Mercedes says its Axial Flux Motor is a game changer for Electric cars
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ส.ค. 2022
- Mercedes says its Axial Flux Motor is a game changer for Electric cars
Join this channel to get access to perks►
tinyurl.com/theevmembership
Members-only videos (see videos before anyone else)►
tinyurl.com/Members-only-videos
Subscribe and hit the notification bell! ► tinyurl.com/subscribetoTEV
Join me on Patreon ► tinyurl.com/theevonpatreon
Join us on our newly created Telegram Channel to stay updated: t.me/theelectricviking
The Electric Viking on Social:
Facebook page ► tinyurl.com/theevfb
Facebook group ► tinyurl.com/theevfbgroup
Twitter ► tinyurl.com/theevtwitter
Instagram ► tinyurl.com/theevinstagram
Pinterest ► tinyurl.com/theevpinterest
LinkedIn ► tinyurl.com/theevlinkedIn
My Stake referral link ► tinyurl.com/hellostake
See more about me: • You've been asking; he...
My Bali trip: • I went to Indonesia an...
See my kids channel: tinyurl.com/subscribetojackan...
See more videos about Mercedes:
Mercedes removes features - owners forced to pay subscriptions
• Mercedes removes featu...
The new BYD / Mercedes electric SUV; the Denza X
• The new BYD / Mercedes...
Mercedes copied a Chinese car for its flagship EQXX EV
• Mercedes copied a Chin...
Mercedes 3yr plan is so BAD its hilarious - I'm still laughing
• Mercedes 3yr plan is s...
My CANDID opinion on Mercedes Benz's new EQS SUV
• My CANDID opinion on M...
Mercedes' NEW autonomous Electric car is BOGUS
• Mercedes' NEW autonomo...
Mercedes follow Tesla’s lead, will pivot to LFP batteries
• Mercedes follow Tesla’...
Chinese Mercedes EV buyers; 'RECALL needed immediately!'
• Chinese Mercedes EV bu...
Mercedes says it's OK for dealers to charge $50,000 over MSRP
• Mercedes says it's OK ...
MERCEDES EV strategy - will they go BANKRUPT or thrive?!
• MERCEDES EV strategy -...
NEW Mercedes Electric car with more than 1000 km range
• NEW Mercedes Electric ...
Mercedes CAUGHT with 8 ILLEGAL emissions cheating devices
• Mercedes CAUGHT with 8...
The LUXURY Chinese EV outselling Porsche, Mercedes & Tesla
• The LUXURY Chinese EV ...
Tesla VS Mercedes Autonomous driving comparison - is Mercedes being honest?
• Tesla VS Mercedes Auto...
Spy photos + details of the new Mercedes EQS electric SUV
• Spy photos + details o...
Mercedes' ridiculous plan for bankruptcy in 2030
• Mercedes' ridiculous p...
BYD upgraded to tier 1 global battery supplier after Mercedes agreement
• BYD upgraded to tier 1...
The NEW Mercedes-Benz EQT electric minivan looks very impressive!
• The NEW Mercedes-Benz ...
Mercedes Benz EQS May Beat The Tesla Model S By More Than We Thought
• Mercedes Benz EQS May ...
#mercedes #axialfluxmotor #ev #evnews
This channel may use some copyrighted materials without specific authorization of the owner; but content used here falls under the “Fair Use” Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.
Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Contact us at info@theelectricviking.com / theelectricviking@gmail.com for any copyright issues.
The primary benefit of axial flux is that they don’t need a transaxle. Ie you don’t have to step down the speed with gears to the wheels. You can drive the wheels directly so as a result you save not only the weight of the motor but also the gearing.
And that also means more reliability because you get rid of a wear part.
And it also opens up the possibility of putting them in the wheels directly.
You don’t need speed. It is more than capable of hitting 3500-4500 rpm which is well over 150 mph directly driven.
And the efficiency is not just the motor, it’s the removal of the gears and the loss from them. The SYNRM motors like in teslas are about 94% efficient. But with gearing it drops to about 89%. With an axial flux you get 94-96% efficiency and no gearing loss so you go from 89% to 96% which is 9%.
Best description in these comments so far. Thanks
My wife and kids hit curbs. I don’t want to have to replace a motor along with a wheel.
@@royphillips7644 If these motors are indeed capable of direct drive, best to mount them inboard with short driveshafts IMO.
@@royphillips7644 the motor is inside the hub and includes the rotor for the brakes in a single unit if packaged that way. The wheel itself is attached to the motor rotor and brake assembly and then tire goes on that. So if you hit a curb you replace the wheel exactly as you would in a regular car and there’s no damage to the motor.
(And because they’re are 4 of them the car has amazing handling because each wheel can be independently driven directly)
@@Macmonkey1000 you can. Works in both applications. But testing is showing little downside to hub implementation. The worry of unsprung mass seems to be unfounded and by attaching the wheel directly to the rotor assembly (including brakes) you eliminate drive shaft losses and another wear part.
Munroe did a review of a demonstrator Mercedes with this design and SSI he couldn’t feel the mass in the wheels and the weight savings was enormous.
And rich rebuilds made a quad with a similar design(using standard bldc with a chain reduction but sprung) and there was no more bounce than a normal quad.
The advantage of axial flux motors in aircraft is obvious. lower mass is a huge advantage by itself.. lower cooling and higher efficiency, also ideal. The limitations at higher RPM is not a problem with aircraft, since it is typical to have them wanting high torque at low RPM for long periods.. constant speed propellers are common .. they vary the propeller pitch to keep shaft RPM constant. ~2,000 RPM is typical.
^^ this man knows motors…
Not sure, the axial motor has a big dimension in the air flux direction. And torque /speed ratio is a transmission. A gear. Smaller in diameter.
The trend in propellers is to go slower with more blades
I think many would be surprised how engines in aircraft are direct drive most have gear box.
@@johnstubbe3113 Those 2 factors have no interdependence...
The smaller the diameter the higher speed you can run it without the wingtips reaching the sound barrier transition drag penalties...
The available torque can influence the number of blades... and other aero-blade characteristics...
I designed an ironless axial flux motor ages ago. They won’t make much difference in most EVs.
One pro’s is by removing gears, you gain 1% or 2% of efficiency.
One con is the higher current needed in you system for proper acceleration.
There were more con’s before but the electronic refining have leveled those cons.
The company I worked for electrified an old tractor/transporter with an off the shelf axial flux motor two years ago. It worked. Considering that they are NOT new, most noise around them is just marketing.
