Falco e-Motors

[FalcoeMotors]

You can directly connect to the motor through the ANT+ wireless USB key and adjust all the parameters related to the torque sensor operation. End user should have an ultimate control on the feel of the eBike.

Don't you agree?

 

[Barbados]

@HybridBob

Is there any other DD or geared motor that will still be churning out full assistancewhile doing 30mph when running at 36V? I would be extremely interested to know!

take a look at the Crystalyte HS3548 at http://www.ebikes.ca/tools/simulator.html , it still draws full amps at 30mph. isn't it just a question
how fast the motor winding is?

 

[FalcoeMotors]

No. It is not just the windings.

It is understanding of how a bicycle works. It is an understanding when and how a power is delivered at the crank and how that is transferred to the ground.

Falco has the most advanced torque sensor and it is the torque sensor which adapts. A simple throttle driven moped function is highly inefficient and kills the efficiency of a normal bicycle.

The idea behind Falco technology is a perfect fusion between bicycling and eBiking. Bicycles are most efficient and we need to keep them that way. Free of inefficient clutter, gears, wires, controllers, geared motors etc.

 

[Barbados]

i saw HybridBobs post in the context of his older statement

So the reason why the 750w can do the speeds quoted is that when you're doing 30mph you're still able to pull the peak 1.1 - 1.3kw of power from the battery! When I've played around with 3 phase builds in the past, I made a 48v 25a Puma motor powered Stingray that would easily pull 1.2kw from start, but by the time I was doing 23-25mph it was only able to draw a hundred watts or less to keep me going!

so this seems the windings he rode in other 3 phase motors were to slow to deliver power at 30mph
because they had there climax in the 2xmph range

i think 5 phase is superior to 3phase, but the biggest advantage of your motor to me seems the nearly zero cogging charactaristic.
i saw 3phase motors runnning on a sinus controller with analog hull sensors, running so smooth and completely
silent, this can't be better achieved with 5 phase.
is your controller sinus too?

is your torque sensor embedded in the rear hub? this is a nice, discret setup. but it shares a
flaw with bionx, swissdrive and alber. with this setup you can only measure the tension of the chain. and that
is influenced by the sprocket choice front and rear you are just using. one tends to
ride the bicyle with a lower cadence and more force to the pedals, to get more assistance from the motor.
a higher cadence is not rewarded, thats something i always disliked at the otherwise extremly well
running swissdrives. the best torque sensor will always be the one in the crank which directly measures torque and cadence.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

Falco technology measures both torque and cadence. It adapts to power of the rider.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

Falco five phase technology has several advantages:

1. Controller size is reduced substantially.
2. Our drive transitions between trapezoid, sinusoid and field oriented control based on the operating conditions.
3, 3-phase can not achieve perfect trapezoid drive. They are restricted to simple 120 deg. excitation. Falco 5-phase can achieve close to 180 degree excitation.
4. Torque speed curve is expanded dramatically;
5. Torque density and power density increase;
6. Redundancy and Reliability improve;
7. Efficiency is improved dramatically;
8. 5-hall sensors and 5-phases make a dramatic difference in the riding experience.

And of course, you have noted the Zero resistance pedaling. That is quite a big deal in itself.

Along with this, we also have ANT+ wireless controller. That allows for heart rate to be included while riding a bike. We were the first company to include Heart Rate Integration in the eBike market and thereafter the same has been copied by Specialized and Bosch along with several other features. Both companies visited Falco in Eurobike in 2010 and 2011 and studied our technology in depth.

 

[liveforphysics]

Falcoemotors-

First, let me say I like your product and I want to purchase a 13s battery voltage capable, de-speed-restricted one, need it shipped to Cali and will paypal whomever can sell me one.


However, I would like for you to explain to me the difference in your 5p winding factor compared to what is capable in a good 3p tooth/slot configuration first. You mention your BEMF is super trapezoidal? How do you absorb the additional transient ringing energy in your drive and evidently not have it impact drive efficiency and motor heating?

I think with only 3p you can get >98% winding factors and demonstrated >99% motor efficiency peaks IIRC? With 5p, even if you half the amount of loss there, it doesn't seem like substantial gains would be made in performance, though I agree it would be an improvement to some extent at least in all the things you mentioned, but it's impossible for it to be a dramatic improvement in efficiency due to anything related to being 5p, because many conventional 3p motor topologies can be >96-98% already when simply designed right and feature good materials.

