Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Hermsgervørden
Apr 23, 2004
Møøse Trainer

quote:

smart talk

I live in San Francisco, and I once saw a smart driver trying to parallel park in a spot too short for his car. An actual parking spot opened up, and when the driver got out of his car, I realized that the guy was 6'8" or taller, and a muni driver to boot.

quote:

EVs

I'm curious about different power train configurations in EVs. It seems like there is so much potential in something like an active wheel in terms of simplicity of vehicle layout and construction, not to mention amazing all-wheel drive awesomeness. Why haven't we seen this on a production car yet? Extra useful on a small car, I would think.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hermsgervørden
Apr 23, 2004
Møøse Trainer

wolrah posted:

The typical problem with motor-in-wheel designs is unsprung mass. Basically it's anything in the suspension or drivetrain that moves with the tire when going over a bump rather than moving with the chassis. Greater unsprung mass means the tire and suspension assembly can not react as quickly to changes in the road, so not only are more bumps transferred to the vehicle but the tire is also not kept in as firm of contact with the road while going over bumpy surfaces resulting in reduced traction and negative handling effects.

This design seems like it might be a little bit better in that way with its internal suspension, but I don't really have the knowledge to make a worthwhile judgement.


The one motor per wheel idea overall is pretty awesome though and I'm in favor of anything that brings us closer to it becoming a reality. I'm more in favor of an inboard motor design with the motors where the differentials are on normal vehicles just to avoid the whole unsprung mass problem, but the advantages of complete control of power distribution to all four corners are the same no matter where the motors are.

The unsprung mass would be a problem on in-wheel-motor cars with traditional suspensions, but the active wheel seems like it has the potential to nullify unsprung mass or even reduce it. Are there limitations of an active suspension that I'm not thinking of? Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of is a limited amount of travel, but then you just need to make the wheel bigger. Maybe the future of EV's is in 22" Rimzz.

wikipedia posted:

. . . replace the cast iron friction brake assembly with a wheel motor assembly of similar weight. This results in no net gain in unsprung weight and a car capable of braking up to 1G. A good example of this is the Michelin Active Wheel motor as fitted to the Heuliez Will that results in an unsprung weight of 35 kg on the front axle which compares favorably to a small car such as a Renault Clio that has 38 kg of unsprung weight on its front axle.

Colonel Sanders posted:

I think what I would be most worried about is the performance of an a large inboard electric motor vs a tiny wheel motor.

I'd rather have four motors that put out equal HP to one big one and ditch the axels and so on.

  • Locked thread