# Lack of torque on 1500 pound trike with ME1003



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

My trike, which has a 20 tooth drive and 36 tooth wheel sproket , has a severe lack of torque.
It has an me1003 motor linked to a 72v 800 amp controller and 
400 amp contactor.
It tops out at about 75 mph, just enough, IMO, but can't even make it up my driveway.
I am wondering if there's some electrical inefficiency or if this is expected 
performance?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

mikesheiman said:


> My trike, which has a 20 tooth drive and 36 tooth wheel sproket , has a severe lack of torque.
> It has an me1003 motor linked to a 72v 800 amp controller and
> 400 amp contactor.
> It tops out at about 75 mph, just enough, IMO, but can't even make it up my driveway.
> ...


Hi mike,

I don't know your wheel size, but sounds like you're severely under geared. Typical ratio seen is like 4 or 5 to 1. I'd say you're lucky if you haven't smoked the brushes and comm.

major


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Too heavy a vehicle; too small a motor. This motor has proved marginal on bikes half this weight. How much current are you pulling at 75? I suspect way too much.

You could raise the final drive ratio to increase the acceleration rate and lower current draw, but top end speed would be lower.

If the motor is pushed in the present set-up, there's a good chance it'll over -current and burn out the motor.

You'll probable want to go with one of the bigger series motors. You may be able to use the same controller-check with suppliers.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Here's examples of the ME1003 in action(or inaction): http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-motors-together-166490p3.html?highlight=ac20


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

You're severely under-geared. Should be something higher than 5:1, maybe 6:1 or 7:1, and potentially a larger motor. A 1500lb trike will need a lot more than that motor and a 1.8:1 ratio to get up a hill.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

What is a quick way to make a gear system to switch between 
something like a size 10 drive sprocket and the 20 to make the
lower gearing more reasonable?

Or is something that shifts between sprockets available off the shelf?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Can we see a photo of it?


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

Will post pics soon as I get home.
Thing is my real goal is efficiency and low cost, not performance,
which is why I'm forcing myself to stick with a wimpy 72v powertrain 
and finding other things to tweak (lighten, gear, aerodynamics, and so on).
The goal is to make a 4 passenger highway speed vehicle from scratch
for under $10k that is just powerful enough to be roadworthy, but not to allow 
driving style that will reduce range. 
It has six 100ah 72v batteries comprising about 400 pounds of its weight.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Mike I have a golf Cart gross weight 800 pounds with a top speed of 70 mph and will get there in 6 to 7 seconds burning rubber all the way. I am running 96 volts At 66 AH battery.

My motor at first glance appears similar to your until you get to the details. I use a HPEV AC15 with 96 volts. 16 HP continuous at 7000 RPM, 60 HP peak @ 5000 RPM with a Flat torque of 60 pounds to 5000 RPM. I am running 23 inch tire, 7:1 ratio. 

Note the differences I use a motor that runs to 8000 RPM, much higher torque output over a much wider RPM power band at half the weight. You simply do not have enough motor and too much weight for the motor you have with the wrong ratio. With my battery I can 600 mph for an 1 hour or about 60 miles pulling 50 amps or using about 6 HP continuous. But the motor is turning 6000 RPM.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

mikesheiman said:


> The goal is to make a 4 passenger highway speed vehicle from scratch
> for under $10k that is just powerful enough to be roadworthy, but not to allow
> driving style that will reduce range.
> It has six 100ah 72v batteries comprising about 400 pounds of its weight.


You need to understand: the way to control performance is by limiting the vehicle speed and/or the current to the motor. If you try limit the performance with a "wimpy" power-train, then the motor etc. just become very expensive fuse(s) when they smoke and fry.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

"I use a HPEV AC15 with 96 volts. 16 HP continuous at 7000 RPM, 60 HP peak @ 5000 RPM with a Flat torque"

This explains a lot. I got the ME1003 with the idea it is a very cheap and efficient motor known for having high torque even from 0 RPM. 

Sounds like the *AC-15* is much better for torque (am I correct in saying the maximum torque is twice the ME1003's?). And then I'm guessing, with it's high rpm range, *you can/did gear it fairly low (high reduction) to transfer more of that torque to the wheels using the high rpm capacity to avoid killing the top speed?*
I see AC-15 kits are about three time the cost of using ME1003 for the entire motor/controller/related-parts of the drivetrain (correct?), but I can see why. If I run the ME1003 in situation with a lot of stop and go with the current (low reduction) gearing, I see why it would burn the motor out quickly. 

I'll probably eventually switch to an AC-15 based drivetrain. In the meantime, I'd at least like to get my current ME1003 to provide tolerable performance, and, if I have it right, *some sort of gearing system will be needed to get both decent starting torque and still hit 70 mph out of an ME1003 without buying a whole AC-15 kit.*

And then I notice that golf-cart you're using weighs only 800 pounds even with batteries. I'm wondering how I could possibly make my 1500 pound car that light (even replacing the 400 pound batteries with, say, 130 pound lithiums, I'd still be at 1230 pounds, still really heavy in comparison. 

