View Single Post
Old 09-18-2009, 07:30 PM   #10 (permalink)
Christ
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atomic Ass View Post
I can't speak for everyone else, but my problem with it is that it's unnecessary. Why bother with a drive shaft and axle and friction brakes when you can have AWD and greater efficiency with less overall AND unsprung weight. The hub motor should occupy (I don't know how exactly PML sets their system up) the space formerly taken by the brake disc, and spindle, both of which are fairly solid pieces, so in most cases you'll be trading dead even on weight. The hub motors will need some braking component in them for parking anyway, so there's your redundancy.

On the drive end of the car you'll be shedding weight due to losing the driveshaft, which is unsprung. CV shafts are lighter than the solid axles found in some RWD applications certainly, but you're still losing weight where it counts. Add to that the huge amount of rotating mass you've just eliminated, and I see no benefit to a traditional system with the exception of home conversions.
The parking system won't necessarily add redundancy to the braking system, because it could be as simple as the parking lock in automagic transmissions.

Whens the last time you heard someone say: "O Shoot, Clem, I lost mah brakes, gonna toss 'er in PARK!"
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote