The limits to friction drive

specialtreva

10 µW
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
5
Location
outer, outer, outer SE Melb AU
Hi all, am here with post No.1
First off, thanx to all who freely share their knowledge and experience on this site. Maybe soon I can contribute as well.

My quest is to put together or obtain a serious hill assist device, my town is so not bike friendly. behind me is a coronary crushing 15% grade and heaps of 10 -15%'s throughout the town.
I love the simplicity and light weight of the adrian and kepler approach but was wondering how they go on the steeper grades. Done a forum search but can't nail the facts on this. Am I aiming too high for a friction drive?

Feel free to add your friction drive hill climbing experience....

Thanks in advance
 
I have no idea what the grades of the hills I tackle are. But they don't kill me when I don't have the assist, so they can't be that bad. And they don't kill the motor when I do. I have been running the 6374-200kv motor on 5s without any power limitting and it gets warm but hasn't melted. Here is my commute to work, that I use for most of my debugging.



Once we have a decent current limitting solution, you will be able to just dial down the power level until the motor temps are in check for your terrain. Or if I get fancy I'll add a temp sensor to do this on the fly.

Unfortunately I just haven't done enough testing in power limitting mode, on various hills to find the limits yet. Hopefully kepler has some more solid info for you, as he has done a lot more testing on both his drive, and how it performs in power limitted mode, in various terrains.

- Adrian
 
Now that I see your signature. I would say just build one, and see how it goes. :twisted:

The motors only cost $60. :lol:
 
Hi specialtreva,

My bike runs with the smaller 63-54 motor, and pulls about 1100 watts up hill, it roughly has 10kg or 100N or 22lbs of pushing force.
With this you can climb a 9% grade easily, or with some assist, you can do this at 20-25km/h.
I'll post some graphs of it later, but a human can push like 50kg at 5 km/h but only 1 kg at 50 km/h, the brushless motor can push 10 kg right up to top speed.
I even tested it off-road on a very loose sand hill, the sand made it slip a little on the tire, but still it pushed me up a lot harder than I could pedal.
I was really amazed by this, as it was at very low speeds and 2 inch deep dust basically.
A few kms on I crashed my bike due to a sudden dark ditch I missed and flew over the handle bars at 35 km/h but thats another story...and great video... haha
Amazingly, I didn't have scratch, and neither did the bike or the drive!!! even after it it flipped end over end. I was so happy with the crash results.

So in short: for fast, not too steep hill climbs with some pauses in between at min 15km/h its perfect, for trial bike course at 5km/h its not.
Cooling will be an issue if you ride it slow at high amps constantly.
 
I find it difficult to judge how steep a hill is as a percentage but perhaps use this as a guide.

If you can sustain around 10kph up a given hill riding without any assist, then this too would be a hill a good friction drive can handle.

If its a hill where only mountain bike granny gears would get you up, then you will be pushing the friction drive friendship.

I see we live in a similar area, so here are a few local sample hills I have tackled with success using a fiction drive.

Up Waverley Rd from Jells Park to the Police Academy. (Probably the limit)

Canterbury Rd hill, between Heatherdale Rd and the Mitcham Rd intersection. (Long hard lung buster of a hill on a road bike) easy with the friction drive even on a folder.

Mount Dandenong famous 1 in 20 (end of Mountain HWY) Piece of cake with the friction drive and the perfect spot to piss off the Lycras :)
 
I have two friction drives, patterned after EVtoods drive where the motor and roller are separate pieces. Both use a 63mm diameter motor, an Exceed 295-kV, and both max out at 20-MPH. The 6S/22V drive with a 1.25 inch diameter roller does well on relatively flat land. The 10S/37V drive with a 1.0-inch roller climbs really well.

I had high hopes for the 22V system since the ESC , charger, and batteries were cheaper.

I haven't measured how steep the roads are here yet. I want to find the steepest and then log the climbing data, plus measure the motor and controller heat at the top to have some base numbers to compare with.

The Castle Creations ESC data logged that when I hit 2000W, that was when the roller was breaking loose and just sanding the tire tread. If I limit it to 1400W, it works well. Right now I just take it easy during acceleration to prevent that. The soft start setting helps...

file.php
 
I don't know the grades of the hills around here but there are a couple I have a hard time pedaling up. My current setup does a great job getting me up them with little effort and zero slippage.

I'm running mine with a 1.25" roller at 36 volts. I honestly think some people are using too large of a roller and too low of voltage for steep hill use.

My next drive is going to be 44.4 volts with even more sliding action on the drive to prevent slipping.
 
15% is pretty steep, I think? If that means it's 15% of 90 degrees, it's ... 13.5 degrees!

