Flight time with new motors???

[ianwood]

Unsubstantiated claims are at best, misleading. I spend a lot of time evaluating performance data for phone and embedded technologies. If you actually want to figure out the difference, collect as many flight data records as you can from old and new and build up a large sample set. Not that much effort and it will yield much more realistic results.

 

[alokbhargava]

Unsubstantiated claims are at best, misleading. I spend a lot of time evaluating performance data for phone and embedded technologies. If you actually want to figure out the difference, collect as many flight data records as you can from old and new and build up a large sample set. Not that much effort and it will yield much more realistic results.

Don't get upset on this small issue, this is forum and members publish their test results and experiences. Don't consider them as QA experts. We understand and can easily see that he conducted tests on one set and only once. So whats wrong? We are just debating and not concluding.

 

[ianwood]

Nothing's wrong with it. Not getting upset at all. Sorry if I came across that way. I just want to make sure people don't assume the new motors are better based off a few anecdotes. A quick data collection could actually provide some real results. Doesn't need to be a comprehensive process but it needs to be a reasonable sample set to be of any real value.

 

[AlexSP]

One flight flown at the different times on hardware of different ages is not a valid comparison. The only way to make a valid comparison is take two new out of the box units (one old motors and one new) and have them fly together at the same time. And then repeat it about 100 times. And then take 4 more units and do the same.

Or you simply do the math on the specs and realize the new motors have far too much in common with the old ones to make a noticeable difference. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Not entenring the merits of old X new motors - least of all making little of anyone´s efforts to prove this or that - but that´s the ONLY way to make SCIENCE and get some accurate, reliable results.

 

[FredzMaxxUAV]

I analyzed the TXT logs from DJI Go with Dashware.

OLD:

NEW:

Seems the new ones draw less amps.

But don't take my word for it - I have my P3 for fun so I won't test this 10 or 100 times. Seems others confirm they have increased flying time as well.

 

[Meta4]

Besides issues of sample size, what's to say that the difference noted wasn't due to the difference in firmware or batteries?
To test new vs old, you have to eliminate all variables.

 

[rmfa]

Wow. This is awesome!

 

[gppms]

I currently have a P3P old version, old shell, and a brand new P3P new shell, now motors.

Many say there is no difference between old and new motors. So I did a small "scientific" test.
Conditions: hovering 0.5-1.5 meters over a garden (grass). No wind (less than 1-2 km/h according to Healthydrones). P-GPS. Fly battery until 10% then let auto-land. It was cold outside, about 5° C, but batteries and bird were warm; I only brought them out a minute before flight.
Firmware old bird: 1.1.9. Firmware new bird: 1.3.20+ (stock). iOS DJI Go 2.3.0.

Results with stock battery.
Old P3P: 17:55.
New P3P: 21:11.
That's a difference of 3 mins 16 seconds, or more than 17%

Old one: the motors were lukewarm after flight. New one: motors were cold.

Healthydrones old P3P: HealthyDrones.com - Innovative flight data analysis that matters
Healhydrones new P3P: HealthyDrones.com - Innovative flight data analysis that matters

Next up, tests with many different batteries connected to a modded DJI battery, from 1300 mAh to 2800 mAh each.

You have to upgrade both phantoms with the same firmware first and after to test them.I notice after the upgrade to the last firmware the motors of my old phantom 3 doesn't warm a lot.

 

[Luap]

If you look at the watt charts , average of old P3 is 187.2 and new is 167. Knowing that Fredz only hovered during the whole flight this indicates his new P3 uses 11% less power at hover.

 

[eBird]

Old motors have raised fins and would create a fan effect and would load the motors to reduce their efficiencies. New motors seem to be having better design.

Lol, what?

 

[John Locke]

..... A quick data collection could actually provide some real results.

Not true, to collect data all samples would need to involve a new and old motor test from all contributors. Preferably the tests of the two motors occur at the same time, but sequential within an hour would be ok for a rough comparison, like Fredz did. You can't just compare samples randomly from everyone individually that test in different climates, different elevations and different models and expect relevance on power consumption and flight times.

 

[eBird]

Unsubstantiated claims are at best, misleading. I spend a lot of time evaluating performance data for phone and embedded technologies. If you actually want to figure out the difference, collect as many flight data records as you can from old and new and build up a large sample set. Not that much effort and it will yield much more realistic results.

I totally agree, as I spend a lot of time evaluating clinical trials assessing the efficacy of new drugs. Anecdotal, unscientific comparisons can be alluring and hard to ignore, especially when they feed into something called confirmation bias. We want the new motors to be better, so we subconsciously ignore or skip over data or arguments suggesting no difference, and latch onto anything that feeds our desire to "know" they are better.
They may well be better, but we just don't know and nothing in the specs or design of the "new" motors suggests superiority. All we know is the casings are apparently thinner and the cost is lower.
I'm not bashing the OP for performing this "study", I'm just cautioning not to infer anything from it. The statistical power to prove anything is simply not there.
Confirmation bias often wins out, however, both in politics, drug studies, and now apparently brushless motor comparisons.

 

[Chris P Duck]

Not true, to collect data all samples would need to involve a new and old motor test from all contributors. Preferably the tests of the two motors occur at the same time, but sequential within an hour would be ok for a rough comparison, like Fredz did. You can't just compare samples randomly from everyone individually that test in different climates, different elevations and different models and expect relevance on power consumption and flight times.

You can with a big enough sample size.
To be clear I mean circa 100,000+

That volume probably exists on healthy drones.

I'm not saying it's possible as it would involve the author agreeing to send you all the data, but the theory is sound and would be far more accurate than a single test of bird A vs bird B

 

[alokbhargava]

Lol, what?

What did you not understand?

 

[gppms]

New motors are cheaper and with less power vs to old motors that's why the battery

What did you not understand?

Almost all the motors of the multi rotors copters has the same design like the old motors.

 

[Chris P Duck]

What did you not understand?

I'm guessing he understood. More was questioning if you really thought something with a surface area that small, that close to the center (so a very small leverage) would have any measurable effect.

 

[alokbhargava]

You are missing a great point. Compare the construction of old motors with the new motors. You will notice new motors are flat on top whereas the old motors have projections. When motors with projections on rotors spin at 10,000 rpm, there would be additional fanning action and contribute towards loss on motors as there won't be any lift from those actions.

 

[Chris P Duck]

You are missing a great point. Compare the construction of old motors with the new motors. You will notice new motors are flat on top whereas the old motors have projections. When motors with projections on rotors spin at 10,000 rpm, there would be additional fanning action and contribute towards loss on motors as there won't be any lift from those actions.

So you really do think there will be a difference.
I guess eBird has his answer.

 

[alokbhargava]

So you really do think there will be a difference.
I guess eBird has his answer.

Yes there is a difference in performance with smooth rotors v/s rotors with projections (blades). Since they are close to center of shaft, effect may be few percent (guess), we will never know this unless motors are tested separately. But every percent of saving leads to more flying time. I noticed that there is a difference of about 3 amps over base of 12 amps in the results shown by someone, that points to a difference of about 25% at that load which was not full load.

I appreciate the new construction of the motors though not sure of their ratings and performance.

 

[Mario_SB]

For every upgrade there's a downgrade. Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better.