# Wrightspeed won't help me.



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

I have a 98 Ranger 4x4. I am going to convert it to EV. I have some experience with electronics, and rebuilding motors and pumps for a tree nursury I worked for. I have contacted Wrightspeed, they aren't talking. I would like to replace the differentials with 40 pound motors like they talk about on their website. Anyone have a souce for those motors.
Thanks,
WW


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

WaterWizard said:


> I have a 98 Ranger 4x4. I am going to convert it to EV. I have some experience with electronics, and rebuilding motors and pumps for a tree nursury I worked for. I have contacted Wrightspeed, they aren't talking. I would like to replace the differentials with 40 pound motors like they talk about on their website. Anyone have a souce for those motors.
> Thanks,
> WW


I think Wrightspeed is going after OEM's I would be surprised if they replied at all, even to say they don't deal with individuals. I'd say for us DIYer's we're stuck with good old DC motors, or the very few some what low powered AC systems available. I don't think you could ever get your hands on the guts of a Tesla S or these wrightspeed motors.


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

You did send them the non-refundable $60k deposit before contacting them right? 



WaterWizard said:


> I have a 98 Ranger 4x4. I am going to convert it to EV. I have some experience with electronics, and rebuilding motors and pumps for a tree nursury I worked for. I have contacted Wrightspeed, they aren't talking. I would like to replace the differentials with 40 pound motors like they talk about on their website. Anyone have a souce for those motors.
> Thanks,
> WW


----------



## piotrsko (Dec 9, 2007)

i'd just yank the ICE, use whatever motor you'd like. Same for batteries and controllers.

hub motors and the like are generally pricier and way more involved for the first try.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

rwaudio said:


> I think Wrightspeed is going after OEM's I would be surprised if they replied at all, even to say they don't deal with individuals. I'd say for us DIYer's we're stuck with good old DC motors, or the very few some what low powered AC systems available. I don't think you could ever get your hands on the guts of a Tesla S or these wrightspeed motors.


What about 2 low powered motors inline in place of the differential, with a magnetic coupler between them. The coupler could be disengaged when cornering, and engaged to act like a positrack. Could have the same at the front axel to have 4x4. The trick would be to match the axel speeds. Is this possible? Don't have the $60K, so Wrightspeed with have to struggle along without me.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

WaterWizard said:


> What about 2 low powered motors inline in place of the differential, with a magnetic coupler between them. The coupler could be disengaged when cornering, and engaged to act like a positrack. Could have the same at the front axel to have 4x4. The trick would be to match the axel speeds. Is this possible? Don't have the $60K, so Wrightspeed with have to struggle along without me.


Why bother with the coupler? With DC motors in series, they act as an open differential, and in parallel they act as a limited-slip differential. So two slim DC motors back-to-back where the diff. used to be, combined with series/parallel switching and the necessary gearing to get them down to driving speed (Perhaps a Planetary gearset on the end of each motor) would give a vehicle with good low-speed maneuverability, a tendancy to pull straight at high speed (good for stability), and the capability to manually override if you need LSD-type behaviour (Traction in wet/icy conditions).

With AC motors, you would effectively need two controllers, and then it would act as you program it to, either allowing a limited amount of slip, or letting the wheels spin freely as necessary.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

Anaerin said:


> Why bother with the coupler? With DC motors in series, they act as an open differential, and in parallel they act as a limited-slip differential. So two slim DC motors back-to-back where the diff. used to be, combined with series/parallel switching and the necessary gearing to get them down to driving speed (Perhaps a Planetary gearset on the end of each motor) would give a vehicle with good low-speed maneuverability, a tendancy to pull straight at high speed (good for stability), and the capability to manually override if you need LSD-type behaviour (Traction in wet/icy conditions).
> 
> With AC motors, you would effectively need two controllers, and then it would act as you program it to, either allowing a limited amount of slip, or letting the wheels spin freely as necessary.


Would there be enough distance between the front wheels? If I put one motor at the rear like Ford did with the Ranger EV, and had the two slim DC motors back-to-back at the front, could it work without a tranny? What about reverse?


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

Again, this is all DC.

