Kato FEF review

[mmagliaro]

Good Heavens... what a fool I am...

What is the length and diameter of that motor and what is the output shaft diameter?
It may be possible to mate a Maxon 4:1 gearhead on to that Kato motor.
Hmmm a 4:1 coreless for $25.    My tail is wagging.

[victor miranda]

hi Max,

the motor is 7mm diameter and 20.25 long.

cost to operate is part of a review.
It is notable when the cost jumps from previous models.

As a contrast, b-mann wants 45 dollars for a 2-6-0 chassis and
that is the only way you will get the b-mann coreless motor.
I have not heard any one complain...

at 25 dollars, 700 hours is three and a half cents an hour.

at 3 dollars and 3000 hours, a brush set for a LL sw1200 is far cheaper.

I have to agree that few people seem to run a model to 700 hours.
I know I do on my christmas loop.
I think of a christmas season as 300 hours.

now then, keep in mind that 700 hours is a guess.
mostly based on the b-mann coreless motor lifetime.

with this loco we can haul a lot and I have little doubt
we can stress the brushes...

as far as I can tell, the brushes are the real limit on motor life.
so the cost of operation is the reason I mention it.

Given how the loco runs... I seem to be willing to pay that cost.


Perhaps consider all model locos have a hour meter on them
something will fail over say a 7000 hour lifetime.

So known cost for a sw1200 is 6 bucks plus the price of the loco
and the flanges are worn off or the bearings are all shot.
... get a new one is cheaper and easier.

same number of hours for the FEF is a little different in terms of cost.

victor

[peteski]

pretty photos Peteski!

this is a review thread... photos and comments are what make it work.
Coreless motor innerds are eye candy to me.

Is the one you opened from the FEF or the p-42?
can you tell what kind of magnet installed?
my slot car magnets give me a range and I can't decide
where the Kato motor fits in the scale.


I have to state I was not planning a longevity run.

I was thinking that once I saw the construction of the brushes
I would make a guess about the lifetime.

   they look like 700 hour brushes to me.
(similar to the b-mann 2-6-0 and 4-6-0)
I have not been given and indication that many care
how long the motor brushes will live in service.

the advice I have is get a spare motor and when you have
electrical problems, swap the motor first.

one of the things I had decided to look into was
alternatives to the kato motor, since I think it expensive.

If it has high quality magnets
it may well be worth all that Kato charges.
or it may have unusual dimensions and there is no helicopter equivalent.

We can be reasonably sure replacement motors will be needed.
What we don't know is how easily (availability and price.)
Kato has been pretty good about repair parts
and if they keep using the coreless type motors
we can be confident motors will be around.

my crystal ball lacks clarity on that point....

victor
edited to fix Kato's name

Thanks Victor.

The motor I took apart is for the FEF.  I'm pretty sure the H0 P42 motor is identical in performance and specs (possibly from a different manufacturer to account for the slightly different brush holder plate).  I have no plans to take the p42 motor apart.

At this point I'm done with the disassembled FEF motor.  It can still be put together and made operational.  If you do deciode to run the longevity test, that motor is yours for the taking.  No need to waste another new motor just to make it fail. 

Not sure what you mean about high quality magnets.  The one in this motor is the plated rare-earth type magnet (very strong). Like the magnets used in the unusual GS-4 motor.  All the various coreless motors I have seen disassembled (or read their specs) use that type of a magnet.

Most helicopter motors are rated for 3V. This baby is a 12V motor as there are no voltage reducing components on the loco's circuit board.  That makes it very desirable for morel railroaders.  However with a 40 ohm static resistance it will dissipate 3.6W when stalled with 12V applied to it. That would burn up the delicate armature rather quickly. These motors need to be used with care.

I suspect that the motor is easily replaceable for a good reason. Kato realizes that in most cases these motors will need servicing (um, replacing since there are no serviceable parts on them) during the model's lifetime. That is why they made replacing them an easy task.

[draskouasshat]

Yup!

On a related note, some recent  Fleischmann N scale models of European steam use a large diameter but short (sort of like a pancake) motor in the cab with a thin but large diameter flywheel (which pretty much fills the cab.  Since it is the diameter (more than a total mass) of the flywheel which is important in flywheel design, Fleischmann is onto something there.

ho ho uy

 ummm not so  much.  you can get  the same results as the large thin disk  with a smaller diameter but a longer  thicker flywheel .  inertia isn't complicated  lol

[peteski]

ho ho uy

 ummm not so  much.  you can get  the same results as the large thin disk  with a smaller diameter but a longer  thicker flywheel .  inertia isn't complicated  lol

Not sure why but I was under the impression that if there are 2 flywheels of the same mass where one is larger diameter than the other (and thinner since it has the same mass), the larger flywheel will work better. And no, I have not looked into details of inertia calculations lately.  Um, that's what I get for believing in what I see on the Internet. 

