# OCC - Electric Chopper for Siemens



## gtdave (Dec 9, 2009)

That looks amazing, surely it must be running a high voltage if they are quoting 100mph, and for a 60 mile range wouldnt they be needing a fair few battery packs wired up to achieve such performance? If so they have either been very well hidden, are extremely small, or the bike doesnt achieve that sort of range and speeds.


----------



## spdas (Nov 28, 2009)

Aloha, they exaggerated, Under the hood it is very low-tech. 
but looks good.
Francis


----------



## Big-Foot (Jun 8, 2008)

I believed that they did do some exaggeration.

It may well do 100 MPH, but it won't do 100 MPH and have a 60 mile range.

Low tech? I don't think so. Just because it uses an integrated controller module and Charging system - I would not call it low tech. On the contrary. When considering the very basic ICE world of Choppers, this is a very hi-tech piece of work. 

Another pic here of the completed bike;









Specs and info;

*General Features*
• First custom electric American Chopper _((Not so sure about this statement - Randy))_
• Made from new and recycled materials
• LED lighting by OSRAM SYLVANIA, a Siemens company
• Range of 60 miles on a single charge
• On-board charger that can be plugged into any 110-volt outlet; recharge time of 5 hours (1-2 hours with a charging station.)

*Technical Specifications*
• Engine: Type Advanced DC Motors Inc. series wound 8-inch motor with 27 peak horsepower and 72-96 volts peak electrical output
• Battery: Type 72-volt DieHard AGM batteries (96 12-volt cells) Capacity 72 volts with input standard 110V
• Transmission: Direct drive Clutchless one-speed with 4:1 dual-chain drive
• Chassis/Suspension: Rigid frame
• Brakes: Front Brakes are fully hydraulic, stainless steel dual disc (hand controlled); Rear Brakes are fully hydraulic, stainless steel dual disc (foot controlled)
• Front Tire 21 x 3.5 Metzeler and Rear Tire 18 x 10.5 (300mm) Metzeler
• Wheelbase 120 inches and head angle 40 degrees plus 5 in trees
• Frame approx. 75 lbs; total weight about 700 lbs


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

LOOOL...physicaly it is NOT possible to go 100mph with only 27HP...

LeadAcid-batteries....====>>> LowTech...

60miles range with leadacid...LOOOL

everything, what OCC is doing in LowTech...


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

I take exception to that "First custom electric chopper" statement; and I know mine wasn't the first either.

Keith


----------



## Big-Foot (Jun 8, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> LOOOL...physicaly it is NOT possible to go 100mph with only 27HP...


And by what do you base this opinion?




> LeadAcid-batteries....====>>> LowTech...


AGM is a long step up from simple wet system Lead-Acid. Certainly not to the degree of lion though.. 



> 60miles range with leadacid...LOOOL


Many EVs will go a very long ways on level ground and reasonable speeds and temperatures. This is probably a stretch of the truth for real world - but for perfect conditions, it's achievable.



> everything, what OCC is doing in LowTech...


Show us your HIGH-Tech so we have a point of reference please.


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

there are some basic equations to calculate the power that you need, to drive a defined speed...you can get this equations from every good physic-book...

i am not saying, that i have high-tech in my garage...

BUT..this OCC-thing is far away from high-tech


----------



## etischer (Jun 16, 2008)

Siemens was an OEM for AC motors and inverters for companies like VW and Ford. I think the technology in this DC bike is pathetic and so 1980s. I love how they mention that a Siemens company made the LEDs on the bike, why didn't Siemens provide an AC servo motor and controls? 

Maybe the Osram LED company can hire someone to build a fancy flash light using incandcent bulbs and AA batteries made by one of their parent companies.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> BUT..this OCC-thing is far away from high-tech


It is a TV show. Entertainment


----------



## etischer (Jun 16, 2008)

Big-Foot said:


> Show us your HIGH-Tech so we have a point of reference please.












I don't even consider my setup high tech since it is from the '90s, but still decades newer technology than what OCC used on the Siemens bike.