Excellent Points from both of you - I would say that this could help with DIY Electric Car conversions, the form factor alone is a big advantage and the Lower RMP is highly Desirable.
Sounds like this type motor would do great for semi’s that need monster torque and not a lot of rpm to do the job more efficiently. Great video Sam. Thanks!
I agree. These should be great for electric commercial heavy vehicles.
An electric-diesel.
I was thinking the same thing, a better lighter motor in larger vehicles, as in trucking, could have a big impact.
To continue this exciting brainstorming session, I would like to add tractors and mining equipment and improve the efficiency of existing vehicles like trains , trams and pumps. Maybe flying saucers are the drones of the future.
This was my first thought too. Range is obviously the biggest concern about electric trucks so the smaller size allowing for more space to increase battery capacity is great. When electric semi trucks start hitting the road in big numbers I have to imagine new trailers will be redesigned to work better with electric trucks. I see no reason a trailer design can’t include added battery capacity that connects when you plug the tractor in. Four more wheels contributing to regenerative braking. Maybe even add motors in the back to increase handling of the trailer and assist the tractor on inclines.
Unless the trailers have electric braking the semi will still need a pneumatic system for pulling current trailers.
I am a trucker, not an engineer. So if those ideas are crazy please be kind pointing it out.
I hope electric semis take over the roads soon. It would be lovely to not have all this engine noise bouncing around my skull for 500-600 miles a day.
> Hub motors are hard to seal at high RPM. Water and grit entering them will cause rapid wear and plumbing a cooling fluid is a challenge too. You covered the problem with unsprung weight somewhat. A heavy wheel rebounding out of a hole will tend to leave contact with the ground, and lose traction. Example, move your arm up and down like you are swinging a hammer rapidly. Now try the same speed with a 5 kilo weight in your hand. Wow!
Orbis not
The 10% extra efficiency is true if you assume that a standard induction motor has 95% efficiency and an axial has 99% AND the induction one requires a two-step reduction gearbox like on the Tesla model S. The reduction gearbox eats 3% of the energy per step so about 3+3+5 = 11% is lost in total vs 1% for the axial motor IF that one can generate enough torque to be connected directly to the wheel without the need for a gearbox.
Shizzle…right below my comment was the answer I was looking for…cheers
Yes to all of that. Losing the requirement for reduction gears also reduces weight and manufacturing costs even further. These factors multiply the overall efficiency of the vehicle:
1. Motor cost and weight are reduced.
2. Battery size can be reduced while maintaining the original acceleration numbers.
3. Reduced battery size further reduces weight and cost.
The cumulative improvements net surprising cost reductions.
Need to look at the math from the inefficiency side of the equation. Say the battery can output 300kw, but the motor loses 10% of that, outputs 270kw. 30kw loss, roughly. If this is 10% more efficient, then it's only a 27kw loss. 10% less energy lost. So input is 300kw, output 273kw. It's small if you look at it that way, but makes a big difference
The Professor (at 12.48) was quoted as saying "Put one motor on each wheel". You seem to have read this as "IN" each wheel and went on to describe why this is not a good idea. Maybe he meant this, maybe not. Thanks for your work.
Hi Sam. Great episode. Re the 10% efficiency improvement claim, as an electrical engineer (who has admittedly changed career) my belief is they have created a simulated EV, removed the weight of the axle & standard electric motor to replace with their axial flux + direct constant-velocity joints; compared the two under favourable driving speed to get the claimed 10% savings figure. So weight change based... Playing axial's low rev high efficiency curve.
Those motors look like a good fit for the Simi. They would fit as hub motors and there is a much bigger demand for torque.
Axial flux motors are a big deal, yes. Not a total game changer, but a significant improvement nevertheless. And yes, there were around before the radial flux motor we all know, being the first electric motors invented. Nicola Tesla actually had a patent on a version he designed. All thin CD players use axial flux motor because the radial does not fit in that tight of a space. Some elevator use large ones, for example, due to their higher torque and efficiency. Their issue has been that the machinery for mass manufacturing hasn't been there because radial are easier to design for simple applications like ceiling fans and power tools, and other similar applications, the main uses of electric motors until now. After the mass manufacturing is in place, the issue remaining is heat dissipation. Especially in the yokeless design.
As far as efficiency, they are absolutely more efficient than radial because their power/electric mechanism is stationary being axial as opposed to radial because by design they use alternating current to induce the rotation, therefore use a little less electricity/power to do the same job. Their efficiency is obviously not more than 100%, that's idiotic to even mention, however, they do reach above 96% on average. So they are at least 6 to 7% more efficient than radial, while still having 30 to 35% more torque. And they can be much smaller, so much so that, yes, Ford actually tried using them inside the tire's rims for the Mach-E and Lightning, but their efforts obviously failed due to the fact that you mentioned -- there is no suspension there to take the shocks of the road. Perhaps in the future tiny suspension designs that fit inside the rim can allow it. But for now, that's out of the question.
They are so efficient and light that Rolls Royce is using them for their electric airplane motors they are working on now. In fact, they are actually currently testing them on actual small airplanes. So yes, axial flux motors will absolutely enter the EV world soon. In fact, although Mercedes did enter a deal to acquire the Yasa technology, the deal still allows Yasa to work with other manufacturers, which was the only way that Yasa agreed to the deal. Mercedes wanted it because the recognized the advantages and wanted the prestige of being first to the party and have their own engineers improve it even further rather than starting from scratch.
Thank you, great notice. Do you now more about the deal? How do you thik about and the difference they made to elaphe(aptera) with the same problem of unsprung mass especially with lightweight body) ?
Weight of 24kg, 210hp... With a thickness of under 2inches. Just imagine the energy recovery. Instant torque. All the while keeping their entire infrastructure intact. Its buying them time, yet providing something special. The NEW C63 is a 4banger w\ this tech. 600hp, 4 cylinder. @@@ 26-30mpg, just on petro.
🎓
Apparently, very professional in-depth instruction, thank you for your time.
Can't you put them just inside the car like other motors? Or maybe in the wheel arches?
Thank you to showing our AP Winding and stamping machine for axial Flux stators at min 2:24 sec.
My Grandpa worked hard to invent that machine, he should be Proud about this video.
A big hug, we keep Pushing for Industry 4.0 for this Technology.
