# Scott Drive 100kW AC motor & controller



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

efan said:


> this controller+motor seem to be a new development, and I dont know of anyone who has used it..but it may be worth checking them out.
> 
> http://shop.greenstage.co.nz/product/100kw-scott-drive-ac-inverter-and-motor-package


Anybody actually seen or used this (new?) AC motor/controller combo? I see the Greenstage guys have a good history here, but this seems to be a first for them, and beats out the current HPEVS Curtis/AC50 combo by a good margin.

Thanks to efan for pointing this out!


----------



## Elegancec (May 23, 2012)

Hello, Im also very interested into this new drive. From the data it would be my favourite, @njloof, thank you for posting in my thread (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/conversion-bmw-z3-which-motor-fits-74449p2.html) this great news!


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

njloof said:


> ...I see the Greenstage guys have a good history here, but this seems to be a first for them, and beats out the current HPEVS Curtis/AC50 combo by a good margin....


Hmm... interesting find. Always good to know what the potential competition is up to.

Note that this system uses a *trapezoidal* BLDC motor, not a sinusoidal type like, e.g., the Remy HVH250 motor. Without getting too wonky, the switching pattern needed for trapezoidal BLDC makes it impossible to use any type of field-oriented control algorithm - only 6-step "V/f" is allowed. This means poor low speed torque, and high levels of torque ripple, noise and vibration at all speeds. Here is a good overview of the two different types of BLDC motor.

As a result of these severe shortcomings, trapezoidal BLDC is really only suitable for small fans and servos, not traction applications.


----------



## MalcolmB (Jun 10, 2008)

Great link Tesseract!

The only trapezoidally controlled brushless motors I've had experience with are little ebike hub motors. I guess the torque ripple explains why they growl so much under load? But I still don't grasp why they produce poor torque at low rpm, though I know from reading reports on Endless Sphere that this is a big limitation.

According to that link: "Sinusoidal commutation results in smoothness of control that is generally unachievable with trapezoidal commutation. However, while it is very effective at low motor speeds, it tends to fall apart at high motor speeds."
Can you put a rough figure on the upper rpm limit for sinusoidal control, or does that depend on the motor design as well?

Malcolm


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

MalcolmB said:


> Great link Tesseract!


Yeah, I thought so to when I read it. I've got all kinds of very expensive books on this stuff and none of them come close to explaining the basic difference in the two types of BLDC stator construction as well as that document.



MalcolmB said:


> The only trapezoidally controlled brushless motors I've had experience with are little ebike hub motors. I guess the torque ripple explains why they growl so much under load? But I still don't grasp why they produce poor torque at low rpm, though I know from reading reports on Endless Sphere that this is a big limitation.


Generally speaking, it's because there are only 6 points where the stator windings and rotor magnets are perfectly aligned in the trapezoidal BLDC; at every other rotor angle some of the phase current goes towards uselessly trying to counteract (or add to) the flux of the rotor magnets rather than moving the rotor through space. 



MalcolmB said:


> According to that link: "Sinusoidal commutation results in smoothness of control that is generally unachievable with trapezoidal commutation. However, while it is very effective at low motor speeds, it tends to fall apart at high motor speeds."
> Can you put a rough figure on the upper rpm limit for sinusoidal control, or does that depend on the motor design as well?...


The higher the rotor RPM the higher the stator frequency and therefore the higher the AC losses in the motor, thus the design of the stator sets a practical upper limit on the RPM, assuming the rotor can handle the centrifugal* force, that is. However, the higher the RPM the faster the processor in the controller needs to be to calculate the switching state needed to create the correct voltage vector for the rotor's actual position. In other words, at a high enough RPM the rotor will move a significant angular distance in the time it takes the processor to calculate the voltage vector. A graceful fallback is to drop the number of voltage vectors until you ultimately end up at 6-step operation.

* - the oldest argument on the interwebz is that centrifugal force doesn't exist, but everyone knows what it means so let's pretend that it does.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Elegancec said:


> Hello, Im also very interested into this new drive. From the data it would be my favourite, @njloof, thank you for posting in my thread (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/conversion-bmw-z3-which-motor-fits-74449p2.html) this great news!


I can't take credit for @efan posting this... But thanks anyway


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Tesseract said:


> Note that this system uses a *trapezoidal* BLDC motor, not a sinusoidal type like, e.g., the Remy HVH250 motor. Without getting too wonky, the switching pattern needed for trapezoidal BLDC makes it impossible to use any type of field-oriented control algorithm - only 6-step "V/f" is allowed. This means poor low speed torque, and high levels of torque ripple, noise and vibration at all speeds.


Great article, and makes sense -- it describes quite well what I see on my brushless e-bike as well 

But... why not filter the discrete Hall signal into a sinusoidal curve? Or, if you've got a decent processor available, predict the true position of the rotor? At worst the motor is hooked to a flywheel, and at best to a 1+ ton car; the change in rotational velocity of the rotor should be relatively small during 60 degrees of rotation...


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

njloof said:


> ...
> But... why not filter the discrete Hall signal into a sinusoidal curve?...


Firstly, because the phase angle of a waveform is always shifted when you filter it, but secondly, the poor performance of the trapezoidal BLDC is directly the result of its simpler construction. If you want better performance you need to rewind the stator. No two ways about it. And just to make it extra clear, it doesn't matter if you know exactly where the rotor is, there are still only going to be 6 points equally spaced about the stator where you will get maximum torque for a given RMS phase current.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Tesseract said:


> And just to make it extra clear, it doesn't matter if you know exactly where the rotor is, there are still only going to be 6 points equally spaced about the stator where you will get maximum torque for a given RMS phase current.


Because you can't excite all three windings independently?


----------



## Elegancec (May 23, 2012)

So I think its clear, the controller can also only operate with this treapezodial brushless motor and with no other AC motors, because of its simpler design.

The torque curve would be interesting.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

This motor/controller combo looks very nice!

Cheers


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

njloof said:


> Because you can't excite all three windings independently?


Current is controlled through motor terminals one pair at a time, with the third motor terminal always electrically disconnected from the source of power. Three Hall devices embedded in the motor are usually used to provide digital signals which measure rotor position within 60 degree sectors and provide this information to the motor controller. Because at any time, the currents in two of the windings are equal in magnitude and the third is zero, this method can only produce current space vectors having one of six different directions. As the motor turns, the current to the motor terminals is electrically switched (commutated) every 60 degrees of rotation so that the current space vector is always within the nearest 30 degrees of the quadrature direction.​
here is a technical comparison that also is implemented on cpu.
http://www.magnelab.com/uploads/4c51d9ba6fe5a.pdf


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Right. I understand the trapezoidal control scheme; I want to understand what prevents you from using a sinusoidal control scheme with a BLDC motor. Is there no ground terminal?


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

My understanding is, it is a wye configuration.
unless there is something about the physical windings, a FOC controller can be used with a couple more connections for Voltage sensing.

Edit on second thought I believe you right.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Would trapezoidall control be commenly used on rc airplanes and also in maned electric airplanes , bing that low rpms are of little consern with a propller .
Would the Prius controller be a quadrature (I ment field oriented control).


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

The windings are distributed among the stator slots differently for the two types of motors. You can apply a sinusoidal PWM pattern to both types of motor, but that is not going to change a trapezoidal type into a sinusoidal type.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Umm.. not to give away any secrets, but the "Scott Drive" is actually a Chinese BLDC motor that I have been thinking of importing for use in my next build and to sell in the U.S. (since the U.S. does not produce a liquid-cooled BDLC motor).
> 
> Considering the crazy shipping from NZ and the extra middle-man, I am guessing folks would rather just have it shipped direct from China to the U.S. at significant savings.
> 
> ...


Can you share the information about this "Chinese BLDC motor"?

Very similar specs and measurements to these motors that have popped up on this forums for awhile now...http://en.glelec.com/cp.html (Shenzhen Greatland Electrics)


http://www.epowertransfer.com/UploadFiles/ehug.pdf
shows specs of the motors, much more info than the Shenzhen page..same products...
The specs on the "MP25L0" 30kw cont. 60kw peak (100kw for 10 sec?) 4000rpm max motor weighs 88kg again figures close to the 80kg listed for the Scott Drive.

An even more interesting model is the "MP20L0" 30kw cont. 50kw peak (90kw for 10 sec?) 9000rpm and only 68kg.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Tesseract said:


> The windings are distributed among the stator slots differently for the two types of motors. You can apply a sinusoidal PWM pattern to both types of motor, but that is not going to change a trapezoidal type into a sinusoidal type.


Ok. Good to know.

I suppose I should find some small surplus motors somewhere I can disassemble so I can understand the windings a bit better. But for now, this will do


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,
The Glelec and epower are one in the same. Identified by the cooling ports being "in-line". They look well made, but their torque-to-weight ratio is not as good as the Scott.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Hello,
> The Glelec and epower are one in the same. Identified by the cooling ports being "in-line". They look very well made, but their torque-to-weight ratio is not as good as the Scott.
> 
> There are 2-3 other water-cooled BLDC motor cases floating around China. The "Scott" is different from the Glelec. Identified by the cooling ports being one at the top, one at the bottom coming off tangentially. About 4 companies "claim" to make this motor. A bit tricky figuring out who actually does. The advantage of the motor used by Scott is that if you dig deep enough you can find it rated for 540vdc (I'd still rather have 640v). This gives a LOT more torque from the same motor weight. That is the direction I am looking to go.
> ...


What is your timeline on bringing them to the US market? I didn't see any update on your website.

I like the sound of bringing prices lower than the already shown 6,000$.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

No timeline yet. Hopefully this summer I can start some testing. Are you more interested in the product as listed? or a "turned up" hotrod version?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

100kw would be great for 6K$..

you could charge a bit more for a higher voltage (higher power) inverter version...


----------



## Nuts&Volts (Dec 20, 2011)

Just heard back from Philip at Greenstage about the Scott Controller. The controller is good for 150kW in a 30lb package which is pretty good when you consider that it comes with a contactor and precharge circuit internally. It can handle up to 450Vdc and 450Adc on the input and programmable on the AC output (not sure of the limits here). I was told that the price for a single controller will be $2945 which in my opinion is pretty amazing, because that is a lot less than a comparable Sevcon Size 8 or Tritium Wavesculptor 200 which are both over $6000, and can't do much more than 100kW peak. They both offer FOC control thou and work with Induction machines. 

The controller at the moment uses trapezoidal control for BLDC motors and FOC/Sinusoidal control is in development and will be prioritized based on demand. Even if this software adds a bit of cost the controller is still ahead on cost based on all of the research I have done. I was also told that the full user manual will be completed shortly. 

More Info here http://www.greenstage.co.nz/PDFs/Scott_Drive_100.pdf

Hopefully this information helps out!
Kyle


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Nuts&Volts said:


> Just heard back from Philip at Greenstage about the Scott Controller. The controller is good for 150kW in a 30lb package which is pretty good when you consider that it comes with a contactor and precharge circuit internally. It can handle up to 450Vdc and 450Adc on the input and programmable on the AC output (not sure of the limits here). I was told that the price for a single controller will be $2945 which in my opinion is pretty amazing, because that is a lot less than a comparable Sevcon Size 8 or Tritium Wavesculptor 200 which are both over $6000, and can't do much more than 100kW peak. They both offer FOC control thou and work with Induction machines.
> 
> The controller at the moment uses trapezoidal control for BLDC motors and FOC/Sinusoidal control is in development and will be prioritized based on demand. Even if this software adds a bit of cost the controller is still ahead on cost based on all of the research I have done. I was also told that the full user manual will be completed shortly.
> 
> ...


Did they happen to mention the controller RPM limit?


----------



## Nuts&Volts (Dec 20, 2011)

somanywelps said:


> Did they happen to mention the controller RPM limit?


No, but it appears that the maximum switching frequency is 15kHz. I believe if you use this and the pole pair count of the motor you can determine the maximum RPM possible by the controller. I think is is RPM=(freq*60)/(# of pole pairs)

I can ask him explicitly if you would like or we can just until the manual is released.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Switching frequency is not directly linked to maximum rpm speed the controller allows to produce for a certain motor. Switching speed usually factors higher than the produced fundamental frequencies output current.

See the manufacturers spec for the rpm limit on the controller.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Here is an article about the first customer of the Scott Drive in New Zealand:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/211326/wind-turbine-charges-electric-powered-car
Not much technical info in a typical news article, but it powers a Rav4 which is not a light or aerodynamic vehicle. Several thousand km and counting...
I will be contacting the owner for feedback.

Also, here is the next frame size up of the same motor used in the Scott Drive. It powers buses, which requires a lot of torque.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Just got off the phone with Hagen Bruggemann of NZ who is using the Scott Drive. Turns out he ditched the transmission and is using it DIRECT DRIVE!! Nobody would consider this motor strong enough to do direct drive. Some even claim it should have weak torque. Obviously the skeptics are wrong.

He says no problem driving the RAV4 up steep mountains with full passengers and hang-gliders on the rack. USING DIRECT DRIVE??!

He can't really calculate efficiency on the flat because they cross a VERY steep pass every day and still average 250w/mile in a rav4.

He did mention that American brushed motors are a "joke" and "at least 10 years behind the rest of the world with pathetic efficiency".

Interesting and brilliant chap. He will be sending me some photos and more data. Stay tuned..


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Interesting and brilliant chap. He will be sending me some photos and more data. Stay tuned..


Keep us posted. I haven't gotten an email from them for a week


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Nuts&Volts said:


> No, but it appears that the maximum switching frequency is 15kHz. I believe if you use this and the pole pair count of the motor you can determine the maximum RPM possible by the controller. I think is is RPM=(freq*60)/(# of pole pairs)
> 
> I can ask him explicitly if you would like or we can just until the manual is released.


Do ask if you don't mind.

It heavily affects gearing choices.

I'd also prefer AC induction, less chance of demagnetizing the permanent magnets.

Also we'd need sinusoidal. Trapezoidal probably won't cut it.



ruckus said:


> any interest?


Obviously 

Then again I'm not going to be the first adopter. If it works, it works.


----------



## Batterypoweredtoad (Feb 5, 2008)

ruckus said:


> HOLY SMOKES!
> 
> Just got off the phone with Hagen Bruggemann of NZ who is using the Scott Drive. Turns out he ditched the transmission and is using it DIRECT DRIVE!!  I was astounded. Nobody would consider this motor strong enough to do direct drive. Some even claim it should have weak torque. Obviously the skeptics are wrong.
> 
> ...



Yes all the skeptics are wrong. 1 anecdotal report is proof positive. Thank you for clearing up my doubt.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Batterypoweredtoad said:


> Yes all the skeptics are wrong. 1 anecdotal report is proof positive. Thank you for clearing up my doubt.


Glad to! 

p.s. The toads in the greenhouse are worth gold. Pure Gold.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

Since the RAV4 is essentially a front wheel drive car, I would have guessed he locked the tranny into one gear. When you contact him again it would be good to know. I'd be surprised if that wimpy (and geared too high for street driving) rear axle differential was up to direct drive, seems it would make much more sense to lock the tranny in 3rd or even 2nd gear. The rear axle is not really meant for full fime full torque, but rather just to help get the car rolling if the front wheels slip and spin.

BTW I'd love to be wrong and hear both the RAV4 rear end and the BLDC motor are surviving direct drive as typically done in U.S. conversions (straight to the rear axle in a rear wheel drive car).


ruckus said:


> HOLY SMOKES!
> 
> Just got off the phone with Hagen Bruggemann of NZ who is using the Scott Drive. Turns out he ditched the transmission and is using it DIRECT DRIVE!!  I was astounded. Nobody would consider this motor strong enough to do direct drive. Some even claim it should have weak torque. Obviously the skeptics are wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

DavidDymaxion said:


> I'd love to .. hear both the RAV4 rear end and the BLDC motor are surviving direct drive as typically done in U.S. conversions (straight to the rear axle in a rear wheel drive car).


This was what he said to me... I was a bit shocked by the notion. '

I just completely assumed the BLDC motor would NEED a transmission. I guess my assumtions were wrong.. 

He did say he lowered the rear ratio to make climbing off-road with full load easier. Something like 4.10.. 

Anyway, I will try to get more details. He said there was a movie of the vehicle which he could send, so more data coming...


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> Note that this system uses a *trapezoidal* BLDC motor, not a sinusoidal type like, e.g., the Remy HVH250 motor. Without getting too wonky, the switching pattern needed for trapezoidal BLDC makes it impossible to use any type of field-oriented control algorithm - only 6-step "V/f" is allowed. This means poor low speed torque, and high levels of torque ripple, noise and vibration at all speeds.


Are you sure this drive is trapezoidal, tesseract? I really hope you're wrong for once.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Jan said:


> Are you sure this drive is trapezoidal, tesseract? I really hope you're wrong for once.


It says so pretty clearly here (page 5):
http://www.greenstage.co.nz/PDFs/Scott_Drive_100.pdf


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

So how do those theorizing on paper that this system will suffer poor torque grapple with the reality of it's use in a direct-drive system heavily loaded in steep mountain terrain?










And in buses?










Something doesn't jive here. Which is more likely to be true, empty speculation or actual test results?

I'm going with real-world testing.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> So how do those theorizing on paper that this system will suffer poor torque grapple with the reality of it's use in a direct-drive system heavily loaded in steep mountain terrain?....


I thought I made it perfectly clear that trapezoidal BLDC has poorer low speed torque and exhibits higher torque ripple compared to sinusoidal BLDC... You do realize that this is a comparison, not a statement of absolute fact, right?

In other words, if the Scott Drive system used a sinusoidal type BLDC motor then the inverter could use FOC to get even more torque and smoothness of operation from it.

But sure, I am just speculating based on essentially book knowledge about this stuff. You're the one putting your money on the line to import this system from China. I mean, maybe this is the exception to the rule, "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is"?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

It doesn't seem 'too good to be true'. It just seems to work, and work well.

A Netgain 11" and Soliton are $6000 and known to be suffering premature failure (the net, not the sol). So the Scott doesn't seem like any more of a risky purchase. 

The fact that the same brand of motors is powering full-size buses and the Scott system is able to lug heavy loads in the mountains using direct-drive is plenty of proof it works.

Are you aware of any Series DC powered full-size buses?

How about 176 lb motors doing direct drive with loads up steep mountains?

I am getting a Scott Drive system and will fully test it. Dyno it. The results (good or bad) will be made public. 

Cheers


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

I deal with HEV buses all the time.
30-40 ft.
They have about 200KW electric with 200HP ICE.
having rode these with full passengers (30-40) up steep hills, they have to down shift to 1st gear.
Steep here is a slope with 30 feet incline in 100 foot of slope length. which is designated about 50% Grade.

So a 150KW seems way under powering a bus, especially direct drive. Now if the "Bus" is more like a 20 foot, with 10 passengers, might be closer.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

ruckus said:


> I am getting a Scott Drive system and will fully test it. Dyno it. The results (good or bad) will be made public.
> 
> Cheers











A dyno would be great, the community could compare it more equally to such systems as HPEVS and Warp9+Soliton1 (Jack R.), etc.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> ...A Netgain 11" and Soliton are $6000 and known to be suffering premature failure (the net, not the sol). So the Scott doesn't seem like any more of a risky purchase.


Sure, a Netgain 11" motor and a Soliton1 system would cost a little more than $6000, but it would also deliver, oh, about triple the power (battery pack permitting). 

A more fair comparison with the stated specs of the Scott Drive system would be a NetGain WarP-9 or a Kostov K10 + a Soliton Jr. That'll set you back about $3700. 



ruckus said:


> The fact that the same brand of motors is powering full-size buses and the Scott system is currently doing direct-drive vehicles is plenty of proof it works.


Where did I say it wouldn't work? 



ruckus said:


> Are you aware of any Series DC powered full-size buses?


Nope, but neither do I see the relevance of your question... Different applications will not necessarily be best served by the exact same motor/controller technology. 



ruckus said:


> How about 176 lb motors doing direct drive with loads up steep mountains?


Depends on how fast one is going up the mountain and the overall gear ratio from motor to wheels, now doesn't it?



ruckus said:


> I am getting a Scott Drive system and will fully test it. Dyno it. The results (good or bad) will be made public.
> 
> Cheers


Great. In the meantime, would you please tone down the rhetoric?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

bjfreeman said:


> I deal with HEV buses all the time.
> So a 150KW seems way under powering a bus, especially direct drive. Now if the "Bus" is more like a 20 foot, with 10 passengers, might be closer.


Neat, I'd be interested in hearing more about the drive systems.

The buses use transmissions and the next larger BLDC motor rated at 1100NM and 240kw max @ 540dc. Sounds awesome till you realize it is 572lbs  About the same as a V8.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> would you please tone down the rhetoric?


Ahem.. I'm not the one spreading misinformation and unsubstantiated detractions about a competing drive system. 

I am merely posting available data about the system stats and current use that is the subject of this thread.

You might have noticed that in the Soliton thread I make positive statements about your products and don't get on there and bash brushed motors.

This is a thread specifically about the Scott Drive. 

Cheers


----------



## bjfreeman (Dec 7, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Neat, I'd be interested in hearing more about the drive systems.
> 
> The buses use transmissions and the next larger BLDC motor rated at 1100NM and 240kw max @ 540dc. Sounds awesome till you realize it is 572lbs  About the same as a V8.


Most use an Allison EP50 which has two 96KW motors that parallels a 200HP Diesel Engine that is powered by CNG.
The EP50 is the transmission. each 96KW has it own battery pack and Controller.
the electrics are used to start the Bus, then the Diesels kick in to recharge the batteries and provide continuous power.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

Old "Trolley Buses" (the ones with poles that grabbed power from overhead power lines) were DC powered.


ruckus said:


> ... Are you aware of any Series DC powered full-size buses? ...


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Alot of trains also used brushed DC motors back before GTOs, Thyristors, and IGBTs were developed. 

Just for the record, neither the bus or the SUV are actually direct drive, they have some reduction between the motor and the wheels. Whats more, the ratio on the bus I'd imagine must be something like 10:1 or more. You'd have to have a motor that outputs 5000 FTLBS of torque for it to really be direct drive


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Well I certainly agree it isn't Direct-Direct, but 'direct drive' most commonly refers to direct AXLE drive and has the differential reduction as you point out. Usually this only compensates for the diameter of the tire. Bigger trucks have bigger tires and thus higher gear ratios. It would be intriguing to use a Columbia 2 speed axle or a farm truck 2-speed though. So far I haven't heard of it being done, but with the rodder crowd getting into EV's, it's only a matter of time...

I was asking if there was any buses using like a Soliton and a Warp 13 or something. Certainly seems possible, though I would suspect it would be one of those small 'airport shuttle' types and not a 'big' bus. 

Trolleys move at about 5mph on train tracks, neat that they were electric, but that hardly counts as a "bus" drive-train.

So far nobody seems nearly as impressed that the RAV4 is direct (axle) drive. I think that is fairly impressive and suggests the system has some grunt.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> ...
> This is a thread specifically about the Scott Drive. Your direct competitor. What you are doing is actually against the forum policy.
> ...


Yeah, you got me... I'm constantly violating "forum policy" and promoting my stuff in every post.. 

Wait... what forum policy did I violate, exactly? I'll reprint them below just to make it easier for you:



> The following are prohibited on DIY Electric Car forums:
> 
> 1) Flaming, hate speech, racial slurs or otherwise obviously offensive or trolling remarks.
> 2) Links posted to products for sale outside of the marketplace forums
> ...


Hmmm... now who was it that provided a link to buy something outside of the marketplace forums???


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

No, full sized, conventional city buses with rubber tires. Here's an example: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mfleet/trolley.htm









Note, this is not saying DC is the best motor or the wave of the future, but train and bus systems achieved decades of reliable service from brushed DC motors. Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for your BLDC system!


ruckus said:


> ... Trolleys move at about 5mph on train tracks, neat that they were electric, but that hardly counts as a "bus" drive-train. ...


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I thought there was something in the rules about going around and filling threads about competitors products with negative and unsubstantiated posts. Maybe that's a rule in the future. Or just professional manners. Everybody sees what you are doing. 

Here is your quote: "As a result of these severe shortcomings, trapezoidal BLDC is really only suitable for small fans and servos, not traction applications."

Hmmm... except it is working in a direct-drive setup and powering buses.

Bottom line: You provided zero DATA about the thread topic, only negative speculation about how your competitor's products are "unfit" for use.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

DavidDymaxion said:


> No, full sized, conventional city buses with rubber tires.


COOL! I didn't realize that. Thanks for the link. They say 275hp motor. Any idea what motor that is and if it is peak or continuous at that power? Interesting anyway.



DavidDymaxion said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for your BLDC system!


sheesh, it's not 'my' system. I just want to test it and see if it's as good as it sounds or if I should build a 'fan' out of it...


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> If I am wrong, please Quote yourself in this thread about an exciting new drive system saying something positive.


He doesn't need to say anything positive about it if he doesn't want.



ruckus said:


> Here is your quote: "As a result of these severe shortcomings, trapezoidal BLDC is really only suitable for small fans and servos, not traction applications."
> 
> Hmmm... except it is working in a direct-drive setup and powering buses.
> I guess that just shows your empty theories to be just that. Empty.


 Speaking of which, do you have a source for the powering busses bit? Specifically what controller and motor they are using?



ruckus said:


> Bottom line: You provided zero DATA about the thread topic, only negative speculation about how your competitor's products are "unfit" for use.


He voiced accurate concerns about the Scott drive 100 (trapezoidal form for starters) and it was backed up with sources.

Note that you're launching personal attacks at Tesseract. He's done quite a bit of development work with this community, so people aren't going to take kindly to personal attacks on him


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> Note that you're launching personal attacks at Tesseract. He's done quite a bit of development work with this community, so people aren't going to take kindly to personal attacks on him


Well, you can say it, but that doesn't make it true. What 'Personal' attacks are you talking about? I have been extremely polite in the face of his constant and undocumented claims that his competitor's system is not fit to drive a vehicle but merely suitable for 'fans'. I thought this forum was supposed to develop the EV community, not tear down any competitor.


----------



## Batterypoweredtoad (Feb 5, 2008)

Rukus,
You accused everyone of "EV snobbery" because you got a low turnout on your 8" motor group buy, you accused everyone of burying their heads in the sand or falsely championing a worthless technology because they argue brushed motors can work fine in an EV, you accused an exceptionally well educated and experienced member with a long history of truthful posting on controllers of putting down a competitor and violating forum rules because he pointed out a possible negative in a controller/motor combo. To counter this massive asshattery you _*MAY*_ have found a possible way to bring brushless motor and controller combos into the price range and size range that they make sense in an EV. Most everyone here LOVES the idea of more options in their price range, but they don't love someone who shits on everyone else's fairly educated opinions based on chinese data sheets and dreams.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,

I have no favorite technology. I have no investment in a particular technology (unlike others here). It would be rather easy for me to spec netgain/soliton products for my conversions and be done with it. I merely want a system that is functional and reliable that will empower many more to build EV's. I am willing to test any available tech that I can afford. I have tested a brushed system and found it lacking. I am moving on to other technologies. 

