Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

JKenH

There is an interesting article in this week’s Autocar about in wheel motors and the potential benefits, primarily weight saving, they might bring particularly in cars that might traditionally have 2 or 3 electric motors. Currently the technology is being used in conversions, particularly of vans.

REINVENTING THE WHEEL

The idea sounds simple: mount the electric motor within a wheel to provide direct drive and do away with traditional axles, driveshafts and subframes. But the reality is that it has taken 15 years and five generations of development to get to this point.

There is a perceived cost issue, of course. A ‘traditional’ EV might have a single motor powering an axle, but an in-wheel approach inevitably requires one in each wheel. However, Whitehead says while multiple in-wheel motors will always be more expensive than a single unit, the overall vehicle cost will be lower because in-wheel motors do away with the need for major components such as driveshafts and subframes. He quotes a 30% drivetrain cost reduction when using Protean’s system due to that weight saving. “Mass is always cost, always,” he adds.

Protean’s set-up already opens up packaging benefits in architectures not originally designed around in-wheel motors, but if manufacturers were to design whole architectures around in-wheel motors, it would be a true ‘next step’ in vehicle design.

Suggestion about Autocar 22nd May 2024 page 44
https://go.readly.com/magazines/5321d063abb90f06c300001c/664c5a3610904800200c991c/44

1961Nick

JKenH said:

There is an interesting article in this week’s Autocar about in wheel motors and the potential benefits, primarily weight saving, they might bring particularly in cars that might traditionally have 2 or 3 electric motors. Currently the technology is being used in conversions, particularly of vans.

REINVENTING THE WHEEL

The idea sounds simple: mount the electric motor within a wheel to provide direct drive and do away with traditional axles, driveshafts and subframes. But the reality is that it has taken 15 years and five generations of development to get to this point.

There is a perceived cost issue, of course. A ‘traditional’ EV might have a single motor powering an axle, but an in-wheel approach inevitably requires one in each wheel. However, Whitehead says while multiple in-wheel motors will always be more expensive than a single unit, the overall vehicle cost will be lower because in-wheel motors do away with the need for major components such as driveshafts and subframes. He quotes a 30% drivetrain cost reduction when using Protean’s system due to that weight saving. “Mass is always cost, always,” he adds.

Protean’s set-up already opens up packaging benefits in architectures not originally designed around in-wheel motors, but if manufacturers were to design whole architectures around in-wheel motors, it would be a true ‘next step’ in vehicle design.

Suggestion about Autocar 22nd May 2024 page 44
https://go.readly.com/magazines/5321d063abb90f06c300001c/664c5a3610904800200c991c/44

I thought that the problem with using this technology for passenger cars was the unsprung weight relative to the mass of the vehicle? Although with 3 tonne electric SUVs it might no longer be an issue.

Magnitio

1961Nick said:

JKenH said:

There is an interesting article in this week’s Autocar about in wheel motors and the potential benefits, primarily weight saving, they might bring particularly in cars that might traditionally have 2 or 3 electric motors. Currently the technology is being used in conversions, particularly of vans.

REINVENTING THE WHEEL

The idea sounds simple: mount the electric motor within a wheel to provide direct drive and do away with traditional axles, driveshafts and subframes. But the reality is that it has taken 15 years and five generations of development to get to this point.

There is a perceived cost issue, of course. A ‘traditional’ EV might have a single motor powering an axle, but an in-wheel approach inevitably requires one in each wheel. However, Whitehead says while multiple in-wheel motors will always be more expensive than a single unit, the overall vehicle cost will be lower because in-wheel motors do away with the need for major components such as driveshafts and subframes. He quotes a 30% drivetrain cost reduction when using Protean’s system due to that weight saving. “Mass is always cost, always,” he adds.

Protean’s set-up already opens up packaging benefits in architectures not originally designed around in-wheel motors, but if manufacturers were to design whole architectures around in-wheel motors, it would be a true ‘next step’ in vehicle design.

Suggestion about Autocar 22nd May 2024 page 44
https://go.readly.com/magazines/5321d063abb90f06c300001c/664c5a3610904800200c991c/44

I thought that the problem with using this technology for passenger cars was the unsprung weight relative to the mass of the vehicle? Although with 3 tonne electric SUVs it might no longer be an issue.

That is an issue, but they have been working with Lotus to minimise it.

Martyn1981

Idea / solution from Hitachi to allow electric trains to use the parts of the UK network that are not yet electrified:

H I T A C H I  R A I L ’ S UK Battery Intercity Train

Committed to delivering net zero for our CO2 emissions by 2030, Hitachi Rail UK has identified battery as the best way to do this. Currently trialling 100% battery-electric intercity train on the TransPennine routes this year, our battery solution and phased approach to diesel engine removal, provides a realistic pathway to zero emissions rolling stock.

Hitachi Rail has invested more than £15 million to develop brand new British battery technology. This is the first UK trial where a diesel engine is replaced with a battery on an intercity train. This will pave the way for 100% battery-electric intercity train, capable of running up to 100km in battery mode in the next few years. 

michaels

I seem to remember there was some complete fail in the GWR Main Line electrification relating to a tunnel with insufficient clearance for the pantograph.  Battery electric would have solved this at a fraction of the cost of the engineering solution.

silverwhistle

I think that sort of situation exists all over the networks. What sort of range is needed for these gap fills anyway, where the biggest issue I can see is the power needed if the train has to stop in a critical place? Wouldn't inertia cover most of the smaller distances?

It's a bit of a pain when electrics do fail. On a third rail train in the SE once when that happened, and the driver wielded a great wooden paddle to try and get the shoe back in contact with the rail. No joy and we ended up with a train coming up behind us, everybody filing off on to it via the rear driver's cabin and getting to our destination another route. I made the match in time and saved a fortune on pre-match drinks!

It was this incident that underlined to me the importance of guards on trains, as she was critical to the smooth resolution of the problem.

ABrass

The Siemens trains are more ambitious than the, very clever, tunnel options.

They're aiming for significant distances (30km +) on batteries which means you don't have to electrify all the spurs, just the main trunks and stations.

And the technology also works for stopping trains as minor lines can just charge at either end or a handful of stations along the way.

Exiled_Tyke

The current Hitachi trains (e.g. LNER Azuma) I've been told have diesel back up to run when electrics fail.  Battery would seem to make a lot more sense. 

orrery

michaels said:

I seem to remember there was some complete fail in the GWR Main Line electrification relating to a tunnel with insufficient clearance for the pantograph.  Battery electric would have solved this at a fraction of the cost of the engineering solution.

Not to mention the new Oxford to Cambridge line - not yet built (route not yet agreed), which will have diesels to start and then will be replaced with hydrogen (I despair) trains. There are currently no plans to electrify the new line, when it is built.

silverwhistle

Thanks for reminding me. Let's hope the change from a lame duck government which wants to frack and drill will get this reviewed. It's a patently absurd solution.