 | | | | | |
Hello after a long time!
I played around somewhat with the different train systems.
The result is displayed in this table:
And probably more interesting as a video:
Pulling power of different train
systems at YouTube
The used test rig looked like this (the kitchen balance could (and was) be reset
to zero under any load). The counterweight was filled with coins to adept to the
maximum pulling power of each engine:
Only the step 4 is featured in the video.
Hope you enjoy + Leg Godt!
See more pictures of my models at www.brickshelf.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
That’s interesting stuff!
Thanks for sharing the info.
Scott W.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
Grüße, Ben! Good to hear from you!
This is a great video, and hilarious at the end! LOL
| |
The used test rig looked like this (the kitchen balance could (and was) be
reset to zero under any load). The counterweight was filled with coins to
adept to the maximum pulling power of each engine:
Only the step 4 is featured in the video.
Hope you enjoy + Leg Godt!
|
Thanks for posting, Ben! I hope to see you and HoMa, et al, around LUGNET a
little more in the future!
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hello after a long time!
I played around somewhat with the different train systems.
The result is displayed in this table:
And probably more interesting as a video:
Pulling power of different train
systems at YouTube
Only the step 4 is featured in the video.
Hope you enjoy + Leg Godt!
|
Very interesting experiment with plenty of variables to consider. It has my
mental wheels turning...
It would be interesting to see this done with a
“pull type spring scale” to measure the force... It would also be interesting
to adjust the mass over the drive wheels to determine the impact on gaining
traction for a specific system (given the coef. of static and dynamic
friction)...
...when I’ve met with design engineers at GE Locomotive in the past, they always
said the more weight in their deisel engines the better for pulling power. I
wonder how much that applies to the various LEGO systems? ... Hmmm... That
could be a great next experiment - to see how varying mass over driving wheels
can maximize the pulling power of an LEGO system engine....
Take care,
Ted A.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Andes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hello after a long time!
I played around somewhat with the different train systems.
The result is displayed in this table:
And probably more interesting as a video:
Pulling power of different train
systems at YouTube
Only the step 4 is featured in the video.
Hope you enjoy + Leg Godt!
|
|
Hi Ted,
thanks for your feedback.
| |
Very interesting experiment with plenty of variables to consider. It has my
mental wheels turning...
It would be interesting to see this done with a
“pull type spring scale” to measure the force...
|
That would in fact have been favourable. My test rig suffered under the effects
of friction in the 3 wheels, which lead the wire. I have tried to minimize this
by using high diameters.
It would also be
| |
interesting to adjust the mass over the drive wheels to determine the impact
on gaining traction for a specific system (given the coef. of static and
dynamic friction)...
|
Definitely. I am convinced, that in the first line the friction coefficient is
not depending (very much) on the weight. The different coefficients I measured
are basically due to different ages and types of rubber / silicon material.
If you look at the table the probably most surprising numbers are those of the
10153 motor without weight in contrast to the extreme weak 10020 engine. The
only explanation for this is the material of the “rubber” rings around the
driving wheels.
As a sidenote I may mention the 7898 engine, which has highly surprised me! I
had experiences with some 7898 type motors and those have been the lamest I have
ever seen. LEGO had addressed this issue by choosing a softer stickier type of
silicon. And they did this twice. First generation has been horrible. Next was
not very sufficient. But this last version offers fun. The engine still CAN slip
under overload, but pulling force is maximized. Well done LEGO!
| |
...when I’ve met with design engineers at GE Locomotive in the past, they
always said the more weight in their deisel engines the better for pulling
power. I wonder how much that applies to the various LEGO systems?
|
This is definitely one of the keys to higher pulling power. In real life you
have steel vs. steel. So your only chance for higher friction force is higher
mass on top. (Or use sand and live with higher wear on rail and wheels).
In Lego you can use higher masses or better “rubber”-rings. Too much of mass
will of course reduce the life span of your motor, which is not made for that.
Old trains 4.5V and 12V had ribbed rails for higher friction. That in
combination with good rubber and high weight is the reason for their good
results.
...
| |
Hmmm... That could be a great next experiment - to see how varying mass over
driving wheels can maximize the pulling power of an LEGO system engine....
|
Once you reach a mass that the motor wheels do not spin through, you are at the
theoretical limit.