Best Regards
Riccardo Boccadoro
Aptera Motors is using Elaphe in-wheel motors in their EVs, and from all reports, they have tested out well for the light three-wheeled vehicles they will be producing. It would be good for the Electric Viking to look into this and help us to understand this motor technology. Is this a motor technology that can work, and why did Aptera decide to go with this motor?
Interesting, I was wondering about how Aptera were doing that
I thought of Aptera right away. I have seen a video where they talked about the rotational mass issue. It in part was solved by weight reduction.
Aptera?........please. It was, is and will be dead.
Once you get the flux capacitor up to 88 miles an hour you're gonna see some interesting stuff happen.
If you remeber...the development of the axial flux motor is just in its beginnings. This motor will revolutionize the EVs car in 5-8 years. We won't have any radial flux motor (maybe in some cheap models) in 15 years. Customers will be the winner of this innovation.
I think Rivian using pancake motors directly behind the wheels, not in the wheels, is the ideal solution, maximum direct torque, no transmissions, native torque vectoring. Plus easy access in case of repair or upgrade. If you have a new generation silent washing machine, you have an axial flux motor inside.
Hi mate, 10% range increase does not necessarily come from just motor's efficiency itself but for example from weight reduction. Say, the motors are 5% more efficient + total EV weight 5% less thanks to the motors and gear design.
Aptera is using in-wheel motors. Sounds to me like a good idea.
Generally when they talk about electric motor efficiency when comparing to engines they are talking about work vs wasted heat efficiency, my guess is here they are talking about power to performance efficiency which is a separate thing, what you say is of course true that efficiency cant be 100% more when its already +90% when talking about how much of the electricity is getting turned into rotational force, and how much of it is wasted as heat.
But in this case I can assume they mean how much horse power and torque at efficient RPM they produce per Watt, which varies vastly between electric motors.
He didn't do the math right... the 10% "more" would be 10% of 90%, so in reality the claim is 99% efficiency, not 100%.
Once you start adding transmissions you start increasing weight and thus reducing efficiency. Needing more batteries thus increasing weight. It is best to keep it simple.
At first I didn’t know what to think about you. But I have seen a smart dedicated person who wants to educate the masses. Thank you! I enjoy your content and wish you the best!
Robert Burkey, PhD.
At first we didnt know what to make of you.....
@@economistfromhell4877 .. I still don’t know what to make of your name, but I like it anyway
@@douginorlando6260 I have been to hell so you don't have to? Or economics doesn't care what your opinion is and has the final vote? Its a mystery - :-).
Economic dynamics drive everything - its hell.....happy to be proven wrong, but...
Yeah, but he is giving people bad information... sooo...
I will explain it to you about that 10% range increase: the motor having a higher torque, doesn’t need a reduction gear of 9:1(for example) and can be matched with a reduction gear of 7:1 ( also for the sake of example). This means that for the same speed of the car, the motor does less rotations, hence the reduction in consumption and.. TADAA.. the increase in range
Denis T / Yes, but you forget one important thing: higher torque coming from an electric motor, in any physical package smaller or bigger of the electric motor, comes with higher necessary amps meaning higher current consumption.
Torque formula for electric motors is like this:
Torque ( N•m ) = 9.5 X Power ( KW ) / Speed ( RPM )
Or practically : Tq= 9.5 X UI / RPM
Do you see that multiplication of the 2 terms UI? Those are U=voltage and I=current.
To have more torque you can use higher voltage, higher Amps or both.
At the same voltage, more Torque means more Amps.
And don't forget that more Amps means higher temperature.
All OK, now? 🙂
More importantly, the higher gearing will allow AMG to more easily match the top speed of Tesla cars, with their high revving ability, 18,000 to 20,000 versus around 12,000+ for non Tesla motors.
Brian A / Yes, but higher gearing equals less torque.
2 vehicles with the same drag coefficient and the same motor efficiency at that speed should get the same consumption, regardless of the motor type, or RPM. Any difference will be down to drivetrain friction.
It’s so silly all those relative statements. I mean “higher torque” compared to what? Make any motor a bit larger and it immediately have a higher torque…. And for a radial flux motor where you increase the radius, you get a torque increasing with the square of the increase. If you let the rotor become hollow, the weight only increase in direct proportion to the radius. So…short and large radius motors always has more torque to weight ratio. But more drag and lower top rpm due to strength limitations. It’s a delicate optimisation act. Much more room for improvements on the battery side on an EV.
4 motors on each wheel like with the Rivian. That will be awesome.
Ultimately, the hub motor is the goal. Direct drive, no shafts, no couplers, etc. But aside from promising tech like this, the weight and output have been the problem. Higher unsprung weight is not something you want. Larger motor volume is not something you want. So the Axial Flux is promising.
Ultimately, Mercedes, Audi etc. have to fix their software and electrical system problems (on ICE cars) before they promise magical electric motor technology.
Almost all cars stranded on European highways are new and expensive German cars and I suspect this is not because of mechanical failures. Imagine what will happen with their completely software dependent EV cars...
Honestly, I don't see what's so great about hub motors. The wheel is a horrible place for a piece of electrical equipment. It's dirty, wet, corrosive, and gets constant physical shocks. The increased unsprung weight is the last thing you want. All this trouble just to avoid a shaft? It just doesn't seem like a good engineering tradeoff.
@@raoulduke3000 EVs are only slightly more software dependent than modern ICE cars.
@@incognitotorpedo42 So there would only be slightly more premium German cars breaking down because of crapy software integration.
believe me, I wasn't exaggerating, premium legacy automakers know how to build mechanical things, but they are not software companies like Apple, Google, or Tesla. They have massive amounts of hardware in their cars and since they still outsource software development to many different companies, problems will only get worse.
Tesla will soon dominate the premium car sector worldwide, a Chinese company will buy at least one of the 3 German automakers, probably VW, and turn all of its brands into actually good-looking and performing EVs. Asia will provide most of the EVs in general because after all, that's where smartphones are produced.
In the US only one legacy car manufacturer - Ford will survive and hopefully take over the few remaining beloved brands, perhaps dumping Buick and reviving Pontiac instead
Excellent info download for the new Flux motor !!! Thx !! I like your observation / comment on small car advantages. About the why factor....