Cheers


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Neat, I'd be interested in hearing more about the drive systems.
> 
> The buses use transmissions and the next larger BLDC motor rated at 1100NM and 240kw max @ 540dc. Sounds awesome till you realize it is 572lbs  About the same as a V8.


 
Yeh A v8 with 811 ft/lbs torque and 321.7 HP with perfact throttle response! You could make a 2 speed sports car or a single speed comuter and it would be amazing!


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

The HPEVS systems sell kits based on the fact that they are not brushed DC and that they are something different, backed up by personal experiences documented on the forum. It sure as hell isn't the power:cost ratio! 

The Scott Drive 100kw system for 6000$ will sell and sell well if you are transparent and open about the results of your testing. Let the performance of your product do the talking.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Ruckus, can you explain to me the china new zealand link? Is it a chinese product with a reseller in new zealand, or is it designed in new zealand?

And please proof Tesseract wrong. Without bitching about it. Give us reliabale data. Especially a toque graph.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Jan said:


> Ruckus, can you explain to me the china new zealand link?


My understanding is that it's a Chinese motor, and a New Zealand designed and built controller, specifically targeting the Chinese motor. The New Zealand company presumably gets a good deal on the motors, and sells the motor and controller package.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> No, didn't say that, but misrepresenting data and constantly dogging a competing system, doesn't make a smart guy like you look good.


What data did *I* misrepresent? The only misrepresented data has been in the Scott Drive 100's datasheet. Only a complete rube would unquestioningly believe the specs on a brand new product's datasheet. And only someone with too much skin in the game would so vehemently attack me for questioning such specs.



ruckus said:


> Gosh, you might have me there, I thought there was something in the rules about going around and filling threads about competitors products with negative and unsubstantiated posts.


So you admit you didn't actually check what the forum policy was before you accused me of violating it. I wonder what else you haven't fact checked...

How about accusing me of making unsubstantiated posts? Once again, your sense of irony knows no bounds, as it is I who has backed up my posts by, e.g., providing a link explaining why trapezoidal BLDC isn't a good choice for traction applications. 

In contrast, the only proof you've provided that the Scott Drive 100 system is the greatest thing since sliced bread are some 3rd hand comments from some dude in New Zealand and pictures of a different and bigger system installed in a bus. That would be like me posting a picture of a Shiva installed in a car and saying the Jr would be great for drag races... 



ruckus said:


> ... I thought this forum was supposed to develop the EV community, not tear down any competitor.


Uh-huh... more irony. And how should your "extremely polite" posts attacking me be classified?



ruckus said:


> I have recieved more than a few emails and pm's from people who have either decided posting on this forum wasn't worth the constant attacks, or that were actually AFRAID to post because of the aggressive bullying going on. Now I see what they are talking about.


I call your bluff: if anyone has been afraid to post to this thread please also send me a PM to express these concerns as I hereby promise I will both hear you out and not berate you in any fashion, privately or publicly. I also give you permission to reprint the entire content of our PMs in public.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Bowser330 said:


> The HPEVS systems sell kits based on the fact that they are not brushed DC and that they are something different, backed up by personal experiences documented on the forum. It sure as hell isn't the power:cost ratio!
> 
> The Scott Drive 100kw system for 6000$ will sell and sell well if you are transparent and open about the results of your testing. Let the performance of your product do the talking.


Agreed. We can speculate all we want and argue back in forth about it's suitability as an EV drive until we're blue in the face. Until someone buys one and tests it out it's all just speculation.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> I call your bluff: if anyone has been afraid to post to this thread please also send me a PM to express these concerns as I hereby promise I will both hear you out and not berate you in any fashion, privately or publicly. I also give you permission to reprint the entire content of our PMs in public.


Dear sir, 
I don't want to argue back and forth tit for tat unless we start a thread for that purpose. What you say above would be cool, but I already tried and you don't accept PM's. They asked me not to share the PM so I have to respect their request and you will just have to take my word for it. I will tell you it is more than 1.

When the Soliton was being released, how about if Otmar got on the forum with his pack of followers and together claimed it was only fit to drive a blender? That would be just plain uncool. You said this type of drive would only be fit to power a 'fan'. Pretty aggressive anti-salesmanship by most accounts.

I have done nothing but ask you to ease off the negativity of a competing product until actual data is available. Please don't act so offended by this positive request.

Thank You.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

jeremyjs said:


> Agreed. We can speculate all we want and argue back in forth about it's suitability as an EV drive until we're blue in the face. Until someone buys one and tests it out it's all just speculation.


Well, I'm getting the drive for testing. I wanted a hopped up version but that would take more development time so I will start with the base product and go from there. 

The product is already in use. No speculation is needed. I am in phone and email contact with the fellow. They are filming a TV show about it and he will send that shortly.

I have a torque graph, but it is a pdf. If anybody wants to look at it PM me your email so I can attach it. The 30s rating flat at 400nm till 2500rpm then drops off. The 1hr rating is flat at 140nm till 3200rpm and slowly tapers off to a max of 4200. But these are just lines on paper. I want actual car data.

Cheers


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

ruckus said:


> The 30s rating flat at 400nm till 2500rpm then drops off. The 1hr rating is flat at 140nm till 3200rpm and slowly tapers off to a max of 4200.


400Nm is even more than I need for ditching the gearbox. Please proof it.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

ruckus said:


> I have a torque graph, but it is a pdf. If anybody wants to look at it PM me your email so I can attach it.


You can attach pdf files directly to posts right here on the forum. When you click Go Advanced to compose a post, scroll down below the text box under the area labeled Additional Options. There, you will see a box labeled Attach Files. Click on the Manage Attachments button to upload the file.


----------



## NintendoKD (Apr 29, 2012)

Please no more bickering in this thread, I like to see some competition, but I am looking for real solutions not a "whose **** is bigger" contest. You are both rational, intelligent adults, lets just leave it at that. I am very interested in this, and would like to purchase one right away for my own testing, trapezoidal or not. Tess. any chance you have some reading material for me on this subject? trapezoidal rotor" I would also like to know more about your motors as well, PM only please. 

thanks for all of the input, some of it was quite useful,

Nintendo


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello all,

Thanks for all the PM's. After talking with Phillip Court of Greenstage I think it is better to not release the unconfirmed torque graph. They are in the process of setting up the Scott Drive for full dyno testing and will have complete data in about 3 weeks time . A line on paper seems rather weak relative to actual dyno results.

Also, if there are several early adopters (besides me), we could do a bulk buy and have a shipment of motors come direct from China rather than going through NZ. Obviously, the controllers would still come from NZ where they are made. By buying and shipping in bulk we could likely save a good bit on shipping and perhaps some on the goods as well.

All those interested say "aye".


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Thanks for all the PM's. After talking with Phillip Court of Greenstage I think it is better to not release the unconfirmed torque graph. They are in the process of setting up the Scott Drive for full dyno testing and will have complete data in about 3 weeks time . A line on paper seems rather weak relative to actual dyno results.
> 
> ...


Make a new thread for that.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Gosh, you might have me there, I thought there was something in the rules about going around and filling threads about competitors products with negative and unsubstantiated posts. Maybe that's a rule in the future. Or just professional manners. Either way you are guilty and everybody here sees what you are doing. (at least that's what they say in PM)


I'm not sure why you are coming on so strong here. You didn't start this thread promoting this product, someone else did, and posted a link. Tesseract stated his opinion about the type of motor and backed it up with a third party link. He could be wrong, the link could be wrong, but there is nothing wrong with posting an opinion and discussing it in a discussion forum. Maybe this motor will be great, I hope so, but there is nothing wrong with talking about why it may not be. Prove him wrong with solid data, don't bitch about his opinion. He's allowed to have one, and express it, just like everyone else.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I'm not sure why you are coming on so strong here. You didn't start this thread promoting this product, someone else did, and posted a link. Tesseract stated his opinion about the type of motor and backed it up with a third party link. He could be wrong, the link could be wrong, but there is nothing wrong with posting an opinion and discussing it in a discussion forum. Maybe this motor will be great, I hope so, but there is nothing wrong with talking about why it may not be. Prove him wrong with solid data, don't bitch about his opinion. He's allowed to have one, and express it, just like everyone else.


+1. my feeling exactly. Tesseract is highly regarded based on his significant contributions, both in word and product. Cut the personal stuff. There is always interest in new products and few will discount AC or brushless DC if it is viable, available, capable, and competitive. Most people who have experience and/or have done their homework understand the strengths/weeknesses of the different drive technologies. It's been more about availability, price and peak power to this point. Good luck, and move fwd in a positive way.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Ok, crazy news here. 

Greenstage ISN'T THE MANUFACTURER!! -just the NZ north-island dealer POSING as a manufacturer. They pretended to have sold the motor to Hagen (the guy with the RAV4) but actually he got the controller from his buddy SCOTT who is the builder. Hagen actually helped write the controller software, etc... It is no wonder Greenstage balked when I said I wanted to do a bulk buy at reduced price. They can't deal cause they are a middle man. Only the 'factory' can deal.

I am currently contacting 'Scott' to get the real scoop and will hopefully get more info about the system as well as a better bulk price for those willing to try something new.

Updates as story develops...


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,
Ok, since Greenstage is out of the game (as far as I am concerned), I might as well post the torque chart of the motor. Now please realize this is unconfirmed. It is also using the Chinese controller. If Scott will make a high voltage (540+vdc) version then the figures may be more, so this is just a rough image.










Might as well put the 320vdc version up as well: (I think it got a bit distorted going through powerpoint. )










Anyway, take them with a serious grain of salt. When the first shipment arrives in the U.S. I will initiate dyno tests to confirm.

Cheers 

p.s. "norminal power" is a very specialized Chinese term combining 'nominal' and 'normal'. ~<:|


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Hi Marcus,

What are the model numbers for the motor and controller?

Cheers,
Peter


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

I still think the 4000 RPM limit is going to be a colossal problem for most conversions. He's going to need to pair that controller with an AC induction motor...


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Here is a great gearing calculator. At the bottom of the page is a nice tire diameter calculator as well:
http://www.rocky-road.com/calculator.html

Direct drive 4000rpm with 3.54 gears and 28" tires (most common) gets you to 94 mph. 

30" tires get you to 100 mph
Or overdrive gets you to 125 mph
Or higher R&P gets to about 130 mph

Combine the three and you get to 163 mph. 

If you really need to go faster add larger tires or a separate overdrive...

Cheers


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Well yes, but you don't want to be sitting at your max RPM continuously just to go down the freeway.

Also most of the tires are 23-26" (MR2, BMWs)

The ones with the larger tires are heavy enough a 100kw peak starts getting dicey when you want to merge.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> Well yes, but you don't want to be sitting at your max RPM continuously just to go down the freeway.
> 
> Also most of the tires are 23-26" (MR2, BMWs)
> 
> The ones with the larger tires are heavy enough a 100kw peak starts getting dicey when you want to merge.


According to the motor manufacturer, 6000 rpm is the actual 'redline'. It will do 4000 rpm all day every day. I will be using a limit of 5000 rpm. Sounds like you have never driven a diesel. My old Cummins only does about 3k.  -and it's towing to Missouri in September.

Ok, let's use a worse-case-scenario: a stock MR2 with teeny weeny 23" tires and super low 4.13 axle gears.

4000rpm is 80 mph.
5000rpm is 101 mph
26" tires get it to 114 mph
Drop in the popular 6-speed and you go 135 mph. (gas-powered MR2 only goes 120mph max)

If someone is going to completely change the drive system, swapping larger tires seems like child's play (if they really want to go over 100 mph).

The 110-120kw peak rating is based on pairing the motor with a small 150kva controller (not the Scott controller). The 320vdc motor is rated with about 400amps going through it. If 400 amps were applied to the 540vdc motor it should make over 160kw peak. 

Obviously, this is pure speculation on paper and must be tested using a dyno while carefully measuring motor coolant temperature.

Remember, my Cummins only puts out 120kw and it pulls 20,000 lbs over steep mountain passes in 4th gear. It's all done with low-rpm torque.

500nm should allow you to 'merge' a heavy vehicle quite nicely.

Cheers


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Yes but your cummins has a transmission. 

Take for example, my van. 

The original engine would output 334 FT LBS torque, and the transmission ( 1st gear) had a ratio of 3.06:1. The differential 3.73:1

So when you put the pedal down in 1st, you got over 3000 FTLBS torque at the wheels. They are 30 inch wheels/tires.


Of course, If you are putting the system in a car it should be quite alright though, assuming the figures are correct. 

350 ftlbs at the driveshaft actually seems to move my van just fine, though I haven't tried to merge onto the highway.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

The graph looks like 160 Nm (about 120 ftlbs)

Take one extreme, a 2000 lb car with a 4.1 rear end ratio, and 1 foot radius tires

( 120 ftlbs * 4.1 / 1 ) / 2000 lbs = 24% grade!

Now take another extreme, 1.5 foot radius tires, 3.23 rear end ratio, and 4000 lb car:

( 120 ftlbs * 3.23 / 1.5 ) / 4000 lbs = 6% grade (18% for a short burst)

The light car is fine, the heavy car not. It would be fine with a tranny, though. Note you could get up a much steeper short hill, this is for the 1 hour number long climb. The other caveat is this calculation is based on a spec sheet!

The RAV4 cited before I would roughly estimate:

( 120 ftlbs * 2.928 / 1.0 ) / 3600 lbs = 10%, but 30% for a short burst.



subcooledheatpump said:


> Yes but your cummins has a transmission.
> 
> Take for example, my van.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

400Nm = 295ftlbs from 0 to 2100rpm (118hp)
300Nm = 221ftlbs up to 3000rpm (126hp)
200Nm = 147ftlbs up to 4000rpm (112hp)

Seems like a good motor to mate to a transmission, as much power as the smaller European TDI engines with more low end torque not to mention torque form zero rpm; getting up to speed would be easier than waiting for a turbo to spool up.

The higher voltage version should push out the peak power rpm, right?


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

I was on the Kelly Controllers web site, and happened to see they have a BLDC system for sale. Note the graph looks very similar to the one below:

http://kellycontroller.com/mot/downloads/144V12KW_BLDC_Motor_Performance_Curve.pdf

http://kellycontroller.com/144v-12kw-bldc-motor-p-1072.html

http://kellycontroller.com/khb1440124-144v400aopto-bldc-controllerwith-regen-p-832.html

Here's a quick comparison:

Kelly ..... Scott

75 lbs ..... 176 lbs
80 nM ..... 500 Nm
$3100 ..... $6000?
3200 rpm ... 3200 rpm knee in curve

Anyway, note the same rpm for the knee. The Scott motor is about 2.3x the weight, but says it has 6x the torque and power. Keep in mind the Kelly system is much lower voltage and possibly lower current, so that could make for differences.


ruckus said:


> Hello,
> Ok, since Greenstage is out of the game (as far as I am concerned), I might as well post the torque chart of the motor. Now please realize this is unconfirmed. It is also using the Chinese controller. If Scott will make a high voltage (540+vdc) version then the figures may be more, so this is just a rough image.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

How many KW is the beefier system?


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

From the graph:

500 Nm * 2100 rpm * 2 * pi / 60 s = 110 kW


somanywelps said:


> How many KW is the beefier system?


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

The current controller states 150kw peak.

I assume the beefier version is more than that.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Here is a link to a short piece on National New Zealand news about Hagen's direct-drive Toyota powered by a windmill. That driveway does seem to prove that the motor produces ample low-end torque. Hagen has the controller limit set to 365 amps out of 590 amps potential. So he is only using about 60% of the available torque. He says petrol vehicles have a very difficult time getting started up the drive if they stop. They either stall out or rev up and spin the tires. The electric drive allows him very good traction control.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwi-car-powered-by-windmill/tabid/309/articleID/257992/Default.aspx

Cheers


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

DavidDymaxion said:


> From the graph:
> 
> 500 Nm * 2100 rpm * 2 * pi / 60 s = 110 kW


The max kw shown in the charts are produced using a 150kva controller. That is why the motor output maxes out at 110kw. (110 is 80% of 150)

Motor output would be roughly 80% of controller kw (at best).

Actually, Scott said Semikron has 1200v capacitors. That would certainly open the door on 'high' voltage.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

Thanks for the video link, that's neat. 


It looks like the motor is in front to me, but it was kind of hard to see -- maybe he is actually using the tranny gearing?
He is the 3rd person I know of who has used "tow regen"
A falling torque curve does provide a form of traction control -- as the wheels spin faster it loses torque



ruckus said:


> Here is a link to a short piece on National New Zealand news about Hagen's direct-drive Toyota powered by a windmill. That driveway does seem to prove that the motor produces ample low-end torque. Hagen has the controller limit set to 365 amps out of 590 amps potential. So he is only using about 60% of the available torque. He says petrol vehicles have a very difficult time getting started up the drive if they stop. They either stall out or rev up and spin the tires. The electric drive allows him very good traction control.
> 
> http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwi-car-powered-by-windmill/tabid/309/articleID/257992/Default.aspx
> 
> Cheers


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Motor output would be roughly 80% of controller kw (at best).


? Even Brushed DC motors are high 80%'s on efficiency.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

I guess, the mentioned Amps are actually Arms. That's why kVA is used as power unit, instead of kW. And 150kVA, where the A is Arms, is roughly 105-110 real kWatts.
The efficiency would also be nice to know.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Well, a couple of things... remember that grain of salt I was talking about?

20% is a very standard power loss factor used when roughly converting kva to kw. If you go to generator sizing calculations you will see it used often. 

The controllers are measured in kva and the motors in kw. 20% is a very rough estimate of the TOTAL losses in the controller and motor at max power. (Let's not forget battery sag while we're at it). This is standard industry practice when sizing drive systems for a given duty and says nothing about the efficiency of these particular motors.

These are not dyno charts! They are merely pictoral representations of the motor specs already given in number form.


----------



## jk1981 (Nov 12, 2010)

Tesseract said:


> As a result of these severe shortcomings, trapezoidal BLDC is really only suitable for small fans and servos, not traction applications.


Why aren't brushed-DC motors subject to the same torque ripple that makes trapezoidally excited BLDC so unsuitable for traction applications? Where is the big performance difference between a Hall-sensor+inverter commutated BLDC and a mechanically commutated Sep-Ex that makes one 'unsuitable' for traction and the other a well established norm


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

I wouldn't say BLDC is unsuitable for traction motors - I've got an 80kw motor in my car and it seems to work fine - other than the blown IGBT in the controller....


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

jk1981 said:


> Why aren't brushed-DC motors subject to the same torque ripple that makes trapezoidally excited BLDC so unsuitable for traction applications? Where is the big performance difference between a Hall-sensor+inverter commutated BLDC and a mechanically commutated Sep-Ex that makes one 'unsuitable' for traction and the other a well established norm


Brushed DC motors DO suffer from torque ripple, but the number of commutator segments is high enough to approximate a sinusoidal flux distribution, which both flattens out the torque ripple amplitude and minimizes the angular error between the direct and quadrature fluxes. 




PThompson509 said:


> I wouldn't say BLDC is unsuitable for traction motors - I've got an 80kw motor in my car and it seems to work fine - other than the blown IGBT in the controller....


I was referring to a specific type of BLDC motor, not BLDC motors in general.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

PThompson509 said:


> I wouldn't say BLDC is unsuitable for traction motors - I've got an 80kw motor in my car and it seems to work fine - other than the blown IGBT in the controller....


Care to share what type/model/voltage you have and how it has worked for you?

Thanks!


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Care to share what type/model/voltage you have and how it has worked for you?
> 
> Thanks!


http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/224

- Drivetrain -
Controller: GLCP7024L11
Motor: GLMP25L1
Battery Pack Voltage: 349v
Other Notes: 
Updated to different BLDC motor from Greatland Electric


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Yup, that's me.  My 914 mechanic LOVES the acceleration. I'm really hoping that nothing serious went in the controller - I'll find out on Sunday - a coworker that has repaired these sorts of things is stopping by. I'll keep you posted.

Cheers,
Peter



Bowser330 said:


> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/224
> 
> - Drivetrain -
> Controller: GLCP7024L11
> ...


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> I was referring to a specific type of BLDC motor, not BLDC motors in general.


In this thread is suggested that the remy is also trapezodial....?


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

Jan said:


> In this thread is suggested that the remy is also trapezodial....?


That does seem to be the suggestion, but don't confuse a trapezoidal PWM scheme with a trapezoidally-wound motor; the two go together, but they aren't the same.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> That does seem to be the suggestion, but don't confuse a trapezoidal PWM scheme with a trapezoidally-wound motor; the two go together, but they aren't the same.


Yes, that's what I understood out of your first comments. This is a trapezoidally wound motor, and the controller can't change that. But it is still what the linked thread suggests: The wavesculpter he coupled is perfectly able to provide a sinesodial (gesus what are these words hard) scheme as far as I know. Is he wrong? Or don't I understand what he means.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

Jan said:


> Yes, that's what I understood out of your first comments. This is a trapezoidally wound motor, and the controller can't change that. But it is still what the linked thread suggests: The wavesculpter he coupled is perfectly able to provide a sinesodial (gesus what are these words hard) scheme as far as I know. Is he wrong? Or don't I understand what he means.


Not to state the obvious, but, you are asking the wrong person these questions. Major has actually worked with this motor so he would be a better person to ask, as well as the relevant person in that thread you linked to. 

As to why someone would choose to drive the Remy motor with a trapezoidal waveform, if I had to *guess* I'd say it's likely that the IPM rotor distorts the back-EMF that the sinusoidally-wound stator would otherwise produce if, say, a surface PM or induction rotor were used. But that's just my guess from my very basic, very limited understanding of the beasts.


----------



## Nuts&Volts (Dec 20, 2011)

I am fairly certain that the Remy is trapezoidal BEMF due to the magnetic layout. We are driving it with a Sinusoidal PWM signal from the Tritium.

This can help answer your questions about BEMF and control waveform http://web.mit.edu/scolton/www/SCThG.pdf


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Nuts&Volts said:


> I am fairly certain that the Remy is trapezoidal BEMF due to the magnetic layout. We are driving it with a Sinusoidal PWM signal from the Tritium.
> 
> This can help answer your questions about BEMF and control waveform http://web.mit.edu/scolton/www/SCThG.pdf


That paper was very interesting.  My favorite part was:

"It is the author’s opinion that the difference between trap and sine [brushless motors] is surrounded by more misunderstanding and confusion than any other subject in the field of brushless motor control."

He claimed trapezoidal motors would have better torque than the other types. Of course, I don't think there is a good way to test that theory since any two motor designs could be flawed and not represent the optimized construction of their particular type, making comparisons quite limited in value.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Still working on this..


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

How large are these other motors? Do they use the same mounting configuration?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

njloof said:


> How large are these other motors? Do they use the same mounting configuration?


The 22kw motor has a diameter of 250mm (9.85") and a length of 326mm (12.85").

The 30-60kw motors are all the same frame/casing and have a diameter of 300mm (11.81") and length of 403mm (15.87").

The Scott Drive pdf on the Greenstage link has a schematic with basic dimensions.

They get incrementally heavier as they go up in power since they have more copper and magnets stuffed inside.

I should mention that the motors normally come with an 8-spline shaft. We can have the shafts customized to our liking if we want. The folks in NZ have been making couplers/yokes for the splined shaft.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

ruckus said:


> I should mention that the motors normally come with an 8-spline shaft. We can have the shafts customized to our liking if we want. The folks in NZ have been making couplers/yokes for the splined shaft. I am finding out if couplers are available from China to fit the 8-spline shaft.
> 
> Would folks rather have the same shaft as a Warp 11?


If it's not a large cost to add, I'd prefer it; there's already a wide selection of adapters for a variety of transmissions that mate to the Warp mounts/shaft, so it would give us many options.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

ruckus said:


> The 22kw motor has a diameter of 250mm (9.85") and a length of 326mm (12.85").
> 
> The 30-60kw motors are all the same frame/casing and have a diameter of 300mm (11.81") and length of 403mm (15.87").
> 
> ...


 Are you sure the 22KW is that big? How much does it weigh??? Thats HUGE for a 22 kw motor! Is it Permanent magnet or induction??
look at the size and power of these motors! http://www.wrightspeed.com/circuit.html


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

Ruckus, we need weight info.

Nucleus


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Arlo said:


> Are you sure the 22KW is that big? How much does it weigh??? Thats HUGE for a 22 kw motor! Is it Permanent magnet or induction??
> look at the size and power of these motors! http://www.wrightspeed.com/circuit.html


Well ruckus mentioned that peak power which is the figure wrightspeed is mentioning is 4x the rated power, so if you got the 45kw motor you would have 240hp peak. 45kw x 4 = 180kw = 241hp


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

njloof said:


> If it's not a large cost to add, I'd prefer it; there's already a wide selection of adapters for a variety of transmissions that mate to the Warp mounts/shaft, so it would give us many options.


That's a good idea, +1


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

nucleus said:


> Ruckus, we need weight info.


I am putting together a table with all the info, but real quick here are the weights:

22kw 46kg 101 lb... 4.6 lbs/kw
30kw 63kg 139 lb... 4.6 lbs/kw
35kw 70kg 154 lb... 4.4 lbs/kw
40kw 75kg 165 lb... 4.1 lbs/kw
45kw 78kg 172 lb... 3.8 lbs/kw
55kw 85kg 187 lb... 3.4 lbs/kw
60kw 85kg 187 lb... 3.1 lbs/kw

For comparison, here are standard brushed motor ratings and weight:

8".. 16kw 107 lb... 6.7 lbs/kw
9".. 19kw 143 lb... 7.5 lbs/kw
11" 26kw 233 lb... 9.0 lbs/kw !

You can see the continuous power rating is much higher in the water-cooled brushless motors and their weight is much less.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> ...
> For comparison, here are standard brushed motor ratings and weight:
> 
> 8".. 16kw 107 lb... 6.7 lbs/kw
> ...


Those numbers appear to be derived from the 72V constant voltage curves, which paints a particularly unflattering picture given that the commutation limit for, e.g., the WarP motors is 192V, and the recommended limit is 170V. At 170V and keeping the current at the 1 hour rating of 250A the WarP-9 delivers 42.5kW for a power to weight ratio of 3.36 lbs/kw.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Actually, the 8" and 9" values are for the ADC motors which are rated at 120v. Yes, it is too bad Warfield does not rate their motors at a useful voltage. 