----------



## Big-Foot (Jun 8, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> there are some basic equations to calculate the power that you need, to drive a defined speed...you can get this equations from every good physic-book...
> 
> i am not saying, that i have high-tech in my garage...
> 
> BUT..this OCC-thing is far away from high-tech


I think you may be mistaken on the amt of HP it takes to run 100 MPH. 
My Diesel Motorhome (26k pounds) pulling my racecar trailer (10k pounds) moves down the interstate at 80 MPH effortlessly on 275 HP Cat engine. Of course it has something on the order of 800-900 LB FT of torque - it's loafing along at 2,400 RPM.. It's also about as aerodynamic as my house.

I would like to see the basic equations if you would please educate me on this..



etischer said:


> Siemens was an OEM for AC motors and inverters for companies like VW and Ford. I think the technology in this DC bike is pathetic and so 1980s. I love how they mention that a Siemens company made the LEDs on the bike, why didn't Siemens provide an AC servo motor and controls?
> 
> Maybe the Osram LED company can hire someone to build a fancy flash light using incandcent bulbs and AA batteries made by one of their parent companies.


True - Siemens did not pull out all the stops on this project. Instead, I think they simply supplied the motor that was used with a DC "Kit". 
I really did not expect a full-on high-tech solution to come from the boys at OCC. However - it was a start and it's generated a LOT of interest.. 
Bottom line - it's a good thing...



etischer said:


> I don't even consider my setup high tech since it is from the '90s, but still decades newer technology than what OCC used on the Siemens bike.


I think decades may be a bit much - the programmable controller they're using (Alltrax) has quite a bit of relatively recent technology embedded.
Remember also that we're talking about a motorcycle here. A lot less room to stuff all that technology... 

---

Guys - there's no disputing that the guys on OCC (for the most part) are hairy-backed knuckle-dragging bikers - but at least give them credit for successfully designing and building their bike... It's asking for nothing more or less than we would expect for each other. Certainly they could have built in a lot more technology, but it was their first foray into the EV world. I doubt that the first Chopper they built was anywhere near as elegant or cool as the last one they built...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The motor was an ADC series DC motor, not from Siemens, and is basically a forklift motor the same as many of us use. The controller is a 72 volt Alltrax series controller, basically a golf cart controller. I used a 48 volt Alltrax in my AMPhibian. It's a nice looking bike but there is no hi tech going on here. I also question the performance specs.


----------



## spdas (Nov 28, 2009)

Aloha, we can all agree that it is eye-candy and VERY nicely done. It is definitely a great "WOW" for the general public and a boost for EV. But for us family here we generally look at it as "low-tech". OCC could have shown a little more enthusiasm too. And I would have expected more cutting edge technology, but the public does not need to know. 
Francis


----------



## etischer (Jun 16, 2008)

Big-Foot said:


> Guys - there's no disputing that the guys on OCC (for the most part) are hairy-backed knuckle-dragging bikers - but at least give them credit for successfully designing and building their bike... It's asking for nothing more or less than we would expect for each other.


I don't know how much Siemens paid for this bike, I'm guessing it's upwards of $75k. I would certainly feel ripped off if someone from the forum gave me a fancing looking "Siemens bike" and found out it had Sears Die Hard batteries, and a dc motor under the skirt. 


A 250CC motor cycle is about 27 hp and can barely do 100mph. Adding 200 pounds of battery, and 50 pounds of motor cycle is probably pushing 100mph out of reach. Only one way to find out though.


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

@Big-Foot
i calculated such things so often...i am not mistaken anything...

my calculation say: 31HP with NO wind and on a flat street
This is the power you need at the wheel...you need to add the losses, too...

i dont thing you need education from me...just take a look in a good book...


----------



## Big-Foot (Jun 8, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> @Big-Foot
> i calculated such things so often...i am not mistaken anything...
> 
> my calculation say: 31HP with NO wind and on a flat street
> ...


So.... You don't know either...

Remember that Torque does all the work.

Think of the motorhome example i used above where 36k# of motorhome and trailer was being moved very effectively by 275HP at 80 MPH.
Granted - it was a diesel engine -not gas- **but** I think that rating the amount of work that can be done by an electric motor (like diesel) cannot be done by using logic that is applicable to gasoline engines.

This motorcycle is said to weigh 700#. Call it 900# with Rider.

Show me how you would calculate the amount of power required to move that bike and rider at 80 MPH.