Leg Godt!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ted Andes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
|
|
--snip--
| |
This is definitely one of the keys to higher pulling power. In real life you
have steel vs. steel. So your only chance for higher friction force is higher
mass on top. (Or use sand and live with higher wear on rail and wheels).
In Lego you can use higher masses or better “rubber”-rings. Too much of mass
will of course reduce the life span of your motor, which is not made for
that.
Old trains 4.5V and 12V had ribbed rails for higher friction. That in
combination with good rubber and high weight is the reason for their good
results.
|
--snip--
| |
Leg Godt!
|
Great video, Ben :) I watched it all the way through which is a bit rare for me.
An interesting test would be the new motor with the old ridged tracks (since
they are compatible). You may get really high traction.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Definitely. I am convinced, that in the first line the friction coefficient
is not depending (very much) on the weight. The different coefficients I
measured are basically due to different ages and types of rubber / silicon
material.
If you look at the table the probably most surprising numbers are those of
the 10153 motor without weight in contrast to the extreme weak 10020 engine.
The only explanation for this is the material of the “rubber” rings around
the driving wheels.
|
The quality of the rubber is definitely a critical factor for friction, but it
is not the only factor. I’ve found with a normal 10020, one motor, pulling a few
Santa Fe coaches, the wheels will spin excessively (especially if you have a
slight grade). So I wasn’t encountering stalling so much as spinning. Some coins
in the battery compartment helped the problem. You need enough weight on the
motor to prevent spinning. My heavier locomotives seem to do a better job
pulling. I have some loaded with pennies, others that are built solid. The ones
with too many pennies are definitely too far (though it is fun to hand one to
someone at a show and watch their eyes bug out as they nearly drop it). I think
just building a solid locomotive with plenty of plates is a good target for
weight.
With the move back to battery trains, I don’t know why they didn’t resurrect the
toothed track. I suppose in an effort to match the 9v track as much as possible.
Benn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
Ben, with your rig, how does the 8866 PF Train motor compare with the 10153
motor, for various masses of loco (say no-load, kids’ train load and AFOL train
load)?
I’ve tested the Emerald Night carriage with an 8866 motor and found that the
gearing was too high to go with a medium motor in the cab (substituted for the
usual XL motor in an attempt to get more speed, though it didn’t work).
Then I ran just the carriage with two 8866 motors, including the battery and
receiver. On flexi-track, speed settings less than 3 wouldn’t move it, speed 3
was OK and speed more than 3 derailed :-(
Then I compared pairs of 10153 and 8866 motors in a heavier 8x64 carriage, using
the PF rechargeable battery and IR receiver to control it. I found that with
10153 motors speed setting 4 was good to go all the way round my looped-eight
layout (with 1 in 30 maximum slope, up and down) (meaning that it was good to
leave it running at a show so I can talk to the public) but that speed setting 5
was needed to get the 8866 motors up the slope and was too fast for the descent
(meaning I couldn’t leave it running at a show).
Pulling another two 8x64 carriages, speed setting 4 was still good for the 10153
motors but with 8866 motors even top speed struggled on the up hill section,
cutting out the rechargeable battery 3 times, though it got there eventually.
It also caused overspeed on the descent and derailed!
Have you or others found the 8866 motor over-gearing problem?
It’s quite serious if the motor designed for the job is not right. The future
of PF trains could be at risk. I would like to recommend a redesign with lower
gearing to TLG. The 8866 motor should be made to follow the torque curve of the
10153 9V train motor, so that it is a drop-in replacement.
Mark
========================================================================
Mark J E Bellis 8mm Scale LEGO Trains
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=mbellis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Mark Bellis wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> Ben, with your rig, how does the 8866 PF Train motor compare with the 10153
> motor, for various masses of loco (say no-load, kids' train load and AFOL
> train load)?
Mark,
sorriely I have broken down the small rig after the test series, so I have no
quick access to a wider testing procedure.....
> I've tested the Emerald Night carriage with an 8866 motor and found that the
> gearing was too high to go with a medium motor in the cab (substituted for
> the usual XL motor in an attempt to get more speed, though it didn't work).
The speed of the Emerald is clearly much lower in comparison to 8866. If you run
8866 at a reduced speed to go with the Emerald, the torque (or pulling power) of
8866 at that speed is insufficient. Sad for us AFOLs, but a matter of fact.