I want to buy it not because of the 5p marketing, I want to buy it because from the pictures someone showed of it's guts a long time ago, it looked like quality materials and a quality and light-ish design, which does matter in big way in a hubmotor (not that 5p isn't also a good idea and does provide some real benefits in a variety of ways, but not 'dramatic', IMHO, that comes as a result of using a good design and materials over anything else.)

Also, can you post some excellent photos of the controller power-stage? I want to be sure I see a decent thermal path for it's FETs before I buy.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

Winding factors and motor efficiency are important considerations but do not define a systems' performance completely. Most important in five phase are the hidden gems which can not be exploited in three phase. Those are the higher order harmonics. Three phase is only good for sine control or 120 degree 6-step control with severe limitations. That is physics at work. Five phase does not have that limitations.

For detailed treatment of the 5-phase subject, this is a good source to start with:
http://www.falcoemotors.com/?page_id=195

and this:

http://www.falcoemotors.com/?page_id=192

More information can be obtained at our workshops:

http://strategictechgroup.com/works...on_Brushless_Motor_and_Inverter_May_2014.html

 

[Barbados]

4. Torque speed curve is expanded dramatically;

perhaps you got a torque speed curve where phase current and battery current can be seen?

 

[liveforphysics]

I don't want to start picking apart your marketing literature, and it does have a lot of truth in it, but there are also some BS.

"A unique numbers of poles and slots are arranged such that the magnetic force between the stator and the rotor at any rotating position is uniform, hence eliminating the cogging torque (i.e., pedaling difficulty)."

The energy of magnetic cogging always sums zero (though it does require a prevailing torque step to initiate), any losses due to cogging could only come from the inertial changes of non-rigid systems changing speed, if you have sufficient mass in the system, this loss approaches only what the sidewall flex from the torque ripple induces causes thermally (which would be tough to even measure). In other words, no rolling vehicle has 'cogging' loss to begin with, it has core loss, which is very real and still happens even if your cogging is completely balanced to 0%. The wheel would just feel very smooth to turn with the balanced cogging, but that has essentially no practical amount of effect on the power required to make the motor spin powered or unpowered. If your motor is easier to spin (which is awesome and definitely something to boast about in marketing literature), it's due to using an improved stator/magnet design and material choice to have less core losses. It's the core-losses that you must pay like a tax to get the motor to rotate, because now matter how you lay things out or wrap copper around them, the moment you pass a magnet by iron in the stator, this IS your core loss (hysteresis-iron/eddy). It is that core loss that is what one must overcome with there legs when pedaling that is the vastly dominate drag source, and you only reduce it by reducing core losses.

The biggest part to boast about in a motors design is that you choose to optimize the tooth profile geometry to have minimal hysteresis losses while providing maximum slot area for copper still.

Even when you balance cogging, run 9p or however many you like, you haven't yet done anything to improve efficiency or performance (noticeably) over 3p yet (remember, 3p can do ~99% efficiency when thoroughly optimized). It's when you leverage 5 pairs of FETS rather than 3 pairs of FETs that you enable high stator amp-turn density and have good starting torque as a result, not because anything particularly amazing is happening due to a 5p control strategy.

We know logically it's impossible that it can be making some substantial (>1-2% max?), because there are examples of 3p motors employing none of these systems that operate over an impressive range with an efficiency that achieve >98% efficiency.

Even if your motor was a magical perfect technology to convert every bit of stored energy in the battery into a zero-loss conversion to mechanical drive output with a thermodynamically impossible total drive system efficiency of 100%, it wouldn't be making a 'dramatic' improvement in much performance metric without also feeding it more power to get the performance, which alternative systems can already do for only a ~5% total energy loss (racing solar car hubmotors as an example).

This forum is more technical content oriented than marketing fluff oriented. It doesn't mean I don't still want to buy your product and I think it's pretty cool because it seems like an above-average quality and design hubmotor for bicycles, but pitching marketing stuff is a tough sale here.

The problem pitching marketing to this forum is that it's not much of a group of cyclists, as a group of light-weight performance EV building engineers, many who do it as a career, so the BS filter is absurdly high. Pretty much any technical BS is generally spotted and called out immediately by someone, I'm not even a motor expert compared to some here.

 

[mgurtzweiler]

Falco technology measures both torque and cadence. It adapts to power of the rider.

Does this mean you could display the wattage a rider is putting into the system and therefore adjust the output of the motor to match some scaled value of the input? Similar to how "powertap" power meter hubs measure the wattage riders put into the bike.

