Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jun 25 2018 5:09pm

Yes. Corded electric or rail machines can work well for heavy mining/ transport equipment that doesn't travel far or fast away from the cord or the rail. Building out electric rail to replace as much heavy trucking as possibly should be high on our list of projects to invest our remaining liquid fuel for.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 25 2018 5:52pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jun 25 2018 5:09pm
Yes. Corded electric or rail machines can work well for heavy mining/ transport equipment that doesn't travel far or fast away from the cord or the rail. Building out electric rail to replace as much heavy trucking as possibly should be high on our list of projects to invest our remaining liquid fuel for.
But it isnt going to happen ...
Rail is far too expensive and inflexible compared to road trucking, and there is no leadership or decision making authority that will risk changing that.
Rail has been on the decline constantly since permanent road networks were established
billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 11:13am
There is no transmission OR gearing in any of my ebikes. And there is no transmission in modern EV's - again because of that flat power curve.
Most better ebikes (Bosch, Shimano, Trek, Specialised, Opto, etc etc) use a transmission system.
Often it is reduction gearing internal to the drive unit, followed by the traditional derailier or in hub gearing systems.
Even many "Hub" motors have internal reduction gearing, more modern units even have dual speed gearing !
ALL EVs,..Tesla, Nissan, Bolt, etc etc have a TRANSMISSION to multiply the motor torque to a level more useful to a low speed vehicle. Some EVs may not need multispeed transmissions, but they do need speed reducing transmissions
Your definition of a transmission as a "multispeed gear system" is a way of attempting to suggest that electric motors produce sufficient torque for ANY application at any speed...which is incorrect.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 25 2018 6:06pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 25 2018 5:52pm
But it isnt going to happen ...
Rail is far too expensive and inflexible compared to road trucking
And yet it works fine in many other countries. As fuel becomes more expensive, rail will become a more competitive option.
Most better ebikes (Bosch, Shimano, Trek, Specialised, Opto, etc etc) use a transmission system.
And can't regen.

You cannot make an ICE scooter without a transmission and a clutch. It is easy to make an ebike without a transmission and a clutch.
ALL EVs,..Tesla, Nissan, Bolt, etc etc have a TRANSMISSION to multiply the motor torque to a level more useful to a low speed vehicle. Some EVs may not need multispeed transmissions, but they do need speed reducing transmissions.
They have a gear that transfers mechanical power to the CV joints that power the wheels. That's not because they "need reduction" but because it's hard to build a 500hp motor that's an inch thick so that the CV axle shafts can get a reasonable routing to the wheels. Instead, they use a can-shaped motor (cheaper, easier to build) and then use a gear to transfer power to the wheels. That way the gear thickness (an inch or so) allows good routing of the shafts.

EV conversions that replace the motor in a rear wheel drive car (that doesn't have that issue) do not use additional gearing between the driveshaft and the rear differential. (Of course, the differential may give you some reduction.)
Your definition of a transmission as a "multispeed gear system" is a way of attempting to suggest that electric motors produce sufficient torque for ANY application at any speed...which is incorrect.
I am not saying that. I am saying that for vehicle applications, a properly chosen electric motor does not need a transmission; the power band is so wide that it is simply not necessary. You can, of course, add one if you really want, for nostalgia or whatever.
--bill von

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jun 25 2018 6:41pm

Hilarious. Just what I saw on my way to work this morning without even hunting around.
.
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
We would be very smart to get as many infrastructure decisions made and get them built out and repaired as much as possible in the next 30 years before liquid fuel gets prohibitively expensive.

Ohbse   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 776
Joined: Dec 26 2013 5:15pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ohbse » Jun 25 2018 8:08pm

It's a bit of stretch to extend the crumbling nature of the US to the rest of the world. The complete failure to adequately maintain or renew key infrastructure is a political issue, not the inevitable end-state of your much trumpeted energy catastrophe.

On that note, I was pretty blown away travelling around the US at just how farked everything is. It's positively third world in a lot of respects. Especially in contrast to Japan/Taiwan from the weeks prior.

You still seem to be under the childish impression that things are just going to grind to a halt once we 'run out of fuel'. That's not how the world works.

