Synchronous motors are routinely 95% efficient at a designed load. Below medium load the efficiency of motors drops. So when they say 98.5%, they need to show the chart of load vs. efficiency. Also, although motors can be very efficient, the power electronics is not 98.5% efficient... so for this company to claim another 50 km range, they must have really good electronics. Given that the Chinese dominate the electronic biz, i am not surprised a chinese firm has a good motor. I do believe that eventually we will see hub motors on all EV's because they are so much lighter, and enable some amazing handling possibilities. However, controlling slightly different motors in real time is a very complex task, and Mercedes which has the rights to the best hub motor has not been able to ship a product with hub motors yet. The real battle in EV's is not over the drivetrain but who is going to improve battery tech, because that is the majority of the weight and cost are located in an EV. I would imagine once batteries double in power density, EV's will be super common.
I'm struggling to understand how a variable frequency invertor could compete in an efficiency context at those speeds. A Tesla model 3's motor turns at a maximum of about 5k RPM. That equates to just a sixth of the switching. Perhaps the controllers aren't as power hungry as I thought they were? Any thoughts?
Lot of BS in this report. If you went from 95% to 100% efficiency you would struggle to get 50km extra unless the car starts with a huge range. High revs means high precision (cost) bearing, fancy electronics and tricky gearbox, you're firmly in super car bracket. Given "super car" means the exact opposite of the words, this technology is interesting but not the way forward. I would think this is not the first motor to use sintered core material?
Astonishing innovation, if not outright breakthrough. Thank you for covering this, Sam. You are my number 1 channel for keeping up with the incredible pace of developments in the EV universe!
300 kilogram produces 4,500 HP of oomph ! An average car (not supercars) only needs 200 to 300 HP of ooomph, translating to an engine weighting about 30 kilogram.
There is also the weight of the gearbox. That increases with the speed of the motor. I do see a future for such motors in aircraft. CATL is talking about a range of 2000 to 3000 km for electric aircraft. COMAC will want to replace the the ARJ21 pretty soon. A new Dutch aircraft manufacturer is designing an electric aircraft of the same size with a range of 1000 km.
It's 🤯. This is basically putting the parts I know from the manufacturing industry (ZF Friedrichshafen) into cars. Performance and longevity will go up until 2050...prices will drop to about 1/6th if today's prices. But on the long run a lot of people will opt for robotaxi services...will save them tibs of money and time and they will have to care about nearly nothing...only calling for the car.
Bearings that can operate at 30,000 RPM are very expensive and most likely would have a short useful life. Also the high RPM would require very strong gear reduction to
You'd probably need ceramic bearings if the motor was to operate at 30k RPM for any substantial length of time methinks. Space shuttle main engines turbo pump ran at an insane 70k RPM, but the steel bearings used in the early batches of engines were good for just one launch, with the engines running for only about 8.5 minutes total, and a bunch of that time at a downthrottled state (first when passing Max-Q, then as the main fuel tank starts to empty out, to limit G-forces on the crew.) After each launch the engines needed total refurbishment and bearing replacement, and were therefore torn down into component level for access and inspection. The ceramic bearings used later on lasted several launches. I doubt anyone would want to have to bring in their car for regular motor refurbishment, the motor would have to have a decades-long lifespan pretty much to be a viable design. The paper specs are excellent, but such high RPM figures hint at potential reliability issues. Also... China. :P I'd like to see some independent verification of all of these claims. Efficiency for example, at what power level is that 98,5% reached? Typically electric motors go down noticeably in efficiency as they start to hit max RPM, so this would likely matter.
Just because it can operate at 30,000 RPM doesn't mean it has to. Tesla's Model S and Y motors are capable of 22,000 RPM but owners don't spend a lot of time driving at 200 mph. Such a high RPM capability simply allows a much wider range of speeds without a complex multi-speed transmission. With such a wide RPM range a simple single-speed gear reduction transmission. is all an EV needs.