I'm really curious...is your golf-cart in any way street legal or just built as a science experiment of sorts? My vehicle has full size suspension, 15 inch tires, a full body, and a 2000 pound rollover withstanding rollcage, among other things put there in an effort to be street legal. Not saying it's near perfect, though, if there are any ideas or cheats you can think of to keep it down toward 1000 pounds, I'd love to hear them.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

*Here's a pic of the trike*


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

mikesheiman said:


> Sounds like the *AC-15* is much better for torque (am I correct in saying the maximum torque is twice the ME1003's?). And then I'm guessing, with it's high rpm range, *you can/did gear it fairly low (high reduction) to transfer more of that torque to the wheels using the high rpm capacity to avoid killing the top speed?*


Mostly correct. The AC 15 does have twice the torque and more than twice the RPM operating range up to 8000 RPM. However I am not giving up speed because I have more than enough RPM to make up for it. With my gearing ratio of 7:1, I get roughly 420 ft pounds of Torque on the wheels. For you to get that kind of Torque would require 14:1. At that ratio you got the quickest 15 mph trike in the city that can climb trees. . 

I can change the differential ratio to get higher speed if I want. But I have to sacrifice torque or acceleration to get it. Trust me 70 mph in a Golf Cart is scary fast. Not only is it fast but very quick. I can get to 70 mph in about 8 seconds. I can beat most gas engines cars in 1/8 mile.

You motor is quite RPM limited like that of a gas engine. At face value your motor is equal to the AC15 in continuous power at 16 hp at 96 volts, 12 HP at 72. But that is at 3000 RPM. Like a gas engine you really need a Transmission to get torque at slow speeds. 

The other biggie for you is the weight at 1500 pound. I am at 800 pounds. Here is another kicker. Battery weights. I am using 14 Nisan Leaf modules. That gives me 6.9 Kwh with a weight of 120 pounds. I have roughly the same capacity you do at 1/4 the weight. Those lead acid batteries are killing your gross weight. And when you factor in Peukert effect on your batteries, I have 3 to 4 times more usable capacity than you. 

If you are going to stick with that motor and batteries, you really need a transmission. The ratio you have now is just over loading your undersized motor.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Get a new rear sprocket from Sprocket Specialists and reduce the drive sprocket to 12 or so. 10 is a bit small, and people have had issues with binding of the chain due to the extreme bend of the chain. 12 or maybe 11 is as low as I'd go.

Try for a drive of 12 and a rear or 60 or higher. It's a large dinner-plate sprocket, but it'll really help all around with your vehicle.

Pretty damn slick trike you've built! Now comes the tweaking.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

"Pretty damn slick trike you've built! Now comes the tweaking."
Thank you!

Far as that 5 to 1 gearing reduction, the thing is that limits my top speed to some 20 mph with 15 inch wheels due to the 2800 rpm motor limit (correct?)...making it essentially act like a really fancy looking golf-cart, unless I'm missing something.

I really want to at bare minimum top out at 40 and ideally hit at least 60 if not the 70 I'm getting with my current ridonkulously high gearing. Apparently I'm really feeling the pain of my non-AC motor's low RPM limit. 
Are any high RPM PMDC motors still sold (perhaps AGNI 95R style) that would work with my 72V controller are available short of shelling out thousands for a brand new AC motor/controller setup?

Perhaps gearing is one option, but how would I find (or where could I buy) a gear system I can link directly to the ME1003 and the sprocket and also connect a switch/lever to the driver's seat area? Or will I have to make one (and how?)


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

mikesheiman said:


> Far as that 5 to 1 gearing reduction, the thing is that limits my top speed to some 20 mph with 15 inch wheels due to the 2800 rpm motor limit (correct?)...making it essentially act like a really fancy looking golf-cart, unless I'm missing something.


It would be nice if you can get both Torque and Speed. Reality is you cannot have both, one or the other with your Trike. 

Stick with your motor, batteries, weight, and direct drive you have no choice but to trade Speed for Torque. 

Sorry to blunt, but take your pick. You are going to have to find the right balance of gear ratio that gives you some torque at a usable speed. Does you no good right now if you can go 60 mph down hill but cannot climb it. 

In a Nut Shell between your undersized motor, and heavy weight you built yourself a trap and got caught in it. So you are likely right by the time you find the right gear ratio is you end up with a golf cart at 20 mph. As they say, you made your bed, now sleep in it. 

Although beyond my limits as I am an electrical engineer, I do have a decent understanding mechanical engineering. At least the math and principles. I cannot say to what degree it might help, but a Transmission can give you some more torque to play with. Say a 3 speed. Use low gears for Torque and 3rd once up to speed. The Gotcha is the part I cannot answer is once up to speed is how much current it will take to hold speed. It could likely be more than your motor can tolerate with the excessive load put on it. 

One tool that might help is this Calculator Input your data and see what you get. When I input what I guess might be your numbers I come up with 20 HP to hold 60 mph. That tells me you need a 25 HP continuous, and 75 to 100 hp peak for acceleration. See what you think. I used:

COD = 1
Frontal area = 11
Weight = 1750 pounds, 1500 for the trike plus 250 pounds of fat your wife wants to loose.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

The ME1003 will go above 2800RPM. That is loaded with the max torque, anything over the max torque and the motor will start to slow down, but the motor is designed for 3500+RPM (this is unloaded so it'll be somewhere in between).

http://ep.yimg.com/ty/cdn/yhst-129399866319704/ME1003drawing.pdf


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

>"but a Transmission can give you some more torque to play with. Say a 3 speed. Use low gears for Torque and 3rd once up to speed. 
The Gotcha is the part I cannot answer is once up to speed is *how much current it will take to hold speed."*

Indeed, that's why it's slung extremely low like a Corvette (and has a shell not in the pic)...*aerodynamics* in hopes of keeping current usage down at higher speeds (lower frontal surface area, lower hood slope, lower rear slope).
I really hope it doesn't take more than about 10kw to hold 60 mph, enabling safe/not-overheating cruising at that speed. 