New Zealand was once a gigantic forest of slow growth native timbers like Kauri, Rimu and Totara, these would frequently have trunks in excess of 4m in diameter - real monsters. The Kauri heart wood was dead straight, available in long lengths, was easily felled and processed, resistant to rot - an absolutely ideal building material. Vast tracts of forest were rapidly cleared in the late 19th/early 20th century, both to build a new nation and to make way for farmland, grass fed cattle/sheep etc. Pretty rapidly the country was running out of easy to obtain Kauri, prices rose, some remained but only in more difficult to access areas. As prices continued to rise, these areas became economic to fell and were eventually cleared. Once they ran out of Kauri, do you think they just stopped building houses? Alternatives were sought and found, after lots of trials it was found Pinus Radiata from California not only grew well here, but thrived - rising to maturity in half the time required in its native land. It would also grow in volcanic acidic soils that were unsuitable for most other types of productive farming. NZ now has a pretty extensive sustainable forestry sector, harvesting ~30 million m3 of timber annually.

There are articles from that period of history bemoaning the end of building, that nobody would be able to have a house, that the world as they knew it was going to come to an end. In some respects, I guess it did - the world moved on. It's bizzare now to look back on what is quite recent history, at the waste and the destruction. Similarly as oil becomes more expensive, both from the increasing difficulty of its extraction and hopefully more of its externalities included in its sale price, alternatives will become feasible. With feasibility comes demand, demand brings scale, reducing the price and resulting in a rapid pivot driven by economics, not the best intentions of the enlightened masses (hah!)

This has happened many times before, it will happen again. In not so many years it will be hilariously quaint that we used internal combustion vehicles driven by men for something so simple as bringing ore from the depths of a mine to be processed. Your children will think you were mad, driving a 2 ton vehicle full of flammable liquid, spewing poisonous gas in the faces of those behind in a never-ending queue of crawling traffic. We won't 'run out' of oil, we'll just stop using it because there are better, cheaper alternatives. Coal fired steam trains weren't phased out because we ran out of coal.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 25 2018 8:31pm

billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 6:06pm
And yet it works fine in many other countries. As fuel becomes more expensive, rail will become a more competitive option..
name a developed country where Rail is an expanding industry !
Most better ebikes (Bosch, Shimano, Trek, Specialised, Opto, etc etc) use a transmission system.
billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 6:06pm
And can't regen..
sure, because most ebike developers and users know that regen is not worth the trouble !, compared to the advantages of reduction and multspeed gearing for those low powered applications.
billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 6:06pm
You cannot make an ICE scooter without a transmission and a clutch. It is easy to make an ebike without a transmission and a clutch.
infact there are ( and have always been since the early 1900s) ICE scooters that have no "transmission" and only use a auto clutch.[/quote]
ALL EVs,..Tesla, Nissan, Bolt, etc etc have a TRANSMISSION to multiply the motor torque to a level more useful to a low speed vehicle. Some EVs may not need multispeed transmissions, but they do need speed reducing transmissions.
billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 6:06pm
They have a gear that transfers mechanical power to the CV joints that power the wheels. That's not because they "need reduction" but because it's hard to build a 500hp motor that's an inch thick so that the CV axle shafts can get a reasonable routing to the wheels. Instead, they use a can-shaped motor (cheaper, easier to build) and then use a gear to transfer power to the wheels. That way the gear thickness (an inch or so) allows good routing of the shafts.
[/quote]
no.. they NEED the reduction to multiply the torque AND reduce the rpms, to a useful level.
If it were possible to produce an electric motor with sufficient torque at wheel speed, they would have done so..but that motor would be ridiculously large, heavy, and expensive.
many have tried and failed.

billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 6:06pm
..EV conversions that replace the motor in a rear wheel drive car (that doesn't have that issue) do not use additional gearing between the driveshaft and the rear differential. (Of course, the differential may give you some reduction.)
the only EV with that configuration that i am aware of are DIY conversions, and a good proportion of those retain the transmission ( because starting off on steep hills are a problem for them !) and many also retain the clutch . You will find that they also choose the highest reduction differential gearing available. At the end of it all, those conversions are a compromise to minimise costs rather than optimize performance or efficiency.