With a DC motor, the greater the torque necessary, the higher the resistance to overcome. So if you have two motors in parallel, the "outside" motor will have a lower resistance, and thus will get more power and spin faster. With the motors in series, both motors will be limited by the resistance of the slowest (highest torque) motor. So in a parallel system, the motors will try to push you round the corner tighter, whereas in a series system, the motors will try to straighten you out. It doesn't matter how far apart the wheels are, this effect will happen all the time, but the wider the track, the more pronounced the effect will be, same as with a regular differential.
With reverse, there would be no difference whatsoever. The effect would still be there, but given the (lack of) speed you'll be travelling at (Provided you're not doing Gymkhana or some other kind of high-speed sport) the effect would be negligible.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

With a series wound DC motor the greater the rpm the greater the back EMF. 2 motors, 1 driving each wheel, wired in series will act like a convention open differential. If one motor starts to spin the system amps will quickly drop so the other motor will make less torque too. With both motors in parallel if one motor starts to spin faster the other motor will keep pulling.


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

WaterWizard said:


> What about 2 low powered motors inline in place of the differential, with a magnetic coupler between them. The coupler could be disengaged when cornering, and engaged to act like a positrack. Could have the same at the front axel to have 4x4. The trick would be to match the axel speeds. Is this possible? Don't have the $60K, so Wrightspeed with have to struggle along without me.


You need the gearing in the differentials, if you remove them,
you must replace with something that can give you the approximately 4:1 torque increase. Why not use the differential, this is a truck, weight isn't the biggest issue. Did you see what I proposed for the Samuri? A single motor that drives both differentials. You don't need the AC motors unless you are doing research. Very simple, no need for two or four motors.

What I'd like to test out is my design that eliminates the diff and uses a motor and two torque converters that go to the wheels.
This has some interesting properties, and could be a good solution, just need someone to fund the prototype.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

First off, I believe Wrightspeed uses AC induction motors. They're built to spec for Wrightspeed, meaning that they're the only people who get them. Or the controllers.

If you put the gear reduction in the middle and the motors above and either front or back of the axles, you can have all the space you need for suspension.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

nimblemotors said:


> You need the gearing in the differentials, if you remove them,
> you must replace with something that can give you the approximately 4:1 torque increase. Why not use the differential, this is a truck, weight isn't the biggest issue. Did you see what I proposed for the Samuri? A single motor that drives both differentials. You don't need the AC motors unless you are doing research. Very simple, no need for two or four motors.
> 
> What I'd like to test out is my design that eliminates the diff and uses a motor and two torque converters that go to the wheels.
> This has some interesting properties, and could be a good solution, just need someone to fund the prototype.


 I would like to keep the weight down so that it could still be used as a truck. What I have now is a single ICE that drives both differentials. I can cut down on weight by eliminating the differentials, but if I have to add weight to get the 4:1 ratio then whats the point? It appears that most DIY EV use a single, large, heavy motor, and keep the tranny, driveline and differential. 
As to using 2 torgue converters, this is where I was thinking of using a magnetic coupler. Magnetic couplers are used instead of VFDs to control large pumps.


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

WaterWizard said:


> .. I can cut down on weight by eliminating the differentials, but if I have to add weight to get the 4:1 ratio then whats the point?


Right, so you see my point. In my design, the torque converters can multiply torque and differentiate the wheel speeds, and lockup with no losses, and run the motor at low speeds where its most efficient and use half-shafts so the weight is off the wheels (sprung weight),
and it allows you to keep the motor turning, to operate accessories, and eliminates the problem with startup torque of AC motors, and isolates the motor from direct mechanical linkage to the harsh road environment.

This is heresy for old-time EVers, torque converters are devil ICE devices. But then it may work very poorly, it is just my theory at present.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

nimblemotors said:


> Right, so you see my point. In my design, the torque converters can multiply torque and differentiate the wheel speeds, and lockup with no losses, and run the motor at low speeds where its most efficient and use half-shafts so the weight is off the wheels (sprung weight),
> and it allows you to keep the motor turning, to operate accessories, and eliminates the problem with startup torque of AC motors, and isolates the motor from direct mechanical linkage to the harsh road environment.
> 
> This is heresy for old-time EVers, torque converters are devil ICE devices. But then it may work very poorly, it is just my theory at present.


