# new AC motor specs from TEMR



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

the cat is starting to come out of the bag. we have mentioned that topeka electric motor has been designing a new ac motor. we now have performance specs and dimensional specs. topeka electric has been working on a proprietary motor with Baldor Electric Motor. we are also working with representatives of Curtis controllers so the motors and controllers are compatible. the controller we will be using is the new 1238R, 650 amp.

see attached files for the specs about the motor. we are not ready to release pricing yet. we are about 5 to 6 weeks before we have our first motor in hand. we are still working on final details.

those who are interested in purchasing the motor should contact us. we will keep your names on file and notify you when we are ready to take orders. 

thanks 
kevin
topeka electric motor inc.
ev designs dept.
[email protected]


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

motor guy said:


> We are also working with representatives of Curtis controllers so the motors and controllers are compatible. the controller we will be using is the new 1238R, 650 amp.


Ah, so is that controller available now, or at least will be ready in 6 weeks or so?



> see attached files for the specs about the motor.


Interesting. 37 kW continuous (presumably not limited to one hour, all day); we should get well over 80 kW peak from the Curtis 1238R (assuming it's limited to 130 V like the 1238-7501). That should be a better fit for medium sized conversions.

It's physically quite large; I guess the windings need to be quite thick, and it has a quite high continuous rating. Any idea what it will weigh?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

yes the controller is about 4 weeks away. yes the motor is continuous rated.it has a dirty duty coating on the exterior. similar to powder coating.
it is a little larger than the the 9" motors. we are designing this particular motor for 1/2 ton trucks, for delivery trucks. the motor size can be made smaller or larger.

thanks kevin


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

we are working out the final details on the deminsion specs. they include threaded holes in the end of both shafts and the mounting bolt circle. this new design comes with sealed bearings and are oversized for extra load capibilities. rating is IP54 

thanks kevin
topeka electric motor inc.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

motor guy said:


> hello all
> 
> yes the controller is about 4 weeks away. yes the motor is continuous rated.it has a dirty duty coating on the exterior. similar to powder coating.
> it is a little larger than the the 9" motors. we are designing this particular motor for 1/2 ton trucks, for delivery trucks. the motor size can be made smaller or larger.
> ...


Kevin,

Are you working on a lighter system for cars as well? If so;

Using the same Curtis controller as HPEV AC-50 will probably upgrade to, how would your system be different? IE (Pricing, eff, or weight)

I am only asking because I was interested in the AC-50 but thought the power was somewhat limited for my taste. I have been waiting for the 144V 650A controller from Curtis before I purchase. But if you had a more efficient motor at the same weight or preferably less than HPEV I would be very interested in it. I am also located in Kansas.

Jacob


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello jacob

the ac motor we are building will fit into our s10 if we wanted. it is a little larger than the 9 '' style motors on the market now. we were trying to design lots of torque and very high eff. rating. our torque rating is almost 150 continuous. if memory serves me correctly our torque output at 600 amps was 295 ftlbs up to around 1900 rpm. this motor will spin/run to 5000 rpm but the ratings start dropping off after 2200 rpm. we designed this motor to be used in production autos and trucks for highway use in overdrive. to be able for longer trips. we are calculating about 150 to 240 amps while in overdrive at 65 mph. 

eff is very high on this motor because of its design. i dont have an exact weight yet,and the pricing is some of the final topics that we are finallizing.

now on the new curtis 144volt, is that input or out put figuring the rms value, because on ac 3 phase motors are rated plus or minus 10% on voltage from rated nametag voltage. they will still run with higher voltage than 10%.but there are some issues that happen when you do. higher torque with lots higher amps and considerable more heat. you need to stay with in the service factor amps. or you can damage windings.

thanks kevin
please keep asking questions, you can also call me at temr 1-785-233-4750.
instead of going from memory i need to bring the motor data folder home. to be able to give you guys exact #'s.
again thanks kevin


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2011)

Get that motor to run in the 6K or better range if you can. 5K is ok but 6k or 6.5k would be better. Might make a nice motor for a VW Bus. 

Pete


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

I don't see a weight specification in there - do you have that?

Does it use the same adapter mounting pattern as a 9" WarpDrive?

Might make a good match with an ElectraGlide.


----------



## RoughRider (Aug 14, 2008)

the motor is 18inch in diameter, right?

torque numbers are nice...somethink you can play with...

5000rpm is not bad, but 6000 and more would be better...

is it aircooled?

motor is much bigger than the AC50...

constant torque is higher than the *peaktorque* of the AC50

the questions are:

1. weight
2. price


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

i will try to answer some of the questions that we are getting.

the motor is 18inch in diameter, right? the end plates are 18 in diameter, the barrel on the motor is only 15.19in.

torque numbers are nice...somethink you can play with...