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

Big-Foot said:


> So.... You don't know either...
> 
> Remember that Torque does all the work.
> 
> ...


hey BIG...whats wrong with you?

you can NOT break the laws of physics...

it doesnt matter for the topspeed what kind of engine you are useing...all what matters is the power...the HorsePower...

this physics equations are proofen since 100s of years...

so...so what are you saying...they are wrong or WHAT?

i calculated the HP needed with 600pounds of weight ...so with 900pounds the HP needed will be higher...


----------



## Big-Foot (Jun 8, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> hey BIG...whats wrong with you?
> 
> you can NOT break the laws of physics...
> 
> ...


So if it's so easy for you - just show me (us) the calculation you used...

I'd love to see it applied to 36,000# at 80 MPH...

I understand the laws of physics - I want to see how YOU have applied them to come up with your answer, that's all...


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

Big-Foot said:


> So if it's so easy for you - just show me (us) the calculation you used...
> 
> I'd love to see it applied to 36,000# at 80 MPH...
> 
> I understand the laws of physics - I want to see how YOU have applied them to come up with your answer, that's all...


you need to understand...i put this equations in a excel-sheet...and it can be adjusted to every vehicle...

so, give me the width and the height of your truck...i will calculate it...


----------



## Big-Foot (Jun 8, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> you need to understand...i put this equations in a excel-sheet...and it can be adjusted to every vehicle...
> 
> so, give me the width and the height of your truck...i will calculate it...


It's a motorcoach (Diesel Pusher motorhome) It's a relatively typical motorcoach front end (flat)

8 feet wide
12 feet tall

















Thanks!


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

funny, but biker has drag coeff. (Cd) bigger than the hose (or rv : )
(DYI power calc):
http://buggies.builtforfun.co.uk/Calculator/calculator-data.html

Vehicle​ 
Cd
Sports Car with Sloping Rear 0.2 - 0.3
Saloon with Stepped Rear 0.4 - 0.5
Open Top Convertible 0.6 - 0.7
Bus 0.6 - 0.8
Truck 0.8 - 1.0
Motorbike & Rider 1.8
Flat Plate (face on to flow) 1.2
Long Streamlined Body 0.1
Sphere 0.47​ 

===========

wikepidia disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

*Cd *
*Item*​0.9 atypical bicycle plus cyclist
0.4 rough sphere (Re = 106)
0.1 smooth sphere (Re = 106)
0.001 laminar flat plate parallel to theflow (Re = 106)
0.005 turbulent flat plate parallel to the flow (Re = 106)
0.25 lowest of productioncars (e.g., ToyotaPrius[13])
0.295 bullet (notogive, atsubsonicvelocity)
1.0–1.3 man (uprightposition)
1.28 flat plate perpendicular toflow (3D)
1.0–1.1 skier
1.1-1.3 skijumper[13]
1.98–2.0 flat plate perpendicular to flow (2D)


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

according to calculator http://buggies.builtforfun.co.uk/Calculator/index-imperial.html

VehicleWeight = 880lbf
VehicleSpeed = 100mph
*RollingResistance*
Coefficientofrollingresistance, Cr0.02
CalculatedForcetoOvercomeRollingResistance =17.6lbf
*GradientClimbing*
HillGradient, 1in1001
AngleofSlope =0.0Degrees
CalculatedForcetoPushVehicleupSlope =0.0lbf
*AerodynamicDrag*
DragCoefficient, Cd1.0
VehicleFrontalProjectedArea = 777.60in^2
AirDensity1.2kg/m^3
CalculatedForcetoOvercomeDrag =133.3lbf
*VehicleAcceleration*
Representativechangeinspeed0.0mph
Withtimetakentoachievethisspeedchange1.0seconds
CalculatedAcceleration =0.00in/s^2
CalculatedForcetoAccelerateVehicleMass =0.0lbf
*AdditionalAppliedForce*
ExternalForce, 0.0lbf

*TotalVehicleDriveForce is 150.9 lbf, giving a drivepower of 40.099 Hp at the vehiclespeed of 100.00mph.*

*With a drive efficiencyof85 % the motor/engine output power required is 47.175 Hp.*


