View Single Post
Old 08-25-2019, 02:02 PM   #66 (permalink)
oil pan 4
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,266

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Expand the thinking from the wheel to the wheel/suspension/axle subsystem:


https://press.zf.com/press/en/media/media_2144.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard View Post
Putting the motor on a swing-arm allows for a gearing reduction and reduced the unsprung weight. The downside is that it doesn't fit inside the wheel, although it's not as bad as a central motor with driveshafts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
I'll take a stab. There might be an overall advantage,minimizing un-sprung weight,by moving the mass of the motor(s) inboard.
The hub-motor would make for a rather large pendulum,with increased stresses imparted to all the suspension components,plus chassis attachment hard-points,requiring more massive parts and adding to overall weight,all mitigated if this mass is re-directed inboard.
Oilpan4's comment about a wash-boarded road evokes visions of a torture chamber for bushings,springs, dampeners,and chassis.
I tore a shock tower off my VW bus on the Kananaskis Trail in Canada.
Good old circular reasoning.
Then it's not a hub motor.
At that point you might as well use a smaller, higher speed more and a gear box exactly like my Nissan leaf, or 2 or 4 of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil View Post
Still I think the problems with hub motors for cars are basically teething problems and once they go into small scale production those will be largely sorted out.

There's lighter magnets and better ways of managing the fields coming these days, so they should be substantially lighter. Doing away with the drive shaft and needing smaller brakes, if at all, also helps. That should reduce the weight issue.

Then the Lightyear team chose relatively small hub motors. 10 seconds to 62 mph is not Tesla territory though adequate for everyday use.
If they can get the motors warranted by their supplier to do the miles then the supplier has a strong incentive to get the hub motors to last. The advantages are immense. Someone needs to sort out the bugs, but then the sky is the limit.
They are already mass produced.
All the major car manufacturers that are electric vehicle early producers have had a crack at hub motor and gave up on them.
I think the only ones that didn't go on about hub motors was tesla.

Oh and I timed my 0 to 60 times on my leaf with my tool bag, cords, evse, spare tire, jack, tire iron, 17ah 30cal ammo can LiFePO4 battery was about 10 seconds.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.

Last edited by oil pan 4; 08-25-2019 at 05:31 PM..
  Reply With Quote