Q100 and Q128 with 0.35mm laminations

[Alan B]

Keep in mind that you cannot read the efficiency on the CA simulator at any other than the one equilibrium point. At any other point on the graph the efficiency shown is incorrect as the system is accelerating or decelerating, and the efficiency while accelerating or decelerating is not the true efficiency at that speed.

If you want to know the efficiency at another speed you have to adjust the throttle and rerun the simulation repeatedly until you get equilibrium at the desired velocity. Then the efficiency is correct at that one speed.

Also the simulator does not limit phase (motor) current, so the acceleration on the lower part of the graph is higher than reality, and the efficiency is lower than reality for the part of the graph where motor current exceeds what the controller will allow.

Using a more sophisticated controller (like the PhaseRunner) with these small motors is a good idea. The low cost controllers don't properly regulate the motor current and sense the temperature of the motor, and these motors cannot take much excess power. A lot of vendors will no longer carry or sell them because they are easy to damage. Operated with proper motor current limits and temperature sensing they should be quite reliable, but the power they can put out is limited. Adjust your expectations.

Using a good controller should allow the use of a so called faster wind motor with the same efficiency and a wider range of speed than a slow winding. It is easier to overcurrent and overheat a fast wind motor, since it is really a low voltage motor, and requires more control. The motors themselves can handle the same power and produce the same torque, the voltages and currents are just different. At low speed a low voltage motor can easily be damaged, so the controller must manage the current properly. Cheap controllers don't even know the motor current so they cannot manage it well, but FOC controllers like the PhaseRunner measure the current and can easily control it, that's the way they inherently work.

 

[chas58]

Well, chas58 wrote;

Cute Q100 speeds from user testing:
No-load motor speed A@ 36V with a 26" rim
Q100 36V "201" = 230 rpm
Q100 36V "328" = 273 rpm
Q100 25V "201" = 290 rpm

http://www.bikeforums.net/electric-bikes/882856-small-geared-hub-motors-speeds-rpm-mph.html
Huh?

ROLF… :lol:

Thanks for the heads up. You are a great resource for information, that is for sure! That is probably your biggest contribution to our community. You have a lot of intelligence and history here. Thanks for your contributions!

I’ll update my old post to make it up to date, as it is 3.5 years old now.

Well, Chas58 wrote what Motomech wrote...
Your reference was one from the way back machine! Let’s see, I gather up some numbers, from multiple sources, including numbers you posted in 2012 for the Q100, and post that in 2013. Then 3 years later in 2016 you quote me, quoting you, on the Q100 and respond "huh?" That is a vicious circle! It all makes sense now. Let us clear up some misunderstandings...

Back on April 12th of 2012, you originated the assumed numbers:

Motomech wrote:
“No-load motor speed A@ 36V with a 26" rim
Q100 36V "201" = 230 rpm
Q100 36V "328" = 273 rpm
Q100 25V "201" = 290 rpm” {sic}

Look familiar? That appears to be where you first claimed

No-load motor speed @ 36 Volts is 290 rpm, which would a no-load speed w/26" rim of 22.5 mph. Correct?

and the other assumed speeds. But your assumed 290rpm here was for the 24v motor running at 36v, not the 328 motor as you claim above. I originally even quoted your typo of 25v when I think you meant 24v. LOL. 8)
(reference: https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38579&start=20)

I’ve said this for 3 years now, but those assumed numbers from 2012 do not bear out in testing and user experience. They are wrong, so lets stop quoting them. Actual measured numbers by multiple members are going to trump estimates and assumptions. The accurate numbers measured by myself and others are:

Q100 measured no load speeds.

