Con job. Efficiency is terrible because it doesn't have gears, and needs over 100 thousand dollars of energy sapping computer nursemaiding. Efficiency and power to weight is 20% of 1908 electric cars. Their batteries and electric systems lasted a century. That's why they stopped making them.
That’s really cool they’ve created such a powerful lightweight efficient motor. I’m sure Mercedes will stop at nothing to engineer a coolant pump that is so buried in the cars internals it requires almost an entire disassembly of the vehicle.
Over forty years ago my then-father-in-law told me that the ideal car would have a small, light electric hub motor in each wheel hub, with the speed electronically controlled to drive the car and improve handling by driving the outer wheels faster when turning. Looks like the automotive industry is finally approaching that ideal.
The problem is that the motor in the wheel is not a reliable solution, as the weight inertia of the electric motor will destroy the tire much faster... This is why you still do not have one EV with this solution on the streets today... Because you are forced to make the fast-moving and vibrating parts of the car (due to the road bumps) as light as possible. This is why the light rims are all over the place. Heavy wheels destroy the tires much faster...and the wear in the metal parts is exponential with the weight and amplitude of movements, the ball bearings are wearing out much faster.
@@meantares Well both are - but here is about efficiency, size, output. How much is one motor - 3kUSD? if you have 2 of them or 3? It's the price of the battery.
Built several in the '80s. Prototype, experimental, hush-hush. Military contractors came to our facility for demonstrations, very impressive performance. Four decades later, only now, has the tech reached the automotive sector. Because of the interlocking bayonet design, I stressed during a gentle reworking of the motor bodies for clearances, tickling the fits that were not met on the cnc. It was all good. Those magnets were very special, very powerful, unique mineral origin. The contract involved specialized production equipment, which is why I recall overcoming the difficulties. (At the time, I was occupied repairing a Battenfeld molding machine that was slamming the platens. A faulty limit switch that was intermittent, lucky diagnosis using an actual sweep meter. Took all of five minutes. A master electrician, an electronic technologist, had tested the control panel the day before, for hours, and had missed it. We were testing the molds we had made for plastic battery packs. ) Exciting, something different every day, very difficult at times. Yes, they are far superior to conventional field motors. Torque output is phenomenal.
The axial-flux motor has been a well-known configuration for many years. Not built by Mercedes, they bought it from the original company. Would love to play with one of these.
Yes: _YASA._ There is also the Belgian company _Magnax,_ which has an even more advanced axial flux motor with a yokeless stator that offers the highest power density in the industry. Unfortunately, no EV manufacturer seems to be working with them.
The axial-flux motor has been a well-known configuration for many years. What I did not hear in this presentation are the issues that have prevented its general adoption in any number of stationary and transportation applications to date and how Mercedes has overcome those limitations. Surely, the material cost savings for the axial-flux motor alone would be compelling in any application, all other manufacturing considerations being equal. The fact that radial-flux motors are still the dominant form factor implies that there are either significant differences in either design complexity or manufacturing complexity or both. I am certain that Mercedes is being successful at optimizing toward their target goal. From this presentation I am not sure what that goal is other than performance/weight ratio. I also did not hear what advances can be made on addressing performance/cost when compared to a motor such as the Tesla Plaid motor. Maybe Mercedes can surprize me. BTW I have only heard of battery temperature and brake temperature being limiting factors for Tesla Plaid at Nuremberg and Pike's Peak. It is impressive that Mercedes axial motor runs so cool but is that the highest problem on the pareto list? At least more of the system's cooling will be available for battery packs, so the motor advance does impact the higher heat item on the list. I like the development but am still skeptical that this is nothing other than a specialty racing motor, albeit a potentially impressive one.
From the engineering standpoint you have many advantages from a way smaller, more compact, more efficient motor. One is packaging - standard motors have 3 times the weight and the sizes, you could put 4 of them at every corner - that is next gen opportunities in controlling and performance. It is not solving the battery limitations you mentioned - but Mercedes is developing there too. You can see their concept car with a 1200km range. Its a technology leap forward.
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 The only part we disagree on is the fact that, as presented, the design is a technological leap forward. It may be a notable refinement of the axial-flux configuration but no mention is made of advances in the manufacturing process that would make the axial-flux design cost-competitive to at least the advanced radial-flux designs. It will be interesting to see this motor in performance applications. I do not have enough information for me to anticipate its incorporation into high-volume surface transportation. The weight-savings is compelling for air-transportation, however.
@@mrhickman53 agreed - I also don't know the production costs compared to the older motor designs, if they are on par or maybe cheaper. For me it's a revolution - its 1/3 size and weight by putting more power out. We need this for batteries too - imagine one third the weight and more capacity. We will see that in 3 years from now.
@@bavariancarenthusiast2722 First of all, let me explain that I use these responses to sharpen my views on the subject. I do not intend to be at odds with your views, just explain why I hold mine. No offence is intended. While I have not looked, I imagine the VTOL drones being developed as air taxis are almost exclusively axia-flux direct-drive motors. The cost penalty for weight is too high to ignore axial-flux designs. I have not tried to compare the Mercedes claims against motors being applied into those applications, but I imagine they are similar. As I think about it, the fact that Mercedes did not identify air taxis as a target market for their development makes me more suspicious of any claim to revolutionary design. Again, it is likely very good engineering, which is a merit in its own right. If it shows up in a production car, I imagine the owners will be paying a premium for the performance and fine engineering. From a marketing perspective, if this premium exceeds the cost penalty over the equivalent power from radial-flux designs due to consumer impressions of higher achievable performance, then the design is successful.
