MXUS 3000 Hub Motor - V1 V2 V3

Get all your technical information about electric bikes here.
kiwifiat   100 W

100 W
Posts: 109
Joined: Mar 16 2013 5:49pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by kiwifiat » Nov 20 2014 6:36pm

John in CR wrote: Kiwifiat,

You're mixing facts with fiction trying to confirm a myth. It is invalid to compare two different windings at the same current, because the slow wind motor you're trying to say is better on hills cannot handle the same current as the speed wind. For the speed wind you simply lower the voltage and increase the current for the same power input and rpm, and then torque and efficiency will be the same, ie same torque and rpm and same amount of heat produced.

If what you myth promoters say was actually true, then speed wind motors wouldn't even exist. The torque limits of our hubmotors are set by the iron and the magnets, and have nothing to do with the copper. How the copper is wound only matters to the extent of the voltage and current you want to run. As long as the total copper is the same, then they can make an identical amount of torque for the same amount of heat loss in the copper. Saying that a slow wind motor makes more torque at the same current is irrelevant, because in that comparison the slow wind makes more heat to produce that greater torque. Apples and oranges comparisons simply don't cut it. Your understanding is incomplete, because you can't ignore copper losses.

The only ways to make a hubmotor better able to climb a hill does not include rewinding it with more turns on each tooth, which accomplishes nothing, because you decrease current handling by the same amount you increase the torque constant. Decreasing wheel size, and improving heat rejection are the only things that will help a motor climb hills better.
John in Cr,

I suggest that you teach yourself how to derive the torque equation for an electric motor from first principals. There are numerous resources on the internet that will teach you this. Equally there have been a large number of papers posted on this forum that confirm that the mathematical models used in motor design yield results that correlate extremely well with the real world testing of motors designed using those formulas. You are just spreading misinformation by maintaining the torque output of an electric motor depends on the iron,magnets and current alone. You might also consider the fact that the majority of e-bikes in the world are powered by batteries that are constrained in voltage and current which makes turn count an even more critical parameter in motor design.
“You never know if quotes on the internet are genuine.” - Abraham Lincoln

999zip999   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 8492
Joined: Jan 10 2010 1:40pm
Location: Dana Point So. Cal

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by 999zip999 » Nov 20 2014 6:38pm

I saw LFP take a grinder to open a silt in the motor and fill with water and later grind a slit in the bottom to let the water out.

John in CR   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13535
Joined: May 20 2008 12:58am
Location: Paradise

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by John in CR » Nov 20 2014 7:33pm

Kingfish wrote:John, I struggle to believe the stuff you write. You have mixed metaphors and facts and your explanations do not add up. Forget trying to explain this myth business… you are not conveying a message that is believable.

You appear to be unable to provide us with Math that proves your theory, yet you mock those of us that can. I asked you to clarify and you ran away. I want to see your math. Show us your evidence where you got this idea that all winds perform the same under the same power and load, and this relationship with copper-fill.

Be concise.

Where's the beef? KF
You guys who supposedly know the math should be embarrassed that you can't figure this one out, because it's actually quite simple. Miles has been telling people the same thing for years, which is how I learned to step back from the trees on this point to see the forest. He's smart enough stay out of any fracas. Me, I'm sick of seeing forum members ripped off by the idea that something called a high torque model of a given motor is possible.

I've proven that myth false with 6 years of real world use. I posted a chart shared by Astro that was compiled from the results of actual tests, which clearly demonstrates the myth to be false. Do you even understand the relationship of Kt and Kv how it applies to the number of turns on the teeth of a given stator? Can you at least agree that with a fixed wheel size and load, that the torque required from a motor to turn a fixed rpm (fixed speed) is a fixed amount of torque? Also that with a given rpm, the iron losses and parasitic losses of bearings, tires, etc. are the same, which leaves us only the copper losses to compare which motor does a better job of climbing the hill, ie producing the same torque at the same rpm with greater efficiency?