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

same with acceleration & slope (up, not downhill : )))))

VehicleWeight = 880lbf
VehicleSpeed = 100mph
*Rolling**Resistance*
Coefficientofrollingresistance, Cr0.02
CalculatedForcetoOvercomeRollingResistance =17.6lbf
*Gradient**Climbing*
HillGradient, 1in7
AngleofSlope =8.1Degrees
CalculatedForcetoPushVehicleupSlope =124.5lbf
*Aerodynamic**Drag*
DragCoefficient, Cd1.0
CalculatedForcetoOvercomeDrag =133.3lbf


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

VehicleAcceleration
Representativechangeinspeed60mph
Withtimetakentoachievethisspeedchange20seconds
CalculatedAcceleration =52.49in/s^2
CalculatedForcetoAccelerateVehicleMass =119.6lbf


*Total **VehicleDriveForceis 395.0lbf, giving a drivepower of 104.935 Hp at the vehicle speedof 100.00mph.*

*With**adriveefficiency of 85 % the motor/engine output powerr equiredis 123.453 Hp.*
------------
p.s. what is it with the forum? couldn't post in one piece- it sayes "message to long..."..


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

Big-Foot said:


> So if it's so easy for you - just show me (us) the calculation you used...
> 
> I'd love to see it applied to 36,000# at 80 MPH...
> 
> I understand the laws of physics - I want to see how YOU have applied them to come up with your answer, that's all...


 
OK..,the calculation for:
36.000 pounds weight
80mph
8feet wide and 12feet tall 
and drag-coeff: 0,8

206kW of motor power for flat road and no wind


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Your CdA figure is a bit high gor. An old Suzuki 600 Bandit is only about .37m^2 compared to .5m^2 in your assumption. The chopper looks like it has less in the way of reference area than a bandit, so it's CdA may be less than .37m^2.


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

RoughRider said:


> OK...the calculation for:
> 36.000 pounds weight
> 80mph
> 8feet wide and 12feet tall
> ...


And now, when you think about, that your speedometer is not showing the righ speed(they are knowen to show more speed, than what your doing)...than i would calculate it with 75mph...

the power needed for 75mph is 173kW...at the wheel...

with a gearboxefficienca of 90%...==> 173kW / 0,9 = 192kW thats the motor power needed...

so...the calculation is right...dont you think?


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

(I don't know how much Siemens paid for this bike, I'm guessing it's upwards of $75k. I would certainly feel ripped off if someone from the forum gave me a fancing looking "Siemens bike" and found out it had Sears Die Hard batteries, and a dc motor under the skirt.)

They charge around $150,000 for a regualr chopper, depending if it makes the show. So this one my guess was $200,000+.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Big-Foot said:


> Just watched it on the tube last night..
> 
> Now that was one radically sweet looking machine!!!
> 
> ...


Too bad they didn't design the chopper with exposed motor/batteries and wiring.They could have displayed the idea of electric propulsion more dramatically , instead of trying to be inconspicuous about it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

They tried to make it sleek and futuristic, and I think they did a pretty good job. I don't think the general public would appreciate seeing a bunch of batteries and wiring.


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

roflwaffle said:


> Your CdA figure is a bit high gor. An old Suzuki 600 Bandit is only about .37m^2 compared to .5m^2 in your assumption. The chopper looks like it has less in the way of reference area than a bandit, so it's CdA may be less than .37m^2.


.37m^2 frontal area - if you mean dog - 37 x 37 cm - ok
but not OCC Senior ... - he wouldn't appreciate it if you squeeze him in such hole (dog door) - see, his two feet would still sick out in the front and make a few square feet extra : ))))))) 
...maybe Mikey
(and you didn't count hitler helmet)

p.s. seriously, what data on CdA- generic, small, large, speed, cross bike, etc., rider upright/forward position?


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

I said it had a CdA of .37m^2, not that it had a reference area of .37m^2. The chopper also appears to have a lower reference than the Bandit, so the CdA could be lower than .37m^2. The link to the article discussing motorcycle aero is in the colored portion of the text (click on it).