I live in west Michigan , Consumers power is installing eight megawatt solar and battery system. It will be done early 2026. They bought 30 acres just for mega Batteries and leased four square miles for solar panels.
So many game changers! Tariffs, politics, tax considerations, iffy future of certain brands, as well as advancing technologies. I've got analysis paralysis ...
The problem with 30 000 RPM at 180 MPH is the final reduction ratio need. A 30 inch diameter wheel (large SUV size) only turned at around 2000 RPM. So, you need a double gear reduction ratio to have a 13 to 1 final gear ratio, and you lost around 1 to 2 % by gear ratio. Ex.: You need a fisrt 5 to1, with 2% lost and a second 3 to 1 with another 2 % lost to get a 15:1 final gear ratio, the final efficiency will be 94.5%, not so great. A lower speed motor will need a single reduction ratio that will have only 2 % poser lost in the reducer, so will have 2% more final efficiency. I have made many motor sizing for industrial application for efficiency and always take care of the final reduction ratio need to chose single stage if possible to keep the best overall efficiency. Motor that speen at that speed need special bearing, high precision balancing and we uses them only for sirect drive for little saw to trim wood, sometime at 24 000 RPM.
@monipenny408 I bought my ICE car in 2019 for $30,00 and my friend bought his 2019 Tesla for about $75,000. My car costs me about $1000 a year for petrol with about $400 a year for services and $600 a year for insurance. My friends insurance started around the $2k a year and grew to $4k this year and he has never made a claim. I still have my original tyres and brakes on mine, the Tesla is on its second set of brakes and third set of tyres. My car was delivered in perfect condition while my friends Tesla spent 3 months having imperfections fixed that should never have been shipped with. My car sat for 3 months during the pandemic in my driveway and when I went out it started and I still had the range left in it when I stopped driving. My friends Tesla 12volt battery went flat as it was not connected to a charger and he had to have it replaced which cost him as it was out of warranty or so he was told. So ICE cars are cheaper to own. How does your over priced iPhone look now? Unless your a self opiniated ahole then its carry on as normal.
@monipenny408 cool story bro 👍 now you made that up to try feel cool or what ever, do you want to know what I was implying with what I said?.... Because I'm a mechanic by trade with decades in farming, military, mining and passenger vehicles of all sorts, lot of it electric and I'm a Big EV Fan 🤷♂️ I have seen these kinds of big claims time and time again and they never live up to the hype train.... Tesla 4860 cells or what ever they're called is a prime example. Massive hype to deliver a cell little to no better than the competition 🥳 what a game changer, can not wait to covert over to them from my current cells 😴 NOT!
@@larryc1616 Flywheel in the rear Motor Generator Unit - Kinetic, spins in excess of 30,000rpm, but that is apples and oranges to what he is talking about here.
Thanks for the information 👍✌️ This is wonderful news ‼️⚡️‼️⚡️ Increased in efficiency for the most efficient technology we have. This just strengthens the argument FOR EVs!
Other than building mass transit infrastructure in the US, EVs are going to be very big in reducing impact on the environment. I am looking forward to seeing what other innovations arise!
Hub motors suck - they have been around forever - far more prone to impact damage, ingress of dirt, debris and liquids, less efficient and stick all the weight on the end of the axles leading to a terrible ride experience - Apteras (if they ever make any) will gain a reputation very quickly for being complete rubbish auto-cycles.
@@TB-up4xi The wheel itself is an unsprung weight at the end of the axles. I think the key here is the compactness and the low weight of the hub engine, pass a threshold and they will get there (electric vehicles have been around forever, only now to take over).
