Leaf / leafmotor / leafbike high efficiency 1500w motor

[Bullfrog]

You took my spot!
The mac is a great motor and I'm real sad i never got to try the mac with 0.27mm laminations.



I think i'd still be the #1 leaf fan if i didn't like my bike wheels in the small range, which lets me downsize my motor and get away with smaller. You will be pleasantly surprised at it's efficiency relative to the mac.

It's a real shame that leaf hasn't innovated anything new in their motors for a decade though.

According to this thread, MAC started using .27mm lamination thickness in Nov of 2016:

0.27mm Thichness Motor Stator Laminations - MAC Motor

0.27mm thickness means what? A piece of paper? A hair? A $100 currency? Today I will let you know a GOOD NEWS! MAC Motor has started using 0.27mm thickness stator laminations for every motor, every one! Forget 0.5mm, forget 0.35mm; now, it's time for 0.27mm Higher Grade Stator Laminations...

forums.electricbikereview.com

I sent "Jessie" (the post author that said it) a message asking what they are currently using.

Maybe we could get Leaf to go to high quality .27mm laminations as well.

It probably cost a little bit more for high quality thinner laminations but it sure does help with efficiency and over heating...just saw where "Caleb" posted it before I did.

Sending Grin Tech a message to see what they say about the GMAC as well...I'll let you guys know if I get any answers.

 

[scianiac]

Looks like the 45mm Grin All-Axle motor is only going to fit Fat bikes with OLDs of 170/177 and 190/197 where the Leaf works for the smaller 135mm dropouts.

Being a Grin design, you know it is going to be a good motor but also a little pricey .

Well that is the designed sizing, I'm wondering if maybe by using different adapters or with some modding of those adapters it could drop into a 148mm boost TR of a DH bike which would make a very sweet bike. That probably wouldn't be hard, doing that and having space for some type of cassette so it could still be pedaled may be harder. The 170 picture shows a rotor spacer so that side is easy, I think they also mentioned different cassette driver bodies so maybe one of those would be easier to shorten a bit and run a reduced stack cassette. Maybe I'm just too excited about motor mods like that after just finishing putting a rear G026 into a front fork and fitting a Leaf 1500W into a 148mm boost rear. Or maybe we just bug them enough to make suitable spacers with a threaded drive side for instance for a single speed freewheel cog.

 

[neptronix]

Real shame they don't sell a 30-35mm version.
Most bikes have larger wheels and you take a progressive power density hit the larger the wheel is.
You either need more width, taller stator, or more poles to make up for a 29" wheel versus a 26".

 

[neptronix]

According to this thread, MAC started using .27mm lamination thickness in Nov of 2016:

0.27mm Thichness Motor Stator Laminations - MAC Motor

0.27mm thickness means what? A piece of paper? A hair? A $100 currency? Today I will let you know a GOOD NEWS! MAC Motor has started using 0.27mm thickness stator laminations for every motor, every one! Forget 0.5mm, forget 0.35mm; now, it's time for 0.27mm Higher Grade Stator Laminations...

forums.electricbikereview.com

I sent "Jessie" (the post author that said it) a message asking what they are currently using.

Maybe we could get Leaf to go to high quality .27mm laminations as well.

It probably cost a little bit more for high quality thinner laminations but it sure does help with efficiency and over heating...just saw where "Caleb" posted it before I did.

Sending Grin Tech a message to see what they say about the GMAC as well...I'll let you guys know if I get any answers.

I'm totally wrong, sorry!

 

[neptronix]

ps i've tried numerous times over the years to get leaf to use 0.27mm laminations. They know i helped make their motors popular. The classic story of the Chinese vendor not listening to it's customers.

 

[amberwolf]

In my general experience, with rare exceptions, if people will keep buying something with no changes, a company will keep making it that way. It's not limited to any specific culture's manufacturers....

Some technologies sell change (like software, cars, and phones) rather than useful features, so this doesn't apply to them (except in that the change itself is the no change part, just changing for changes's sake rather than specifically trying to improve things based on usefulness to any specific group of buyers).

 

[Bullfrog]

Well that is the designed sizing, I'm wondering if maybe by using different adapters or with some modding of those adapters it could drop into a 148mm boost TR of a DH bike which would make a very sweet bike. That probably wouldn't be hard, doing that and having space for some type of cassette so it could still be pedaled may be harder. The 170 picture shows a rotor spacer so that side is easy, I think they also mentioned different cassette driver bodies so maybe one of those would be easier to shorten a bit and run a reduced stack cassette. Maybe I'm just too excited about motor mods like that after just finishing putting a rear G026 into a front fork and fitting a Leaf 1500W into a 148mm boost rear. Or maybe we just bug them enough to make suitable spacers with a threaded drive side for instance for a single speed freewheel cog.