billvon wrote:
Jun 25 2018 6:06pm
.. I am saying that for vehicle applications, a properly chosen electric motor does not need a transmission; the power band is so wide that it is simply not necessary. You can, of course, add one if you really want, for nostalgia or whatever....
Other than your bicycle hub motor, show me an EV that does not use a reduction gearbox ( transmission) to reduce rpm and multiply the torque to a useful level...which is exactly the same reason an ICE uses a gearbox, .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 25 2018 8:44pm

Image
The equipment shown above is the latest technology in climate engineering.
it has the following features.

Converts greenhouse gases into oxygen.
Stores solar energy efficiently, semi-permanently, and at very low cost.
Reduces surface temperatures by converting solar energy into chemical energy, through evaporative cooling, and by creating shade.
Replicates itself, creating even more carbon capture equipment.
Zero cost and requires no mining of lithium or other rare earth elements.
Biodegradable.
Can be used as fuel for cooking and heating and even power generation !.
Provides shelter and building materials
Scenic and good for the environment.

** No government funding or climate scientists were involved in the development of this remarkable technology.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 26 2018 12:09am

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 25 2018 8:31pm
name a developed country where Rail is an expanding industry !
France. They have four high speed rail project underway right now. And in developing countries (like India) rail is expanding at an even faster rate. Even here in the US, there are many places (Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland) where rail is expanding as a commuter option.
sure, because most ebike developers and users know that regen is not worth the trouble !, compared to the advantages of reduction and multspeed gearing for those low powered applications.
Regen not worth the trouble? I guess if you 1) don't want high power, 2) want to change your brake pads more often and 3) don't want the additional 3-5% range you don't need it. For me, the longer lifetime of brakes alone is well worth the trouble.
no.. they NEED the reduction to multiply the torque AND reduce the rpms, to a useful level.
BS. You can (and people have) built cars with hub motors. You don't NEED the reduction.
If it were possible to produce an electric motor with sufficient torque at wheel speed, they would have done so..but that motor would be ridiculously large, heavy, and expensive. many have tried and failed.
And even more have tried and succeeded. Gear reduction merely allows you to get a cheaper motor. More importantly, it allows you to use CV shafts. The fatal flaw of the hubmotor is not power, or speed (as any EV biker knows) - it's unsprung weight.
the only EV with that configuration that i am aware of are DIY conversions, and a good proportion of those retain the transmission ( because starting off on steep hills are a problem for them !) and many also retain the clutch . You will find that they also choose the highest reduction differential gearing available. At the end of it all, those conversions are a compromise to minimise costs rather than optimize performance or efficiency.
Exactly. When you choose just the right reduction gear you minimize motor cost and weight. You don't need it - but your wallet will thank you.
Other than your bicycle hub motor, show me an EV that does not use a reduction gearbox ( transmission) to reduce rpm and multiply the torque to a useful level...which is exactly the same reason an ICE uses a gearbox.
An ICE uses a gearbox with multiple gears because there is no one ratio that will allow a car to have adequate performance with an ICE engine, due to its narrow power band. Don't believe me? Leave your car in 5th gear and try to drive it. Now try to drive a Leaf without changing gears. Let us know which one works out better for you.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 26 2018 3:03am

You are avoiding the points bill...
Rail,..We were talking of freight movement, not commuter trafic.
Regen ... Saves brakepads on bikes :roll: :roll:
I have had ebikes for over 10 years.....no regen.....never had to replace brake pads. ! Adjust your riding style !
No comercially available EV car uses hub motors..Those commercials that do , busses and trucks..have geared hub motors...Because they NEED the reduction to multiply the torque. :shock:
Sure , an ICE normally uses a gearbox (there are exceptions,, scooters etc as mentioned) and an EV normally need a reduction gearbox..witness Tesla, Leaf, Bolt,etc.
You might also be aware that some of the top EV racers , FE cars, also use multispeed gearboxs , to maximise their torque/speed options.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jun 26 2018 3:28am

There is no trend towards multi-speed transmissions on road-going or racing EVs, only a trend a away from it.