 If I'm understanding what you are saying, i replace the front differential with a DC motor with a torque converter at each end. 
Could this set-up run with a DC motor and a torque converter in place of the existing driveline at the rear end?


----------



## efan (Aug 27, 2009)

may be you should read this thread of another diyer:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42687&highlight=range+rover


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

WaterWizard said:


> If I'm understanding what you are saying, i replace the front differential with a DC motor with a torque converter at each end.


yes, but my design is to use an AC motor because it doesn't need to stop spinning and suffer from lack of startup torque. DC motors don't have that problem.



> Could this set-up run with a DC motor and a torque converter in place of the existing driveline at the rear end?


yes but then much of the torque is already done through the diff gears.
It would be a simpler setup than the dual design.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

nimblemotors said:


> Right, so you see my point. In my design, the torque converters can multiply torque and differentiate the wheel speeds, and lockup with no losses, and run the motor at low speeds where its most efficient and use half-shafts so the weight is off the wheels (sprung weight),
> and it allows you to keep the motor turning, to operate accessories, and eliminates the problem with startup torque of AC motors, and isolates the motor from direct mechanical linkage to the harsh road environment.
> 
> This is heresy for old-time EVers, torque converters are devil ICE devices. But then it may work very poorly, it is just my theory at present.


If you have a halfway decent controller, startup torque is not a problem for AC motors. However, torque converters will always sacrifice 10% of the power going into them (at minimum), and require extra fluid circulation systems, to give you the "advantage" of being able to move your wheels at a different speed to your motor. And if you want to remove that advantage, it requires extra complexity (a lockup mechanism) to do it.

Alternatively, you can leave your motor connected directly to the wheel, and just give it less power. Rather than sacrificing 10% of your power to allow you to do something you will only need 10% of the time, why not sacrifice nothing?

If having torque converters in place was better than using a differential, then high-performance ICE vehicles would already have their fancy electronic diffs replaced with a simple bevel gearbox and a pair of torque converters. That they haven't, shows just how poor the "advantage" is.

If you're using DC, it's as simple as connecting the motors in series or parallel (or both if you want an electronic 2-stage gearing system). If you're using AC, you'll need 2 controllers. But as you'll already have to have 2 controllers (or one complex controller with two outputs, which will amount to the same thing, unless you're intending to have a shaft between the motors and keeping them in lockstep all of the time), you have absolutely no issue there.

Oh, and for what you're suggesting (mixing motor types) you're going to have problems anyway, unless you can get your differing motor/controllers with exact acceleration curves. If they don't match, you may have a "squashing" or "stretching" effect on the vehicle as one motor (set) moves faster than the other.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

nimblemotors said:


> yes, but my design is to use an AC motor because it doesn't need to stop spinning and suffer from lack of startup torque. DC motors don't have that problem.
> AC motor with torque converter at each end and short drivelines to the front wheels. Could the converters be from small car due to only needing to power one wheel?
> 
> 
> ...


DC motor direct into differential at rear end. Will this work with AC motor at front end?


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

WaterWizard,

I still don't know if you're using the Wrightspeed example just because it's a high performance car or if you're specifically after AC induction motors.

The wrightspeed uses ACIM with a gear reduction to adjust the speed to the wheels. They do NOT have a clutch or torque converter or multiple gear ratios of any sort. They have continuous connection between the wheels and motor. If the wheels are spinning, the motor is spinning. They also do NOT have any problems smoking the tires if they want to, and the 3 second 0-60 time speaks to the torque issue fairly well I think.

A top speed of 110 mph or so (the redline of the motor) means that any reasonable commuter vehicle COULD spec a single speed no clutch system the same way and have satisfactory performance for most needs.

I'm not saying that a series wound DC motor won't get better torque at low speeds. I'm only saying that there is concrete proof in the Wrightspeed and the Tesla that says an ACIM can perform extremely well for a car much more aggressive than most of us drive.


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

yep, with over $100k, you can build an amazing car.



1clue said:


> WaterWizard,
> 
> I still don't know if you're using the Wrightspeed example just because it's a high performance car or if you're specifically after AC induction motors.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

@nimblemotors,

That the wrightspeed is expensive doesn't mean that you can't make an ACIM car for less than $100k.

Why the sarcasm?