Let's examine the simplest case for comparison, which is 2 otherwise identical motors, one with double the turns on each stator tooth, ie double the Kt, and half the Kv, compared to the other. I'll refer to that one as the slow wind, and the other which has double the Kv as the fast wind. For the same copper fill (total copper on each tooth), the motor with twice as many turns can have only half the number of strands on each turn, so the resistance per unit of length is double. Twice as many turns means the length of wire on the windings is also twice as long, which brings the resistance in the copper up to 4X that of speed wind.

Now the simple formula you and the other myth promoters have obviously overlooked:
copper losses (heat created in the windings) = current squared X resistance.

Let's assign some amounts for the fast wind motor climbing the hill at the given speed. voltage is V, current is A, and phase to phase winding resistance is R. That puts power in at V*A and copper losses at A*A*R.

Now lets look at the slow wind motor. It has twice the turns, so it needs only half the current to make the same torque, but it needs double the voltage to get the same rpm. Power in is 2V*A/2, which is the same as the speed wind. We already know the iron losses are the same, so let's look at the copper losses, and don't forget resistance is 4 times higher with double the length and half the thickness to achieve double the turns. A/2*A/2*4R, and low and behold copper losses are the same. The math doesn't get any more simple.

Wow, speed and torque are the same, so power out is the same. Power in is the same. We already know the iron losses are the same, and now we know the copper losses in the motor are the same, so that means motor efficiency is the same. iow Performance is identical. With torque, rpm, power in, power out, efficiency all identical, please explain how the so called torque motor is better at climbing hills.

I can't make it any simpler for you to see KF. Either you get it or you don't.

User avatar
Kingfish   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4064
Joined: Feb 03 2010 11:23am
Location: Redmond, WA-USA, Earth, Sol, Orion–Cygnus Arm, Milky Way. Age: > yesterday < tomorrow
Contact:

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Kingfish » Nov 20 2014 8:11pm

John, you have fallen on your sword and missed this by a wide frippen mile. I can't believe you actually posted the equation P = I^2R :lol:

I love that Astro reference! Keep hittin' the Kool-Aid if it makes you feel good. It's pointless for me to continue questioning you when you have done yourself out so well. I almost feel pity.

OK everybody... shows' over.
We all now know John is not an engineer or a scientist.
No doubt he has credibility in other areas, but certainly not in motor theory.

Thank you for clearing that up.

For the record - I am an engineer, I do know my math, and there's a very high probability that you or your kids are using product that I developed.

Good luck with that myth busting.
~KF
* My 2WD Garden Wall
* Kinaye MotorSports
* Primary ride: 2WD Disc 9C 2806-equiv / Dual Lyen 12FET / 20S7P LiPo.
* Epics: Going to California: 2011 8)
* 50-mph, 101, 10k-Club. 12,527 miles-to-date, 7037 as 2WD.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed.
The hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

User avatar
Kent   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 382
Joined: Jun 04 2011 3:14pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Kent » Nov 20 2014 11:04pm

OK everybody... shows' over.
Good. Any further discussions, please PM each other or take them onto a separate thread.

Thank you.
72 V, (2x36v, 11.5 ah in series) Cellman, HS3540, 18fet Lyen, Jamis Dirtjumper Hardtail. Its streetlegal w license plate, inspection sticker.

Only by setting an example of good road manners and public courtesy can we convince the general public to take the electric bike seriously as a transportation option. Obey traffic laws!