Are you just a contrarian?

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jun 26 2018 6:33am

Ohbse wrote:
Jun 25 2018 8:08pm
We won't 'run out' of oil, we'll just stop using it because there are better, cheaper alternatives. Coal fired steam trains weren't phased out because we ran out of coal.
I'm sorry to see this naive concept of oil being stranded by lack of demand is still so much a part of the conversation. Coal trains were replaced by liquid fueled trains and trucks because they can get much more work done. Liquid fuel earth movers replaced mule teams. Battery powered heavy trucks, earth movers, and farm tractors can get a fraction of the work done of their liquid fueled competitors. Compared to the energy density of batteries, liquid fuel borders on magic. But electric heavy vehicles will indeed be better than nothing when oil gets too remote. Up to the point of being able to build enough batteries for them. Humans are blowing through 400TWh thermal per day! Cut that to 1/3 (completely too optimistic) for efficiency gains if you like. Still leaves 136 TWh per day. 1/3 of this is oil. 45TWh per day. A majority of which is used as liquid fuel. A fleet of batteries and long cords/ electric rails to replace 30TWh per day would be required. And a world fleet of water, wind, and solar to generate 136TWh per day. There are many approaching bottlenecks.
.
Human civilization will be much smaller and simpler after the age of fossil fuel. This doesn't have to be terrible if we accept it and move wisely. We're not getting that pony for Christmas that we wanted. But maybe we can get a new bike.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 26 2018 7:20am

Punx0r wrote:
Jun 26 2018 3:28am
There is no trend towards multi-speed transmissions on road-going or racing EVs, only a trend a away from it.
Are you just a contrarian?
Who mentioned a TREND towards multispeed transmissions on EVs ?..not me
I said ..all commmercial EVs use a reduction transmission ...
...and some high performance EVs use a multispeed transmission.
and i am a Cancerian !
What is your issue with transmissions anyway ?
Why are you trying so desperately to pretend an electric drive does not require a transmission ..when the overwhelming majority of them obviously use one. ?
Next you will be claiming that an electric drive is simpler and cheaper than a ICE drivetrain. :roll: :!:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jun 26 2018 7:53am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jun 26 2018 6:33am
Coal trains were replaced by liquid fueled trains and trucks because they can get much more work done. Liquid fuel earth movers replaced mule teams.
Maybe in the US, but in Europe trains went from steam to electric (except for the UK which made the mistake of switching to diesel). Diesel earth-movers replaced steam shovels. It's a very long time since navvies and mules were used for excavation.

The iron-ore mine where I grew up used (lead-acid) battery locos charged from the grid.


The world has been gradually shifting to electrification since the Victorian era as the advantages in size/noise/power/cost/complexity/performance of electrical prime movers over fossil-fuel have become apparent in different applications & industries. This will continue and personal transportation is next (already happening).

Mankind is not going back to the stone age...

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jun 26 2018 7:58am

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 26 2018 7:20am
Who mentioned a TREND towards multispeed transmissions on EVs ?..not me
...
Next you will be claiming that an electric drive is simpler and cheaper than a ICE drivetrain. :roll: :!:
No, you said:
You might also be aware that some of the top EV racers , FE cars, also use multispeed gearboxs , to maximise their torque/speed options
If a multispeed transmission for EVs offered the advantages you claim, then why do only a small, and decreasing, minority use them? Your assertion implies the opposite should be true. Hence my comment.

Direct-drive is the future. Fixed-ratio reduction is the current best-compromise.