One can never overestimate the STATUS value for the inequality aristocracy of the monopoly game. I delivered new vehicles with Pilot Transport enclosed carriers in the U.S. and Canada. A few short stories: On a delivery to Victoria B.C. a had picked up 3 cars at the National City port ( near SD,CA ) one Porsche had 300hp one 500hp and one 750hp ...... the prices were the same progression ! I doubt without going over 150mph one could tell the difference. Bentley won the 24 hr Lemans race ; they labelled 24 cars 1-24 and split them between the continents, they auctioned them for far, far higher than the $500,000.00 tag, at delivery I was quite amazed at the huge garage and collection.
In Las Vegas I called ahead as usual, but the dealer was very agitated, and even called me back in the carrier, twice before my arrival. When I arrived I was directed to a lot where 4 people stood, and stared at me as I unloaded 2 cars ; the very first BMW 600 series ever ; the 650 sportback, to come to Vegas, the salesman told me one was spoken for and to drive the other over where he stood with the three customers.
Handing the keys to the salesman, I stood by and listened to the salesman; "bidding starts at 100", one says 110, another 120, the one at 110 said, I'm out and left, then the salesman says, " who has cash" ? one immediately blurts; I can get it, I can get it ! the other says, " In have it right here in my briefcase, he opens it and the cash was there, was like a movie I thought, " it's yours says the salesman, and the other swears. the munro sticker read 90,000. he paid 30,000 for bragging rights; I have the 1st BMW 6 series in Vegas. They are very status conscious with their collections and have plenty of spare millions to keep their stables relevant in the game.
Mercedes should make a couple of trucks and suv's with that kind of torque available.
Mercedes has some super kool future technologys involving high pressure air storage and release systems.. Incredible really..
@@kennedy6971 What? Really?
Sounds like the 5-10% range increase adds in both the weight reduction and the efficiency gain.
If there's one company that needs weight reduction bits MB
(Oh wait, I forgot Audi!)
10% more efficient can mean 2 different things. It could mean that 10% less energy is wasted. Which would push a 90% efficient motor up to 91% (1% being 10% of the lost energy between 100% and 90%). Another way to look at it, and probably the way most people would think about it, is that 10% more than 90% is 99%. 9% being 10% of 90% and 9+90=99. So it's entirely possible without crossing 100% into perpetual motion machine nonsense territory.
> I would imagine to get efficiency above 91% would require superconducting temperatures. A couple degrees Kelvin in an auto's motor would be quite a design. Elon has already considered this if we a thinking about it now.
I 110% agree.
90% being an average, maybe their actual figure is currently 87%, so reaching now 95,7%...
I have a perpetual motion ZiggyMaJigAThon mounted on top of a bridge, originally from London. I can sell for a sizeable discount if you buy both.... 😉😁
I built an axial flux motor over ten years ago from two Volvo brake disks and a front strut so they are defo not new. It was for a wind turbine but that's just a motor in reverse and was based on a Hugh Piggot design.
Interesting to see this design is now making it's way into cars.
@TheElectricViking : The efficiency of a motor you quote is not 90% everywhere. They have a sweetspot with over 95%(or more) efficiency and that drops towards the edges of the torque rpm map. The total efficiency (or consumption in Wh) also depends on the drive cycle (a collection of points on the torque rpm map the motor will move through whille running in the drive cycle), like WLTC. You could definitely reduce the WLTC total drive cycle consumption by 10% by a clever design, but it is hard to do so while also having different constraints (max torque, max rpm)
Another gem- thanks Sam - regards from an electric car starved South Africa- looking forward to anyone bringing in an affordable decent EV
Many years ago when the world was young, and so was I, I was involved with a small vehicle development business and met a graduate whose thesis had involved building an axial flux motor. He'd fitted it to a Trabant and used lead/acid batteries... but that's irrelevant. I too had been doing a similar mental model for what I thought ought to be a better traction motor, and our thinking transpired to follow very similar lines. My point is not to suggest how bloody clever we were back then, over thirty years ago, as I'm pretty sure we were not the first either. My point is that this is not even remotely new or revolutionary. it's just one more way of skinning the cat, and probably better than current trends in various ways. Neither is it ideal either.
I agree with your end point about this being better for smaller cars. However, I am no expert on batteries or motors, so I will trust the people who know this new motor the best to figure out where to try sticking it.
Back at your end of the woods there is (or was?) a company called AxiFlux which were into this topology. They were featured in a 2013 IEEE Spectrum article. We'll see if this topology is going to make a difference ... The company to watch in this space is a Belgian company called Magnax (not be be confused with a formerly Oz now US company called Magnix). Just checking the Magnax website I see that they have now sub branded into Traxial ... (for what they call ground e-mobility, I guess that includes cars ...)
The advantage is in a 4WD system with a motor at each wheel. The unsprung weight goes down compared to heavier motors. It sounds like manufacturing costs go down as well.
In an electric car, the motor has two functions - acceleration and recuperative breaking. I did not find any info about the recuperation on a quick search. If it's not working well, you maybe lose on overall consideration, as accelerating efficiency just rises from 90% to 96+%
Viking, this is the best vid you've done in a long time. Super information density.
I don't understand, as you talked about in beginning of video, why people are SOOO hung up on overpowered super fast vehicles? Or at least the industry seems to think that is what people want. I'd like a super efficient mini-van! I do mean a mini as possible while still be able to carry 4x8 sheets of material, probably vertical, so it doesn't need to be wide. single seater. Not only will this never be made, mini-vans and vans for some reason RARELY make it on TH-cam EV channels. Only if its some big company or Government department will they be mentioned. Kinda sad.
I first came across these motors, small printed circuit versions, in 1 inch video tape machines of the late 1960's. They did work well and their high torque spining the heavy tape reals in a compact package that simplified the deck construction and weight. I guess in cars the lighter, high torque and slightly higher efficiency adds up to saving in vehicle weight and therefore energy used in accelerating that weight.
Yep, saw those in computer tape drives in the late 1960s.
On wheel motors, the unsprung mass has been hyped a lot but for "normal" cars it is not really that big a difference. By going to relatively light in-wheel motors, they also save on the driveshafts, differentials (not very light either) and brackets/mounting points. For the vast majority of "normal" cars, a slightly heavier wheel makes no difference as at all to the car driving experience. Especially once in-wheel motors will integrate the wheel into them and we go to airless tyres. Let's see what the future brings :). By the way the weight savings with axial motors could result in the additional savings (the 10%). Just a percent or 2 in the motor efficiency means a slightly smaller and lighter battery, resulting in more efficiency. 10% sounds a bit high but it may not be too far away if you take all the savings together.
Exactly, that's why they are used in the Aptera or in the Lightyear 0.