I own a BionX system and I was disappointed to find out that to get any real assist at 80+ RPM cadences I need to ride in the small ring up front and the 11 or 12 in the back. I assume this is because their system assists based off of torque it measures rather than power they could calculate.

My dream power assist bike setup is one where I can put 100W into the bike in ANY gear (even something silly like a 53x28) and the motor would help out with an additional 25% (total 125w to the ground), 100% (total 200w), 150% etc. depending on the assist level selected. Obviously I am ignoring losses for this example.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

I don't want to start picking apart your marketing literature, and it does have a lot of truth in it, but there are also some BS.

I do not know how to answer that.

One evidence is simply the fact that having riders pedal different motors while on the bicycle with battery off and Falco is the easiest. Cogging is critical and you can do it easily by simply skewing or tooth profile adjustments. Those adjustments are expensive in manufacturing.

Would you be willing to design a 3-phase motor which can match Falco? Heinzmann has tried it. You can also try.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

My dream power assist bike setup is one where I can put 100W into the bike in ANY gear (even something silly like a 53x28) and the motor would help out with an additional 25% (total 125w to the ground), 100% (total 200w), 150% etc. depending on the assist level selected. Obviously I am ignoring losses for this example.

We do measure torque and cadence. However we do not use the function as you have suggested above. With our upcoming interface, you could however, control the torque precisely at different levels.

Our torque sensor activation starts from ZERO and not 80 rpm. This has been critical for our market.

 

[Barbados]

I own a BionX system and I was disappointed to find out that to get any real assist at 80+ RPM cadences I need to ride in the small ring up front and the 11 or 12 in the back. I assume this is because their system assists based off of torque it measures rather than power they could calculate.

We do measure torque and cadence.

the problem with the hub integrated torque sensor is, that it only can measure the tension of the chain
and that is influenced by the size of front and back ring you are just riding. They are not measuring
the force with which the rider presses the pedals down. That is a flaw that BionX, Swissdrive and Alber
share.
and the faster you pedal the less force you can put on the pedals. that is why you have to
choose the small ring in front to get good assist at 80+ cadence, the small ring front compensates
the lower force on the pedals at higher cadence, and gives more tension to the chain.

The best way to measure torque is at the crank for example with a Thun bottom bracket sensor

 

[FalcoeMotors]

I own a BionX system and I was disappointed to find out that to get any real assist at 80+ RPM cadences I need to ride in the small ring up front and the 11 or 12 in the back. I assume this is because their system assists based off of torque it measures rather than power they could calculate.

We do measure torque and cadence.

The best way to measure torque is at the crank for example with a Thun bottom bracket sensor

See the instantaneous value of torque is useless. It is the processing which needs to be done on that value which is important. Even if you use the bottom bracket sensor (Which we use for some of our front wheel systems), your ride experience will be lousy. The intelligence lies in the processing of that data. That is where Falco's intellectual property lies. We have 3 dimensional processing of the data.

 

[Barbados]

i don't doubt that the intelligence behind the Falco Controller is very good.
but even the best algorithmus depends on the data its feeded with.
and unless a controller fed with the torque measured in the hub isn't fed
with the gear ratio which is just used, perhaps by a shimano flightdeck, it can only have an idea
how hard the rider is just pedaling, but it doesn't know it. (even it knows the cadence and vehicle speed)

sensors and calculation what the rider does right now
and what he wants to do in the next second is a hard job, (i wonder why no one got an inclinometer as
far as i know) there is a reason why all major brands
do software updates all the time.

@Falcoemotors do you have a torque-speed curve where the battery current and phase current can be seen?
i'm very interested in that motor, does it really got a wider usable rpm bandwith, wider rpm bandwith
with good efficiency

 

[hcrider]

Most of the technical discussion on this string is way above my level of understanding. However, I do have a torque sensing 500 w Falco rear hub motor on a Trek 7300 using an AllCell HE-3620 battery. The drive tire is 700c x 40, rear sprocket is 11-32, the front sprocket is a triple with 48 teeth on the big one, which is the one I use almost exclusively. I've cycled a lot prior to the addition of a motor and continue now to strive for mid 80's to lower 90's cadence. The Falco does respond pleasingly well and noticeably on hills and with headwinds as I increase my human power. There are 5 selectable power assist levels. Power response at Level 1 is lowest. Level 5 is highest. I'm 65 and not much of a powerhouse anymore. On a bare bike, breaking 20 mph is tough. With the Falco, putting the same effort in, I can ride 31 mph on the flat.

