Electric Streamliner

SaladFish

10 W
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
71
7388477362_09da35e809_b.jpg
Hello I wish to design, engineer, construct and register a streamlined recumbent electric motorcycle inspired by the Baumm III streamliner.

I am in NSW, Australia and will need to pay lots of money to an engineer to approve my design so it needs to be a good design so it is a smooth process and less expensive to get on the road.

Goals of this vehicle will be as follows.
1) Comfortable seat
2) Light weight (<60kg)
3) Parking and filtering practical
4) highway capable 110km/h up 5% grade
5) Range 160km at 110km/h
6) Inexpensive (I'm designing a practical vehicle not a rich man's toy).
7) Reliable (built to last >100,000km)
8) Reverse switch (Flintstoning won't work well with fairing).

There are somethings I think I will need to research, if you'd like to help me here that would be appreciated.

What are the most efficient motorcycle wheels/tyres rated to 110km/h?

Can anyone recommend steering forks compatible with the above wheel/tire?

What is the most efficient 3-7kw electric motor for this application?

Will this motor be efficient running at less than 1Kwh per hour?

I've already discovered that Samsung INR18650-29E Li-ion from NKON are the best and cheapest batteries in the world from my other thread. So I should be able to get those and build a battery pack no worries.

Any questions or comments on what I should be considering let me know.

I am working on the CAD frame design but I need to figure out what parts I'll be using.
 
Saladfish,

Lots of good info here. He is disappointed by the rolling resistance of MC tires.

http://www.velomobiel.nl/allert/Recumbent%20motorbike.htm

Cedric Lynch, of Agni motor fame, runs Schwalbe Marathons on his 100km/h streamliner. He was able to get it licensed in the UK.

http://bikeweb.com/files/images/CedricLeavesLHSweb_8532.jpg

These are the Bridgestone Ecopia EP80 tires used on all the solar racers.

http://global.rakuten.com/en/store/bike-crest/item/20110315740/
 
It could actually be done with battery at that weight. That is very ambitious. Cedric Lynch says he sees 25-26 Wh/mi on his streamliner, so you will need a 3 kWh pack, at least. If you actually do a monocoque copy of the NSU, from modern composites, it should be just possible.

If you do manage to keep it to 60 kg, you will probably have trouble with side gusts. Cedric Lynch's streamliner was running 18, 100 Ah Thundersky, LiFePO4s the last I knew. That is 63kg in batteries alone.
 
Wheel.
Those low rolling resistance tires look good I'm not sure if they would be legal.

Are spoked motorcycle wheels very light? 5kg? My cast wheels are 18kg combined. Seems this information is very hard to find.

If I can get CdA under 0.1 square meter the real energy drain will be rolling resistance.

Frame.
I am thinking there are two (economical) options for the frame.

1) Back bone frame. Less expensive, less complicated but uses human crumple zone. Lighter, faster.

2) Perimeter frame. More expensive, more complicated but could be designed to offer crash protection. Heavier, slower.

I've also considered using focusing link steering but this would likely be too complicated, difficult and experimental. I have heard it is lighter than forks but it might not be worth the effort.

Monocoque would be much to expensive.

Battery
I'd need to design a much more aerodynamic motorcycle so wh per km is less than Cedric Lynch's design. I remember reading he uses high pressure mountain bike tyres. I don't think motorcycle tyres can beat that for rolling resistance.
 
With something like this, it will be much easier and cheaper to get something built to be legal first, then worry about tweaking it to be the most efficient possible.

You will have a much easier time getting this built and approved if you start with a road legal donor vehicle. I would start with a 150-250cc motorcycle or scooter and modify it to fit your needs. Something like an Aprillia 250cc would be a good starting point. You could then lengthen the frame into a modified backbone frame that would be much easier to get through an engineer's inspection.

An Angi motor would be the most efficient motor at a reasonable cost.

Rolling resistance of a tire isn't much. I believe a full size motorcycle tire has a coefficient of 0.02 You will have more resistance from the wind on the tire than you will from the tire on the ground at 100kph.
here's some math: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/rolling-friction-resistance-d_1303.html
A tire is more than a pneumatic device to keep you off the road, it's contact with the street is your sole means of vehicle control. So consider traction and survivability ahead of rolling resistance and weight.