My driveway is 16 degrees, which would be, what 18% grade? It looks fierce, and only on a good day can you ride even a mountainbike up that. (Some people seem to have a lot of good days). I have ridden a road bike up it too, but I dont think it's kind on the equipment.

There are calculations you can do, to figure out what sort of torque and forces you're dealing with on gradients like that.

If you don't mind, I'll stick with my 16 degree grade? Let's say local gravity is roughly 9.81 N/kg (or equivalent to m/s/s if you like). Let's say you weigh a decent sort of 60kg, plus your bike and whatnot is another 20, so there's 80kg. For the sake of these calculations, you're not pedalling...
The force of gravity on this setup is therefore 9.81* 80 = 785 N
On an 18% grade most of that force is directed into the driveway surface, a smaller amount is directed down the driveway. The down-driveway component is 785N * sin(18degrees) = 216N

If you want to accelerate up the hill, that adds to this force, but let's say you're happy with a constant speed, and we can just run with this force of 108N pushing you back down the hill. This is what the motor has to overcome to keep constant speed.

If you held your hand against the top of the tyre, hard enough to stop the bike going backwards, there would be a force of 216N applied to your hand. If your hand was instead a friction drive, the force would be applied to ... the friction drive. Let's say the contact area between friction drive and tyre is 1 square centimetre. I have no idea if that's realistic? If it is, then your force per area is 216N per .0001 square metres, or 2 160 000 N/m^2, which is 313 psi or 22 bar. If you don't provide that much pressure, the roller will slip.

How much force is that actually? Well the coefficient of static friction tells you how much force you need to press the two surfaces together with, to sustain the tangential force of 216 N. The coefficient between concrete and rubber is 1.0, which tells you about the tyre on teh ground, but the coefficient between sandpaper and rubber might be different. Ballpark though, you'll need to press the roller against the tyre with about 216 N, or about 20kg of load.

If that's not true, then this next bit might still be.

You;ve got your 216N force, and at the perimeter of the wheel, where it's touching the friction drive, that acts as a torque on the friction drive. Where two gears touch (in this case the wheel and the friction drive), the tangential force they each experience is the same, but the torque on each is different, according to their radius. So the torque on the wheel (let's say 26 inch? 66cm diameter) is 216 * 0.3 = 64 Nm. This torque transferred to the wee motor is 216 * .025 = 5.4 Nm. Great! Less torque on the motor, which makes sense cause it's going at higher speed. But can the motor deliver this much torque? Hmm, how to know.

You migth be lucky and strike a manufacturer that publishes torque specs, but few seem to. They do claim Kv values though, which can be fiddled to say somethign about torque. Kv is in rpm / volt, but if you express it in (rad/s)/volt, then it's inverse is the torque constant, Kt. A motor I've been looking at has a Kv of 270, in (rad/s)/volt this is 270*2*pi = 28.27. The inverse of that is 0.03537, which I'd guess is in Nm per amp, as I=T/Kt.

So can the motor deliver the 1Nm we were asking of it? Well, the current required for that torque is:
I = 5.4 / 0.03537
= 153 amps.

No worries! Let's say you're running 5s, for a voltage of ~20v, so your power will be: 153*20 = 3053 w.

Awesome. How fast will 3kw get a person up a hill?
Gravitional potential energy is mgh, so change in gravitational energy is mg delta h. Our change in energy is 3053 w, our mass and gravity stay the same so the
delta h = 3053/(mg)
= 3053/(80*9.81)
=3.9 m/s vertically!
Right on

And the vertical component is like a quarter of our total velocity, so we'll be going over ground at four times this, or 16 m/s, which is 50km/h.

Rock on!

Eric
 
Erogo said:
15% is pretty steep, I think? If that means it's 15% of 90 degrees, it's ... 13.5 degrees!
Eric,
100% gradient is 45 degrees.
The slope in degrees is the arctan of rise/run.
15% gradient is 8.53 degrees.
It's still steep!

If your driveway is 16 degrees, that's a 29% gradient and about the steepest hill you're likely to come across.
 
It is not an issue of if the drive can provide enough torque to go up these hills. It can, just as good as any other motor of similar power and gearing.

The real question is how much waste heat the drive is creating under this load, and if it can reject enough of that heat to survive. That is why we prefer the 6374 motor over the 5065, they can both be set up to provide the same power, but I will definitely cook the smaller 50mm motor first. I can show you the pictures. :lol:
 
In order to take a gross weight of 100kg (220 pounds) up a 15% slope, at modest speeds, a roller drive 50mm in diameter would have to be capable of sustaining a torque output of around 4Nm.