I live in the U.S. where even whispering "E.V. or Plug-in" is a crime worse than murder, serious! But, you were discuss the fact that this new motor runs most efficiently at room temperature, and it made me think of a question I'd always meant to ask an E.V. person. I live in the U.S., in the Southwest desert region, where summer temps can get extremely high under the hood and inside the care, besides the outside ambient air. It can get from 38⁰C at the max in spring up to 51⁰C in the sf suburban neighborhood I live in. It is not uncommon for some nights in November or December to have an overnight low temp of 36 during really hot years. They stopped publishing how many years in a row we've been in a drought situation, but I know it's been over at least 20 years! You don't walk barefoot around your pool deck on hot days and certainly not sidewalks or asphalt streets. So, lots of high temp here. If someone is forced to park their E.V. outside without shade, how or will that effect their car's batteries? I would like someday to buy a small E.V. (really want a racer type but I'm disabled and the pays not good! LOL) if the U.S. ever lets China sell theirs here without tariffs, fat chance, I know. Or when we retire to our flat in Eastern Europe where I'm sure we can buy them there. But if I get the chance to buy one in the U.S., I wonder what will happen to our car's batteries, will they lose rechargeability quickly? Will they start melting being close to the super hot asphalt streets?
LOL, just the opposite. The reason most EV's use a simple single-speed gear reduction unit is because electric motors typically have very wide torque bands that are flat from essentially 1 RPM to well over 10,000 RPM (Tesla's Model S and Y motors will spin up to 22,000 RPM). Achieving max torque at such a low RPM and holding it out to beyond 10,000 RPM means multiple gear ratios are totally unnecessary. Porsche did employ a two-speed transmission for the Taycan to give it better low-end performance without sacrificing top-end. It had to do this because its electric motor didn't have a wide enough RPM range or torque band to cover a dig to its top speed of 162 mph. (Porsche did this in an attempt to make the Taycan match Tesla's Model S performance in 2019). Even though an electric motor's torque begins to taper off above 10,000 RPM it does so very gradually and so still has plenty of torque even at max RPM. Such performance is virtually impossible with an ICE unless it employs a multi-speed transmission.
Becuase an electric drive plug in hybrid has a longer range to start with. Thus if it has 800km fuel + battery EV mode ) range already, then the boost you will get for that 800 km is based on the percentage improvement this new electric motor can provide. Thus the longer the range to start with, the greater the range boost with the new motor.
Possibly for a ducted fan although even then will need reduction gearbox. Definitely too high rpm for propeller aircraft. High torque is whats needed in aviation. Look at some axial flow motors already produced or in development. There's loads of videos on RU-vid 😊
@@hedleypepper1838 *Power, not torque. Power is the multiple of torque applied X RPM. No, you can't have power without torque, but all the torque in the world doesn't necessarily equate to work done. That's what power measures, and it's the reason stationary engines, including those used in aeroplanes have rated power outputs, not torque out puts. By the way, I'm a former hanger rat (aviation maintenance engineer unqualified).
30,000RPM is essential for sports cars, as it allows higher top speed without using any gearbox. On the average, When you drive at 100kmh in an EV, the engine RPMs are at about 10,000. So it's 20kRPM for 200kmh and 30kRPM for 300+kmh
That sounds about right. Plaid motors is limited to 20k rpm and limited to 200mph top speed although someone removed the limiter here on RU-vid and went 218mph before running out of room. It can go 220-225mph
Not shure the high RPM is an advantage. It will require gears for speed reduction. The first gear is critical. It will aso need strong lubrication on the bearings, and a cooler for the gear case. More parts = more complexity = more things to go wrong = mopre cost.
Fine to talk about these new developments in motor technology, but these are difficult and expensive to manufacture. So you won't see this in ordinary or low cost EV for some time. But please keep up the development.
GMAC has room temperature superconductor motor technology? If true it's a science breakthrough. The downside to 30,0000 rpm motors is more gear sets for speed reduction, adding more friction but with precision gears perhaps the motor efficiency gain is greater. Also it seems like it would have greater inertia like a ICE flywheel which reduces acceleration and a increases energy to achieve speed. Could locking the inner rear wheel be their trick to a tighter turn radius?
Maybe we can used the advanced materials and manufacturing on a motor and not increase the speed and get significant and possibly similar gains. We don't have to use expensive high speed bearing or additional gear reduction.