5000rpm is not bad, but 6000 and more would be better...i am asking this question to better help and not being a smart a**. are you wanting the higher rpm for racing application or for direct drive apps?

is it aircooled?the motor is rated as a TENVAO, which simply means - totally enclosed non ventalated air over. IP54 rating

motor is much bigger than the AC50... the larger size is for the more windings and and more back iron, new rotor design. in order to be tenvao and still have the high torque and hp ratings with the 94.5 eff rating.

constant torque is higher than the *peaktorque* of the AC50 the horse power at 5000 rpm is 50 hp, but the torque falls to 60 ftlbs.

the questions are:

1. weight we are still waiting on the complete build sheet, which lists the bearings, weight,and many other items.
2. price it is coming, we know but there are many factors that need to be thought through to be fair to the end user. please be patient.

any questions please feel free to call me 
1-785-233-4750
kevin


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

From the drawing it appears the motor diameter is 15" with 18" flange, and length shaft end to shaft end is about 25", correct? If so, that is HUGE for most car conversions. Weight must be quite high also if the above dimensions are correct. It has much more torque than the AC50, no comparison, but no comparison on size and weight either it seems. You remarked it is a "bit larger than a 9" motor". Am I mis-reading the drawing dimensions, or is there also a smaller model??

My understanding is that the 144V on the controller Curtis is supposedly working on is the nominal battery pack voltage, so I would guess it would have a higher max DC voltage. For example, the 1238-7501 is for a nominal 96V pack but has max DC voltage of 130V.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I see, so it is a much larger and more powerful motor than the HPEVS AC50 (8.5" diam), for larger vehicles. Breakdown torque 479 ft-lb!


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Kind of optimistic, no? A 37 cell pack would give around 125V rest voltage after full charge, leaving very little room for regen with 130V controller max. That will likely sag to about 110V or so at 650A pack current, so more like 70kW, 90+ H.P.
Edit:


> if memory serves me correctly our torque output at 600 amps was 295 ftlbs up to around 1900 rpm.


 So shaft power would be 295*1900*2pi/(60*0.7376) = 79.5kW or 106 H.P.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello tomofreno

you are correct. it is larger, but way more power. like i said in some earlier post is that this motor is designed for larger vehicles such as s10, ranger, and 1/2 ton trucks.
we have talked to baldor about smaller units, and it is possible. but right now we are going after the delivery and personal larger truck. we trying to break away from the idea that you have to use smaller vehicles. another reason we designed the new motor with the high eff.
yes it has high break down torge, now if we could get a controller to give us the 1000amps, look out

i just spoke with the curtis guys and asked them about the 144 volt unit, yes it is in development stages. he didnt have any time frame of when it will be released.
i asked peter from global industries to come onto the DIY and tell everyone about the ac controllers. i think there is a misconseption about how they work. if you put in 100vdc volts you get 70.7vac rms out put. so when you design your new ac vehilce and use their controller you need to know these items, it is not like dc.

thanks kevin


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> i asked peter from global industries to come onto the DIY and tell everyone about the ac controllers. i think there is a misconseption about how they work. if you put in 100vdc volts you get 70.7vac rms out put.


 So I guess you are saying the line voltage amplitude is about equal DC battery pack voltage, so rms voltage is that divided by sqrt2. Then I guess the motor is delta connected so phase voltage is equal line voltage and phase current is line current divided by sqrt3, or a bit less than 375A max amplitude, 265A rms. 

I assume your comment that max torque was out to “about 1900” rpm is for the Curtis controller 130VDC input limit, and the “knee” of the torque-speed curve would be out at higher rpm with the “144V” controller? Maybe around 2300 rpm if the max input to the controller is 160VDC. Seems the motor performance is quite limited by the present Curtis controller, and will give fairly anemic performance in a unloaded 1/2 ton pickup accelerating to 60 mph up a freeway on-ramp. The higher voltage one will help, but it really needs more current as you said - and more voltage for pep at highway speeds. Of course less performance than that is very acceptable to some, or for a commercial vehicle. Thanks for posting on it. Look forward to hearing more on your progress!

My conversion using an HPEVS AC50: http://www.evalbum.com/3060


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello tomofreno

the new baldor motor is designed with 72 vac 3 phase. on a 4 pole special designed rotor and back iron and windings. 3 phase motors are plus or minus 10% for optimum power. any more voltage and there are gains and loses, under 10% there are more loses.

on the curtis controller 1238R 650 amp, the out put is a rated rms value. not a peak. our nominal voltage for the pack is 102.4 vdc input with the rated rms out put of 72.39 vac 3 phase voltage.

our new motor is not designed to run on the 144 vdc input which is 101.8 vac rms. on a scope 72 volt has a peak of about 101.8 vac. but the controller out put is rms and our motor is designed to run on rms voltage.

we also designed this motor with lower voltage so a builder could use less cells. to help cut costs.