Ref: http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=312555#p312555
 
And we know the relationship between motor kv and torque. http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=18609&start=15#p273455
Kt (N-m/amp) = 9.5478 / Kv

So for A 6374-200kv, Kt = 0.0477 N.m/amp
4N.m would require 83Amps.

Then I think the internal resistance of the motor is around 37mOhm. http://www.leaderhobby.com/product.asp?ID=9394001220804
So I think waste heat is ~ I^2*R = 83*83*0.037 = 254Watts.

Question is what waste heat can the motor sustain?
 
Here you go. I used the Leader Hobby data for this.

So much for the 98% peak efficiency BS :p

If you're using the motor case then, at 63mm diameter, it would need over 5Nm torque. That's 104 amps - more than the max. current of 100 amps, let alone the max. continuous current of 90 amps and even that level needs to be de-rated for our usage..... It might be ok with a 50mm roller, though....
 

Attachments

  • Aeolian-motor-calcs.gif
    Aeolian-motor-calcs.gif
    30.8 KB · Views: 3,779
Wow,

"You have much to learn grasshopper"

My reflective paraphrase on the above posts so far....

I'm encouraged by the hillclimbing ability after reading those friction drive experiences.Thank-you. Kepler, I'm very outer SE melb. actually west gippsland to be exact. But in my lifetime I'm sure it will be part of the sprawl. Yes, I know of the roads you mention and the hillclimbs around here although not as long are steeper.

To clarify, percentage gradient is just a derivitive of the ratio expression, so yes, 100% = 1:1 = 45 degrees.

So Miles's spreadsheet link proves the power is there to do the job, but can the friction drive get it to the wheel without breaking traction?

Erogo's post on what goes on between motor/roller and wheel is the part I'm most concerned about. The smaller the roller the better the ratio for maittaining motor speed but it also has less surface contact area to transfer the power to the wheel. Yet EVTodd reports no slippage with a 1.25 inch roller (sorry Todd, couldn't see any pics of your setup). On the other hand, the bigger the roller, as in motor as roller, the greater the surface area for power transmission but also a greater load on the motor with more potential to bog down and cook.

So... now to find the happy medium between these two scenarios to provide the best chance of climbing those 15% hills.

Has anyone built a "test bench" to test the traction ability of different mterials, pressures etc etc?

Adrian, happy to burn a few motors for the sake of knowledge but more homework to do yet :mrgreen:

trev
 
Testbed. Sure have.

Check it out in all it's glory here. Prepare to be amazed at the quality and sophistication.

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=22187&p=391322&hilit=Force#p391322

Good news out of it was that I could apply 13Nm before slipping.

I have been meaning to go back and do a more comprehensive study of the effect of some of the key variables but haven't had time. The variables of interest for me were:
- tire penetration / motor engagement
- tire pressure
- motor grip material
- different tires
 
true science... I'll have to add that to my 101 uses for decking offcuts. Seriously, 13 Nm is a good number although would you be measuring the torque from the bike wheel rather than the motor mount?
 
Something else I'd like to throw into the mix is that...

When a hub motor is driving the axle of a wheel, they have better torque and less heat when they are driving a smaller diameter wheel, so a smaller diameter wheel will have less speed and more torque. When a friction drive is turning the edge of the tire, I believe a larger diameter tire is easier on the motor, because it has more leverage than when its driving a small diameter tire.

Its been stated before that one of the quirks of an FD is that, it provides the same speed when transferred between two bikes with different diameter wheels.

In my mind, the only limits are the traction between the roller and tire. If you only ride when its not raining...if you accelerate mildly...if you can be happy with only 2-horsepower (1400W), an FD can have many benefits over a hubmotor.

If someone develops a very high power friction-drive, I'm happy for them...but for me, the biggest benefit was being able to easily remove a light and small drive from the bike when I lived on the third floor apartment (rather than carry up the entire bike).

cell_man has a $200 hub kit. Add $180 of 8aH/44V LiPo and an $80 10A charging system...and you have a pretty good beginners E-bike with no traction issues for under $500.

file.php
 
spinningmagnets said:
Something else I'd like to throw into the mix is that...

When a hub motor is driving the axle of a wheel, they have better torque and less heat when they are driving a smaller diameter wheel, so a smaller diameter wheel will have less speed and more torque. When a friction drive is turning the edge of the tire, I believe a larger diameter tire is easier on the motor, because it has more leverage than when its driving a small diameter tire.
Hi sm,

That's not the case, I'm afraid.

The wheel diameter is not a factor, here... It's only the diameter of the roller that counts.

It is a bit counter-intuitive:
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=321588#p321588

Put another way: If you're driving the periphery of a wheel, the leverage is always 1:1. Make sense?
 
