards more responsiveness and gentle cruising flying (they pair perfectly with HQ's V2S 7x3.5x3's), while the 2808's make a little bit more top end power, work better for high speed cruising, and carry a slight efficiency edge when going constantly quick or doing big punch outs... but both are extremely good motors, made by BrotherHobby.
Good info. I've been trying the RCinPower 2105 1800kv 6S with Ethix's 5.1inch P3 props. I figured the smaller size could be great for the lower pitched prop carrying a GoPro following targets moving at mostly slow speeds. I haven't done any testing yet, but your chart seems to suggest this could be an okay choice if I'm not high in the throttle much.
Ive been running their 2107+ 1980kv on my apex with juicy props and its nuts how responsive low throttle is my new favorte motors by a long shot and they are so damn durable
@@Brian-S You're running them for straight up freestyle no? I got the 2105's really as a lightweight efficient cine setup. 2107's sound interesting though.
@@le_tranq yep freestyle with them and a runcam orange or a hero9 sometimes. They handle the weight perfectly fine and I havent really noticed a lot of heat and I am constantly blipping full throttle
Hey Chris I really love my Tmotor Velox V2 motors both the eco 2 and tmotor sell for the same price and same KVs. Would be amazing if you could compare these two awesome budget motors.
I have a dozen of each, and I can tell you very definitively: Run whichever ones you think are prettier. No joke, they're awesome, feel about the same in the air, and are comparable in price - pick the ones that look best to you.
I was pleasantly surprised by the t-motor Velox. I ran 2207 1900kv on a 7” dji build, and thought they might be a little under powered, but it flew amazing. (iflight dc7 frame)
@@nikhayes3396 I suspect the 1900 is slightly arbitrary, and that is probably shares winding arrangement with their 1850KV (nee 1820KV) lineup, which would be exactly why you see what you're seeing, but get the efficiency bump that should come with it.
Chris, great video as always. I do have a question that may and may not be of importance to many. But what is your take on using the motor's guard. Will it affect cooling or performance? To avoid many damage motors, I started to use them. I have not noticed an issue, but I don't flight fpv often as well. The city is not friendly to fpv.
@Rob Ott Uncertain of your intent with that comment. The 25mm Imperials are my favorite, by far. Only downside being they're not unibell (not yet. Give it 2 more weeks or so)
@Rob Ott I've used SO many motors. I couldn't tell you how many. Personally, I prefer the Imperials for 5 inch quads. You can test on a bench all day long, but unless you stick em on a quad and fly em, those numbers are meaningless.
@@ChrisRosser I know little about RC and flight and drones and have my own ideas about mechanical engineering and technician. I used to repair high powered motors for Makita and brushless is the way to go for these drones. It's just keeping them light and power and keeping the axle as central as possible.
In future would it be possible to add motor internal resistance measurements? Also efficiency numbers are obtained at 6S voltage at 100% throttle with a curtain prop. Which will bias motors depending on stator vol and KV. Having efficiency measured through the range of RPM, like spooling up a flywheel, would be more informative IMHO. But great job, thank you very much!
Thanks! Glad you found it useful. You can see the electrical power vs thrust for all throttle positions in the charts if you're interested to look at efficiency at a lower throttle position. Different props will of course change the results but that's why I tested with a relatively heavy 5" prop to give the bigger motors a fighting chance.
One thing I disagree with is the 2000kv recommendation, at least for freestyle. The throttle resolution is poo and a throttle curve has its own downsides. You can throttle cut/scale, but then you lose efficiency vs a proper Kv motor, right? and if you are going to do that anyways just get a lower kv motor. I find ~1750-1800 to be a great spot for throttle resolution and having "enough" oomph. Anything over 1800kv I'll actually motor output limit the motor down to a 1750-1800kv equivalent. I know that's an anecdotal but it's what I like personally.
People look at the 25mm size motors with ~1850KV and think that's a moderate KV that's good for freestyle and will have good resolution. Then they look at a 2306.5 at 2020KV and think that it won't have throttle resolution. However, these motors perform very much the same. If you want low throttle resolution and top end power use throttle expo. If you just care about resolution use a smaller lower KV motor on light pitch props. In my experience most pilots want both.
Down-prop until it starts to work well... or run 5S on them (since those are cheaper). The flexibility is there and has value, and varies depending on where you fly. In my case, flying mostly at 6kft ASL, my preferences also come in a bit high on KV preference also.
@@tehllama42 yeah but that isn't what Chris said. He said it's good for 6s not 5s. What you are saying proves my point, but also sounds way more complicated than just slapping a 93% motor limit and moving on with your life.
@@mouseFPV It's a bit of a question of understanding biases, as well as what figures of merit are truly important (e.g. bearing quality, air gap tolerance, shaft material is going to matter to an idiot like me who crashes literally everything). It's never as simple as throttle chop, but as somebody who owns mostly race quads, it's always possible to throttle limit down and give up some minor efficiency than it is to try and make more power with something other than more aggressive props. Throttle resolution tends to be more driven by AUW in relation to advance ratio, then comes the size of the tuning pocket which is driven very much by frame rigidity/filtering and the prop rotational inertia relative to available torque with that powertrain.
Hi Chris, I love your scientific approach to our favourite activity! I'm looking to do a 5 inch sud-250g freestyle with the AOS UL5. You recommend the motor 2004 but I found the betafpv 1805 having a slightly better spec on paper. What do you think ? Will he heat ? It has a stator volume slightly bigger a weight slightly lower and a height to width ratio at 3,6. Would you test it eventually? I would love to hear feedback from you. Keep doing your vidéo ;-) I'm watching them all !
I am planning on using the T-motor Velox v2 2208 1950kv motor on the Aos 5.5 V2 frame I just ordered. Would have loved to see this motor in the comparison.
So I do have the xing pro 2506, and have found they are not durable at all. That I ring easily collapses and the bell chews the windings instantly. Maybe it was a one off, but in a very minimal crash into some scraggly, totally ruined a motor.
Hi ..very great review. I believe i understand...but its hard choice the motors for a Y6 Frelon for cinematic use with full gopro. This frame take 6 motors...what you can tell me about? Thanks in advance...👍😊
Hey Chris, there's no way you are going to answer this question, but maybe hopefully you will. Can I put a different KV motor bell on? For example, the xing2 2207 comes in both 1855 KV and 2755 KV. I originally purchased the 1855 KV motors and now need extra bells. The 1855 bells are sold out everywhere, but I can find 2755 KV bells. Will those work? Work because the KV has to do with the wiring not the magnets? This will be the most amazing to hear from you
Really interesting stuff. Will you be investigating smaller motors in the future ? Im curious if their ideal blheli settings would be much different from typical 5" motors, beacause we tend to run them higher on pwm etc.
Great Video Chris. Question for you based on your testing. It sounds like from this video and your previous wisdom that you would recommend the taller Xing 2208 for a 5.5 inch prop over the 25s. Was there anything in your testing that would cause you to recommend that 25XX motor over the 2208 for 5.5?
They are the most efficient motors he tested. Chris likes efficiency. And since Xing got unibell and o-ring, and they are lighter, heck it's a great choice!