I'd give Grin Tech a call and talk to them about it. Every time I have called, they have been super helpful. Or just email them your idea. Sometimes it takes a little while for them to get back to me but they always do.

I wouldn't consider your idea "just bug them enough to make suitable spacers", Justin is a sharp guy and I usually find he is a step ahead of me. A perfect example is when he got MAC to make the GMAC motor so it would have regen capability...I contacted him and mentioned I was considering welding the clutch in my MAC so it would have regen and he told me the GMAC was already on the way. Nothing wrong with suggesting new ideas/concepts...that is why they developed the "All Axle" motor in the first place. Your idea will just make it even more versatile.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm totally wrong, sorry!

View attachment 347096

No problem whatsoever...we work together to figure stuff out and you have helped me many times. I couldn't find the specs you posted on the GMAC, Thanks.

Maybe we should all start sending Leaf messages suggesting they go to .27mm laminations to keep up with the competition. If they hear it from enough people, maybe it will sink in.

Getting them to change may be pretty tough, especially if it cost anything. The mighty dollar makes the world go around and profit margin is all most companies see. The engineers involved with design/manufacturing may have suggested it already but unfortunately the bean counters rule the roost. To the naïve a cost of 25 cents per motor seems meaningless but if you sell 10,000 motors it means a profit or a loss of $2,500 and who wouldn't want a $2,500 bonus.

 

[scianiac]

Maybe we should all start sending Leaf messages suggesting they go to .27mm laminations to keep up with the competition. If they hear it from enough people, maybe it will sink in.

Getting them to change may be pretty tough, especially if it cost anything. The mighty dollar makes the world go around and profit margin is all most companies see. The engineers involved with design/manufacturing may have suggested it already but unfortunately the bean counters rule the roost. To the naïve a cost of 25 cents per motor seems meaningless but if you sell 10,000 motors it means a profit or a loss of $2,500 and who wouldn't want a $2,500 bonus.

Ah but would you pay an extra $20 for the special .27mm version when it may only cost them $5 more, I certainly would. Those numbers are just as an example but I bet whatever more it would cost them plus margin many would buy it. Especially if they put any effort into explaining it, like for instance just giving an example of how much more efficient it is so somebody that knows nothing about motor design will go "oh yes I do what my motor to be more efficient".

 

[neptronix]

No problem whatsoever...we work together to figure stuff out and you have helped me many times. I couldn't find the specs you posted on the GMAC, Thanks.

..actually..

GMAC - Grin Kits - Product Info

The core motor performance is the same as you would expect from the latest MAC motors. That includes a modern cassette freehub system instead of a screw on freewheel and a powerful 20mm wide stator core made with thin 0.35mm laminations, but the following differences make it really stand out

Contradicts this page:

https://ebikes.ca/shop/kits-by-type/barebones-kits/gmac-barebones-kit.html

The GMAC motor has a 5:1 gear ratio and no internal clutch, allowing for regenerative braking capabilities that are not typically available with geared hub motors. Features 0.27m laminations, an integrated splined torque arm, and a Shimano HG compatible freehub system. Motor OLD is 138mm and fits in most bikes with slotted dropouts.

.. so, looking forward to what you hear back from grin

Getting them to change may be pretty tough, especially if it cost anything. The mighty dollar makes the world go around and profit margin is all most companies see. The engineers involved with design/manufacturing may have suggested it already but unfortunately the bean counters rule the roost. To the naïve a cost of 25 cents per motor seems meaningless but if you sell 10,000 motors it means a profit or a loss of $2,500 and who wouldn't want a $2,500 bonus.

I suggested this.. upgraded laminations should cost around $40 USD additional on the motor price, charge an additional $80 for the motor and enjoy the profit..

The reply was basically it's too hard to find 0.27mm laminations..

 

[neptronix]

Ah but would you pay an extra $20 for the special .27mm version when it may only cost them $5 more, I certainly would. Those numbers are just as an example but I bet whatever more it would cost them plus margin many would buy it. Especially if they put any effort into explaining it, like for instance just giving an example of how much more efficient it is so somebody that knows nothing about motor design will go "oh yes I do what my motor to be more efficient".

I would pay an additional $100 personally.

To have a 92% peak efficient hub motor would be fantastic.. an additional 2% efficiency on top of 90% efficiency removes 1/5th of the heat generated by the motor. That means you can flog it harder.

 

[amberwolf]

I'll see if I can get some pics of the laminations in the GMAC i have here. I don't think I can get the stator out to actually measure them. (the pics I already have are not focused on those so too blurry to see individual lams).

 

[E-HP]

I would pay an additional $100 personally.

