Falco e-Motors

[Bike_on]

LFP,
I love your passion for the "real deal" with the physics. We get educated and entertained all at once.

After reading every post on this cogging thing, after applying some of my own engineering background, and after riding the very motor being questioned for 4 months, I will say this:

Falco-motors is claiming a zero resistance when you start to pedal, unassisted, and that effect is a low cogging torque. It is true, there is zero noticeable motor resistance when starting out. From the cogging torque graph, it makes sense that these windings are balanced, the areas equal, and amplitude smaller than the 3-ph results. There is low (initial) force against the legs.

When riding down the road at 10-15mph, then yes, your point about the core loss being the drag on a dd motor, is true Experience wise, the Falco motors free wheels well, but not 100% without core loss drag, and not even close to what a Bionx feels like. (much worst) It is more noticeable when at high speeds, over 30 mph and I stop pedaling and coast.

I resisted DD motors for years because of the expected drag making it less of a bike like feel. So I was sold on the Falco PR. and tried it. Overall very happy with the performance of the 500W hub - just wish it weighed 2.5lb! don't we all.

So I hope you get to check one out and let us know what you find. Once I got my hub re-programmed, the pedelec mode was a hoot and the system put out good power.

Bike_On

PS . You stated many times that 3-ph motors "can" approach 98% eff. That seems to imply that only the really well design hubs, not the majority, run at 98%. True? Is there a typical eff range for 3-ph hubs? How will that compare to the average Falco 5-ph? I know you are challenging the PR hype, but I want to make sure you aren't using your knowledge of the limits to generalize to the masses.

 

[Bike_on]

I would like to transfer by Falco system from my road bike to a Cannondale CX1 or 2.


What platforms do others like?

 

[liveforphysics]

Falco-motors is claiming a zero resistance when you start to pedal, unassisted, and that effect is a low cogging torque. It is true, there is zero noticeable motor resistance when starting out. From the cogging torque graph, it makes sense that these windings are balanced, the areas equal, and amplitude smaller than the 3-ph results. There is low (initial) force against the legs.

Yes! Thank you for describing it so well. That is exactly what I would expect it to behave like, and I'm sure it's very nice and that it starts rolling so smoothly. It definitely sounds like a nice motor to ride.

When riding down the road at 10-15mph, then yes, your point about the core loss being the drag on a dd motor, is true Experience wise, the Falco motors free wheels well, but not 100% without core loss drag, and not even close to what a Bionx feels like. (much worst) It is more noticeable when at high speeds, over 30 mph and I stop pedaling and coast.

Yes! It would be impossible for it not to have core losses with it's iron-tooth PMAC topology. The moment the magnet passes by the iron, it causes drag on the motor from the energy required to be flip-flopping the magnetic flux orientation of the iron, and even if you had perfect bearings and no eddy losses or windings at all in your motor, this loss alone is typically a dominate core loss.

I resisted DD motors for years because of the expected drag making it less of a bike like feel. So I was sold on the Falco PR. and tried it. Overall very happy with the performance of the 500W hub - just wish it weighed 2.5lb! don't we all.

You should check out the super-lightweight DIY hubmotor thread we've got going. We are shooting at making that sort of dream happen.

So I hope you get to check one out and let us know what you find. Once I got my hub re-programmed, the pedelec mode was a hoot and the system put out good power.

I may end up with one despite the patent talk repulsing me as a customer. I'm confident they will get there marketing stuff sorted-out and corrected to match reality. They have a lot of reasons to be proud of this cool product. I'm all about them tooting there horn for it, I toot it for them too. They don't mention much about the parts that IMHO makes it a cool motor though (smooth sinus commutation, low-ish core losses to pedal it, 10fet internal controller, good magnetic design done by tidal-force guys, torque-sensor built-in, well above average interface, possibly uses some higher than average grade of motor lamination material?)

PS . You stated many times that 3-ph motors "can" approach 98% eff. That seems to imply that only the really well design hubs, not the majority, run at 98%. True? Is there a typical eff range for 3-ph hubs? How will that compare to the average Falco 5-ph? I know you are challenging the PR hype, but I want to make sure you aren't using your knowledge of the limits to generalize to the masses.

Most hubs are much lower efficiency than 98%, pretty much only solar-car hubmotors touch that range in practice. Much lower, typically around 70%-85% is ball-park for ebike hubmotors. No inherent reason for it though, stems mostly from the hubs we run being designed around costing the bare minimum to make and be functional to move a bicycle around rather than being properly optimized for low core-losses and using high-end stator and magnet materials. The motor we are designing in the ultra-lightweight motor thread was simulated to be something like 95-96% efficient peak, and >90% efficient over quite a wide range.

The reason I mention what some of the worlds most efficient 3p motors are capable of achieving is the simple and clear proof that with 3p you can teeter pretty close to 1:1 inut with your power already. This demonstrates the impossibility of the claim that 5p has some inherent substantial efficiency advantage over 3p, because we've got 3p examples that would only have a maximum of 2% efficiency gain left, and the break-down of that remaining 2% losses are nothing* that adding any amount of additionally driven phases magically erases.

*Note- For the interests of being as factual as possible and sharing the best most accurate model I can, it actually could make an almost infinitesimal improvement in efficiency over 3p going to 5p, in the event the motor had parallel wound teeth which will never generate exactly the same BEMF for various reasons (small differences in each magnets strength, materials flaws, etc), splitting into more phase groups would shorten the parallel loop lengths that could reduce parasitic recirculating currents. It could also make an extremely small winding factor advantage (though 3p has some options that are almost perfect already, or with a transverse-flux design, can be 100%).

 

[neptronix]

Still waiting on results of the wheel spin test..

I'm sure the results are good, better than most DD hubs ( i have lots of comparison videos that i can post ), but let's see...

 

[d8veh]

Yes, I'm waiting too. It's the definitive test. I had a short test on a recumbent trike fitted with a Falco motor. Unfortunately, it wasn't easy to do a spin test. The motor didn't feel any different to any other. I suspect that in real life, the gains from the technology will be academic rather than practical.

 

[Bike_on]

PS . You stated many times that 3-ph motors "can" approach 98% eff. That seems to imply that only the really well design hubs, not the majority, run at 98%. True? Is there a typical eff range for 3-ph hubs? How will that compare to the average Falco 5-ph? I know you are challenging the PR hype, but I want to make sure you aren't using your knowledge of the limits to generalize to the masses.

Most hubs are much lower efficiency than 98%, pretty much only solar-car hubmotors touch that range in practice. Much lower, typically around 70%-85% is ball-park for ebike hubmotors. No inherent reason for it though, stems mostly from the hubs we run being designed around costing the bare minimum to make and be functional to move a bicycle around rather than being properly optimized for low core-losses and using high-end stator and magnet materials. The motor we are designing in the ultra-lightweight motor thread was simulated to be something like 95-96% efficient peak, and >90% efficient over quite a wide range.

The reason I mention what some of the worlds most efficient 3p motors are capable of achieving is the simple and clear proof that with 3p you can teeter pretty close to 1:1 inut with your power already. This demonstrates the impossibility of the claim that 5p has some inherent substantial efficiency advantage over 3p, because we've got 3p examples that would only have a maximum of 2% efficiency gain left, and the break-down of that remaining 2% losses are nothing* that adding any amount of additionally driven phases magically erases.

*Note- For the interests of being as factual as possible and sharing the best most accurate model I can, it actually could make an almost infinitesimal improvement in efficiency over 3p going to 5p, in the event the motor had parallel wound teeth which will never generate exactly the same BEMF for various reasons (small differences in each magnets strength, materials flaws, etc), splitting into more phase groups would shorten the parallel loop lengths that could reduce parasitic recirculating currents. It could also make an extremely small winding factor advantage (though 3p has some options that are almost perfect already, or with a transverse-flux design, can be 100%).

Looks like we need an efficiency test too.

I think you gave the data I was seeking: typical 3-ph eff being 70-85% accross normal use. For Falco's sake, I take their PR efficiency claims of improved efficiency of 15% to be accurate, if compared to the standard 3-ph market, and not a specialty custom labratory build.

"Falco’s proprietary and patent-pending 5-phase brushless motor technology addresses serious issues of pedaling difficulty, high weight and noise, low range, low power and insufficient torque in electric propulsion systems for electric bicycles, mopeds and scooters. This technology employs novel motor architecture and control methods for a direct drive electric propulsion system to reduce the overall system weight and cogging torque by 50%, improve its efficiency, power and torque by 15%, 25% and 25% respectively under normal operating conditions. The major innovations are employed in the areas of winding configuration, motor architecture and control methods to improve the system significantly."

115% of 80% is 92%. Believable? To me, such an increase is a real draw, but only one parameter in the decision to buy.

 

[neptronix]

I can't find any power graphs for these motors. Why aren't they out there?...