Right at the end you get to a key point - 'normal' power cars can have a pair of air-cooled axial flux motors with planetary gears in a housing where half shafts plug into the planetary gears. This motor pair can be in front rear subassemblies with steer-by-wire steering. Add the new Brembo electric brake system (no hydraulics), and we can have a 'drive' package in/on the subassembly with wires to a box containing inverters and steering and brake control circuits. The inverter/control circuitboards would be mounted on a cooling plate in a sealed box under the hood. 10 kW, 20 kW, 40 kW continuous axial flux motors would cover virtually all the 'normal' power car/SUV segments.
The issue is Batteries, not the Motors
@@Dazza_Doo Batteries have expensive raw materials at present. In the meantime, reducing the size and simplifying other vehicle systems reduces vehicle cost. The body is cheap going by ICE vehicle prices.
@@peteregan3862 Not only that, but you can't build you own Battery pack, only commercial factories can do it efficiently, even Tesla uses Panasonic/Sony packs (I forget which one). As for Vehicle bodies, they are a dime a dozen when you consider you can get an almost new one for cheap (get one with a blown engine).
Have you seen the Cyberpunk77 (game) "Coyote" - all is possible unless you live a highly regulated country.
Looking at the overall wheel package if you could move the motor to the wheels why would you need the brakes anymore? This would go a long way to offsetting the weight of the motor. I believe currently for safety when the motors are inboard you are required to have separate brakes because you have components in between the motor and the wheel that can fail (no brakes then).
To further reduce weight of the wheel assembly you could integrate the center section of the wheel rim into the motor housing, just the outer rim of the wheel would be removeable.
One long term concern I would have is the durability of the power wires going to these motors which must flex with suspension movement and steering.
Even a motor may fail and be useless for regenerative braking: I’d never trust a system without a way to brake mechanically without electrical power, and I suspect regulations will ensure that.
Hub motors are already popular in E-bikes. I am sure a few EV's will have them, but as Sam aptly points out, the unsprung mass of a wheel is critical to suspension quality, and having motors which have to be heavy to be sturdy, works against ride quality. The advantages in torque vectoring however are considerable. As in all of engineering, it is all about tradeoffs, and if a low enough weight axial flux motor can be built, it would be a game changer for sure.
Mercedes is a very thorough and conservative company; they won't ship an axial flux motor until they have it nailed. They were using recirculating ball steering for decades after more progressive firms like Porsche used rack and pinion steering; Mercedes is a trailing edge type of company frankly.
UPDATE: The McLaren Artura is the first to ship an axial flux motor in a production car. Incredible performance. So light.
Sam is correct that smaller vehicles would benefit more with pancake motors, however, other than the Aptera, we will only see this kind of motor on the very high end of vehicles, because it is only made by some specialty motor companies, while Yamaha and other engine manufacturers are already building electric motors for a variety of OEM customers. The old way is always much cheaper in tech. So alas we won't see them in the mainstream for some time. Eventually however, i think this will be the standard motor, because there is always pressure for improved efficiency.
Mercedes is a "trailing edge type company"? Tell that to the wildly successful Mercedes Formula One team that is at the pinnacle of motor sport engineering. Mercedes may adopt a conservative approach at times but I wouldn't characterize them as trailing type.
You don't need hub motors for torque vectoring. You can do it with four inboard motors as well, and get rid of the many disadvantages of hub motors.
@@incognitotorpedo42 theoretically, if you can make the hub motors light enough, that will be a superior arrangement, as the knuckles and universal joints cost you in various ways. When you have very powerful motors those shafts are non-trivial in weight and inertia. I have no doubt in my mind that eventually some company will ship hub motors. I agree that the current state of the art in motors does not favor hub motors, but the Mercedes Axial Flux motor if it can get out of the lab may be very interesting. Mercedes is such a conservative company, it is quite rare that they invent anything and ship it. I can't think of a Mercedes innovation that became standard. Seem like most of the recent big ideas have come from Fiat (Multi-Air electrohydraulic valves, Common Rail Diesel), GM (Neodymium magnets, synchronous AC motors, electromagnetic suspension), which have larger portfolios of vehicles so it is easier to try something out.
@@edwarddejong8025 My early model Subaru had inboard front brakes (and dual radiators rather than a fan) so I'm wondering about having both a motor and a disc brake on an inboard shaft on both of the rear wheels...
@@lokensga Toyot'a BZRX or whatever it was called, had to be recalled because the wheels would fall off. So i am sure that any big change in configuration will be accompanied by learning pains.
The Axial flux motor is around 98% efficient and that is a relative number . But WHERE the motor is mounted can also add efficiency, for instance if you have extra torque you can bypass a transmission and friction and even put it in the wheel as a hub motor, and you get a few more percent for each step you skip to get that torque to the wheels and it stays cooler. So if the motor is 5% more efficient and you skip a bunch of gears and that saves 4% and even put it in the wheel for lighter weight and better cooling and that's 1% more... that equals 10% . It's not all the motor.
Reduced weight translates to better handling and more range.
Thoughts on efficiency... from a class I took on windings motors...
Typical motors operate better in one direction ... they also have to operate like a generator, meaning they have to absorb power. The design for maximum output efficiency makes generator efficiency pretty low.
There is a certain amount of tuning to turn an efficient motor into an efficient generator.
But these are highly symmetric - they should work equally well as motors and generators.
It could be recovering 2x as much energy as older designs.
If they are 2/3 the weight... if they are smaller... if they produce less heat... and they recover 2x as much energy...
I've never even heard anyone in the EV news space mention the fact that the optimization for output efficiency might hamper electric generation from regen braking. If axial flux compares as well as you say, then yes, we should see more of them in EV production in the future.
The rotational mass of the motor accelerating or D accelerating can be halved by having two motors on that one wheel and using a planetary gear between the two motors so that as the wheel turns one RPM the motors instead of turning one RPM with it are turning half an RPM each, in opposite direction . Chevy volt did this.
Great video …. Still a bit confused by all the ice clips
I agree. It makes sense the smaller motors could make sense in smaller cars. The first thing this technology reminded me of, is making power tools even more powerful in a smaller package, which is currently a growing trend in the top brands such as DeWalt and Milwaukee. Who new they going to be powered by Mercedes AMG. Now that would be a headline!
Torque matters in towing, like trucks and semi ( 18 wheelers).
Hello, I love your channel! Sandy Munroe mentioned we should check out your videos and so I did!