I listed the manufacturer's ratings. They are what they are. Your numbers are undocumented speculation. 

Surely you know that the continuous kw rating of an electric motor is entirely based on its ability to get rid of heat. Raising the voltage does not improve cooling. The continuous kw rating remains almost the same. Peak power is higher, but not continuous power. This can be seen in the 55kw 320v motor and the 60kw 540v motor. The continuous kw ratings are hardly different. (40% increase in voltage = 17% increase in continuous kw rating which is 9% due to a higher rpm rating and thus only 8% actual increase in continuous power)

Sure, I could extrapolate the data of any motor to undocumented voltages/amperages and claim all sorts of crazy power using modified cooling systems, but that defeats the whole purpose of a manufacturer spec sheet, doesn't it?

Cheers 

Edit: Since you don't believe anything I say, how about listening to Major? Here is his assesment (post #3):
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/warp-11-hp-enough-motori-34418.html


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Hey folks,
> Finally have some rough prices. These are 'CFR' which means it includes freight, but not duty fees and import taxes which 'likely' amount to $1-300 based on the size and cost of the motor you purchase.
> 
> It seems that we will be able to group together with the folks in New Zealand for a bulk buy. This will get everybody a better price. The U.S.-bound motors will be directly shipped to the port of Seattle where I will pick them up. We can mix and match motor sizes and still get the bulk price. The ratings are in KW which you can multiply by 1.34 to get hp. The manufacturer says the peak power for very short duration (a 10-20 second drag race) is 4x the rated kw. The price somewhat depends on the size of the order. The first price column is for 5-10 motors and the 2nd column is for 10-15 motors.
> ...


Do you have the torque curves (specifically for the 55kw motor).

Also I assume the RPM ratings are different.

Are these still BLDC?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

njloof said:


> there's already a wide selection of adapters for a variety of transmissions that mate to the Warp mounts/shaft...


1. These motors have a different and much larger/stronger (13" dia vs 8.4" dia) bolt pattern than a Warp 11, so those adapters would not work anyway. (well, maybe with an adapter to the adapter )

2. The shaft is starting out somewhere around 1.6-1.8". With shafts, bigger is better. I am not sure if it is a good idea to cut that down to match the rinky-dink 1.125" of a Warp 11. If the shaft breaks, your day is pretty much ruined.  We must assume the shaft is properly sized by the manufacturer to handle the torque of the motor. 

3. If we had it turned down to say 1.5", 1-5/8, or 1-3/4, a standard taper-lock bush would go right on and bolt up to the same coupler/yoke. That is the beauty of using separate bushes in the taper-lock system.

Still finding out out pricing on shaft mods and if they have couplings available...

Edit: here is broken Warp 1.125" shaft:


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> Do you have the torque curves (specifically for the 55kw motor).
> 
> Also I assume the RPM ratings are different.
> 
> Are these still BLDC?


All the motors are rated at 320vdc 3200rpm except the 60kw motor is rated at 540vdc 3500rpm.

The torque 'curve' (more like a table top) is in the thread above. Please keep in mind that the test was done with a 120kva, 375amp controller. That is why it is only ~420nm and suddenly tapers off at 110kw. The Scott drive is nominally 400amps at 400vdc for 160kva, so you would see quite a bit more power using the Scott controller. The 600 amp Scott controller should put out a nominal 240kva for a dramatic increase in peak torque and power.

I think it is much better to dyno a drive system than to use empty calculations based on a spread sheet using unknown test parameters, but if you want me to extrapolate, here are the numbers I come up with:

55kw motor at 320v, 190A makes 164nm (this is manufacturer's continuous rating).
with the 400v, 400A controller it calculates to 431nm max torque
with the 400v, 600A controller it calculates to 650nm max torque.

Now these are just calculations. In reality you have battery sag and motor/controller efficiency goes down as amps go up, so figure a bit less.

If you run the same type of totally unproven calcs on the 540v motor you get:

60kw motor at 540v, 111A makes 164nm (continuous rating)
with 600v, 400A controller it calcs to 650nm (sound familiar? see above)
with 600v, 600A controller it calcs to 984nm. 

Yes, those numbers sound absolutely ridiculous to me. That is why I want to put one on the dyno. I am not a big fan of empty speculation.

Now you see why I recommend keeping the shaft as large as possible.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Tesla Roadster Sport 2.5
215kw peak
295ftlb
2,723lbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

55kw rated X4 = 220kw peak w/ greater low-end torque!


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> All the motors are rated at 320vdc 3200rpm except the 60kw motor is rated at 540vdc 3500rpm.
> 
> The torque 'curve' (more like a table top) is in the thread above. Please keep in mind that the test was done with a 120kva, 375amp controller. That is why it is only ~420nm and suddenly tapers off at 110kw. The Scott drive is nominally 400amps at 400vdc for 160kva, so you would see quite a bit more power using the Scott controller. The 600 amp Scott controller should put out a nominal 240kva for a dramatic increase in peak torque and power.
> 
> ...


Those are the same numbers I calculated out. I guess we wait for the dyno.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Edit: here is broken Warp 1.125" shaft:


Which was the result of a bad alignment due to a poorly built adapter plate. A larger shaft would have broken eventually, or caused something else to break.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> Those are the same numbers I calculated out. I guess we wait for the dyno.


Glad your calculator agrees. I am not waiting though, I am purchasing. If these motors are as good as reported (by the folks in NZ who are testing them), I doubt the next group purchase will be quite as sweet. Do you want to pay my phone bill and time for bringing you this opportunity to purchase superior technology? I think not.

Have you heard the saying: "Who does nothing, does nothing wrong"?

I am doing. Those who join me will be doers as well. They will be the first people on this continent to use the technology of the future.

Cheers


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Warp motor shaft failure.



JRP3 said:


> Which was the result of a bad alignment due to a poorly built adapter plate. A larger shaft would have broken eventually, or caused something else to break.


You are in the game of speculation too? This club is getting quite large. 

Of course misalignment using a solid coupler is a disaster waiting to happen. However, a small increase in the diameter of a shaft dramatically increases both the torque and sheer/fatigue ratings. If you want I can link endless hydraulic motor spec sheets showing such. The strength per diameter is exponential. A 1.5 diameter shaft is MANY multiples stronger than a 1.00 shaft. 

This has been well tested. Do you want data?

Would you rather break a $150 tranny (Craigslist price) or a $3000 motor??

I have a spare Jeep T-90 and Dana 18 sitting in the barn. They are nothing to replace. The 50 year-old tranny rated at 200ftlbs (generous) didn't break. It was the band new Warp motor that failed instead. Which shaft is questionable?


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> ...
> I listed the manufacturer's ratings. They are what they are. Your numbers are undocumented speculation.


My numbers come from our dyno. I'd say that's rather more documented and rather less speculative than the manufacturer's. Besides, Kostov publishes perfectly good dyno charts that go well past 72V.



ruckus said:


> Surely you know that the continuous kw rating of an electric motor is entirely based on its ability to get rid of heat.


Surely you know that the vast majority of the heat produced by a series DC motor is the result of resistive losses (ie, I²R), but since power is the product of voltage and current, if you increase voltage without increasing current you get more power but not more heat.



ruckus said:


> ...
> Edit: Since you don't believe anything I say, how about listening to Major? Here is his assesment (post #3):
> http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/warp-11-hp-enough-motori-34418.html


What's the problem? Major says that you can't get 43hp for 1 hour from a WarP-11 with a 72V battery... Run the motor at 120-150V instead of less than 72V and eve at its 1 hour current rating you'll get a lot more than 43hp out of it.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> My numbers come from our dyno.


And you publish these facts where? 

I am very open to independent test data. But I have seen none as you claim. You counter Major with more speculation of inflated numbers.

Do you have video that shows the motors performing as you claim and running without AIDS such as external fans blowing?

I have not seen it. Nor has anyone else.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Do you want to pay my phone bill and time for bringing you this opportunity to purchase superior technology?


Skype (or VOIP), get with the 21st century


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> if you increase voltage without increasing current you get more power but not more heat.


Is that why your controller limits power by cutting amps at high voltage?

If higher voltage is 'free lunch' than why do you claim there is NO 'free lunch'? in your controller thread??

IF there IS free lunch by raising voltage as you suddenly claim, then the 600+- volts of the HV Scott controller should be a good bit better than the mere 340v your Solitron can supply, correct?

P.S. It sounds like we have a sweet drag race planned for EVCCON 2013. Yes?


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Is that why your controller limits power by cutting amps at high voltage?
> 
> If higher voltage is 'free lunch' than why do you claim there is NO 'free lunch'? in your controller thread??


It limits it a little above 300V.

The highest voltage rated motor is the Warp11HV, at 288V.

So if you've build a stout enough pack so that it won't go under 288V, and you floor it, it will still sag under 300V, presto, no limiting.

I believe it checks every 20ms.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> Skype (or VOIP), get with the 21st century


Yes, please, call my wife and get me in more trouble over this EV junk...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> You are in the game of speculation too? This club is getting quite large.
> 
> Of course misalignment using a solid coupler is a disaster waiting to happen. However, a small increase in the diameter of a shaft dramatically increases both the torque and sheer/fatigue ratings. If you want I can link endless hydraulic motor spec sheets showing such. The strength per diameter is exponential. A 1.5 diameter shaft is MANY multiples stronger than a 1.00 shaft.


Of course a larger shaft is stronger, I never said otherwise, just pointed out that the picture you referenced was an example of shaft misalignment, not one of a weak shaft as you implied. I'm also not suggesting you should use a smaller shaft.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> The highest voltage rated motor is the Warp11HV, at 288V.


Ok, so if higher voltage is 'free lunch' as Tesseract claims then the the Scott Drive is 50% better? And the Scott HV is 2X better??


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Is it coincidence the negative forces returned to this thread as soon as I posted this??:



ruckus said:


> Hey folks,
> Finally have some rough prices. These are 'CFR' which means it includes freight, but not duty fees and import taxes which 'likely' amount to $1-300 based on the size and cost of the motor you purchase.
> 
> It seems that we will be able to group together with the folks in New Zealand for a bulk buy. This will get everybody a better price. The U.S.-bound motors will be directly shipped to the port of Seattle where I will pick them up. We can mix and match motor sizes and still get the bulk price. The ratings are in KW which you can multiply by 1.34 to get hp. The manufacturer says the peak power for very short duration (a 10-20 second drag race) is 4x the rated kw. The price somewhat depends on the size of the order. The first price column is for 5-10 motors and the 2nd column is for 10-15 motors.
> ...


Capitalism is nice yes? ... even if it comes from the communists...


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I'm going to stick my neck out with an opinion, based on my experience and theoretical considerations of 3 phase AC induction motors. I think they correlate fairly well, since both are magnetic machines and if you look at just the DC bus to the VF drive they look just about the same to the battery pack. 

Under normal conditions, assuming the same number of poles and nominal voltage, torque, and speed values, speed is proportional to voltage, and torque is proportional to current. There are resistive losses with higher current, and core losses with higher voltage, and the limits are based on similar parameters such as heat build-up and insulation breakdown voltage and mechanical limits such as bearings and windage.

Both DC and AC motors may provide several times their rated power by increasing the speed while keeping current constant, which generally means also increasing voltage by the V/F ratio. At least for AC motors, but I think it is the same for DC. If you increase the load with the voltage constant, the current and torque will increase up to a certain limit. Induction motors generally stall at about 2-3x rated torque and are inherently current limited because they are inductors being fed by AC at a given frequency.

But DC motors produce much higher torque because their inductance can't limit a DC current. So they slow down, effectively lowering the applied frequency, and a stalled motor current is limited only by the resistance of windings and brushes. At the other end, increasing voltage and speed will keep current constant, so resistive losses will be about the same, but there will be more losses in the brushes, or possibly core losses due to the higher effective frequency.

Remember that (almost) all motors are actually AC. Traditional brushed DC motors use a commutator to provide the AC needed to cause rotation. I don't know the frequency or the number of poles in series wound DC traction motors, but I would guess that they operate at about the same frequency as induction motors for the same RPM.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Ok, so if higher voltage is 'free lunch' as Tesseract claims then the the Scott Drive is 50% better? And the Scott HV is 2X better??


I don't know if you're trying to be a smartaleck, but the Scott drive (and AC/BLDC in general) use higher voltage but lower current. 

Also it can be tricky to reach that high of a voltage using normal Li-ion. 

You can't use those nice 100Ah cells and reach 600V nominal in a reasonable weight.

There are tradeoffs. 

Also demagnetization if you get too enthusiastic with a BLDC.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Is it coincidence the negative forces returned to this thread as soon as I posted this??:


Nope, just your paranoia that you are somehow being attacked


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> ...it can be tricky to reach that high of a voltage using normal Li-ion.
> You can't use those nice 100Ah cells and reach 600V nominal in a reasonable weight.
> There are tradeoffs.
> Also demagnetization if you get too enthusiastic with a BLDC.


I wouldn't use li-ion. I recommend Lifepo4. Please tell me the problems with reaching higher voltages? All OEMs use high voltage.

A123 20ah x 165 = 182 Lbs
A123 20ah 1s2p x 330 (40ah) = 364 lbs
Headway 38120 1s4p 32ah = 480 lbs
Calb 40ah cells x 165 = 510 lbs
A123 20ah 1s3p x 495 (60ah) = 546 lbs

I wouldn't recommend the higher voltage version for those that see only problems. It is better suited for those who see solutions.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> I wouldn't use li-ion. I recommend Lifepo4. Please tell me the problems with reaching higher voltages? All OEMs use high voltage.
> 
> A123 20ah x 165 = 182 Lbs
> A123 20ah 1s2p x 330 (40ah) = 364 lbs
> ...


LiFePo4 is a subset of Li-ion.

A123 right now is kinda sketchy, headways are really expensive and a volumetrically problematic.

CALB 40Ah is what we are left with, and that's a LOT of connections.

Also have fun linking that with a BMS.

But I'm open to all options so I'll see how it turns out.


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> LiFePo4 is a subset if Li-ion.
> 
> A123 right now is kinda sketchy, headways are really expensive and a volumetrically problematic.
> 
> ...


Yup, I really know how that works. I've got 108 CALB 60Ah batteries in my pack. LOTS of fiddly bits to hook together. Makes for some nice torque - is there a dyno place somewhere in San Diego? I'd love to see how my current setup works.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Hey folks,
> Finally have some rough prices. These are 'CFR' which means it includes freight, but not duty fees and import taxes which 'likely' amount to $1-300 based on the size and cost of the motor you purchase.
> 
> It seems that we will be able to group together with the folks in New Zealand for a bulk buy. This will get everybody a better price. The U.S.-bound motors will be directly shipped to the port of Seattle where I will pick them up. We can mix and match motor sizes and still get the bulk price. The ratings are in KW which you can multiply by 1.34 to get hp. The manufacturer says the peak power for very short duration (a 10-20 second drag race) is 4x the rated kw. The price somewhat depends on the size of the order. The first price column is for 5-10 motors and the 2nd column is for 10-15 motors.
> ...


I forgot to mention that 30% is due at order placement and the remainder when they go on the boat. Depending on the motor ordered, that means you only have to come up with $600-1,200 in the short term.

The shaft/coupling/yoke questions have been posed to the factory. 

Is there any interest in having the tail shaft protrude to drive accessories? The next larger frame size (bus) has this. I requested the price for this option.

I also asked them to give the maximum amps without worry of demagnetization for each motor size.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> I forgot to mention that 30% is due at order placement and the remainder when they go on the boat. Depending on the motor ordered, that means you only have to come up with $600-1,200 in the short term.
> 
> The shaft/coupling/yoke questions have been posed to the factory.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't worry about the tailshaft, I've only seen it in one or two super cheap conversions, which this is not for.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> I wouldn't worry about the tailshaft, I've only seen it in one or two super cheap conversions, which this is not for.


Like Jack Rickard's Escalade?? He's really pinching the pennies on that build. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_xg0XukRCk&feature=em-subs_digest


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah I don't really see cost as a factor, the second output shaft can be useful for accessories in many builds.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

ruckus, are the nominal/max RPM for all those motors (22kw-60kw) all 3200/4000?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

njloof said:


> ruckus, are the nominal/max RPM for all those motors (22kw-60kw) all 3200/4000?


Good question, also is there any way to trade off some torque for some extra peak rpm? eg 9000rpm, I assume that would mean rewinding the motor...?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

njloof said:


> ruckus, are the nominal/max RPM for all those motors (22kw-60kw) all 3200/4000?


22-55kw motors are rated at 3200rpm.
60kw motor is rated at 3500rpm.

Industrial combustion engines are usually rated at 3600rpm and bog under load to about 3200. That is most likely the reason they chose 3200. The ADC series wound brushed motors are rated at the same rpm. It is standard practice for industrial drives (combustion, electric, and hydraulic).

The rated rpm is usually the rpm of highest efficiency. They can wind the motors to have peak efficiency at any rpm you desire (within reason). Obviously, you can run the motors at higher or lower rpm than the rated rpm, they are just not at perfect peak efficiency. If a motor is rated at 320v, 3200rpm and you use it at 360v the peak efficiency rpm will raise to about 3600 rpm. Winding for higher rpm will give less low-end torque and winding for low-rpm torque will give less power at high rpm. It is always a compromise. I would start with the stock motor windings and just up the voltage a bit to get better high-rpm power if that is what you desire. The Scott Drive can handle up to 425v which might sag to 360v-380v under hard use, but that is still a good bit higher than 320.

The data sheets list 4000 rpm as the max, but the manufacturer claims 6000 rpm is the actual 'redline' past which bad things might happen. 5000 rpm might be a good compromise for intermittent use. With the flat torque curve however, there is not much reason to rev rather than shift unless you are already in top gear (or with direct drive) and are doing a high-speed run.

In many cars, 4000rpm will get you to 90mph direct drive and 5000rpm will get you to 110mph. If you use an overdrive, higher gears, or larger tires you can go much faster. It just depends on how bad you want to go to jail 

Direct drive 5000rpm with 2.73 rear and 235/85r16 tires gets you to about 175 mph. Add a Gear Vendors overdrive and you are up to 222 mph!  Personally, I don't think these motors are good for much over 190mph without serious cooling mods and aero tuning. But if that is what you want, give me a call. Speed record cars are an area I have carefully studied.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Here is a quick chart of graph of the 55kw motor with the 600Amp Scott Drive at 384v which is 120 batts sagged to 3.2v.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Am I reading this correctly....
440fltbs from 0-3600rpm 
309hp up to 5000rpm 

384V * 600A = 230.4 kW = 309.3hp


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Well, you need to factor in motor efficiency is less than 100%.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

njloof said:


> Well, you need to factor in motor efficiency is less than 100%.


I did. 

The power is derated to 89% and the torque is derated to 76%. The power only affects the very right side of the chart where the power flat-lines and the torque drops. Shift that ever-so-slightly down if you desire. Max kw/hp only affects the very right side of the chart near the max rpm. All else would be the same.

For a really boring detailed explanation of torque and power derating see below.

1. This is a purely theoretical chart. There is no dyno data yet.
2. Some folks take the controller max voltage and multiply it by the max amperage to get the power (even if it only lasts 1 second). In this case that would be 425v x 600A = 255kw. I am using 384v which is already a 10% drop in the total power estimate.
3. If you look at the rating for this motor the manufacturer lists [email protected] and 320v. 190A x 320v = 60.8kw. 55/61= 90% So there is another 10% loss figured into the motor efficiency. 
4. If you take 60.8kw @ 3200rpm it calcs to 181.5nm. The rated nm is only 164. So there's your 10% drop in torque.
5. If you take 164nm/190A you get .863nm/A. 600A x .863 = 518nm. But remember, we are at 384v, not 320v. 120% x .863 = 622nm. I rounded down to 600nm max which is another 4% derated just for fun.

All told, I de-rate the torque 24%. So I am figuring 76% efficiency at max amperage. 

Cheers


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Contact me if you would like a price sheet and data chart.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Ruckus. Im happy your working on this and i love permanent magnet ac motors but im afraid the efficiency drops as your raise the power imput the only way to know how much is to run dyno tests. Im betting the 55kw motor will be less then 50% efficient at 220kw. (just a guess based on my experiance). I also think the motors seem heavy for their rated power.... But i would love to see tests I have a dyno if anyone is interested but its for motorcycles.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Arlo said:


> ...the efficiency drops as your raise the power imput the only way to know how much is to run dyno tests.


I certainly agree. That is the plan.



Arlo said:


> I also think the motors seem heavy for their rated power...


Really? An 11" series DC motor weighs 106kg and is only rated at 26kw. This is 85 kg and has more than double the rating at 55kw. 

So 2X the power rating at 75% the weight. Doesn't see bad to me..


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

That is a pretty good power to weight. Another comparison is the power and weight of the Kostov 11 alpha is 50 kW and 75 kg.

To be really fair, the comparison should be motor + controller weight, as DC does commutation mechanically inside the motor, and AC does it in the controller. How much does the Scott controller weigh? For Kelly controllers the BLDC and Series motor controllers are pretty close to the same weight.



ruckus said:


> ... An 11" series DC motor weighs 106kg and is only rated at 26kw. This is 85 kg and has more than double the rating at 55kw.
> 
> So 2X the power rating at 75% the weight. Doesn't see bad to me..


----------



## Jozzer (Mar 29, 2009)

ruckus said:


> I certainly agree. That is the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Power density isn't THAT good - compared to a high end AC drive. For example EVO - 128kw continuous from a 57kg motor.
http://www.evo-electric.com/products/electric-motors/

And to compare it to a DC series motor for continuous power density isn't very fair - Series motors are NOT well known for high continuous power, but high overload/peak power. That 86kg Kostov mentioned above can peak at over 300KW easily for short bursts (and at nearly 50kw continuous it's not far behind your ScottDrive there either).
Also agree with Arlo that efficiency of the motor under extreme load will be much lower than you think, and same goes for the controller..


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

This 12kw liquid cooled motor weighs 11 lbs I plan to be using a chassis dyno soon. Unfortuanatly its a very hard to run motor and only some of the expensive controllers can run it. So Im building my own controller for it. http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=16728

But when you have permant magnet AC motors and their liquid cooled I would expect them to be a lot more power dense then a series motor like an order of magnatude. Also check out the soup can sized motor for the BRD motorycle guys it makes 46hp rear wheel.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

What must be taken into consideration is that higher horsepower can be achieved by high RPMs with the same torque and current at a higher voltage. Up to a limit, of course, which depends on the commutation frequency, and insulation resistance at higher voltage.

But when you try to get higher torque the current goes up proportionally and the resistive losses go up by the square of the current. So a 90% efficient motor at 100 amps will have 9 times the losses at 300 amps so efficiency is down around 10%. Liquid cooling will help some, but it is difficult to cool all of the motor parts, and the piping and extra components for coolant pump and radiator add weight, cost, and expense. The liquid cooling will only allow you to run the motor at higher power for a longer time before it burns up, and does not increase HP output.

I was not that much impressed by the video. You can burn out a bike tire with less than 1 HP. And the 300 amps at 100 volts is 30 kW or 40 HP into the motor. At 20% efficiency it's only about 8 HP to the wheel.


----------



## Dennis (Feb 25, 2008)

It is too bad that no one is using 400 Hertz 3-phase AC induction motors as used in aircraft as hydraulic pumps for EV conversions. There has been many forum posts of these high frequency design 3-phase motors, but they simply get buried away. I guess for the DIYselfer it is nearly impossible to source a 400 Hertz 3-phase motor, not to mention an appropriate controller. Baldor was kind enough to provide a 50 HP, 60 Hz, industrial motor for the EV community to purchase. Now if they can just build a 400 HZ version, so it will weigh about 50 LBS instead of 490 LBS... We the little guys though, so I do not see this happening.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The size and weight of the motor is not the major concern for EVs. It is quite possible to rewire a standard 240 VAC 6 pole 20 HP motor for 138 VAC and then overclock it to 180 Hz and 415 VAC to get 60 HP at 3500 RPM, which matches the ICE speed and torque pretty well. You should start with a high efficiency motor which will be somewhat bigger and heavier, but still it will be only about 150 lb which is less than the ICE. And you can safely get 2-3 times the torque for short durations as needed. The 400 Hz motors are specially made from very thin special steel laminations, which are very expensive, and they are also usually 10,000 RPM or more, which is not compatible with the drive train of the donor vehicle. 

The battery pack is by far the largest, heaviest, and most expensive part of the build. An exotic motor is not really necessary, and the initial cost as well as compromises in ruggedness, maintenance, controller complexity, and reliability "outweigh" these amazing but often unrealistic and impractical little motors.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> The size and weight of the motor is not the major concern for EVs.


It is with the 490lb Baldor motor he mentioned.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

The YATA-400 motors seem to fit this better than the chinese BLDC...


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Do you have a link for anyone that sells this motor? I'd love to look at the specs.

Cheers, Peter



somanywelps said:


> The YATA-400 motors seem to fit this better than the chinese BLDC...


----------



## Dennis (Feb 25, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> The size and weight of the motor is not the major concern for EVs. It is quite possible to rewire a standard 240 VAC 6 pole 20 HP motor for 138 VAC and then overclock it to 180 Hz and 415 VAC to get 60 HP at 3500 RPM, which matches the ICE speed and torque pretty well. You should start with a high efficiency motor which will be somewhat bigger and heavier, but still it will be only about 150 lb which is less than the ICE. And you can safely get 2-3 times the torque for short durations as needed. The 400 Hz motors are specially made from very thin special steel laminations, which are very expensive, and they are also usually 10,000 RPM or more, which is not compatible with the drive train of the donor vehicle.
> 
> The battery pack is by far the largest, heaviest, and most expensive part of the build. An exotic motor is not really necessary, and the initial cost as well as compromises in ruggedness, maintenance, controller complexity, and reliability "outweigh" these amazing but often unrealistic and impractical little motors.



The 400 HZ motor would go through a gear reduction before being connected to the transmission.....In fact many times the motor comes with the gear reduction as part of the assembly. Four-Hundred motors can be just as efficient as their bigger, lower frequency cousins..Finally, 400 HZ motors are priced similar to 60 Hertz motors of the same continuous HP rating.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Dennis said:


> The 400 HZ motor would go through a gear reduction before being connected to the transmission.....In fact many times the motor comes with the gear reduction as part of the assembly. Four-Hundred motors can be just as efficient as their bigger, lower frequency cousins..Finally, 400 HZ motors are priced similar to 60 Hertz motors of the same continuous HP rating.