My build: http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewto ... =6&t=45706
Going legal: http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewto ... =3&t=49390

User avatar
amberwolf   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 25695
Joined: Aug 17 2009 6:43am
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA, Earth, Sol, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group
Contact:

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by amberwolf » Nov 20 2014 11:48pm

macribs wrote:That heat sink could have a really large surface area compared to those pipes used by Linkus. All of this marked area could in fact be a heat sink.
<snip>
No more melted Halls, no more burned wires or de-magnetized motors due to over heating.
Without attempting the experiment, I couldn't say for sure, but based on my old experiences with customising existing heat sinks and routing heat flow for my audio-recording computers (to try to get them as silent as I could with the best airflow and the fewest fans) I think such a large central heatsink isn't going to be as effective as expected unless you also can circulate the air within the hub (no external holes required) so that the heat from the stator's coils and iron, and the rotor's magnets, is more quickly conducted into the air and convected around to the heatsink fins, and then conducted into the heatsink so it can be piped out in the liquid.

It just needs holes close to the center of the ring (or even just one) with high volume fans (temperature controlled to save power and noise; it must be pretty simple cuz I've seen a lot fo cheap cmputer case fans with this built in) pulling air thru that central area, which is then forced back to the other side (fan intake) thru the airgap between stator and magnets. This has already been explored to one degree or another by regular air cooling experiments (although the air is intake from outside the mtoor and exhausted out the other side in those), and AFAICR it works.

Without doing somethign like that, I am not sure that having that large heatsink in there would do any more good than ventilating the side covers plus having fans to pull air thru the covers (and not the stator/magnet gap) would, except that the motor would still be sealed up and not as likley to get liquid or particulate buildup in there.

If the heatsink could be extended out over the stator coils, and thermally-conductive glue of some type used to fill the gap between coils and heatsink, then using just the ring type would be sufficient to cool the coils themselves (and the iron under them, though more slowly). I know there have been some silicone types used for this when attaching liquid-cooling plates to teh bottom of harddisks with exposed electronics, but I'm not up on any of that anymore (been years).

Pastes could be used but all of them I've ever seen dry out over time, and then you just have air gaps. amd then the heatsink isn't really doing much.


That still leaves any heat that does transfer to the magnets (or is generated within them from eddy currents, if that is somethign that happens in there). For that, a second heatsink machined into the space between spoke flanges would be best, and short of that a 2-piece bolt-together heatsink that clamps around that same area would be next. How to arrange the fins, well, maybe "pin" fins would be the best for this situation--not sure. It'd get more surface area than other methods, and still be pretty durable (unlike a lot of closely-space thin fins). I'd want them to stick up beyond the flanges if possible.


Just a thought.

windtrader   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 322
Joined: Mar 08 2014 9:57pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by windtrader » Nov 20 2014 11:52pm

No. The show is not over. This is still over my head but I clearly enjoy the debate. For the non degreed EE types it is certainly educational if not at least entertaining to watch and ponder who is full of shit. Rock on!

John in CR   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13535
Joined: May 20 2008 12:58am
Location: Paradise

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by John in CR » Nov 20 2014 11:55pm

Bravo KF, not a single substantive argument, though you did manage to demonstrate your lack of understanding of what generates heat in our motors. I challenge you to find the one slightly incorrect statement in my previous post, though the difference it makes is insignificant. Don't bother trying to twist things around to make apples and oranges comparisons, because those will get shot down too. The bottom line is that making more torque per amp is only part of the story, because it can't make more torque without making more heat. The 2 motors can only make the same torque for the same amount of heat, and the maximum torque both are capable is also equal. The relationships of different windings of the same motor are quite simple, and certainly don't require a degree to understand. Having more knowledge than understanding is getting in the way for both you and Kiwifiat.

User avatar
johnrobholmes   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3940
Joined: Jul 07 2008 2:19pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by johnrobholmes » Nov 21 2014 4:03am

I'm with John on this one, it doesn't matter what the motor wind is. One cannot cheat the flux gap area into producing more torque with merely a change of turns. Feed it the right voltage for a target rpm and the motor copper losses do not change under a specific load assuming equal copper fill. Motor wind is irrelevant for torque and power, until you consider the controller and battery limitations that force specific voltage and amperage ranges. Overlay this with speed requirements and possible wheel sizes, and certain winds will become the Goldilocks zone for an optimized system.