Oh, and that's got to be bait. Not even you could contrive an argument where ICE is simpler/cheaper. Just take a look at garden/power tool prices.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jun 26 2018 8:52am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jun 26 2018 6:33am
Ohbse wrote:
Jun 25 2018 8:08pm
Humans are blowing through 400TWh thermal per day! Cut that to 1/3 (completely too optimistic) for efficiency gains if you like. Still leaves 136 TWh per day!!! 1/3 of this is oil. 45TWh per day. A majority of which is used as liquid fuel. A fleet of batteries and long cords/ electric rails to replace 30TWh per day would be required. And a world fleet of water, wind, and solar to generate 136TWh per day. There are many approaching bottlenecks.
Convenient how everyone just ignores this when I write about it.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jun 26 2018 8:52am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jun 26 2018 8:52am
Humans are blowing through 400TWh thermal per day! Cut that to 1/3 (completely too optimistic) for efficiency gains if you like. Still leaves 136 TWh per day!!! 1/3 of this is oil. 45TWh per day. A majority of which is used as liquid fuel. A fleet of batteries and long cords/ electric rails to replace 30TWh per day would be required. And a world fleet of water, wind, and solar to generate 136TWh per day. There are many approaching bottlenecks.
Convenient how everyone just ignores this when I write about it.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jun 26 2018 9:44am

45TWh of fossil fuel could be as little as 10-15TWh of electric-power, depending on the (in)efficiency of the combustion application it's replacing (10-30% for ICE, ~90% for heating).

Even with 45TWh, average global insolation is approx 6 kWh/m^2/day. With a 20% PV efficiency that's 1.2kWh/m^2 and 37.5 billion m^2 for 45TWh.

For comparison, last year's global consumption of flat (window) glass was around 10 billion m^2.


Fully expect sunny regions of this planet to be exporting power on transcontinental transmission lines in the future.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jun 26 2018 10:38am

Punx0r wrote:
Jun 26 2018 9:44am
45TWh of fossil fuel could be as little as 10-15TWh of electric-power, depending on the (in)efficiency of the combustion application it's replacing (10-30% for ICE, ~90% for heating).
Please re-read my post. I already took away 2/3 from the current 400 TWh per day that we are blowing through for all efficiency gains from electrification.Which is way more than it could actually be regarding total energy consumption but is used just to dismiss that argument right from the start.And 1/3 again from that to get to just the 45TWh electric replacement from oil which will be leaving us first. So the 45TWh is already as optimistically adjusted as possible. And the real demand for total energy replacement will be the 136TWh per day figure. This is a staggering figure no green energy magazine will ever want you to know about. It doesn't matter what the total insolation or wind energy is. There is no way to build out this much hardware. Fossil fuel has allowed the population and standard of living to balloon far beyond the carrying capacity without it.
Last edited by sendler2112 on Jun 26 2018 2:24pm, edited 1 time in total.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 26 2018 11:55am

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 26 2018 3:03am
Regen ... Saves brakepads on bikes :roll: :roll:
I have had ebikes for over 10 years.....no regen.....never had to replace brake pads. ! Adjust your riding style !
Sure. If I am willing to slow way down I am sure I'd go through brake pads less quickly. Maybe switch to a 250W hub so I don't have to slow down as much!

I find it funny that you are arguing that EV direct drive and regen sucks on an ebike board. On the comment board for your local newspaper you might be able to get away with it. "Sounds logical; of COURSE you need a transmission for an EV." But you are on an EV board, and people here aren't going to take your word for it - because they are the people who are converting scooters to EV's, going from transmissions to direct drive.
You might also be aware that some of the top EV racers , FE cars, also use multispeed gearboxs , to maximise their torque/speed options.
Yep. The first Tesla Roadsters had a two speed transmission too - until they realized they didn't really need it. Old habits die hard. Today no Tesla has a transmission.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 26 2018 9:09pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jun 26 2018 7:58am
Hillhater wrote:
Jun 26 2018 7:20am
Who mentioned a TREND towards multispeed transmissions on EVs ?..not me
...
Next you will be claiming that an electric drive is simpler and cheaper than a ICE drivetrain. :roll: :!:
No, you said:
You might also be aware that some of the top EV racers , FE cars, also use multispeed gearboxs , to maximise their torque/speed options
If a multispeed transmission for EVs offered the advantages you claim, then why do only a small, and decreasing, minority use them? Your assertion implies the opposite should be true. Hence my comment.
Direct-drive is the future. Fixed-ratio reduction is the current best-compromise.
You either have a comprehension problem, or like to deliberately misinterperet clear statements ?
I did not claim a multispeed transmission on an EV offered any advantages,..i simply pointed out that some ..high performance EVs , ..do use them ...Fact.!
Also , the TREND in ebikes ( one of the few applications of direct drive wheel motors, is away from direct drive hub motors, to mid mount motors that drive through a gear set or an IGH (gear change hub)
Direct drive is the ideal, i agree, but as of today it is not practical in any normal EV application (ebikes accepted !)
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9224
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 26 2018 11:00pm