I wish you could find some catalog or other source that can substantiate your claims.  I found this but they seem to be custom built and could not be competitive with mass produced motors. And especially there would be no contest compared to what can be obtained used or surplus:
http://arcsystem.thomasnet.com/view...-motor?&pagenum=6&sortid=1018&measuresortid=0

About the largest I could find good information on was this almost 2 HP motor: http://www.slmti.com/inm/inm.asp?product=INM-33-8A3-00

4.25" long, 3.5" dia, 11,400 RPM, 175 oz-in = 0.9 lb-ft => 1.987 HP

Comparably, a 1/2 HP 1800 RPM three phase motor from Automation Direct is $100: http://www.automationdirect.com/adc...-Phase_Motors,_56C_(0.33_-_2HP)/MTR-P50-3BD18

It is a 56C frame (same size for up to 1HP), which is 11" long and 6.5" dia and weighs 24 lb. But it can be overclocked to about 3x (although 5200 RPM might be dicey) for about 1.5 HP. Yes, the 400 Hz motor is about 1/3 the size, but once you add a reduction drive and probably a special controller your total cost and complexity will be much greater.

Besides, if I have a standard motor in my EV, and in the unlikely event it fails, I can easily get a replacement within a day or two anywhere in the world, and I'll be on my way. With a custom motor, well, not so much!


----------



## Nuts&Volts (Dec 20, 2011)

PThompson509 said:


> Do you have a link for anyone that sells this motor? I'd love to look at the specs.
> 
> Cheers, Peter


http://www.yasamotors.com/technology/products/yasa-400

Pretty awesome motor, with very well designed cooling and assembly.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Nuts&Volts said:


> http://www.yasamotors.com/technology/products/yasa-400
> 
> Pretty awesome motor, with very well designed cooling and assembly.


That is a very impressive motor,but I wonder about its cost and what it takes to drive it. Seems that it is designed for 700 VDC. Here is the spec sheet:

http://www.yasamotors.com/sites/default/files/YASA-400-Low.pdf


----------



## Nuts&Volts (Dec 20, 2011)

PStechPaul said:


> That is a very impressive motor,but I wonder about its cost and what it takes to drive it. Seems that it is designed for 700 VDC. Here is the spec sheet:
> 
> http://www.yasamotors.com/sites/default/files/YASA-400-Low.pdf


Yea its expensive, more than $10k. I can't say much more due to an NDA. It will work with most HV AC controller (Sevcon, Tritium, Rinehart). The Scott may work, but won't be ideal because it doesnt run sinusoidal current or Field-Oriented Control, but it is a lot cheaper option. You would need to ask YASA if any concerns would arise with the Scott.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

The Yasa motor would also be ironless, judging by its thinness and its very low weight. These motors have many advantages, but they have a few problems, one is that due to the inductance of the motor and the required external inductors, it is difficult to get power into the motor at higher speeds.

Here is the power-speed curve for the ironless Ultramotive motor: Honda Civic Conversion. Note the curved part of the power-speed curve above constant torque. The steps are because this motor has series/parallel switching of its windings. They feel they need this switching (which involves many fat cables and a lot of contactors) to overcome this problem.

Still very interesting technology. I wish they would produce them in bulk so the price can be reasonable.


----------



## Nuts&Volts (Dec 20, 2011)

Coulomb said:


> The Yasa motor would also be ironless, judging by its thinness and its very low weight. These motors have many advantages, but they have a few problems, one is that due to the inductance of the motor and the required external inductors, it is difficult to get power into the motor at higher speeds.
> 
> Here is the power-speed curve for the ironless Ultramotive motor: Honda Civic Conversion. Note the curved part of the power-speed curve above constant torque. The steps are because this motor has series/parallel switching of its windings. They feel they need this switching (which involves many fat cables and a lot of contactors) to overcome this problem.
> 
> Still very interesting technology. I wish they would produce them in bulk so the price can be reasonable.


It is indeed ironless - http://www.mojaladja.com/upload/elmotor/Analysis of the Yokeless and Segmented Armature machine.pdf

This shouldn't need external inductors. The YASA 750, which is a lower RPM motor has much more inductance than a Tritium WS200 Controller needs to run it. Don't have the exact numbers on the 400, but it is a very similar motor, just a smaller diameter, same pole count and a different wind I would assume to change the Kv value. 

Both YASA and Tritium saw no problem using the WS200 with this motor except that power would be reduced (due to lower bus voltage and phase current). Some other issues exist with sensor and software compatibility, but this isn't too hard to get fixed.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Nuts&Volts said:


> Yea its expensive, more than $10k. I can't say much more due to an NDA. It will work with most HV AC controller (Sevcon, Tritium, Rinehart). The Scott may work, but won't be ideal because it doesnt run sinusoidal current or Field-Oriented Control, but it is a lot cheaper option. You would need to ask YASA if any concerns would arise with the Scott.


Their press releases were stating that the YATA-750 and YATA-400 were around 1k pounds or ~$2k... must have changed.


----------



## Dennis (Feb 25, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> I wish you could find some catalog or other source that can substantiate your claims.  I found this but they seem to be custom built and could not be competitive with mass produced motors. And especially there would be no contest compared to what can be obtained used or surplus:
> http://arcsystem.thomasnet.com/view...-motor?&pagenum=6&sortid=1018&measuresortid=0
> 
> About the largest I could find good information on was this almost 2 HP motor: http://www.slmti.com/inm/inm.asp?product=INM-33-8A3-00
> ...


You must be relatively new here. The source for 400 HZ motors has been posted here before and that is: http://www.400hertz.net/. The reason you we mainly do not see these motors used in EV conversions is because it is hard to source an off the shelf controller unless you want to sell your arms and legs to get an AC Propulsion System controller that works with 400 HZ motors; that's IF they even want to sell you one as has been tried here before too. They want companies to buy their controller.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Very interesting motor design. It is not exactly ironless, since it uses powdered iron magnetic components which have lower losses at the 300 Hz frequency. And it also uses permanent magnets. Both of these components are fairly expensive, fragile, and susceptible to damage from heat. I guess that is why the motor is liquid cooled.

It would be interesting to compare the performance of this motor to an induction motor made from thin high quality laminations, and run up to maximum speed. My guess would be that a 95% efficient _*standard*_ three phase motor, carefully rewound to about 150 volts and having 6 poles, could be overclocked to 180 Hz at 450 volts and attain 3x the power at about 3x the losses, or 85%. Still very good. 

I would expect a motor made from special laminations could be run at much higher frequencies, probably at least 400 Hz. I have done testing on a toroidal transformer which uses similar tape wound laminations as its core, and it seemed to perform well up to 16 kHz. The magnetization current actually dropped at the higher frequencies, although higher voltage would cause them to increase. I know an induction motor is not the same as a transformer, but there are similarities. 

I have also wondered about the possibility of making a motor with ferrite components. That would possibly allow the use of 20 kHz or even 100 kHz, which would mean that the motor would need to have something like 200 poles, or else it would run at 1200000 RPM! Even 200 poles would be 12000 RPM at 20 kHz, but that would be workable. And of course a PWM drive would need a carrier frequency close to 1 MHz. But that is far out stuff and way off topic. 

[edit]
You posted while I was composing my post. For as many years as I have been proposing 360 or 400 Hz motors, I'm surprised I have not coma across that website before. But it seems odd that their only vehicle motor is a big 200 HP job while 50 HP would normally be enough, especially if you can boost the torque for short durations. I don't know why you would need their special controller, although most standard controllers might not be set up to allow the appropriate motor characteristics. Some of their lower speed motors must have 24 or more poles, while the highest number I know of for a standard motor is 12. That's how many poles I used for my design of a 3-phase 8 VAC motor which I wound on a 36 slot stator from a 1/2 HP single phase fan motor. I don't know why other companies don't join the bandwagon and offer similar motors, at least maybe 180 or 240 Hz. 

Actually, rereading the website, it seems that the slower motors have gearboxes. A 2 pole motor at 400 Hz is 24,000 RPM, so their 6000 RPM motor is 8 poles, and all slower speeds use gearboxes. A 12 pole version would be 4000 RPM which would be just about right for an EV.

Thanks!


----------



## luminarycrush (Jan 13, 2011)

Hey Ruckus,

I'm interested in the group buy. I rode in Peter Thompson's 914 this past weekend with the 40kw BLDC motor and was impressed, even with the Chinese controller which seems to have some issues.

I have a completely disassembled 914 that has been waiting for a motor/controller decision to start the conversion process. I also will be helping a friend convert a Karman Ghia so I'll probably use the same general system for both cars (probably different sized motors).

I tried to send you a PM but it's not showing up in my 'sent messages' folder so I wanted to make sure you received my inquiry.

Thanks - Jason


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

updates please


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Sorry, hay season on the ranch here in Montana. Been on the swather and still have a lot to bale and pick up before the rain hits... 

I think we are at the 5-motor price, but have yet to achieve the 10-motor price. Still, that means shipping/customs for free. not bad.

Will update soon...


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Hi Ruckus, which motor is it going to be? Or are you going to get several different motors?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Jan said:


> Hi Ruckus, which motor is it going to be? Or are you going to get several different motors?


Hello,
Each person can choose the motor they want from the list for the group purchase. I am going with the 55kw continuous rated motor for my testing. The 600+v controller is still in development. When it becomes available I will order the 60kw high-voltage motor for testing. By then I should have a decent amount of data at 400v for comparison. They are really the same motor with a different gauge wire and number of wraps used in the winding.

I will probably test it direct drive to the rear axle to get a feeling for how that kind of setup works. A 1990 Eagle Talon will be the test vehicle.










Ultimately, though, I will be moving to AWD and full race chassis. Something like this:









or this:









If you watch some of Crodriver's vids it is clear that AWD is needed to put the torque down without undue wheel spin.

Cheers


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

i am not sure if you were inferring this method, however, you could hook motor up to the AWD transmission in the Talon and use the transmission to help you study the power delivery at different ratios e.g. in different gears....in the end you may end up wanting to keep the transmission, the only reason Tesla and the other OEMs get away with one is the ability of the motors to spin 10,000+rpm, where as most of the motors available to the DIY conversion market can only spin up to 5000rpm.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> ...the only reason Tesla and the other OEMs get away with one is the ability of the motors to spin 10,000+rpm, where as most of the motors available to the DIY conversion market can only spin up to 5000rpm.


I prefer a motor with max 5000 rpm but with double the torque of the 10000 rpm motor. It's probably haevier, but easier to use. No extra gearing down.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Jan said:


> I prefer a motor with max 5000 rpm but with double the torque of the 10000 rpm motor. It's probably haevier, but easier to use. No extra gearing down.


Couldn't agree more. Except the heavy part. If the exact same motor is wound for a lower rpm it will simply have more torque. This means better acceleration for the same weight (plus or minus a beer can).




Bowser330 said:


> ...in the end you may end up wanting to keep the transmission, the only reason Tesla and the other OEMs get away without one is the ability of the motors to spin 10,000+rpm, where as most of the motors available to the DIY conversion market can only spin up to 5000rpm.


Yes, fully agree, I am very hip to trannys and transfer cases in all their forms. However, the Talon sitting in the driveway has neither. But is IS free and just sitting there whispering in my ear each time I pass by... 

The top speed with 5000 rpm is 105mph and with 6000 rpm is 125 mph. We will find out what it will do...  Don't forget they DO make larger tires.

Don't worry, the Talon (DSM) is just a motor/controller/battery test rig. If a component passes muster it will be potentially employed in the AWD race platform which will use a tranny/transfer unless it ends up dual motor/dual diff. But that is off-topic for this motor thread. I will post build threads when the time is right.

A direct differential drive is actually a good tester since almost every car out there is direct in 4th gear. This provides a somewhat comparable power/torque test condition among various different vehicles. (if you also consider tire radius, axle ratio, and vehicle weight/drag).

Under continuous high-mph conditions (Le Mans, Daytona, Mille-Miglia etc.) I am fairly confident the stock (55kw) Scott Drive would eat a stock 11" brushed motor (35kw) for lunch. However, once you get into highly-modded and race-prepped vehicles using dry ice, turbo cooling fans, and other advanced cooling methods, then all bets are off. The best prepped vehicle will win, regardless of design configuration. 

Cheers


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Jan said:


> I prefer a motor with max 5000 rpm but with double the torque of the 10000 rpm motor. It's probably heavier, but easier to use. No extra gearing down.


Except that if you want the same top speed, you have to use a diff (or overall fixed transmission ratio) that is higher (less tall, numerically lower ratio), which will bring your torque down to the same as with the 10 000 rpm motor. But if you are retaining or using a multi-speed transmission, I agree it's easier to use a motor with a top speed around 5000 to 6000 rpm.

If you achieve the higher motor torque by winding it for double the number of poles (e.g. 2-pole to 4-pole, or 4-pole to 8-pole), the weight should not change significantly.

[ Edit: this last statement is wrong, as Major points out in a few posts. I should know better: "Motor torque is approximately proportional to size". Say it again, Coulomb, and keep repeating it till you don't forget! ]


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Well, before we get into a high vs. low rpm war, please everyone consider that power is power, regardless of the rpm. A low-rpm motor needs to be geared up, and a high-rpm motor needs to be geared down.

The real question is what works with the engineering already present in the vehicle? Most vehicles are designed to be happy between 2000 and 4000 rpm, so that is the optimum rpm the electric motor should be wound for as well.

The faster you spin a tranny, the more hp is lost. This is a simple fact. Not only is more hp lost at high rpm, but there is increased mechanical wear and increased likelihood of failure (not to mention the noise pollution).

Low-torque, high-rpm motors are just not well suited for conversions. If you could get 6:1 or 8:1 differential gears then they would be fine if yo wanted to put up with all that racket).

Think of it this way. In a brushless motor the only wear component is the bearings. If you take the same bearing and run it a double the rpm you will get half the life (actually much less). That is not a winning proposition. 

This fact is very well quantified in hydraulic pump/motor literature where they chart bearing life against rpm. It decreases dramatically with increased rpm.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I have found that motors with higher numbers of poles tend to be larger and heavier than those of the same HP but with 2 or 4 poles. I have asked about this on a motor design forum which seems to be inactive now, and they suggested that it might be that the higher torque required a stronger frame. But I think it has to do with the efficiency of the winding pattern and with more poles there is more overlap and more space is needed for the windings. I rewound a motor with a 36 slot stator as a 12 pole three phase and that is the limit for that number of slots.

Larger motors probably have more slots so they can be more efficiently wound, and I have found that motors in the 20-50 HP range and above seem to be about the same size and weight for various pole counts and the same HP. I have three motors just about identical in size, NEMA 56 frame, and the two pole motor is 2HP, the four pole is 1.5 HP, and the eight pole is 1.0 HP. 12 pole motors are rare.

But if you can overclock the motor and maintain the V/F ratio you should be able to get higher power from the same size, and a motor with more poles can be safely pushed to a maximum of at least 3600 RPM and perhaps 4000-5000. Core loss may go up with higher frequency and efficiency may suffer, but since current remains the same, copper losses will not change. IMHO a 240/480V motor can be driven at least 2x using 480 VAC on the 240 winding without insulation breakdown or deterioration, and maybe as high as 600 VAC since that is the typical limit of the "low voltage" class of electrical devices.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Except the heavy part. If the exact same motor is wound for a lower rpm it will simply have more torque.





Coulomb said:


> If you achieve the higher motor torque by winding it for double the number of poles (e.g. 2-pole to 4-pole, or 4-pole to 8-pole), the weight should not change significantly.





Jan said:


> I prefer a motor with max 5000 rpm but with double the torque of the 10000 rpm motor. It's probably haevier,....





PStechPaul said:


> I have found that motors with higher numbers of poles tend to be larger and heavier than those of the same HP ...


Hi guys,

score: 2 for, 2 against  ruck & Coul are wrong. Jan & PStech are correct.

For equal conditions, more torque requires more air gap area in the motor meaning increased volume and probably more mass. The conditions refer to the magnetic and electric loading. And torque refers to the maximum torque. So you can find examples to support statements like those made by ruck and Coul, but conditions and output are less than what would be considered full utilization for the particular machine.

And PStech; higher pole count motors require thinner (or really smaller cross section) yokes due to the lower flux between poles.

I don't want to participate in ruck's "high vs. low rpm war". This appears off-topic to me.

Good luck with your quest for motors 

major


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Major,



major said:


> I don't want to participate in ruck's "high vs. low rpm war". This appears off-topic to me.


RPM seems very relevant since one of the false criticisms voiced against this motor is the 'low' rpm limit of 4-5000 rpm. (For comparison, the Warp 11 is rated at 3000 rpm and the Netgain chart shows the limit to be 4000 rpm. EVsource lists the 'redline' as 5000rpm).



major said:


> ruck & Coul are wrong...
> For equal conditions, more torque requires more air gap area in the motor meaning increased volume and probably more mass.


I agree the key word is 'probably'. There are plenty of examples and counter-examples so it is a bit unclear given the high number of variables. Regardless, a specific size frame/case can only contain a limited volume of copper. Whether it is thicker wire wound less times or thinner wire wound more times does not change the weight all that much (a little). To me this is a bit off-topic since it is completely theoretical and has little to do with the available motors. 

I would be interested in your opinion/prediction as to the effects (power/torque/rpm) of running the BLDC motor at 384v-400v compared to 320v. 

Thanks


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> ...I agree the key word is 'probably'. There are plenty of examples and counter-examples so it is a bit unclear given the high number of variables. Regardless, a specific size frame/case can only contain a limited volume of copper. Whether it is thicker wire wound less times or thinner wire wound more times does not change the weight all that much (a little). To me this is a bit off-topic since it is completely theoretical and has little to do with the available motors. ...


Torque is proportional to magnetic flux, and more flux requires more "iron" area, *regardless* of motor technology. Thus, an AC motor with, e.g., 8 poles will need to be larger and heavier to deliver the same *power* as a 2 pole motor.

This is one of the arguments against hub motors, btw.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> Torque is proportional to magnetic flux, and more flux requires more "iron" area, *regardless* of motor technology. ..
> 
> This is one of the arguments against hub motors, btw.


Am I understanding correctly that you are saying a high-torque/low-rpm motor (1500 rpm hub motor) will require more mass to produce the same 'power' as a med-torque/med-rpm motor (3-5000 rpm)?

This may be true, but ditching the differential/axle frees up a LOT of weight budget. (not being pro hub motor, just pointing out that diffs are awful heavy).

Ok, now we're really off topic..  but greater understanding of the principles and realities of various motor/drive system construction always seems somewhat relevant in a motor thread.

Cheers


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Am I understanding correctly that you are saying a high-torque/low-rpm motor (1500 rpm hub motor) will require more mass to produce the same 'power' as a med-torque/med-rpm motor (3-5000 rpm)?...


With the exception of some exotic motor types (such as the ironless brushed DC motor), that is correct. More torque at same power requires a heavier/larger motor.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tesseract said:


> With the exception of some exotic motor types (such as the ironless brushed DC motor), that is correct. More torque at same power requires a heavier/larger motor.


Interesting the stator often uses Neodymium magnets, the same used in the BLDC motors. So they would be classed as Permanent Magnet brushed DC?

Wonder how much a Platinum-wound motor cost?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

I wasn't trying to start a "war", I was just offering some thoughts as it related to gear ratios and transmissions, etc.

I am really happy to see another product offering.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

updates Ruckus?


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

How's this going?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Sorry folks, had to put my head down and crank for a bit (the blisters will heal). Motor ($3400) + Controller ($3500) + battery ($8-12,000) = Tough love on the bank account. 

3 motors are slated for the U.S., with 2+ going to NZ. This achieves the 5+ motor price. Jack's kidding aside, each member is paying exactly their portion (depending on motor/controller model and options). Is it possible to get a motor in my hands before EVCON? Good question. Looking into air-freight options. (recommendations anyone?)

The nice thing about the Scott Drive is it already comes with many additional components which normally nickel and dime a project while creating that special look of spaghetti not uncommon to DIY. The drive includes a 40 Amp DC-DC on four 12v circuits, EVA200 contactor, controller precharge unit, external coolant temperature inputs, 9 digital switch inputs, RPM sensing, etc.. I can leave the bulk of the wiring to the gurus and focus on other things. This really helps to simplify the components needed down to a motor, controller, battery, and charger(s). I am expecting this to be pretty plug-and-play, but there is only one way to find out.

Regards,

edit: just for interest, the motors coming to the U.S. are as follows:
Scott Drive 100kw - Karmann Ghia
Scott Drive 200kw - Porsche 914
Scott Drive 200kw - my testing


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Scott Drive 200kw - my testing


This is the 400V 600A with 55kw motor?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

somanywelps said:


> This is the 400V 600A with 55kw motor?


According to the scottdrive manual the inverter is rated to 450v max dc input voltage so if you charged to 3.5v then that's 128 batteries, so @ 3.3v nom that's 422v. I guess with voltage sag down to 3.0v per cell from pulling 600A it would come down to 384v.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Bowser330 said:


> According to the scottdrive manual the inverter is rated to 450v max dc input voltage so if you charged to 3.5v then that's 128 batteries, so @ 3.3v nom that's 422v. I guess with voltage sag down to 3.0v per cell from pulling 600A it would come down to 384v.


If the main contactor is off then you can charge to whatever the hell you want.

I'd probably be comfortable with 440V nominal.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Well, the IGBT's are rated for 600v continuous duty, so 425 or even 475 is quite conservative. I am thinking 136 batts at 3.65v will be 496v max, and settle to around 455v. At max amps or max range the bats will sag to about 2.8v so 136x2.8v= 380v. In summation it should be 380v-450v during use and 600A.

This calculates to 228-270kw gross. Net power should easily be 200kw. (Thus the name Scott Drive 200)

Yes, this is the "55kw" continuous rated motor weighing only 85kg (187lbs).

Motor and Controller together weigh 99kg (217lbs) and a 60-120 mile batt weighs 300-600lbs. Compare this to 600lb V8, 150lb tranny, and 100lb transfercase, and you see that the EV configuration is coming out the same weight or lighter.

Hopefully next year I will be able to test the 600-800v/ 600A version which should be in the 3-400kw range. I may order 2 (one for each axle). Watch out Tajima! (This would be called the Scott Drive 300x2)


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Well, the IGBT's are rated for 600v continuous duty, so 425 or even 475 is quite conservative. I am thinking 136 batts at 3.65v will be 496v max, and settle to around 455v. At max amps or max range the bats will sag to about 2.8v so 136x2.8v= 380v. In summation it should be 380v-450v during use and 600A.
> 
> This calculates to 228-270kw gross. Net power should easily be 200kw. (Thus the name Scott Drive 200)
> 
> ...


Be careful, certain controllers shut themselves off (via their software) if they're over their set voltage limit. Don't count on having a nominal above 450v.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Well, the IGBT's are rated for 600v continuous duty, so 425 or even 475 is quite conservative. I am thinking 136 batts at 3.65v will be 496v max, and settle to around 455v. At max amps or max range the bats will sag to about 2.8v so 136x2.8v= 380v. In summation it should be 380v-450v during use and 600A.
> 
> This calculates to 228-270kw gross. Net power should easily be 200kw. (Thus the name Scott Drive 200)
> 
> ...


If you used the new Calb CA-Series cells (gray cells) you wouldn't sag to 2.8V with 600A even from the smaller 100AH gray cell.
The 180AH gray cell starts at 3.3V resting/nominal and sags to 3.0V @ ~1000A = ~5.55C & then sags to 2.8V @ ~1800A = ~10C.

600A is damn close to 550A so it is likely that the Calb CA cells would only sag to 3.0V @ 600A draw OR you could decide to run two motor+inverters off one Calb CA pack and discharge the 100AH to 12C (1200A) that would likely dip the voltage down to 2.7V per cell but would be pretty fun with 700ftlbs and 500hp.

I am very eager to see your dyno testing of the 200kw system...


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Based on EVTV testing, CALB grey cells sag to 2.8v at 10C. So 60ah CALBS at 600A should be 2.8v x 600A= 1680w x 136 batts = 228kw.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Are these motors mountable in series on the same axis (like DC siamese?). Obviously you'd need 2 controllers though...


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

somanywelps said:


> Are these motors mountable in series on the same axis (like DC siamese?). Obviously you'd need 2 controllers though...


Yes, the motor can be ordered with a shaft on each end. You would need a shaft coupler and a mount that holds the two motors together at the appropriate distance.

However, I don't see the utility in this as it is pointless to create that much torque. It will either break the tranny/transfer/drive line/differential or spin the tires excessively .

To successfully apply that much torque to the ground it would be better to direct-drive the front and rear differentials separately. This is a possibility 2 years out. But we're getting way ahead of things. First I must test the Scott Drive 200kw drive system. The order has been placed.

Also, please consider the difficulties of producing 400kw of battery power. Not an easy task.  The 200kw system will likely use 120-136 CALB CA60ah (384v-435v nominal) at a max of 10C for 600 amps. At 4.4 lbs each that comes out to 528-598 lbs for 25-30kwh which should easily give a 100+ mile range. The latest EVTV episode tested the 40ah cells to 12C with fairly good results in terms of sag (roughly 15%). At 10C on the larger 60ah cells I expect sag to be around 12%. So a full batt will drop from 3.35v down to 2.95v. Depending on the number of cells I go with, that puts the sagged voltage at 354-400v at 600A for a battery output of 212-240kw. This should be sufficient to fully test the motor and controller.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Yes, the motor can be ordered with a shaft on each end. You would need a shaft coupler and a mount that holds the two motors together at the appropriate distance.


Awesome



ruckus said:


> However, I don't see the utility in this as it is pointless to create that much torque. It will either break the tranny/transfer/drive line/differential or spin the tires excessively .


T56-magnum (700ft-lb) with the appropriate gearing  + LSD



ruckus said:


> To successfully apply that much torque to the ground it would be better to direct-drive the front and rear differentials separately. This is a possibility 2 years out. But we're getting way ahead of things. First I must test the Scott Drive 200kw drive system. The order has been placed.
> 
> Also, please consider the difficulties of producing 400kw of battery power. Not an easy task.  The 200kw system will likely use 120-136 CALB CA60ah (384v-435v nominal) at a max of 10C for 600 amps. At 4.4 lbs each that comes out to 528-598 lbs for 25-30kwh which should easily give a 100+ mile range. The latest EVTV episode tested the 40ah cells to 12C with fairly good results in terms of sag (roughly 15%). At 10C on the larger 60ah cells I expect sag to be around 12%. So a full batt will drop from 3.35v down to 2.95v. Depending on the number of cells I go with, that puts the sagged voltage at 354-400v at 600A for a battery output of 212-240kw. This should be sufficient to fully test the motor and controller.