Until somebody figures out the saturation point of this motor there is not much point in doing more than just getting a stout controller, tossing voltage at it with a stout battery, using a smaller wheel, and keeping the motor cool. The small wheel and cool temps will land you in torque city, its foolproof.


The last contract engineering job I completed was optimizing an outrunner for maximum torque on a 36v rail within a certain max speed range (9250-9650 rpm) and amp limit of 10. Sound familiar? It certainly wasn't the slowest wind that won, it was actually the middle speed. The slower motors just had too high of terminal resistance to pull enough amperage, even though copper fill was highest of all. The fastest were pegging the amp limit during reversals, meaning less torque. Goldilocks likes it just right, but be prepared to pay the piper. We ONLY have 100 hours into refining the system, but when big brother is willing to pay for umpteen different winds the work gets done.

But what do I know, I'm no pedigreed engineer. I merely wind, design, and manufacture motors for military and aerospace clients in between hobby grade stuff. :wink:

User avatar
Stevil_Knevil   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 771
Joined: Jan 09 2007 8:32pm
Location: Up where the air is fresh and clean

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Stevil_Knevil » Nov 21 2014 4:32am

Another good argument for volting up, and gearing down -> half the amps required for -essentially- the same, high performance machine.

Holistically speaking, the batteries only need to give half of the discharge rate = cooler, longer lasting batteries. Given the variety of high voltage capable controllers we have available, it makes absolutely zero sense to DOUBLE the current draw from a pack in order to achieve the same performance goal.

With all due respect John, I understand and agree with key parts of your argument, but it is silly. Your argument effectively requires ridiculously high discharge rate batteries - which would also require measures to prevent meltdown.

Heat kills stuff, and either way, hub motors need some kind of thermal management when turning up the wick.
____________________________________
We don't care. We're riding Ducatis in our dreams.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4904
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Punx0r » Nov 21 2014 5:13am

Disagree.

Reductio ad absurdum: following your argument, the best ebike system uses umpteen turns of hair-fine wire and a 1000V battery in order to minimise current. Great, except you now have ~250 tiny cells, a frock-ton of interconnects, a serious risk of lethality and no available controller.

Also, the discharge rate of the battery is irrelevant. Regardless of how you configure cells in series/parallel to form a battery, the power output and capacity is the same.

Like Johnrobholmes said, you're looking for the goldilocks zone.

User avatar
Merlin   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Jan 29 2013 10:00am
Location: europe

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Merlin » Nov 21 2014 6:59am

madin88 wrote:
Merlin wrote:I like those technical Battles of "iam and you are not" :mrgreen:


My solution about efficiency?
If my Battery is empty, i'll charge it.
If i need more Juice for better Range, Update your Battery Capacity
wow! thats a very good solution regarding efficiency. please also let us know what you do if your motor is overheated.
...eating some icecream or rollin with some watts to cool it down.....

any news from your licence plate from last year?.....*doh...sry iam sure its just a time problem :lol:


User avatar
macribs   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3481
Joined: Jul 22 2014 5:59pm

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by macribs » Nov 21 2014 10:53am

amberwolf wrote:
macribs wrote:That heat sink could have a really large surface area compared to those pipes used by Linkus. All of this marked area could in fact be a heat sink.
<snip>
No more melted Halls, no more burned wires or de-magnetized motors due to over heating.
Without attempting the experiment, I couldn't say for sure, but based on my old experiences with customising existing heat sinks and routing heat flow for my audio-recording computers (to try to get them as silent as I could with the best airflow and the fewest fans) I think such a large central heatsink isn't going to be as effective as expected unless you also can circulate the air within the hub (no external holes required) so that the heat from the stator's coils and iron, and the rotor's magnets, is more quickly conducted into the air and convected around to the heatsink fins, and then conducted into the heatsink so it can be piped out in the liquid.