One thing to consider that could increase the range by 10%is if the axial flux motor makes considerably more torque than the radial counterpart per power input, it would take measurably less battery amps the get the same acceleration. A battery will last longer, the less amps are needed for acceleration. Maybe this 10%cllaim is possible. Remember, the acceleration is what burns up the battery energy more than cruising..... If you can burn less matches on each acceleration, your battery will last longer...
motors in wheels are everywhere, in all scooters for instance. yeah unsprung mass is bad, but it's all relative, if your vehicle and the motors are light (low power) it doesnt affect handling much.
cf. Aptera
Axial flux motors are definitely better for low speed torque and are used in modern lift’s as the speed is not important. The efficiency is not 10% better than radial flux motors at all, and are only better at very low speed torque like as used in stepper motors. You would have to use a transmission with a range or ratio’s to take advantage of the torque sweet spot. Mercedes will most likely find this out the hard way 🤔
ALL motors on EV's go through a reduction gear, so if you have high torque and low speed you just change the gear ratio.
But of course Mercedes don't know anything about engineering or building cars so their car will move at 20 mph according to you.
And they did not say 10% better efficiency, they said 5% to 10% better range which can come from less weight and a better gear ratio. The presenter on the video changed or assumed 10% better range is 10% better efficiency, which is not necessarily the case.
@@ogodei70 Not ALL. MSPlaid does 20,000rpm direct drive
Pancake style motors are used in lifts, but they are invariably permanent magnet rotors. The benefit is that you can eliminate the gearbox and fit the motor in the lift shaft instead of having to build a machinery room. Not having a gearbox full of oil also eliminates a fire risk. The downside is that the motor can only be controlled by a variable-frequency inverter drive with advanced control to prevent roll-back, but such drives have been around for years so it's pretty much solved.
@@nathanieljames7462 It's not direct drive, a quick google search shows a single 7.5:1 reduction gear. If it was direct drive the wheel will spin at the same speed as the motor and the MS Plaid would do about 325 MPH with 21" wheels, faster if on 22" wheels.
@@ogodei70 I thought it did, from some of the articles on the web.... 😁
Sam, here in the States you lose your license and pay steep fines for reckless driving. (You may also lose the car, depending on local laws.) Which is usually about 25mph over the highway limit. So, if I can cruise at 90mph....the rest doesn't matter a lot. Although I have used the low gears to thread a needle through some yellow cabs at times. (G)
Lose your car for 50 in a 25 mph zone? Where?
The efficiency will come in removing the reduction gear box from the drivetrain
Having a mechanical engineer check your script would be useful 😋
Sam, first of all, I send best wishes to your wife and hope she is doing well on her pathway back to full health.
Secondly, I'd like to clear up the muddled confusion between power and torque.
Power, torque and rotational speed are all locked together by a simple mathematical equation:
Power (watts) = Torque (Newton-metres) X rotational speed (radians per second)
That relationship can never change.
A shaft rotating at one radian per second against a resisting torque of one Newton-metre requires one watt of driving power. The MKS system of engineering units is cleverly arranged so that one of these units multiplied by one of those units yields one of the other units.
Sometimes the basic units sound weird. A radian per second is when a point on the circumference of a wheel moves around the circumference by a distance equal to one radius in the time of one second. We need to do the mathematics in radians per second to make the MKS units work out, but we find it easier to visualise things in RPM.
There are (2 x Pi) radians in one revolution, so one radian per second is 60 \ (2 x Pi) rpm, or just less than 10 rpm.
The bicycle is a good way to visualise the relationship between Power, Torque and rotational speed. Imagine a fit Sam Evans is riding his five speed bicycle. Sam can put 250 watts of power into the crank, but never more than that. The transmission will absorb a little bit of this power, so assume that 230 Watts is available at the back wheel. That number will remain the same, no matter which gear Sam chooses. The torque available at the back wheel increases as Sam selects a lower gear, so he can accelerate at a better rate in the lower gears. But that acceleration comes at the expense of speed. To go faster, Sam must select a higher gear, so less rear wheel torque will be available and acceleration is reduced. You can mix and match the numbers, but motor power (Sam's legs) limits everything.
Another possible advantage of axial flux motors is that one could compound two or three of them on the same axle to double, or triple the torque. This opens the possibility for more mass production of motors.
These motors are perfect for plug-in hybrids. Personally, I would pair one of those with a 1.0 liter turbocharged 4 cylinder and two clutches, one for each.
Combustion engine for cruise, electric motor for acceleration and low rpm, both for range extension. No gearbox needed. Smooth and constant RPM for peak efficiency. Leanest possible air fuel mixture I could get away with.
The idea is to have the electric motor control the engine rpm and have the throttle slowly catching up. At low rpms and in reverse the engine clutch disengages and the electric motor takes over. At low battery, the rpm range of the electric only mode shortens, throttle becomes a little more aggressive and once at full stop (such as in traffic lights) the motor clutch disengages and the engine keeps it spinning to recharge the battery.
Great setup for a VW golf or Toyota Corolla, for example. You aren't adding much weight for that setup.
Pair it with a bigger turbodiesel and a similar setup could work for trucks as well.
Or Aptera in wheel motor coming soon. Cheers from Northern California!!!
It might actually suit a trike application like a Can-am trike, or traditional trike.
Efficiency and power/weight are already ’good enough’, but making further improvements is good and also potentially allows further simplification by reducing the number of motors.
This motor might well reign supreme if it can be made as cheaply as the current motor designs. You can get any amount of torque from any motor by using a gearbox, but if you start with a much higher torque at the motor that has a big advantage. You can use a lighter, smaller gearbox, and may even have a motor in the wheel hub. That could drive down the cost by eliminating the differential or drive shafts. The most important application is going to be in Aviation though.
Sir, Most of your MB YASA axial flux motor news talk is mostly waffle, hence your video could have been 60% shorter and stilll be very informative. Plus 80% of the video footage is not related to axial flux motos. This is not to offend you, but to help you make better auto news. Success in your future work.
I love how Sam will give engendering assumptions and predictions with 100% of confidence.
Engendering? That's funny. But I take your point. Sam's hubris is quaint.
Lighter motor = lighter car = smaller battery or longer range = lower manufacturing costs etc.
when you have mechanical driven wheel any mass is inertial load that reduces moment transfer. When you have source of moment as part of a wheel there is no momentum loss due to source wheel mass. You can not compare passive inertial loads with active moment source.