I highly doubt the COD/CD is 1, even without the shell, more like 0.4-0.5. With the shell, maybe 0.2. *A three gear system sounds like a good idea*, will probably get started on that.

As for weight, well, consider it's a *4 person vehicle* (look at the two folded seats in back). * With 4 150 avg. pound average occupants, it's 600 pounds + that 1500 = 2100 pounds.
*So while swapping lighter/lithium batteries to save maybe 300 pounds sounds cool and all, it's still a not-so-large portion of the worst case weight scenario. Again, far as cutting down weight, I'm wondering what else, on such a bare-bones machine, can be cut (floor simplification? specialized seats (now using CRX seats)?).
I'm guessing/wouldn't the real killer advantages of lithium would be cycle life and range due to avoiding the peukert effect?

"The ME1003 will go above 2800RPM. That is loaded with the max torque, anything over the max torque and the motor will start to slow down, but the motor is designed for 3500+RPM (this is unloaded so it'll be somewhere in between)."
This definitely helps, thank you...*the question is if the "loadedness" is keeping me from hitting max RPM in the 75mph 1.8 gear ratio configuration*.
I'm wondering if a swapped in a 16 for a 36/16 = 2.25 high gear reduction (instead of 36/20 = 1.8) if it would still hit 75 as a higher percentage of max RPM at less load.


I will say I have a huge issue with fixing/"bandaid'ing" the lack of torque issue by simply throwing in a more powerful motor instead of gearing for the following reasons (if I have them right):
*) More stress on chain/drivetrain/sprockets
*) More stress on batteries (if only maxed out at low speeds during acceleration)
*) More energy needed to run, thus making things like charging it on solar more difficult/expensive
*) More voltage likely needed and thus less availability of cheap/simple/readily-available 72v components
*) Even if the AC-15 has better torque, things like continuous current/electrical-system-strain needed at a 60 mph cruising speed (and how much strain it puts on the electrical system) are still similar to the Me1003 at similar operating voltage, are they not?

It looks like I'd basically be buying a $3000 system to get the same effect as making a torque-aiding gearbox for the Me1003, minus the passing power of the AC-15's higher burst HP rating, which, though fun, would stress the drivetrain more. I at least want to make sure everything else works reliably, especially the drivetrain and electrical system, before I make that level of upgrade.


----------



## akseminole (Jan 5, 2014)

These threads seem extremely relevant to your build.

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/street-legal-vw-sandrail-dune-buggy-125425.html

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-controller-swap-thread-me1003-ac-169857.html


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

mikesheiman said:


> >
> I'm guessing/wouldn't the real killer advantages of lithium would be cycle life and range due to avoiding the peukert effect?


Certainly part of the equation but you left out other huge advantages. 

Cycle life not so much if you use high quality quality PB batteries and do not abuse them. Good Deep Cycles like Trojan Industrial and Rolls 5000 series will last 10 years, a lot longer than any Lithium. However there is no possible way to use them in a vehicle without abusing them. 

The key advantages of lithium in an EV are:

Much lower internal resistance which means much higher discharge rates of several times C without a lot of voltage sag. With PB you can loose up to 50% of your voltage at 1C .

Specific Energy or weight measured as wh/Kg. Once you take Peukert effect into account of PB, a lithium battery of equal usable capacity is going to be 1/4 the weight. Your 400 pound battery can be reduced to 100 pounds. 

Energy Density or volume measured in Wh/L is 1/3 that of PB.

Specific Energy and Energy Density are actually more important than you listed. In an EV you can justify the 200 to 500% added expense over Pb


Your crutch, ball and chain, challenge, whatever word suits you, is your undersized motor and weight of the batteries. You are trying to pull a 12 wheel trailer with a Pick Up Truck when you need a Tractor Truck.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

sprockets are cheap, just try some different front sprockets (and take some current measurements vs speed already!)

http://www.surpluscenter.com/Power-Transmission/Sprockets/Finished-Bore-Sprockets/


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

Long story short: 

I built this thing to cruise at 60 mph within the motor's continuous rating (something the ME1003 has higher than the AC-20), accelerate decently up hills (something that seems accomplishable through gearing), and be lighter and more aerodynamic than sub-compacts people convert (people have had Toyota Corolla's and Civic's up to around 55 mph) while being street legal (unlike a pimped out golf cart) and holding 4 people (unlike a lighter and faster electric motorcycle), and be solar chargeable in 8 hours without a fortune worth of panels (unlike higher voltage full sized cars).

If anything, I wonder if I may need a double amperage controller, lithium batteries, and another ME1003 to increase performance...I doubt lithium vs. lead acid weight is a huge crutch considering conversion cars hitting 55 mph weigh more and it seems I can expect somewhat higher performance (though not enough to accommodate to no gearing) via using lithium to eliminate voltage sag.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

*Speed and gearing*

Looking to test all that tomorrow. 
Actually ordered a 10t sprocket before (too small, I know now) that should be in tomorrow. Hopefully putting that on and maxing out the RPMs should provide a good gauge to where the other gears should be. 

I'm ultimately aiming for an old school 3-speed transmission with something like a start/climbing gear (up to 20 or so), a city gear (up to 45 or so) and a highway gear (up to at least 65 and hopefully 70).
Any suggestions as to where the gear/switch points should be?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

losing 300 pounds in batteries in a 1500 lb vehicle will reduce the need for torque too. That is 20% more acceleration or hill climbing right there.