One thing to mention is that Axial Flux layout is solving a problem that hasn't really been a problem for electric cars. A radial flux motor is already very small, very light, and very high torque compared to the ICE it's replacing in a design. The axial flux layout gives higher torque, but the torque limit on most EV is the ability of the tires to grip, not the motor. Meanwhile, rotating mass isn't free. The higher RPM of the radial flux motors means they can give a modest car a higher top speed without the need of a transmission. So there are reasons this is being talked about in terms of ultra-high-performance vehicles, for now. As they get cheaper, the axial motor-per-wheel approach will probably trickle down to economy vehicles. Unfortunately, nobody is making economy EVs while the limiting factor is battery supply, because the margins are higher on luxury vehicles.
And not with this fancy schmancy special super duper flux generator motor. I am waiting allt he time that he puts potatoe peels inside and starts to fly.
Hybrids are EVs too. At low speeds, the engine is a battery charger. And even just 1 mile of battery can double fuel efficiency. Mine gets 50 MPG almost always - 60+ in traffic jams, and ~45 at 70 MPH. Less battery means less pollution to make. And can be bought for less than $30k.
The trajectory and all estimates are that EVs can be made for less than an ICE car, so it will be the ICE car that will be seen as a rich person's hobby in the future and anyone wanting the best vehicle for the lowest purchase price will get an EV (the total cost of ownership is already in EV's favour but a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their head around that for some reason).
Great video. I'd add that the idea is not new, but many advances in recent years, both in materials, and production technologies are making these ideas more feasible and applicable in real life.
@@imnotaspoon151 You talk about resource extraction as if it is something exclusive to EVs🤣🤣🤣. What a ridiculous thing to say. You've not heard of the Exon Valdez,or the Tory Canyon, Piper Alpha or Deepwater Horizon? The fact is that there is no intrinsic way in which mining for EV materials is necessarily worse than anything else. In fact, there are plenty of reasons why fossil fuel extraction is far, far worse. And one of the reasons why fossil fuel extraction is far, far worse is because it is run by an industry which is synonymous with corruption. So, how about getting your facts straight?
It is enjoyable, concise, and informative. Thanks. In my twenties, I designed a try-armature, axial flux motor with power production and use created by internally controlled computer chips inside each armature. The motor could pass vast amounts of current back and forth for breaking and acceleration. Beautiful presentation. Thanks again.
The Elefant (German for "elephant") was a heavy tank destroyer used by German Wehrmacht Panzerjäger during World War II. Ninety-one units were built in 1943 under the name Ferdinand, after its designer Ferdinand Porsche. The engines drove a single Siemens-Schuckert 500 kVA generator each, which powered two Siemens 230 kW (312.7 PS) individual-output electric motors, one each connected to each of the rear sprockets. The electric motors also acted as the vehicle's steering unit. This "petrol-electrical" drive delivered 0.11 km/L (909 litres/100 km or 0.26 miles per gallon) off-road and 0.15 km/L (667 litres/100 km or 0.35 mpg) on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off-road and 30 km/h on road. Fancy, huh. electric motors suck because of the weight, cooling and control circuit.
Back in 1972, a couple of guys in Peoria IL developed an EV that stored energy in a tank of liquid nitrogen. A small amount of the liquid was exposed to waste heat, causing a rapid expansion of the nitrogen back into a gas. This pressure was used to power an electric turbine. Maybe such a system could double as a motor cooling system.
@@safarandtravel1999 that's true for the mass market (millions of vehicles), but actually, for a certain limited number of EVs using a range extender (possibly thousands), it would be economical. I should have written about this in my above comment. The book where I read about that EV design explained that the demand for liquid oxygen and liquid trace atmospheric gases is much greater than the demand for liquid nitrogen. As a result, since air is almost 4/5 nitrogen, almost 1/5 oxygen, and only trace amounts (obviously) of the trace gases, in order to meet the demand for everything OTHER than nitrogen, liquid gas providers have to liquefy tons more nitrogen than what anyone needs or wants for refrigeration and other uses. The gas providers set aside enough liquid nitrogen to meet that expected demand and dump the rest back into the air. That's a huge amount of wasted electricity, which is factored into the price they charge to purchasers of the in-demand liquid gases. If there was a new demand for liquid nitrogen used in thousands of EV range extenders, that would create a new market for otherwise wasted liquid nitrogen, and it would improve the margins of the liquid gas providers, with hardly any new infrastructure needed. An EV owner would not need such a range extender unless going on a longer road trip, and those liquid gas providers are usually located in places like highway truck stop gas stations.
This is how all modern electricity is produced but with water being turned to gas and the expansion spinning turbines. The reason water is used is because it expands more than any other substance when going from liquid to gas phase which produces more power than any other substance. Your point is that we have a lot of liquid nitrogen just laying around and it is already at thermal disequlibrium from its surroundings so it's "free energy" but it is such a pitiful amount that it is not worth fussing with.
Re the title - this is old technology, so it's not "new". These motors are used on washing machines. To fight Tesla, Mercedes needs to put out a compelling car for a compelling price. Tesla is solidly focused on mass production and cost reductions. They're going to hair pin motors (easier to build and automate and are more efficient) and magnets free of rare earth metals because these are cheaper. 48V architecture reduces the amount of copper needed. Unboxed production will make their cars faster and cheaper to make and allow them to be built using Optimus robots. There's more than that (4680 batteries, Giga castings...) but you get the idea. Unless Mercedes innovates in these areas, throwing one little differentiator that only has benefits when you look at that one component in isolation, but the benefits get lost in the overall vehicle, isn't going to overcome the huge moat Tesla is bulling.