"improved efficiency, power and torque by 15%, 25% and 25% respectively", by what starting benchmark? and old crappy brushed hub, something middle of the line, or an actually well built hub motor?

A 500W Falco motor + controller setup cost $745 more than a 750W 9C + controller setup.. or $645 more than a MAC motor + controller with double the power rating, but 0.5lbs heavier..

What are we paying $645-$745 more for? i think it's important to state the justification for the price premium.

 

[neptronix]

Okay, after some hunting, i found a single efficiency claim here:

http://www.falcoemotors.com/?page_id=195

No graph, just a single point to 89% peak efficiency, comparing 78-81% efficiency hub motors to theirs.

That's rather dishonest, when thinking about their competition:

1st generation, 500-600W rated 0.5mm lamination BMC/MAC hub: 79-80% peak efficiency - newer 0.35mm lamination models estimated to be 82-83% efficient, but i don't have a graph.
( see ebikes.ca simulator )

9C hub: 83% peak efficiency
( see ebikes.ca simulator, but this motors' efficiency graphs are not difficult to find. )

Crystalyte HS35xx: 86.3% peak efficiency.
http://crystalyte.com/h35 series.htm

Crystalyte 'the crown': 87.7% peak efficiency.
http://crystalyte.com/The Crown.htm

9C's 50mm hub motor: 87% peak efficiency ( in reality, it could be higher than this since this is the high speed winding ran at a low voltage; the cromotor has thinner laminations and most likely gets into low 90% efficiency figures )
( 9C's 50mm hub graph is attached to this post )

Crystalyte H4065 on 72v: 90.2% peak efficiency
( graph from kenny is attached - graph on crystalyte's website has the motor intentionally underpowered on 48v to make the TC100/TC80 seem more powerful )

Crystalyte H4080 on 72v: 91.8% peak efficiency
( another graph from kenny is attached )

Antiquated 3 phase motor technology, eh?

Mind you, peak efficiency is NOT the end-all benchmark for motor efficiency/performance. But it is the only figure i can find for the falco motors.

 

[liveforphysics]

A motors efficiency is unrelated to it being 3p or 5p (obviously).

Likewise, I don't believe there have been any 5p motors that can match the efficiency of the well-designed 3p motors, yet if a 5p motor were to be designed with the same materials and magnetic design, it could be just as good.

The advantage of being 5p is getting to have drive current divided over 10fets in your controller rather than 6. That's a legit advantage, but they don't seem to mention it in favor of mentioning the things 5p doesn't/can't do for a motor. (like improve efficiency etc)

 

[FalcoeMotors]

We love the questions and the scrutiny.
We are happy to provide test data, videos etc.

Before we do that, Some questions for the esteemed members of this group:

Q1: Direct Power Transfer: When we design a propulsion system, we not only look to improve the motor efficiency but also the overall system efficiency. Your thoughts? Here you must consider the battery efficiency, the gear efficiency and the direct power transfer to the wheel.
Q2: System Integration: System Integration is very critical for us. A compact design is important. Do you think a 5-phase controller of 50A of peak phase current can have a smaller foot print than a comparable 3-phase controller? Why and why not?
Q3: BACKEMF: Five phase allows for lower backemf per phase. That means you can have a wider torque speed curve. Do you think that is true or false?
Q4: Trapezoid Excitation: A five phase motor architecture can be driven with a trapezoid which covers full 180 degree electrical cycle whereas a three phase trapezoid can only cover 120 degrees. Is it true or false?
Q5: Harmonics and Winding Factors: A five phase architecture allows for full utilization of the backemf harmonics which is not possible for a 3-phase motor. Is it true or false?

If all of the advantages as mentioned (and there are several more) above can be harnessed, would that make for a better system?

Let us have your valuable thoughts.

 

[neptronix]

The disadvantage would be a proprietary number of phases. If the controller blows, you're going to pay whatever price they're asking because where else are you going to find a 5 phase controller?

3 phase controllers will scale differently too... you can use 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 FETs or more. That's nice... rather than 5, 10, 15, 20 FETs..

But is there any real appreciable advantage over having more phases than 3? maybe 1% extra efficiency, if any at all. Maybe it's easier to wind the motor? is it really worth it for added complexity in the controller though? ( if any )

Or are we being different for the sake of being different - using a marketing ploy instead of a real world advantage?
If you've been paying attention to the bike world for long enough, you'd know that gimmicks rise as fast as they fall.

http://sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html

 

[FalcoeMotors]

How do you blow a Falco motor controller? Controller is inside the motor. Controller and Motor are one.