To have a 92% peak efficient hub motor would be fantastic.. an additional 2% efficiency on top of 90% efficiency removes 1/5th of the heat generated by the motor. That means you can flog it harder.

I think only the ebike enthusiasts can process what a small percentage of efficiency equates to in performance, so the demand may not be as high as it should be if consumers were educated. A lot of folks would look at going from 89% to 91% efficiency as a 2% efficiency gain that equates to an extra ~1/2 mile of range (less than something you might get from regen, etc.), so not worth it. An experienced enthusiast, on the other hand, may look at that same 2% improvement as a ~20% reduction in heat, relative to the 89% efficient motor, which is huge if you're pushing the motor or climbing hills, etc.

 

[The Toecutter]

Why not go even smaller, to 0.2mm lams?

I'd love a switched reluctance hub motor built to fit into 135mm dropouts and accommodate 7/8/9-speed cassettes while having a very stoutly-built axle and freehub body, with a matching control system that is CA compatible. It would be nice to get rid of the cogging losses when turning the motor off, and have a crap-ton of power placed into a small package.

 

[scianiac]

I think only the ebike enthusiasts can process what a small percentage of efficiency equates to in performance, so the demand may not be as high as it should be if consumers were educated. A lot of folks would look at going from 89% to 91% efficiency as a 2% efficiency gain that equates to an extra ~1/2 mile of range (less than something you might get from regen, etc.), so not worth it. An experienced enthusiast, on the other hand, may look at that same 2% improvement as a ~20% reduction in heat, relative to the 89% efficient motor, which is huge if you're pushing the motor or climbing hills, etc.

Well it's all how you word it, so the listing should say "20% reduction in heat!" At the end of day they are in the business of making money and if they use a totally accurate statement to sell motors for more money to people who probably don't need it while it's slightly dishonest I doubt they are can't to think twice about it. Selling people features they don't need is a time honored capitalist tradition, who are we to balk if that makes those features available to us.

But if they say it's too hard to find the lams that probably means they won't do it because it means they would probably need to find a different supplier and that would be too much effort for this. If it was as easy as just ordering 100 of them up form the same supplier at probably minimal extra cost for such a small qty considering the tooling is the same then it would be easier to convince them probably.

 

[Chalo]

I have to assume that at some point there's an even trade between the improved flux from thinner laminations and the diminished stator density from higher layer counts. Coatings and/or glue lines between lams can be very thin, but aren't zero thickness. So the more lams per mm, the less iron density.

 

[neptronix]

0.2 is what you'd put in a motor spinning thousands of RPMs, not hundreds.

Yes, 0.27mm is pushing it already. It's mostly users of small wheels that would see an appreciable benefit.
It would help counteract the slightly stronger than average magnets in the grin hub though.

 

[The Toecutter]

I was thinking 0.2mm for an application where thousands of RPMs is a relevant operating point, even if the first digit has a one in it.

There is certainly a tradeoff, but it's around the margins in either case. When you're pedaling the thing with the battery disconnected, where those margins are tampered with matters greatly. A 20W reduction in cogging losses can make a 2 mph difference in cruising speed on something extremely aerodynamically slippery that is being powered by one's legs.

If Leafbike doesn't get ahead of the curve, they will fall behind. Considering the state of hub motor technology on the market today versus what is possible for not much more money, there's some significant low-hanging fruit to pluck. 0.27mm lams is definitely ripe for the picking.

At this rate, I think Grin will beat them to it and eventually offer a DD hubmotor that can compete with the Leafbike 1500W regarding peak power while weighing significantly less and which has reduced cogging torque losses.

 

[Bullfrog]

..actually..

GMAC - Grin Kits - Product Info


Contradicts this page:

GMAC Rear Barebones Kit



.. so, looking forward to what you hear back from grin



I suggested this.. upgraded laminations should cost around $40 USD additional on the motor price, charge an additional $80 for the motor and enjoy the profit..

The reply was basically it's too hard to find 0.27mm laminations..

$40 per motor...wow that is a lot more than I was expecting. If buying in quantity I find it difficult to believe it is that much more expensive...but it wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong.

Maybe we should get Leaf to talk to MAC about finding .27mm laminations.

Thanks for the info on the GMAC/MAC.

 

[Bullfrog]

Anybody interested in lamination thickness might want to review this article:

Motor laminations - E-Mobility Engineering

E-Mobility Engineering reports on how lamination technology has evolved in recent times to meet changing demands from the EV industry

www.emobility-engineering.com

It indicates that the current practical limit for lamination thickness is ~.25 mm or ~.010 inch.

The article I sited (and Chalo) pointed out an important aspect...the thinner you go with the laminations, the less density you could have so there are always trade offs.