Of note, for the torque sensing Falco to work properly, per Rakesh, I had to file (very carefully) the dropouts to allow the flats of the motor shaft to be completely vertical. If not vertical, the torque sensing does not work correctly. I don't know what the design of the internals is to be able to explain why that is so. A Grin Tech TorqArm_V2 stops motor shaft rotation.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

@Falcoemotors do you have a torque-speed curve where the battery current and phase current can be seen?
i'm very interested in that motor, does it really got a wider usable rpm bandwith, wider rpm bandwith
with good efficiency

Closest We can share is this paper on a 7-phase platform: http://strategictechgroup.com/files...chronous_motor_with_reduced_inverter_size.pdf

Once our patent is secured, we can share more with you. We hope you can understand.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

Of note, for the torque sensing Falco to work properly, per Rakesh, I had to file (very carefully) the dropouts to allow the flats of the motor shaft to be completely vertical. If not vertical, the torque sensing does not work correctly. I don't know what the design of the internals is to be able to explain why that is so. A Grin Tech TorqArm_V2 stops motor shaft rotation.

New Falco Interfaces can work with a variety of drop outs now. So this is no longer the issue.

 

[miro13car]

Is there any Canadian BIONX dealer in central Canada?
They must be some BIONX dealers in QUEBEC where BIONX is manufactured .

 

[speedmd]

The paper claims a cogging reduction of 50% over conventional. So there still are significant cogging losses. Also see claims of something like 25% more power and torque (I have to ask (than what?)), but see no charts/ results. Interesting 5 and now even seven phase topology. May be on to something special. Papers leave much questioning.

 

[liveforphysics]

The paper claims a cogging reduction of 50% over conventional. So there still are significant cogging losses. Also see claims of something like 25% more power and torque (I have to ask (than what?)), but see no charts/ results. Interesting 5 and now even seven phase topology. May be on to something special. Papers leave much questioning.

My friend, when you say, "cogging loss" you are saying an imaginary misconception term for a fictional non-real loss. The real loss is core loss. No amount of always and inherently self-balancing torque ripple from magnet/tooth layout becomes a loss source.

The fact a magnet moved by iron is what determines core loss. Balanced or imbalanced resultant torques as the motor rotates are irrelevant (except for lower force to initiate rotation). The sum of all and any cogging sums zero in a turning motor.

 

[liveforphysics]

Once our patent is secured, we can share more with you. We hope you can understand.

You just lost me as a customer.

Patents are so nasty. I don't wish to support companies that feel they have the right to restrict another from making the same arrangement of things they were free to make themselves.

It is never in the best interest of humanity or technology development to support the paracitic infrastructure who's only function is to restrict.

 

[speedmd]

My friend, when you say, "cogging loss" you are saying an imaginary misconception term for a fictional non-real loss. The real loss is core loss

Yes, mainly iron /core loss. Would suspect some mechanical losses from all the added motor vibrations, stuttering and noise generated adds a bit also as most will buzz quite a bit unless built exceptionally tight. My point is that even half of what is a large loss just to spin a DD motor whenever and wherever it goes, is still a sizable loss and should not be viewed or implied to have no cogging or drag.

 

[liveforphysics]

My friend, when you say, "cogging loss" you are saying an imaginary misconception term for a fictional non-real loss. The real loss is core loss

Yes, mainly iron /core loss. Would suspect some mechanical losses from all the added motor vibrations, stuttering and noise generated adds a bit also as most will buzz quite a bit unless built exceptionally tight. My point is that even half of what is a large loss just to spin a DD motor whenever and wherever it goes, is still a sizable loss and should not be viewed or implied to have no cogging or drag.

Agreed. The core loss is the core loss. No amount of magnet-tooth positioning reduces it if the magnet is still going to pass by the tooth.

You can skew lams to reduce the cogging torque ripple (this comes at the cost of efficiency and isn't a good idea if you like motor performance.) You can also position about an equal number attracting as hard as an equally number repelling in your magnet/tooth ring, and also get low torque ripple. (that later option is radically better for efficiency)

However, it would be difficult to even find a dyno that could measure the power loss from the tiny flexing increases, because the effect isn't even a loss mechanism itself, there is always an equal constructive and deconstructive portion in the torque ripple as the motor completes a revolution. It's imposed torque-sum per revolution must always sum zero. It does impose loss from some materials flexing more than they otherwise would on some interval, but I bet it's on-par with the losses of your crank-arms flexing/deforming as you pedal.

I've heard they are easy motors to pedal. That is awesome, I like that. However, you achieve it by reducing core losses only, whatever level of cogging it has is essentially unrelated to core loss.