We have a five year warranty.

Seven phase motors are out there in the field since 2003. They still work.

We would like to go to lifetime warranty on our motors in 2 years time. That is the next target.

 

[neptronix]

I dunno, bionx, magic pie, ultramotor ( A2B ) integrated controllers are famous for blowing due to heat. I've seen quite a few, and so has the forum. And for all except the magic pie motors, they are notoriously expensive to replace, often requiring the purchase of a new ~$1000 motor since the controller is not designed to be replaced.
So, the track record for internal controllers is very, very bad. Maybe yours is different, but time will tell.

Now let's see some dyno graphs and wheel spin tests

 

[FalcoeMotors]

You got it. That is the difference.

 

[liveforphysics]

We love the questions and the scrutiny.
We are happy to provide test data, videos etc.

Before we do that, Some questions for the esteemed members of this group:

Q1: Direct Power Transfer: When we design a propulsion system, we not only look to improve the motor efficiency but also the overall system efficiency. Your thoughts? Here you must consider the battery efficiency, the gear efficiency and the direct power transfer to the wheel.

Direct drive is capable of the lowest losses, and hence highest system drive efficiency. This is because any power transfer stage involves loss, so the fewer the power transfer stages, the few stages wasting your power. When looking at drive systems, direct drive is capable of the highest efficiency, and hence why you see it used in high-budget solar cars etc. It's also capable of being the most silent and most robust (due to having the fewest moving mechanical parts). A direct drive system with the same amount of effort and optimization engineering dumped into the motor should always be capable of higher efficiency than a system with cogs/chains/belts and the same amount of effort and optimization engineering dumped into the motor.

Q2: System Integration: System Integration is very critical for us. A compact design is important. Do you think a 5-phase controller of 50A of peak phase current can have a smaller foot print than a comparable 3-phase controller? Why and why not?

A controller needs to be sized around phase current not battery current, (because the FET's only 'see' phase currents.) So, saying "50A" without saying where is kinda an arbitrary value, as the FET's could be seeing anything from 500A to ~25A (because a 5p setup divides phase current into smaller blocks) while a controller is drawing the same 50A from the battery. A 5p controller can spread the heating loads over a wider area while keeping the inherently perfect current sharing offered by using no paralleled FETs. This is a real advantage in reliability and continuous power handling by keeping each FET's current lower.

Q3: BACKEMF: Five phase allows for lower backemf per phase. That means you can have a wider torque speed curve. Do you think that is true or false?

Any motor can be wound to produce any Kv desired, and the Kv/Kt relationship holds regardless of phase quantity. If your BEMF is lower, you require higher phase current to produce the same amount of torque. In your case, you get to divide the phase current burden among 10FETs rather than 6, which is where a torque/powerband advantage occurs. Example, a 12fet 3p controller could easily be setup to have a wider powerband than the 10fet 5p system.

Q4: Trapezoid Excitation: A five phase motor architecture can be driven with a trapezoid which covers full 180 degree electrical cycle whereas a three phase trapezoid can only cover 120 degrees. Is it true or false?

I am really sad to hear you use a trap wave. They carry a ton of extra paracitics and harmonics over a sinus setup, which has the potential to be virtually harmonic free. Commutation angle/steps is not related to a motors performance capacity.


Q5: Harmonics and Winding Factors: A five phase architecture allows for full utilization of the backemf harmonics which is not possible for a 3-phase motor. Is it true or false?

All BS, and if you're using a trap drive, it's going to be extra lossy from harmonic content already.


If all of the advantages as mentioned (and there are several more) above can be harnessed, would that make for a better system?

Let us have your valuable thoughts.

I did my best to answer as honestly and completely as I'm able. Miles, Bigmoose, Biff, and a few others here may be able to do a more through job answering them if needed. Batteries are my expertise focus, they have more motor focus.

 

[FalcoeMotors]

LFP

Thanks for the answers.

Your answers are right on the money.

Few more questions and comments

1. We use all three forms of excitation in our algorithm. Trap at startup and then sine with FOC.
2. Trap is only bad if it does not match the backemf. If you match the backEmf with the exact current you have the highest torque and hence efficiency. 3 phase motors can rarely achieve this.
3. I refer to phase current not battery current when talking about the controller.
4. How would you compare two systems side by side. How would you compare two motor technologies side by side?
5. How would you identify a motor with an innovative technology. What would make you say this is different?