I'm surprised how linearly these motors performed in your thrust test, especially in relation with each other. I really appreciate seeing data like this but I'll echo what other commenters have said in that somehow it completely contradicts my experience. They all have a unique feeling to me, and I've only absolutely HATED one motor -- Eco 2 1900kv. I went from Eco 1 1700kvs to Eco 2 1900kv direct swap on same quad and it had the worst throttle range I've ever experienced and felt so wonky, like it had a very low torque RPM range that was felt when coming out of dives then when it reached a threshold the power kicked in again in an unpredictable way. Every other motor I've flown have been great.
I'm afraid I can only present the data on this. The 1900KV motors with stronger magnets would have been much more powerful and therefore had less throttle resolution because of that. Bigger more powerful motors have less low throttle resolution with all up weight being equal.
Thanks for the video! Crazy how butthurt people get about motors. I appreciate Seeing bench tests. I agree that you have to leave feeling out of it. I use the numbers to help find the feel I like. Like - just cause some pro thinks it feels this way or that way doesn’t matter a crap stain to me.
thanks, very interesting as always! I was kind of surprised by your conclusions on the FPVCycle motors, given all the good reviews I've read and watched (bardwell even used them on his "perfect build"). I cannot help but wonder that maybe bench tests, math, stats and graph are not ALL the metrics we need, and maybe they cannot account for less quantifiable metrics like "feel". it would be interesting if you actually installed the FPVcycle motors on a 5" drone and see if all the drawbacks you found on paper and on the bench really translate in real life. from what I know about bob roogie, he tested literally dozens of configurations (size/KV), often differing by just half a millimeter in size, before settling on the product he offers. so maybe there's another side to the purely engineering analysis that you (and therefore us, your viewer) are missing. thanks again
In general I don't put much faith in flight testing or any testing which relies on subjective human opinion. Humans are pretty terrible at comparing things. I've seen too many videos where experienced pilots do blind comparisons between very different motors and are unable to tell them apart better than chance. A test stand is much more accurate and precise. That's why no serious manufacturers test car engines, plane engines, boat engines or train engines for performance by "flight testing" them. They stick them on a dyno and measure them.
@@ChrisRosser honestly I can see your ways are set and you won’t even consider there MIGHT be something more, and obviously you think that lab studies are the be-all and end-all, for everything, and real experience in the field has nothing to add. it makes me wonder what's the role of people like jet test pilots today (especially in "extreme performance" cases like the military), or why car manufacturers put their products through hundred of thousands of miles in testing, if everything can be discerned and figured out on paper. anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer. cheers!
@@ChrisRosser As much as I am happy to have more data-driven analysis in this hobby--and I am very happy of it--no automotive manufacturer would deliver a car without road testing it and getting subjective feedback from expert drivers and typical consumers alike. A car, or an FPV quadcopter, is a complex system operating in a dynamic environment, subject to many forces that are difficult to simulate in the lab. It's common for test drivers to point out some unexpected phenomenon that forces the engineers to go back to the drawing board and figure out the "why" behind the "what". And this is especially true in high-performance automobiles being driven at the edge of their capabilities. Everyone is subject to various form of bias--no debate there. But when you have expert racing drivers (or FPV pilots) who can put in laps with 0.1 second consistency, their subjective opinion should carry some weight. The fact that, too often, expert pilots are given poorly-designed tests that allow bias to creep through should mean that we design better tests to take advantage of their capabilities, not that we disregard their capabilities entirely.
Hi JB, you're absolutely correct that a car manufacturer will road test a whole vehicle at the end of the design process. However, they do not assess engine performance: torque, power, or efficiency based on that road test. That is done on a Dyno to a testing standard. Trying to assess these things in a road test is introducing a whole load of confounding variables that no-one can control for. The feel question is another topic. Why do some people (not all by any means) prefer the feel of a build with less than optimal performance? The first question is what do they actually prefer and can they reliably identify that? That requires double blind testing that I would struggle to do. If we can confirm that there is a specific thing that can be reliably identified then I'm certain I can figure out the mechanism. But as you've shown in your blind testing it can be very difficult to identify a small difference in flight! Racers are a good example of pilots who do relatively well controlled testing to find components with the best performance. They seem to have settled on 2207 as optimal for their 5" props and this agrees well with my data. When I started this video I was hoping to find a performance reason some pilots would prefer 25mm to 2207. The same as I did for 2306 Vs 2207 (improved responsiveness and top end power). Unfortunately I wasn't able to.
@@ChrisRosser I think part of the problem is that people try to report subjective effects in terms of objective claims about efficiency, resolution, responsiveness, and so forth. In some cases, the subjective effect simply isn't there. In other cases, the effect might be real, but the terms being used to describe it are inaccurate. So I support an effort to more accurately characterize the effects that people might be noticing, and to more accurately test to reveal those effects. Of everything in your video, the argument that people should be using high-kv 2207 instead of lower-kv, larger motors, is the one that seems most indicative of a disconnect between bench testing and real world experience. Very few people fly 6S 2207 motors above about 1900 kv, because you end up with a up with a hot motor that crushes your battery and has a very low hover point that is difficult to control, with an almost unusably high top end. That's something that anybody who's flown a 2207 motor at 2000+ kv knows, and it's not an effect that you can write off as bias or placebo.
thx a lot for every motor test and video you do. i wonder why T-Motor engines are not part of the list, but 3 xings and 3 rcinpowers? in reality, the most pilots will take the motor which is available. the difference with the same kv and props is so small, it will be cut off with bad esc and bad pid setup anyway. i learned the last 12 years: the best motor does not get hot at given prop size. try to take the most cell setup which is possible in the given use case. mostly 6S nowadays. i dont race anymore, so i tend to try to fly as long as possible and use always the next bigger motor above the standard. My flywoo explorer has 1404 and i change it now to F2004 now it should be able to fly around 35mins with 4S 18650. Even my race setups had the bigger motors, which didnt killed the lipos in 10 races. motor weight is just one part of a realiable setup. to note: i never flew a 3 blade prop, which is my definition of corner control bs :-)
great comparison! I've got a small question about motors and efficiency: on my Cinelog25 I scaled down the throttle to 60% since I don't need that much power, would I get better efficiency and longer flight times by moving from 4500kv to 3700kv motors? thanks!
Try a different battery mate, and or use the scaling. it works out kind of the same as lower kv. If you do not need all the power, try dropping a cell.. I get longer flight times with a 850mah 3s than with an 850 4s with scaling. (3 inch cinewhoop) It so much more controllable too.
Wouldn't you want to test with a lower pitch prop on a static test stand? The added velocity of a quad in flight effectively lowers the pitch (as seen by the airfoil).
Hey Chris would you mind testing Lumenier Chief 2207 2050kv. Even if it is off the record it would be cool to hear your opinions. It’s 28 gram motor wires and all. I use them on my 730 gram freestyle with amazing results
can you help me please, the Armattan motor on my marmotte has been discontinued, what motor is best for mix and match please ?! the armattan motor is 2306 1750kv ,,, thanks a lot
i have the 2208 1800kv on 6S on a nazgul frame.. What propeller would you suggest to try? running 5141 today (as thats what i had).. thanks for all your hard work :)
The Nazgul is sweet. I would experiment with the different Ethix props s-3, p-3 or even the s-4. Johnny props are also sweet. One favourite of mine is the Gemfan hurricane 51433. Different weight = different feel. Goofing around With no gopro I love the p-3 and the Johnny props. With a gopro I like the gemfans a lot. All imho.