Though, 4 people, me1003, yah, no  

have you looked at two speed jack shafts?


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

I do not know a lot about your motor. But Speed is related to Voltage (RPM), and Torque is related to current. But there are limits to both.

Example lets talk about the AC15 motor. The AC15 and AC9 are the exact same motor. Only thing different is the voltage and current curves.

At 48 volts it is a AC9 and you can use 350, 450 and 650 amp controller. Regardless of the Controller Amperage it is a 10 HP continuous with 9 pounds of Torque @ 6000 RPM. At 10 HP at 6000 RPM pulls 160 amps. What the Controller does is vary Peak Toque and HP. So with a:


350 Amp Controller you get 20 hp, 26 pounds of Torque at 3900 RPM with 377 amps.
450 is 23/41 @ 3100 RPM with 488 amps
650 is 27/68 @2200 RPM with 698 amps.

Now notice what happens when we call it an AC15 using the highest voltage, 96 volts and 550 amp controller. 


Continuous = 15.5 HP with 11.5 pounds of torque @ 7000 RPM with 140 amps of current.

Peak = 60 HP, 67 pounds of torque @ 4700 RPM with 560 amps.

Notice what has happened here. Torques is the same at equal current levels. What has changed from 48 to 96 volts is torque peaked at 2200 RPM in the 48 volts, to 4700 RPM at 96 volts.

At lower voltage the Torque curve is flat from 0 to 2200 RPM. Means it gets it on up to 2200 RPM and fades fast as RPM goes up. At 96 volts torque is flat from 0 to 4700 RPM. Means it gets it on to 4700 RPM or twice as fast, then fades. 

So by higher voltage you get more Continuous HP, 55% more, but a lot wider Power Band of Torque. You literally more than double your speed or RPM. 

Point here is your motor peak current has a limit. Exceed it and you let the magic smoke out. If you over load the motor with continuous power you let the smoke out. You can control Peak current with the Controller selection, but you cannot control continuous current other than letting off the Throttle. So if you are going uphill, slowing down, with pedal to the medal peak current keeps going up and up as continuously until you hit the Controller limit. After 20 to 30 seconds, you let the magic smoke out. Game over, you exceeded the thermal limits of the motor and controller. If you are lucky one smokes before the other, saving the others life.

FWIW if you are wondering why the AC9 and AC15 are the same motor? The answer lies in the Controller and the voltage it is made to operate at. AC 9 uses a lower voltage controller (48 volts) which is less expensive as I am told. AC 15 uses either 72 or 96 volt controller mo money.


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

The trike I built which is in the process of getting an ME0913 motor and a custom built lithium battery would barely get to 55mph @ 1100lbs with the ME1003 and maybe maintain 45 up hills. My gearing was 5:1 just to have some acceleration. I find it hard to believe you are seeing 70mph.. 

Switching to the lithium battery will shave 400lbs off the vehicle as my lead acid trojan t1275 (6) set weighed 500 on the nose - I maybe saw 30 miles of range... if you were to switch to a lithium you might be able to keep the ME1003, but if you want to haul 4 people definitely not. The battery I just put together is made from 720 individual 18650 cells giving me about 6.5kwh and weighing only 90lbs. 

A brushless motor like the 0913 is light relatively cheap, as is a Kelly controller to power it (plus you get electrionic reversing and regen!). I started out with the same goals as you, although I wanted to do it for under $4k, which I did in the beginning! 

I'm working on a new design that is even smaller that will be a 2 tandem to cut my frontal area down even more - shooting for 70mi/70mph under $4k.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

> "The trike I built which is in the process of getting an ME0913 motor and a custom built lithium battery would barely get to 55mph @ 1100lbs with the ME1003 and maybe maintain 45 up hills. My gearing was 5:1 just to have some acceleration. I find it hard to believe you are seeing 70mph.. "


Aerodynamics and (overly, maybe comically) high gearing with 1.8 gear reduction. I'm amazed you even saw 55 mph with a 5:1 gear ratio...what RPM were you holding?
My setup does some 1400 rpm at 60 and about 1750 at 75. Maybe I just need a lower ratio and to settle for a 60 mph top speed until I get a better setup (maybe a second motor?).

I really wonder how to shave weight beside just dropping 300 pounds via getting lithium (ideally I'd like it to be 800-1000 pounds, not 1500!)...what does your trike look like body style wise?




> "if you were to switch to a lithium you might be able to keep the ME1003, but if you want to* haul 4 people definitely not."*


I am a bit torn as I really want to keep with (cheap/readily available) 72v components, but also want a vehicle that can cruise at 60, if not also burst up to 70.

I keep thinking *dual ME1003's* (*doubling the amps* in the system to 800 with a more powerful controller) on lithium power (to prevent voltage sag at high amps) may be a good solution...any thoughts?
I originally though of a dual ME0913 setup, but then realized I'd need 2 controllers for a dual battery setup and am really unsure how I'd throttle both evenly. Also it gets me that, even though the ME0913's peak rating in higher than the ME1003's, its continuous rating is not, so I worry a bit about it burning out during highway cruising.

I know an AC motor or big series motor like a Warp 9 at high voltage would do the job, but then I get into the expense of high voltage parts, chargers, and more.