> Then I ran just the carriage with two 8866 motors, including the battery and
> receiver. On flexi-track, speed settings less than 3 wouldn't move it, speed
> 3 was OK and speed more than 3 derailed :-(
8866 is definitely designed for kids and if I remember it right, overspeeding
and derailing was number one factor for play fun when I was a kid. So I
understand, why LEGO designers did it like this to have an appealing product for
kids. Kids usually do not want to have the train running and giving an interview
at same time...
> Then I compared pairs of 10153 and 8866 motors in a heavier 8x64 carriage,
> using the PF rechargeable battery and IR receiver to control it. I found
> that with 10153 motors speed setting 4 was good to go all the way round my
> looped-eight layout (with 1 in 30 maximum slope, up and down) (meaning that
> it was good to leave it running at a show so I can talk to the public) but
> that speed setting 5 was needed to get the 8866 motors up the slope and was
> too fast for the descent (meaning I couldn't leave it running at a show).
I have never really played with 8866 before I bought 7898 two weeks ago....
Since this system runs out, I wanted to have just one for reference purpose
basically. I never had the intention to use battery stuff at shows or at home on
any track layout.
> Pulling another two 8x64 carriages, speed setting 4 was still good for the
> 10153 motors but with 8866 motors even top speed struggled on the up hill
> section, cutting out the rechargeable battery 3 times, though it got there
> eventually. It also caused overspeed on the descent and derailed!
Not good....
> It's quite serious if the motor designed for the job is not right.
Train clubs have definitely never been a focus for LEGO. Especially the 8866 is
a kids play thing. Cheap rubbish with no professional approach (as far as I see
it).
> The
> future of PF trains could be at risk. I would like to recommend a redesign
> with lower gearing to TLG. The 8866 motor should be made to follow the
> torque curve of the 10153 9V train motor, so that it is a drop-in
> replacement.
Of course that would be favourable. I think the way to go is to use the "real"
Power Functions items (XXL and medium motor - a micro motor on my wish list).
Those can be geared down to any speed we would like to see.
I myself am happy with a stock of some 60+ 10153 motors and over 100 meters of
9V track. After the demise of 9V trains I can not use these to promote 9V
products to potential new customers. This is bad luck for the LEGO copmpany -
not so much for me.
For my hobby I can accept, that I am a fan of a "dead" system. At least the
Emerald with XXL motor offers a nice add-on to the existing (but now no longer
supported) systems. So I am fine without taking any notice of the 8866 motor,
which offers nothing to me....
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
8866 is definitely designed for kids and if I remember it right, overspeeding
and derailing was number one factor for play fun when I was a kid. So I
understand, why LEGO designers did it like this to have an appealing product
for kids. Kids usually do not want to have the train running and giving an
interview at same time...
|
...
| |
I myself am happy with a stock of some 60+ 10153 motors and over 100 meters of
9V track. After the demise of 9V trains I can not use these to promote 9V
products to potential new customers. This is bad luck for the LEGO copmpany -
not so much for me.
For my hobby I can accept, that I am a fan of a “dead” system. At least the
Emerald with XXL motor offers a nice add-on to the existing (but now no longer
supported) systems. So I am fine without taking any notice of the 8866 motor,
which offers nothing to me....
|
This is an interesting discussion. Keep in mind that the 9v system was also
designed for kids, which is why the motors have so little pulling power.
Like you, I’ve looked at the 8866 and figured it would be of little use to me.
But I figured there might be some niche somewhere that it could fill.
I recently saw Ben Fleskes GS4 (aka 4449) powered by three of these
(here (scroll down), and
here).
Which struck me as a good use of the 8866.
One big advantage I see in the battery train is, if my understanding is correct,
that it offers three additional channels of train control that do not conflict
with the 4 pf channels. And a second advantage is that with the black baseplate
in the battery train, you might have a better chance of hiding the battery in a
4 wide (or nearly 4 wide) hood. That said, like you, I’m probably only going to
dabble in PF trains with most of my stock remaining 9v.
I’d love some third party to make a good 9v power pickup for PF (though I don’t
know if I’d want to spend much over $10 for it).
Benn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
| |
I’d love some third party to make a good 9v power pickup for PF (though I
don’t know if I’d want to spend much over $10 for it).
|
Hey, Benn-
I’ll tell you what I’d like to see-- some third party coming in and dropping in
beefier motors in the existing train motor. That would be cool.
Come to think of it, didn’t somebody actually try that? I’ve heard from those in
the know that it is definitely possible.
JOHN
| | | | | | |