Thank you.

 

[liveforphysics]

LFP

Thanks for the answers.

Your answers are right on the money.

Few more questions and comments

1. We use all three forms of excitation in our algorithm. Trap at startup and then sine with FOC.

That is awesome to hear. Should enable ~5% more torque around startup at the cost of a tiny bit of efficiency and increased torque ripple (which would also be significantly less noticeable with 5p than 3p). Then cruise efficiency is unaffected by induced harmonic content from trap drive, but you still get the torque advantage when starting. Cool

2. Trap is only bad if it does not match the backemf. If you match the backEmf with the exact current you have the highest torque and hence efficiency. 3 phase motors can rarely achieve this.

If a trap wave could actually be a trap wave rather than being the summation of dozens of different magnet-tooth geometry interactions and resulting sinus-based waveforms, trap would become more attractive. If you wish to share a BEMF simulation of your motor, I will show you the ripples (caused by the trig functions stacked up to make that shape) in the top line of the trap-shaped-BEMF wave. The ripples cause current harmonics as the BEMF fluctuates while the controller is attempting to drive with constant current (unless you have extremely fast phase-current sensors and motor control processors able to tune it out?)

A trap wave in a motor is going to have harmonic content, because it's shape is the product of various interacting waveforms. Here is a diagram of what it takes to make a trap wave, gotta combine the content of all those little component waves.

Again though, I think with a fast enough motor controller processor and phase current measurement sensors, it may be possible to tune for avoiding the current control issues with higher-order harmonics.


3. I refer to phase current not battery current when talking about the controller.

Ah yes you did. My mistake for being a bad reader and missing it. lol

4. How would you compare two systems side by side. How would you compare two motor technologies side by side?

I would show a dyno plot featuring power input, efficiency, torque over RPM and overlay the two graphs once scaled for identical power input 1:1 rpm.
Then I would overlay a motored-dyno-plot (a dyno that mechanically drives the un-powered motor and measures the force to spin it across it's RPM range) between the two motors also overlay scaled for 1:1 rpm.

5. How would you identify a motor with an innovative technology. What would make you say this is different?

About ~99%, perhaps even higher, of what determines a motors efficiency is the magnetic design and materials choice. IMHO, that makes it a good reason to talk about it if you have a good motor, because you can't have a good motor without it. Knowing the tidalforce guys are very good, I would expect this to be done well on your motor, and I bet they have magnetic simulations and things they could share. I would show the data for the magnetic performance simulation, as well as the thermo-modeling analysis results, and perhaps some FEA if the case was a mechanically optimized design. Then, most importantly, I would show the real products real measured dyno curve with efficiency plot in a format that permits it's overlay with other models. Then, if your product rocks, it sells itself, even to motor nerds, and nobody has to think of marketing stuff to make up.

Thank you.

 

[liveforphysics]

This is an example of what you could include as part of your marketing information for the technically minded customer. This is the simulation data Miles created for the ultra-lightweight hubmotor design we've been openly group-developing on ES.

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/download/file.php?id=130230

It would be the coolest marketing info a mfg ever supplied with a product, short of Justin's work to dyno almost all ebike motors so they can be directly and fairly compared against each other to easily enable the best buying decision for almost all ebike component purchases all over the world. I have personally seen it used in China at an ebike shop, it was a bookmarked item. That's hard to compete with, but displaying the simulation data would be an original and awesome piece of data IMHO.

 

[Miles]

4. How would you compare two systems side by side. How would you compare two motor technologies side by side?

You compare them by disclosing their relative performances fully and fairly, not by using the marketing techniques of a soap powder commercial.....

Giving the continuously sustainable torque figure would be a start.

 

[miro13car]

As 7-phase Tidal Force track record shows internal DD motor controllers are VERY DURABLE if design and manufacture NOT cheap like China brands.
IS 24,840 km of winter riding as today on my TIDAL FORCE good enough for you????
3-phase EPLUS internal controller is another example .
So what you generalizing about?
Do not compare TF with China "engineering" please,
complete different animal.

 

[Bike_on]

As 7-phase Tidal Force track record shows internal DD motor controllers are VERY DURABLE if design and manufacture NOT cheap like China brands.
IS 24,840 km of winter riding as today on my TIDAL FORCE good enough for you????
3-phase EPLUS internal controller is another example .
So what you generalizing about?
Do not compare TF with China "engineering" please,
complete different animal.