> "The battery I just put together is made from 720 individual 18650 cells giving me about 6.5kwh and weighing only 90lbs. "


That's awesome, and bizarrely it has virtually the same capacity as my own, if extremely heavy, "pack". Soon as I actually get the thing working reliably for any length of time (and know I'm not just going to toast the batteries), I'm definitely getting a lithium pack, probably pretty identical to the one you just built. 



> "A brushless motor like the 0913 is light relatively cheap, as is a Kelly controller to power it (plus you get electrionic reversing and regen!). I started out with the same goals as you, although I wanted to do it for under $4k, which I did in the beginning! "


I have regen on mine via the controller, but no electric reversing, just an old school reversing contactor.



> "I'm working on a new design that is even smaller that will be a 2 tandem to cut my frontal area down even more - shooting for 70mi/70mph under $4k. "
> Man...that's awesome. Do you have any links?


The fact I'm shooting for family car ability (carrying 4 people) is keeping me from going tandem. If I didn't have that requirement, both aerodynamically (cutting wind resistance in half or even a tad less) and with regards to frame weight, I'd go tandem, no questions asked! I guess my gripe with such a setup is "well, what's the big advantage over a 2-seater electric motorcycle, then"?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Please learn how to use the quote buttons/functions. I can't tell who's saying what. Thanks.

ie. Ray said:


> ME0913 motor


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

> Looks like there's a quote tag (testing it here)


I just don't/didn't want to end up quoting his entire paragraph, making it unclear what comments I make coincide with what specific sentences I'm replying to.


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

I played around with gearing a little bit but never was anywhere near 1.8... The motor is rated to 3600rpm, 5:1 gives me about the correct wheel speed at rated for 60mph. I was using all 21kw the motor would allow to accelerate too, which it still didn't get moving fast enough! Attached is a pic of my vehicle










I wasn't overly concerned about aero, as it was meant to mostly run around town and back/forth to work. Now after realizing that I actually need to run 60mph to keep from being passed on 45mph roads I'm going to increase my power. 

Personally I wouldn't mess with dual motors unless you are making an all wheel drive, but to each their own! the more aerodynamic you can make your vehicle the less power it will need to maintain speed. Rolling resistance will of course increase with weight, but it has a much lower effect on power required. You may be able to get by with an ME0913, as it can peak at 28kw for accelerating to 60 and then back coast along slippery using 5kw or so?

I'm not quite ready to let the cat out of the bag on the next design yet, I want to finish building it (couple weeks here yet). I've actually decided to power the side x side with an ME1507 for now and use an ME0913 for the tandem - we will see how they work!


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

Forgot to answer your last question of what is the advantage over the motorcycle... 

I asked myself the same question, basically it makes it much easier to haul a 30 pack of your favorite frosty beverage having an actual passenger seat/compartment - and it is more difficult to tip over!


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

Call me sacrilegious on a DIY forum, but these days you could, for the same amount of money ($10,000 ?) or less, buy a used Leaf instead of building these trikes. Especially if you count something for labor. It will have much better range and speed, no problems licensing and insuring, wind rain and snow actually stay on the outside of the car, much safer (with air bags and real crumple zones that don't include part of your body), AC, heat ...

If you want to unleash your creative and DIY energies, try doing doing some customizing like these: https://www.google.com/search?q=cus...-MvNAhVO12MKHb78DmYQ_AUICCgB&biw=1272&bih=617


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

electro wrks said:


> Call me sacrilegious on a DIY forum, but these days you could, for the same amount of money ($10,000 ?) or less, buy a used Leaf instead of building these trikes. Especially if you count something for labor. It will have much better range and speed, no problems licensing and insuring, wind rain and snow actually stay on the outside of the car, much safer (with air bags and real crumple zones that don't include part of your body), AC, heat ...
> 
> If you want to unleash your creative and DIY energies, try doing doing some customizing like these: https://www.google.com/search?q=cus...-MvNAhVO12MKHb78DmYQ_AUICCgB&biw=1272&bih=617



When you say "these trikes" I assume you are also talking about my trike as well. If you fail to see the point of designing and fabricating your own completely unique piece of mechanized art, you belong nowhere near this forum. Building a successful EV is in my mind one of the few ultimate statements of multidisciplinary engineering accomplishment. Out of professionalism I won't share how I truly feel about your comments.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

so that is a vote for sacrilegious then 

it is just information really, a lot of folks get gung-ho then realize they can buy pre-assembled often better performance and all legal and creature comforts (it is a very long list) for the same or less $$ with zero time investment.

It is worth knowing what is commercially available before building an EV, as they were not at ALL that available (i.e. less than 10k these days) a few short years ago, and a lot of DIY'ers are in it just to be driving an EV.

Certainly nothing wrong with building one from scratch, assuming you can get it on the road legally in your state, or for offroad purposes. You might even take advantage of now available used EV parts in the process, or you might covert some car you really like but want electric for one reason or another.

but information is hardly sacrilegious.

BTW, that is a cool trike.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

> Call me sacrilegious on a DIY forum, but these days you could, for the same amount of money ($10,000 ?) or less, buy a used Leaf instead of building these trikes.


Right, you can buy a used 3300 pound IMO energy-hogging Leaf for less.
However...

*) How much range can you get per unit of charge? How many solar panels would you need to buy to solar charge your car? How environmental (seriously) can a 3300+ pound relatively non-streamlined vehicle be vs. a purpose-built 1500 pound streamlined one?

*) How fast or exciting does a pillowy Nissan Leaf feel at speed (hint: compare to something like driving a motorcycle at the same speed)?