Indeed, we shall see.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

That is a sweet tranny. You would certainly be right at the limit of 700ftlbs. The double overdrive would help to get good top speed at low rpms. 

I still question if even the largest tires would spin excessively. The same car in AWD would be undoubtedly faster. More than just at launch, there is also controlability in corners, bumps, rain, and dirt to consider.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

I was just punching numbers and for a street car where you're not going to exceed 110mph(3.62 final drive), you can direct drive them and still get absurd 1000+ ft-lb torque (at the output shaft) all the way up to 75+mph... Hrm.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Here is a chart with some info of the different motor models for comparison.
> 
> Again. Max power and torque figures are unverified and need dyno testing.


It just occurred to me that the 60kw motor is rated for 500A peak at 600V which is 300Kw, but it's listed with a peak of 240kw (4x 60kw). Which number's correct?

(240kw is just a little less than 488A(122A x4) at 500V..., but why bother to list 600V then?)


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Updates?????


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> Updates?????



My test motor is in Seattle clearing customs. From time of payment to drop-off at the shipping depot took the manufacturer about 1 week. I will provide a detailed inspection and photos of the build quality when it arrives, but so far the motor manufacturer is looking reputable.

It should be here in time to take to EVCCON. The controller is all ready to go but waiting in NZ for a shipment of 600A Semikron IGBT's from Germany. It may be necessary to ship the controller direct to EVCCON (I already have Jack's permission).

It would have worked out nice if I could pick up the batts (60ah gray CALB's) while I am down there, but I need another month or two of pounding metal (auto restoration) to sport batteries sufficient to fully test this drive system at 600A (~$10,000  ). 

With sag and inefficiencies I expect to be around 200kw or 270 hp. The real issue is how well trans/driveline/diffs will hold up to 350+ ft lbs (500nm) of torque.

Cheers


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I received the motor today. 

It looks well made. The shaft is absolutely massive. The cables look burly. The cooling tubes are large. It has 4 foot-mounts, 4 side-mounts, and 12 face-mounts.

I am taking it down to evccon for show and tell. I will start a new thread showing the motor and drive system testing.

Cheers


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

pics before you pack it up for evccon?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Texting is bad enough! Now you want pictures while driving? No need to pack it up. It is sealed. I'll be driving till past midnight so picks tomorrow.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Texting is bad enough! Now you want pictures while driving? No need to pack it up. It is sealed. I'll be driving till past midnight so picks tomorrow.


I didn't realize you were driving.

Please don't text and drive, I've nearly been hit twice by texting drivers.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

I am happy that Ruckus has verbally committed to getting some real dyno numbers for these motors...can't wait for that data!


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Texting is bad enough! Now you want pictures while driving? No need to pack it up. It is sealed. I'll be driving till past midnight so picks tomorrow.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Erm, Rukus 

Been steadily reading and deciphering the plethora on info in this thread, get to teh end falling off my seat in anticipation to hear about and see the new motor and there's no new thread? 

I'm about ready to pay just for the thread about this motor mate! Where is it? I can't live without it! 

Seriously though, would you pop a link into this thread when it is up please?! And some information about this 200kW Scottdrive controller, as I can't find any info on it on their website. Maybe I'm blind, or looking in the wrong places...

Thanks!

And thanks to all for the excellent information and input. PS, wrong information will always be corrected by someone else who knows better so is still excellent value for us noobs learning! Thanks again!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hey folks,
Starting to recover from EVCCON. Loooong drive from MT. (1800 miles).

The response to the motor at EVCCON was amazing. I can't name names, but some of the top people in EV's were blown away. The sheer size of the shaft, the 12 face mount holes, it all says 'MASSIVE TORQUE'. Yet I could pick the motor up by myself. The shaft turns amazingly smooth and easy, yet if you touch 2 of the power leads it becomes rock solid. This simple demonstration of it's regenerative power amazed the brushed dc folks to no end.

Here is a pic:










My current goal is to get it hooked up to a battery pack and on the dyno. I need 130-140 cells capable of 600A. About $10K worth. 

I had my arm twisted by several of the top dogs in EV's (I'll let you guess who) that I should be selling this setup, not just giving them away at cost to group buys. I guess when millionaires give you business advice it's probably stupid not to take it. But first I need to get it on the dyno. 

If anyone out there is interested, I will sell the motor/controller at cost if you can supply a battery pack for dyno testing. Otherwise you will have to wait at least another couple of months while I scrape together the cash, ship batteries, etc..

Cheers


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

That thing looks like a beast. I have to agree about selling them also. You should get something for your time and effort.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

As promised, here is a pic of me drinking beer with Tesseract (on left). It sure beat bickering on the web. Hard not to have a permanent EV grin at the convention. Direct competitors were all smiles and I believe a good time was had by all.










Then there were the 'late night' discussions back at Jack's garage fueled by his home-brew whiskey. You could get a buzz just smelling the stuff.


----------



## Frank (Dec 6, 2008)

Wow, what a monster. This is the 100kW continuous motor in the picture, correct? How much does it weigh again?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Frank said:


> Wow, what a monster. This is the 100kW continuous motor in the picture, correct? How much does it weigh again?


This is the 200kw. The difference in the controller is 600A IGBT's vs. 400A IGBT's in the 100kw version. Both are conservatively spec'd at 450v max despite using 600v components. I may push the max volts out there a bit... 

On the motor side the 200kw (peak) has more magnets and copper than the 100kw (peak) version so it is a bit heavier (185 lbs). 

I carried it from the truck to the garage by myself. Heavy, but not impossible. It is still fairly light compared to a Warp 11 at 233 lbs. The motor LOOKS heavy but has airspace inside to allow for water cooling. I have not yet measured the interior water jacket capacity.

The amazing thing is this motor puts out about the same torque as the 1000 lb Cummins diesel in my Dodge truck! Sure couldn't carry that into the garage.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Both are conservatively spec'd at 450v max despite using 600v components. I may push the max volts out there a bit...


My understanding is that 450 V with 600 V silicon is somewhat aggressive, and only possible with good layout and film capacitors. Various glitches and ringing from the impossible to eliminate self inductance of the high current wiring subtracts from the on-paper 600 - 450 = 150 V margin.

I would suggest treating the controller's voltage limit as a quite hard limit.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

OK, thanks for the heads up. I will consult Scott before doing anything extreme.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus, where can e find details of the new Scott controller please? And what about the substantiating evidence for the existing Scottdrive 100 kW please?

Thanks


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Tyler,
Here is a link of the direct-drive RAV4 on the NZ national news. He took out the tranny and ran a driveshaft direct from the motor to the rear axle. He is using the Scott Drive 100 with the smaller motor. 

http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwi-car-powered-by-windmill/tabid/309/articleID/257992/Default.aspx

Here is a pic of the car. He uses it in the mountains loaded down with friends and hang-gliding equipment. He says the torque is incredible even using direct drive.


----------



## Ams_AK (Jan 24, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Then there were the 'late night' discussions back at Jack's garage fueled by his home-brew whiskey. You could get a buzz just smelling the stuff.


Yo Ruckus, here's a heads up; just stole your picture -seeing as i'm in it 
That was some good drinking and yakkin...now back to your motor and getting her Dyno-D!


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Thanks Ruckus. Have seen it, not much info though. Is there no detailed info available? The Scottdrive website seems short too, and doesn't even mention the 200kW unit last time I looked.
Thanks


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


> I had my arm twisted by several of the top dogs in EV's (I'll let you guess who)


I'm keen to know who the 'top dogs' are? Are you referring to the DIY EV scene (people on this forum)?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

tylerwatts said:


> Thanks Ruckus. Have seen it, not much info thoug. Is there no detailed info available? The Scottdrive website seems short too, and doesn't even mention the 200kW unit last time I looked.
> Thanks


I can send a PDF if you send me your email. [email protected] I can also post pics of the drive I have. The 200kw system is not listed on the Greenstage website (a dealer) because it was custom made at my request.

Let me know the details you are wondering about.
Cheers,
Marcus


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus, thanks. Have emailed.

Could you post useful info like specs, dimensions, weights etc and the pics you have for this drive system please. Also, if you have info on the 100kw kit used by the NZ gent in his Rav direct drive, that would also be very useful, thanks!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ghXLUiRqyTE9d4FcI6ru9NrHih8FY13-9t1M5zmjVmc


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm surprised at the low max RPM, 4K.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I'm surprised at the low max RPM, 4K.


The Warp 11 is rated at 3000 rpm continuous, 5000 rpm max. (according to EVsource)

The Scott Drive is 4000 rpm continuous and 5000 rpm max. 6000 rpm is the 'extreme' rpm. (according to the manufacturer)

This is the standard range (or even a bit higher) for industrial motors whether they are electric or diesel.

Induction motors have high rpm but lack torque in comparison to the motors above.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> The Scott Drive is 4000 rpm continuous and 5000 rpm max. 6000 rpm is the 'extreme' rpm. (according to the manufacturer)


Then why does it say this?


> Rated Speed 3200 RPM Maximum Speed 4000 RPM


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

'Rated speed' is the rpm of peak efficiency. 3200 rpm at 320v.
At 400v the rpm of peak efficiency would be 4000 rpm.

4000 max rpm is assuming industrial use which means CONTINUOUS rpm.

I spoke with the manufacturer. I relayed the information he told me.

You can believe me or not. either way it is comparable with the Warp11.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

It should just depend on the construction quality of the rotor. Particularly how the magnets are attached and how the rotor is balanced... There is no major electrical reason why it wouldn't go to higher rpm. It just needs to be tested out carefully, as it can be dangerous at high rpm to people nearby. Just put one in a room with no people and run it at 10000 rpm for a week. If it survives, you can be quite confident they are good up to 6000 rpm...

Rating it conservatively prior to large-scale testing is just a good practice of being careful.

Re induction vs. permanent magnet; both should be very good with very little difference in efficiency, torque, power etc., except for minor details. (Tesla has an article about this, by the way; the message is that they decided to use induction motor but they could have decided to use PMAC/"BLDC" too.) The only real point I can see is that induction has an advantage of not needing rare earth materials, but this is a self-regulating process; if they become scarce, their price goes up too much and then people start making more induction motors. As long as these materials are not too expensive, it doesn't matter at all which one to use. Both are very similar AC motors in usage, efficiency, power and weight, if designed from the same viewpoint.


----------



## jhl (Nov 28, 2011)

Ruckus,

I am about to purchase a motor for an EV conversion. Do you have a near-future plan to sell these motors? 

Thanks,
JHL


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi JHL, 
That seems to be the direction things are heading. You can PM me if you would like more information.

Thanks,
Marcus


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

after reading like 17 pages of back and forth BS and theory, I am glad I skipped to near the end and saw an actual picture of the motor and controller together with people!

Did I miss anything important from pages 18-22ish?

I was decided on a warp 11 until I spent this summer mucking about with R/C BLDC and decided they where too good not to use for my full size project. Glad to see there just may be some available.

Very interested in this for my 59 Edsel Wagon!


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Chad said:


> Did I miss anything important from pages 18-22ish?


The different motors and their ratings and the prices and the 3 controllers (400V/400A, 400V/600A. 600V/600A)


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

The prices originally obtained over a year ago are no longer valid. Changes in currency valuation and magnet/copper prices have pushed them up. I am working to reduce shipping costs by coordinating 5-6 to be shipped to North America at once. (Raise your hand if you want one). I am also putting together a bulk order of the new CALB cells to power these beasts if anyone is interested.

I decided to spec the 400v 600A controller at this time since higher voltage would require a larger enclosure. At some future point Scott might develop a high-voltage version if there was interest.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus, high voltage is relative, these are already high voltage relative to most DIY conversions. Any details on the high voltage version?

Chad

This would be a very good possibility for your conversion, was reading your other thread. The torque and regen of these motors seems brilliant, and Ruckus will have test results in a little while. I recon one of these motors will give you excellent performance, certainly your 55mph will be no problem, load capacity would be good also. And regen would help too. A good set of those CALB cells would soak up that lovely regen too, giving a little back, on a big vehicle like yours maybe even a considerable amount back.

We all look forward to test results.

Cad, on a side. Note, and not to steal business from Ruckus or others, ones of these Scott controllers would drive a good sized AC motor very well also, if you wish to reprogram it. I believe Scott is willing to support this if needed. Bt I understand you're quite a clever chap anyway  getting a second hand industrial AC motor could save a lot towards that stinking battery pack you need! Just a thought


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

So I have sat down and compared the numbers between the Warp 11 (originally slated for my project) and the data/pdf on this Scott Drive 100.

It looks to me like they are almost the same as far as max power goes, and the Warp 11 may be capable of more (10 sec) power "surges" But the nominal power ratings (continuous) seem higher in the Scott Motor.

I don't think there is enough power there for me to go "direct drive" (transmission-less) on the Edsel.

What is the deal with this Scott 200kW model. I scan back through the posts but don't seem to be finding the info.

Is it the same controller with a different motor? The controller in the PDF should be capable of 202.5kW MAX, and 170kW Nominal.

My Edsel motor (the I6) is "rated" at 145hp @ 4000rpm, and 206 ft-lb @ 2200 rpm.

This motor will only put out 134hp for 10 seconds at a time, and the 203 ft-lb is the same as the ICE. 

Are there any numbers for the actual MAX (like 10 second rating) for this? 

What about numbers on the 200kW system? That is the one you have to test right?

hmmmm, so many questions. I hate comparing things like this because none of the ratings are the same. What the hell is Overload Torque?

What we need is a dyno chart from the same dyno and the 2 motors. each run to their recommended limits, and max limits. That way you know what motor is capable of what, enough of this @ 72 volt and then theory stuff. This is not a go-cart it's a car. 72 volts


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

Chad said:


> It looks to me like they are almost the same as far as max power goes, and the Warp 11 may be capable of more (10 sec) power "surges" But the nominal power ratings (continuous) seem higher in the Scott Motor.


Don't get me wrong here, I am still all for the brushless setup because it is superior, was just hoping for more power so I could loos the trans. (I don't need 2 reverse options!)


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,
Here are the stats on the 100kw and 200kw Scott Drives:

Scott Drive 100 kw (nominal)
-----------------------------
Voltage: 200-450v
Amps: 400A
Motor: 35kw continuous (46 hp) at 320v. (more at higher voltage)
Gross Power: 400v x 400A = 160kw (before losses and battery sag)
Torque: 220-280 ft lbs. (depending on voltage applied)

Scott Drive 200 kw (nominal)
-------------------------------
Voltage: 200-450v
Amps: 600A
Motor: 55kw continuous (73 hp) at 320v. (more at higher voltage)
Gross Power: 400v x 600A = 240kw (before losses and battery sag)
Torque: 310-370 ft lbs. (depending on voltage applied)

The actual torque and power ratings will have to be determined by dyno testing with the Scott Drive controllers.

Another factor influencing continuous motor power is the amount of cooling used. The motor specs call for 3 liters/min. The Bosch pump we will likely use puts out 15 l/min at 1 amp max draw.

For large or heavy vehicles or performance driving I definitely recommend the 200kw system. The motor puts out significantly more torque and provides more 'overload' capability for climbing hills, accelerating, and driving at high speeds. 

The 100kw system is great for most normal usage and would be considered quite "sporty" in comparison to the HPEVS offerings. It has proven that it can even be used direct-drive in mountain terrain in an SUV. This is an impressive feat.

Here is video of a Prelude using the 100kw system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP0ZKD2WtrA&feature=youtube_gdata
He opens the hood and shows the system at the end of the video. Obviously there are too many cars around to actually do some drifting. We will have dyno results for this car soon... Stay tuned..


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

thanks for the re-cap Ruckus, it's just what I needed. The nominal power is important, because it lets me know the motor is capable at sustaining speed. The max power is important because it tells me how fast/slow I can get to that speed. The torque is important because that is what lets me know if the motor can handle direct drive.

The best part, and most informative part of that video is the first 2 seconds. The slow speed start and driving. This is where the "sensor-less" BLDC motors struggle. On very soft starts they can sometimes jidder before going/rotating in the appropriate direction. With R/C this happens often on medium starts, but is not really noticeable. It happens about 10% of the time on hard launches from a dead stop, and is noticeable by a big twitch of the vehicle. It is avoided by a roll on of the throttle, ease it in to about 12% then pin it.

I personally am not worried about it on the full size car as you can program the "roll on" effect, and it would be almost un-noticable. Once the motor is spinning the controller will "know" what direction it is going.

Do you have estimate price point on the 2 systems? (for me, full retail as I wont be buying till this time next year )


----------



## Frank (Dec 6, 2008)

How fast do you plan to drive? Even though ICE engines generally have power measured in the "hundreds" a typical vehicle only takes 15-20 HP to run down the road at 55 mph. The balance is for acceleration.

The downside of picking an oversized powerplant is additional upfront cost and extra weight. Of course, more power = more fun! 

(edit: I missed a couple of the above posts and see that you understand this concept...)


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

Frank said:


> How fast do you plan to drive? Even though ICE engines generally have power measured in the "hundreds" a typical vehicle only takes 15-20 HP to run down the road at 55 mph. The balance is for acceleration.
> 
> The downside of picking an oversized powerplant is additional upfront cost and extra weight. Of course, more power = more fun!


Hi Frank, This is my build thread here

I live rural, and have a heavy car. The road at the end of my driveway has speed limit of 80km/h. Round trip needs to be around 60 miles.

I understand the "extra" HP, thats what you get in your 60/30/10 second ratings for the electric motors. I want around 40-50 nominal HP so I can be sure to keep highway speed in the wind.

The hills can be tackled by the "extra" HP, use it up one side, coast down the other.

I am seriously looking at this SCOTT 200kW system. Not sure yet if I can loose the trans. though. That would be so nice!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,
The continuous hp is much higher on the water-cooled BLDC design compared to air-cooled because water removes many times more heat much faster than air. The motors are not oversized and are actually lighter than brushed DC motors with somewhat comparable torque (which is what matters when you pull out in traffic or go up a hill). 

I think the entire EV industry needs to do more and better dyno tests to create comparability among the products. Many claim hp that is really their gross input power. This will not show up on the dyno as mechanical power.

As for direct drive of a large vehicle, this is uncharted territory. Some folks are using automatics without a torque converter. This makes it act more like a manual. EVwest is using a 2-speed powerglide. There are also 2-speed transmissions with integral clutching and instant shifting designed for drag racing and circle track. Another way to go is direct-drive with low axle gear and a gear-vendors overdrive for highway speeds. There are many options that are just now getting explored.

Cheers


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Chad said:


> ... the "sensor-less" BLDC motors struggle. On very soft starts they can sometimes jidder before going/rotating in the appropriate direction. ..


Just to clarify, the Scott Drive has a position sensor on the motor. The controller uses this to correctly time the output and avoid the phenomena you describe. 

I believe you are saying the smooth start shown in the video is a good thing and difficult to achieve in less advanced systems. Correct?


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

yes, the smooth start is a good thing. This phenomenon is what I believe all the back and forth was about at the beginning of the thread. Maybe not though. Either way, this system looks great! I am very excited about it.

My background on BLDC is from R/C boats, so I understand cooling. R/C boats know only 1 speed, and thats full throttle! We destroy a lot of motors and controllers.

Once I see a dyno chart for the 200kW system I will know if I can direct drive or not. If I can't I will just keep the 3-on-the-tree and use 2nd and 3rd gears. I would love to pull it out though. It will allow me to build a "flat pack" (battery pack) and do the same "powered skateboard" design that makes the tesla handle so well. (Just for the record, I thought of it first - I'm just not a millionaire. . .)


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I agree that direct drive would be nice. Since the BLDC motor is about the same size as a traditional transmission, it could fit down where the tranny was and use the original drive shaft. This would leave the entire engine bay open for a nice (low) battery configuration. Your car is already designed to carry quite a bit of weight up front. 

While flat-packs do lower the center of gravity, they are more difficult to maintain or monitor (if and when necessary) and much more susceptible to the elements. I would like EV's to be able to drive through 12" of flood water like a regular car without exposing the batts to water. As a counterpoint: I have heard of a lithium battery pack completely submerged in water over the terminals for some time. It suffered no discharge or short circuit. The box was drained and the pack is in use today. So maybe I am worrying too much..


----------



## Nick Smith (Oct 26, 2007)

I was fortunate enough to run into Scott on the weekend and queried him briefly about the controller. Apparently is is applicable to standard ac motors but he just needs to programme the control algorithm which he indicated was a fairly simple task. I just became VERY interested....


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

I submerge LiPo (the least unstable) batteries all the time, and have had no ill effect.

If I build my "battery rack" how I am thinking, it would be somewhat of a sealed unit. I would build it insulated and sealed from the elements with liquid temperature control. Cooling or warming, whatever is needed.

That is getting off topic for this thread, you got it dyno-ed yet? There must be a couple of people around with EV's that would be willing to run an "extension cord" from their vehicle batteries to try this rig out!


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Nick Smith

Correct, the Scottdrive controller(s) can be programmed for any AC (BLDC, Induction, or even Swithed Reluctance i believe).

Chad

Regarding your direct drive with the 200kW. Calculate the top speed you'd want, and work out the motor RPMs you want at this speed and then the ration you need in the diff and it shoudl give a good idea whether the motor's output should be sufficient. Say your ICE at peak torque of 200 lb-ft is doing 2200rpm, what speed is this in each gear, and what torque output at the wheels is this in applicable gears, and then see what torque output the motor will give with only the decided diff ratio and max torque through to at least 3000rpm.

Your motor does not seem that powerful relatively speaking and as long as you do not need to maintain full power/torque for too long or can provide sufficeint cooling to avoid hot spots etc the motor should be fine. I'm guessing but I expect given your 3 speed trans you've got high ratios and could quite easily match your ICE's performance with teh 200kW Scottdrive BLDC setup. Otherwise a shorty Powerglide 2-spd for low and high would do the trick. Not clued up on your vehicle though, is it 4wd or not? If not needed I'd try lose it, but if ever in snow, rwd is no good, especially in a large vehicle. Unless you have the right tyres or something, I'm speaking mainly of road vehicles.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Oh, just read the start of your thread, clever guy! So you'd want to double that rear end ratio to get around 3500rpm for cruise, maybe even higher if you don't need much higher top speed.

While I remove my foot from my mouth, I see your car is a big sedan. Better aero than I was thinking then (but no Lotus...) and looks like you should be able to get a short Powerglide with the Scott motor inyour transmission tunnel (guess from size of the car). Hey if you can get hold of an original Dual-Power 3spd trans it might be pretty good for mating to the Scott motor too.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

The car with the ICE is a slug. Won't maintain speed on the hills around here, you need to drop it to second. I am fine if the electric is still a slug to get up to speed, but I don't want to melt it on the hills.

like I said, once I see a dyno chart I can better make a decision. Maybe I can add some pedals for the hills!


----------



## Jazsa (Oct 5, 2012)

Who makes the Scott drive? Anybody have a link for the company besides greenstage?

Do you guys think this is the motor that comes with it?

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/484762790/Rare_earth_permanent_magnet_BLDC_motor.html


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Jazsa said:


> Who makes the Scott drive? Anybody have a link for the company besides greenstage?
> 
> Do you guys think this is the motor that comes with it?
> 
> http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/484762790/Rare_earth_permanent_magnet_BLDC_motor.html


Scott makes the Scott Drive. Kinda how Otmar made the Zilla.

Lange is reselling the motor, not the manufacturer.

Greenstage is a Scott dealer in NZ, not the manufacturer.


----------



## Jazsa (Oct 5, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Scott makes the Scott Drive. Kinda how Otmar made the Zilla.
> 
> Lange is reselling the motor, not the manufacturer.
> 
> Greenstage is a Scott dealer in NZ, not the manufacturer.


So is 'Scott' a company in New Zealand? Can you get the controllers through him/it/they? Or just Greenstage?

Who manufactures the motor?


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Purchase is through dealers, Greenstage in NZ, and now Ruckus in the US.

Ruckus, who's Lange? Are there options to get different motors to what is offered by the dealers? Ie only buy a controller from yourself/nearest Dealer?


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

The motor manufacturer is Heng Tian Permanent Magnet Electric Motor Co. Ltd. I believe. Lange maybe a reseller of this motor.

I wonder how the Scott Drive warranty will be upheld if there is no manufacturer company. Resellers don't have a legal obligation. Is this Scott's full time job? Who is he? Where is he based? NZ I'm guessing? Are these made in his shed? How much testing has been done and where are the results? It'd be good to get some transparency before asking people to fork out thousands of dollars.

I hope he can release some details, be good to see another EV product from this part of the world, but until then, buy a Wavesculpter200


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

http://www.weiku.com/products/13231810/high_power_electric_car_motor.html

Well, they have some high power motors on offer! Peak 240kW and 715Nm weighing only 69kg is pretty serious!

Still trying to find sout about Scott myself, but I believe he's asked Ruckus to liaise on his behalf in the US, and Greenstage obviously down south.

Ruckus

Pipe up man  Some eager guys on here wanting some info please.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tylerwatts said:


> http://www.weiku.com/products/13231810/high_power_electric_car_motor.html
> 
> Well, they have some high power motors on offer! Peak 240kW and 715Nm weighing only 69kg is pretty serious!


That motor is showing 260 kg. It's the controller that is 69kg.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ah apologies gents! Thanks JRP3

So the 55kW motor is 100kg. Seems a bit much, certainly more than I can carry round.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Wow, you sure punish a fellow for going to bed at 12:30! I'll try to answer everyone's questions in one post.

1. There are multiple re-sellers of the motors in China as with most products (like CALB). Getting to the bottom of who makes what is a bit tricky. I have a personal relationship with the motor factory as well as with Scott. They have both been very willing to answer my endless questions. The factory shipped my motor within 3 days of the order which includes the time for the money transfer.

2. Scott does have a day job which is automation control and assembly line robotics. I'll ask if he wants me to spread his company name on the web. I am in the long process of working out exact details on returns, dealership structure, and msrp pricing. Those details will be posted when they are finalized. I will be doing a revamp of my website and showing Scott products very soon (as in yesterday)... ummm. well, you know how it goes.

3. There are a couple other similar motors manufactured in China. I did not select those products because they are much less industrial duty. They have weaker torque and power ratings per pound, much smaller shafts, smaller cooling ports, and don't appear to be made as well. Also, would you rather buy the biggest motor from a scooter company or the smallest motor from a bus company? I went with the bus motor. 

4. Others have tested these other similar products with mixed results. They have experienced little to no factory support which is a big problem. Having a high-quality controller with English-speaking technical support is crucial. Another HUGE plus is the Scott Drive controller can be adapted to other motors (induction or magnet) which opens up some interesting future possibilities. I will be doing hands-on training with Scott regarding this process and will be able to provide this service and technical assistance to those wishing to go this route.