----------



## nimblemotors (Oct 1, 2010)

These cars are very expensive and high performance because they have very customized motors and controllers (and batteries) that are not cheap or available to the public at large. 

My torque converter design could use low-cost AC motors and an unsophisticated controller and might be a lot lighter than using a differential and its gears and/or a transmission. And it can be more compact drivetrain that fits between the wheels.

Certainly one can build a good performing EV truck using conventional means and has been documented by many many people.
One can only assume WaterWizard is not looking for a conventional EV.



1clue said:


> @nimblemotors,
> 
> That the wrightspeed is expensive doesn't mean that you can't make an ACIM car for less than $100k.
> 
> Why the sarcasm?


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

Anaerin said:


> If you have a halfway decent controller, startup torque is not a problem for AC motors. However, torque converters will always sacrifice 10% of the power going into them (at minimum), and require extra fluid circulation systems, to give you the "advantage" of being able to move your wheels at a different speed to your motor. And if you want to remove that advantage, it requires extra complexity (a lockup mechanism) to do it.
> 
> Alternatively, you can leave your motor connected directly to the wheel, and just give it less power. Rather than sacrificing 10% of your power to allow you to do something you will only need 10% of the time, why not sacrifice nothing?
> 
> ...


 As much of what you are saying is over my head, I would like to first thank you for all this info, and second state back what I think you are telling me.
Sounds like I can direct link a motor to the front differential, and a second motor to the rear differential, as long as they are the same (the motors). I would be able to reverse the motors rather then have a transmission? Would this arrangement allow for regenerative braking? AC or DC?
When you say "give it less power", does this mean slow acceleration?
As always when I am listening to someone who has a deeper understanding of a topic I tend to over simplify my statements.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

Looking back at the Post that have come thru I realize many of my questions have been answered, and I apologize for repeating myself or seaming to not hear what you have to say. I greatly appreciate everyones input. I realize I need to gather more information before I can even start planning. I have my vision of my truck, Wrightspeed seems to have got a tight grip on it and won't let go. i'll just have to proceed without them.


----------



## WaterWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

1clue said:


> WaterWizard,
> 
> I still don't know if you're using the Wrightspeed example just because it's a high performance car or if you're specifically after AC induction motors.
> 
> ...


I don't have enough knowledge about any of this to be sold on ACIM or DC. Yes, I am convinced that they have a great idea. I would like to have that in my truck, doesn't look like that is going to happen this week or this year. I'm gather knowledge every time one of you answers my Post. Very exited about where that will lead me. You have given me more understanding of how Wrightspeed does it then they did at their website. Thanks, I will keep asking. Just put up with my lack of knowledge. I am a sponge.


----------



## 1clue (Jul 21, 2008)

@nimblemotors,

I think we're on the same page now. I like the idea of ACIM, and I think that if I toned it down a bit I could put something together for not much more money than a DC setup would take. Assuming I can find a suitable controller. I don't need nor particularly want to go 110 mph, and while 0-60 in 3 seconds sounds great I don't need that either. And it's not just a highly customized motor and controller, it's a highly customized car based on just about the only other street legal car in the world that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds: An arial atom.

WaterWizard,

Don't know how much of an expert you could call me. I've probably been reading about this longer than you have, and I've gone so far as to hand-wind some motors to see what it takes. I'm a big fan of AC, particularly induction motors.

I guess the biggest argument I have for them is that the two high performance pure electrics that have hit the press are both ACIM. There's gotta be a reason for that.

One thing I know that might help explain it is that ACIM can be very efficient even if the motor is large. If the magnetic core of the motor is saturated, it means there's a large amount of eddy currents wasting energy in the motor. The strength of those eddy currents is based on the strength of the magnetic field. A permanent magnet motor always has the same amount of magnetic field from the magnets, and goes up more when you add electricity. But half the total field is permanent.

An induction motor, the total magnetic field is the minimum field needed to spin the motor that fast. (That's not always exactly true, if your voltage is especially high but not the frequency then the field could be higher than necessary.) So a car like a Tesla or a Wrightspeed can have an oversized motor and get even better economy than a minimum motor would give them at the same speed, for lower speeds.

Anyway, I'm an enthusiast who hasn't made a car yet. So I don't think you can call me an expert as yet. 

Good luck and have fun.


----------