32 cells x 2.8 = 89.6 x.707 =63.34 rms
32 cells x 3.2 =102.4 x .707 rms =72.39 vac.
32x 3.5 = 112.0 x =.707 = 79.18 rms.
plus or minus 10% on the motor is 64.8 vac -79.18 vac.

we are useing 64 cells for a nominal 102.4 vdc and 400ahr

because of the snow and bad weather i was not able to finish up some of the details with baldor, hopefully tommorow.

thanks kevin


to help cut costs


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> 3 phase motors are plus or minus 10% for optimum power. any more voltage and there are gains and loses, under 10% there are more loses.


 Yes, but the motor controller varies V/f (rms voltage/frequency) to vary vehicle speed, so it will be run at much lower than 72VAC at slower speeds. What prevents the motor from being run at higher voltage? Are you just saying it will not operate at optimum efficiency there? I guess you are planning a lower speed vehicle with only 32 cells and 102VDC. Not for quick acceleration onto a highway.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello 

just because we are going to run 72 volt that doesnt mean less hp and torque. or less responsive.
the motor was designed for that voltage.lets just the same as; say a 10 hp 3 phase 215T frame 4 pole. this 10 hp can be hooked 230-460 vac. both voltages still develop the same hp,except the amps are higher on lower voltage. 
now we are back to the rotor design, it depends on how it is designed and how much current it can handle with the amount slip that is built into the rotor. this is were we get eff.
current is torque. the more current you can induce into a rotor without blowing the end rings off it. the more torque you get.
more current makes torque and torque builds rotor speed which makes accerlation.

thanks kevin

i like good converstion/debate on the tech side. it always teaches me some thing new or reminds of something i had forgotton or had not thought about in while.
thanks again


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> current is torque. the more current you can induce into a rotor without blowing the end rings off it. the more torque you get.
> more current makes torque and torque builds rotor speed which makes accerlation.


 Yes, and you need more voltage to put high current through the motor at higher rpm, which is why max available torque falls off at higher rpm. That can limit acceleration at highways speeds, say 60 mph or higher.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

this new baldor 72 vac motor is designed for the 0-2300 rpm torque curve on the new auto transmissions. this motor was not designed for racing applications. or direct drive applications. we have already talked to baldor about racing applications and smaller motors for smaller vehicles. but our priority is on the larger vehicles right now. there will be different designs in the future.


we are designing the 4l60E auto trans in our new build. 2003 silverado. we have a stand alone computer system just for the automatic transmission. we are using 64 cells. 32 seriesed then paralelled for a nominal voltage of 102vdc at 400 ahrs. 

our thoughts on designing the new motor at the lower voltage was to help with the cost of getting larger lithium packs for higher volt motors, this motor was designed to have 148 ftlbs of torque at 362 amps from 0-1920 rpm. it will develope up to 400 ftlbs with an input of 72 vac at 1000 amps.

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I guess I'm missing something. 72 volts times 1000 amps is 72KW, not counting losses that's 96HP. That's not going to move a Silverado very well.


----------



## Automcdonough (Sep 1, 2010)

I'm looking at this from the perspective of moving a smaller car direct-drive style. The higher the RPM is allowed, the higher diff ratio I can use to multiply torque. So even if it makes virtually no usable power at all at high rpm, it'd be nice to know if it can spin that high without flying apart. 

Also.. dumb question here:
This is pure induction motor, not BLDC, correct?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello


as of right know all i have is the 0-5000 rpm specs,for torque and hp. i can get ahold of the engineers at baldor and find out what max rpms. all of this snow we had yesterday has slowed us down, some of the folks at baldor havent made it in, and now some are sick. hopefully tommorow we can make some things happen.


Also.. dumb question here:there are no dumb questions,and if i cant answer the question i will find out, there are alot of smarter people than me that i deal with each day. and when we get the answer for you, we also learn something.
This is pure induction motor, not BLDC, correct? this is a 3 phase induction motor.no brushes,no slip rings,no shorting necklace,no commutator.

thanks kevin


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

there is a good chance that the prototype will start to be built around the end of next week. the encoder is being moved inside the motor,instead of mounted on the outside of the opp drive end bell.
we will keep you posted.

thanks kevin


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all 

we just got the weight and bearings sizes and a few other bits of info. but before we go any further we want to clarifiy a couple of bullet points. ac motors don't work well when the windings are over saturated. plus or minus 10%. of nominal RMS voltage is optimal. this motor will work best from 64.8 rms vac to 79.2 rms vac. 

yes, our motor is larger and will weigh more than most ac motor kits. but lets compare apples to apples, our unit is 50 hp continuous at 362 amps at 72 rms vac. 148 ftlbs of torque from 0 to 2000 rpm at 72 rms vac at 362 amps. at 1760 rpm and at 574 amps it developes 230 ftlbs of torque and roughly 80 hp at this point. our unit is IP54 with some IP55 features. our bearings are 6312 2rs with an additional lip seal in front of them. 1.625 out put shafts. our motor is tenvao and dirty duty coated. similar to powder coat. 94.5% eff. even at 150% overload it is still 94%eff. our motor has a 50 hp rating at 5000 rpm and 55 ft lbs torque. our motor weighs 490 lbs because of these features. 

we are designing this motor for the 1/2 ton truck or larger car market. yes we have already talked with baldor about smaller units. 

we chose the 72 volt to be able to use less of a battery pack, not like the higher voltage kits. battery packs take up alot of room. and weight. 

this motor won't work for every application, this is our starting point. 

in summary, more continous horsepower, more continous torque at lower rpm and less amps at a lower voltage. 

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Pack size has more to do with kwhs than voltage. If you want 50 miles of range you'll need the same volume and weight of batteries if you use 72 volts or 144 volts, you just use more smaller cells with the higher voltage. Your motor weight also causes a penalty as it takes up a lot of weight that could be used for batteries. In my mind what you've done is build something like a heavy equipment motor, it can run forever at moderate power output but has a poor power to weight ratio. I'm not sure it makes sense to pull a 500lb V8 out of a truck and put in 500lbs of motor when 200lbs of motor would do the job better. One of the great things about electric motors is they are usually much smaller than an ICE at similar power ratings.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all.

let me explain what i meant to say about the 72 volt.

first we chose the 72 volt because of the lower voltage is safer, next  for our new ac motor we used the lower voltage to compensate for the rms output value of the controller. you have to build the motor to fit the controller. our motor is designed for 72 volt with high torque at low rpm. if you were to put 72 vdc on the series motors that are used for the ev market, you will think it is under powered. you need to put 120 vdc or higher to actually get some decent power. that is where the larger battery pack came from in my statement.

we are able achieve a higher eff. rating with our new ac design than any dc series motor.

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Power is always going to be limited by volts times amps. Your lower voltage pack will demand more amps from the batteries for the same power levels, and you get fewer amp hours out of a cell at higher current rates. The current limit of your controller will limit the amount of power you can get. What is the max current your controller can handle?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello 
the curtis 1238R is rated at 650 amps for a 2 min rating. at 574 amps our new ac developes 230 ft lbs of torque. if we had a controller on the market that could produce 1200 amps it will develope over 400 ft lbs.

our new motor went into schedule/production toady. 

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

So with the available controller you've got a 500lb motor that puts out about 60hp peak. I doubt you'll ever find a 1200 amp AC controller, they typically seem to use higher voltage and lower current. Tesla gets 250hp and 300ftlbs from a 70lb motor at 375V.


----------



## Evilsizer (Jan 25, 2010)

this will prolly follow as the "dumb question" to the thread... why not just save weight by water cooling the motor?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

i know by stating some more thoughts we will be opening another can of worms, but anyway.

thats not a dumb question,we might have look into that option when we start production for sales. the first unit is our prototype for testing, after testing the unit we will make some changes,like aluminum end brackets instead of cast iron. maybe water cool, we might even be able to cut the iron and the winding down some. if you havent notice on our performance sheet,this motor is 94% eff. at 150% overload,at rpms under 2300.at 72 volt. the bearing sizes are very large in this unit,they are almost 5 lbs heavier per bearing than what other companies are doing. we did this to keep ball speed down. we started out to try and big something bullet proof, time will tell.

yes this motor is bigger and heavier, but with this unit we are looking to the larger vehicles. delivery. almost every home in the usa has a 1/2 ton truck they use. yes and if we shave 100 lbs we will weigh the same as a series 13 in.

this motor will run to 5000 rpm at 50 hp and still have 60 ftlbs of torque.

another reason we designed the motor for the lower rpm is because we are useing a transmission, for the troque multiplication. with the 4l60E trans, the gas engine runs at 2300 rpm or less under normal driving and delivering conditions all day. so what if it doesnt run 100 mph, you cant deliver or go to the grocery store at that speed. we still get 94% eff. in that range.

we also dont have to run this unit at 3000 to 6000 rpm to get a good eff. #, like the ac units for ev. remember rpm kills. and yes we are looking to a smaller unit. for smaller vehicles.

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

A motor that size with such low power levels doesn't need water cooling.
Here's a 3/4 ton F250 long bed super cab using twin Impulse 9's, about 220lbs of motor, at 288V with a Z2K, and he says it's acceleration is slow and top speed around 65mph. 
http://evalbum.com/2898
With your lower voltage and lower current you will have even less power available and more than twice the motor weight. Almost no one runs a Warp 13.


----------



## etischer (Jun 16, 2008)

The beauty of AC is the flat hp curve, limiting the voltage to 72 volts takes this away because you have to go into field weakening right away. 

I think the EV motors built by Siemens are perfect. These motors were designed from the ground up to be water cooled and light weight. The Ford Siemens motor I'm using is 143 pounds and pulls 120hp. Even at 8k rpm I can still pull around 80hp. 

I would use this design as a starting point, not an air cooled industrial motor.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Well the air cooled Tesla Roadster motor blows the Siemens away at 70lbs and 250hp  I agree that most industrial motors are way overbuilt since they are designed to run continuously for years. However HPEV is taking Leeson air cooled industrial motors, smaller ones, and changing the windings and end plates. At this point they are limited by the available controllers, not cooling.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Motorguy, how about a 5500 full size Ford cargo van. I have a 92 I'm thinking of converting for local jobs. Connecting it to the automatic trans would be great. I have the 300ci inline 6 in it now. Don't know the torque specs but it's a hoss and pulls the van pretty well.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello electricar

i dont see why it wouldnt work, try to find out what the torque values are at the rpms you want to run at.
thanks electricar.

------------

why would you want a 6000 rpm motor when the gearing in the vehicle only needs to run at 2300 or less to get the job done, are you changing the rear gear to compensate for the higher rpm needed to get to the knee of the torque curve.? when useing a transmission.

how much horse power and torque are generated in an ice at less than 2000 rpm? this powers around alot of vehicles every day in this range. how often do you run your ice at 4000 rpm at its full hp and torque?

we are not designing this particular motor for race applications.it is for delivery apps. larger vehicles.

there are alot of rules of thumb out there on motor sizes and requirements, we tend to use 6-8 hp per 1000 lbs in a continuous rating. motor,controller,batteries all have to be able to do this continuous.

yes i looked at the truck that had the 2 - 9'' motors, 4 wheel drive really increases the drag coeff. as well as the rolling coeff. if i read the article correctly, his truck weighed 8000 lbs. he would need at least 64 hp continuous. how much do we figure for in eff. motors at that rpm? it all goes back to having the hp and torgue in the right power band to work with the gear ratio. it is no different than useing an ice with not enough rear gear or to much rear gear. i do admire him for building the truck awsome.

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Ultimately it all goes back to the power the battery pack can provide, and how much of that the controller can pass to the motor. At 72 volts and 650 amps you don't have enough power to move a heavy vehicle in a reasonable manner. Especially as your 72 volts will sag significantly at 650 amps. You really think a large vehicle will move well with less than 60 max hp?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

well how much power does it take below 2300 rpm, hp and torque. as you know hp is only a calculation or torque and rpm.

also please tell us how much hp and torque are developed below 2300 rpm on an ice.to power a 1/2 ton truck.

because at 72 vac, plus or minus 10% voltage and 650 amps we have over 230 ft lbs of torque. this is all below 2300 rpm.

thanks kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Depends on the motor of course but I'd think most truck motors will be over 60hp and 230ftlbs of torque at 2000 RPM. Certainly the high torque from 0 RPM will help but I'm not sure with your voltage and current limitations if it will be enough. I guess you'll just have to put it in a truck and see what happens.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Ok here's your pack. Let's see how this would work out. 78 Calb SE200AHA, 26S3P gives you 600A @ 1C and almost 50Kw. With this pack you're not going to see much sag for normal driving. Towing or hauling a half ton load though makes it more taxing. This vehicle weighs now about 4300 lbs.

My S10 weighs 4147lbs now but is a much lower profile and drag cd than a full size van. It takes about 450-500wh/mile running lead. With the lithium I'm thinking I'd save maybe 75wh/mile for the same weight. With the huge wind profile of this thing I suspect it's going to be 500-650wh/mile, maybe more. So we'd be looking at a mileage of 76 miles at 650, 100 miles at 500 and with an added 1000lb's cargo, maybe 60 miles at 800wh/mile. That's not bad if I it could be done.

In an E150 van it may be difficult to add the batteries outside the normal storage area as it's a 1200lb pack with some bulk. The fuel tank is 25 gallons so that's 150lbs of fuel plus the tank weight. Losing the 300ci engine will save some weight also but I have no clue how all this would net out after adding the battery weight. I think it's going to be a bit of a challenge to get so many batteries even in a full size truck or van. Then again it I haven't looked at placing them underneath with removable floor panels for access.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> So with the available controller you've got a 500lb motor that puts out about 60hp peak. I doubt you'll ever find a 1200 amp AC controller, they typically seem to use higher voltage and lower current. Tesla gets 250hp and 300ftlbs from a 70lb motor at 375V.


Now that's a friggin motor right there!


----------



## etischer (Jun 16, 2008)

50hp is not going to be adequate for a 2 ton truck. 

RPM is how you make HP. This motor you are designing can do 230 ft lbs at 1760 RPM. Why not increase the voltage and have it do 230 ft lbs at 3520 rpm. Right there you doubled your horsepower practically for free. I suppose you are limited to on the shelf inverters, but increasing the motor without increasing the inverter doesn't do anything but add weight. I assume you are designing this motor to match the curtis inverter?





motor guy said:


> hello electricar
> 
> i dont see why it wouldnt work, try to find out what the torque values are at the rpms you want to run at.
> thanks electricar.
> ...


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

50hp is not going to be adequate for a 2 ton truck.it is a 1/2 ton truck,2003 silverado.  


you are correct we are designing it with the controller that is availilable now . yes and if and when the higher voltage comes out it is just a winding change to fit the new rms voltage of the new controller.

there are lots of items to ponder on when you are designing a new ???? anything. 

we are mounting the batteries under the truck betwwen the frame and trans and driveshaft. we are using 64 -200 amp hi powers.32 seriesed packs then paralelled. for a nominal voltage of 102.4 at 400amphr.

well if this doesnt work, i totally buffaloed the baldor and curtis engineers,and they are a lot smarter than i am.









thanks kevin


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello elecrticar

how much highway driving are you or do you travel with your van.and if you do construction work, set your van up with a charger that does 120/220 vac. so at the job site plug in and then be ready for the next run.

remember most delivery or construction vehicles are fast even with an ice. if we want fast lets build fast.

let me know if i can help

thanks kevin


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I'm thinking of use for a service truck or local construction work. We have two towns nearby so most work is within 30 miles. Yes the dual voltage charger is the thing to do. And my guys can rig up a 240V plug for it so on a construction site it'll be ready to go quickly. Thing is it's an E150. I only buy 250's now but that was the first one and now is only used for a backup if needed. 

I just don't really have a good idea of it's wh/mile at this point. Haven't really looked into it but could probably find one on evalbum. But I really wanted to do direct drive via 2:1 reduction so the motor wouldn't strain so much to get it rolling. However lots of torque could eliminate that as well. And it's a lot of money to invest for a AC system and decent pack.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

motor guy said:


> hello all
> 
> 50hp is not going to be adequate for a 2 ton truck.it is a 1/2 ton truck,2003 silverado.


But it weighs at least 2 tons, more if it's actually loaded.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello electricar

you say you would like to direct drive and a 2 to 1 ratio output. can i ask why you wouldnt want to use the transmission? this is the best torque generation mutiplier you can get. let the gears do it for you. 

look at a semi tractor, low rpm and lots of forward gears, to keep the diesel engine in its power band. thats why we are useing the 4l60E with a stand along controller. to maximize the shift points and line presures to stay within the motors power band.

we have also talked to the baldor guys about building the adaptor plates to fit the new electronic transmissions, be it gm,ford,chrysler,??. to make the mounting easier. it would be the front end bracket on the motor. lots of options.

once we have the new ac motor in and running and the 1238R controller working, with all the parameters saved, we can clone it to the next controller with our new motor to make it a plug and play for the customer.

as far as mounting the cells, remember the hi power can be mounted on the sides, just not upside down,terminals down. maybe the rest can be also,i dont know. so it makes them easier to mount underneath. also lower center of gravity, helps on roll centers.

if i have to make a questimation i think you will be in the 500 to 600 watt per mile. it all gets down to figuring out your shift points, ie like- drag racing, you short shift you loose power and speed to get back to your sweet spot, shift after the torque curve you still loose power and forward speed. change cam durations and lobe centers and then you have to find the sweet spot again because it changes the torque knee.

i am sorry, just rambling now 

thanks kevin


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I couldn't find any 150 vans but found a 150 truck with 4 wheel motors. It gets 100 miles on a 40kw pack. So that's in the 400wh/mile range but it has "agressive regen" per the article. Still, that's awesome considering my S10 takes more than that unless I'm hypermiling, but then again it's lead.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

motor guy said:


> if i have to make a questimation i think you will be in the 500 to 600 watt per mile. it all gets down to figuring out your shift points, ie like- drag racing, you short shift you loose power and speed to get back to your sweet spot, shift after the torque curve you still loose power and forward speed. change cam durations and lobe centers and then you have to find the sweet spot again because it changes the torque knee.


One of the great things about AC motors is their flat torque curve to higher RPM's. This allows me to do all of my driving in second gear without shifting if I want, and allows Tesla to go 0-120 with a single speed. You seem to be building an electric motor with many of the short comings of an ICE. I know I seem overly critical but this build doesn't seem to make much sense. It's going to be heavier, less powerful, and with a narrower power band than other existing products. I guess it's going to be really inexpensive?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

dear JRP3: you are totally intitled to your opinon. but this is what we are choosing to do, you are not asked to be interested or to believe in these thoughts, and please dont compair our thoughts against that of tesla. we are not competeing with teslsa on this project. 

we are not trying to start any kinda pissing contest with any memeber,we are simply telling you all what we are trying to do. we are not being negitive to new ideas. we are just exploring of options in the ev world.

your belief of not shifting is the way you wish to do your project,it is not our same belief. and that is fine.

i apoligize if this offends anyone.
but like i stated before this is our starting point.

kevin


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I appreciate the efforts of anyone trying to develop a product in this market, but no product exists in a vacuum, it will be compared to what is already available. I hope your system works as you envision it, I'm just not seeing it given the parameters provided. Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Motor guy, I think JRP3 brings up a valid point ie the motor being used like an ICE motor. ICE motors are very poor engines if you compare them to electric motor capabilities. Yes they have served us pretty well but that's because we've refined the process of engineering and mating them to transmissions. I'm all for an electric 3 phase motor for small and large vehicles alike. What I want though is to eliminate as much of the conventional drive train I can. The F150 I mentioned earlier doesn't even use a conventional drive train, it uses 4 wheel motors linked electronically and operating together. This was a project truck so it's not even mass produced. When it becomes a factory made vehicle it will be even better I suspect. In this situation, there's NO transmission, NO adapter needs to be made, NO differentials, NO drive shafts. That eliminates a LOT of steel, fluids to leak and be replaced, clutches to wear, solenoids in the transmission to fail etc. It's just a much cleaner, lighter weight and fairly simple option with the only complexity being the integration of all four motors to operate as a unit. However with my knowledge of CNC machines and how they work with super precision and lightning fast response, I think this will be a relatively simple task. If you've seen one run you know what I mean and that technology has been around since the 80's, possibly earlier.


----------



## Anaerin (Feb 4, 2009)

ElectriCar said:


> Motor guy, I think JRP3 brings up a valid point ie the motor being used like an ICE motor. ICE motors are very poor engines if you compare them to electric motor capabilities. Yes they have served us pretty well but that's because we've refined the process of engineering and mating them to transmissions. I'm all for an electric 3 phase motor for small and large vehicles alike. What I want though is to eliminate as much of the conventional drive train I can. The F150 I mentioned earlier doesn't even use a conventional drive train, it uses 4 wheel motors linked electronically and operating together. This was a project truck so it's not even mass produced. When it becomes a factory made vehicle it will be even better I suspect. In this situation, there's NO transmission, NO adapter needs to be made, NO differentials, NO drive shafts. That eliminates a LOT of steel, fluids to leak and be replaced, clutches to wear, solenoids in the transmission to fail etc. It's just a much cleaner, lighter weight and fairly simple option with the only complexity being the integration of all four motors to operate as a unit. However with my knowledge of CNC machines and how they work with super precision and lightning fast response, I think this will be a relatively simple task. If you've seen one run you know what I mean and that technology has been around since the 80's, possibly earlier.


The simpler method would be to have independent controllers for each wheel, all operating off the same pot. The fact that they're all operating from the same input means they will all operate and run as necessary, including varying speeds if necessary. It also means that if you have a wheel slip, you will only lose a quarter of the available power, rather than all of it in a car with differentials. It also means that you can implement fully independent traction control, with both power modulation and braking. This is what you will probably end up having to build anyway, so it may as well be your intention from the start.
You will probably also find that having exact positioning capability for each wheel, like having servos on each wheel, will prove extremely problematic to calculate and maintain, and the advantage a monolithic unit will provide over independent controllers is next to negligible, especially with the difficulty and complexity it will require.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I guess he didn't want to hear disagreement. Well ok but it doesn't change the argument. I hate to see all that money and potential spent trying to make an electric motor replace an ice versus designing a motor most people would actually want, a motor to eliminate as much weight from the conventional drive train as possible to maximize performance and mileage. If the bottom line is to sell motors then why not make one people want? There are lots of 3 phase 230/460/575V AC C face motors limited to 1725 or 3400rpm already available.


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello all

electricar, i am open to disagreement, that is how we move forward, by looking and listening to the other side. i agree to disagree, hell if you come to the shop i would still buy you lunch.

to shift or not to shift is any ev builders choice on what he/she wants.

here at temr we have proven that by shifting and staying in the power band with the warp 9 we use less watts per mile, around 325 watts per mile shifting.on our S10 truck. by leaving your vehicle in a lower gear and running more rpms you also have shorter coasting distance,which means back on the throttle sooner. like having regen on while coasting,because you are driving the gears backwards.

we have been called lots names by several ev builders, for building with a working transmission.but thats ok, we all know how our S10 works,per the video we put out,

i wish we could design the magic answer, yes there are alot of 3 phase motors out there, and it is your choice to get one have it rewound 4 wye or what ever your rewinder thinks is best for the application, but you wont have the pull up torque or the amount of break down torque, there is also a limit with the controller market now.

i am always open to new ideas, so please steep forward with your billfold and lets do it.

i guess i have to much industrial background,with motors and gearboxes,torque multiplication to get the job done with less amps.

thanks 
kevin
topeka electric motor


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

motor guy said:


> hello all
> 
> electricar, i am open to disagreement, that is how we move forward, by looking and listening to the other side. i agree to disagree, hell if you come to the shop i would still buy you lunch.
> 
> ...


Ok lets talk about this "power band" efficiency thing. You're talking about a Warp9 DC motor. I tested my Advanced DC motor at certain speeds in certain gears and compared the power consumed. It is significantly more powerful at lower RPM's but I didn't notice any difference in power consumption. I'm not too up on the torque curves either but I would think if we can make VS motors and drives for industrial applications it shouldn't be very difficult to make one for a vehicle. Siemens, I think, makes one able to do 11000rpm so it can operate sans transmission. 

Now, how much efficiency are you gaining using a gear box? You're going to lose several pounds by junking the drive shaft and transmission, I'd estimate at 200-250lbs in my S10. Are you saving enough to justify having it? That's about 5% of the total weight. Yes you're trading off some torque but with larger windings you'll get more torque. Would not a larger motor be more efficient with larger windings?


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello electricar

Ok lets talk about this "power band" efficiency thing. You're talking about a Warp9 DC motor. I tested my Advanced DC motor at certain speeds in certain gears and compared the power consumed. It is significantly more powerful at lower RPM's but I didn't notice any difference in power consumption. what if you put your S10 in 4th gear and drive it in 4th gear,from 0-60 mph, you notice that it takes longer to get up to speed and uses more amps getting to speed,than if you were in a lower starting gear,were acceleration is quicker.I'm not too up on the torque curves either but I would think if we can make VS motors and drives for industrial applications it shouldn't be very difficult to make one for a vehicle. Siemens, I think, makes one able to do 11000rpm so it can operate sans transmission. yes your are right it would be neat to have a VS motor without a transmission. 3 phase motors on drives are varible speed, be it constant torque or constant speed. 

Now, how much efficiency are you gaining using a gear box? i dont know, take your truck and put it 4th on a X# of miles and see how many watts you use. then do the same route with shifting the truck and driving at a resonable acceraltion to maintain traffic flow and see how many watts per mile you used.You're going to lose several pounds by junking the drive shaft and transmission, I'd estimate at 200-250lbs in my S10. Are you saving enough to justify having it? good question, but i dont know,but one of my other beliefs is that with a working transmission it can be a saftey issue, being able to disengage the drive train, nuetral.That's about 5% of the total weight. Yes you're trading off some torque but with larger windings you'll get more torque.yes you do but you also have to have more iron and more rotor iron for induction, whhich increase the weight of the motor. Would not a larger motor be more efficient with larger windings? depends, you can design motor with alot of iron and little wire and not be able to generate amps to make the induction-saturation work properly. we can sell you a 300 hp indrustrial motor with a eff around 90%, but that is syncronous speed. it is hard to get max eff. at 0 rpm and still have max eff at 5000 rpm. the ac 50 motor is around 78-80% at 1800 rpm. but when you bring the rpms up so does the eff.

thanks kevin
please feel free to call me, i talk better than i type. 1-785-233-4750


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Motorguy said "...take your truck and put it 4th on a X# of miles and see how many watts you use. then do the same route with shifting the truck and driving at a resonable acceraltion to maintain traffic flow and see how many watts per mile you used." 
I sort of did that. What I've noticed is a little contrary to your thoughts but I was not actually using a wh meter to track it accurately either. Today I started off at a traffic light in second, going up hill. The acceleration if you want to call it that, was very very slow. Kw also was very low. The Kw increased as the speed did.

The other thing I've noticed is that if you're in say 3rd gear running 40, it's pretty torquey if you press the pedal, drawing a corresponding load. If you're in second, the counter emf won't allow a lot of current so it increases only slightly and you can tell it's not going to take off too!


----------



## motor guy (Dec 17, 2008)

hello electricar

Motorguy said "...take your truck and put it 4th on a X# of miles and see how many watts you use. then do the same route with shifting the truck and driving at a resonable acceraltion to maintain traffic flow and see how many watts per mile you used." 
I sort of did that. What I've noticed is a little contrary to your thoughts but I was not actually using a wh meter to track it accurately either. Today I started off at a traffic light in second, going up hill. The acceleration if you want to call it that, was very very slow. Kw also was very low. The Kw increased as the speed did.kw or hp is: torque ft lb x rpm divided by 5250,but even though you have rpm you can still have no torque.

The other thing I've noticed is that if you're in say 3rd gear running 40, it's pretty torquey if you press the pedal, drawing a corresponding load exactly, same with out truck our shift points for us is 1st-15 mph,2nd-30mph,3rd-50,4th-50 to 80mph,5th 80 to??, these are our (sweet spots)useing these shift points we can stay under 270 amps,we feel that is how we have been able to only use 325 watts per mile,with coasting time.. If you're in second, at the same mph?the counter emf won't allow a lot of current so it increases only slightly and you can tell it's not going to take off too! i know if we do that in our S10 we are over rpm,past the (sweet spot) and when you try to apply more amps it becomes over saturated. and wont accerlerate as fast. you use amps but go no where.

thanks kevin
__________________


----------