@@iphigenia8661 no. Tesla buys batteries from everyone, including the major Chinese battery manufacturers (SAIC, BYD, as well as battery suppliers in the US and elsewhere, eg Panasonic, as well as developing their own in-house 4680s). Tesla consumes more batteries than any company on earth. They're all very eager to sell to Tesla as Tesla will buy every battery they can make.
Pretty sure that motor they showed you is the YASA P-400 R. They’ve been commercially available for… 8 years? 9 years? Something like that. Mercedes did not invent them, and they’re the same motors Ford uses in their electric Mustangs
This is basically the same motor as Toyota has been using in hybrid transmissions for like 26 years. Making a smaller electric motor is hardly an innovation today. Mercedes are late to the party, again, and want us to be impressed.
Immediately reminds me of the Wankel rotary engine as compared to traditional cylinder-based engines, based on power-to-weight ratio alone. The problem is nearly 0% of people want to have to do preventative maintenance that involves a complete rebuild of their engine every few years along with all other standard wear items.
@jakehildebrand1824 gotta daily drive it ..if it's your only vehicle. It was a failure for most part. I almost bought a new RX8. They burned oil even when new! I bought a new Mustang GT 5.0L 6spd Manual. Drove it daily..raced it..ran it hard. It lasted an never failed me for 10yrs. Sold it running well.
@@Davido50 First of all, why would you buy something like the RX-7 to be your only vehicle? Second, of course the RX-8 burns oil thats just how Rotary engines run, and its got two of them. Lastly, Mustang? Nice choice. Solid, reliable, powerful, and American.
Engineering test technician at BorgWarner E Motor Product Development department here…. This design has been talked about here in our experimental test lab for a few years. I can’t wait to see it! A nice thought about placing these at the wheels… however… these motors will need to be Sprung-Weight… not Un Sprung-Weight. Subjecting that machine to direct road harshness will destroy it. I could see two of these in an AWD app. One for front axle and one for rear.
This is an ad for Mercedes. This motor has been on the market for awhile and is provided to Mercedes by a supplier. Why aren't all cars using it if it's soo great?
I went to a CENEX event at the UK Millbrook test circuit in about 2015 where axial motors were on display there. I thought they were interesting then but the fact that we're still talking about them and not using them makes me wonder why
FWIW, for those not familiar, these types of motors have been around for a long time. Aside from things like washing machines, a very common use of these motors is in HDDs.
I was looking into axial flux motors back in 2006. A rally racing team in Australia developed in in wheel axial flux motor. Then they sold it to Volvo. And then later on when they had the copper nanofilm I thought it would be cool to make the rotor out of the copper nanofilm embedded into a graphing carbon fiber rotor. Then each motor would be light enough to stick directly into the wheel hub rather than have a drive shaft to lose torque with
Yeah true about the unsprung mass, ergo the graphing carbon fiber rotor and copper nanofilm would probably take care of that for things like compact cars, rally cars. however When I first saw the in wheel axial flux motors and having the problem with the unsprung weight I thought it would be ideal for things like trucks or classic cars that already have unsprung weight issues
@@Machine_State oi! how dare you go bursting bubbles and ruining peoples fantasies with mere FACTS? all the advertising has told us we need motors in the hub, so therefore, motors must be in the hub!
You don't need to make the motor bigger to give it more power, but there is a limiting factor: Heat. The other way to make the motor more powerful without making it bigger is to run higher amperage through the coils. Unfortunately, more amperage means more heat. Eventually you hit the limit of the heat the windings can handle and you need to instead simply make the winding have more area, which means a bigger core. Furthermore, a drum is not a very good self-cooling surface as we have learned from brakes. As of a an axial flux motor, you can either stack the disks to add a more motor rotor cores, and/or you can make the disks higher diameter. You can likewise increase the number of staters on either side to increase torque. For scalability these aditional staters could be simply deactivated at lower output.
@@jonathanbrown2407 Seriously? Ebike motors are around one horsepower. Limited by law to 28 mph. Any improvement in weight and efficiency is desirable. Also, HVAC uses freq drive motors more than ever. From fractional HP to 60 HP and more.
This is far from being used on motorcycles, these max out at 22k/rpm but i had a bike that naxed around 23k/rpm these just cannot spin fast enough to keep up with a streetbike rpm rang
In Europe (big bicycle market) the limit is 25 km/h and 250 W on average. However nothing is said about peak power. So many motors have a huge amount of peak torque and power. And weight is definitely an issue, with 3 kg already being considered heavy. But the biggest benefit is size, as people generally don't like the aesthetic of clunky motors. There actually are many radial hub motors on the market as they need to be flat.
I am not sure about the difference in maturity between radial and axial motors. As far as I know, axial flux motors are already used for years in washing machines, dryers, etc. Not in cars, but the technology and manufacturability is known already. The difference is they don't spin more than few hundred RPMs there...
Search up the NEVS Emily GT by SAAB. Top Gear reviewed a few weeks ago and it has 600 miles of range due to in wheel motor design. No performance car by any means but a solid car.
@@seungltd range isnt a good indicator of performance when its simple to juist add more batteries or increase the gas tank size to make the range figure whatever you want it to be.
I think the Quark e-motor has the coolest sounding name. That is the electric motor in the Koenigsegg cars. It's a combination of radial and axial flux motors. The whole package is called the Dark Matter.