• 201rpm = 18 mph
• 260rpm = 23 mph (calculated)
• 300rpm = 28.0 mph (201rpm 24v Q100 run @36v)
• 328rpm = 29.0 mph

Q100 actual measured road speeds from D8Veh and Chas58

• 201rpm = 15.5 mph
• 260rpm = 20 mph (source: ES: D8Veh)
• 300rpm = 23 mph (201rpm 24v Q100 run @36v) (rider assisted)
• 328rpm = 25 mph (dual motor or rider assisted)

And yes, I agree, road speed is important, that is why my quoted post has both the manufacturer measured no load speed, and user measured road speed.
You can bookmark and quote the numbers in bold above or below
http://www.bikeforums.net/electric-bikes/882856-small-geared-hub-motors-speeds-rpm-mph.html

 

[ScooterMan101]

chas58,

On your link to bikeforums.net you have some figures for the Q100 running at 36 volt ,

I am running mine at 48 volt,


I am showing efficiency of the motor at around 78 % Max , of the No load speed , when the 48 volt battery is full at around 54 volts, ( 201 Q100c CST , on a 650b rim with 650 x 38 mm tire )
The S-LCD3 Display from bms battery shows no load speed at 29 mph, but real road speed is 22-22.5 mph, with me peddling .
and
When the battery is down 5 or more volts I have a road speed of 20 mph , Max, with me peddling. So with battery sag, it is 70% max , under load, on the open road.
At those speeds the S-LCD3 Display is showing 450 to over 550 watts. with the display reading several times a second , so I can not get a accurate reading.

I have no idea what my legs are putting in, I can guess it is quite low , I Do not know how to measure that without expensive sensors

Do you think the less efficient numbers I am getting out in the Real World is because I am running the Cassette version ?
or more likely,
Because of the S-LCD 3 Display not reading showing a more accurate no load speed ?
( My Garmin is always showing 3-4 mph road speed slower than the S-LCD3 Display, no wheel sensor, the Display just reading the motor )
and at the end of each ride the S-LCD3 Display is showing about 10% more distance traveled , than what the Garmin says )
So maybe the shown no load speed is different than reality ?
Also
I weighed my bike, I like to carry all kind of things with me, Co2/Pump/Tube/Patches/a few other items, and even a small chain/lock, so
my bike weighs a little more than I thought, 38-39 pounds.


Tuesday I was riding for a few miles with a Fit/Serious , Young Roadie on his Carbon Road Bike, with my battery fully charged and me peddling hard I was able to keep up with him and even went in front of him for a half mile , I actually got up a little faster than other rides, up to 23.5 mph on the Garmin . but
then after drafting me for that half mile he went in front and slowly left me behind, another 4 mph or so would have prevented that , and this is not the first time this same thing has happened with my little Q100c CST , 201 on 48 volts, trying to keep up with Fit/Young Riders on their Efficient Carbon Road Bikes.


All this is showing me that, We really need to have some people test the Q100c CST , running on a 52 volt battery. or up to 60 volts. ,
what display and controller combo would we need to be able to keep the motor running at the right wattage's, that is the big question.
The little Q100c CST is seems to be the only low weight motor, that also can use a cassette, and is available in 32 spoke hole flange so it has the best features of the small motors that are presently available .

That is Until a better designed small motor is available to buy.

( I will start another thread in the future on what I just recently found out about why/which , 28 hole / spoke .. and even 24 hole / spoke wheel builds are much stronger wheels than 36 hole wheels
, Much , Much Stronger in Fact ! f )
.

 

[Buk___]

( I will start another thread in the future on what I just recently found out about why/which , 28 hole / spoke .. and even 24 hole / spoke wheel builds are much stronger wheels than 36 hole wheels , Much , Much Stronger in Fact ! f )
.

Did you ever start that thread? (I have scanned about 10 pages of your threads from sept/2016 on but didn't find anything.)

 

[ScooterMan101]

I did not , I have not been able to contact Jayson for quite a while, He was going to have made some of the little Q motors with some improvements but then thought about offering a light weight bike using those little motors on carbon frames, because spending over $ 40,000 and selling a motor for just a couple of dollars was not worth the effort.

I was trying to get him to include carbon wheels on the bikes, since carbon wheels were a little cheaper from China a year ago ( Yoeleo ) . But the less expensive ones seem to have gone up about 30% in price. You could get a set of rims for under $ 300 a year ago.

I do not know why Jayson abandoned his project. Perhaps too much work and money spent for too little return, and
He did express to me a little fustration about different people wanting Q100 c, but others wanting Q 100 h, and others Q128.

The reason even a 24 spoke hole carbon wheel is stronger is because of the Rim itself , not the amount of spokes.

The only downside of them is if you build up the wheel yourself, Carbon Wheels are much more involved/difficult to build up than a double wall aluminium wheel.