Anyone wishing additional technical information can email me at [email protected].


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

tylerwatts said:


> Ah apologies gents! Thanks JRP3
> 
> So the 55kW motor is 100kg. Seems a bit much, certainly more than I can carry round.


I did carry it from the truck to the garage, but it WAS kinda heavy. 

The factory sheet says 85kg (185 lbs). I suspect it is more like 90kg (195 lbs). I tried to weigh it but damaged my wife's scale in the process (oops  ). I will get the actual weight and report it.

This is still a bit lighter than a Warp 11 which is reported at 222-230 lbs, depending on the source. That leaves 40-45 lbs for more batts!

I was considering having a shaft and mounting face adapter made which makes this motor bolt in like a Warp since there are already lots of kits made for those and lots of cars already configured such. 

Any show of hands if this is desirable?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Seems like a good idea, and would allow a quick swap for a Warp, and an AC HPEVS motor, which uses the Warp pattern as well, (which was taken from the ADC 9 pattern).


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus, I agree with JPR3, if you can get the motors with an alternative shaft and face plate mounting pattern as the Warps as it is our industry standard on the DIY market. I said alternative motor shaft as supposed to adapter plate and hub because many struggle with space and will be wanting these kits for smaller performance cars where space will matter, plus it is extra weight.

Sorry about the nagging, I am terrible at remembering everyone's time difference!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

tylerwatts said:


> Ruckus, I agree with JPR3, if you can get the motors with an alternative shaft and face plate mounting pattern as the Warps as it is our industry standard on the DIY market. I said alternative motor shaft as supposed to adapter plate and hub because many struggle with space and will be wanting these kits for smaller performance cars where space will matter, plus it is extra weight.


Yes, the adapter would take up 2" and push the length from 16" to 18". (Warp 11 is 17.5" with no tailshaft and 19.5" with tailshaft)
The proper tight space solution would be to adapt the Scott directly to the clutch/tranny/drive shaft.

The advantage of an adapter is that if something fails, it is a likely to be a fairly cheap adapter coupling. But if the shaft is turned down from a beefy 1-7/8" to a mere 1-1/8" then the problem will likely be a broken motor shaft which is rather serious. I realize this is not super common, but it does happen. It is a bit like taking a 1-ton truck axle and machining it down so it is the same as a 4-bolt Honda. Not exactly my favorite solution. 

If you could special order a smaller shaft but it came with no warranty on shaft breakage, which would you choose? Shaft strength is almost exponential in relation to diameter. 










I will be out of email contact for a few days. 

Cheers


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ruckus said:


> But if the shaft is turned down from a beefy 1-7/8" to a mere 1-1/8" then the problem will likely be a broken motor shaft which is rather serious. I realize this is not super common, but it does happen.


Any references to broken motor shafts? Reason I ask is the only one I'm aware of was the result of a mis-aligned adapter and coupler setup.
If it's a real concern you could split the difference, make the motor face plate compatible with the Warp pattern so existing adapters work but leave the shaft as is so only a different shaft coupler is needed.


----------



## kerrymann (Feb 17, 2011)

ruckus said:


> If you could special order a smaller shaft but it came with no warranty on shaft breakage, which would you choose? Shaft strength is almost exponential in relation to diameter.


If you do decide against the keyed 1.125" shaft how about a compromise on a 32 spline and bolt pattern to match the TH400 tranny just like the transwarps?


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

I would make the shaft match up to a common transmission output shaft. Just take the knuckle off the back of the trans. and put it on the motor, then put the motor where the trans. was, done.


----------



## kerrymann (Feb 17, 2011)

Chad said:


> I would make the shaft match up to a common transmission output shaft. Just take the knuckle off the back of the trans. and put it on the motor, then put the motor where the trans. was, done.


That would be the point of the 32 spline shaft to match the output shaft of a TH400 automatic. You wouldn't have the motor custom splined to match the numerous transmission configurations (most of which have fairly small output shaft diameters). The TH400 tailshaft housing is pretty common, cheap, and very strong which is why the direct drive version of the warp 9 uses it. 

This is assuming that Rukus doesn't go with the 1.125" keyed shaft.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

kerrymann said:


> That would be the point of the 32 spline shaft to match the output shaft of a TH400 automatic. You wouldn't have the motor custom splined to match the numerous transmission configurations (most of which have fairly small output shaft diameters). The TH400 tailshaft housing is pretty common, cheap, and very strong which is why the direct drive version of the warp 9 uses it.
> 
> This is assuming that Rukus doesn't go with the 1.125" keyed shaft.


Well. . . . do that then!


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


>


That's the Heng Tian motor


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

So, would the Scott Drive be able to run one, or two, of these motor/differential units?
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43920&highlight=Highlander


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Only one at a time. Cannot run two unless locked together, which these won't be. Also, voltage limit on Scott is currently 450V for safety but can be bumped up special order at a cost...

Very interesting prospect though, one at each axle rewound for more current would be very interesting indeed!


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

while it is posable to run 2 brushless motors off 1 controller, it does not work very well. This of course is with sensor-less BLDC motors. Those ones may be different.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

tylerwatts said:


> Only one at a time. Cannot run two unless locked together, which these won't be. Also, voltage limit on Scott is currently 450V for safety but can be bumped up special order at a cost...
> 
> Very interesting prospect though, one at each axle rewound for more current would be very interesting indeed!


Two 50kw pm motors run off a 100kw controller. Front and rear motor/diffs, "locked" together by the road, to an extent, and use the encoder signal from one, probably the rear.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

few2many said:


> Two 50kw pm motors run off a 100kw controller. Front and rear motor/diffs, "locked" together by the road, to an extent, and use the encoder signal from one, probably the rear.


That would not work at all. You must understand timing is uber critical!

A motor with 20 magnets has 10 electrical rpm per rev so the electrical deg vs mechanical deg is 10:1 so 1 deg mechanical is 10 deg timing and if you have your timing off 10 deg it will run pour and lower the efficiency and rpm and increase amp draw. Somewere ~ 60 deg off it wont run at all and past that you risk wrecking stuff like blowing controllers! 
Note I just used a 20 magnet motor for an example I think this motor is a higher magnet count making it even worse!

Even a set of motors locked by chain is not usually good enough you are best to run motors from separate controllers at all times. Permanent magnet Ac motors are super sensitive to this.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

locking them "by the road" would be the worst thing to do. It will only lock them out of sync.

The way I have done this (and I will point out again, it does not work very well) is in a boat. 2 motors, 2 drive shafts, 2 propellers. Once the motors start to spin, the controller gets it's signal and "controls" the motors. The motors become a slave to what the controller is telling them to do, so if one motor was ahead or behind it will "fall into" sync because they are not locked into each other.

Again I will say, this does not work very well. I would never even try it in a car. Best case scenario would be to couple each motor through a torque converter so they could "slip" but thats a waste of everything! (time, power, efficiency, etc)

1 ECU per motor for best/usable results.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Is this specific to pm motors? Is it also an issue with induction motors? I can see the point, one controller per motor and why, was just curious how well the Scott drive would control this motor. I know the voltage would drop the torque band a bit


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

few2many said:


> Is this specific to pm motors? Is it also an issue with induction motors? I can see the point, one controller per motor and why, was just curious how well the Scott drive would control this motor. I know the voltage would drop the torque band a bit


As mentioned in the thread earlier the Scott drive is a trapezoidal wave form...
I can not verify this but you need to scope the motor you are using and see what the wave form is. You can sometimes run a trap waveform to a sine motor but the efficiency can hurt because of it.

I am not sure if induction motors would care if you run one controller to two motors. But you must think of other problems when running 1 controller to multiple motors. Ie the inductance needed by the controller will be 1/2 of the average of the 2 motors making it harder to drive.

Its simply not worth trying to drive multiple motors with one controller.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Thanks for the good answers and clarifying a few things. I have no idea the wave form of the motor/diff in question. Didnt realize pm motors had different wave forms in the same motor family, and that they were different from induction. It was mentioned earlier, the Scott Drive could be configured for PM, or Induction, so it seemed like it would be configurable to almost any motor. 
It was, after all, posed as a question, if it could drive one or two, and the quick answer was, not two. 
A guy tried to use lower voltage and lower amps on the same unit, with the tritium controller. I believe he found it to be pretty weak. The Scott, being higher voltage and amps, seems to be better matched. Two of these motor units, front and rear, would be great. Just finding a controller to handle one, would be the biggest issue. 
Tylerwatts pretty much nailed it for me. So, higher voltage at higher cost? Problem is, how much cost? Getting solid pricing on the basic motor/controller seemed difficult enough, nor, are we even in contact with the controller builder. But then, there is always rewinding the motor.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

I read about Ryan800 runing that motor but he is being to parinoid about upping the amps.

I have never seen someone actually demagnetize magnets in a permanent magnet motor from to strong of a field I have only seen mgnet damage from heat. Im asking all the engineers on ES to answer if its possible. I have run over 30,000 watts into a 1000 watt motor over 30x its rating and never hurt it. The stator does not make any more magnetism past ~10,000 watts in my case ~10x the rating.
So I hope Ryan800 would just up the power and see what happens I thing the Highlander MGR is oil cooled right? If so the stator will not get hot very easy. I would love to pick a couple up for a 4wd CRX conversion for my GF.


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

Is it possible Scott's controller handle REMY HVH250?

Sevcon controller and rineheart is too expensive..

and current motor have no merit at all...

ME1002 motor and controller is just 2000 dollar at sale price and not heavier than current motor..

I think about using two ME1002 for running 2 ton Hyundai's Equus old version..

But It's too heavier than REMY 250 ...

I hope Scott can handle REMY HVH250 at least 150kw version.
Continues 150kw version is what I really want to buy..


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

I believe that running two induction motors from one controller (probably not the Scott drive) would be OK as long as the motor speeds did not vary too much. So input to diff should be OK; not using diff would not be OK when turning more than very slightly. Slip is typically 1-2%, and the whole torque range is experienced over that very small range of speeds. You can even go from motor to generating with say a 3% speed change.

I don't think that running two AC motors off one controller has been tried much, if at all.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

Arlo said:


> I have never seen someone actually demagnetize magnets in a permanent magnet motor from to strong of a field just from heat.


This happens with R/C boats. yes they are smaller, but 250*F is about all it takes to do it. I did  Only as a result of running an undersized motor with inadequate cooling.

On the plus side, cooling a BLDC is very easy. The core is a magnet, and does not generate heat. The outside/can has the coils, this is where the heat is generated, and you can build a "water jacket" so you have a large direct contact surface to remove the heat. Unlike a brushed motor where all the heat is "floating" in the core and needs to be air cooled.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Yes, the problem with any form of AC motor, that's induction, IPM, BLDC, is the AC part means the polarity of 'portions' of the motor is switched back and forth in a set pattern per the type of motor. The controller can be reprogrammed to whichever type of motor, but the only way to run multiple AC motors off of one controller is to physically lock them together mechanically, in pretty much the way we see DC motors siamesed together. 

They can only operate as one motor, or the controller only really sees one motor, the net result of the motors being wired in series or parallel. This has been spoken about in the DIY AC motor thread.

PS, one controller could run two motors, but it would essentially be 2 sets of controller power stages triggered and controlled by one control board with applicable programming to electronically control differential speeds of the two or more motors, but that is complicated and serious territory. I'd be curious to know how CroDriver controls the multiple motors in his supercar!


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Sorry, chad got a reply in before me. I'm still talking about running multiple motors off one ac controller


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus

Could you ask Scott whether his controller could be programmed to power a Switched Reluctance Motor please. Been pondering a DIY design but I have no idea what controller would power it.

Thanks


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Chad said:


> This happens with R/C boats. yes they are smaller, but 250*F is about all it takes to do it. I did  Only as a result of running an undersized motor with inadequate cooling.
> 
> On the plus side, cooling a BLDC is very easy. The core is a magnet, and does not generate heat. The outside/can has the coils, this is where the heat is generated, and you can build a "water jacket" so you have a large direct contact surface to remove the heat. Unlike a brushed motor where all the heat is "floating" in the core and needs to be air cooled.


 I edited my post. I meen the heat is the only way to damage them inside a motor from what I have seen.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Coulomb is thinking along the same lines I am. Two Identical, Induction motors should be fine. They will share the same voltage, split the current. I'm pretty sure parallel would be the only way, not sure about 3phase series(although you mention DC)???
Locking the motors together doesnt seem as important, as long as you are using the encoder signal from one. If they are both at 1oo cruise amps, one may be at 98. The speed will be locked by frequency, and slip determines torque/amp draw. 


> I'd be curious to know how CroDriver controls the multiple motors in his supercar!


Motor/controller in one. For a million bucks, nothing less.
Of course, why under power yourself with only one controller!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

If you guys want me to throw you a bone, ebay "powertec".

But I guess, who wants 1000 ftlbs of torque anyway? 

After dynoing the Scott Drive 200, I will apply the controller to different (surplus used) motors. This will bring super-power down to regular-guy pricing.

Just spoke with Scott and there is possibly a 400v 900A (or more) version on the horizon. The Scott Drive 300. Something to bring to EVCCON next year..

Cheers


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


> If you guys want me to throw you a bone, ebay "powertec".


?? No, I think we want information on warranty, safety standard compliance and test results....


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

The powertech motors need some big voltages...


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

....and hook it to two motors!lol


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

few2many

I think in car application 2 motors is not wise, since the road will force the motors out of sync! As stated earlier there is little room for variation in 'slip' in the motors and this heavily affects efficiency and performance of the motors, which is why I say they must be locked together in rotation.


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

tylerwatts said:


> few2many
> 
> I think in car application 2 motors is not wise, since the road will force the motors out of sync! As stated earlier there is little room for variation in 'slip' in the motors and this heavily affects efficiency and performance of the motors, which is why I say they must be locked together in rotation.


 
I think it too


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Just spoke with Scott and there is possibly a 400v 900A (or more) version on the horizon. The Scott Drive 300.


Hi Ruckus, I'm really looking forward to the dynotest results. Because if I play with those voltage and current numbers, I get a lot lower power estimation. I'm probalbly wrong, so correct me if that's the case. 

Here's how I look at those numbers: 

I suppose the 400V and 900A are the maximums on the input (battery) side. If these numbers are sculptured in a whave form, with no losses, the voltage and the current should be both divided by root 2. because not only the voltage output is a wave, but the current value is also a sinus. 

So, the potential 400*900=360kW, is at the motor side (two time divided by 1,4...) no more than 180kW. Including losses, 170kW would be more realistic. 

And if you stick to 300V, or 288V nominal for the battery pack, which is very common, you get with the Scott 300, no more than maximum of 123kW of power. Not bad, but I think a lot less than most hope for.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Jan said:


> I suppose the 400V and 900A are the maximums on the input (battery) side. If these numbers are sculptured in a wave form, with no losses, the voltage and the current should be both divided by root 2. because not only the voltage output is a wave, but the current value is also a sinus.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.


I used to think this too, but apparently it's not so. While voltage is an absolute limit (if you exceed a certain voltage, you risk avalanche breakdown), but current is a heat-based thing. So it's an RMS value; it can be DC or AC, doesn't matter. It can peak at a higher value, as long as the RMS value doesn't exceed the spec. So you don't divide the current by sqrt(2).


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Jan said:


> I suppose the 400V and 900A are the maximums on the input (battery) side.


The voltage is the DC bus voltage, so that's the input voltage, yes.

But the current is usually the RMS per phase output current. It so happens that with typical power factor, it works out to about the same numeric value on the DC bus side at base speed.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

tylerwatts said:


> few2many
> 
> I think in car application 2 motors is not wise, since the road will force the motors out of sync! As stated earlier there is little room for variation in 'slip' in the motors and this heavily affects efficiency and performance of the motors, which is why I say they must be locked together in rotation.


Yeah, every one has made that clear, given the posts against it, and the "lol", I was kidding. I understand, one motor per controller. Got it a while ago. Besides, Tyler, didnt you just post on another thread, wanting to run two of the same motor/diff unit for an awd Rav4?


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Coulomb said:


> I used to think this too, but apparently it's not so. While voltage is an absolute limit (if you exceed a certain voltage, you risk avalanche breakdown), but current is a heat-based thing. So it's an RMS value; it can be DC or AC, doesn't matter. It can peak at a higher value, as long as the RMS value doesn't exceed the spec. So you don't divide the current by sqrt(2).


Clear. Thanks.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

One thing I know for sure (and this is based on experience) is that if you take a brushed DC motor and run it, it will be ok. Now take a brushless DC of the exact same size (length & dia.) and run it in the same "thing" and it will be better. This is using the same batteries, but obviously a different controller.

The dyno results may not be astronomically better, even if they come out almost the same, this is a better package. The price looks like it will be comparable, but you gain regen braking, electric reverse, and better cooling ability. (actually liquid cooling built in) BLDC motors are also virtually maintenance free!

I will be getting one! (the 200kW deal)


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

I was going to stay out of this thread out of a sense of propriety, but there's too much bad information swirling around here.

1. You can run two or more AC motors from one controller, but only in V/Hz mode.

2. A switched reluctance motor requires a completely different power stage topology. An inverter designed for induction or PMSM motors will not operate a SRM and vice-versa.

3. Power in a 3ph. AC system causes endless confusion. Industrial VFDs are typically rated to deliver a certain motor power when supplied by a certain AC mains voltage. The incoming AC mains voltage is rectified and filtered to create the "DC link", called that because it links together the mains input with the motor output. The DC link voltage is 1.414 (2^0.5) times higher than the AC mains voltage, but the maximum motor output voltage can not exceed the AC mains voltage, not while making an AC waveform, anyway. 

Note that an inverter designed for use in an EV skips the rectification and filtering stage so the battery pack input is, in essence, its DC link. Absent any funny business with the switching pattern in the inverter like space vector modulation or neutral point shifting, the AC output voltage will be Vbatt/1.414. 

The final two parameters to consider are phase current and "power factor". Since the subject of this thread is intended to drive a "BLDC" motor, the power factor is not relevant. When an inverter drives an AC induction motor, however, power factor is very important, because part of the current from each phase has to go towards creating the field in the rotor. This current sloshes back and forth between the DC link capacitance and the stator inductance, causing losses in the semiconductors but not (much) drain from the battery (or AC line, in the case of an industrial VFD). 

For a PMAC motor running at or below base speed none of the phase current is needed to create a field - that's the job of the permanent magnets on the rotor! - but above base speed, in the so-called "field weakened" region, some of the phase current is used to *counteract* the field produced by the rotor magnets, so its power factor will then go below 1. At any rate, at or below base speed with a BLDC motor you can ignore power factor and simply use the phase current as the DC link current.

Combining that with the conversion of battery voltage to Vrms AC, you can simply multiply RMS phase current and DC battery voltage to get the total power rating of a BLDC inverter. Don't forget to account for sag in the battery voltage.

For completeness I should note that there are some tricks that can be done with the switching pattern to synthesize an AC voltage higher than the above limitation of VDC/1.414, but that is outside the scope of this post and AFAIK can't be done with trapezoidal BLDC motors anyway.

EDIT - I made a big mistake, since corrected, after messing up the correction, too. DC link current is more or less the same as the single phase current. Even I get mixed up as a result of trying to square that with "normal" mains-supplied VFDs.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

Tesseract said:


> . . . but there's too much bad information swirling around here. . .


Thats the trouble with the internet. But the great thing is you are here too! thanks for the info, I am going to read through that a few more times. I'm not even sure what's being discussed anymore 

P.S.
All the opinions I added here are based on my use of BLDC motors. . . little ones, but I ASSUME they work the same as the larger ones.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Yes, thanks Tess for your always valued input! I am not widely versed in AC motor control so was only focussed in comparing VFD AC motor control with BLDC and DC since it is in application of a car and we don't want to use other control methods. And thanks for the clarification on the SRM control.

So for application in a car/truck/pick-up DO NOT run multiple AC motors from one controller, it won't work.

Back to the Scottdrive...

Ruckus, we've taken over the thread with nonsense of other motors, sorry all. As a comparison of propulsion options agains the Scotdrive it is interesting discussion though.

So where are you with the plannign to test that honking motor you've gotten hold of sir?


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

tylerwatts said:


> Yes, thanks Tess for your always valued input! I am not widely versed in AC motor control so was only focussed in comparing VFD AC motor control with BLDC and DC since it is in application of a car and we don't want to use other control methods. And thanks for the clarification on the SRM control.
> 
> So for application in a car/truck/pick-up DO NOT run multiple AC motors from one controller, it won't work.
> 
> ...


Ah sorry this English is too difficult to me... 

Do you mean Scott don't want to apply his controller to other motors?

I really don't understand why scott use 80kg and poor power motor..and It's not cheap at all..

Kostove K11 alpha is cheapper solution I think.. So..what is merit of this solution? Just it is BLDC? no brush?

Can you explain to me?


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

Genius Pooh said:


> Can you explain to me?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushless_DC_electric_motor


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

I thought we were on the subject of the Scottdrive and its capabilities. It was mentioned earlier about being configurable to different motor types(maybe a different thread?). Thread did go off on a wild tangent of control types and wave forms.


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

Regarding two motors one controller...

I now have two motors, and one DTC controller. The two motors are completely different, one is two pole, the other is 4pole.

Should I connect them in parallel and take bets what will happen? (I haven't done it yet, and have no idea what will happen).

EDIT: Ill start a new thread if people are interested.
BTW the motors are induction not PM


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi folks,

Pooh, the advantages are many. Here are a few (please take this as my opinion as this is not to start any arguments): 

more continuous power due to the higher efficiency of water cooling, zero maintenance, zero break-in procedure, no potential frame-leak from brush dust, no potential flash-over from brush dust, higher working voltage means higher power-to-weight ratio without brush arcing, Adjustable regenerative braking or easy coasting with no "cogging", the ability to produce continuous high torque at low rpm without overheating (allowing direct-drive), no noisy fans, lighter weight, integrated tachometer sensor, industrial-duty shaft is 8-spline 1-7/8" (48mm)(The same shaft is used on 200hp, 1000ftlb tractor pto shafts), industrial-duty mounting face is truly automotive/truck/tractor/boat sized and has 12 threaded mounting holes on a 12.5" diameter, greater efficiency because the magnets create the field without requiring electricity, 8 additional heavy-duty threaded mounting holes on the sides and bottom of the motor for frame mounting, sealed motor is impervious to water, dust, pebbles, etc.

In a nutshell, more power, less weight, greater reliability, regen.

Yes, the controller can be applied to other bldc motors and induction motors, but not ALL motor types such as switched reluctance (Thanks Tesseract for the technical explanation). 

As for testing, I am working to restore a very rare aerobody aircraft fuel truck for Shell of Europe. Ironically, this will hopefully fund the 130 CALB ca60ah that I need to test the drive system.

For the test rig I have changed my mind (again) and decided to take a bit of advice from Jack and do what I know which is junk trucks.

Something kinda like this look (but a bit different and obviously ELECTRIC:










I figure the open hood will show off the electric system on trips to the grocery store and dropping the kids off at school. Plus, I might have a couple of this type of thing just hanging around... 
-


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Stiive, Yeah, start a thread. Maybe in motor or controller forum?


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus

BUILD IT!!! That one, the one right there!!! Awesome! PS open hood is great just be aware if prying and curious fingers and seal everything behind perspex or something or someone will electricute themselves or break something and cause the death of your vehicle! 

Does this mean you'll be testing sooner then?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Yes, I am currently scrambling to get a vehicle ready for dyno testing. A lot easier said then done. I have a psychologically difficult time pulling a museum quality ICE from a 50+ year old vehicle, so I am searching for yet another junk heap without a motor. The candidates are rather raunchy. Like REALLY raunchy.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

just weld some brackets to a rear end from any old truck and hang some bags of sand from it for weight!  Do you think they would let you dyno an axle?


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Grab an E46 BMW and an adapter plate and bolt it to the transmission.


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

was doing some thinking (dangerous I know) and wanted to throw some more theoretical numbers into the mix. Earlier some questions where being raised about the RPM. . . so here is some info

Kv = rpm/volt (unloaded)

This info is taken from the PDF for the 100Kw model.

The motor is 10Kv what this means is
at rated voltage of 320 the motor will spin (unloaded) the rated speed of 3200RPM.
at 400V the motor will spin 4000RPM the "maximum" whatever that is. . .

The controller rates the nominal voltage from 200-425, so in theory the motor's "max" rpm could/would be 2000-4250rpm based on battery voltage.

Like I said, these are "theory" numbers, taken from the PDF. The reality is, this is how it works. Still very exited about this combo!!!

The actual mechanical maximum of the motor is "unknown" but I would suspect it is close to 6000RPM.


This is good news for me, because at 200V I can likely keep the rear end I already have in the car, then when I get some more $$$ I can double the pack voltage and change the rear end gears and get better efficiency, more power and range! whoa, lets go rob a bank!!! (don't actually steal please)


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Chad said:


> Earlier some questions where being raised about the RPM. . . so here is some info
> 
> Kv = rpm/volt (unloaded)
> 
> ...


The "rated" rpm is not the unloaded rpm at 320v, but the rpm of peak efficiency WHILE loaded. You are correct that this rpm is tied to voltage. If you raise the voltage by 20% then the rpm of peak efficiency also raises 20%.

This is not the maximum rpm. This is the loaded rpm. So at 400v the loaded rpm of peak efficiency is 4000 rpm. Unloaded it would go much higher. The max rpm is adjustable with the controller software. 

Cheers


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

well, I guess 10 is not the Kv then. Either way, I can still start out with a lower voltage, then work my way up. start with 80 cells, then add another 45 for a total of 125. Should work out well for me.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> The prices originally obtained over a year ago are no longer valid. Changes in currency valuation and magnet/copper prices have pushed them up. I am working to reduce shipping costs by coordinating 5-6 to be shipped to North America at once. (Raise your hand if you want one). I am also putting together a bulk order of the new CALB cells to power these beasts if anyone is interested.
> 
> I decided to spec the 400v 600A controller at this time since higher voltage would require a larger enclosure. At some future point Scott might develop a high-voltage version if there was interest.


What are the prices now that they got pushed up?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

updates????


----------



## themrcul (Nov 17, 2009)

This thread's suddenly gone awful quiet....


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Sorry, 

Out there working hard to build the future for you..  


Can barely keep up with emails, let alone find time to post on various forums.

Here is the actual vehicle I will bring to EVCCON 2013:

1936 International C-15




























The controller will mount on the firewall. Should look nice.
The 1-ton Rockwell rear axle should stand up to the torque. It will be direct-drive to the rear diff.

Here you can see why I'm busy working instead of surfing the net..