If you have one motor in every wheel, you can turn each wheel 360°, like the wheels on a shopping cart. The car could go sideways or turn on the spot (not a tank turn!).
As an electrical engineer, when i was in my diploma i always wondered how our lab had a 1 HP motor that was 3×2×2 feet and tesla made such high HP motors that were almost 25-30% size. I am slowly getting the answers by such videos
Impressive and interesting. Still, biggest hurdle for the EVs remains the energy density of the batteries. Let's hope for a breakthrough there in the near future.
Biggest hurdle for EVs is they are just a trend. In the end, a V8 will always be way more reliable, and preferable for anything longer than a trip to the store
Or, the need for batteries at all. Nikola Tesla had a way to transmit significant power lossless across any distance to a receiver. The world of EVs and big money seems VERY disinterested into reverse engineering that. Even the inductive charging lanes (they work while driving) would then not need to be installed. You'd have the antenna,, a speed controller of sorts and a small capacitor, replacing the 600 kg battery. For unlimited range, but you'd need to buy the energy from the wireless provider.
Good overview. Seriously though, we do not need 120 mph cars. Some people want them. Most of us are fine with a car that tops out at 100 mph. That keeps our typical 80 to 85 mph well under the max. If it saves material (cost), then woohoo!
In the US maybe, but in Germany there are highways with no speed limit, and they have the biggest car industry. Also racing is important marketing for brands ("Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday"), but it only works if customers can believe that they are buying something similar what they saw on the track.
I've seen a couple of videos about axial, I think they are on par or actually inferior to radial, depending on the application or design. the problem with axial is limited RPM speeds likely due to often large radius designs of axial flux. It is great on hybrids as ICE don't exceed 10k RPM. With radial flux motors, they can get away without transmissions. If there is best electric motor for EVs right now it is the Lucid electric motor. They cleverly designed a smallish radial motor which is lower in torque than a larger radial but allows it to easily spin at higher rpms (which I believe 20k rpm or more) which gains it the nearly the same HP and torque (at the wheel) as a large radial motor that has a lower max RPM.
Unless you wanted to actually drive your car rather than just sit bored on a really fast sofa on wheels(also why so many people die from getting hit by people driving and texting). The idea of a smaller, high torque, low rpm electric with a 5sp manual behind it is exactly what's lacking with current EVs.
That lower RPM range is not a problem, just hook it up to a well built transmission and change up gears when needed. I'd go so far as to say, a couple of these motors driving through a common shaft, will make a great motor for high performance sports cars, or a really effcient way of driving individual axles seperately in a heavy truck, including being able to drive the axles on the trailer when extra power is needed, or regenerative brake the trailer to aid in vehicle stability when off-throttle, without wearing the trailer brakes out.
It took me a while to figure out the lingo for electric motors, to figure out if axial flux motors existed. I had made "axial pressure" lol compressed air Motors with fantastic torque for their small size and plastic composition. I knew it would be great in an electric motor. Some bike hubs are axial, but I'm honestly impressed how long it takes automotive companies to "innovate" 😅
The principle problem with axial flux motors is the control circuitry. It has taken this long to come to terms with the computing power necessary to getting them to work efficiently. There's an excellent video by Fully Charged which looks at the whole creation of axial flux motors.
The other problem is battery capacity and weight, up until now, batteries weren't as efficient or cost-effective as those "heavy engines and transmissions" like he states in the video while conveniently leaving out the battery that you have to carry to power these motors. ( 9:50 ). Comparing the weight of a tesla and a similarly sized sedan is pretty eye opening about the amount of battery you have to carry to get the same output as an ICE. We're getting there, and I'm excited.
@@GlidingBoulder We maybe already there. CATL's Condensed Matter (CM) batteries are going into production this year and have an energy density of "Up to 500Wh/kg" and are expected to be cheaper than conventional Li batteries as well as having a significantly longer life and shorter charge times, as well as meeting aviation industry standards for safety. With electric motors being so much lighter and not needing a transmission, the combined weight of battery and motor can noe be closer to, or even surpass, the combined weight of an ICE car with fuel load, engine and transmission. I've done the calculations, and 500Wh/kg is getting very close to the 3 or so kJ/kg of petrol when converted at the typical ICE efficiency of 30%, especially when you take into account the not insignificant weight of an ICE. engine and transmission. This is not intended as an advert for CATL, there are other battery companies that are close to launching with similar tech.
> I'm honestly impressed how long it takes automotive companies to "innovate" Weird. I'm not "impressed", "surprised", "disappointed", or any other combination of words that you are getting at. The auto industry innovates slowly, as would be expected in any field where products cost tens of thousands of dollars and where the industry bears the cost of fixing engineering mistakes in any units they sell. You would do the same thing if you were in charge, so I don't know why you are so "impressed" by how long it takes them to innovate. They usually run their innovations in racing first. It's a good idea, because it's low volume and funded by the manufacturer.
@@lambdaman3228 It seems that the great innovations are not coming from the automakers, but the battery makers. And you really should be impressed. It took automakers about 50 years for a normal family saloon to go from producing about 50 bhp to about 100bhp, yet it has taken battery makers less than 30 years to go from about 100Wh/kg to 500Wh/kg, and it would seem that the pace of development is increasing still.