I agree with you about the range advantage. The ideal motor has a very broad and flat power curve. Range can only be increased by making the motor more efficient than its competitor at the speed used to calculate range. Axial motors are great in hybrid hypercars as the ICE handles high speed power. Good on aircraft as the working power range is narrow and the motor can be tuned for this. On a road car the working range is huge and that is the reason current design EV motors with fixed ratios work so well.
Aircraft have a HUGE power demand during takeoff.
Mr.Viking do you shoot videos every waking moment?
As soon as I get a good job I am joining your patreon for sure, you deserve it.
Denis T / Yes, but you forget one important thing: higher torque coming from an electric motor, in any physical package smaller or bigger of the electric motor, comes with higher necessary amps meaning higher current consumption.
Torque formula for electric motors is like this:
Torque ( N•m ) = 9.5 X Power ( KW ) / Speed ( RPM )
Or practically : Tq= 9.5 X UI / RPM
Do you see that multiplication of the 2 terms UI? Those are U=voltage and I=current.
To have more torque you can use higher voltage, higher Amps or both.
At the same voltage, more Torque means more Amps.
And don't forget that more Amps means higher temperature.
All OK, now? 🙂
To a degree, but torque is often just a factor of how far the force is from the centre shaft. The further away it is, the higher the torque. If the diameter of the rotor is greater than typical then it will have higher torque.
Also, off-the-line power is a lot less than most people think because the speed is so low.
ewan m / Yes. But you need to create the same speed of the car with the electric motor that has a higher torque "force", higher meaning that the coil ( =all its coils are ) on the stator is at a farther distance on the stator from the center, so you use more "coils" ( than the number of coils placed on the motor with a smaller rotor diameter; remember, we have to compare "apples to apples" ) on a larger diameter, which will result a need of a faster EM field switching in the same time, in order to get the same speed of the car ( "in the same time", get the "same speed", etc, here means the same speed "with the car with a motor with a smaller rotor diameter" ).
A faster switching of the rotating EM field ( you excite more coils per minute in the electric motor with a larger rotor=stator diameter; there ARE MORE coils on the LARGER diameter, aren't there? ) is equal to more average AC power extracted from the DC battery ( DC converted to AC ).
Now, I don't know how much more the radial flux ( axial flux ) electric motors can be practically optimized ( = made more efficient by design ), so we have to see the real specs and their practical use in order to compare them with the regular AC SynRM ones ( SynRM= Synchronous Reluctance Motor ) in exactly the same real applications ( for example, when used in the same electric car model; we need to see what's the advantage of using it, what's it's reliability, does it offer the same, better or worse robustness and durability in time exactly like a SynRM one?, etc ).
Nicely covered. Lots of pros and cons with this one. The RPM limit might not be good for performance cars, but the torque and low weight might be better for aviation or tools with high torque requirements.
Agree with your end comment Sam, when I first heard of Yasa’s small powerful motors I immediately thought of smaller cars. But I guess the advantage scales up and down, as someone else mentioned, these could be great for big trucks too.
To claim a 10% increase in range does not mean a equal percent increase in motor efficiency. a reduction in weight of the motors will increase range all by itself. How the range is calculated and under what conditions is everything. In city driving where weight, acceleration (torque) , and perhaps a 5 or 6% increase in efficiency at speed could result in greater range.
4:42 This reminds me of what happaned with wrist watches. The luxury brands used to do their own special designs with premium materials and high precision. At some point, they just started to buy the same internal movement and ever since, the only differentiation has been skin-deep and the in branding, of course. This change actually happened even before wrist watches became a non-essential, jewelry item.
top watch brands actually produce pretty much everything but leather straps in house, that's one of the things that differentiate them, the other is the amount of manual labor that goes into finishing.
Another thought; IF you have a chase that is 10% lower weight; and you wanted to go after the mass market - you could use a somewhat heavier Sodium battery that is much cheaper have the same over all weight - of your Y clone but much cheaper and no lithium choke - so a Y that's cheaper - that you can pump out in high volume. That would be a bit change for the EV market
Oh no - I bought our Model Y because I thought it would eventually have a Flux Capacitor option installed
time travel - I just needed to get to 88 MPH and I could see real dinosaurs...
This is quite a letdown....
Might be available in a future OTA update 😜
To understand axial flux motors requires a completely different mindset. There are different types of electrical motors that work very differently and we are used to trying to understand them by comparing them to ICE engines and that doesn't work. I have been building these motors and generators as a home hobbyist for years and they are very efficient, especially for RPM's less than 2,200. Above that you get field latency problems in the the cores which causes heat buildup. The easiest way to think of their method of operation is that instead of current driven the current is used for field switching.
This isn't a revolutionary game changer, but it does open up some real possibilities for system performance efficiencies. At a time when battery materials supply is having problems keeping up with demand increases this is important. Even a slight performance increase could result in a slight reduction in batteries required. Multiplied by thousands of cars this could have a significant reduction in overall batteries needed. Reductions in weight of both the drive train and battery pack could also give a significant improvement on tire wear.
The Axial Flux motor sounds like it would be amazing for trucks. If they had one motor per axial and rotated the motor so the shafts ends were vertical instead of horizontal the motor might have a gyroscopic effect that could help stabilize the truck for better cornering. Also if they matched the power train gear box to match the maximum RPM of the motor with a max speed of 10 over the max speed limit it would keep some drivers from doing unsafe thing with heavy loads. If they used the re-gen system to control downhill speeds we would never see another runaway heavy load truck that could cause many dangers problems. Heavy load trucks could become the safest thing on the highway.
The Tesla Semi will already have a CofG virtual at the hub level.
And they already announced the motors will be used for anti-skid/ jackknife during the launch event.
Excellent comments. Thanks
Any car going faster than 8 sec is open to accidents,and not needed. Low Down power ,torque, is what's really fun, saves power, battery, on trips .
High speed, 160 km Max needed on roads, but getting to 125 quickly,torque is cool.
Hi. As an Electrical Engineer, it is more likely physics has incorrectly understood what electricity is with respect to energies that cannot be created or destroyed. (Electricity is made of two interdependent energies (dielectricity & magnetism.) In simple separation and combination you can create and destroy electrical energy) Typical motor design naturally separates the dielectricity from the magnetism, destroying or wasting energy. This could be corrected by a clever design change. (But until now, the performance improvement could not generate profitability.)
Plus an axial flux motor does not just change the direction of the magnetic fields doing the work vs. radial flux motors. It has far more torque, or potential energy than RF motors, and far more induction sites within the motor, not just more proper/efficient alignment of the force vectors of the induction sites.