It's limited by the prop. The 25 size motors are underpropped on a 5" prop so they cannot reach their rated power. They would generate more power on a larger prop.
Hi, I have RCInPower 2080kv 6S motor’s My quad has a total weight of around 475 (a bit more with speedo on it) grams with the battery. My goal is to speed run this thing. What propellers should I select to achieve really high top speeds and why? Do I sacrifice much acceleration in doing so? I was looking at gem fan bi blade 5152’s but was wandering if it’s worth getting a lower pitched prop that would spin at higher rpm’s? Would the trade off be worth it? Any advice is greatly appreciated thank you!!
You want the steepest prop you can manage and feed in the throttle gradually to allow the system to spool up and build RPM and back EMF. That will limit voltage sag.
Apc 5.1x5 bi blade props are the fastest and most stiff. For high acceleration and top speed you will want a light and low air resistance racing frame. Also the best lipo you can find such as tattu r line
@@jhughes2286 2000kv to 2500kv. Depending on if you prefer efficiency or power. I used brotherhobby 2004 2100kv and changed brotherhobby 2005 2450kv for more thrust. The problem is there is no great 4" frame. Have you found one you like? I stepped town to 3.5 inch aos v2 frame from my 4 inch setup. Dont get the emax 2004 2400kv motors. I couldnt get them working well on a 1 to 1 swap out from the brotherhobby 2004 2100kv.
@@jhughes2286 yeah the only half way good one I found. Downside is it's heavy and limited to a 20mm FC mounting. I love 25mm mounting I hope Chris Rosser will release his 4 inch soon. What motors and props did you choose on 6S?
Got a question for anyone willing to help. I would like to build a small long range dji bird. Something with at least 20 min flight time. Doesnt have to to be crazy powerful. Which motors, esc, fc, battery, would you use?
Finally, a technical video that shows the imperial motors not the holy grail 5in motor. Seems like every other video on the 25mm imperial motors are just about how they're the best! I didn't fall for it 😂
And see I think it's one of those feel type of things that can't be quantified. Much like how betaflight more accurately tracks the set point, yet some people still prefer the feel of Kiss. I'm running the 25mm on two of my quads, and I love them. They don't feel more powerful, nor are they draining my battery faster, but there is some sort of different feel like in the lower throttle, that I really enjoy. I also run xings and tmotor, and none are "better" than the others, just different and complements a different build. Just my opinion.
The reason some people like KISS is because the rates are different on default. Different as in different people like different rates. KISS is not magical.
@@truggles120 I agree, it's not magical, but I think it's more than just the Rate curve, though entirely agree about rate systems. I'm convinced that has a lot to do with the Emu guys. I just recently switched to Actual rates, and played with Quick rates, and I can't get them to feel the same as BF rates. As far as Kiss rates, I use the converter from my BF rates, but you're right, they don't feel the same.
Your a genius bro you pined it right on ! No one wants to talk about the moment of inertia. Accelerating and de accelerating a known mass can consumes vast amounts of energy . In PID controled motor this can be thousands of times in a minute. I have two identical Chim 7s , one (primary flyer) with $50 2508 1200k, and on my other ( back up ) with $14 2306 1400 k. What kept me up at night and baffled was to why the back up was so nicer to fly ! Smooth , nibble and better tracking and even flies 2 minute longer 🤔. Looking at the two big 7s on desk when i built them I thought SELF ! You screwed up putting them puny 2306 motors on this big bird, never leave the ground with that brick on top .It's was so visually rejecting to. Science and nature are incredible !. Cheers from Canada .
Hey Chris, just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate the work you do and that I think that your data driven approach to things is exactly what we need to see. Your analysis helps me infinitely more than some fanboys of a brand saying "this and that is better because of the FEELS". Don't let those people get to you. I know exactly how it feels when people try to invalidate your work, it sucks, but as you said in another comment, data always wins.
Just so you know where I'm coming from. I am still relatively new to FPV, but I've flown RC helicopter for half my life and have eventually progressed from being a pilot into the development side of things. I develop high performance carbon fiber rotor blades for 3D helicopters, from concept to flight testing, and EVERYTHING I do is data driven, from the initial blade concept to the final product that hits the shelves. I merely do flight testing to validate the data, not to decide if I need to make changes.
There is no "oh yeah, maybe let's make the blade 5g lighter or move the spanwise CG 3mm inwards because it feels better", I calculate the exact properties of the blade before the manufacturer even starts cutting molds and laying up blades, and the final products so far have agreed with the previously calculated data 100%. And people are loving it. The blades I design are the only blades on the market that achieve consistent control feel across all sizes.
Data is crucial and key to success, and people who love data, like you, are what pushes the envelope of what's possible further and further. Keep making these videos. I and many others are learning a ton. You're providing insane value to the people of this hobby. Thank you Chris.
Hey Jonas, I really appreciate you taking the time to write that lovely comment. You made my day! I take exactly the same approach with my frame design. Performance is determined through simulation and flight testing is done only to gather blackbox logs to validate the simulation results. 👍💪 At the end of the day the data-driven approach will always win out because if we know what the goal is we can get there faster and more consistently than trial and error 😎
Yes, I agree. None of that BS about smelling motors. Or "It feels better in a way that can't be quantified." Or "Improved low throttle control."
I have most of the top brands but still my favourites are the emax eco 2 2207 1900 and the emax rs2 2206 1900 both on light weight 5 inch.
Top work Chris. Cheers.
05:25 the o-ring also helps a lot to keep the bell from binding to the stator when tightning the bell screw should you have to take it off.
Good point, another benefit of the o-ring I hadn't realised.
Yup, even back to the Tachyon days, that's the biggest selling point of those motors. It's dead weight, until you smash things up, then that silly O ring pays for itself massively
Great stuff! I'm really glad that you've now included motor weight and durability rather than just test bench result in the comparison.
I flew fpvcycles for a while but kept breaking them so went with regular 2207s for a while. The last few months Ive been flying 2107+ 1980kv and love them. Been running juicy props and its just a crazy responsive feel
I agree with everything you said. The 25mm motors might not be the best for 5 inch, but I've had a 2506, and 2407 5inch, and they were 2 of my favorite quads, maybe because I did use a lot of high throttle, and catching high dives at the last second at that time.
I love the technical stuff. I'd love to see Rosser powerlooping something when the weather gets better. It's very cold in Blighty right now and I'm longing for "sendage" 😩 In any case, a great video as usual 👍 😀
You and me both! I got out for a little flying this weekend but fingers were very cold still!
I have just received a set of Wasp Major motors in green (amazingly nice live) with 1860 kv. As a strange coincidence I have opted for them after doing a comparison based on publicly available thrust and power draw figures. Have created an Excel sheet where I have projected the afore-mentioned values onto a common prop size and pitch and then made a graph with "thrust per ampere" and "thrust per weight" figures.
For the weight I had to watch a lot of reviews, where people put the motors on scales and then do a projection for a common wire length based on typical weight of the 20 AWG wires.
In the end for me at least the Wasp Major has won.
Will try to make a presentation of my findings and compile it into some video, it might help some others in the same shoes as me.