Koenigsegg has a motor they call Raxial, which tries to take advantage of both radial and axial forces. Mahle has a motor that uses no rare earth magnets and doesn't use conventional brushes. It sends power wirelessly to coils on the rotor. One could call it a cordless brush motor. It might be arguably less efficient, because the inner magnets require power, but avoiding rare metals and only using copper makes it fantastic for it's environmental impact and simplifies recyclability.
the mahle motor is what was once called a "hysteresis motor", and you often find them in small circulating fans (in fridges) and the like. the rotor is simply a relatively hard steel, so it has a high "remnance", ie, it remains magnetic once the field coil is de-energised. as they run on AC, the coil changes polarity, and suddenly the induced magnetism of the rotor is repelled... they rely on the "hysteresis" of the iron. the work it takes to demagnetise and remagnetise the steel in the opposite direction is higher than the work it takes to simply turn away from the applied magnetic field... very similar to a standard shaded pole motor, that are also used in those little circulation fans, the only difference being the shaded pole uses a slotted rotor with shorted conductor bars, just like a standard induction/squirrel cage motor uses. an opposing current is induced in the conductors, creating a field that is then repelled from the pole. in both cases, the shaded pole causes an unequal magnetic force across the poles, some lead/lag in currents and induced fields, and they always rotate in one direction relative to the shading ring (a single turn of copper wire around a small section of the pole) occasionally you come across ones with two shading poles, one either side, that are intended fro operating in both directions... just because someone says its new tech, doesnt mean it hasnt been around for approximately a century now... its great what you can lie about when everyones forgotten things and the education system fails to remind them...
@paradiselost9946 I don't think it's quite the same. Mahle's new motor uses a method of transmitting power, wirelessly to the rotor. It's not taking advantage of leftover magnetism or anything like that. They can directly charge the rotor's coils, however they want, just like the coils on the stator. Picture the speed controller sending current to the stator's coils. Now picture the rotor has the exact same thing. The only difference is a wireless power transmission device in the line running to the rotor's coils.
I am more excited about the pcb stator motors, than the ones using copper coil. Just like mentioned elsewhere in the comments this is not new tech, cpap fan motors have been using this design for ages. Another cool feature is the high efficiency of these newer generation flux axial motors (95% and up). The are also so simple to manufacture that they can be built by anyone.
Seems like the rear-dual motor with a transmission might be a great application for these axial motors. Still too heavy to put in the wheels themselves. In combination with an AC front axle motor would make a compelling AWD setup - you need a split powertrain or differential on the rear axle anyway.
I think axial flux motors have a very good use case scenario in electric aviation where ultra high RPM isn't needed but light weight high torque is a necessity
The Axial Flux Motor came out in 1821 if it was more cost-efficient it would be the dominant approach. What are the issues on this motor that stop it from being used in production cars today?
Yes, for the most part, but he said the motor “produces energy”. That’s incorrect. The motor produces power & torque by converting energy from one form to another. Big difference.
Aptera is also going for radial flux, wheel-mounted, motors. Their cars, if Aptera can succeed in bringing them out, should be on the low end of the affordability scale.
@@eddiereed5025possibly, but they will put out at least a few cars before then, and if you’re right, and they stop, you can imagine how valuable those cars will be? So either way, if I lived in the US, I would get one. I’m sure renting that thing out would pay for itself many times over. Stop being emotional, start being clever, and go make some money.
I invented this motor back in 2011/12. My coils were at the centre, with cooling pipes zigzagging over and under each coil. I called it the "DISC-MOTOR". Then just like the one shown: I had two drive drive disks, one on each side, these had permanent magnets fitted into them. The magnets each side of the coils were opposite polarity, so that the coils would exert pressure to both at the same time. The idea came to me when I was thinking about leverage. If you put finger near the axel on a bicycle wheel, it takes quite a force to get it moving! But: put your finger near the rim, and it becomes very easy to start moving. Hence the idea. The problem is that it vanished from the computer that I was using. So I have No proof of ownership, but at least it will change the running cost in transport, from Motorcycles, to Buses. The idea could be used in industry, for pumps made with a larger diameter discs. Someone told me before to redo the design, as no doughty he did not believe me. I am getting on in years now, and don't see the point anymore. I just hope they don't procrastinate, and get it into production. P/S, I did not work out all the different aquations, only the mechanical side and the schematic drawings.
It is great to see great engineering! Tesla's approach to engineering has diffused to other manufactures and liberated the creativity and rewards for engineers to use first principles. Innovation is not limited to Tesla - a wonderful secondary effect of Elon Musk's impact. Great to see innovation from other companies.
Public companies have been so focused on next quarter’s profits to boost their stock price that they don’t invest for the long term. With Elon’s success, the perception of needing to prioritize for the long term has influenced a lot of board rooms and investors.
@@andrasbiro3007 His superpower is being able to converse with any expert in the company at the level of that person and make a decision based on the information exchanged. . I speculate that there's no executive in the specific industries he is involved in who has the knowledge base to do that.
Yes, this is a great point, Tesla pushed them to do what never really considered free will... And this is why I really hate these top management persons in Europe, they are really so limited...
Audi uses a two speed gearbox in their e-trons which help with acceleration, maybe that's an idea for Mercedes as well to address the lower max rpm of this motor. Fantastic development - thanks for showing this!
I'm curious as to how efficent the axial motor is compared to a conventional electric motor, as in how much electrical energy is required to produce X amount of torque compared to the power requirements of a conventional motor.
