The R1 design was made as small as possible so that the same electronics pcb layout could be used for all the 3 models. We also thought that the same servo drive could be used for industrial applications where the drive should be integrated to the motor itself and smaller size is benefit in the sense that it fits to larger portfolio of different motors. We thought of that also couple of years ago as changing the interface board would be pretty easy. As we sold the 3 units during the first 1,5 years, it seemed that the design for Sport and Pro was a bit wasteful in the sense of materials and assembly time, we decided that all of the electronics should be integrated into 1 pcba design thus saving some cost in the process, that’s true. However ~96% of the used electronics components are the same. We were able to get rid of some components that are needed in 2 pcba design but not needed in the single pcba design, thus ~4% of the pcba components went away, but (sadly) those were not expensive components.
As perhaps mentioned couple of times already, there is no performance difference between the pcba designs.
Both have pros and cons. There is nothing strange to see R1 having some advantages over R2.
Back plate design is one, power button location and LEDs in particular.
Two smaller PSUs with healthy headroom from reputable company is another.
I am sure GD did all the tests needed but the fact that manufacturer refused to put actual wattage in printing on the unit is a bit alarming. As that guy from “Tommy Boy” was saying “It’s not on the box”
It is a cost reason. Changing that would have required them to certify the product again, increasing the price JUST for the Simucube product, which had to be separately certified and tested anyway (and we did). For this reason (no price increase), the model number label remains the same.
Yes Mika, you and Tommi mentioned that already.
I just don’t know how that works when it comes to liability, god forbid anything happens, like with Fanatec PSUs catching fire.
You can buy all sorts of power supplies that deliver more than reads on the label, also from MeanWell.
What reads on the label does no change our liability in any way. Your point? You think we would sell power supplies that put peoples houses on fire? Do you think that we only see the label when we choose a power supply? I can tell that we do not market the power supplies as is eventhough it would interest some of the customers, but we do open them, test them, review the design with the manufacturer engineers, check the components and their manufacturers that has been used in the design and then choose a product if it pleases us and our quality standards. If some company wants to sell something to us, their engineer’s work need to meet our quality standards, otherwise it is nogo for business. It is not easy to find a suitable power supply to meet our standards. MeanWell was suitable, but we had to use 2 of them for R1 Pro and we still use them because it is suitable also for R2 Sport. Design is good in MeanWell, so it is also in the new one.
Sorry Tommi, didn’t mean to upset you, or question GD choice of supplier.
Was just pointing out that “official” wattage that manufacturer was willing to admit in printing is 300 Watt and while they’ve changed the label to add Simucube name to it, the rating stayed unchanged. And yes, I understand that you certified it internally for the whole package to cut cost.
People will read and ask question about what’s in printing, so it’s in GD best interest to find a way to communicate the whole situation properly to the customers so they can have their peace of mind.
Hi Andrew,
Perhaps a language barrier, but I clearly stated ‘if’ GD uses the new psu with the Sport, it will be for the reasons I mentioned, I did not say the ‘definitely will’ use the new psu with the Sport…
Apologies for the ambiguity, not intended.
To those wondering about the ‘quality’ and ‘headroom’ of the components used on the R2 pcb, it is the same as those on the R1 Pro, no changes in quality and capacity of those. I see a lot of speculation to the fact that the R2 is supposedly inferior to the R1.
The design was improved to remove the intermediate connectors between 2x pcb‘s, a single pcb was chosen to reduce assembly- and testing required. From my POV, a single pcb offer end-user benefits over the dual sandwiched design, plus the potential to do a simple on-site exchange of the same, should it ever be required.
The dual setup have a lot of work and requires very special care, as well as measurement equipment to test certain points (TP on pcb) to ensure the pins on the various connectors mate proper.
So guys, let’s settle down and avoid speculation about topics that you’re not certain about.
I always say it is ok to have one’s own opinions, but it is not ok to makes ones own facts about these topics.
From operation and reliability perspective, R1 = R2. Nothing is sacrificed, I will be happy to own either, but will prefer the R2 due to the ease I can fiddle around if needed.
The psu is passively cooled, the design has plenty of headroom and could give more power if it would be actively cooled. Short term peak power will not cause an issue. Things would change if there is high load for long term.
I am not sure what you meant by that nor that is it cheaper to certify outside of our company, but we do want to make an engineering level study of what’s actually inside the package. We want to know, because knowledge is better than trust towards the supplier word or engineering work itself.
If it would read otherwise on the PSU label, some people might consider it otherwise and use the psu for other purposes, load it with 450W for long term and then make some sort of claim if it cannot do that for long term (over temperature protection may go off). Anyhow, this is a rabbit hole of discussion, I don’t see an end here other than saying that the PSU design is optimized and certified / studied / engineered to function with our Simucube 2 Pro.
Hmm… anyway, I think that we need to add some explanation of this to the user manual.
Some kind of FAQ explaining the differences/changes between the R1 and R2 units might be helpful to dispel any confusion from potential buyers.
Although ultimate performance between the two revisions should be no different, people might start to compare rated numbers and feel that they are buying a derated model with the R2.
Many people don’t have the same grasp of electrical power and as those inside GD. THEY might only look at figures and determine that higher means better.
I’ll use the input rating as an example for what I’ve just said:
Funny and also sad to notice there is “error” in the R1 input current rating, during normal operation, the device cannot draw that much current, but that was just simplified detail to match the 2 power supplies. Somehow I feel that, in the past we were perhaps smarter to overlook these details so that we do not have to build faq about these details.
R1 is soon completely out from new sales, so if someone prefers to get that (and do not trust what we say) the clock is really ticking now as getting that version as new is soon impossible as we have not produced the version for some time now.
As far as I can tell, it doesn’t matter what they’re both rated for, if the software isn’t drawing that much amperage from the PSU’s then it won’t make a difference.
If GD is programming the firmware so that the SC2 R1 and R2 draw the same current (after efficiency loss), then I seriously doubt the experience will be different between the two.
It seems like the differences are purely aesthetic and logistical (literally a different layout on the back panel and having one PSU instead of two).