Great to see you've done some proper research on it. The Wasps are great motors, hugely powerful for the weight. You'll want to feed in the throttle smoothly to avoid sucking too many amps ;)
@@ChrisRosser im using wasps 1860kv n 2020kv both on similar setups, 2020kv sucks too much but give its as thrust. Im glad to see more recognition for Rcinpower but everybody wants to see em comparing with Tmotor F tbh😅 Rcinpower for the win🦾🦾
@@kalinkha gts v3 for me bro
have you tried both the GTS v3 and wasp major?@@duelz9366
How do they stack up for durability?
Your motor test videos are incredibly helpful! I've really been able to understand performance and select motors and props accordingly.
Thanks!
Great video! Was hoping to see the new Tmotor pacer 2505 motors tested. It’s the only 25mm motor that I’m aware of that weights only 31g. Which would negate some of the negatives of the other 25mm motors. Hopefully next time!
I've flown dozens of motors and the FPV Cyvle 25mm motor is the best motor for me. I know your testing says different.
There are many thrust tests for different motors, but there is not one test that takes a motor and holds it under load to see the rate of temperature change. I believe the motor quality is more about the material used, the wire grade resistance and chemical composition and the insulation and thickness of the wire. In oher words at what temperature do these units fail by shorting the insulation.
This is a very good point. Overheating is a big issue for motors. I'll add a temperature test into my suite.
I didn't know the 2107 motors were better than the legendary xing2 2207 until this video
The RCinpower 2107 Plus has really caught my attention. Plan to build a 5" racer with a light Rotorama frame. According to the official datasheet that motor gives more pull than some 2207 ones. Its active length is actually 7,5 mm. It is similar to the GTS v2 2207 in this regard, that also has been a 7,5 mm long motor.
I have purchased one just to "feel it" in the hand. The weight is very attractive, nearly identical to my other favorite, the XNOVA Lite Racing 2207. That one has insane cogging (similar to the FPV Cycle 1606 motor).
Have already and Excel list for the racing quad, just need to plan the acquisition of the parts. Probably will wait until electronics prices stabilize a bit, currently it is crazy prices...
One bad thing about rcinpower is that they don't provide info for quality of the materials and components they put in their motors, i use smoox 2306 plus (plus stands for extra .5 so actually they are 2306.5) the bearings failed after couple of test flies, I had to replace them and was surprised to see that the stock bearings were very poor quality, motors had o rings installed and that isn't provided as info from the manufacturer. And I have to state that their customer service is terrible. I liked your test, I find one important characteristic missing, that is shaft diameter, for instance most of the motors use 4mm shaft, xing2 uses 5mm shaft which makes it more crash durable. I appreciate your work, thanks.
could you plz tell me what bearings did you use ? i have the same motors
@@mode2fpv the bearing code to look for is: 684ZZ ( size is 4x9x4 mm) preferred top quality japanese brands are: EZO, NSK and NMB, I'm limited to chinese market and there are a lot of counterfeits from the above brands so i went for chinese brand Rain&Dew, I use them for several months and the bearings run smooth and I have no issues so far. It's pretty shame that rcinpower is not providing info for the brand and model (size) of the bearings in their smoox series like most manufacturers do, despite the fact that smoox 2306 plus are not low budget motors.
Thank you SO much, for taking the time to lay all this out. Great food for thought, and I recently started looking at old air plane engine design, so the wasp major name is MUCH more interesting. The name being applied to a motor that is such a standout in it's category, is fitting. Am I being swayed by marketing, like ppl who bought a PT cruzer? I hope not, but it DOES make me want to start a fresh build around a fresh set of those Wasp majors!!
Thank you Sir! What I love about your work is that it removes all the BS 'opinion-based' stuff that you hear in this hobby, you know the "so and so is better" type comments that have no actual basis in any testing or data. I'm guessing, that what we often 'feel' is better, is a placebo affect, being born out of our own initial bias. This actual data stuff, you cannot argue with it, it is what it is - end of discussion.
Thanks Cliff I couldn't agree more. Humans just aren't great at comparing things, we have too many biases and limitations. That's why we invented technology to measure this stuff with inhuman accuracy, precision and repeatabilitly. That's how we get to the truth and how we make progress. 💪
Wow just the video I was waiting for. One motor I was considering is Tmotor f60pro iv v2. That would have been my whole list :)
T motor makes supurb motors
I been using iflight XING 2207 1800kv since I started.. Never really had a problem with any.
Hello, Chris. I've watched this video and your previous motor videos thoroughly and I've read through many of the comments and your responses in the comments section of this video.
While I appreciate your testing, I do not think conclusions can be drawn from this test alone. While I do believe in "just go out and fly it" testing, I understand that you want to use purely objective test methods.
There is no doubt in my mind that the thrust stand which most accurately reflects the properties of a quad is, in fact, the quad itself. So I offer you what, to me, is an objective method of testing motors in a real-world scenario. The test should be conducted as follows:
Place the quad at a given height and pitched forward a bit. I would recommend 25 degrees as it is a common uptilt angle for freestyle. The quad is armed and from there, the quad is dropped (preferably by some contraption that can drop the quad in a consistent manner instead of by hand.) When the quad has descended to a predetermined height, punch the throttle. Repeat the test for each motor.
I think this test would best be done in a gymnasium or other large indoor space to remove as many variables as possible. This test should be done with different throttle values for both the drop and the punch. For example, try dropping the quad at idle, then 10% throttle, 20%, 30%, so on and so forth. And then punching to different values as well. To keep the punches consistent, it may be necessary to put throttle on a switch.
Data can be gathered from blackbox, DVR, and los. What I am interested in is whether the quad increases altitude, continues to decrease, or shoots straight forward. This maneuver, done in regular flight, is where many people will say a motor has either good or bad low throttle feel.
I'm no academic. I've never done any testing where my peers would review my methods and results. So if the test seems unreasonable for any reason do tell me! I'm just a guy with a quad who wants to learn. Regardless of whether this test is useful or not, follow up testing is important. Many feel that your testing and conclusions are controversial and it may be necessary to verify your results with real world testing to quell any doubts. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my comment, and happy flying
Another thing I just thought of:
Since you advocate for optimizing the hardware and tuning for feel in software, it would be good to test your throttle curve setup against these motors to see if you can truly mimic the feel and performance of the other motors
That sounds like a good test provided you can control for battery voltage and, most critically, the weight of the quad. Adding 30g to the AUW by using a bigger motor is going to damp the throttle response somewhat. It's not a test that I am able to do but it is one that I would certainly value if you are able to do it. Even just a flight where you do exactly the same moves in the same order and take blackbox logs would be interesting.
In my 2306 vs 2207 testing it was relatively easy to find a value of throttle scale for the 2207 which made the two motors behave the same.
@@ChrisRosser Thank you for your reply, Chris. I appreciate that you think my test idea is good, but I disagree with the extent to which you wish to control for factors such as voltage and weight. I assume you meant that it would be best to eliminate those variables. If so, I disagree; those variables ought to be controlled not eliminated. I agree that voltage affects thrust output and that adding an extra 30g of motor weight to the quad will have a likewise effect. A motor's effect on these variables is an inherent property of the motor and therefore such variables must be considered when choosing a motor. This is where I believe real-world testing differs from your bench testing.
I would love to conduct some tests of my own, but due to financial constraints I am unable to do so. I do recall you mentioning in a previous video that throttle curves can achieve the same effect as switching from a 2207 to a 2306. I would like to see you compare the two in flight in a blind test.
