1982 MB-5 30kW peak 230 lbs Complete new VIDEO! 82mph

Did 6 miles of full-power pulls one after another on the dynojet. Motor behaved well. Last pull spiked up to 145C and came down to 100C quickly. I have a ton of data I'm trying to overlay into one chart... total cluster of madness that is making excel very unhappy!

Calculation for efficiency at peak power: 27.91/(73.91*410/745) = 68.6%
[youtube]tJA_tciZEeU[/youtube]
 
Excellent. Personally I think you're running current way too high, and it's causing a lot of extra heat, since at 68% efficiency at peak power, you're too close to saturation. I'm sure that will show up in the data with each progressive pull. Were they all at the same controller settings? What I'm thinking is that if you dropped current to 300A, then I think efficiency at peak power would go closer to 80%. That along with less voltage sag would mean you only give up about 3hp, which won't be very noticeable, and your heat worries and thermal cutbacks all but go away. I really don't worry about heat with mine and only turn my temp gauge on when I'm doing extra demanding stuff. Electrics aren't like ICE's where you want to tune for max power. I guarantee that Zero doesn't tune their systems to anywhere near max power, and for good reasons.

I can't believe I just realized that you're running the motor backward. Next time I wire one up I'll check no load speed both directions without a tire (most tires have different wind resistance if run backward), to make sure they're identical. I think that would prove that it's definitely ok to run backward.

It's hard to tell from the video, but it looks like you have some kind of air dam to help air get into the motor on the intake side. Great idea. Did you notice a drop in temps after you put it on?
 
hillzofvalp said:
Did 6 miles of full-power pulls one after another on the dynojet.
Calculation for efficiency at peak power: 27.91/(73.91*410/745) = 68.6%
Click to expand...

Nice build - very clean, and I like your battery box. You list 410amps in your calculation, so I assume 205 amps per controller - is that a battery side amps, or phase side?

-JD
 
Good to know 1/2" ballistic plate clamping torque arms are up to the task with a proper axle. :D
 
200A per controller. 230Aish phase per controller. Having the hardest time with this data... screw excel for mac 2008. :evil:

this is 15 minutes (5Hz) of continuous data. The 3rd to last pull was to set the braking on the dyno so that top speed was real-world ~75mph (not sure if this is correct procedure). The end to last pull was 25% brake. the last pull was 20% brake I believe. Total miles traveled I believe was around 6 miles.. and maybe 1kWh.

25% load:
0-30mph: 3 seconds
0-50mph: 6.4
0-60mph: 8 seconds.
0-70mph: 11.4 seconds

And the lust for more torque continues.
 

Attachments

  • 15min.jpg
    15min.jpg
    64.2 KB · Views: 3,218
John in CR said:
Excellent. Personally I think you're running current way too high
Click to expand...
K. If it is true (which likely is), I accept that I'm abusing this motor. The average battery power in this ~15 min dyno test was 3kW. Real-world would probably be around 5kW, but let's wait on that till I go for a ride with logger.

John in CR said:
It's hard to tell from the video, but it looks like you have some kind of air dam to help air get into the motor on the intake side. Great idea. Did you notice a drop in temps after you put it on?
Click to expand...
Not enough testing to know. That was a 10-min job but needs and likely will be a 10-hr job.

I intend on playing with the settings on Kelly's more. There is an economy feature I want to install that will cut phase current and battery current in half with no programming (flip of switch).
 
I don't think you're abusing it, since you're watching temps, but I think you can get practically the same performance and still create less heat, enough so you can ride worry free. Then you only need to pay attention to temps when you push it quite hard. Having to ride around in economy mode to have peace of mind seems like too much though. Is that 50% adjustable? If it can be set at 30% less, and you add blades on the exhaust side for more flow, that might be a nice sweet spot and still keep current limits high.

If you want more torque, then the easy way to get the same effect is to reduce the load. That means less weight or a smaller tire. Then you can increase current some more too, since it spends less time accelerating. :mrgreen:
 
John, I'll mess around with the settings more over next week. Most of the time I'm toying with it.. not using it for long distance practical purposes quite yet (though my average cycle is 2kWh). I do want it lighter! Originally I wanted the bike to be around 170lbs but that miserably failed. There's not a lot to cut from the bike other t han trying a custom composite tank, completely different front fork.. or removing my recent ~10lb RSP-1000x2 addition:

IMG_4315.jpg
IMG_4314.jpg

The bike is pretty well balanced and enjoyable. It's the numbers game that I'm playing now. It's sort of where I was with my 29er bicycle. Build it.. ride it a few thousand.. time for the next level. I'm at the point where the next level pretty much has to be a car or a down payment at least. Can't ride this thing in the winter, though it will last me a solid 30,000 miles of 50F+ weather with theoretically about $250 of fuel cost and maybe up to $200 in tire/brake pad cost.

jansevr said:
hahah this is a great video but farfle - you sound almost surprised that the arms are still intact :lol:
Click to expand...

uh oh, should I be worried? This thing seems really over-built. I wish someone more knowledgable in motorcycles rode my bike and told me if it was handling well. I'm guessing it's way better than stock even though it is longer. Farfle did a good job.
 
lol i wouldnt be worried, im sure farfle knows what he is doing. from what i can see the swingarm looks solid as hell. i think his main point was having a motor axle that is actually built well. a double hubmonster would be insane! if it can still fit in a moto swingarm without too much trouble it would definitely be worth it! lets see some more vids - if you could get some alongside some other mopeds that would be great - i know you would kill em :D
 
I'm leaning toward a HubMonster in wheel using the 16" wheel I have that fits with a Mid-Monster in the swingarm pivot as a helper. I also have a matching 15" wheel that was the rear off of the same motorcycle. The 15" is wider and tire selection is limited, but it ends up a 24-25" wheel. Then go 2wd.