I can't see why, the heat sink and its surrounding gets cooled by hot water going out of hub and to radiator and cool water coming in.
This is a constant process and if for some reason it proves not efficient enough the thing to do is to increase the water flow or remove even more heat from the liquid coolant. Either a bigger pump and pipes or go a larger or thicker radiator. And do remember that hubs are like >90 % efficient so there ain't really scary amount of heat to remove.

I can not see why you mean any other means of cooling would be needed when you got a custom made heat sink.


amberwolf wrote: It just needs holes close to the center of the ring (or even just one) with high volume fans (temperature controlled to save power and noise; it must be pretty simple cuz I've seen a lot fo cheap cmputer case fans with this built in) pulling air thru that central area, which is then forced back to the other side (fan intake) thru the airgap between stator and magnets. This has already been explored to one degree or another by regular air cooling experiments (although the air is intake from outside the mtoor and exhausted out the other side in those), and AFAICR it works.

Why would the hub need air flow? When excess power enters the hub and turn to heat, that heat will not manage to heat temps so high that your magnets dies or Hall sensors or isolation melts. Because the constant flow of coolant will remove the heat. No air flow needed.

The heatsink and coolant removes heat from the hubs internal metals - thats why larger area heat sink will remove more heat.
As as I can see, air flow is obsolete in this setting as the Coolant removes the heat. The heat sink do not need to touch the copper coils because them coils transfer their heat to the metals surrounding them, and that metal will be in direct contact with the heat sink resulting in lower temperatures also for copper coils.

amberwolf wrote:Pastes could be used but all of them I've ever seen dry out over time, and then you just have air gaps. amd then the heatsink isn't really doing much.
I have never seen paste dry out. Even changing CPU after 24 or 36 months paste is still soft and can be wiped with paper cloth.
Maybe your experience with paste was a very long time ago? Todays high quality paste don't dry.
amberwolf wrote: That still leaves any heat that does transfer to the magnets (or is generated within them from eddy currents, if that is somethign that happens in there). For that, a second heatsink machined into the space between spoke flanges would be best, and short of that a 2-piece bolt-together heatsink that clamps around that same area would be next. How to arrange the fins, well, maybe "pin" fins would be the best for this situation--not sure. It'd get more surface area than other methods, and still be pretty durable (unlike a lot of closely-space thin fins). I'd want them to stick up beyond the flanges if possible.

That I can not comment because I have no idea how they actually design high grade heat sinks. But I do know they use various ways to get the coolant to travel through the heat sink in a targeted way for coolant to absorb as much heat as possible. I've seen a few taken apart, and those "internal pipes" had some weired stuff going on. Like a gun barrel has some work done to get the bullet to rotate. But I guess that is why those people make a living off heat sinks, cos they know so much :)

User avatar
madin88   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2819
Joined: May 27 2013 2:02am
Location: Austria

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by madin88 » Nov 21 2014 11:54am

Merlin wrote: any news from your licence plate from last year?.....*doh...sry iam sure its just a time problem :lol:
instead of playing the cool guy you better should learn how to interpret a motors continuous rating. I remember you reviled the cromotor manufacturer because of your misinterpretation. are you not ashamed now?

yes i hadn't had time for the inspection as yet, but this doesn't mean the bike is not ready for it. And anyway, why do you ask? If the only intend you have is to treat people in a condescending manner (it seems its funny for you?) than you better post in another forum. here this behaviour is undesirable :wink:
- 10kW belt drive with Neumotor 8057: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=91144&start=50#p1377787
- Fully road legal (L1E approval) e-bike based on Votec V-FR frame
/ MXUS 3T / 17" Mitas MC11 / Adaptto Max-E / 20s12p 25R
- KTM Hardtail Pedelec / eZee V2 6T / 27,5" / Kelly KBSX @ 1,5kW / Torque PAS / CA-V3 / 13s4p Sanyo GA in Shark case

User avatar
Merlin   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1519
Joined: Jan 29 2013 10:00am
Location: europe

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Merlin » Nov 21 2014 5:45pm

yaya i know....i see you are the only one who comment my posts. :lol:
i learned my lesson thats not worth spending more then 20 seconds to answer your blame.

woups..time is over.

