Hi Steve,
I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that the 1003 has less thrust that the 801. While the 1003 has more power available from the motor, it does appear that they set up the gearing and prop to translate that extra power into speed without sacrificing the thrust of the 801. Without going into the static thrust vs usable thrust debate, Torqeedo's specs on the 801 and the 1003 show that they have the same static thrust. This should translate to similar thrust from each motor in use.
If you know of anyone that has collected objective data related to differences in usable thrust between the two models, let us know.
I understand that you would have preferred that they used the extra power for addditional thrust rather than extra speed, but obviously their market research didn't support that development path. I guess that this is another case where being in a niche market means that large manufacturers can't really afford to cater specifically to our requirements.
In the mean time, the improvements to the battery, top speed, reliability, the user interface (LCD display with GPS input), and the 12V charging circuit that supports small solar panels seem like big improvements for almost every potential customer.
Eric
--- In electricboats@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <sstuller@...> wrote:
>
> Torqeedo's primary motivation for replacing the 801 with the 1003 is, I would guess,customer demand for more speed. Max RPM on the 801 is 700. On the 1003 it's 1200 RPM. Because of the higher RPM the 1003 has a smaller diameter two blade prop. If you try to use the 801's prop on the 1003 there is a danger that you will overload the motor. I'm guessing there is a two stage gear reduction on the 801 so it can handle the high thrust prop. The higher RPM on the 1003 suggests a single stage reduction. The 1003 is a little more efficient than the 801 because of this. However I'm willing to trade some speed and efficiency for more thrust. Thanks. Steve S.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment