# new wheel motors



## RET (Jan 3, 2012)

Unfortunately , Not going to be available to the individual builder like us .

Man !, 110 hp at each wheel would be cool . I hope some day these motors can fall into our hands .


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Don't count on it. This company has been around for a while now. They have changed names several times. Wheel motor cars have been demonstrated but none have been shown with several thousand miles on the odometer. The shaft and bearings of an electric motor are not designed for lateral loads. The motors must operate within a few thousands of an inch in order to operate. I do not believe it will work for any length of time. 

I for one would be happy with axle motors like Tesla and Amp use on their cars.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

The side-load failure argument is completely BOGUS. Hydraulic wheel motors must retain their tolerances to the THOUSANTH of an inch. The standard design life of hydraulic wheel motors is 1 million hours. That is 24hrs a day for 10 years. Notice the WIDE bearing in the pic... It can take huge side-loads for a gillion hours.










If you really want to relieve the motor bearings you use an overhung load adapter which is simply an external bolt-on bearing which takes the side-load.

Don't believe EVERYTHING Jack says... People making this argument do not seem familiar with heavy industry practices. Sure, forklift motors have crappy bearings not suitable for side-load, but that doesn't prove anything. You can't use bad engineering as an argument against good engineering.

I believe the true problem is cost. It is MUCH cheaper to make 1 motor vs. 4 motors. Then you multiply the controllers by 4x... $$$


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

The wheel is arguably the nastiest place to put anything. Water, gravel, tar, oil, road heat, tire heat, brake heat/dust (if applicable). That's not saying it can't be resolved, but you will always have more issues in a dirty environment than a clean one.

Unsprung weight and impact is another issue. Adding 70lb to a wheel assy isn't lethal, but you can sure feel it.

Another item, probably not that important, is when you must accelerate a heavy wheel, it acts like 3 times the weight on the chassis. ie - Drop 10 lbs from your wheels and tires, and it mimics 30lbs dropped from the body. That isn't science, it's drag experience. Keep rotating mass low.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Rat, these are some good points. Just adding my thoughts about them.



McRat said:


> The wheel is arguably the nastiest place to put anything. Water, gravel, tar, oil, road heat, tire heat, brake heat/dust (if applicable). That's not saying it can't be resolved, but you will always have more issues in a dirty environment than a clean one.


Completely agree. A viable wheel motor would have to be 100% sealed. This is nice for in-frame motors too. Brushless water-cooled anyone?



McRat said:


> Unsprung weight and impact is another issue. Adding 70lb to a wheel assy isn't lethal, but you can sure feel it.


Maybe, my dually rear axle weighs around 900lbs!  of course, it handles like a glacier. 



McRat said:


> Another item, probably not that important, is when you must accelerate a heavy wheel, it acts like 3 times the weight on the chassis. ie - Drop 10 lbs from your wheels and tires, and it mimics 30lbs dropped from the body. That isn't science, it's drag experience. Keep rotating mass low.


This is true. But don't forget you actually removed rotating mass by getting rid of the flywheel, transmission, drive lines, differential, axle shafts... A Warp 11 is 320lbs of rotating mass. That's a rotating mass budget of at least 100lbs per wheel. Also don't forget you are only turning that mass at about 1000 rpm instead of 3-5000 rpm like a regular motor. This is a Huge additional savings in rotational horsepower.

Again, I think the issue is cost cost cost. Making 4 motors is 4x the expense, even if they are a bit smaller. I don't think the engineering is an issue.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

ruckus said:


> A Warp 11 is 320lbs of rotating mass. That's a rotating mass budget of at least 100lbs per wheel.


I'll call BS on your statement. The whole motor (320 lb WarP11) does not rotate. Just the armature. Which is likely about 1/4th the total mass and a lot smaller.



> Also don't forget you are only turning that mass at about 1000 rpm instead of 3-5000 rpm like a regular motor.


Yep, but the single motor centralized system has the benefit of gear advantage and different rotor mass and shape, so the reflected moment of inertia is not a simple comparison of RPM.



> This is a Huge additional savings in rotational horsepower.


Obviously this is just your opinion. It is not shared by me or many others.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

ruckus said:


> The side-load failure argument is completely BOGUS. Hydraulic wheel motors must retain their tolerances to the THOUSANTH of an inch. The standard design life of hydraulic wheel motors is 1 million hours. That is 24hrs a day for 10 years. Notice the WIDE bearing in the pic... It can take huge side-loads for a gillion hours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Industrial wheel motors are actually not in-wheel motors but motors attached to the wheel by a motor plate and gears that are supported not by the motor but by the case and are only subject to low speeds and smooth areas to drive for the most part. I have had a wheel motor. 

Lets see, Jack is only saying that ALL manufactures of automobiles have at one point in history made a wheel motor and demonstrated it and then they just go away. It must be ASSUMED that the motors never came to market because of failures. Jack it not making an empty assumption either. 

I think that if the bearings of the motors were of the load bearing type that one could build a successful in wheel motor but I am sure that those in the auto industry have already done this. Once the bearing wears it is curtains for the wheel motor. Now put the motor on a plate that is hung just behind the wheel and support the load with separate bearings then you no longer have that issue. You can also set up your motors inboard so you have a drive line from each to each wheel. No lateral load is applied. Have a look at the Rimac and Tesla S. Inboard motors and your good to go. Tucked well out of the way and no worry about failure due to internal lateral movements that can cause catastrophic results.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

major said:


> The whole motor (320 lb WarP11) does not rotate. Just the armature. Which is likely about 1/4th the total mass and a lot smaller.


You are very correct sir. That was sloppy typing on my part. My point was that inboard motors and the accompanying flywheels/clutches/trannys/driveshafts/differentials/axle shafts etc. contain plenty of rotating mass.

It is well known that you are a wheel-motor skeptic. Please tell us why you think it is problematic from an engineering perspective.

Thanks


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

onegreenev said:


> Industrial wheel motors are actually not in-wheel motors but motors attached to the wheel by a motor plate and gears that are supported not by the motor but by the case and are only subject to low speeds and smooth areas to drive for the most part. I have had a wheel motor.
> 
> Lets see, Jack is only saying that ALL manufactures of automobiles have at one point in history made a wheel motor and demonstrated it and then they just go away. It must be ASSUMED that the motors never came to market because of failures. Jack it not making an empty assumption either.
> 
> I think that if the bearings of the motors were of the load bearing type that one could build a successful in wheel motor but I am sure that those in the auto industry have already done this. Once the bearing wears it is curtains for the wheel motor. Now put the motor on a plate that is hung just behind the wheel and support the load with separate bearings then you no longer have that issue. You can also set up your motors inboard so you have a drive line from each to each wheel. No lateral load is applied. Have a look at the Rimac and Tesla S. Inboard motors and your good to go. Tucked well out of the way and no worry about failure due to internal lateral movements that can cause catastrophic results.


Awesome picture. I completely agree with most of what you say. 

However, hydraulic wheel motors are used in the most abusive of environments such as mining and road construction. How is that a smooth surface? The bearing and case of the hydraulic motor carries the entire weight of the vehicle on the shaft. On very large machines like wheel-loaders a reduction drive is used to compensate for the extremely large tires.

I believe Jack is making the wrong conclusion from the data. This is only my opinion. I think the engineers have no problem. It is a profit problem.

Cheers


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

ruckus said:


> It is well known that you are a wheel-motor skeptic. Please tell us why you think it is problematic from an engineering perspective.


All those company executives, shareholders and investors haven't listened to the engineers for the past 120 years so I don't really feel like repeating what I am sure has been obvious to those skilled in the science. Just take a look at history. How many companies have been dragged into bankruptcy with wheel motor projects? How many highway capable EV cars are on the road today using wheel motors? Even the article feature in post one of this thread is the old PML Flightlink which was bankrupted by this product. Wheel motor is a product everybody wants but doesn't exist. For reasons.

Sorry, but I'm not wasting any more time on the subject.

major


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

If I were going to design a hub motor (and I know nothing about motor design), I'd have permanent magnets incorporated into the aluminum wheel itself, and V-groove guided electro-magnets mounted where the brake caliper would normally be. There would be no lateral forces on the electromagnets, and the V-groove could maintain tight clearances. Hence the motor really has no bearings. 

Would that work?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The truth is that there simply is not one single advantage to wheel motors. Lightweight CV joints between a frame mounted motor and the wheel (ala' Tesla) completely avoid the side-load issue and reduce unsprung wheel weight for a superior ride.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

McRat, I like your motor concept. It truly would be a 'wheel' motor. 




PhantomPholly said:


> The truth is that there simply is not one single advantage to wheel motors.


Other than getting rid of 500+lbs of failure-prone mechanical junk and freeing up a LOT of space for batteries... 



PhantomPholly said:


> Lightweight CV joints...


Have you hefted a fwd axle shaft with cv joints lately? They are not light.

Regardless, I COMPLETELY agree with you.

I think the attraction of wheel motors is the potential to convert millions of vehicles to EV and hybrid quickly and cheaply.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Other than getting rid of 500+lbs of failure-prone mechanical junk and freeing up a LOT of space for batteries...


Really? Please explain to how it is that hub motors, which must stand up to the pounding abuse of absorbing all of the road's potholes, will miraculously be lighter than frame mounted motors outside of the hub attached by a simple 5 lb CV joint? 

And, looking at the Tesla and similar designs, just where is this imaginary "LOT of space" that will be freed up? Hint: Space isn't the challenge that needs solving - weight is.

Oh, and while we're at it let's all go do a comparison test drive for handling between a vehicle with 30-40 lb traditional wheels vs 90-100 lb wheel hub powered wheels.

As for converting cheaply - the engineering required to make wheel hubs that can survive the rigors of the pounding they will take will end up costing more, not less, than traditional motors.

I get it that they are cool looking on paper. I also get it that no one is making them in any quantity. There is a reason, and it's not some whacky conspiracy...


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> The side-load failure argument is completely BOGUS. Hydraulic wheel motors must retain their tolerances to the THOUSANTH of an inch. The standard design life of hydraulic wheel motors is 1 million hours. That is 24hrs a day for 10 years. Notice the WIDE bearing in the pic... It can take huge side-loads for a gillion hours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure the hydraulic wheel motor argument works for the electric wheel motor. I don't know that for sure but thats my guess. They work differently. I think a hydraulic wheel motor car would be an interesting experiment.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Really? Please explain to how it is that hub motors, which must stand up to the pounding abuse of absorbing all of the road's potholes, will miraculously be lighter than frame mounted motors outside of the hub attached by a simple 5 lb CV joint?
> 
> And, looking at the Tesla and similar designs, just where is this imaginary "LOT of space" that will be freed up? Hint: Space isn't the challenge that needs solving - weight is.
> 
> ...


Hey guys, before you roast me on the bbq, please remember that I am not necessarily PRO wheel motor. Each design has it's pros and cons. Properly built, I believe wheel motors could work. YES, I have repeatedly said they would cost more than a traditional setup. No argument there. 

BUT.. false arguments are false. 

1: My truck has a 900lb unsprung weight live axle. You are trying to convince me that a 100lb independent suspension is going to suck? Nice try.

2. The hydraulic motor examples just shows that high side-loads can be easily overcome by using the proper bearings and shaft support tech. I am guessing many electron heads on this forum know little about the common practices of heavy industry. It is a false argument to hold up a crappy bearing and try to use it as proof that bearings are weak. That is like saying a Corvette is proof that EV's will never work. It is not logic.

3. You guys are saying just cause you can't buy one, it must not work. Why not use that same logic on EV's?? 2 years ago you couldn't really buy one, Does that mean EV's don't work? No, not by a long shot. Please de-couple engineering challenges from marketing/production challenges. They are night and day different. Research and engineering departments have built many things which are 'unmarketable' like hydrogen cars, turbine cars, wood powered cars, efficient cars, electric cars, fuel-cell cars, etc..

Cheers.

ps. Show me a 5lb cv joint. The shit is HEAVY dude. And it wears out and sucks energy and takes up space. I have an IFS rear diff right here. Bet you would struggle to lift it up WITHOUT all the shafts and crap attached. You should turn it. It's hard to turn. More bearings, more shafts, more gears, more stinky axle grease. Yuk. 

Have you guys actually taken this stuff apart and held it in your hands? 
It doesn't sound like it.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Don't some of the massive mining trucks, like the Liebherr T 282B, use a kind of wheel motor? Not apples to apples I know.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Hey guys, before you roast me on the bbq, please remember that I am not necessarily PRO wheel motor. Each design has it's pros and cons. Properly built, I believe wheel motors could work. YES, I have repeatedly said they would cost more than a traditional setup. No argument there.
> 
> BUT.. false arguments are false.


Not trying to roast you, trying to be factual. Using false comparisons does not support your case. First example:



> 1: My truck has a 900lb unsprung weight live axle. You are trying to convince me that a 100lb independent suspension is going to suck? Nice try.


Nice try indeed. The apples to apples comparison for your truck would be to weld a motor to the differential. An apples to apples comparison for, say, a Honda Civic would be to replace a 30 lb wheel with a 100 lb wheel motor. No comparison in handling.



> 2. The hydraulic motor examples just shows that high side-loads can be easily overcome by using the proper bearings and shaft support tech. I am guessing many electron heads on this forum know little about the common practices of heavy industry. It is a false argument to hold up a crappy bearing and try to use it as proof that bearings are weak. That is like saying a Corvette is proof that EV's will never work. It is not logic.


I don't have an opinion here. I assume most wheels already handle side loads; putting a motor in there wouldn't necessarily change that. HOWEVER - said motor would in fact have to be beefier to handle the pounding than one not inside the wheel.... 



> 3. You guys are saying just cause you can't buy one, it must not work. Why not use that same logic on EV's?? 2 years ago you couldn't really buy one, Does that mean EV's don't work? No, not by a long shot. Please de-couple engineering challenges from marketing/production challenges. They are night and day different. Research and engineering departments have built many things which are 'unmarketable' like hydrogen cars, turbine cars, wood powered cars, efficient cars, electric cars, fuel-cell cars, etc..


I for one have never said it wouldn't work - only that there is no overriding advantage other than "coolness." And for that alone, I think a few will be built and used. What I have said is that there is not real advantage to putting the motor where all the water and dirt and pounding are focused. For those reasons it doesn't seem likely that wheel motors will be more economical anytime soon - and thus will always be "second choice."



> ps. Show me a 5lb cv joint. The shit is HEAVY dude. And it wears out and sucks energy and takes up space. I have an IFS rear diff right here. Bet you would struggle to lift it up WITHOUT all the shafts and crap attached. You should turn it. It's hard to turn. More bearings, more shafts, more gears, more stinky axle grease. Yuk.


I drove a Dodge Colt for many years across several continents (North America, Iceland, Europe). I replace the CV joints several times myself (young fighter jocks are not known for being easy on their vehicles). While the weight of the entire assembly was doubtless more than 5 lb, that weight was split between the motor and the wheel.

If you want to haggle that it wasn't 5.0 lb, have at it. It sure as heck is lighter than enough copper windings and permanent magnets to move the car fast.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

Boring Alert!!!! Take No-Doze if you want to read this opinion post:

The way I see it, the #1 goal for EV progress is true production cost reduction, not mandates.

We need cheaper copper, we need more engineers, we need cheaper magnets, we need cheaper batteries, and we need lighter cars.

The gov laws must focus on those areas. 

If you can run an EV with one motor or two, and have lighter batteries, that is all you can do for now.

There is no physical law that says a motor must weight a certain amount or contain a certain number of pounds of copper. Just like gas engines, the weight and cost will drop due to improvements in technology and manufacturing capacity. The Small Block V8 Chevy engine today is lighter, more powerful, few emissions, requires less maintenance, get twice the fuel mileage, and lasts far longer than it's 1970's counterparts. And if you correct for inflation, it costs less. The most amazing thing is that even with all those improvements, and SLEV ratings, they are the most powerful engines ever put in mass produced cars. Our 10 year old 2002 Corvette gets an honest 28mpg hwy, has 405HP, and goes 0-100mph in 10 seconds. This is far faster than a factory 426 Hemi Barracuda was in the late 60's. They have improved the SBC even more since 2002.

But back to electrics - 

The "wheel motor" makes a lot of sense IF it is a weight and cost reduction. I think it can be done someday. The wheel itself is part of the solution. Any "pre-packaged" motor assy isn't going to save weight or expense. It has to be incorporated into parts that have to be there anyhow. Dual-use engineering is the best way to save weight and cost. Make the driveshaft the rotor, make a structural component the stator. Kind of like the "stressed engine" technology, or polymer intake manifolds (reduces weight AND suppresses intake noise AND improves emissions AND increases HP), etc, etc.

If the wheels were the motors, the batteries were structural components, the controllers were full tilt, hardcore brakes as well as structural components, the weight of car becomes dramatically reduced, and the aero resistance can improve as well, since less room is used for drivetrain, you can make a smaller car with the same interior space.

Voltages have to go way up. This reduces the weight of the copper and cost of the car. Aux power will be full voltage, the A/C, radio, lights, etc, will all run on operating voltage. Dual wire embedded network systems will have a single wire controlling many different functions. The same wire that goes to the backup lights, goes to the power windows, the sunroof, the heater, etc. Each device has a $3 chip in it with a code. When that code is seen by the chip that feature gets the power requested or the stepper motor moved the right amount.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Wheel motors are simple but they have 2 fatal flaws. You are stuck with a low rpm/volt even with small wheels. Which in simple terms means you limit the Watts or HP you can put in and get out. 
Where as a motor mounted with a stage of reduction or more can be spun faster to make more HP with the same mass of motor!

HI RPM means lighter motor with same HP! So the argument that wheel motors will save space for more batteries etc is not a good one!
Look at Tesla type S you can build a car for a lot of batteries!

The Second Fatal flaw is unsprung weight. The fact the whole motor will be beating into the pot holes etc is not good!

As for the GOV forcing companies to make cheaper things and drive the price of copper down etc is not good. Anytime the gov gets involved things get ruined! Keep the gov out and learn how to handle ourselves!


----------