User avatar
Kingfish   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4064
Joined: Feb 03 2010 11:23am
Location: Redmond, WA-USA, Earth, Sol, Orion–Cygnus Arm, Milky Way. Age: > yesterday < tomorrow
Contact:

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Kingfish » Nov 21 2014 5:47pm

John in CR wrote:Bravo KF, not a single substantive argument, though you did manage to demonstrate your lack of understanding of what generates heat in our motors. I challenge you to find the one slightly incorrect statement in my previous post, though the difference it makes is insignificant. Don't bother trying to twist things around to make apples and oranges comparisons, because those will get shot down too. The bottom line is that making more torque per amp is only part of the story, because it can't make more torque without making more heat. The 2 motors can only make the same torque for the same amount of heat, and the maximum torque both are capable is also equal. The relationships of different windings of the same motor are quite simple, and certainly don't require a degree to understand. Having more knowledge than understanding is getting in the way for both you and Kiwifiat.
Posted my reply in a new thread to give you guys a break.

Science, Physics, Math, & Myth

~KF
* My 2WD Garden Wall
* Kinaye MotorSports
* Primary ride: 2WD Disc 9C 2806-equiv / Dual Lyen 12FET / 20S7P LiPo.
* Epics: Going to California: 2011 8)
* 50-mph, 101, 10k-Club. 12,527 miles-to-date, 7037 as 2WD.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed.
The hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

999zip999   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 8492
Joined: Jan 10 2010 1:40pm
Location: Dana Point So. Cal

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by 999zip999 » Nov 21 2014 8:58pm

Thanks. I'm running a 5t and it will saturate at the speed for me and lower my total watts used at my desire speed lowering my battery use upping my range. Lowing my top speed better for battery with lower amp draw. More miles. And many hills to clime. So no 3t 140 amp 50v for 7,000 watt. Sorry JohnCr.

flathill   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1266
Joined: Jul 06 2010 9:26pm

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by flathill » Nov 21 2014 9:35pm

Punx0r wrote:Disagree.

Reductio ad absurdum: following your argument, the best ebike system uses umpteen turns of hair-fine wire and a 1000V battery in order to minimise current. Great, except you now have ~250 tiny cells, a frock-ton of interconnects, a serious risk of lethality and no available controller.

Also, the discharge rate of the battery is irrelevant. Regardless of how you configure cells in series/parallel to form a battery, the power output and capacity is the same.

Like Johnrobholmes said, you're looking for the goldilocks zone.
The number in interconnects will be the same in either case. I agree about the shock hazard, but yes, the best ebike system would use a much higher voltage. Right now 100V is the sweet spot but in the future SiC fets will change the game

Emmett   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 332
Joined: Aug 27 2014 9:45am
Location: NSW Australia

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Emmett » Nov 22 2014 11:07am

johnrobholmes wrote:I'm with John on this one, it doesn't matter what the motor wind is. One cannot cheat the flux gap area into producing more torque with merely a change of turns. Feed it the right voltage for a target rpm and the motor copper losses do not change under a specific load assuming equal copper fill. Motor wind is irrelevant for torque and power, until you consider the controller and battery limitations that force specific voltage and amperage ranges. Overlay this with speed requirements and possible wheel sizes, and certain winds will become the Goldilocks zone for an optimized system.

Until somebody figures out the saturation point of this motor there is not much point in doing more than just getting a stout controller, tossing voltage at it with a stout battery, using a smaller wheel, and keeping the motor cool. The small wheel and cool temps will land you in torque city, its foolproof.
Just trying to learn ... if my battery and controller remain the same (not upgraded), and when riding up hills toward the end of ride, my BMS is occasionally switching off my battery because the battery is too warm, and/or being asked for too much current and/or voltage sag getting too low, but my battery still has about 35% of its Wh remaining (as determined by resetting the BMS), and I don't care about a reduction in top speed, and assuming my BMS is doing what it's programmed to do, then I guess I should get a hub motor with more winds - correct?

