# Kostov 220v 9" more torque per amp than Warp9?



## Batterypoweredtoad (Feb 5, 2008)

There are currently multiple threads referencing the warp9's ~230 ft lbs of torque at 1000A. Using this graph: http://kostov-motors.com/files/productattachments/6ff70418861d3230f01fc0340802fb1f_S220E01.pdf
I get 175 NM of torque at 500Amps for the Kostov which translates to 129 ft lbs of torque. Extrapolate that to 1000Amps and you get 260 ft lbs. Does a Is that reasonable to make that assumption? Does the Kostov 220V 9" really have more torque per amp than the Warp9? Does the Kostov fall off that much in efficiency that it would end up with equal or lower torque than the warp9 at 1000Amps? Would it just melt?
http://kostov-motors.com/files/productattachments/6ff70418861d3230f01fc0340802fb1f_S220E01.pdf


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Batterypoweredtoad said:


> There are currently multiple threads referencing the warp9's ~230 ft lbs of torque at 1000A. Using this graph: http://kostov-motors.com/files/productattachments/6ff70418861d3230f01fc0340802fb1f_S220E01.pdf
> I get 175 NM of torque at 500Amps for the Kostov which translates to 129 ft lbs of torque. Extrapolate that to 1000Amps and you get 260 ft lbs. Does a Is that reasonable to make that assumption? Does the Kostov 220V 9" really have more torque per amp than the Warp9? Does the Kostov fall off that much in efficiency that it would end up with equal or lower torque than the warp9 at 1000Amps? Would it just melt?


Hi toad,

I'll stay away from assumptions and extrapolations. The curves I find show at 300A, the Warp9 produces 57 lb.ft. unless it was made after 7/1/2010 then it produces 46 lb.ft. Your referenced curve for the K9 at 300A shows about 69 lb.ft. So it does appear that the Kostov9 has a higher torque per amp than the Warp9. That is not surprising because the K9 is wound for higher voltage. Efficiency has little to do with torque per amp at reasonable speeds. And most things melt at 1000 amperes, just a matter of time. Chances are the W9 would take longer to melt with a lower voltage winding.

Reference: http://www.go-ev.com/motors-warp.html#WarP_9 

Regards,

major


----------



## Yabert (Feb 7, 2010)

Cool thing! 
99 lbs motor produce more torque than a Warp 9 (150 lbs)...

But don't be fooled... power remain the same because rpm are lower.
And power capability at high amps is probably worst with K9 compare to W9.


----------



## Batterypoweredtoad (Feb 5, 2008)

Yabert said:


> Cool thing!
> 99 lbs motor produce more torque than a Warp 9 (150 lbs)...
> 
> But don't be fooled... power remain the same because rpm are lower.
> And power capability at high amps is probably worst with K9 compare to W9.


It is a plucky little bugger!  It looks like they really did do a good job of designing it to work well with the Soliton Jr.


----------



## Evilsizer (Jan 25, 2010)

major said:


> Reference: http://www.go-ev.com/motors-warp.html#WarP_9


i would like to point out that the PDF's listed have the same data. as in fact they are the same file. despite the labling shown, the after 7/1/2010 is not an updated PDF. they may have one but who ever added the 7/1/2010 lable didnt link to the correct file on the server. as you can see by hovering the mouse over the link, it should like on my firefox browser show you the locations of the file. i am seeing both lables showing the same location on the server with the same file names.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Evilsizer said:


> i would like to point out that the PDF's listed have the same data. as in fact they are the same file. despite the labling shown, the after 7/1/2010 is not an updated PDF. they may have one but who ever added the 7/1/2010 lable didnt link to the correct file on the server. as you can see by hovering the mouse over the link, it should like on my firefox browser show you the locations of the file. i am seeing both lables showing the same location on the server with the same file names.


 

After 7/1/2010............









Before 7/1/2010, I guess..........









You can easily notice the difference in the torque scale. I agree that document control is shabby. And the tables are identical to each other (same file).


----------



## bhayman (Feb 17, 2011)

Evilsizer said:


> i would like to point out that the PDF's listed have the same data. as in fact they are the same file. despite the labling shown, the after 7/1/2010 is not an updated PDF. they may have one but who ever added the 7/1/2010 lable didnt link to the correct file on the server. as you can see by hovering the mouse over the link, it should like on my firefox browser show you the locations of the file. i am seeing both lables showing the same location on the server with the same file names.


Here is the link for the post 7/1/2010 table data...
http://www.go-ev.com/images/003_09_02_WarP_9A_SpreadSheet.jpg
Their website is just pointing to the wrong file.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

bhayman said:


> Here is the link for the post 7/1/2010 table data...
> http://www.go-ev.com/images/003_09_02_WarP_9A_SpreadSheet.jpg
> Their website is just pointing to the wrong file.


I wonder how accurate you can extrapolate current vs. rpm, its not linear but oh well...maybe someone will find it interesting. 

From the table linked above for a new Warp9....

480A is drawn @ 2238rpm
500A is drawn @ 2198rpm
20A draw more =~ 40rpm less

So 500A more =~ 1000rpm less & 1000A more =~ 2000rpm less....

If 72V = 2200rpm @ 500A draw, then...
144V = 4400rpm @ 500A draw
187V = 5700rpm @ 500A draw

So @ 187V = 5700rpm @ 500A draw
187V = 4700rpm @ 1000A draw
187V = 3700rpm @ 1500 draw

Jack Rickard's dyno of a Warp9 and Soliton1 shows it drawing 1000A up to ~3200rpm @ ~147V, which is close to the above calculations...

147V = 4491rpm @ 500A
147V = 3491rpm @ 1000A 
(Actual draw = 3185rpm, 306rpm variance, 8.7%)


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> I wonder how accurate you can extrapolate current vs. rpm, its not linear but oh well...maybe someone will find it interesting.
> 
> From the table linked above for a new Warp9....
> 
> ...


is there similar correlation with evtv run at 700a? (week before 1k run)


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

gor said:


> is there similar correlation with evtv run at 700a? (week before 1k run)


Yes it correlates very well when using real data from Jack's dynos...

As you mentioned, the first dyno shows a Warp9 @ 154V drawing 722A @ ~4000rpm

The second dyno (once they corrected the issues) shows the same Warp9 @ 147V drawing 1000A @ ~3200rpm


If 147V draws 1000A @ 3185rpm then at 154V it would draw 1000A at 3,336rpm (voltage is linear to rpm)

Second you use the 1A increase for 2rpm decrease ROUGH correlation in the new Warp9 to calculate the rpm difference from drawing 1000A vs. 722A...
278A lower amperage means 556rpm increase for the first dyno run...

3,336rpm + 556rpm = 3,892rpm ~ 4000rpm (108rpm variance, 2.7%)


----------



## Evilsizer (Jan 25, 2010)

hmm so it looks like the new motor lost some torque for the same voltage. what did they change that seems to have made a noticable different in power HP and torque loss. either that or im reading the graphs wrong.


----------