*) How much does it cost to customize a Leaf down the line or replace/exchange parts under the body/hood? What if you want to completely exchange/overhaul, say, the entire motor. Do you have enough knowledge of the car from the ground up and special tools to perform such labor? If you build from the ground up, you can make the car as modular as you please.

*) Is owning a Leaf really that much of a form of personal expression vs. building a car that looks and feels instantly recognizable? What's a really quick way to meet people as crazy and passionate as yourself?

*) If the basic design proves successful, there's always an ultimate possibility it could be mass produced for half what you built it for and use custom machinery (e.g. for custom curved sheet metal and curved frontal pillars) to greatly reduce weight ALA the Edison2 eVLC. How about $5000, motorcycle-level pricing for something that performs as an, if basic, 4 person car and unlike something like a Tata Nano, is fully electric, can hit 75-80 not 65, and is built to last?

*) How quickly can a 3300 pound vehicle do 60-0 or swerve around things vs. a 1500 pound one?

*) Insurance-wise? It's classified as a motorcycle which, even as custom, costs far less to insure than a car due to the lighter weight potentially causing far less damage to another vehicle in a crash.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

Also, shorter take, I'm honestly coming in as a motorcycle rider.
Oddly enough, creature comforts often do nothing but bore me and remove my focus from driving, sometimes even making it more dangerous by instilling a false sense of confidence. Even if they do make a fully automated driving vehicle with several inward-facing lounge chairs inside, I'd still take a/my motorcycle to work because it's fun.

When I'm in a vehicle, I love feeling the full, racey experience of the physics, not being suspended from it. Wind is more fun to cool with than AC. Feeling a drift, burnout, or a even slight brake slide is more amusing than having traction control or ABS kill it. I can understand some of these for driving in snow as safety there is a huge issue regardless of driving skill and concentration...but, fortunately, I'm too far South to need to worry. 

If I ever open-source or otherwise licensed the car for production, it would be to/for the type of people who would otherwise be riding motorcycles, but have and need to transport their families.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Mike

I agree with some of your points - if you want a nice toy - go to it

If you want economic transport - get a Leaf

_If the basic design proves successful, there's always an ultimate possibility it could be mass produced for half what you built it for and use custom machinery (e.g. for custom curved sheet metal and curved frontal pillars) to greatly reduce weight ALA the Edison2 eVLC. How about $5000, motorcycle-level pricing for something that performs as an, if basic, 4 person car and unlike something like a Tata Nano, is fully electric, can hit 75-80 not 65, and is built to last?_

This bit is just plain wrong - if you want to build something for the same price as a production machine - then you need production volumes

One question
Why three wheels? - 
I started my machine thinking about three wheels 
But I found that I would end up with a much more efficient package with four wheels

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-dubious-device-44370p7.html?highlight=duncan


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

mikesheiman said:


> sometimes even making it more dangerous by instilling a false sense of confidence.


that is true, though I tend to think experienced 2 wheel drivers are a bit more inoculated to the effects as it conditions you to using your brain and lots of observing/situational awareness as a piece of safety equipment.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

Duncan,
Firstly, I said "mass produced", implying production volumes.

Secondly, three wheels are street legal in the US without hundreds of thousands or more worth of safety tests required for 4 wheeled cars (air bags, several vehicles to demolish for crash testing, traction control and abs required, etc.)
3 wheeled makes it street legal.

What makes it any more a toy than a simple electric motorcycle like a Brammo Enertia is a toy?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Yes I though it was something like - "three wheels lets me jump past all of the regs"

Although I think you will find the regs in the USA are real loosey goosey anyway

You don't seem to need the sort of testing you are talking about unless you are going for a production run
I think it varies State to State

That's OK - a good answer - but from an actual engineering POV three is not as good as four

As far as being a "Toy" is concerned - it's either transportation - or it's a toy!
If you were here (and the bloody thing was back together) I would give you a drive in my "toy"


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

3 wheels in the United States will classify it as a motorcycle. My vehicle has passed a DOT inspection and has an Iowa assigned VIN number, as a motorcycle. 

The target audience for my vehicle is exactly people like Mike, already a motorcyclist, likes wind in his face, like to do burnouts/donuts/drift and likes full control of the vehicle. 

An electric Ford Focus can be found for high $8k low $9k for low mileage off lease vehicle - which is less stylistically challenged than the Leaf. Maybe electro works can take one of those and add focus ST body parts to it and make it.... a ford focus with st body parts? Be creative!


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

Fair enough...it's indeed because I don't have the bizarre amount of money needed to get something that would pass regulation.

Though, come to think of it, the 2 wheeled 500cc motorcycle I've used to commute to work for years obviously doesn't meet car regulation either and was used exclusively for work commuting. 



> As far as being a "Toy" is concerned - it's either transportation - or it's a toy! If you were here (and the bloody thing was back together) I would give you a drive in my "toy"


Well, that are the stats behind your toy (when working)?

Sometimes I think people highly underestimate their creations by comparing them to the luxuriousness and/or performance of production cars.
To me anything that hold 60 mph, can handle rain, and has a reliable range of 1.5 times the commute length and a place to recharge (e.g. within an 8 hour workday) is fair game. Heck, I've even commuted a handful of times on a 35 mph 50cc scooter, but the actual time it took to get to work was an issue as I had to take indirect side routes to/from work.