I often look at it being like the roller itself is on the road surface. To figure speed, the roller circumference and rate of rotation are what go into the calculation.
 
specialtreva said:
true science... I'll have to add that to my 101 uses for decking offcuts. Seriously, 13 Nm is a good number although would you be measuring the torque from the bike wheel rather than the motor mount?
Measured at the motor. So the motor diameter is significant.

13Nm/(0.063/2) = 412N thrust limit befor tire shredding occurred

This is obviously just for a single setup, but shows that we should have enough headroom on the torque levels we will be operating at.
 
Don't tell me the conversion between percentage gradient and angle is all I got wrong?! There must be something else is there? No account of friction ?

A thought occurred to me overnight. If the pressure of the roller on the tyre is 200 psi, or whatever it was, and the (air) pressure inside the tyre is 100 psi, then I'm guessing the roller will push into the tyre, raising the pressure inside the tyre (by a little bit), and the contact area (by more), until the pressure of roller on tyre is the same as the pressure inside the tyre. Would that be right? You still have the same force between roller and tyre, but over a larger area it works out to lower pressure.

If you needed heaps of traction, it's strange that you don't get it directly by increasing the contact area. You could intuitively think that putting a whole belt sander belt between two motors, then pressing the motors and belt against the wheel, would give you better grip than just the motors against the wheel. But as I understand it, that's not the case. Fitting big wide tyres to a car with the intention of improving traction, in fact has no effect other than improving durability by reducing pressure on the tyre, and deformation etc. (AFAIK). I guess the difference with the roller/belt is that you can choose how much force to apply, and for a certain tolerable pressure, the larger belt allows you a higher total force.

And I guess if you had a whole belt sander belt, and that slipped, you'd do less focussed damage to a wider area of tyre, than if you had a sandpaper-covered motor can rubbing in one spot? This, of course, ignoring the beautiful simplicity of just running a motor against a tyre.

Options for improving traction between roller and tyre are improving the coefficient of friction, by the materials you select, and increasing the force between roller and tyre.

One idea that I've floated by PM (sorry!), was having a motor (or two, opposed) pivoting on the cantilever brake bosses, pressing against the rim sidewalls, squeezable by remote control off the handlebar via a cable mechanism and lever. My impression is that you can exert phenomenal pressure against rim sidewalls if necessary, rim sidewalls are less prone to smoking than tyres are, and through judicious employment of the lever you can effect a sort of clutch.

Eric
 
Erogo said:
A thought occurred to me overnight. If the pressure of the roller on the tyre is 200 psi, or whatever it was, and the (air) pressure inside the tyre is 100 psi, then I'm guessing the roller will push into the tyre, raising the pressure inside the tyre (by a little bit), and the contact area (by more), until the pressure of roller on tyre is the same as the pressure inside the tyre. Would that be right? You still have the same force between roller and tyre, but over a larger area it works out to lower pressure.

Sort of but our system are displacement limited, not force limited. So the geometry dictates the maximum engagement with the tire, the resulting force should roughly be the contact pressure x contact area.

The other advantage of going for big fat tires, is you are spreading the shear force over a larger amount of rubber. So if the limitting factor is actually the shear strength of the rubber, you are better off with a larger contact area.

Yes improving the coefficient of friction is really important, as it allows you to apply more torque with less contact press/tire engagement.

For me the debate is an old one. These friction drives work, they can lay down more than enough power for the average rider. If you want heaps of power 2kw+ , then go a hub or chain/belt drive.

As for the side wall drive. It will work, but you have similar coefficient for friction problems, and might start crushing rims for higher power levels. It is also more elaborate in the mechanisms you will require, but hey I am biased since I have been focused on the ultimate in simplicity for my friction drive concept.

- Adrian
 
One idea that I've floated by PM (sorry!), was having a motor (or two, opposed) pivoting on the cantilever brake bosses, pressing against the rim sidewalls, squeezable by remote control off the handlebar via a cable mechanism and lever. My impression is that you can exert phenomenal pressure against rim sidewalls if necessary, rim sidewalls are less prone to smoking than tyres are, and through judicious employment of the lever you can effect a sort of clutch.

Eric, have had similar thoughts to this myself. anything that spreads the contact load around. The pressure you need to apply to the sidewall can be adjusted dependent on the hill you have in front of you. Obviously the more pressure, the greater the friction loss so flat travel only needs light sidewall pressure.

The unknown (to me) is the durability of the sidewall. Sidewalls are designed to flex (obviously), but that flex is provided by the thinness of the sidewall. Question is can the sidewall handle the stress of a friction drive?

trev
 
Back
Top