You can build a super light spoked rim, but that's not the place to start from. Since you have to pass an engineer's inspection anyways, start with a known and approved wheel, preferably one from your donor bike, that will pass with minimum effort.
 
I second drunkskunk's recommendation. You will need to build a custom frame but if you use the suspension / wheels / brakes from the motorbike you will have a much better chance of getting the vehicle passed. Maybe build the non-faired bike first and get it approved and spend some time tweaking it before you add the body.

When you design your body you will need to take care to ensure that the wind side-load center of pressure is at or behind the center of mass.

-Warren
 
Battery
63kg is too heavy for batteries.

Samsung INR18650-29E Li-ion from here: http://ru.nkon.nl/rechargeable/18650-size/samsung-inr18650-29e.html
14p, 15 s total 210 batteries.
51.8 volt, 43.5 Amp battery with 2.2533 kWh weighing 10-11kg would be lighter and cheaper at only $901.50 AUD.

These batteries should last at least 90,000km.

1kW per 100km
2.2533 kWh * 100km = 225.33km range

80% reduction at 500 cycles.

Conservative range adjusted to 80% of 225.33km to 180.264km
180.264km x 500 = 90,132 km

I think I have just about sorted the battery situation however I need to figure out motor and battery management.

I need to find out how much energy will be consumed by the the inefficiency of the battery, motor and direct drive chain so I can increase battery capacity to account for these losses or find savings elsewhere.

Craig Vetter
I have read up on Craig Vetter, I hope he is recovering well.

Rolling resistance and CdA

This is of critical importance because the CdA will be < 0.035 m2 or 0.38 ft2 (drag coefficient <0.1 and frontal area of <0.35m2)

Rolling resistance of 0.02 will account for 63.42% of energy consumption at 105km per hour!

So if rolling resistance can be halved to 0.1 and CdA remains at 0.035 m2 then I'll have energy consumption go from 1,437.83 wh to 981.89 wh per 100km at 105km per hour. Would 1kw per 100km at 105km per hour be the most efficient vehicle in history?

I think it would be best to aim for the most efficient vehicle in history. Efficiency mean's lower weight, smaller size and will benefit the brake life, tire life, battery life and use less electricity and most importantly MONEY. I think investing in super efficiency may be the most frugal option.

Custom Frame
I am thinking a single tube frame similar to most low racer recumbent bicycles would be best. Except it would be built using large tubing. This simple design will cut fabrication cost/time and make engineering easier. I need to determine the tube diameter requirement for required stiffness. I have no idea where to find this information. If I can find out the diameter and wall thickness of a ct110 head tube that might be a starting point.

I wouldn't use a modified motorcycle frame because I need super efficiency.
 
Saladfish,

I watched a lot of HPV races in the midwest, back in the 1990's. The kind of efficiency you are describing...1kw per 100km at 105km per hour...has already been done by a handful of people. The other Warren on here is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeHxx-FzSdI

You may want to take his advice.

Warren
 
Warren said:
Saladfish,

I watched a lot of HPV races in the midwest, back in the 1990's. The kind of efficiency you are describing...1kw per 100km at 105km per hour...has already been done by a handful of people. The other Warren on here is one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeHxx-FzSdI

You may want to take his advice.

Warren

Yes I have been reading about HPV racing, this is the sort of efficiency I want to implement in the electric vehicle.
 
How do you feel about being taped into your vehicle, then?
 
Chalo said:
How do you feel about being taped into your vehicle, then?

It would be interesting to know how much of an impact that makes but it would be impractical for me to do myself.
 
My point is that you get HPV efficiency by doing what HPV competitors do to get it. That implies taping the seams of the vehicle, yes, but also tires and pressures you may find less than ideal for real road conditions, fragile construction that won't endure daily use, uncomfortably low air circulation inside, etc.

I think you'll have an easier time if you decide in advance what values you are willing to compromise, and for what benefits. Because if you do succeed in getting the kind of efficiency you are talking about, I think your vehicle will be very unpleasant to use.
 
Chalo said:
My point is that you get HPV efficiency by doing what HPV competitors do to get it. That implies taping the seams of the vehicle, yes, but also tires and pressures you may find less than ideal for real road conditions, fragile construction that won't endure daily use, uncomfortably low air circulation inside, etc.

