ElectricMotorcycleForum.com

ROFL - ah here - in a world where the vast majority of people, and even garages, know f*ck all about what makes their car/bike/golfbuggy run, YES EV's ARE SIMPLER! Saying otherwise is entirely counter productive - there's as much or more nanomolecular wizardry in any ICE ECU than there is in any motor controller; and if you're about to tell me that it's easier to produce petrol than it is to produce a battery then you may pull the other one on that aswell.

Is there a monumentous amount of science behind both - yes, unquestionably.
Is there a driving force of world class industry experts behind both - yes, unquestionably.

The complexity involved in modelling electromagnetic fields is alluded to above - how does that contrast against the complexity of modelling the thermo-fluid dynamics of a combusion chamber; not to mention including the intake and exhaust tracts.

There's no question but that both disciplines require astonishing expertise built up over the last 100 years.

BUT - is it more likely that the ballet of precision which is the ICE is more likely to cause problems than an EV drivetrain - yes, unqestionably.
Why? Because the EV's drivetrain *IS* simpler.


I'm all for having people appreciate the knowledge involved in producing the technology we so readily take for granted today (just take a look at what you're using to read this on for a start) - but "simpler" or "more simple" is a perfectly appropriate term to descibe the relative complexity of an EV drivetrain vs and ICE equivalent.

maybe these guys are using the same Chinese supplier too

http://voltmotorcycles.com/electric-motorcycle-volt220

-ryan

yup, I expect they are - missed the CEO at a conference there recently, had been looking forward to grilling him on exactly that point.

I have been reading up on the topic...

lol - fivespeed, if you don't know who Ted Dillard is then you've still got a hell of a lot of reading to do. ;-)

I'd recommend starting here: From Fossil to Flux

Spoonman
I recommend that before going off on a tangent, you look at the bike you just presented and its specs. 

Slow down there dude - I'm not tangenting anywhere - hell, that wasn't even an attack, I was just looking for some clarfications.
You can't deny that it looks like the same chassis, that's undeniable no matter how you cut it; and I've no doubt that the drivetrain you specify is different to that advertised in the add I linked, but that's something that's well within the capabilities of chinese manufacturers to produce as well at simple email request.

I even stated that there was plenty of space for added value in the development of that chinese chassis, were that what you are in fact doing.
The only real question was with regard to how the company can claim to be a US manufacturer in light of the existence of that product.



Now, if you're telling me that they've taken your plastics which you had them manufacture, and thrown them onto their own product, then OK, despite the idendical clocks and screw placements, which indicate absolutely no change whatsoever from your design, I'll agree to go along with that for the moment.

The front calipers, forks and triples all look shockingly similar as well though.

Yes, you've changed the wheel sizes, and the brake disks, looks like the rear caliper too; but the swingarm still looks too similar for comfort in many of your shots, and even the motor, though unquestionable different, has the same housing style as the original - you've even a picture elsewhere on your site of the 5kW motor which is undeniably similar to that offered on several other chinese offerings.

Of everything though, the one single detail that really sets me off  - is that center stand.

That odd, unfinished angle that it hangs at.

You're trying to tell me:

• that there's a centerstand that hangs at that god awful angle,
• on two unrelated bikes
• which just happen to differ only in basic configuration changes (as far as can be told from the photographs)
• and that these bikes aren't produced by the same manufacturer??

That's thin dude - that's seriously thin.

What exactly are you manufacturing in the USA?

lol - I certainly have. In fact I've TWO forktruck motors in a CBR600 chassis in my workshop as we speak.

...but they ain't running at 24 volts. 

It's an unfinished project that I picked up from another fella who was playing around with EV drivetrains before building his own BMW 3-series conversion.
He never got it as far as a rideable condition, but it runs and it accelerates like a bullet - I've got drag bike aspirations for it myself but I'll not be going near it for a few years yet.

Brushed DC motors have ratings which can readily be treated more like guidlines - they'll take a helluvalotta abuse provided you advance the brushes appropriately for the desired peak revs, and don't mind them getting destroyed in jig time.

My advice is more relevent to the voltage than the motor.

yeah, that much I was aware of - I'd be looking towards 14-70 if a primary reduction isn't required.

Right - so I was crunching a few more numbers, and in doing so noticed that I'd input torque in ft.lbs rather than Nm in one of my original sheets. That corrected I went ahead and intruduced a 0-100km approximation as a frame of reference in order to get a real world idea of how the performance would pan out.

With the AC-15 coupled at 5:1 and running 96V 650A, you're looking at acceleration in the region of 6m/s out to 4500rpm (assuming bike and pilot mass of 270kg, and a 190/50R17 rear wheel), and tailing off to about 2.5m/s by 7500.

That equates roughly to the peak of 4th gear performance on the TL1000S, or 3rd gear performance on the NC24.

It also comes out to a smidge over 3s 0-100km/h

100km/h arrives at ~5500 RPM (right in the peak power bracket) and continuous motoring at that speed will require somewhere in the region of 9kW between drag, drivetrain losses and rolling resistance meaning that the range to 80%DoD for the proposed pack would be aroundabout 100km on open roads.

Contrasted against the gearbox drivetrain, I'm now starting to sway towards the direct drive alright. Barring 1st and 2nd, the benefits over the NV24 motor are negligable - and if I can match the performance of that then I'll be delighted.

I agree on the CVT's personally - wouldn't be my preferred choice.

I still have to measure up the space in the frame but I think if I get to the point where I'm considering direct driving a bigger motor, then the '20 would definitely be on the cards, and maybe even the '35 although the increase in diameter might make it too awkward.

As I said there's nothing set in stone yet but I have a theory for the gearbox solution which would require some machining alright but has other benefits beyond the aformentioned. I'm gonna turn out a timber mockup out of the '15 in the next few weeks in order to do some measuring up and see if it's at all feasible - also have to do performance testing on these NCA cells and then come up with an optimal fitment and mounting arrangement for them assuming they don't decide to detonate on me.

Volumetric contraints were always gonna be a serious issue but both the TLS and the TLR give you good bit of room to play with so we'll see what happens.

...'tis all still very early days yet.