[peteski]

For couple more observations, the driver axles in FEF are truly faceted (just like in the Kato Mikado). Which is odd as the revised (and very similar) GS-4 drivers have round knurled axles.  I'm really puzzled as to why Kato just didn't use the faceted axles in both the FEF and revised GS-4 drivers.

After a close comparison of FEF and the revised GS-4 drivers. I managed to answer my own question.  They are totally different. And I thought that they simply re-used the GS-4 drivers for the FEF. The FEF drivers use larger diameter bearings. That allows for using the thicker faceted axle.  But since the revised GS-4 drivers had to fit the existing chassis, they had to be designed from scratch (using thinner knurled axles).  Kudos to Kato for doing all that work to further improve the GS-4!

[draskouasshat]

 granted  it will take slightly more mass due to lesser forces than the larger diameter,  you can still achieve the same results.this is just a guess but  it would take a large thin disk to equal the same inertia that the factory fef  flywheel puts out.   its  more about the amount of rotating mass than just the size of the disk alone. I do diesel drag racing and we try to take as much rotating mass out of our cranks as possible.

[peteski]

granted  it will take slightly more mass due to lesser forces than the larger diameter,  you can still achieve the same results.this is just a guess but  it would take a large thin disk to equal the same inertia that the factory fef  flywheel puts out.   its  more about the amount of rotating mass than just the size of the disk alone. I do diesel drag racing and we try to take as much rotating mass out of our cranks as possible.

I thought it was something like angular momentum or such. Again, I'm not expert here (and I don't feel like reading bunch of educational material to get myself up to speed on the subject).

[superturbine]

Well let me just say....  much like the energy if a bullet.   E=M×V2.  Larger flywheel with greater diameter has greater velocity.  Therefore more energy.  Here are the calculations for flywheel energy.

A flywheel is used to smooth the energy fluctuations in combustion engines and make the energy flow uniform. The flywheels store energy mechanically as kinetic energy.

Kinetic Energy

The kinetic energy of a flywheel can be expressed as

Ef = 1/2 I ω2         (1)

where

Ef = flywheel kinetic energy (Nm (Joule), ft lb)

I = moment of inertia (kg m2, lb ft2)

ω = angular velocity (rad

Angular velocity converting units1 rad = 360o / 2 π =~ 57.29578o1 rad/s = 9.55 r/min (rpm) = 0.159 r/s (rps)Moment of Inertia

Moment of inertia quantifies the rotational inertia of a rigid body and can be expressed as

I = k m r2         (2)

where

k = inertial constant - depends on the shape of the flywheel

m = mass of flywheel (kg, lbm)

r = radius (m, ft)

[peteski]

Thanks Jason. Looks like what I thought was correct.

[BeastofTheEast]

You are a bold man, Victor

[PROPULDUDE]

Thanks Perfesser..You never fail to suprise me.

[draskouasshat]

 you can accomplish the same task by either a larger thinner disk or a more narrow barrel like flywheel.
 

[peteski]

I was messing around with the FEF coreless motor and I am really amazed just how much torque it has (especially for such a relatively small diameter motor).  Even running at 1.2V (the lowest setting on my adjustable supply) it has lots of torque. If I did that with a conventional motor, I could stop its shaft very easily. But the coreless motor has lots more torque. That explains its excellent slow-speed performance.

[peteski]

My FEF arrived!  I already expected a model which is not only really well made, it also incorporates several revolutionary design features. I haven't had a chance to run it, but the model looks superb!  Another home run for Kato!

However its packaging was very disappointing. It seems like a huge step backwards for Kato!  Funny that their finest model of a steam loco to date would have the poorest packaging to date.

Ok guys, stop snickering - to me the packaging is very important!  I keep my models in their boxes when I don't run them and I like the packaging to be top notch. I often re-package models into boxes which are better and easier to use than the original packaging.  Hooray for the jewel boxes!

Speaking of Jewel boxes - Kato up to this point seemed to use very nice jewel boxes. But the FEF comes in (oh the horrors) . an oversized cardboard box!  Shades of 80s Bachmann!  What were they thinking?!  Not only it is a way oversize box, it is also like a Chinese puzzle inside.  The loco is cradled in a clear vacuformed 2-piece cradle, which is nested in 3 loose pieces of dense foam (same tape as they use as cradles in their regular jewel boxes), then that abortion is nested in a cardboard cradle with a separate clear sheet to cover the window in the outer box!  Then that "assembly" slides into the outer cardboard box!

I just don't get it why they did this. This loco is the same size as the Kato GS-4. GS-4 was very well packed in a Kato hard plastic jewel box and a Kato's typical foam cradle with some creative inserts which positively locked the model in place.   It was just another example of Kato's innovative way of doing things.  Why didn't they just do the same for FEF?! I'm disgusted! 

To me it is all about the jewel box!  I looked over the vacuformed cradle and I think that if I do some careful trimming I'll be able to fit that cradle in a plastic jewel box made for a GS-4 (discarding all the other packaging materials.