Another note, I do appreciate your testing. While I agree with some opinions that differ from your own, I can respect you taking the time to add to everyone's fpv knowledge when you could just fly instead. While some can come off as being too enthusiastic, let's say, about their opinions, it is important to challenge anyone's findings in search of the truth. Keep testing and best of luck!
I feel rcinpower have been best among the rest, the power is unreal
They know how to make a motor that's for sure. They lean on the side of higher KV which means they have the power!
You used a high pitch 5" prop when most freestyle pilots are using 5.1" low pitch props. How would this have impacted the results? More slanted towards a larger motor or less?
Also, how much does the load on the prop impact the results? If someone is flying a 780g quad in the air vs a 650g quad in the air, is there an additional benefit to a larger volume motor?
Yea man, I feel like there were some factors that may not have been considered.
A higer pitch prop is going to favour larger motors. I purposefully used a relatively high pitch prop to give the larger motors every opportunity. Motor volume is dependent on the prop not the weight of the quad. Larger, pitchier props and more blades need a larger motor. Heavier quads tend to spend more time higher in the throttle so a wider flatter motor is beneficial for cooling but you don't need more volume if the prop is the same. People loading up their already heavy quads with 160g of motor and running light props are not doing themselves any favours.
@@ChrisRosser wait so the load on the prop doesn't matter?
@@mouseFPV Personally, I think kv is mostly related to the weight of the build. A higher kv motor will draw more current to generate the same amount of torque. A heavier quad will require more torque to accelerate the prop, since the quad will accelerate slower and the motors will take longer to unload. Therefore, a lighter build can tolerate a higher kv motor without killing the battery every time the motor accelerates. What Chris seems to be saying is that a heavier build doesn't favor a larger or smaller motor. But if a heavier quad unloads slower, couldn't it benefit from a motor that can generate more torque?
My testing is all static so the prop never deloads. If the higher KV motor can match the performance (thrust and responsiveness) with a quad of effectively infinite weight then deloading should only increase the advantage for the higher KV motor.
I purposely set up the static testing with a relatively high pitch prop specifically to put the larger motors at a bit of an advantage.
Wonderful review. Thank you so much.
I've been working on an F35 tri motor design that's 50% larger than Nicholas Rehms design. The front motor is running at a 50,% greater load than the rear motors. Overheating has been my problem. Your videos have been very helpfull.
I always enjoy your videos Chris and I thank you.
great video! have been running iflight motors and have found them to be incredibly durable. just got the 2208s for my 5 and have the 2506 on my 6 extremely happy with both
Would have liked to see how the various Brotherhobby motors compared, they are typically a bit lighter than those tested.
Thanks Chris for this informative video..!😊
My pleasure!
Chris, you're the real mvp!
It seems to be that motors of the same size and same kv are not much different from one another in performance. Differences in price, weight and durability are larger than performance. The Emax Eco 2s are impressive in level of performance per dollar spent. The Velox v2s are even a little cheaper than the Eco 2 and perform very well. I wonder which part of the quad is the most important and justifies spending a lot of money on. Aside from the video because obviously digital video is worth the money spent. It's hard to put a price on seeing where you're going. It's probably the frame that matters most if I had to guess. Followed by the ESC.
I would say you are right. the frame and esc's. Best frames on the market right now are the Rotor Riot Tanq & the KenFPV AT6 Aluminum frame. i have them both and and it's the only 2 frames i have never broken.
If nothing else, he's gained all your attentions!
rcinpower for the win! and xings are nice too.
something that we have already experienced but well told and explained great test. Best racing motor for me is 2207 1950kv, i got 3 reace quads on this setup, fly great on GF 51466, witch is quite light prop
Yeah I fly the wasp major 2020kv setup and trust me you need to try them they are the cats ass! Seriously try em
Was hoping to see a 2408. On my F40's(2306.5) and F80's (2408) I've never dropped a bell. Of which I'm really happy with my choice of F80 1950kv on my 5.5" build. Please continue to expand this with more motors and even other prop diameters.
I would say a 2408 is a 6" motor so I didn't feel it fits in the 5" motor testing (the only reason I included 25mm motors is because the FPVCycles are specifically marketed at 5"). I hope to expand to other sizes in future.
Hi Chris, I love your work, I tuned perfectly my filters on my drones and I'm very happy with it. I would like to see the best long range motor for 5, 6 and 7" quadcopters. You see some time ago I had a 5" with 2207 xing-e pro 1800kv and they were flyng good except that I wanted to carry a full size go pro hero 8. Since I had 45A ESC I wanted to check if was worthy to change the motors. What I discovered is that on long range drone you don't need to check the max peak thrust, but the range that goes from 50 to 70 and I found, searching on the iflight datasheet of the motor that they tested this motor with a 6045prop getting just 35A and 1899 grams of thrust. But the real thing is that at 50% I was getting a similar result with some bigger motor. So I wanted to give a try, I buyed some gemfan flash 6042x3 and transfered all the electronics to a 6 inch frame. With a LI-ION of 3000mah plus the full go pro powered by the LI-ION and a MTOM of 880 grams I was able to fly 13 mins landing at 2,8V per cell. So I'm happy with the result but I would like to get more if possible, but since I can't say the truth from the datasheet, I would like a video that talks about that.
The challenge on that is the applications start to become very divergent as you go bigger - are these for pure duration, are these for mountain diving, are these for flying 7 minutes at a time chasing drift cars or quick bicycles... in that area 'best' becomes remarkably tricky, whereas for 'median 5" freestyle quad built on an AOS5.5'', he can answer that more directly.
The answer to 'best for 5" racing' is still basically the XNova/533 or Vanover/RCINpower type 2207's in ~1950KV where going as light as you can while still being capable of 2kg peak thrust ends up being best.
@@tehllama42 That Is why i'm interested in long range wich is more relatable to anyone
@@davidemele2842 For FR7/AOS7-F type flying, the real question is why to run anything other than 2808 1500KV or 3106.5 1496KV, because those are the same stator volume, and both work brilliantly. Bob's motors end up being a touch smoother and trend towards more responsiveness and gentle cruising flying (they pair perfectly with HQ's V2S 7x3.5x3's), while the 2808's make a little bit more top end power, work better for high speed cruising, and carry a slight efficiency edge when going constantly quick or doing big punch outs... but both are extremely good motors, made by BrotherHobby.
Would be interesting to see noise testing on motors, and also some TMotor motors thrown in too
Thanks for the great video! Would be interesting to see RCinPower 2207 1860kv among the reviewed motors and how it compares to the 2306.
Best performance+durability motor is T-motor F60 v4, Best value for sure emax eco
Good info.
I've been trying the RCinPower 2105 1800kv 6S with Ethix's 5.1inch P3 props. I figured the smaller size could be great for the lower pitched prop carrying a GoPro following targets moving at mostly slow speeds. I haven't done any testing yet, but your chart seems to suggest this could be an okay choice if I'm not high in the throttle much.
Ive been running their 2107+ 1980kv on my apex with juicy props and its nuts how responsive low throttle is my new favorte motors by a long shot and they are so damn durable
@@Brian-S You're running them for straight up freestyle no? I got the 2105's really as a lightweight efficient cine setup. 2107's sound interesting though.