I think you'll have an easier time if you decide in advance what values you are willing to compromise, and for what benefits. Because if you do succeed in getting the kind of efficiency you are talking about, I think your vehicle will be very unpleasant to use.

Meeting requirements of legality, reliability, safety, cost and comfort are important. But the starting point is greatest efficiency. I think all commercial attempts of efficient vehicle design aim far too low and are stuck in the conventional car, motorcycle box in hopes of creating someone marketable. But since I am the customer and the designer I can make something eccentric.

I already ride a motorcycle so comfort and danger are not unfamiliar but they are accepted to save money and time.
 
Saladfish , I hate to be negative ...but.
Making this vehicle " the most efficient in history ". (Or even close to). Will be very difficult, and as others have said , will require many compromises for practical use.
...but to also make it road legal in NSW will be a practical impossibility I believe.
At the power levels needed for 110 km/hr , it will need full vehicle road registration.
You would have to use approved rated components....wheels ,tyres, brakes etc, lighting , turn signals, mirrors, will all need to be compliant and at regulation height, and spacing, and if it is an enclosed vehicle, I suspect you will need seat belts, windshield wipers..... and numerous other weight adding features to work against your goals.
I wish you luck, but hope you have researched the road legal requirements as much as you have the drag side of things.
 
To me it sounded like the man lives in fairytale, thats why i asked how much he wants to speend. High efficiency = big $$$. Look at Tritium Sculptor, Marand and you will get the idea.
 
It sounds like a great project. I've put a lot of thought into such a vehicle, a highway speed capable electric with long range and protection from the elements. I want something that is practical enough for everyday use and has absolute reliability. I do believe some of your criteria and priorities need some tuning. Here are my thoughts:

A place to gain an understanding of your power needs is the HPV calculator at http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm . Delete the amount in the power box and input a speed. The info for the Quest velomobile is probably your best match, and then enter your own weights, elevation, grade, speed, etc. It's a great tool/toy I use it all the time.

Weight- Unless you're already experienced with carbon fiber, I don't think sub 60kg is reasonable, but the good news is that other than during acceleration weight has only minor affect. It has minimal effect on energy consumption at cruise. Of course you want to strive to minimize weight in the plan, but for a solid enough vehicle with the needed 2-3kwh battery and a durable drive system capable of your needs I think with good weight management you're still looking at 80-100kg.

Greatest efficiency and greatest practical efficiency are two quite different things. The former is an uncomfortably small vehicle (to make the smallest hole thru the air) with a thin shell that's light and noisy inside, which is used to for record attempts or in competitions, not pleasure cruising at high speed. Since you want highway speeds and 160km range, the most important thing is aerodynamics, and the example in your picture seems like a great starting point, though for practicality include some nice cargo area. The other primary part of the equation is drive train efficiency. While hubmotors have some specific compromises, nothing can beat the durability and efficiency of a real high efficiency hubmotor (no not those commonly used on ebikes on ES). For durability and greatest real world efficiency you have to build for maximum load conditions. I'd need to know your weight + potential cargo, maximum grade for hills of 1km or more, along with road conditions, to calculate power and torque needs to make recommendations.

Speed- If you want to be able to maintain 110kph up a 5% grade your bike needs to be capable of 130kph or so on the flats.

Other- You have a motorcycle, so I'd strongly suggest planning for comfort and good performance or you won't want to ride it much. eg You don't shop for moto tires based on rolling resistance, so worry much about it for your electric velo. So what if it adds a bit to your battery pack. You'll want much more battery anyway, not so much for extending static speed cruising range, but more for chewing through more energy with exhilarating performance on shorter range trips. You'll have a fun road rocket and 1kwh will just be a tease and leave you with all kinds of range anxiety.

Construction- Sure tubing is strong and rigid, but it wastes space, which is a huge premium on such a vehicle. That probably means punching a bigger hole through the wind. You'll need air flow, both over your battery pack and over your motor.

