Is this Linukas (4Motus) creation?
http://www.neematic.com

it's no v3 205 but something similar to a v1 205 30mm stack and water cooling. So the v1 205 is designed for 1000-1500W and it is geared ~2:1 so it should be good for real 4kW continuous at the wheel. Or 5 marketing kWmacribs wrote:20 Kw? Seems like a regular hub motor is sitting in the frame. Wonder what motor/controller they are using to reach 20 kw peak.
At first I was thinking they would use Joby motor or similar like on the video where joby e-bike races 450 cc motor cycles and win.
A little surprised to see that they are using regular hub motor. I think Linas has been using QS motors in the past. Could it be a v3 205 in the frame? Or possible the QS 273, or maybe the 273 is too wide?
crossbreak wrote:there was still a design fault in the proto: the motor is mount in the pivot point, with reaction torque supported by the frame. this way reaction forces dont disappear like if it was supported by the swing arm itself. Something that can be solved easily by design though. Still i got no definite answer yet that they will change thisWith a slight redesign i think this can outperform the LMX P2 inboth terms of handling and power/weight. The first picture Allex posted looks promising
It's got nothing to do with chain length, of course in the pivot cures that. Anchor the motor to the frame and the chain pull acts on the rear suspension...increasing squat on acceleration and brake dive with regen. These effects are amplified with the compliant suspension of a bike. Anchor the motor to the swingarm and the opposite happens, and increasing the height of the pivot magnifies it. While the feel would be different (odd at first according to Toolman2) compared to a moto, anti-squat and anti-dive are desireable, and is still easily accomplished with the motor centered in the pivot point.macribs wrote:crossbreak wrote:there was still a design fault in the proto: the motor is mount in the pivot point, with reaction torque supported by the frame. this way reaction forces dont disappear like if it was supported by the swing arm itself. Something that can be solved easily by design though. Still i got no definite answer yet that they will change thisWith a slight redesign i think this can outperform the LMX P2 inboth terms of handling and power/weight. The first picture Allex posted looks promising
Hm not following you here. *guess I should have paid more attention back in school*![]()
I would think that motor in pivot point would give a perfect chain line without chain growth. So in my book that seems to be favorable.
What do you mean reaction forces are supported by the frame and will not disappear?
The torque force is between the swingarm and the rest of the frame - accelerating will try to pull the suspension arm 'up' and make the bike squat under acceleration. That is of course if it is attached to the frame and not the swingarm, which doesn't seem clear from the pic either way as far as i can tell...macribs wrote:crossbreak wrote:there was still a design fault in the proto: the motor is mount in the pivot point, with reaction torque supported by the frame. this way reaction forces dont disappear like if it was supported by the swing arm itself. Something that can be solved easily by design though. Still i got no definite answer yet that they will change thisWith a slight redesign i think this can outperform the LMX P2 inboth terms of handling and power/weight. The first picture Allex posted looks promising
Hm not following you here. *guess I should have paid more attention back in school*![]()
I would think that motor in pivot point would give a perfect chain line without chain growth. So in my book that seems to be favorable.
What do you mean reaction forces are supported by the frame and will not disappear?