In terms of converting electricity to a magnetic field the axial motor coils are more efficient. The biggest issue keeping them from being using in applications like EV is that to get more power (torque) out of an axial motor you have to increase its radius. The disc has to get bigger. This increases rotational inertia making it harder (and taking longer) to speed up and slow down. It also increases centrifugal forces putting a strain on components (they want to literally fly apart) which can limit the max rotational speed. In a "conventional" radial axis motor the diameter stays the same and you make the motor longer. Rotational inertia and centrifugal forces stay the same. There are also other design issues. E.g. when you're direct driving wheels, a more powerful radial axis motor only takes up more room between the wheels. An axial flux motor would require you to redesign the profile of the car, increasing the vertical aspects of the vehicle, like increasing wheel diameter (it has to be bigger than the motor behind it) elevating the cockpit, etc. Your sleek EV would start resembling a "monster truck" and you'd need tractor tires for wheels and a ladder to get into the driver's seat. The key will be in "stacking" the motors, one behind another along the same shaft. This requires a lot of computer control to perfectly match the electrical pulses across every coil in every stacked motor at varying frequencies to match every rotational speed, and compensating for every variation in magnetic field strength/density. We're getting there...
Good video. Even though when the copper gets hotter, the electrical resistance increases, resulting in inefficiency, the main reason for cooling is to prevent the magnets from reaching the curie temperature because the magnets fail.
Worth mentioning that some radial EV motors would be about 23kg for 500hp (e.g. Lucid at 31kg for 669) which is much closer to what you're looking at here. Still, it'll be exciting to see what can be achieved with the axial designs :)
E-machines are becoming more important for aviation, too, and for that application axial flux motors hace another big advantage: Aviation e-motors often use cobalt iron as material for the stator core because of the much higher saturation flux density (=more torque density and overall better efficiency). However, the downside is that cobalt iron alloys are much more expansive than your standard iron silicon alloys. That's why they are used almost exclusively aviation and racing. When stamping the laminations for radial flux motors you stamp something round from a rectangular strip. Also you stamp a big hole away in the middle where your rotor will go. This means most of the material that goes into the stamping press is scrap - in case of cobalt iron very expansive scrap. Axial flux design stators are a bit more difficult to stamp because the cross section changes with the stacking direction. But material utilization is much much better. You acutally use the mayoritiy of the strip that enters the press. Fore iron silicon cores the cost impact isn't so big, but when using cobalt iron 50-70% of the cost is material. So the impact here is huge! Axial flux motors and cobalt iron are the perfrect match! An axial flux motor designed with cobalt iron in mind (and maybe using some of the things you can do with axial flux motors such as adaptive airgaps instead of gearing) is probably the best e-motor you can build.
The cool thing with that motor shape is that it could be packaged laying flat with a differential below it, so you could theoretically make them much larger with a massive torque output
Very interesting. It reminded me that back in the 1990s, Hydro-Québec's labs created something they called le moteur-roue (the wheel-motor), an electric motor that would fit inside each of an electric car's wheels. It was pretty amazing! Extremely powerful for it's size. BUT, sadly, they were WAY ahead of their time! And there was no market for it back then. So they eventually just let it die.
An interesting tid-bit. An associate of mine was brought in to try to salvage the program, with very little funds available. His predecessor spent C$200 Million and was still far from reduction to practice. The fundamental problem, the promotors of the concept were much better at selling the idea than in execution.
It has nothing to do with ahead of its time. The concept simply does not work. It does not work before and it does not work after. It is the unsprung weight the system added to a car's suspension system. It will make a very bumpy car. Noone will buy a bumpy car that breaks their backbone when hitting a minor bump on the road. The conditions for this system to work must have flat and smooth ground to run on. The vehicle must be operated in slow speed. First thing I think of may work is forklift truck.
Not really a threat to Tesla, no one incorporates updates as fast as Tesla - if this design is proven to be superior, have no doubt that Tesla will be the first to incorporate it into their product line.
@@dizzolve Exactly, and this is why it isn't a threat to Tesla. Simplicity wins over a 20KG weight savings. But this is very good news for the EV industry in general if Mercedes-Benz is putting is R&D into EVs.
So far the limitations to any Electric Motors are a) High Current required for high torque(Flux density) b) Heat generated due to High Current (Action ) and Back Current ( Reaction ) due to acceleration c) Regulation of Current into Wires cores without "Fluctuations" and "Impulse Kick" d) Batteries available for High Current at sustain levels without over heating e) ..... etc ( As more research is done ) . Interesting times ahead. Heard that Korean has a new design for "Power Motors" and used by Hyundai ??
One way around is using higher voltages which can produce more power with less current. My 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid has a 120 HP electric motor and the battery supplies over 400 V. The DC cable is only 1/4 inch thick.
In the mid 90's, our power company here in Quebec, Canada (Hydro-Quebec) worked on a motor that would replace the the car wheel and have the tire mounted directly onto it. Each motor made 95 horsepower and 885 foot pound of torque!!! They were used for both accelerating and braking. The computer controlling the motors had such power over them that they could create perfect "ABS" braking. There's footage of it being installed on a Chrysler/Dodge Intrepid rear wheels and them making burnouts. Every part was created and tested to make it work... and I guess it all came down to money, it was all ditched... how unfortunate. Aroun 2006, a company took that motor and fitted it to all 4 wheels of a Mini Cooper("Mini QED"). The Mini would do 0-100km/h faster than a porshe and had a range of 350km back in 2006!!! This is a direct result of the motor's efficiency, only consuming 6kWh per 100km (Today's Electric Mini produced by BMW have a range of 150-210km and used 16.1kWh)
Axial flux motors (or axial gap motor, or pancake motor) are being developed by several companies at the moment. Great design for "inwheel hub motors" and has a lot of potential. Cars like the Aptera and the Xbus were thinking about using that in their cars.