@@le_tranq yep freestyle with them and a runcam orange or a hero9 sometimes. They handle the weight perfectly fine and I havent really noticed a lot of heat and I am constantly blipping full throttle
@@Brian-S I might try them. I'm also keen to try the xing 2208's I just bought and AOS 5.5 v2 frame.
Hey Chris I really love my Tmotor Velox V2 motors both the eco 2 and tmotor sell for the same price and same KVs. Would be amazing if you could compare these two awesome budget motors.
I was thining the same. I prefer Xing 2 and Velox over the eco. Eco price is unbeatable.
I have a dozen of each, and I can tell you very definitively: Run whichever ones you think are prettier. No joke, they're awesome, feel about the same in the air, and are comparable in price - pick the ones that look best to you.
@@tehllama42 Actually very well said! We hardly feel a difference , as there is hardly any just pick the ones that look good to you.
I was pleasantly surprised by the t-motor Velox. I ran 2207 1900kv on a 7” dji build, and thought they might be a little under powered, but it flew amazing. (iflight dc7 frame)
@@nikhayes3396 I suspect the 1900 is slightly arbitrary, and that is probably shares winding arrangement with their 1850KV (nee 1820KV) lineup, which would be exactly why you see what you're seeing, but get the efficiency bump that should come with it.
Great information and research as always
I haven't bought anything but eco in a long time. Cheap and every bit as good as the others imo, and according to my skill level
Currently rocking iflight xing 1800kv
They alright, wouldnt mind more power now
Chris, great video as always. I do have a question that may and may not be of importance to many. But what is your take on using the motor's guard. Will it affect cooling or performance? To avoid many damage motors, I started to use them. I have not noticed an issue, but I don't flight fpv often as well. The city is not friendly to fpv.
Great comparison! I'd love to see something like this for 3.5inch motors, like 1404s, 1505, etc.
Watch recursionlabs vids on that
You're supposed to use a 5.2" prop on those Imperials.
@Rob Ott Uncertain of your intent with that comment. The 25mm Imperials are my favorite, by far. Only downside being they're not unibell (not yet. Give it 2 more weeks or so)
@Rob Ott I've used SO many motors. I couldn't tell you how many. Personally, I prefer the Imperials for 5 inch quads. You can test on a bench all day long, but unless you stick em on a quad and fly em, those numbers are meaningless.
@@MysteryD Subjectivity is also meaningless
@@jarredgallaher2643 not to the person experiencing it.
@@MysteryD Well when you try and relate it to someone else's experience with a different, subjectivity would invalidate any 'logical' conclusion.
A fore and aft ball bearings and rubber o rings might be beneficial on a motor especially on stator/rotor motor keeping a more stable axle.
iFlight and RCinPower use o-rings I think. Most motors use two bearings already.
@@ChrisRosser I know little about RC and flight and drones and have my own ideas about mechanical engineering and technician. I used to repair high powered motors for Makita and brushless is the way to go for these drones. It's just keeping them light and power and keeping the axle as central as possible.
What about T-Motor?
Thanks!
Thank you for your support. I really appreciate it!
No T motor? 🤔
Max RPM and motor temp would be nice additions!
Sure, thanks for the suggestions!
Sir ,, I think Emax eco ii is the best motor between these..... Am I right, sir ? Please reply 😭😭😭 Love from Assam India 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
In future would it be possible to add motor internal resistance measurements? Also efficiency numbers are obtained at 6S voltage at 100% throttle with a curtain prop. Which will bias motors depending on stator vol and KV. Having efficiency measured through the range of RPM, like spooling up a flywheel, would be more informative IMHO. But great job, thank you very much!
Thanks! Glad you found it useful. You can see the electrical power vs thrust for all throttle positions in the charts if you're interested to look at efficiency at a lower throttle position. Different props will of course change the results but that's why I tested with a relatively heavy 5" prop to give the bigger motors a fighting chance.
You don't have the Brotherhobby 2207.5?? Big miss
One thing I disagree with is the 2000kv recommendation, at least for freestyle. The throttle resolution is poo and a throttle curve has its own downsides. You can throttle cut/scale, but then you lose efficiency vs a proper Kv motor, right? and if you are going to do that anyways just get a lower kv motor. I find ~1750-1800 to be a great spot for throttle resolution and having "enough" oomph. Anything over 1800kv I'll actually motor output limit the motor down to a 1750-1800kv equivalent. I know that's an anecdotal but it's what I like personally.
People look at the 25mm size motors with ~1850KV and think that's a moderate KV that's good for freestyle and will have good resolution. Then they look at a 2306.5 at 2020KV and think that it won't have throttle resolution. However, these motors perform very much the same. If you want low throttle resolution and top end power use throttle expo. If you just care about resolution use a smaller lower KV motor on light pitch props. In my experience most pilots want both.
@@ChrisRosser to be fair I run the 25mm 1880 (emeralds) at a 93% motor output limit, so 🤷
Down-prop until it starts to work well... or run 5S on them (since those are cheaper). The flexibility is there and has value, and varies depending on where you fly. In my case, flying mostly at 6kft ASL, my preferences also come in a bit high on KV preference also.
@@tehllama42 yeah but that isn't what Chris said. He said it's good for 6s not 5s. What you are saying proves my point, but also sounds way more complicated than just slapping a 93% motor limit and moving on with your life.
@@mouseFPV It's a bit of a question of understanding biases, as well as what figures of merit are truly important (e.g. bearing quality, air gap tolerance, shaft material is going to matter to an idiot like me who crashes literally everything).
It's never as simple as throttle chop, but as somebody who owns mostly race quads, it's always possible to throttle limit down and give up some minor efficiency than it is to try and make more power with something other than more aggressive props.
Throttle resolution tends to be more driven by AUW in relation to advance ratio, then comes the size of the tuning pocket which is driven very much by frame rigidity/filtering and the prop rotational inertia relative to available torque with that powertrain.
Hi Chris, I love your scientific approach to our favourite activity! I'm looking to do a 5 inch sud-250g freestyle with the AOS UL5. You recommend the motor 2004 but I found the betafpv 1805 having a slightly better spec on paper. What do you think ? Will he heat ? It has a stator volume slightly bigger a weight slightly lower and a height to width ratio at 3,6. Would you test it eventually? I would love to hear feedback from you. Keep doing your vidéo ;-) I'm watching them all !
Considering the Wasp major 2420kv for a 4s build on a qavS JB frame.
I am planning on using the T-motor Velox v2 2208 1950kv motor on the Aos 5.5 V2 frame I just ordered. Would have loved to see this motor in the comparison.
How did it go? I did the same build with those motors and love it
@@chrisbee5481 great love them
So I do have the xing pro 2506, and have found they are not durable at all. That I ring easily collapses and the bell chews the windings instantly. Maybe it was a one off, but in a very minimal crash into some scraggly, totally ruined a motor.
Dope vid but Numbers aren’t the be all end all. Price and durability affect motor selection way more than thrust specs.
He talked about some of the main factors of durability
I would like to see the five33 and emax rsii in this shootout
Hi ..very great review. I believe i understand...but its hard choice the motors for a Y6 Frelon for cinematic use with full gopro. This frame take 6 motors...what you can tell me about? Thanks in advance...👍😊
yes numbers speak different things, but it's subjective to people's preferences.