A double wide sounds cool. I think you'd want to keep them as 2 motors electrically. That would be easier. I think that's how Enertrac does their double wide. That would get awfully heavy. OTOH, a better route for double the power is to mod it for mid-drive use and doubling the voltage. Then serious ventilation is easy and done in a way that mud and road grit can't be ingested.

Another complication if you doubled the motor is that you'd need to enlarge the axle too. The 25mm axle is fine for Hubmonster, but I wouldn't trust it if we doubled the torque.
 
john - as i was reading your post i was thinking why not a double wide mid mounted hubmonster but then that was the next thing i read :lol: a hub and a mid would be interesting...but a double mid would probably be the way to go! i can't imagine that amount of power. it would definitely be close to the performance of a dual enertrac especially if it was modded for liquid cooling. enertrac advertises peaks of 60kw! if this was possible for a double mid monster it would be more powerful and faster than a zero (they advertise 40kw peaks). sorry to get a bit off topic...but john, any plans for a mid monster build of your own? and i remember hearing something about custom frames? any updates/pictures?
 
Jansevr,

MidMonster is about 20-25% less motor, but weighs a lot less. I hate to speculate, because I haven't pumped high power into one yet, but geared down in a mid-drive and pushing the voltage limits of 4115 controllers I think it might get pretty close to the 20kw out that HillsofValp is getting with his HubMonster. With a lightweight build and one of the smaller 10" tires available, it could probably do it in wheel too. I keep imagining 3 of them in a semi-recumbent leaning delta trike kinda similar to Willow's e-postie trike. Even just 2 on the back is likely to be a real road rocket, if you keep the weight down it could go pretty good with stock sealed motors. Yes, I've got a mid-drive in the works that will be kind of a blend of Drunkskunk's Monster and the Backyard Millyard ebike.

Regarding liquid cooling...why? A motor with good efficiency run at reasonable current levels can be air cooled just fine. Example, I went on a 28km run mostly highway running 55-70mph on the highway portions and the stator never exceeded 70°C. I wasn't running hard, but I wasn't babying it either, and that included running 60mph up several 2 km 6-7% grade climbs. I'm just touching the surface of what is possible with air cooling (eg Toolman2's leaf blower using 70W and saving over 1kw in heat). Even ignoring the difficulty, pitfalls and potential motor damage of liquid cooling a motor not designed for it, the most you could hope to gain is running closer to saturation, a pointless pursuit because it's better to add more motor to run good efficiency than the extra battery required for low efficiency. Who would want an EV that drips oil anyway? :mrgreen:
 
hillzofvalp said:
Yeah I think a 15kW 25kW peak 3 phase colossus would be an option to add the the system.. what? 15 pounds added with controller (first moto with three kelly's?)
Click to expand...

Definitely a valid approach, but if you're going to accept the extra noise, they why not just go with a lightweight build and use 2 and no hubbie?
 
hillzofvalp said:
what is the percent gain in acceleration with two colossus and the same 400A total of kelly's.. maybe 32S instead of 28S, and geared for 75mph with a 24.1" OD wheel? Can the KBL even drive one of those beasts?
Click to expand...

The saturation point on Colossus is crazy high (thus the very low inductance making it so hard to drive) that with the same current there would be little or no gain.

Question marks around a controller to power Colossus is still my biggest holdback from trying one.
 
May explore using one of these functions. Maybe set normal mode to 320A/360A and then use a boost switch that will give me 400A/500A

Also.. any thoughts on the "noise reduction" guy? It'd be nice if it had a side effect of helping with performance. Also, maybe Kelly could offer suggestions in tuning these for 6 phase (asked before, seemed like they don't have special firmware).
 

Attachments

  • kellysettings.jpg
    kellysettings.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 3,096
This is interesting. This is the final pull on the dyno.. notice how the speed doesn't ramp up right when the controller power ramps up... this is all from CA analogger. that's a 1 second span (5 samples).. at which point the current dips.

finalpull.jpg
 
hillzofvalp said:
even with two of them? aren't they much more efficient? assuming the gearing was the same (75) wouldn't they give a bit more oomph? where is the data on those
Click to expand...

Torque constant doesn't change, so same current split between 2 or all sent to one and you get the same torque since it's so far away from saturation, which was something crazy like 1kA for Colossus if I remember correctly. I don't think the efficiency curve ramps up any faster for a motor by cutting the load in half and cutting current in half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top