billvon wrote:
Jun 26 2018 11:55am
Yep. The first Tesla Roadsters had a two speed transmission too - until they realized they didn't really need it. Old habits die hard. Today no Tesla has a transmission.
Actually , they had to drop the 2 speed because they couldnt find a way to stop it breaking...but irrelevent..
What about the future though.?...
The world’s largest supplier of automotive components expects automatic transmissions will make their way into EVs in the near future as manufacturers seek to provide greater efficiency and driver engagement.

“High-precision automatic transmissions are essential in hybrid vehicles to ensure that the combustion engine and electric motor are synchronised with each another, but such transmissions could also find their way into pure electric vehicles,” Bosch said in a statement.

EVs are powered by electric motors that run at up to 20,000rpm and produce peak torque from idle allowing them to operate effectively with only one gear. Internal combustion petrol and diesel engines, alternately, typically have a maximum speed below 9000rpm and rely on numerous ratios to keep power and torque outputs high.

Bosch says it is a misconception that electric motors and multi-gear transmissions are mutually exclusive technologies, however, insisting that selecting the optimum transmission ratio will always make an engine or motor more efficient.

Bosch estimates global sales in 2020 of 2.5 million electric vehicles, along with three million plug-in hybrids, 6.5 million hybrids and 100 million petrol and diesel vehicles.
FormulaE is considered by some to be the pinacle of EV drive train technology development ( as F1 is to ICE developments).
Top manufacturers , Audi, Renault , Jaguar, etc, use it as a test and prooving ground for EV systems.
Various motor, transmission, inverter, etc are tried with the basic objective being to maximise efficiency since battery capacity is controlled.
That has resulted a mix of transmission choices from fixed speed, 2,3 and even 4 speeds in use.
Most of the winning teams seem to be using a 2 speed gearbox now, to importantly reduce the current draw required for high torque at low speed, and hence conserve battery power.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 26 2018 11:26pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 26 2018 11:00pm
Actually , they had to drop the 2 speed because they couldnt find a way to stop it breaking...but irrelevent.. What about the future though.?...
The future? The next gen Roadster is direct drive. And sub 2 second 0-60.
The world’s largest supplier of automotive components expects automatic transmissions will make their way into EVs in the near future as manufacturers seek to provide greater efficiency and driver engagement.
NEWS FLASH! Suppliers hope and pray that an industry adopts their product!

Not really news.
EVs are powered by electric motors that run at up to 20,000rpm and produce peak torque from idle allowing them to operate effectively with only one gear.
True dat.
--bill von

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jun 27 2018 4:00am

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 26 2018 9:09pm
You either have a comprehension problem, or like to deliberately misinterperet clear statements ?
I did not claim a multispeed transmission on an EV offered any advantages,..i simply pointed out that some ..high performance EVs , ..do use them ...Fact.!
Oh, I see, the "fact" you stated wasn't intended to support the body of your message, rather it was, now you have distanced yourself from it, unrelated and just included for funsies. Silly me for getting confused there. You should try politics!

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jun 28 2018 4:47am

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 25 2018 5:52pm

Most better ebikes (Bosch, Shimano, Trek, Specialised, Opto, etc etc) use a transmission system.
Several gears for e-motors are only needed if the motor is greatly underpowerd for its task with is the case with all the motors above.

But those have been designed as electric assisted(!) bikes, not e-bikes.

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jun 28 2018 5:50am

Hillhater wrote:
Jun 26 2018 3:03am
...
I have had ebikes for over 10 years.....no regen.....never had to replace brake pads. !...
This must be because you live in your own little world which has ist own little laws of physics, not matter bicycle brakes or energy consumption /production from renewables.

Post Reply