Hey Chris, there's no way you are going to answer this question, but maybe hopefully you will. Can I put a different KV motor bell on? For example, the xing2 2207 comes in both 1855 KV and 2755 KV. I originally purchased the 1855 KV motors and now need extra bells. The 1855 bells are sold out everywhere, but I can find 2755 KV bells. Will those work? Work because the KV has to do with the wiring not the magnets?
This will be the most amazing to hear from you
Motor bell is the same for all KV. The windings define the KV. Nice to hear from you too! Good question 👍
Doing a new Aos5.5V2 with these 25mm imperials. Should be a better choice than the 5”
Spot on. The imperials are great for a 5.5" build.
Really interesting stuff. Will you be investigating smaller motors in the future ? Im curious if their ideal blheli settings would be much different from typical 5" motors, beacause we tend to run them higher on pwm etc.
I will be yes. I'm hoping to add even more tests as well so stay tuned!
Great Video Chris. Question for you based on your testing. It sounds like from this video and your previous wisdom that you would recommend the taller Xing 2208 for a 5.5 inch prop over the 25s. Was there anything in your testing that would cause you to recommend that 25XX motor over the 2208 for 5.5?
They are the most efficient motors he tested. Chris likes efficiency. And since Xing got unibell and o-ring, and they are lighter, heck it's a great choice!
I do like efficiency, almost as much as I like responsiveness. XINGs for me.
I'm surprised how linearly these motors performed in your thrust test, especially in relation with each other. I really appreciate seeing data like this but I'll echo what other commenters have said in that somehow it completely contradicts my experience. They all have a unique feeling to me, and I've only absolutely HATED one motor -- Eco 2 1900kv. I went from Eco 1 1700kvs to Eco 2 1900kv direct swap on same quad and it had the worst throttle range I've ever experienced and felt so wonky, like it had a very low torque RPM range that was felt when coming out of dives then when it reached a threshold the power kicked in again in an unpredictable way. Every other motor I've flown have been great.
I'm afraid I can only present the data on this. The 1900KV motors with stronger magnets would have been much more powerful and therefore had less throttle resolution because of that. Bigger more powerful motors have less low throttle resolution with all up weight being equal.
"I do" - Chris Rosser.
Chris - when would a 2107 motor be a better choice than say a 2306 or 2207? on a 725g quad, do they offer any benefits?
Thanks for the video Chris. Do you think that the zing-e would have similar performance to the zing 2? Looking for a cheaper motor.
Yes, absolutely, they are very similar motors, especially the xing e pro which is a unibell and has the o-ring.
@@ChrisRosser Thanks so much for the response Chris. One more thing, the 2208 will perform pretty similar to the 2207 right?
Curious why the Mr Steel V4 motors were not in the lineup? Can we see a round 2 of different motors? 🤔
Because they're just rcinpower motors or something rebranded
Why premium motors such as karearea toa turbine not considered?
Thanks for the video! Crazy how butthurt people get about motors. I appreciate Seeing bench tests. I agree that you have to leave feeling out of it. I use the numbers to help find the feel I like. Like - just cause some pro thinks it feels this way or that way doesn’t matter a crap stain to me.
Haha! I know it's crazy. The moment you see someone going after the experimenter ad hominem you know they haven't a leg to stand on.
How should i pick parts for custom ProTek R25? Do i have to use all iflight parts etc. ?
thanks, very interesting as always! I was kind of surprised by your conclusions on the FPVCycle motors, given all the good reviews I've read and watched (bardwell even used them on his "perfect build"). I cannot help but wonder that maybe bench tests, math, stats and graph are not ALL the metrics we need, and maybe they cannot account for less quantifiable metrics like "feel". it would be interesting if you actually installed the FPVcycle motors on a 5" drone and see if all the drawbacks you found on paper and on the bench really translate in real life. from what I know about bob roogie, he tested literally dozens of configurations (size/KV), often differing by just half a millimeter in size, before settling on the product he offers. so maybe there's another side to the purely engineering analysis that you (and therefore us, your viewer) are missing. thanks again
In general I don't put much faith in flight testing or any testing which relies on subjective human opinion. Humans are pretty terrible at comparing things. I've seen too many videos where experienced pilots do blind comparisons between very different motors and are unable to tell them apart better than chance. A test stand is much more accurate and precise. That's why no serious manufacturers test car engines, plane engines, boat engines or train engines for performance by "flight testing" them. They stick them on a dyno and measure them.
@@ChrisRosser honestly I can see your ways are set and you won’t even consider there MIGHT be something more, and obviously you think that lab studies are the be-all and end-all, for everything, and real experience in the field has nothing to add. it makes me wonder what's the role of people like jet test pilots today (especially in "extreme performance" cases like the military), or why car manufacturers put their products through hundred of thousands of miles in testing, if everything can be discerned and figured out on paper. anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer. cheers!
@@ChrisRosser As much as I am happy to have more data-driven analysis in this hobby--and I am very happy of it--no automotive manufacturer would deliver a car without road testing it and getting subjective feedback from expert drivers and typical consumers alike. A car, or an FPV quadcopter, is a complex system operating in a dynamic environment, subject to many forces that are difficult to simulate in the lab. It's common for test drivers to point out some unexpected phenomenon that forces the engineers to go back to the drawing board and figure out the "why" behind the "what". And this is especially true in high-performance automobiles being driven at the edge of their capabilities.
Everyone is subject to various form of bias--no debate there. But when you have expert racing drivers (or FPV pilots) who can put in laps with 0.1 second consistency, their subjective opinion should carry some weight. The fact that, too often, expert pilots are given poorly-designed tests that allow bias to creep through should mean that we design better tests to take advantage of their capabilities, not that we disregard their capabilities entirely.
Hi JB, you're absolutely correct that a car manufacturer will road test a whole vehicle at the end of the design process. However, they do not assess engine performance: torque, power, or efficiency based on that road test. That is done on a Dyno to a testing standard. Trying to assess these things in a road test is introducing a whole load of confounding variables that no-one can control for.
The feel question is another topic. Why do some people (not all by any means) prefer the feel of a build with less than optimal performance? The first question is what do they actually prefer and can they reliably identify that? That requires double blind testing that I would struggle to do. If we can confirm that there is a specific thing that can be reliably identified then I'm certain I can figure out the mechanism. But as you've shown in your blind testing it can be very difficult to identify a small difference in flight!
Racers are a good example of pilots who do relatively well controlled testing to find components with the best performance. They seem to have settled on 2207 as optimal for their 5" props and this agrees well with my data. When I started this video I was hoping to find a performance reason some pilots would prefer 25mm to 2207. The same as I did for 2306 Vs 2207 (improved responsiveness and top end power). Unfortunately I wasn't able to.
@@ChrisRosser I think part of the problem is that people try to report subjective effects in terms of objective claims about efficiency, resolution, responsiveness, and so forth. In some cases, the subjective effect simply isn't there. In other cases, the effect might be real, but the terms being used to describe it are inaccurate. So I support an effort to more accurately characterize the effects that people might be noticing, and to more accurately test to reveal those effects.
Of everything in your video, the argument that people should be using high-kv 2207 instead of lower-kv, larger motors, is the one that seems most indicative of a disconnect between bench testing and real world experience. Very few people fly 6S 2207 motors above about 1900 kv, because you end up with a up with a hot motor that crushes your battery and has a very low hover point that is difficult to control, with an almost unusably high top end. That's something that anybody who's flown a 2207 motor at 2000+ kv knows, and it's not an effect that you can write off as bias or placebo.