Cheers


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

I didn't see anything out of the ordinary


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Good thing you picked an easy project  Are you trying to make us wait as long as possible to see the performance of the motor?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Good thing you picked an easy project  Are you trying to make us wait as long as possible to see the performance of the motor?


Motor? This is my patented FLINTSTONE Drive. 

Actually, this baby is much simpler than most conversions. Nothing to remove. I mean NOTHING. I have the coupler on order. Slap in a driveshaft and we're off to the races...

Well, ok maybe a touch of steering (Soaking the box it's currently locked solid). ..and a bolt or two to hold the body down...

I figure brakes will come last. I can always just turn up the regen... 


And I will DEFINITELY be taking you up on your offer to purchase the battery pack to expedite testing.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

ruckus said:


> ...Actually, this baby is much simpler than most conversions. Nothing to remove. I mean NOTHING...


 Yeah, seemed to be a few things missing.


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Out there working hard to build the future for you..


LOL!!!!!!!

Please, tell us more...


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Looks Awesome Ruckus! Can't wait!!!


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

Di8ed3er7ich5 said:


> This means poor low speed torque, and high levels of torque ripple, noise and vibration at all speeds.


Wow thank for that informative pile of you know what!


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

So can I (eventually) order the 240kw (400V/600A) motors in dual configuration?

(you mentioned that there were dual ended ones, but I wanted to know if they shipped them with a single shaft through both.)


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> Pooh, the advantages are many. Here are a few (please take this as my opinion as this is not to start any arguments):
> 
> ...


 
Oh thank you kind answer.. I just Pooh as not my name.. It was for me.. I just think mouth's Pooh sound.. 

I hope your poject going well and in easy.


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

Genius Pooh said:


> I just Pooh as not my name.. It was for me.. I just think mouth's Pooh sound..



That happened to me once when I was about 12. Good times.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Merry Christmas from Montana!










Up next, EV heaters...


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

I was looking forward to this build. I come back a month later and see that the vehicle is sitting outside and by all appearances is in the same condition as it was at thanksgiving. Here is to hoping that more is getting done inside the garage and it is just the body sitting outside waiting. I'd like to see this running at EVC Convention next year.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

palmer_md said:


> I was looking forward to this build. I come back a month later and see that the vehicle is sitting outside and by all appearances is in the same condition as it was at thanksgiving. Here is to hoping that more is getting done inside the garage and it is just the body sitting outside waiting. I'd like to see this running at EVC Convention next year.


You will be happy to know that I'm starting a new service for those who grumble and complain about the time line. I can send a PayPal invoice and you can pay 1000 dollars towards the project to expedite its completion. 

Otherwise, you can sit back and hold tight, the ride will begin in a few moments.

Cheers.


----------



## Techie (Sep 19, 2009)

Do you ship to Canada?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Techie said:


> Do you ship to Canada?


Yes, that is not a problem.


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> edit: just for interest, the motors coming to the U.S. are as follows:
> Scott Drive 100kw - Karmann Ghia
> Scott Drive 200kw - Porsche 914
> Scott Drive 200kw - my testing


Have any of these projects got the motor and inverter installed? I'm curious to get an update.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

palmer_md said:


> Have any of these projects got the motor and inverter installed? I'm curious to get an update.



The vehicles currently running the Scott Drive are all in New Zealand. (we are a little behind the curve over here)

If I can find some space in my work calendar I will start a build thread on the 36 IH a soon as possible using the Scott Drive 200.

There are a couple of other projects using Scott products which I can't discuss at this time. Let's just say that when they are unveiled, you will likely be quite impressed.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Hi Ruckus

Are there no ScottDrive builds on any NZ forum for us to read about please? Why can't we know about these builds.

A word of caution, but I think people are out finding alternative options and going with them simply because we don't have any info or actual informative examples (myself included, set of AZD drives arrived today!). Even the NZ Rav4 has little actual data about it. Could we at least get some more info on this vehicle please? 

We would appreciate it a lot, and it would encourage potential customers to hold off on starting builds or buying big bits like this combo!

Also can't wait to see your build, that will be a sick ride!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Tyler, 

It takes time to get equipment into builds and demonstrate them. 

If you want to buy controllers that don't work, that is your choice. 

AZD got millions of your tax dollars to to develop a controller that was already developed by Dr. Scott. Even in production form the AZD has no user interface to make adjustments or tune the controller for a different motor. The Scott Drive does. 

How many dyno tests are available of the AZD? none. How many are working in DIY builds? none. How many sold at auction even work at all? none.

Are you aware the Scott Drive 100 uses the same IGBTs as the DMOC? In fact, most of the top controllers are using the same IGBTs. So it doesn't matter if you are buying a Brusa for $22,000 or a Scott for $3400. You are getting the same IGBT. 

I can offer folks top quality at a decent price. If they would rather buy non-working controllers from failed companies, that is their choice. 

Personally, I do not think it is wise. Like they say, you can lead a horse to water..

Cheers


----------



## EVCan (Oct 11, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Even in production form the AZD has no user interface to make adjustments or tune the controller for a different motor. The Scott Drive does.
> 
> How many dyno tests are available of the AZD? none. How many are working in DIY builds? none. How many sold at auction even work at all? none.



Has it already been adapted to high power AC motors such as Remy ?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

EVCan said:


> Has it already been adapted to high power AC motors such as Remy ?


??? The Remy is not a high power motor. The HVH250 (320v) is rated at 60kw continuous and peaks at only 87kw.

The Scott Drive BLDC motor (320v) is rated at 60kw continuous and the peak rating is 3X that for 180kw. 


Even if you want to play it conservative and power the BLDC to 2x continuous you have 120kw vs 87kw.

So the Scott Drive BLDC is more than 2x the power of the Remy with oodles more torque.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Eh, IGBTs don't really tell you much about how good an EV controller. Anyone can use any IGBTs, but what makes a high power controller good more than that is the cooling system, and in the case of an AC controller, the algorithm makes a massive difference in performance.

It's fine that you don't want to give out any information right now. Kind of annoying, but understandable. What I don't like is that you are actively trying to sell these before you are willing to give out any actual performance data. Especially since you are at the same time trashing everything else. If you aren't ready to show what it can do, you aren't ready to take thousands of dollars from people.

Just my opinion.


----------



## EVCan (Oct 11, 2012)

The HVH250-90 is not high power, The HVH250-115 is. 
http://vaxosystems.com/store/products/113-hvh250-115po-pm-g1-remy-electric-motor.aspx


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hollie Maea said:


> Eh, IGBTs don't really tell you much about how good an EV controller. Anyone can use any IGBTs, but what makes a high power controller good more than that is the cooling system, and in the case of an AC controller, the algorithm makes a massive difference in performance.
> 
> It's fine that you don't want to give out any information right now. Kind of annoying, but understandable. What I don't like is that you are actively trying to sell these before you are willing to give out any actual performance data. Especially since you are at the same time trashing everything else. If you aren't ready to show what it can do, you aren't ready to take thousands of dollars from people.


Wow, that's bold.

1. IGBT's don't matter? You can't be serious.

2. Cooling. I suggest you watch EVTV where they take apart a DMOC and laugh at the cooling system and suggest it must have been designed by a 12 year old. I am not saying it, they did.

3. 'Trashing'? That is a very strong word. Repeating specs provided on a data sheet is far from 'trashing'. Each system has a cost and an output. Understanding these is crucial to making an informed decision on EV components. I have great respect for each of my EV brethren and would not think of 'trashing' them.

4. The chicken and the egg. I could provide you with the world's greatest component at the cheapest price, but if everyone is waiting for somebody else to buy it first, then we are at an impasse. Somebody has to have the vision and cojones to make the first move. I guess that's me.

5. You accuse me of withholding information. Why? I am not hiding anything. Systems WILL be installed and they WILL be dynoed. I am sorry if I couldn't do that for you 2 years ago, but everything takes time (and money). 

Cheers


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

I don't really want to get in a fight, but let me address your points.

1. I didn't say that IGBTs don't matter. You can't make a good controller without good IGBTs. What I did say is that good IGBTs are not by themselves SUFFICIENT to make a good IGBT.

2. Jack Rickard says many things, some of which are true. That doesn't change the fact that at very high powers, given the same IGBTs and other components, the cooling system will really determine how much power you can produce. But really, that's secondary. What really matters is the controls algorithm. The reason why AC drives have a reputation for having bad low speed performance is primarily because of bad control algorithms. That's the secret sauce, and all I'm saying is you can't say "This controller has good IGBTs so that proves it is good".

3. Just my opinion about the tone of your posts. They tend to be pretty antagonistic towards other systems. You say that you are just repeating facts, but if the facts are so clear they should be able to stand up for themselves.

4. You keep saying that there are several builds in progress that will blow everyone's socks off. Fine. When they are done, everyone will see them and line up to buy the Scott drives. And everyone knows that you are the Scott drive. I'm just saying, I would ease off on the constant pressure in the meantime in order to not alienate everyone. If you haven't pissed everyone off by the time we can see the real results, and if they are as good as you promise, you won't have any problems getting buyers.

5. I'm not saying you are hiding anything. I'm just saying that it's off-putting to hear constant "This is the best thing ever, but I can't show you yet, but you should trust me and buy stuff from me". You claim to have the best drive system out there for incredible value. If this is really true, you can tone down the salesmanship and will still have no problem selling.


Again, just my opinion...I don't have an axe to grind in this beyond the fact that I want as good and as unbiased information as possible. Your information might be pure and unbiased, but it really doesn't come across that way.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus

I agree with Hollie Maea. It is just your tone and demeanor as it reads to others on the forum. Thought it might be me, but I guess others feel it too. I look forward to your build, as I've said plenty times.

Ps, I bought AZD motors and transaxles, no controllers. Though others say they can get good performance from them. I wanted the lower voltage wound motors. I'm keen on the Scott drives to power these. Would want to know if they can be pared is all.

Will post pics when the snow backs off enough to get them out my SUV (hopefully they feel at home already)


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Well geeze guys, I guess you have me surrounded.

1. I in no way am trying to sound like I am dissing anybody's anything.

2. This thread (which I did not start) is about the Scott Drive controllers. Some folks got on here and started trashing them sight unseen. I defended the Scott Drive as a viable solution. This is far different then me trashing other motor and controller manufacturers. I have not done anything of the sort. If fact, just the opposite. When folks have requested a DC motor recommendation I have strongly suggested they go with WARP (over ADC) since I have personally had nothing but positive dealings with George and think he is a very upstanding fellow. 

3. This thread is about the Scott Drive. That should mean that the stats of competitors products can be mentioned without it being perceived as 'overly negative' toward the other products. Just for the record, I do not see there being any other products which are truly competitive with the Scott Drive. There is nothing which comes close in terms of kw/$. Some folks would argue the short-term power of a series DC motor is competitive, and that is true, but for more than 30 seconds, the Scott is good.

4. What constant pressure? If there is any pressure it is coming from your side demanding dyno results and build examples. I am pressuring nobody. I am the one who is bringing you this technology at a fraction of the price competitors demand. If you want in, ok. If not, ok. 

5. You don't have to trust my evaluation. You are free to do your own math. However, most math equations result in the same answer. Which is why most top controller manufacturer's use the same IGBT's. All paths lead to the same place. 

6. I never said the Scott Drive is the 'best thing ever'. I am absolutely confident you can get something better for $1,000,000. The Scott Drive presents the best kw/$ currently available by a significant margin.

That is all.

Cheers


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Hollie Maea said:


> 2. Jack Rickard says many things, some of which are true.


 LOL. In truth, what Jack said about the AZD cooling system is that it was an excessively complex CAD design, I don't think he even commented on it's effectiveness.

I'll pile on with the others Ruckus, for some reason you don't come off well in many of these discussions, which could affect your ability to sell product, if that matters to you. If not, carry on.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Not trying to surround you, or gang up on you or anything.

Honestly, I hope everything you are saying is true; one thing that is badly needed is a very good AC solution at an affordable price. So far we have good (Remy/Rinehart, UQM, etc), and we have cheap (AC50, etc) but not both. If the Scott Drive really ends up being an affordable high quality drive, I will certainly strongly consider it. But you'll have to forgive me if I am not willing to drop the hammer based on spec sheets and your personal word. Like I alluded to earlier, even if everything the spec sheets say are true, for an AC drive, simple power ratings don't tell you the whole performance story. A huge part of what constitutes "good performance" in an EV drive is what it does at low speeds. For series wound DC, it is incredibly easy to achieve good low speed performance. That doesn't mean that series wound DC motors are the best--far from it. But that's where they shine. AC motors can also achieve that low end performance, but it is difficult. If you gave me a hardware version of a Rinehart controller, if it lacked the several hundred thousand lines of code it wouldn't be much. For not too much work, I could write a V/Hz algorithm. But it would be a sucky controller, even though it would still have the same power ratings as the original. It's hard to overestimate how difficult it is to write a good AC control algorithm. The open source community has been trying for years. Tessaract, who I would say makes probably the best DC controller available to us, thought about it for a week before he decided that making one worthy of the name would be way too much work. The companies that have made good ones charge ridiculous amounts for their controllers in an attempt to gain back the R&D spent. So does the Scott Drive have a great control algorithm? Maybe. Hopefully. But we really won't know until we see data, whether it be numbers from a dyno, speed trial values or even videos of a car driving with one. Once we see that, I'll know whether or not it's good. But until then, the max/continuous power ratings don't tell me much.

Like I said, I hope you are right about it.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I'm surprised at the low max RPM, 4K.


Actually, you can order a 4800 rpm winding rated to 5200 rpm.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hollie Maea said:


> Honestly, I hope everything you are saying is true; one thing that is badly needed is a very good AC solution at an affordable price. So far we have good (Remy/Rinehart, UQM, etc), and we have cheap (AC50, etc) but not both. If the Scott Drive really ends up being an affordable high quality drive, I will certainly strongly consider it. But you'll have to forgive me if I am not willing to drop the hammer based on spec sheets and your personal word. Like I alluded to earlier, even if everything the spec sheets say are true, for an AC drive, simple power ratings don't tell you the whole performance story. A huge part of what constitutes "good performance" in an EV drive is what it does at low speeds. For series wound DC, it is incredibly easy to achieve good low speed performance. That doesn't mean that series wound DC motors are the best--far from it. But that's where they shine. AC motors can also achieve that low end performance, but it is difficult. If you gave me a hardware version of a Rinehart controller, if it lacked the several hundred thousand lines of code it wouldn't be much. For not too much work, I could write a V/Hz algorithm. But it would be a sucky controller, even though it would still have the same power ratings as the original. It's hard to overestimate how difficult it is to write a good AC control algorithm. The open source community has been trying for years. Tessaract, who I would say makes probably the best DC controller available to us, thought about it for a week before he decided that making one worthy of the name would be way too much work. The companies that have made good ones charge ridiculous amounts for their controllers in an attempt to gain back the R&D spent. So does the Scott Drive have a great control algorithm? Maybe. Hopefully. But we really won't know until we see data, whether it be numbers from a dyno, speed trial values or even videos of a car driving with one. Once we see that, I'll know whether or not it's good. But until then, the max/continuous power ratings don't tell me much.
> 
> Like I said, I hope you are right about it.


Thanks Holie Maea for the kind words. I agree it is quite perplexing how millions of dollars could be spent on software teams to produce something that 'works', while some guy in his spare time (Dr. Scott) can make something quite superior complete with a windows graphical user interface.

I have worked on software development projects with multiple military and private agencies. I can assure you I understand what goes into a piece of software. When I saw what Dr. Scott had crafted, my jaw dropped. It is quite amazing. You can actually scope the motors through his software and make adjustments as you see fit based on the sine wave outputs. Want to graph multiple variables in real-time with data-logging? Done. 

What you are up against is the difference between a single genius and the corporate oligarchy. Sure, they have opulent pdf's and plenty of press releases. But a press release does not a good product make. 

I have spent plenty of time on the phone with Dr. Scott and those who use his technology to drive their vehicles. I can assure you that they work great. If that is not enough for you, then I am sorry. Perhaps after others have demonstrated his superior technology you will agree. Some are leaders. Others are followers.

Here is your opportunity to define yourself.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

ruckus said:


> How many dyno tests are available of the AZD? none. How many are working in DIY builds? none.


Not sure this last part is true: 

http://evalbum.com/cntrl/SOLE


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Sure, lots of cars out there using the DMOC445 and AC24/AC24LS. I actually took mine out, due to overheating problems. No liquid cooling, only air - which is a serious problem where I live (San Diego). Plus, it was pretty wimpy. 

I seem to recall someone doing a dyno with the AC24LS, but can't find that link now. *shrug*



njloof said:


> Not sure this last part is true:
> 
> http://evalbum.com/cntrl/SOLE


In any case, I eagerly await the dyno of the Scott system. Especially the 200kw system that is going into a Porsche 914 - that sucker is going to blow doors off of turbo 911s!

Cheers, Peter


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

njloof said:


> Not sure this last part is true:
> 
> http://evalbum.com/cntrl/SOLE


That's a page with Azure Dynamics and Solectria motor/controller combos. I don't know what may not be true about that. The conversion I looked at (Yaris) seemed quite impressive except for the BMS and unbalanced battery pack.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Umm... not trying to be cheeky since that seems to be the main accusation here, but that is a linked page to outdated air-cooled 24kw systems that are known to be weak and suffer heat issues as confirmed by a personal user who posted in the thread. 

My apologies, I thought we were talking about the latest non-working DMOC controllers from the AZD bankruptcy auction.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes the comparison was with the new, liquid cooled AZD inverter and Siemens motors, not the older AZD air cooled systems.


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

I'm still waiting on the famed Dr Scott the musical
Apart from doing his everyday genius chores, I hear he also has an 8 octave range


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Stiive said:


> I'm still waiting on the famed Dr Scott the musical
> Apart from doing his everyday genius chores, I hear he also has an 8 octave range


Not only that, but he's a chipper nice fellow ta boot. 

Quite amazing when you consider it all..


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

Yup... its a wonder you haven't sold any systems yet...

But seriously Rukus, you really need to settle down on the bashing of other reputable products and making claims without backing them up.. Really what your doing is tarnishing the brand before its even released! 
For your sake, I hope the "Hon. Dr Scott" doesn't frequent these forums otherwise he'd ban you as a retailer of the product for all the irreversible damage you have done so far - so many forum members cant be wrong.

My honest thoughts would be to quitely go about your testing, without bashing other products and trying to force others into buying an proven product on other threads. Once the product is fully tested and ready for sale, then you can market it, but again, market it without bashing other products - let it speak for itself. 
Trying to market it too soon isn't going to result in sales and is only going to encourage bitterness towards both yourself and the product as you are unable to back up your claims, but instead bash other products and helpful/inquisitive forum members as justification.

I honestly wish you goodluck with your conversion and testing the unit - but for now, try keep the scott drive sales pitch "Dr Scott is awesome, I once spoke to him on the telephone" to this thread only.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks Stiive for your input.

What bashing are you referring to? I have never dissed another EV product.

The Scott products are in production and can be purchased quite easily. Some are buying them and building great projects. 

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I speak with Dr. Scott quite frequently.

Most sensible folks see right through what is happening here. I get emails of support daily from folks telling me to ignore the 'ignoramuses' who are constantly attacking me and pretending I am saying something negative. If declaring the specs on a product is negative, then I am guilty. How is declaring the specs on the Scott products somehow attacking others?

Everyone was quick to attack Dr. Scott and his products, but if I say a word in his defense the suddenly I am the 'attacker' without having made a single negative statement.

I get it. Carry on.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

I really think some of you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. You guys really aren't going to help anything by going on about it for several pages either. 

I think people just need to be patient and understand that winter will slow projects down a bit. Its completely understandable that some people don't want to be guinea pigs or early adopters, but you need to understand such a position requires patience.


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> I really think some of you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. You guys really aren't going to help anything by going on about it for several pages either.
> 
> I think people just need to be patient and understand that winter will slow projects down a bit. Its completely understandable that some people don't want to be guinea pigs or early adopters, but you need to understand such a position requires patience.


Completely agree with this. Especially considering how many people have been burned on great promises. Ruckus has said that we should wait for the dyno results, and so I shall...I hope the rest of you will too (as much fun as this thread has been and all  ).

Cheers!


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

At the same time, the lack of any presence by "Dr. scott", does not instill any confidence.Googling the web doesnt help, either. The best way, IMO, to sell a motor/ controller, is to put it in a few cars, and run it! Yes, the was a cute little news video clip of a car, but no specs, or anything else at all.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Every AC inverter I know of has little to none background information. It's no more than a website with a few specs. The Scott drive has that in common. The only thing different is that Ruckus is promissing more info in the near future.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The Curtis is very well documented.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Curtis, Reinhart, AZD, plus a few others.


----------



## Jazsa (Oct 5, 2012)

I reckon Ruckus will come through with the goods. Shit costs money, which sucks balls, but if the Scott drive package works as advertised the EV community is in for a win. 

DC is good but it is no way the future. High power Ac solutions are what is going to advance the program. Unless someone works out the multi-pulse sequential direct drive motor. 

Either that or a Civvey LM2500 in my garage powering my bar and stereo.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Yes, you're right. Programming of the Curtis e.g. is well documented. And there is one torque graph. Reinhart and AZD are from my point of view just as good or bad documented.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Jan said:


> Yes, you're right. Programming of the Curtis e.g. is well documented. And there is one torque graph. Reinhart and AZD are from my point of view just as good or bad documented.


I personally like the Rinehart because I have seen a conversion using it with my own eyes, and have met the developers. But I certainly would not expect anyone to buy one based on my word since no one on here knows me personally and I have not established a reputation. All that takes time and results.


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Azure Dynamics was very well documented, but.... they aren't in business anymore. Their realtime data was lacking (at least for my controller - no CANBus). 

Cheers,
Peter



Jan said:


> Yes, you're right. Programming of the Curtis e.g. is well documented. And there is one torque graph. Reinhart and AZD are from my point of view just as good or bad documented.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,

Here's the build thread using the Scott Drive 200 and R-EV motor in a 1936 International.

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/1936-ih-scott-drive-200-r-83257.html

Cheers


----------



## Jazsa (Oct 5, 2012)

Sounds like Jack Rickard may be selling these soon over at EVTV. May get to see one in action in the near future I'd imagine.

I think that this is the beginning of the end for DC motors. Once the price advantage is lost I can't see many choosing DC for their vehicles.


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

Ho maaaaaaannnnnn, still no values from the Scott Drive, and what about the other 4 persons that bought the motor+controller? Haven't they mounted and tested them yet?

Sorry for my english


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Gulah said:


> Ho maaaaaaannnnnn, still no values from the Scott Drive, and what about the other 4 persons that bought the motor+controller? Haven't they mounted and tested them yet?
> 
> Sorry for my english


good point Gulah, there were several systems sold, where are all of those now? Has anyone got any data on these systems yet?


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Most of America is going through winter right now. Odds are we will have to wait till spring.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

rochesterricer said:


> Most of America is going through winter right now. Odds are we will have to wait till spring.


Another good point IF they were all delivered to the northern hemisphere.

The "2+" are in summer right now in New Zealand.









8-21-2012: _"3 motors are slated for the U.S., with 2+ going to NZ."_

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=317348&postcount=191


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

Bowser330 said:


> good point Gulah, there were several systems sold, where are all of those now? Has anyone got any data on these systems yet?



asked and answered in post 339 and 340. Nobody here has got one installed.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

palmer_md said:


> asked and answered in post 339 and 340. Nobody here has got one installed.


Thank you palmer_md


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

From where did Ruckus bought the motor and controller?
And what are the motor specs?


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

Since no one answered the question I looked for it on the web and found the following:

1.1 - http://dlhengtian.en.gongchang.com/product/251764
Here we have one of the sites were Heng Tian Permanent Magnet Electric Motor Co., Ltd. places their add, and there's a link to a word file (.doc) with several values from the motors and the price "Price: 898 - 898 USD /Set(s)".

1.2 - http://dlhengtian.en.gongchang.com/product/7386728
In the same site, in a different link same picture different price: "Price: 2,000 - 4,000 USD /Unit(s)"

2 - http://www.gmdu.net/corp-857506.html
This site says that Heng Tian Permanent Magnet Electric Motor Co is a valid company.

3 - http://dlhengtian.company.weiku.com/credibility/
Another site saying that Heng Tian Permanent Magnet Electric Motor Co is a valid company.

4 - http://www.tradetuber.com/htddjc/product-529836/EV_CAR_MOTOR.htm
Here is the motor that showed in this thread, sold by Heng Tian Permanent Magnet Electric Motor Co.

5 - http://www.ev-motor.cn/?thread-173-1.html
Here's the company that was using a similar motor in the bus (GuangDong M&C Electric Power Co.,Ltd), this company sold a motor to this forum user David85, if I'm not mistaken.

6 - http://www.ev-motor.cn/?thread-175-1.html
Here's a similar build for a commercial car, from GuangDong M&C Electric Power Co.,Ltd.

7 - http://www.china-electricmotor.com/motor/Vehicle_traction_DC_motor_819_96.html
Here we see the same picture from Heng Tian Permanent Magnet Electric Motor Co, but with different values.

8 - http://www.china-electricmotor.com/html/aboutus/certificate.html
Here are the certification they say they have, I couldn't find any besides what they "give" in their site.

9 - There isn't anything on the web about the Scott Drive controller  (*EDIT: Besides this link http://shop.greenstage.co.nz/product/100kw-scott-drive-ac-inverter-and-motor-package*)

So this is what I could find.


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

Gulah said:


> Since no one answered the question I looked for it on the web and found the following:



Good research Gulah. I have a friend with two of the Heng Tian motors. 
I think he paid about $900 each about 1.5-2 years ago - so pretty consistent with your findings.



Gulah said:


> 9 - There isn't anything on the web about the Scott Drive controller  (*EDIT: Besides this link http://shop.greenstage.co.nz/product/100kw-scott-drive-ac-inverter-and-motor-package*)


Yeh, no details have really been released. It doesn't seem that Scott has a company himself, so looks like no warranty or manufacturer support. Infact there's no evidence to support 'Scott' even exists.

If in America, I'd wait for EVTV to start selling these as they'd have facilities to bench test them first. 
But it seems the product is still awhile yet from being commercially ready otherwise there'd have been data available yonks ago.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

If you want to know more about the Scott Drive controllers or BLDC motors just click on the link in my signature and contact me or send me a PM.

Some companies send out press releases for years with no actual product. Others build products before flooding the market with press releases.

Scott Drive is the latter. 

