Diatone MAMBA TOKA 2004 1700KV FPV motors on 6S (feat. Gemfan propellers)

[@muteFPV]

PROP NOISE INDEX MAX RPM 02:15 Gemfan Ducted D76 76MM-5 02:31 Gemfan Ducted D90-3 90MM-3 02:46 Gemfan Hurricane 4525-3 03:02 Gemfan Long Range LR5126-2 03:18 Gemfan Hurricane SL5125-3 HIGH RPM 02:03 Gemfan Ducted D76 76MM-5 02:19 Gemfan Ducted D90-3 90MM-3 02:36 Gemfan Hurricane 4525-3 02:50 Gemfan Long Range LR5126-2 03:06 Gemfan Hurricane SL5125-3 LOW RPM 02:06 Gemfan Ducted D76 76MM-5 02:22 Gemfan Ducted D90-3 90MM-3 02:38 Gemfan Hurricane 4525-3 02:54 Gemfan Long Range LR5126-2 03:10 Gemfan Hurricane SL5125-3 INDEX 00:00 Intro 00:12 Motor specs 00:45 Prop specs 01:45 SPONSOR 02:00 Test footage 03:22 SUPPORT 03:38 Test results 👍 PLEASE SUPPORT the MuteFPV channel: ------- 👍 Join my PATREON: mutefpv.com/patreon 👍 Tip my 'piggy bank' via PAYPAL: mutefpv.com/paypal 👍 Save and use these BOOKMARKS before purchasing new goodies (please bookmark the SHORTLINKS in your browser): BANGGOOD: mutefpv.com/banggood AMAZON (ad): mutefpv.com/amazon GETFPV: mutefpv.com/getfpv EBAY: mutefpv.com/ebay ALIEXPRESS: mutefpv.com/aliexpress REELSTEADY: mutefpv.com/reelsteady More info in the video description, as always! THANK YOU

[@MCsCreations]

Awesome testing, mate! Really interesting results! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[@muteFPV]

Thanks mate, you too!

[@gonebdg]

Thank you for the effort to review this motor, however it seems the Mamba Toka motor not better than Betafpv 2004 1700kv in term of current draw and efficiency for 5" longrange built. Wondering how the current draw and efficiency of FlashHobby 2004 1700kv ...

[@muteFPV]

I don't have those motors to compare, at least not now. Have you tried both the Diatone and the BetaFPV motors or are you comparing data from other specs / tests? If it is data, where from?

[@g4nesh_fpv]

Well done mate!!! 🔥🔥

[@muteFPV]

Thank you!

[@terminsane]

i wish more motors came with shielding on the underside

[@iCtrlZDesign]

Searching for engine data, I found your video! Thank you very much for the content! The truth is that I am quite novice and inexperienced looking at this data. I'm looking for motors for a Cinelog35 cinewhoop with Gopro+DJI03. Looking at your stats, which motors and propellers would you recommend me to mount on the drone, getting the best cinematic shots and correct thrust? Your expert opinion would help me a lot

[@hemanthkrishna5343]

Great work here!!! If I'm reading it right, the rcinpower 2104 is more efficient than the toka 2004, while at the same time being a little more powerful. Is that correct?

[@muteFPV]

Thank you very much! That is correct, slightly more efficient and a bit more powerful in terms of thrust. The 2004 produced a bit more torque though. My charts for the motor comparisons is based on just one propeller, you can check the rcinpower 2104 video for all the charts. I had used the same props in both tests so you can see each one side by side.

[@hemanthkrishna5343]

@@muteFPV Yeah I did check it. You've got really amazing content. The results are a bit surprising. Thanks for the input :)

[@muteFPV]

Thank you once again! :)

[@kinzokushirogane1594]

I'm happy someone is doing testing, but please, thrust % is not a useful metric to go by. You need graphs of thrust vs watts, that would actually tell you which prop is more efficient given a fixed amount of thrust, not a % of throttle. You should check out the channel Recursion Labs on his recent testing of 3-4" props to see what those graphs should looks like. A lot of the diagrams in this video are hard to read and have low resolution of data.

[@muteFPV]

I do include efficiency data, which is actually grams per Watt. I show this data at 25% 50% 75% and 100% throttle, as well as at specific RPM for a more direct comparison between props. I also show motor efficiency when comparing between different motors (on the same prop), which is torque x rpm divided by voltage x current (mechanical power divided by electrical power). As for the diagrams, "hard to read" and "low resolution" are two very different things. I consider my graphs and charts very clear and concise with all the necessary data. Adding more datapoints (to increase the resolution you mentioned) won't change anything but will just add more visual complexity, for no reason. My Torque and Motor efficiency graphs, for example, show all the datapoints because it is necessary for this data. I do appreciate your feedback and am always open to criticism. But I also want you to know that I have put a lot of thought (and work) behind what I do and publish :)

[@kinzokushirogane1594]

@@muteFPV Torque and RPM is also not a particularly useful metric for most consumers. A thrust-watts graph like mentioned would give you both and idea of props efficiency at different thrust values (in grams), but also give you an idea of the max thrust a prop can provide. If anything just check out Recursion Labs' latest videos and see if anything there is of any interest, I'm just trying to give a different perspective to hopefully improve on your channel With data resolution, I meant introducing graphs where it makes sense, rather than try to fit a diagram with 2 separate y-axis. The reason I say that % thrust, and also RPM is not relevant or easy to digest for most consumers is that you can't calculate the thrust to weight ratio your quad (in a theoretical build or your current one) would have with just that data. Of course you also provide the given thrust for those RPMs or % thrust, but you put them in separate diagrams, which means if I want to figure out how much T:W I would have with a given prop, and what efficiency that would give me, I would have to go around your video writing down data and then calculate the rest myself.

[@muteFPV]

As I already said, efficiency = grams per watt (thrust-watt) (thrust force per power consumed). So what you are looking for (thrust to watts and max thrust) are shown in my graphs. If the problem is that I don't show it in a line graph with more data points and I show it in a bar graph at specific throttle steps, this is a decision I stand behind and I prefer it this way. For the thrust to WEIGHT ratio, you only need to know the 100% (max) thrust, so I don't understand why you mention this. I have seen Recursion Lab's content and I do like some aspects of what he does but I don't fully agree with everything. It is a matter of personal preference and each of us has decided to do it differently. Unless you need to know the exact thrust and power consumption at 83% throttle, for example, line graphs are not necessary. And, by the way, the measured data when the motor is ramping up RPM is not very accurate. This is why I do a lot of steps in between (at % throttle and at RPM targets) and a lot of test runs, to get a lot more data and get a more accurate average. For the resolution I already replied that I am using line graphs where I consider that it is necessary. The thrust at specific RPM and the thrust at specific throttle % are in different graphs because they are different datasets. The graphs are meant to compare between, for example, various propellers. I compare the propellers at specific % throttle steps. I also compare them at specific RPMs. As you said, RPM is not a particularly useful metric for most consumers, so why would you want it all in a more complicated graph?