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

you don't know occ Cd, dimensions, frontal area (all we can do - to guess or use max/min generic average)
anyway, here's your OCC with Bandit600 CdA properties (or should we say - Bandit with 700 weight):

Vehicle Weight = 880 lbf 
Vehicle Speed = 100 mph 
Rolling Resistance 
Coefficient of rolling resistance, Cr 0.017 
Calculated Force to Overcome Rolling Resistance = 15.0 lbf 
Gradient Climbing 
Hill Gradient, 1 in 1001 
Angle of Slope = 0.0 Degrees 
Calculated Force to Push Vehicle up Slope = 0.0 lbf 
Aerodynamic Drag 
Drag Coefficient, Cd 1 
Vehicle Frontal Projected Area = 567.36 in^2 
Air Density 1.2 kg/m^3 
Calculated Force to Overcome Drag = 97.3 lbf 
Vehicle Acceleration 
Representative change in speed 0.0 mph 
With time taken to achieve this speed change 1.0 seconds 
Calculated Acceleration = 0.00 in/s^2 
Calculated Force to Accelerate Vehicle Mass = 0.0 lbf 
Additional Applied Force 
External Force, 0.0 lbf 

*Total Vehicle Drive Force is 112.2 lbf, giving a drive power of 29.820 Hp at the vehicle speed of 100.00 mph. 
*
With a drive efficiency of 90 % the motor/engine output power required is 33.134 Hp.


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

and occ with Busa CdA data:
*Cd 0.561; frontal area 6.01 ft2; 0.558m2*
(strange, how average track, bus Cd =0.6-1; and ave. bike 1-1.8... )

p.s. but that's 200mph superbike,- occ Paul Senior would accommodate at least twice that area, front and rear : ))))

Basic Data 
Vehicle Weight = 880 lbf 
Vehicle Speed = 100 mph 
Rolling Resistance 
Coefficient of rolling resistance, Cr 0.017 
Calculated Force to Overcome Rolling Resistance = 15.0 lbf 
Gradient Climbing 
Hill Gradient, 1 in 1001 
Angle of Slope = 0.0 Degrees 
Calculated Force to Push Vehicle up Slope = 0.0 lbf 
Aerodynamic Drag 
Drag Coefficient, Cd 0.561 
Vehicle Frontal Projected Area = 865.44 in^2 
Air Density 1.2 kg/m^3 
Calculated Force to Overcome Drag = 83.3 lbf 
Vehicle Acceleration 
Representative change in speed 0.0 mph 
With time taken to achieve this speed change 1.0 seconds 
Calculated Acceleration = 0.00 in/s^2 
Calculated Force to Accelerate Vehicle Mass = 0.0 lbf 
Additional Applied Force 
External Force, 0.0 lbf 

*Total Vehicle Drive Force is 98.2 lbf, giving a drive power of 26.092 Hp at the vehicle speed of 100.00 mph. *
With a drive efficiency of 90 % the motor/engine output power required is 28.991 Hp.


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

I don't think a 200mph sport bike would necessarily have a lower Cd than the OCC chopper. The EV1 for instance had a much lower Cd than a 200mph sports car, and most production electric vehicles follow this tread in order to extend range at higher speeds. Vehicles designed with the race track in mind tend to trade off a higher drag coefficient for greater down force. Also, current six speed transmissions approach 97% at high input torque values, so it's conceivable that a single speed transmission w/ only one gear set rather than two gear sets could be at greater than 97% efficiency. Course, I'm not saying that a 100mph top speed is realistic for the OCC chopper since we don't have Cd or A, just that some of the figures you are/were using may not be very realistic.


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

- true; and also riding position can be largely improved ...


----------



## gor (Nov 25, 2009)

http://www.ecossespirit.com/Models.htm

A major design driver for ES1 is low aerodynamic drag. Typical modern sportbikes have a drag coefficient of 0.65 and a frontal area of 0.5m2 giving a CdA of around 0.32. This drag coefficient is double that of other streamlined vehicles such as sports cars and is actually closer to the drag coefficient of a truck

Overall, we have achieved a 20% reduction in frontal area and computational fluid dynamics analysis tells us that drag coefficient is 0.4, not as good as a sports car but a 40% improvement over a conventional superbike This translates to a 50% reduction in CdA (total drag) which equates to a 26% increase in top speed


----------