 

[Bullfrog]

Have any of you guys tried a MXUS 3000w motor in the past as well as a Leaf motor? I am asking because I want to know how they compare. If anyone has, what is your impression of both the performance and the quality of the construction for the MXUS vs the Leaf?

Thank You Very Much! I know I asked the same question a while back...just wanted to see if anybody that didn't respond back then has additional info or a different opinion.

I am a relative newbie when it comes to Direct Drive Hub Motors...never owned one until recently. The majority of my experience is with mid drives and geared hub motors i.e. the Bafang BBSHD (mid drive) and the MAC (geared hub).

I currently have a Leaf 1500w motor (laced in a 26" rim) waiting for me to install it on a bike but the MXUS motor does look interesting . IMO a QS motor is the best as far as quality of construction but they are a little too heavy for my current application plus the width of the bigger QS motors is too wide for my current donor bike.

 

[neptronix]

I had a MXUS 3kw at one point.

Low copper fill...
Lower efficiency
Just a little more powerful than the leaf.
That 3kw power rating applies to 20" wheels and not 26".
In a 26" i would call it a 2.25kw continuous motor.

Ended up selling it out of sheer disappointment... couldn't have been happier with the leafbike at 6kw with minor cooling mods.

 

[amberwolf]

Ended up selling it out of sheer disappointment

Whereupon I then abused it in a 20"-ish wheel on the SB Cruiser trike with various controllers, eventually breaking the axle at least once with the SFOC5, found a winding short to the stator (fixed with coronadope), modded axle for 10g solid transformer-winding phase wires, etc....

It did work alright between breakages, but for my purposes it turns out the much smaller "500w" Ultramotors off Stromer / A2B bikes, with sufficient current from their controllers for the short time I need a few kW at startup, work fine and are MUCH better built.

I think it's still in a wheel as a backup motor and for future experiments.


Another of the same motor (different winding) broke it's axle without being abused by the controller, after I welded it back on I was able to continue using it for a few years on the other side of the trike, but it's been replaced by another Ultramotor at this point. I forget what problem it gave it's original owner, but they had it repaired and then I ended up with it....

I don't really trust the MXUS build quality (I've also had some of their "9C" type motors, they're all about the same quality of build, materials, etc. Never seen their geared hubs in person, so dunno what they're like.

To be fair, I also eventually broke even one of the Ultramotor axles, but I was using it with a controller that didn't actually have regen braking, so I had abused it by wiring up the antitheft switch to the brake control. That AT function works by actively fighting the rotation by pouring current into the phases, and is not intended to stop several hundred pounds of trike and rider from 20MPH, just to make it hard for someone to ride off with a bike, and has no modulation at all, just full torque STOP THE WHEEL when you engage it, so its' VERY hard on the axle, dropout, etc. I used it rarely, but it is no surprise that the axle eventaully broke from damage and stress to it; it's also not intended to support the weight I put on it.


If you want to use a motor of the size/weight of the MXUS 450x type, get the QS205 instead. It is much better built...the one I have here with sheared axles took the original owner riding offroad with loose mountings at IIRC 11kW+ (on a 2-3kW motor) to break. And even then, the rest of the motor is perfectly intact, inside and out, and the axle is easy to replace (have one here for later experimentation with the motor).

 

[neptronix]

Sad to hear their strongest motor was so weak, feel like it's so typical of MXUS to shoot for totally average Chinese motor quality and no better than that.

But you have a 200lbs bike right?

QS is well built but 50% heavier than a leaf.. leaf seems built pretty well

 

[amberwolf]

Sad to hear their strongest motor was so weak, feel like it's so typical of MXUS to shoot for totally average Chinese motor quality and no better than that.

I guess it had enough torque given what I was feeding it...just physically it's not any better made than the average stuff.

But you have a 200lbs bike right?

The SB Cruiser trike? Oh, it's probably more than that (including the two MXUS, a bit less with the UM's instead), and my own ~200lbs (bit less usually). Then there's the cargo weight, anything from a couple dozen pounds to 20+ times that, sometimes the kind that's wiggling around in there looking at the world and barking at passing cars.

So, it's not like I don't *expect* to break things.

QS is well built but 50% heavier than a leaf.. leaf seems built pretty well

I don't have any comparison for the Leaf; and haven't *used* the QS, just have it here and have seen/read what it took to break it, vs personal experience breaking the MXUSes. :lol:

I'd bet the Leaf is more efficient and lighter than the QS205; it's a heavy beast.

I was just suggesting that a direct comparison between it and the MXUS450x can be drawn with the QS probably beating the crap out of the MXUS in probably every way except perhaps weight (pretty sure the QS is heavier by some amount; would have to go back thru my SB Cruiser thread to look at the images of each on a scale).