One of the concerns I overheard at the 2015 CENEX show at Millbrook UK about this was unsprung weight. The thinking then was that two of these would replace your differential but driveshafts would still be the best way to deliver the power to the wheels.
@@cjjuszczak NO! They make the wheels too heavy and this is quite a negative in cars: wheels must follow the road inequalities, and this would add a lot of inertia. THIS is why the solution was discarded years ago.
@@francescocacudi1767 With lightweight materials that problem would be less and less with innovation. And you dont need drive shafts that are very heavy, just electrical connections.
This reminds me to some extent of the way floppy disk drive motors were built in ties gone by. The major difference would seem to be additional magnetic flux paths to better couple the winding flux to the rotor. It would be interesting to cobble together a motor using some old disk drive magnets and coils in a stacked configuration together with a yoke or maybe magnets on both sides to the windings with two rotors coupled on common shaft/spindle. Must put it on the (rather extensive) to-do list.
Great video! Very insightful on the future. Definitely nice to see progress in the electric automotive world, though batteries are still a huge issue (natural resources and disposal). But R&D there is coming along as well. One note: camera shake is a little nauseating. Maybe a tripod? :)
I saw PML Flightlink show off their prototype wheel hub axial flux motors in 17 years ago. At a talk in Hampshire. Been waiting for them to become mainstream ever since...
I have a Mercedes E450 with the axial motor between the engine and the transmission in a mild hybrid configuration. It supplies instant torque in high acceleration times until the turbo spools up. It also reduces downshifting in some hill smaller hill climbs. Result is a very fast car (0-60
Interesting. I guess if RPM is a limiting factor for torque, and you need it only to spin the field, then you could place this field inside another one, which spins at a few million RPM (no moving parts). That would make an EM gearbox and it will be heavy again. Probably its a step back, but there could be some interesting results in the middle.
Axial motors are not new nor it's a panacea... There are pros and cons for axial motors but a complete product is not just the motor. Majority of traditional ICE car maker are unable to come up with good software, just like the mess with Volkswagen buggy software. ICE constructors are late to the party, let alone their inability to change their habits and come up with competitive EV. Design with "binned" parts like Ford did is really not the way to go. I see cars that announce "1000 KM" but weight more that a 747, etc. I wish more competition but for now, they really have a steep slope to climb... By the way, good "infomercial" and best of luck for efficiently producing axial motor in high volume at an acceptable price...
Did a great job of comparing and contrasting the two types, but I still don’t understand how the axial works. How does the flux moving perpendicular to the stator turn with any useable force? I’ll definitely have to do a bit more research because this is really cool and I’m curious how it actually works.
By assigning one of these units per wheel (2WD or 4WD) you would eliminate the need for a differential as well. The handling benefits by electronic tuning/balancing would be immense.
Feels a little like a high tech callback to the circa 1930s radial piston engines for aircraft. Of course, without all the parts and complexity. Very cool technology. You can easily see applications in aviation where weight is so important.
Problem is the battery weighs the same being full charged or empty. Whereas liquid fuel gets spend so the aircraft becomes lighter during the trip saving more fuel. For short taxiing aircraft however this could be viable, though the batteries need to be modular and changable in a reasonable amount of time
Cool tech. I'd be interested to see what these will cost per drive unit. Tesla recently commented in an earnings call that they'll soon bring the cost to produce a single drive unit down to $1000. It's all very impressive, especially considering the raw output potential, reliability, and seemingly endless after market applications for conversions. The future is quite exciting!
Axial flux motors are not new (They have been built from the start.). They have not been used big scale because of cost, mostly due to manufacturing complexity. I mean, if all current EV's have not used them is for a reason. They are very expensive, much more expensive than any current benefit. For now this will just be a Supercar thing, unless this people can reduce the cost for real.
If you have to couple it with a gearbox to achieve the necessary final drive gear ratios to drive a vehicle at the required speeds then you would be negating the benefits of a low weight and compact design. Also consider the efficiency loss from the gear box. If these motors can meet the design parameters without use of an overdrive, and I think that's possible for road use, then good to go so long as the efficiency is better. As it stands now, the largest hurdle isn't the weight of the motors, but from battery technology that is heavy, expensive, and has a fairly short life cycle. My unpopular opinion is that we should consider much smaller vehicles in order to to realize the true benefits of electric transportation on an individual level.
For those who don't know. The Mercedes Design Center in Southern California is on the same street as the major golf outfitters. This way the Design Team can get in touch with their target audience.
For Axial motor design, per watt of electricity, you get more torque, but you get less speed (distance). Radial motor design already gives you enough torque, so it's rpm speed (distance) you want for increased mileage. So perhaps the advantage gain you can get from an axial motor is to make a smaller motor. Ideally so much smaller that you can attach to the wheel hub of each wheel and allow drive and power by wire. Smaller axial motor will be more overworked which will generate more heat. It's likely that current axial motor designs have a problem where cars can't go past 110 mph. Imagine how it feels to drive an axial motored car when you are at 100 mph and you have to depress the pedal fully down.