For now it's not a reliable commuter due to lack of battery pack capacity and perhaps somewhat weight (300 pounds by trimming the battery pack and 200 by lightening the floor (admittedly ended up with duplicate beams trying to fit the CRX seats) and using lighter seats could see me down at 1000 pounds not 1500).

Again, the motorcycle was a "toy", even more-so considering it was extremely uncomfortable to drive in the rain and far more dangerous stability-wise than a trike, but it was my main commuter for year. What, exactly, do you think makes the difference?


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

"it's either transportation - or it's a toy!"

I actually liked that a lot 

I've done the year-round motorcycle commute in rain and snow for countless years, no biggie, still beats walking, dress/plan appropriately.

What counts as transportation is obviously a personal preference.

but duncan is correct that trikes are not ideal feats of engineering, i.e. the trex is almost twice as slow 0-60 as the k1600 with the same engine (heavier, poor weight distribution for traction). plus it is the worst of both worlds for efficiency, as the trex gets like 24mpg where the k1600 is good for 40mpg. That larger frontal area and drag eat up a lot of power at speed.


being narrow has a lot of other advantages too. but if life has you constrained to 3 or more wheels, and you can build the 3 wheeler with less red-tape, then go for it. 

If a reverse trike is built with proper aerodynamic engineering, i.e. it has one wheel in back for aerodynamic reasons (I'm a big fan of form follows function), then that is cool. i.e. I wouldn't mind an electrified velomobile, but even that creates new issues i.e. crosswind stability http://www.ihpva.org/projects/tools/cwind_stat_stab.doc

but a trike simply designed to do donuts really has no claim on efficiency.

OB me1003, it would move a velomobile quicker and faster than you would care to drive it.

again, just information.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

> but duncan is correct that trikes are not ideal feats of engineering, i.e. the trex is almost twice as slow 0-60 as the k1600 with the same engine


Ah but, you see

*) It's built for per-person efficiency at cruising speed, not acceleration. Think: a commuter bus, only much smaller.

*) I'm building a fully enclosed trike which, due to low drag coefficient that counters the higher surface area, carries none of the aerodynamics issues something like a TREX does. This may not make it nearly as fast for 0-60 as a two wheeler (still much heavier than a motorcycle), but does make it as or more efficient at cruising at around 50-60, which is what I'd actually be doing in my usual early morning and mid afternoon work commuting

*) It holds 4 people, not 2. When carrying a family, the per-person efficiency is cut in half. That's also part of the reason it's not narrow...and why I didn't simply, say, build a recumbent tadem/inline motorcycle with 2 wheels in the front for stability only

*) It's extremely low to the ground and wide (again not narrow) for aforementioned crosswind issues and better handling. I has a similar stance to a modern Corvette, but with rear seats.

*) A featherweight velomobile (extremely fast and/or energy efficient) sounds awesome for one-person commuting and probably as efficient or more per person, even, than my or a comparable trike. The issue is it's both street illegal and bike-path illegal at speed...and there are no reserved lanes for such thing, opening the door wide open for an ignorant freeway or feeder road driver to run right over you even if it was legal, at least in the USA


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

mikesheiman said:


> *) It's built for per-person efficiency at cruising speed


That sounds quite a reasonable function to build a form around.

fyi, did you know the tesla came with jump seats in back, making it a 7 seater?


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

I would consider mine to be both transportation and toy. 

As I've stated before its meant to be a fun vehicle to zip around town and to/from work while using no fuel. The energy consumption is just a tick over 200mpge when driving it gently (assuming 33.7kw/gallon of fuel, 5kwh gets me about 30 miles. I would consider it to have greater utility and be safer than a motorcycle. The additional power I'm adding switching to a powerful brushless motor to do donuts will only make it slightly more efficient if I can keep my foot out of it 

I definitely like the idea to haul 4 people, as it now becomes very practical. If my commute to work was further than across town, involved multiple people, and included some highway driving I would have designed a canopy and made it as slippery as possible to run 70mph continuously. Here in Iowa nobody carpools.


----------



## electro wrks (Mar 5, 2012)

You seem to be an exceptional builder of a marginally practical vehicle. For the average person, I still say, if you want an EV, save yourself a lot of grief and buy a used Leaf. This would not be possible just a few years ago. Times have changed and people have more choices. Today a person can buy a used Leaf (or as you point out, other makes) for ~$10k and drive it home and to work-TODAY!

And, for the avid DIYer what a great starting point for modifications:
-increased battery capacity/range 
-aero add-ons
-body mods- chopping
-remove the roof/ make it a convertible
-van or camper van mods
-my favorite, so far, a pickup (something like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EoKcQMgcUc

If you think your way of building and promoting EVs is the best or only way, you're just exhibiting the same narrow minded behavior as some ICE people have towards EVs.


----------



## dcb (Dec 5, 2009)

electro wrks said:


> -my favorite, so far, a pickup


lol, most poser mods are not practical. Nope, the only mod to my leaf is a tow hitch.


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

> Fyi, did you know the tesla came with jump seats in back, making it a 7 seater?


Yes, and I've followed Tesla since the roadster days.

They do a great job of proving EVs can be high performance and selling cars 

However, they IMO leave a gap for the field of efficient (energy use per mph) highway-capable family cars, even if you consider using all the seats at once (which I doubt the average owner realistically does).
I mean, the Tesla is an over 4500 pound machine...physics isn't exactly on its side for efficiency.

I strongly believe both types of machines have their purposes and should be available to the public.