At the end of this little ride segment, my BMS cuts my power off. Mild incline in the last 2 minutes. http://youtu.be/_r69OdRXDTA

User avatar
madin88   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2819
Joined: May 27 2013 2:02am
Location: Austria

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by madin88 » Nov 22 2014 12:20pm

Emmett wrote: Just trying to learn ... if my battery and controller remain the same (not upgraded), and when riding up hills toward the end of ride, my BMS is occasionally switching off my battery because the battery is too warm, and/or being asked for too much current and/or voltage sag getting too low, but my battery still has about 35% of its Wh remaining (as determined by resetting the BMS), and I don't care about a reduction in top speed, and assuming my BMS is doing what it's programmed to do, then I guess I should get a hub motor with more winds - correct?

At the end of this little ride segment, my BMS cuts my power off. Mild incline in the last 2 minutes. http://youtu.be/_r69OdRXDTA
instead of going with more winds a smaller wheel would be better (if you can live with it). both result in less top speed, but the smaller wheel will give you more thrust at the same produced heat in the motor.
- 10kW belt drive with Neumotor 8057: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=91144&start=50#p1377787
- Fully road legal (L1E approval) e-bike based on Votec V-FR frame
/ MXUS 3T / 17" Mitas MC11 / Adaptto Max-E / 20s12p 25R
- KTM Hardtail Pedelec / eZee V2 6T / 27,5" / Kelly KBSX @ 1,5kW / Torque PAS / CA-V3 / 13s4p Sanyo GA in Shark case

User avatar
Allex   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3091
Joined: Dec 05 2011 8:46am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Allex » Nov 22 2014 1:03pm

Emmet:
If your battery cuts out prematurely, then you need to look at the defect cells as your first step. Replace them and then look at the motor options :)

Emmett   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 332
Joined: Aug 27 2014 9:45am
Location: NSW Australia

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by Emmett » Nov 22 2014 6:11pm

Thanks guys.

Madin88, A smaller wheel is not an option for me. I frequently ride over obstacles which are large enough to cause high speed wheel+rim+suspension impacts. The quality of the video doesn't really show the roughness of the ground ground or size of some of those rocks, roots and ledges.

Allex, In 2 weeks time I will get the battery pack diagnosed and repaired by Stealth. But even if/after the battery is faulty, and fixed, then I'm still curious about my path to trouble free riding in my target conditions. In any case I need another complete real wheel, and no matter what condition any future battery is in, I t want to get hub motor wind which is best for battery life. I don't want to upgrade my controller or battery while they under warranty and I've got time and budget limits too.

User avatar
mrdavies   100 mW

100 mW
Posts: 40
Joined: Aug 05 2010 9:59am
Location: NYC

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by mrdavies » Nov 22 2014 8:10pm

What nut size fits the Mxus 3000 axle? I need to order some.
Trying to keep us on subject too..
Thanks
1)29er Diamondback, Mac 7t 1000w-14s lipo
2)E+ EMS 1000w,NiMH on Electra cruiser
3)Direct drive tandem bike, 18s lipo
4)Tidalforce m-750, Mac 8t 15s, 12 fet
5)Cyclocross road bike, front, 15s (17kg.)
6) Mxus 3000,40 amp controller, 22s
NYC

User avatar
teslanv   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2656
Joined: Nov 03 2013 8:42pm
Location: Bellevue, WA - USA
Contact:

Re: MXUS 3000 Hub Motor

Post by teslanv » Nov 22 2014 11:30pm

M14 nuts. Same as most hub motors.
DD Hubs, Batteries, Controllers & Custom Ebikes.
http://westcoastelectrics.com
West Coast Electric Cycles
Bellevue, WA
USA

Post Reply