I think that o-ring actually is there to preload the bearing so you don't completely destroy the motor bearings when the set screw is installed.
Thankyou so much for this! Do you have any charts for bi-blade props?
th-cam.com/video/kwfKFje9oE8/w-d-xo.html 👍
thx a lot for every motor test and video you do. i wonder why T-Motor engines are not part of the list, but 3 xings and 3 rcinpowers? in reality, the most pilots will take the motor which is available. the difference with the same kv and props is so small, it will be cut off with bad esc and bad pid setup anyway. i learned the last 12 years: the best motor does not get hot at given prop size. try to take the most cell setup which is possible in the given use case. mostly 6S nowadays. i dont race anymore, so i tend to try to fly as long as possible and use always the next bigger motor above the standard. My flywoo explorer has 1404 and i change it now to F2004 now it should be able to fly around 35mins with 4S 18650. Even my race setups had the bigger motors, which didnt killed the lipos in 10 races. motor weight is just one part of a realiable setup. to note: i never flew a 3 blade prop, which is my definition of corner control bs :-)
great comparison! I've got a small question about motors and efficiency: on my Cinelog25 I scaled down the throttle to 60% since I don't need that much power, would I get better efficiency and longer flight times by moving from 4500kv to 3700kv motors? thanks!
Try a different battery mate, and or use the scaling. it works out kind of the same as lower kv.
If you do not need all the power, try dropping a cell.. I get longer flight times with a 850mah 3s than with an 850 4s with scaling. (3 inch cinewhoop) It so much more controllable too.
Wouldn't you want to test with a lower pitch prop on a static test stand? The added velocity of a quad in flight effectively lowers the pitch (as seen by the airfoil).
Yes, you are right. I puposefully chose a heavier prop to give the 25mm size motors a bit of an edge. Unfortunately it wasn't enough!
No test for 4s? Or are they similar quality
Hey Chris would you mind testing Lumenier Chief 2207 2050kv. Even if it is off the record it would be cool to hear your opinions. It’s 28 gram motor wires and all. I use them on my 730 gram freestyle with amazing results
Ive got them 6s on a 533. Ballistic.
@@richardheedfpv9626 oh yes lol straight missile status. I love them.
Do you have any experiance with t-motor velox v2 2208s? Any idea on how they stack up against iflight xing 2208?
I wonder what the standard deviation across like branded motors?
More videos lile this please!!
deep dive into whoop technology please
Why no T-Motors in the test?
I don't have a connection with them at present. If you know someone please let me know!
why there is no t-motor?
can you help me please, the Armattan motor on my marmotte has been discontinued, what motor is best for mix and match please ?! the armattan motor is 2306 1750kv ,,, thanks a lot
Sure, just pick any other 2306 motor with around 1750KV and you'll be fine.
i have the 2208 1800kv on 6S on a nazgul frame.. What propeller would you suggest to try?
running 5141 today (as thats what i had).. thanks for all your hard work :)
The Nazgul is sweet. I would experiment with the different Ethix props s-3, p-3 or even the s-4. Johnny props are also sweet. One favourite of mine is the Gemfan hurricane 51433. Different weight = different feel. Goofing around With no gopro I love the p-3 and the Johnny props. With a gopro I like the gemfans a lot. All imho.
@@bkfpv i dont have the etix locally 🙄 i was thinking maybe the gemfan 5236?
So a xing2 2506 cant put out over 1000 watts being its rated at like 1200 watts . Thats odd.
It's limited by the prop. The 25 size motors are underpropped on a 5" prop so they cannot reach their rated power. They would generate more power on a larger prop.
You need to test Axisflying motors. They are the best I have every tried. I sell all the brands you tested here.
Hi, I have RCInPower 2080kv 6S motor’s
My quad has a total weight of around 475 (a bit more with speedo on it) grams with the battery. My goal is to speed run this thing.
What propellers should I select to achieve really high top speeds and why? Do I sacrifice much acceleration in doing so?
I was looking at gem fan bi blade 5152’s but was wandering if it’s worth getting a lower pitched prop that would spin at higher rpm’s?
Would the trade off be worth it?
Any advice is greatly appreciated thank you!!
You want the steepest prop you can manage and feed in the throttle gradually to allow the system to spool up and build RPM and back EMF. That will limit voltage sag.
@@ChrisRosser thanks a lot bro
I really appreciate it!
Apc 5.1x5 bi blade props are the fastest and most stiff. For high acceleration and top speed you will want a light and low air resistance racing frame. Also the best lipo you can find such as tattu r line
T motor ?
Hey Chris! I'm building a 4inch freestyle quad, what size stator or stator volume do you recommend? I was looking at 2004, 2104 and 2005.
Yeah 2004 and 1806 are my go to for 4" triblades.
@@ChrisRosser I forgot to ask about kv, what kv do you suggest on 4inch props 2004 6s lipo?
@@jhughes2286 2000kv to 2500kv. Depending on if you prefer efficiency or power.
I used brotherhobby 2004 2100kv and changed brotherhobby 2005 2450kv for more thrust. The problem is there is no great 4" frame. Have you found one you like? I stepped town to 3.5 inch aos v2 frame from my 4 inch setup.
Dont get the emax 2004 2400kv motors. I couldnt get them working well on a 1 to 1 swap out from the brotherhobby 2004 2100kv.
@@chrisbee5481 Yeah, the Apex 4inch is the shit.
@@jhughes2286 yeah the only half way good one I found. Downside is it's heavy and limited to a 20mm FC mounting. I love 25mm mounting
I hope Chris Rosser will release his 4 inch soon.
What motors and props did you choose on 6S?
Stainless shafts are much more durable vs titanium. Cheaper too.
Absolutely. And the weight difference isn't massive either.
what length wire did you use?
10" on the 5.5" motors and 6" on the 5" motors.
Got a question for anyone willing to help.
I would like to build a small long range dji bird. Something with at least 20 min flight time. Doesnt have to to be crazy powerful. Which motors, esc, fc, battery, would you use?
Check the emax babyhawk 2 HD or it's specs. On a 4s 18650 li ion pack you get up to 20 min flight time
Finally, a technical video that shows the imperial motors not the holy grail 5in motor. Seems like every other video on the 25mm imperial motors are just about how they're the best! I didn't fall for it 😂
And see I think it's one of those feel type of things that can't be quantified. Much like how betaflight more accurately tracks the set point, yet some people still prefer the feel of Kiss. I'm running the 25mm on two of my quads, and I love them. They don't feel more powerful, nor are they draining my battery faster, but there is some sort of different feel like in the lower throttle, that I really enjoy. I also run xings and tmotor, and none are "better" than the others, just different and complements a different build. Just my opinion.
The reason some people like KISS is because the rates are different on default. Different as in different people like different rates. KISS is not magical.
@@truggles120 I agree, it's not magical, but I think it's more than just the Rate curve, though entirely agree about rate systems. I'm convinced that has a lot to do with the Emu guys.
I just recently switched to Actual rates, and played with Quick rates, and I can't get them to feel the same as BF rates. As far as Kiss rates, I use the converter from my BF rates, but you're right, they don't feel the same.