MARKET
/EXPERTISE
FROM THE LIFE OF THE “TYANITAKAYA”
MOTOR GEARS
DOOR LOCKS - FROM MOSCOW TO TAIWAN
TEXT / DMITRY YERIGIN, MIKHAIL KOLODOCHKIN
You must admit that a driver picking a key in a door lock causes some bewilderment today - but what is he actually doing? Has the “electrician” refused?
Electric drives of door locks have long moved from the category of "excesses" to the category of "useful" - even the domestic auto industry has matured to their "enrollment in the state." The thing, of course, is convenient in all respects - and not at all scarce: it will be installed on any service. Just which one?
We asked specialists of the Etalon test center at the Scientific Research Institute of Autoelectronics to understand how prepared these products are for easy cooperation with door mechanisms. For examination, we acquired six different types of “motor-locks for locking car doors” - in a scientific way they are called that way. Two motor reducers of each type were tested.
Generally speaking, they always work in very difficult conditions. A tiny motor with a miniature collector first moves the stubborn door rods in the right direction, and then freezes for a while in the short circuit mode - the duration of the control pulse is selected with a margin. At the same time, the current flowing through the motor reaches its maximum, and the dissipated power, as is known, is proportional to its "square" - to overheat the "baby" is worth nothing. Therefore, we are most interested in what kind of effort is being developed by gear motors and how they carry overloads.
They chose a rigorous test method: they decided to imitate a “popular” alarm malfunction, which suddenly suddenly begins to “pull the buttons” on the door or, worse, leaves the door lock actuators energized for a long time. The first often happens during engine start-up, the second - due to the banal “sticking” of the relay. With this in mind, the first motor reducer in each pair had to withstand three cycles of open-close exercises - each cycle 50 times (half a second to retract, half a second pause, half a second to push, etc.). The second motor reducer also had to go through three cycles, but instead of "gymnastics" he was expected to have a closer acquaintance with electricity - each time for 60 seconds under voltage in a locked state. After the next cycle, experts evaluated the product - they say, is it worth torturing him further.
Prior to the test, the parameters of the gear motors in the initial state were measured - they are shown in the table. The experts checked how easily the rod of the gearmotors moves, measured the current consumed under load, estimated the stroke of the rod and measured the thrust of the products. Well - it’s already fun: one has too small a stroke, the other has an excessively high current, and the latter cannot be really checked - frail at all, does not hold the load … In general, only six out of six pairs turned out to be “unreasonable”… domestic! Curious…
According to formal signs, all the “wrong” motor gearboxes could be rejected before the start of the main tests, but it’s interesting … It could well turn out that the large current consumption is not a drawback at all, but, on the contrary, a guarantee of trouble-free operation - who knows what gear motors have on the mind. In short, we started …
Recall once again: the test conditions were specially selected prohibitive, such as "survival races." The first to strike was the pair No. 5 - “Mongoose”, engaged in “physical exercises”, froze already on the 25th actuation, and his colleague died on the 20th second of the “torture by electricity”, driving the ammeter needle far beyond 10 A. Immediately offended the pair No. 6 - without saying a word, both gear motors sharply increased consumption currents, after which they stood firmly. At the 60th second, the “Arab Chinese” No. 2–2 overheated - it is not surprising at such a large current consumption. The remaining three and a half couples were stronger and body and spirit - withstood! However, No. 4–1 decided to reduce the stroke to a few millimeters - alas, put it aside … Total - there were six participants left.
The second cycle left only one pair in service: the second “Arab Chinese” burned their winding, and No. 3–2 even blew smoke. Two more gear motors again made the ammeter needle fidget, forcing her to beat against the right edge of the scale. As a result, only the ATE-1 motor gearboxes, the very ones that turned out to be “beyond jurisdiction” at the beginning, went to the third test cycle. So, the experts were not mistaken in their initial assessment criteria - this is pleasing.
The winners went to the final stage - not for the award, but for the sake of sports interest. Well, the victory of the Moscow plant turned out to be more than convincing - even after the third cycle both motor reducers, although they were pretty shabby, but “alive”! Moreover, after about three hours of being in a “relaxed state”, they regained their working capacity at the level of the initial parameters. Dropped off, in general.
It is funny that some of the "simulators" also "came to life" after a short rest - this is what No. 2–2, 4–1, and 3–1 did. However, one must remember: in a critical situation, the hope for them is weak. And Moscow products pleasantly surprised - it seems that in practice they will last much longer than the rest.
1. Manufacturer / ATE-1, Moscow (PRAMO concern)
Name / 871.3730
Price / 115 rub.
The drive develops good traction, consumes little current and can withstand extreme conditions. The only drive that has protection is a centrifugal clutch. At low engine speeds, the moment does not pass through the coupling, and with an increase in speed, engagement occurs in it, which allows the drive to work as if from acceleration. Thanks to the coupling, it was possible to reduce the starting current and the effort of moving the rail manually. The electrical connectors for the drives are made for the "tenth" wiring - when mounting on other cars there will be a little fuss. Another difference between these drives is that they use five-pole electric motors: they usually use three-pole ones.
“Attachment” gear motors won the competition due to a clear advantage - only they managed to pass the preliminary tests without comment and maintain working ability after three cycles. Rating: excellent.
2. Manufacturer / FAWAS AL KHATEEB TRADING CO., DUBAI UAE, Taiwan
Name / CL-009
Price / 75 rub.
Good traction, but very high current consumption. If you equip four doors, it turns out four times eight - bust … A very small stroke of the rail. He does not tolerate heavy modes. The test program could not be completed: an autopsy showed that the collector began to melt, the plastic got out of the cracks between the contact plates. However, after several hours of rest, one of the “Arab Chinese” seems to have begun to recover, but “after the fight” this is not so interesting. Rating: bad.
3. Manufacturer / SATURN
Name / Missing
Price / 100 rub.
The biggest pulling force, but also the current “rolls over”, is under 7 A. The tightening of the regime forgives only to a certain limit: both drives surrendered in the second test cycle. The reasons are visible in the photo: the molten collector plus blackened wires. Note that one of the "Saturns" subsequently came to its senses and even began to work. Rating: bad.
4. Manufacturer / Unknown
Name / CL-02
Price / 90 rub.
Good traction, but very high current consumption - up to 7.5 A. The rail is of an unusual closed shape, but its stroke is very small. “Bullying” was hardly carried over and surrendered somewhere in the middle. Rating: bad.
5. Manufacturer / MONGOOSE, Alliance Marketing Group Inc., USA
Name / Missing
Price / 140 rub.
The pulling force is acceptable, but clearly does not correspond to the current consumed: for such "Newtons" it is too large. By the way, the inscriptions on the box promised not 27 N, but as much as 6 kg - where are they? And they also “joked” with the current: they said 5A, and they “eat” 6–7 … And something was written about “perfect protection” - and this is about products that could not stand even half of the first cycle of survivability tests. Rating: bad.
6. Manufacturer / Unknown (Taiwan?)
Name / Missing