Miro,

I think the point is that internal controllers do fail more often because of the dissipated motor heat raising the ambient temp near it. The TF and E+ have more mass than the new Falco, which handles the heat better. So the burden of proof is still TBD for long term reliability of the internal controller.

I have confidence in the Falco engineering. They have been trial testing these motors in India and working out the real world challenges.

Bike_on

 

[Bike_on]

Dan / Bike_on,

First of all thanks for all of the indepth and objective information you have shared about the Faclo kit you have.

I saw earlier in this thread where you talked about needing quite a bit of pedal effort at higher speeds to keep up a high speed. I assume you are using the torque sensing option rather than cadence crank sensor?

Later posts seemed to imply that you were able to adjust the setting using the GUI computer software to make it easier to maintain a high speed without as much pedal effort? Is that true?

What level of assist are you using mostly? I see lots of posts about your results with the cycle analyst data but wasn't sure what level of assist you are using for those rides.

Assuming you have done it what kind of range and average speed are you getting with full (level 5) assist?

Thanks

PS I would love to hear about any other updates you have made or received as a result of feedback to Falco.

Hey Dude, (couldn't resist)

I was an early purchaser and the pedelec option did not work great. It was the program in the motor controler. I suspect the torque feedback was attenuated or something, but I was not getting the assist in pedelec mode I wanted, so I used the throttle. In the fall, I re-programmed th emotor with new constants. It was a complete new download with Rakesh's help. It wasn't a tweek from the GUI. However, the new software ALLOWS me to now tweek the motor control constants. I think a previous post from Falco shows some of these tweekable parameters. The most important is the assist gain. So yes, now I maintain higher speeds with less effort.

I use level 3 to 5. With the response of the motor now beter, I get good power starting off with level 3. As the voltage sags over a ride, I bump it up.

Range: about 15 miles of 100% assist. Then the sag plays in and power drops some - 500-600W. It has been a few months here. total range can be 23-25mi estimate. One's effort makes a big difference.

Cycle analyst:
One of my last rides in October:
To Work- 18.39 mi, 22.91mi/hr ave, cadence ave 84, 313whrs, 17.0 whr/mi.
From work- 17.16 mi, 22.88 mi/hr ave, 312.6 whr, 18.2 whr/mi.

These are values using level 3-5.

My riding season is about to start and I plan to use the GUI and experiment some.

 

[ambroseliao]

As 7-phase Tidal Force track record shows internal DD motor controllers are VERY DURABLE if design and manufacture NOT cheap like China brands.
IS 24,840 km of winter riding as today on my TIDAL FORCE good enough for you????
3-phase EPLUS internal controller is another example .
So what you generalizing about?
Do not compare TF with China "engineering" please,
complete different animal.

Miro,

I think the point is that internal controllers do fail more often because of the dissipated motor heat raising the ambient temp near it. The TF and E+ have more mass than the new Falco, which handles the heat better. So the burden of proof is still TBD for long term reliability of the internal controller.

I have confidence in the Falco engineering. They have been trial testing these motors in India and working out the real world challenges.

Bike_on

Internal controllers may be subject to more failures, however, I have lots of experience with the TF and E+ systems (as has Miro13car) and I have yet to hear of or come across any TF or E+ systems that have had controller issues because they're embedded in the motor. The TF and E+ systems are built to very high standards and are over engineered. I believe this is why Falco is willing to offer a 5 year warranty.

 

[neptronix]

4. How would you compare two systems side by side. How would you compare two motor technologies side by side?

You compare them by disclosing their relative performances fully and fairly, not by using the marketing techniques of a soap powder commercial.....

Giving the continuously sustainable torque figure would be a start.

:lol:

Step 5. Ignore repeated requests for that exact information ( dyno graph )
Step 6. ???
Step 7. Profit!

 

[Bike_on]

4. How would you compare two systems side by side. How would you compare two motor technologies side by side?

You compare them by disclosing their relative performances fully and fairly, not by using the marketing techniques of a soap powder commercial.....

Giving the continuously sustainable torque figure would be a start.

:lol:

Step 5. Ignore repeated requests for that exact information ( dyno graph )
Step 6. ???
Step 7. Profit!

ARe you asking Falco to disclose every piece of proprietary technical information, with empirical data, and then disclose all profits?

You guys are too much!

From what I have read so far, Falco has gone beyond pale to explain their design, and deservedly so, for coming on a DIY, well informed forum.

Torque: I believe there are some torque graphs posted on the website??. Torque vs speed.