> -increased battery capacity/range
> -aero add-ons
> -remove the roof/ make it a convertible


Turns out, the roof is already designed as half-removable and a 
battery capacity/lithium upgrade is definitely planned once I prove the electrical system's long term reliability.

Aero add-ons sound amusing...I'm actually trying to figure out an air-(re)direction system to both cool passengers and let air out the back to fill the vacuum behind the car and improve efficiency, for example.
Any other ideas?



> For the average person, I still say, if you want an EV, save yourself a lot of grief and buy a used Leaf. This would not be possible just a few years ago.


 Indeed! It's one of those things you can just hop into and it instantly feels like home...just like an ICE...in most ways.

Although also I see huge promise in the idea that much lighter, more aerodynamic, and simpler cars. Not as a replacement for comfort-laden cars like the Leaf, but as second cars for short-to-medium length (think: 30 mile or less) trips and commutes where low weight is important for stop and go efficiency as something more luxurious could handle longer high speed drives. And/or a car that, if mass produced, could provide ridiculously cheap transportation for those who couldn't afford to buy or maintain cars before.

There are a few social issues I'm trying to address here as well...the myth that you need a seriously heavy car and complex vehicle commute and that simple cars (or motorcycle) are boring when they can be both more exciting to drive and more efficient. If I never owned a motorcycle and commuted on a motorcycle, there's no way I'd have been compelled to try building this, but I have done the motorcycle commuting bid now for years.

* Honestly, I'm a huge fan of the EVLC Edison 2, which IMO does a much better job at the same/"my" goal *(about 4kw hold 60 mph and the car carries 4 adults up to over 6 feet tall using a similarly powered motor).

*Problem is, the eVLC is not available to the public! *
So I'm rolling my own admittedly cheap imitation with a similarly powered engine, heavy tear-drop shape, and so on.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Mike

If you want a four seater a trike is a bad idea

Ignoring the lethal single wheel at the front models a trike has a single rear wheel - right in the middle where the passengers want to be!

This means that a trike will always be longer and require more material than an equivalent four wheeler

That is before we get into the limitations of having to do all of your roll control on one axle and the inevitability of driving through that pothole the rest of us can drive around!

The exception would be a "leaning Trike" - that could be very narrow and very aerodynamic because its stability when slow and stopped could enable an aero shell to be used

Such a beast could be great fun and as fast and more efficient than a motorbike


----------



## mikesheiman (Jun 19, 2016)

Yes, Duncan, we all know trikes are longer.
You know what else is longer?
A boat tail shape that increases efficiency at cruising speed.
A configuration that's indeed DOT/registration legal without being based on an existing car.
A setup that provides an instant sense of connection with the road.
A setup that only requires 3 tires/wheels/bearings to build.
A setup that allows an easy/cheap chain drive with no need for a transaxle in the rear.

And yes, it's debatably heavier, although you have a wheel less weight the frame is a fair bit e.g. 70 pounds heavier in my case.

Far as losing weight, I'd mod the batteries, floor, seats, wheels...long before I mess with the third wheel into four.


----------



## dain254 (Oct 8, 2015)

electro wrks said:


> You seem to be an exceptional builder of a marginally practical vehicle. For the average person, I still say, if you want an EV, save yourself a lot of grief and buy a used Leaf. This would not be possible just a few years ago. Times have changed and people have more choices. Today a person can buy a used Leaf (or as you point out, other makes) for ~$10k and drive it home and to work-TODAY!
> 
> And, for the avid DIYer what a great starting point for modifications:
> -increased battery capacity/range
> ...




I still feel as though you are missing the point - I can certainly agree with the marginal practicality, it is marginally practical in the same way a motorcycle is. What it does differently and better than a Leaf is offer an experience, and that is what I am building. 

I have absolutely zero interest in taking a Leaf and modifying it in any way. I've considered taking a MIEV and making it into a pickup, but mostly for novelty as it won't tow my boat or racing trailer. 

A near future project will include taking a factory five 818 and building a vehicle that competes directly with the tesla roadster. This would likely use a Chevy Volt drive motor (or 2, 1 front and 1 rear) as they are 150hp compared to maybe 107 in the Leaf. But looking at it from your point of view, another vehicle of marginal practicality when I could just buy a Leaf... 

I don't consider myself a "DIYer". I'm only looking to do things that I can do better or cheaper than what is currently offered in the open market. I don't see any 2 seat side x side electric trikes for sale, and my trike is quite a bit smaller than a regular car, so it does fit in a couple motorcycle spaces at work, which are right by the building!


----------



## prensel (Feb 21, 2010)

I have a AC-23 motor with UMOC controller. This is a bit too heavy for my 3-wheeler project so maybe we can swap motors, my AC23 for your ME1003 ?


----------



## Sterling2015 (Jun 24, 2015)

Great Reverse trike project.

Have always been inspired by T-Rex, Enyo replicas in TX, vintage Morgan, etc. These versions make awesome mid-engine sports cars (tagged as motorcycle).

Tri-Hawk was a great 60s kit, Honda in the back, Karman Gia front suspension, fiberglass, all weather cabin.

Rhatmobile reverse trike, fastest pedal/electric hybrid in the world. Composite aero body, all weather. (60mph +)

A set up reverse trike can have supercar performance. (0-60 under 5sec and great handling) 

Or a sleeper super Leaf? Twin Warp 9s, Dual AMR, Powerglide w/IRS?


----------



## Vhclbldr (Feb 8, 2014)

And then there is also the IndyCycle...
http://www.indycycle.net


----------