Nice video)) but Mercedes have actually lost the fight for a better engine. There is already an engine that vastly surpasses the one described, the engine from the KRP Group))
I have always thought it would be much more effective to put an electric motor on each wheel. Spin all fours and it would take off real fast and when you get to the speed you want, just back off the gas and let one motor maintain your speed. If you also had a small engine, it could just be a generator, your gas’s mileage would be great. Once they become available I will buy 4of them, if I can afford them, and put them on my project car. No hurry, it’s just on paper for now. Lol
The extra weight is on the wrong side of the vibration dampening system. I read that this is called "unsprung weight". Consequently, the extra weight in the wheels transmits shocks to the car and literally causing a bumpy ride.
It would be really cool if they could combine these axial flux motors with non-pneumatic Composite tires so that they could replace the rim and tire for about the same weight. With a motor about 30 inches in diameter and basically a tread around it with flex plastic replacing the cushion effect of the missing air. The voltage could be varied to the motor by running a four pack battery in various combinations of series and parallel to give 100V 200V and 400V for example. This would be like different gear ratios. Allowing the motor to function directly without gear reduction. If this is possible then a retrofit system for old ice cars might be possible by making motors that just bolt on to replace the existing tires and a battery pack to replace the engine.
Those motors were developed in 1975. I saw those motors and knew they were the future at an industrial show in Chicago Illinois. That goes to show you how long the best is ignored.
In view of the high power to weight ratio of this new motor, wouldn't it be ideal for electric aircraft, and will it produce a revolution in the use of such aircraft? There are also revolutionary propellor designs which should also have an impact.
An electric aircraft is fantasy, not because of the motor weight but rather the energy density of liquid fuel versus lithium cells. Orders of magnitude inferior. As for propeller design, conventional props peak out at about 85% efficient. Not much room for improvement.
There have been electric aircraft for many years, they are not new and they get more efficient every year.@@dorkyman180 I dont suggest for a moment they will replace conventional aircraft, but there are niches they can fill.
8:50 "This will spin faster than any gas engine." Can we take that to mean that this motor can exceed 7,000 RPM while maintaining high torque across a wide speed range? Because that's more than enough for most drivers. If its torque graph is broad enough and in a high enough range, then it can be joined directly to the wheel axle and doesn't have to run all that fast to be a good EV motor. If its torque output is not that high across a wide enough range of motor speeds, then it will have to be joined to a transmission with two or more gears. Once many years ago, I did a little math based on a then-common car, the late 90s Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable with 16" wheels. That model had tires with an outside diameter (O.D.) of 24". That's exactly 2 feet per revolution. So in order to move the car down the road at exactly 60 mph, the tires grabbing the pavement have to spin at 1 mile (5,280 feet) per minute. Divide that by the 2 ft O.D. and you get a wheel speed of 2,640 RPM. The car's gas engine obviously has to spin at 2-3x those RPMs (depending on transmission ratios and other factors) in order to sustain the car's speed. (Heck, unlike an EV motor, a typical gas engine at idle has to run at a few hundred RPM just to keep itself from choking to death on a lot of internal friction!)
...It is a *PanCake Motor* of the type used in *Floppy Disk Drives* A great example of Axial Flux Tech is in the Modern Hard Disk Drive *POSITIONER* . THANK YOU, 2BdV, for a concise Explanation...
Amazing is right...Great teaching...I'm semi retired HVAC, and can see the potential in all trades...77 and still learning guys...It's great...Thanks so much for this video and the advertisement...I'll get my lady one...Maybe get a little som'en som'en....Learning is not all I still do...C' mon man.
Can this be assembled inside the wheel itself? That will make car construction a bit more modular. Modules: 1) Surf board or car board, 2) Wheels, 3) control system, 4) body (with doors, windows and seats) and 5) dashboard. Each can be manufactured separately (with various form factors) and assembled... Future is awesome... Modular design and manufacturing of modules in volume has the potential to bring down car prices significantly...
good thinking and this would be amazing but alas car manufacturers arent interested in bringing prices down by building smarter. their interest is in building cheaper and charging the same or more. this would require a new manufacturer to enter the game
The axial flux motors may become more popular but I don't think they will be mounted in the wheels. For good suspension and ride you need to keep moving part of the suspension as light as possible and adding a motor to each wheel will add a lot of weight as well as high voltage wiring to a moving member that will receive a lot of dirt, abrasion, water, etc. which are all bad news for electrical wiring and connections. If you put the axial motors inboard and run axles to the wheels then maybe they will become more popular due to high torque and small size. For AWD there is a problem with torque loading on individual wheels, if you have 4 small motors instead of 2 larger motors then on icy or muddy roads you would need full torque on one wheel that would require oversizing the motors rather than using differential gears and individual wheel braking to put torque to the wheels with the most traction.
All they have to do to get a faster RPM is lower the inductance of the coils. They could double the thickness of the windings. Or pair coils and switch there pairing from a series configuration at low rpm to a parralized configuration at higher rpm
I recall my professor at Michigan Tech University in 1977 educating us power generation electric engineers on why we need to improve the design of axial flux motors in our labs. I'm surprised it took so long to make it to production in EVs.🔌🔌🔌
In the early 1990s. Kolermorgan showed a prototype pancake motor. 23" x 23" case. 8" overall shaft length. 0 to 3600 rpms. 360Hp I so wanted two of them to convert my friends 104' boat to hybrid.
Axial is the way to go for DIY homemade wind powered electrical generation. Glue strong magnets on a rotor opposed to copper windings on a stator and you are GTG! Sequence your phasings and add some diodes and send current to your BMS and the battery bank is charging up.
4:00 Heat soaked motors on those Ryobi weedwackers is what happens to mine - lose power max and then die. Need some sort of thermal switch or a small beep at 90% temp danger.