Batteries- The latest 18650's are great, but if cost is a priority, I'd suggest looking to batteries salvaged from electric cars. I'm extra frugal, so $250/kwh or less is much more appealing than $1000/kwh even if it adds a few kg to the pack. I'd feel safer enclosed in a tube with an already proven through time and usage battery that was over-engineered, than one I DIY'd from new cells. An e-velo isn't like an ebike or emoto, where slowing quickly and jumping off even before a full stop is possible, so only a cell chemistry incapable thermal runaway would be acceptable for me. Of course I can say that easily, since I already have plenty of A123's, Nissan Leaf modules, and Chevy Volt modules to make several of the packs required. 8)

To me the biggest issues are steering geometry and the suspension. Due to the long low vehicle shape, the geometry isn't something we can easily copy from a known example like is possible with a bike or moto. With the recumbent position and high speed, the pilot will be especially sensitive vibrations and bumps, so you'll want a rear shock that is very adjustable.

I look forward to seeing your project progress, so please share regularly. I know there are a number of us wanting to build similar vehicles, and collaboration could prove beneficial to all. In my case, I need to fit enough extra batteries for a 280km run without recharging, and in the middle of that run there's a 1600m altitude climb that has some long 10% grade stretches. Thank goodness I don't need the high speed you want, at least not for the long run.

John
 
Fascinating thread. Sub'd

if it were me I'd laser cut ribs and skin it in Kevlar and CF, then remove the ribs.
Are you also in Oz, Saladfish?
 
agniusm said:
Whats the budget for the vehicle (hardware, build)?

It is possible to raise AUD $5,000 cash in 2016. If the vehicle works out to be cost effective compared to second hand 125cc motorcycle then it should be built. If it is affordable it may be build due to weather protection and safety during wet weather.

I have been looking into electrathon for ideas.

This one went 110MPH.
BonnevilleShannon.jpg

Tadpole is more stable so that is what I'd go with.
10HPIM4205.jpg
 
I would suggest to look into aluminium chassis and plywood body with a layer of fiberglass. Look into stitch and glue technique. It will be affordable and lightweight. i think it should be rigid enough as boats are made this way. I doubt you will be in sub 60kg category though. I doubt you can do that even with carbonfiber monocoque.
 
John in CR said:
SaladFish said:
Tadpole is more stable...

That's a widespread misconception. Both have their compromises, especially under braking forces, but both can be equally stable. Check out http://www.rqriley.com/3-wheel.htm for info about the dynamic stability of 3 wheelers. It all boils down to the location of the CG.

Furthermore, tadpole layout is inherently less aerodynamically efficient when that's a factor, as in this case. More of the vehicle runs in the turbulent wake of the front wheels and support structure.

Tadpole can be much harder to get in and out of, too.
 
SaladFish said:
agniusm said:
Whats the budget for the vehicle (hardware, build)?

It is possible to raise AUD $5,000 cash in 2016. If the vehicle works out to be cost effective compared to second hand 125cc motorcycle then it should be built. If it is affordable it may be build due to weather protection and safety during wet weather.

It's hard to build a good frame-up bicycle capable of 100kph for that budget. I think it's likely to take most of that budget just to get the engineer to certify your build to make it road legal after you get it built. You could easily spend all of that budget on the carbon fiber needed for the body alone. You could easily spend all of that budget on just the battery/charger/monitoring system needed for this kind of range and speed.

Your dream can be made real, but I think your budget is going to stay a dream. Start at $15,000 if you want to do it on the cheap. Its probably going to cost a whole lot more to do it well.

Tadpoles are more stable when weight distribution isn't ideal. But careful attention to detail can make the Delta equal to the Tadpole in stability. A delta able to lean into turns would eliminate much of the stability issue as well. As Chalo points out, the drag from the front end of a Tadpole will be worse than a Delta. The turbulence will upset the airflow over the rest of the vehicle. You want laminar flow over the skin of the vehicle. With spars, wings, or a wide body to hold the front wheels, the flow will be turbulent behind their leading edge and the aerodynamics behind that point will suffer greatly. A delta's spars, outriggers, or body work over the rear wheels will make the same turbulence, but it will occur behind the vehicle where it doesn't upset the airflow over the vehicle's skin.

A better design is a variable geometry Delta. At speed, the rear wheels are tucked into the bodywork and no wider than the rest of the vehicle. But under braking, maneuvering, or at low speeds, they spread out or extend to add stability. In an ideal design, they would also extend as a default, so any breakdown or failure would cause the vehicle to go into it's most stable form.
Using variable geometry will give you the aerodynamics of almost a bicycle, but the stability of a trike when you need stability the most.
 
Back
Top