Capt Slow
Capt Slow HalfDork
11/3/10 1:47 p.m.

I know its only a concept, but development along these lines is what excites me about the potential of hybrid cars...

automotive engineering article

yes those are gas turbines under the glass...

Strizzo
Strizzo SuperDork
11/3/10 1:53 p.m.

now all they need to do is scale down a gasification plant and you can have a clean coal powered car!

ReverendDexter
ReverendDexter Dork
11/3/10 2:17 p.m.

I read the whole article, but they really lost my interest in this beyond anything but an experiment when they said "hub motors".

Unsprung weight is bad, mm'kay?

Capt Slow
Capt Slow HalfDork
11/3/10 2:27 p.m.

yea those really ought to be mounted inboard. Still I like the 1180 ft lbs of torque per wheel

Also the ability to vector torque between all four wheels independently is pretty awesome...

ReverendDexter
ReverendDexter Dork
11/3/10 3:18 p.m.
Capt Slow wrote: yea those really ought to be mounted inboard. Still I like the 1180 ft lbs of torque per wheel Also the ability to vector torque between all four wheels independently is pretty awesome...

Oh certainly :)

How much of that would be lost by moving the motors inboard and just running a CV shaft out to the wheel? Yes, it's more parts, yes it's more weight, but at least then that weight is sprung and on the centerline of the car...

Shaun
Shaun Reader
11/3/10 4:10 p.m.

The Engineers who built this are doubtlessly aware of the issues regarding unsprung vs sprung weight. The coupled dependencies (foremost packaging considerations) landed them with this compromise. With the parts saved by not having a reciprocation internal combustion engine well into the thousands, And this being a bleeding edge product for the stinking rich, I do not think it had anything at all to do with cost or parts count.

0-100 mph in 5.5 seconds is pretty good. A remap and some sticky tires might get you to a sub 1 sec 0-60 and break your innards out of your outards. exiting.

ReverendDexter
ReverendDexter Dork
11/3/10 5:09 p.m.

Yes, it hauls ass in a straight line, I won't argue that. But there's zero data as to how it handles.

I actually think hub motors will be the big thing in the future. Using a 16"x3" diameter hub motor and caliper attached where the current brake package is, a large diameter replaceable conventional wheel with a rotor bolted to the outer ring of the motor. The rotating mass would be down to (1) wheel (2) tire (3) rotor and (4) excited ring of the motor which will weigh less than the conventional setup. Battery packs can be charged by a small diesel generator. It would give the manufacturer the option of adapting all vehicles in to four wheel drive with a controller/battery/wiring upgrade.

FlightService
FlightService Reader
11/4/10 6:59 a.m.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho wrote: I actually think hub motors will be the big thing in the future. Using a 16"x3" diameter hub motor and caliper attached where the current brake package is, a large diameter replaceable conventional wheel with a rotor bolted to the outer ring of the motor. The rotating mass would be down to (1) wheel (2) tire (3) rotor and (4) excited ring of the motor which will weigh less than the conventional setup. Battery packs can be charged by a small diesel generator. It would give the manufacturer the option of adapting all vehicles in to four wheel drive with a controller/battery/wiring upgrade.

Yup, I agree, don't know why they don't already do that.

similar system to what is used on a locomotive.

Worked for years.

Our Preferred Partners
vWd5pK7zHRpQWsQhOLwDvkyJTfuuKSVp