Cheers.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

"Sold out"
http://shop.greenstage.co.nz/product/100kw-scott-drive-ac-inverter-and-motor-package


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> "Sold out"


both of them. haha


----------



## Nick Smith (Oct 26, 2007)

palmer_md said:


> both of them. haha


Scott has been very busy programming the controller to work with the Siemens motors as supplied by Jack. It is only a matter of programming but like the rest of us, Scott has a day job.

He is also working on some design updates so the next batch is still a couple of weeks away unfortunately.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

What sort of production volume is involved, is it just one guy hand assembling all of them?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Nick Smith said:


> Scott has been very busy programming the controller to work with the Siemens motors as supplied by Jack. It is only a matter of programming but like the rest of us, Scott has a day job.
> 
> He is also working on some design updates so the next batch is still a couple of weeks away unfortunately.


Hi Nick, 

Good to hear from you. Hope you are enjoying summer.  -still a bit wintry up here in Montana.

Just thought I should clarify that the Siemens was sent to Dr. Scott by a different party. 

April 1st is the projected release date for the Siemens version.

See you in August.

Cheers, 

Marcus


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Hi Nick,
> 
> 
> April 1st is the projected release date for the Siemens version.


Might want to rethink that date.  



JRP3 said:


> is it just one guy hand assembling all of them?


One man, but he's a legend.


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

Stiive said:


> Yeh, no details have really been released. It doesn't seem that Scott has a company himself, so looks like no warranty or manufacturer support. Infact there's no evidence to support 'Scott' even exists.


Does anyone know if Scott Drive, is an actual company? And it's the support that those controllers have?



Stiive said:


> If in America, I'd wait for EVTV to start selling these as they'd have facilities to bench test them first.


Does anyone know if EVTV has one Scott Drive?


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

Hollie Maea said:


> One man, but he's a legend.


Well that's the understatement of the year.

Legend has it, many moons ago, he was the Nordic god Odin - and that he can only be killed by saying his true (unbeknown) name backwards in latin three times.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks folks for all the support and positive words of encouragement! 

The last year was a bit of a loss since many of you know I broke my back skiing and am now paralyzed from the waist down. Despite my personal difficulties, I am now back in the game and pushing forward with electric vehicles.

I am finally well enough to continue building the 1936 IH hot rod (with help) and should have it completed this spring.

The Scott Drive is now compatible with Siemens motors (1pv5135) as well as BLDC, depending on whether you want brutal torque or crazy rpms...

For the doubters, here is a video of the Siemens doing 100+ kW on the dyno pushing the BLDC in regen mode at 5000 rpm. Obviously the drive can put out more power (especially the SD200), this is just a vid of Scott doing some dyno testing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F30AaYVSPck

Watch for upcoming news of Scott Drive in Europe on formula 1 tracks... 

Cheers 

Marcus


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Hey Ruckus!

I'm glad to hear you haven't given up (wouldn't be a Westerner if you did, eh?). 

That setup looked amazing! Very good to see the controller working with both BLDC and the Siemens. VERY good. 

I really hope to get some spare cash to replace my POS chinese controller with this bad boy. 

Cheers! Peter


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

Hei, I'm glad you're getting back in the game. Please do continue with your work.
I'm from Europe and I would love to see one of those Scott Drive in action


----------



## Dustin_mud (May 22, 2012)

Welcome back, sorry to hear about your injury. Just did a little reading on this system and would be great for my crawler if I had the money. Would like to see some build up on your IH, is the build thread?


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Glad you are feeling better. You still going forward with your build, or maybe a different build? I would guess that putting hand controls in an EV is relatively simple, although I bet getting in and out of that truck would be a pain.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Have you seen the truck? You could roll a wheel chair right in the side door to behind the wheel! It is great. 

Marcus says he is continuing the build which is great! 

Marcus, what is involved in setting up the controller to run different motors? I ask to understand what possibility there is to use the Scottdrive to run other AC motors. Is there much physical size difference between the models? Or is it simply bigger guts inside? 

Great to hear from you and that you are up and about again. Get well, and keep your faith, you might be healed yet to walk some day! God bless


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

So from the video the data shows that the 1PV5135-4WS14 AC motor was at 138V (per phase) x 3 phases = 414V and 290A = 120kw -10%eff = ~108kw @ 5000rpm

The 1PV5135-4WS14 is one of the motors that came from the AZD auction and according to what I've read was wound for lower voltage for AZD. 

Is that why the rpm is only 5000 @ 414V or is it because the load motor (the BLDC) cannot spin faster than 5000rpm before it would self destruct? Without the load motor could the 1PV5135-4WS14 spin faster than 5000rpm with 414V?

Still learning...


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> So from the video the data shows that the 1PV5135-4WS14 AC motor was at 138V (per phase) x 3 phases = 414V


That's not how 3 phase power is calculated. Regardless of whether it is connected wye or delta, Power = V*A*sqrt(3). The video seemed to contradict this, but maybe that was a software error in Dr. Scott's GUI.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

The Siemens can spin much faster. I suspect 2 things. Definitely the BLDC can't spin faster. But also if wound for lower voltage it means the motor is getting into field weakening where the controller trades amps for voltage to overcome back emf. This is where you see on graphs the torque trails off but proportional to rpm the power holds out for a while. So the motor would probably keep at around 100kw for a few thousand rpm more before starting to drop, but torque would fade off. That is still excellent performance! 

If you could run higher voltage through it you could in theory hold the torque to higher rpm which would mean more power, but at a point you reach magnetic saturation of the motor's iron and you can't get much more out the motor. Kind of like a pipe flowing water, you can increase pressure for more flow until the pressure is so high that the volume of water passing through creates as much resistance as the effort to pump it, diminishing returns...


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Reason it isn't calculated that way Marcus is because all 3 phases are not powered simultaneously so it is actually only about 1.7 times phase voltage. I'm surprised, something is wrong. I agree with Hollie Maea that something is amiss.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> So from the video the data shows that the 1PV5135-4WS14 AC motor was at 138V (per phase) x 3 phases = 414V and 290A = 120kw -10%eff = ~108kw @ 5000rpm
> 
> The 1PV5135-4WS14 is one of the motors that came from the AZD auction and according to what I've read was wound for lower voltage for AZD.
> 
> ...


Not quite sure the math is right. AC induction motors will produce a voltage independent of rpm and the three phases don't get added together as far as I know because they happen at different times.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The apparent power is the sum of the products of phase-to-neutral voltage and phase current, while the actual power is diminished by the power factor and efficiency. Since voltage is typically given as phase-to-phase, the apparent power is reduced by the square root of 3, which really just calculates the phase-neutral voltage. The power consumption and output of a three phase motor is actually quite constant, which you can see by adding the instantaneous voltages (or currents) of each phase at all phase angles. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase










At 0 degrees, Phase 1 is sine(0) = 0, Phase 2 is sine(120) = 0.866, and Phase 3 is sine(240) = -0.866. Sum is zero, while sum of squares is 1.500.

At 90 degrees, Phase 1 is sine(90) = 1.00, Phase 2 is sine(210) = -0.5, and Phase 3 is sine(330) = -0.5. Sum is zero, while sum of squares is 1.500.

You can perform this calculation for any angle and the (vector) sum will be zero, while the sum of squares will be 1.5. The root-mean-square will be sqrt(1.5/3) = 0.707.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tylerwatts said:


> Reason it isn't calculated that way Marcus is because all 3 phases are not powered simultaneously so it is actually only about 1.7 times phase voltage. I'm surprised, something is wrong. I agree with Hollie Maea that something is amiss.


So 138v * 1.7 = 235v * 290A = ~68kw ??


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Roughly I would not be surprised if it is close to that, yes. Remember the motor can achieve higher rpm, and the power output is a factor of torque and rpm, so I'd expect the Siemens to make more power higher up the revs. Effectively electric power in is not the same as mechanical power out. Electric power in is torque and given how well you use this torque your mechanical power varies. I understand it that as the motor gets closer to optimum rated speed it gets more out for the amount put in and if you look at efficiency charts you see this, the rated speed and electrical input are about at peak efficiency, so if you are outside of that range ie more current or different speed you lose some efficiency and get less mechanical back for the electrical you put in. 

Does that make sense? The Siemens is rated at a higher rpm, somewhere around 7-8000 rpm I think, given the transmission ratio in the transit connect this is right. So if you revved the Siemens closer to this rpm with the same electrical input you will be getting more mechanical output. Similar to an ICE in the sense it has a peak efficiency rpm where it gives the most power from the volume of fuel consumed. This is always in the upper half of the rpm range. Difference with electric motors is they make full torque at all lower rpm up to rated speed, whereas an ICE makes more torque as it gets closer to efficient speed because the excess energy at lower rpm just escapes in the exhaust but an electric motor makes torque with all it's current at low rpm.

Hope that analogy makes sense. Rather basic.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think max RPM for the Siemens is 10K.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> So from the video the data shows that the 1PV5135-4WS14 AC motor was at 138V (per phase) x 3 phases = 414V and 290A = 120kw -10%eff = ~108kw @ 5000rpm
> 
> The 1PV5135-4WS14 is one of the motors that came from the AZD auction and according to what I've read was wound for lower voltage for AZD.
> 
> ...




The BLDC is rated to 6000 rpm, although Dr. Scott has tested it over 7000 rpm without issue. The Siemens is rated to 10,000 rpm. The video is just a general test run and 5000 rpm is a comfortable rpm for both motors and is plenty high enough to get good power out of the Siemens. If anybody wants to ship another Siemens to NZ we can shoot the video at 8,000 rpm. 

The bus voltage of the test is shown in the lower right corner as ~360V. 

The motor voltage (~137V) is the phase to neutral voltage which has to be multiplied by root 3 to get the average phase to phase voltage, which is about half of the peak to peak voltage. Thompson gets extra points for actually knowing this stuff (I asked Dr. Scott).

The Siemens is rated 105 kW @ 350V, so running it on the dyno at 360V is pretty close to the spec voltage. Again, this video is not "max power", it just shows the Scott Drive can easily drive the Siemens to it's power and torque ratings. 

Please note the temperature rise during the test (3:20 in vid). It shows why the controller should be on a separate cooling system (for high power applications). Motors run hot and stay hot. There is no reason to heat the controller until it is in thermal cutback by connecting it with the motor coolant loop. 

Cheers


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Please note the temperature rise during the test (3:20 in vid). It shows why the controller should be on a separate cooling system (for high power applications). Motors run hot and stay hot. There is no reason to heat the controller until it is in thermal cutback by connecting it with the motor coolant loop.
> 
> Cheers


Curious...I could not tell from the video. How was the coolant arranged. Tank, Pump, Inverter, Motor, Tank?

Are you saying that the inverter when under load heated the motor, or the other way around? Looks to me like the Inverter got hot instantly and sent the heat to the motor, and then when the load got removed the inverter cooled instantly and the motor took a while to cool down.

If it is the order as I noted above I'd be curious to see the same test with the motor and inverter in the opposite order.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

The dyno uses tap water. No loop. You can't really get better cooling than that without Freon or ice. 

Please note the scales are different. The controller only heats up ~18 C to a max of 42-43 C and holds steady. It can run at this level continuously with adequate cooling.

The motor temp rose 32 C and the test was stopped at a max of 60 C. The Siemens label says 55 C max while some of the literature says 70 C. Motor temperature is the limiting factor in test duration.

The racers will quickly determine how this actually translates into real-world performance.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

55C seems way low, even 70C seems on the low side for a motor. H class insulation is 180C, F class is 155C.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

This shows ambient operating temperature as 70C, which means motor temperature will be much higher.

http://www.metricmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/1pv5135-4ws14-300V.pdf


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Google images: "Siemens 1pv5135" and click on the yellow sticker.

It reads: "WATERCOOLING 16 l/m MAX 2.5 bar MAX 55 C"

If the coolant is 55 C then, yes the rotor would be much higher. I assume the Germans put it on the label for a reason. 

Again, the racers will determine the absolute limits.


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> The dyno uses tap water. No loop. You can't really get better cooling than that without Freon or ice.
> 
> The motor temp rose 32 C and the test was stopped at a max of 60 C. The Siemens label says 55 C max while some of the literature says 70 C. Motor temperature is the limiting factor in test duration.


wow, 32c rise with direct tap water cooling. That really is some quick heating. 60-90 seconds (cant tell for sure) at 100kW. Not too many people will use 100kW for over a minute, but it is something to look for.

Thanks for the updates.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Cooling is KING!

The winner will definitely be the guy/gal with the best cooling system.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Google images: "Siemens 1pv5135" and click on the yellow sticker.
> 
> It reads: "WATERCOOLING 16 l/m MAX 2.5 bar MAX 55 C"
> 
> ...


I would have interpreted the 55C as a maximum input temperature


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My thoughts as well. 55C is barely above ambient temperatures in many places in the summer.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

ruckus said:


> The motor voltage (~137V) is the phase to neutral voltage which has to be multiplied by root 3 to get the average phase to phase voltage


I would advise Dr. Scott to modify his setup and GUI to measure things conventionally. It is bad form to measure phase voltage and line current. You can search all day and you will find everyone working with 3 phase calculates power based on line voltage and line current. A practical reason for the convention is so that wye and delta configurations can both be calculated using the same measurement set up and the same equations. At the very least, he should label his GUI to show what he is measuring (phase vs line values). Keeping it like this will subject him to unneeded questions and make people wonder if he knows what he's talking about.

Just IMHO.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Thank you all for clarifying and correcting my calculation.

Very excited about these offerings to the ev community!


----------



## gunnarhs (Apr 24, 2012)

Siemens to Scott: You are driving me craaaazyyyy 

Ok I looked at the video and assuming everything is ok with setup and data displayed, the data is consistent. The only thing unusual for Induction motor data display, is the voltage per phase displayed by Scott
(Siemens gives the total DC-Bus-voltage and current per phase as it seems).
From the test displayed the graph data of the (motor?) temperature looks as if it is stable. But a longer test would give better indication.
Impressive that no liquid cooling is needed on the controller.

The only thing to question for me is the motor-sound during speeds over 2500 RPM. Also the look of the sinus during higher speeds (could though be the measure software). But apart from that quite impressive.


----------



## gunnarhs (Apr 24, 2012)

Bowser330 said:


> So 138v * 1.7 = 235v * 290A = ~68kw ??


Sorry did erase a wrong comment here

You see indeed two measure points from Scotts test, indicated by the specs shown from 0:56 on the video
One is the max torque at 200 Nm 300A 
(at 190/280Arms on Siemens specs Siemens).
The other the max power (100 kW) at 138V AC RMS (?) Phase , 300A rms (Phase).

The current control strategy here limits Power to 100 kW, for higher power you have to increase voltage for this motor

AC voltage is (DC / 1,4) for simple Sinus at 50 Hz , 3000 RPM
(Scott is most likely better).
So the Voltage should be more than 138V (?)
RMS-total-motor Voltage is therefore probably near 190
RMS-total-motor Current is therefore 300A*1,7 = 510 A.
So total power is at least 190*510A = 98 kW 
(probably better with better would give over 100 kW).

So for me Dr. Scott has passed the test , he is graduated.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

gunnarhs said:


> You are missing 1,7*290 for 3 phase currrent


No! This is wrong. You can never be multiplying both Voltage and Current by 1.7 (sqrt(3)).

There are four components we have:

Voltage (phase)
Current (phase)
Voltage (line to line)
Current (line)

The phase values are internal to the motor (it's the windings) and are where power is produced. The line values are external, and is where you conventionally do your measuring. When you measure line to line voltage and line current, you always multiply by a single factor of sqrt(3). But what you are actually doing is multiplying by 3 (because there are three phases) and DIVIDING by sqrt(3), to convert from line values (where you measure) to phase values (where power is produced). 

In Y configuration:
Current(phase) = Current(line). The current after passing through the windings has nowhere to go but into the line.
Voltage(phase) = Voltage(line)/sqrt(3). Because we are measuring from line to line across one phase and then across a second phase at an electrical angle of 120 degrees. So the voltage we measure is more than the phase voltage (also offset by 30 degrees).

So our power is:
3*Current(measured)*Voltage(measured)/sqrt(3) which comes out to:
sqrt(3)*Current(measured)*Voltage(measured)

In Delta configuration:
Current(phase) = Current(line)/sqrt(3). Because the line contains the current from one phase, but also some from the other phase that is connected at an electrical angle.
Voltage(phase) = Voltage(line). There is only one phase between adjacent lines.

So our power is:
3*Current(measured)/sqrt(3)*Voltage(measured) which comes out still to:
sqrt(3)*Current(measured)*Voltage(measured)

That's why we use this convention. The power is always the same no matter the phase configuration.

The only way that Dr. Scott's numbers make any sense is if he is measuring phase voltage and line current. This is completely nonsensical, and would ONLY work in a Y configuration in which the neutral point is accessible. I'm not ready to "graduate" him yet.


----------



## gunnarhs (Apr 24, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> No! This is wrong. You can never be multiplying both Voltage and Current by 1.7 (sqrt(3)).


Yes sorry saw that now Bowser had already multiplied.
Thanks, have corrected this.
There was the same error in the RMS (AC) Voltage, did correct that to


I am quite sure Scott is using the DC-Bus-voltage values in his calculation. 
Which is ok for this demonstration.



> There are four components we have:
> 
> Voltage (phase)
> Current (phase)
> ...


Actually you have the Voltage DC-values here in this specs, both in Scotts I assume and also in the Siemens data. I think he wants to compare the data on the specs with his data. This is not a professional endurance test measuring the power in every time interval and calculating the resulting power-factor and efficiency.



> The phase values are internal to the motor (it's the windings) and are where power is produced. The line values are external, and is where you conventionally do your measuring. When you measure line to line voltage and line current, you always multiply by a single factor of sqrt(3). But what you are actually doing is multiplying by 3 (because there are three phases) and DIVIDING by sqrt(3), to convert from line values (where you measure) to phase values (where power is produced).


Not me , Mr. Scott probably . But neither would be measuring the phase (line) voltages only phase (line) currents. Going from the Siemens specs, I would compare the DC-Bus-voltage and phase current.



> In Y configuration:
> Current(phase) = Current(line). The current after passing through the windings has nowhere to go but into the line.
> Voltage(phase) = Voltage(line)/sqrt(3). Because we are measuring from line to line across one phase and then across a second phase at an electrical angle of 120 degrees. So the voltage we measure is more than the phase voltage (also offset by 30 degrees).
> 
> ...


I agree of course with you in all this points  



> The only way that Dr. Scott's numbers make any sense is if he is measuring phase voltage and line current. This is completely nonsensical, and would ONLY work in a Y configuration in which the neutral point is accessible. I'm not ready to "graduate" him yet.


I am quite sure he is taking the DC bus voltage like Siemens does and calculating from it.
He seems not be using the full 400V he has (theorethically) in the battery pack.
But I get not the 138V to fit, it should be higher.
I am also quite sure that he is in delta mode.

Maybe I will have to degrade him to master ...


----------



## gunnarhs (Apr 24, 2012)

gunnarhs said:


> Maybe I will have to degrade him to master ...


Ok "Docs" can be confusing sometimes 

It is best to look at the equipment setup ignoring the software for start.

When comparing HEC inverter data with the Siemens doc:
For delta setup:

Uac(rms) = Udc /1,4, meaning for example
Udc = 350V , U(ac/rms) = 250V

The rated current in specs seems to be the line(?) current.

Iac line(rms) = 1,7 *Iac phase(rms) .

So total power seems (ignoring losses):
P = (U(dc)/1,4)*1,7*Iac phase (rms) = Udc*Iac line(rms)/1,4

Scotty has the setup of 114 Li-batteries. assuming average voltage of 3,2 and that bus voltage is holding the same voltage:
Udc = 114*3,2 =364V. (software shows 360V)

Scotty is measuring line current 290A (clamp data) so applying above (softvare shows 285)
P = 360*290/1,4 = 75 kW (without losses calculated cos(phi) = 0,85)
is what Scott should be doing if he would apply the full voltage available.

So output is probably 75kW and the effective output 
P(eff) = 75kW*0,85 = 64 kW.

The error (?) seems to be done in the assumption that the full DC-Bus voltage is been utilized in the modulation (rms-faktor 1,4).
The Software shows (almost) the same Power at the hardware-link as Power (rms) at motor.
Maybe it is better than 1,4 (71%), utilization up to 85% for SPVPWM is promised in some literature (????).
( I am no specialist in modulation techniques but best I have seen uses 80%)

That would mean 
P = 360*290*0,85 = 89 kW ( P(eff) = 75 kW).
Maybe Dr, Scott is reaching that high (is he not a genius?)

But anyway for putting out at least 75 kW he deserves at least master degree 
I will let other s here decide about the promotion, if he holds the specs for a few minutes I will at least vote for a Dr. hc.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong I am on a huge amount of medicaments and have had little time of sleep


----------



## gunnarhs (Apr 24, 2012)

ruckus said:


> The motor voltage (~137V) is the phase to neutral voltage which has to be multiplied by root 3 to get the average phase to phase voltage, which is about half of the peak to peak voltage. Thompson gets extra points for actually knowing this stuff (I asked Dr. Scott).


Where is the neutral phase (line)?. 
I only see three lines here and I assume the motor is in delta connection. 
In this connection the (peak) Voltage over Phase/ between line would be about 360-400V (depending on bus voltage ) and you would need the RMS-factor to get the "average" (rms) Voltage .
Here it should be something like 360V/1,4 = 257V (rms) having U (phase) = U(lines).


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

This will probably come as a shock as I was the most skeptical person on here but...I ordered a Scott Drive.

The plan is to try it out with the Remy HVH250, for which it has supposedly been tuned, to verify that it works as advertised. Then I'll hopefully figure out how to get it to work with my Leaf motor.

I'll let you all know how it goes.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

My Scott Drive arrived, and it's a beast. I'll start a new thread documenting my adventures with it, but it looks good so far!


----------



## Frank (Dec 6, 2008)

The real shock was seeing this old thread re-activated! Can you please post a link to the specs? Who is the vendor? Thanks! 

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

http://scottdrive.co.nz/Products.html


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Frank said:


> The real shock was seeing this old thread re-activated! Can you please post a link to the specs? Who is the vendor? Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk


It's a Scott Drive, from New Zealand. This one is rated for a peak of 900 VDC (I won't take it above 800) and phase current of 600Arms. So more than 300 kW.


----------



## EVmattyP (May 12, 2019)

Hollie Maea said:


> It's a Scott Drive, from New Zealand. This one is rated for a peak of 900 VDC (I won't take it above 800) and phase current of 600Arms. So more than 300 kW.


whoa, so would this be able to work with my current battery pack and a new motor to help simplify the swap?? If so I need to get some more details!


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

EVmattyP said:


> whoa, so would this be able to work with my current battery pack and a new motor to help simplify the swap?? If so I need to get some more details!


This one is way too big, both in terms of physical size and power, for a Think. And the voltage is double what you have. But there is a smaller version at 400V. If this thing works as advertised, that might be a good fit. Depends on what motor you have in mind (it would likely need to be characterized).


----------



## EVmattyP (May 12, 2019)

I'm going to keep an eye out for your new thread. I went to the site and saw the 250 might be perfect for me. 

I'm either wanting to use an i3 or leaf motor to see where my stock batteries will max out.


----------



## Frank (Dec 6, 2008)

http://scottdrive.co.nz/index.html

I'll be watching to see how this works. Good luck!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

EVmattyP said:


> whoa, so would this be able to work with my current battery pack and a new motor to help simplify the swap??


Unless you use one of the motors which Scott has already worked with, you will still need to characterize the motor (as Hollie Maea mentioned) and configure the drive settings for it, but it appears that the software will allow you to set whatever you need.



Hollie Maea said:


> This one is way too big, both in terms of physical size and power, for a Think. And the voltage is double what you have. But there is a smaller version at 400V.


Unfortunately, according to the specs on the website product pages for every model are the same physical size, and nearly the same mass:

384mm L x 304mm W x 110mm H
14 kg for the SD100 and SD200; 16 kg for the SD250 and SD300
I downloaded the individual datasheets, and that appears to be an error on the website, with none of the models having the dimensions from the web pages.

There are two distinct case designs, and one set of dimensions and weight for each design. The size is not surprising for the high-power models, but all are larger than the web page specs and any of them in a Th!ink seems excessively large.

SD100 and SD200: 394X350X110 mm, 12.5 kg
SD250 and SD300: 460X350X110 mm, 16.5 kg
The electrical specs don't all match between the product pages and the datasheets, either, although I didn't notice any big differences.

These sorts of errors make me a bit nervous about the company, because if they can't - or don't bother to - get the trivial stuff right, how many errors are there in the important technical documentation? I would assume that everything they publish is potentially incorrect, and would confirm every number with them before believing any of them.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> There are two distinct case designs, and one set of dimensions and weight for each design. The size is not surprising for the high-power models, but all are larger than the web page specs and any of them in a Th!ink seems excessively large.
> 
> SD100 and SD200: 394X350X110 mm, 12.5 kg
> SD250 and SD300: 460X350X110 mm, 16.5 kg
> ...


The website is definitely out of date and contains some errors or obsolete information. The SD300 (and 250) is definitely the 460x350x110 mm dimensions.

I get the impression that it's a small company ran largely by engineers who aren't that great at keeping up on their website. I can sympathize to some extent, being part of a small company ran largely by engineers who aren't that great at keeping up on our website.

Thus said, I definitely get what you're saying--if they can't get the website right, how good will the drive be? The first however many pages of this thread are mostly people (most often me) voicing skepticism. And the skepticism won't be gone entirely until I truly test this thing.

For what it's worth, I took the lid off and they're using good components and the design looks pretty good.


----------



## Frank (Dec 6, 2008)

@Hollie Maea - which flavor motor are you using please?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Hollie Maea said:


> The plan is to try it out with the Remy HVH250, for which it has supposedly been tuned, to verify that it works as advertised. Then I'll hopefully figure out how to get it to work with my Leaf motor.
> 
> .


Remy HVH250


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> ...
> For what it's worth, I took the lid off and they're using good components and the design looks pretty good.


It's worth a lot, but we want to see the pictures of the insides.

What is the price range for budgetary purposes?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Frank said:


> @Hollie Maea - which flavor motor are you using please?


For starters, HVH250-115 parallel wound.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Hollie Maea said:


> The website is definitely out of date and contains some errors or obsolete information. The SD300 (and 250) is definitely the 460x350x110 mm dimensions.
> 
> I get the impression that it's a small company ran largely by engineers who aren't that great at keeping up on their website. I can sympathize to some extent, being part of a small company ran largely by engineers who aren't that great at keeping up on our website.
> 
> ...


It's taken forever, but we actually got this to spin for the first time. Will be trying to take it up to high power in the coming days. I must say that the user interface is quite nice.


----------