Besides all that, Thane C. Heins (another YT E.E.) has demonstrated that axial flux motors have so many stator windings that they can be used to power the motor and collect electricity at the same time, collecting more than enough to charge batteries while driving and self-power the motor. Using a simple winding modification patented aver 200 years ago by N. Tesla.)
As noted above, electricity energy has two components, unlike the energy physicists think of, and as such, you can amplify (appear to create more) with simple adjustments in combining those components (something power companies do to maximize their profits every minute of every day. and also simply by precisely combining electricity with acceleration (just like increasing the power of a sword hit by striking with acceleration. (A Viking fighting technique familiar to fighters of every culture.)) Accelerating those electrical components in combination will amplify their power. (Again, a natural outcome of AF motors.)
Party on Dude, be good to each other.
How would you feel about it as a trailer assist motor? I get the small engine idea that can be a two wheel drive motor for a decent 4 passenger car. Not just a city car but something more practical in a city. Particularly if it was hilly and fully loaded at times. We will have to wait to see what reality delivers from Mercedes. They do seem to be able to make money selling cars.
You could, however, Governments hate when you upset their system. The Tailer would now have to comply with Regulations regarding power vehicles, even if you wanted to use it as an Assist.
Magnetic flux is a measurement of the total magnetic field which passes through a given area, e.g. through certain sections of the air gap between rotor and stator in an electric/magnetic motor as the rotor spins on its axle and as magnetic forces vary in direction and intensity. It is a useful tool for helping describe the effects of the magnetic force on something occupying a given area. The measurement of magnetic flux is tied to the particular area chosen and to the relative positioning of moving components in that area.
Magnetic flux is necessary to the operation of all electric/magnetic motors. The term flux isn't a buzzword.
I think the engineers at SAAB built an EV with an axial flux motor in each wheel and torque vectoring. 1000Km (600 mile) range. It looks like an awesome car. Now they're waiting for the company to emerge from limbo and start producing it. There is a video on TH-cam about it...
Capacitors and power management systems are greatly improving thus giving you more range. By building 4 motors in the wheels wells you can manage all variables like traction control and increase efficiency by shutting down to just one or 2 running at full speed. But all 4 on demand and able to run front or back wheel drive in certain conditions. You also use a short shaft so your electric motors are set on the body no inside the rim
The advantages are lower center of gravity when used inside the wheel. Or you could stack multiple units for trucks or sports car units. Weight gets you mileage. Less weight more distant you can travel
Excellent technical analysis!
As an engineer, I tell you this, it is the same marketing vehicle as so many others "new technologies" which try to get in front of some producers. In fact, the most important for the electric motor is the regularity of the magnetic field and here Tesla motors are the kings. I remember the face of Sandy Munro when let that magnetic film reveal the magnetic lines on the Tesla rotor... So... Mercedes stream to get some notice with something... As customers, you need to prepare yourself for a lot of "game changer" announcements from each automaker, each being more or less just a marketing scream for something, not a real deal... Unfortunately, as not anyone is like me, consuming news in technology, many believe what they hear, because the details are beyond the normal level of understanding and presented bombastic.
Is this a motor following new lines? Yes. Is the king and game changer? No. People should not forget that the price, availability, and sustainability are also part of the game (this is why I support that Ioniq 5 is politically made EV of the year).
PS: Do you know why the motors in the wheels are not used? Americans made this 20 years ago. Is not working because of the vibrations which tear down very quickly any ball lager you can install there.
Viking, you are, by far, the best
Thanks mate!
always great insight Viking, thank you
Motor efficiency is a more important metric than torque. Axial flux motors are typically less efficient than conventional radial flux motors. Improving efficiency is where the focus will be.
>>Axial flux motors are typically less efficient than conventional radial flux motors
Ok Brian.
Compact quiet watercraft/submersibles for military and civilian applications seems like a good fit as well.
I would add that axial motor do not balance the force on the mounting frame of the magnets. Instead you get a bell curve deformation on th magnet shell. That eat up some of the advantages. But finally manufacturing cost is higher becasue of more complex assembly and bearing. Also magnet mass is higher.
The efficiency of the motor itself is improved. More importantly, vehicle efficiency and range are improved due to
- reduced driveline losses
- flexibility of battery packaging leading to better aerodynamics
- reduced weight
Your argument that a wheel motor is heavier is incorrect. It concerns the weight of (only) the rotating parts. With these new motors, that's just the rotor, which consists of some permanent magnets. With conventional engines, drive shafts and gears also have to be set in motion, so together they are much heavier.
Hi, I'm an engineer and I'll answer your question. 10% higher efficiency than an 85% efficient motor means 85+8.5=93.5% efficiency. If you were describing a shift from 85% efficiency to 95% efficiency, that would be 10 "percentage points" not 10 percent, although you'll normally only hear "points" in a the context of the stock market.
I think 10% of 90% = 99% .
Your insight of small, light vehicles being able to utilize this technology is where my head went.
Think large slender buggy or bike like wheels that can tilt and carve with intelligent suspension and self driving capabilities.
A horseless carriage purposely built to move a body or two down the road and back. Like the model T you serve the purpose.
You have a battery low in the middle. 4 lightly powered wheels with small disc brakes in case you need more then regenerate.
It tips the scales at 600lbs. You get in and glide down the road 35 mph. Hop out and it parks itself or gives someone else a ride.
I believe the original version of the axial flux motor was invented in 1890, but due to technical reasons and cost did not catch on. My understanding is that Tesla uses a combination of an Induction motor and a SynRM (Synchronous Reluctance) motor. SynRM has the advantages of being relatively light, simple, and cheap to manufacture plus is very efficient. The asynchronous induction motor in comparison is a well-established technology that has different characteristics that compliment the SynRm motor when used together.
in Axial flux motor we can directly liquid cool the binding coils.. that's why they are 98+ percent efficient... and can continuously run on peak Power
Hi Viking, what is the difference in price for the Kia EV6 electric motor and a Yasa motor. I believe the disadvantage is the Axiel flux motor is a bit expensive for a small car. I may be wrong what do you think?
Great point about putting them in small cars!
Existing motors are so efficient already. Is there really much room for improvement?
A little gain here and a little gain there stacks up after 10-15yrs. Ut your point doesnt go unheard. 92-95% effocient is where we sit already.. The company os claiming over 100%