# Why is the Bosch MRC23EVSK rated at 2.3 hp?



## TWheels (May 26, 2006)

The Bosch MRC23EVSK, which comes as a motor, plunge base and fixed base, just like all the 2-1/4 hp routers with which I am familiar, differs from the 2-1/4 routers in that it is rated at 15 amp like all the 3-1/4 hp routers. All other 2-1/4 hp routers are rated at 11 amp.
Is it an horrendously inefficient motor, a typo propagated prolifically or is there some other explanation?


----------



## Stick486 (Jan 4, 2013)

according to tech support...
newer more efficient motor...


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

Maybe Bosch decided to post a power rating that was a little more honest than everyone else. Compare the 15 amps to the other manufacturer's 15 amp motors Tom.


----------



## al m (Dec 13, 2012)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> Maybe Bosch decided to post a power rating that was a little more honest than everyone else. Compare the 15 amps to the other manufacturer's 15 amp motors Tom.


Honesty in hp rating..
That's refreshing


----------



## TWheels (May 26, 2006)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> Maybe Bosch decided to post a power rating that was a little more honest than everyone else. Compare the 15 amps to the other manufacturer's 15 amp motors Tom.


Charles, your suggestion makes a lot of sense. If we take volts x amps = watts, and convert that to hp, for 15 amp, 120 volt it is 2.4 hp. A 3.25 hp motor at 120 volts would require over 20 amps. 
Thanks very much.


----------



## TWheels (May 26, 2006)

Stick486 said:


> according to tech support...
> newer more efficient motor...


Stick, your attachment seems to me to indicate the motor is less efficient, and everything I can find indicates the MRC23EVS is a newer model than the 1617EVSPK. So I am left more confused.


----------



## tvman44 (Jun 25, 2013)

Hp is a numbers game manipulated by the sales dept IMHO.


----------



## Cherryville Chuck (Sep 28, 2010)

There isn't much that is in that article that I agree with. In my opinion, rpm is more a measure of stored energy. Even he admitted that universal motors lose it quickly. Whenever you use a router you hear it slow way down as soon as you start cutting and I think the manufacturers are calculating something more along the lines of stall or brake horsepower which is how much force is required to bring it to a stop once you wind it up all the way. This only measures power over a very short interval and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual amount of work the tool is capable of.

If they were really honest they would post input watts and the efficiency rating or the actual output watts which is the same thing. That will give you a much better idea of how much work you can do with the tool. Without the actual rating your best bet is to just match the amp draw from one tool to the next. Most of the better names will be similar as far as efficiency goes so the rest of the decision is how do you like the machines features and how does it feel in your hands?


----------



## Quillman (Aug 16, 2010)

VS tools are supposed to maintain their speed and power under an ordinary or instantaneous over load.
To do that they need more current on demand.
The VS circuitry does just that. As such, they are rated higher and can stand the electrical stress without burning out. It is not theatricks.


----------



## Dmeadows (Jun 28, 2011)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> Maybe Bosch decided to post a power rating that was a little more honest than everyone else. Compare the 15 amps to the other manufacturer's 15 amp motors Tom.


If that's the case, why not correct the published ratings of their other routers?


----------



## Dmeadows (Jun 28, 2011)

Cherryville Chuck said:


> There isn't much that is in that article that I agree with. In my opinion, rpm is more a measure of stored energy. Even he admitted that universal motors lose it quickly. Whenever you use a router you hear it slow way down as soon as you start cutting and I think the manufacturers are calculating something more along the lines of stall or brake horsepower which is how much force is required to bring it to a stop once you wind it up all the way. This only measures power over a very short interval and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual amount of work the tool is capable of.
> 
> If they were really honest they would post input watts and the efficiency rating or the actual output watts which is the same thing. That will give you a much better idea of how much work you can do with the tool. Without the actual rating your best bet is to just match the amp draw from one tool to the next. Most of the better names will be similar as far as efficiency goes so the rest of the decision is how do you like the machines features and how does it feel in your hands?


I wouldn't say stall/break HP has nothing to do with the amount of work a tool will do. I think it's at least proportional, so if everyone(most do more or less) use the same system, it still gives you a relative indication.

The article did indeed state that this was the way most universal motors are rated.

If you are given amps,you really have input watts(P = E * I). With any motor, even induction, the efficiency is not a constant, but rather is a curve depend on motor load. As such it would at best be even more confusing to most users.

I think it boils down to this... if everyone using the same method of rating, they are good for comparing one to another. We can say they(the manufacturers) should use this or that rating all we want, but what we really need is consistency!

All that said, the MR23 is an anomaly any way I look at it. YMMV. Someone explain why a "more efficient motor" takes 3 amps more input current to develop only 0.083 HP more than the 1617. Doesn't sound like a good argument to me:fie:


----------



## Herb Stoops (Aug 28, 2012)

Hmmmmmmmmmmm......................velly.........interrrrr........esting..........


----------