Yes, nice improvement in gaining more potential rpm. Actually does more for efficiency than most people would think , including the armchair experts. Lol. While the motor itself may be at 95% give or take, on its efficiency... with the extra rpm available, engineers can lower the overall gearing, thus gaining better real world efficiency. A lot better. My Surron ( electric dirtbike ) gained a noticeable improvement in range when I dropped the gearing in the very way I am describing, and my motor rpm only increased from around 6000 rpm to roughly 10000 rpm. But the top speed with the lower gearing is still the same as original, so I use less throttle for most situations. A very common mod. So not my idea. But it does work.
Iron nitride magnets are IMO better as they have no temperature management problems can be made into any shape you want and have 6x the strength of neodymium magnets and best of all no rare earths are needed to make them.
I can't wait to have engines so small and powerfull, that they will no longer be this tradicional engines in front or back of the car, but actually inside the wheels. Imagine the space and weight loss that will bring! And probably improve handling as well. I keep saying that, with all the improvements (or brakethroughs) happening right now, between 2028 and 2030 is when EVs will amazing! Of course I think that those possibilities are one of the main reasons why so many people (like me) won't buy a NEW EV anytime soon...
around 4:57 - Superconductivity plays a part at room temperature ..... this means they have to be cooled ? Did I misunderstand this? If it is superconducting and has to be cooled then the mass of the cooler wil need to be added.
30,000 rpm may be good for aircraft turbines. For automobiles a large diameter motor, like a wheel motor, produces torque efficiently at very low rpm and eliminates the transmission completely. They should, however, be mounted inboard on CV axles, away from vibration and dirt at the wheel.
lack of innovation in motors is down to cost, there is a race to the bottom to gain a competitive edge, that's why tesla is now removing rare earth magnets in their engines and compromising longevity, not because it's better but because it's cheaper with the constant decline in battery prices (and innovation) other components are now making a larger portion of manufacturing cost, high performance engines being one of the highest it's like the solid state storage industry, initially SSDs were incredibly fast and reliable, now they are made so cheaply that conventional hard disks out perform them in a few areas, the race to the bottom to meet market price is happening in EVs as it did in SSDs
I'm more than suspicious of the claims by the manufacturer in this report. Any AC motor is already a very efficient device at its optimal operating speed and load. We're talking up to 95%, on a good day. Perhaps it is possible to close the gap a little further, but at 98.5%, it falls into the too good to be true department, after all, you can't go beyond 100%, can you. Friction losses, copper losses and windage surely have to add up to more than a 1.5% loss in efficiency. And even if I'm totally wrong, surely increasing the controller frequency to that point has to reduce efficiency in the variable frequency invertor. And, at the end of the day, a motor's "efficiency" varies greatly depending on speed and load. This motor might be the next great wonder of the world in a lab, but I'm not seeing it bearing fruit in an automotive application.
Tesla cars have a *motor* rather than an *engine*. That mistake in terminology is a red flag that suggests you may not know what you are talking about. In addition, you make some assertions that don't ring true to me. As such, I suspect you are stating assumptions and uninformed opinions as if they were facts. I will point out the dubious assertions you make. If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, then please do so. You assert there is a lack of innovation in motors. However, an internet search for "innovations in electric motors" yields results that suggests your claim is incorrect across the automotive industry. Even within just Tesla, some examples of innovations/improvements in recent years come to mind: (1) Tesla's 2021 "Model S Plaid Delivery Event" video discusses some innovations in its electric motor (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kUmkbzQ-BS0.html); the "Powertrain" chapter in Tesla's "2023 Investor Day | Tesla" video (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Hl1zEzVUV7w.html) contained photographs and video clips suggesting that Tesla was (2) moving to a hairpin motor design (later confirmed in tear-down videos), (3) had developed its own in-house software to accurately simulate the rotating magnetic field inside motors so Tesla could "iterate through millions of possible Drive Unit designs to find the best one", (4) had already reduced and was moving towards eliminating the use of rare earth magnets in its motors, (5) stated "We've reduced the drive unit cost to about $1000, and don't think any other automaker is even close to that number", and (6) Tesla was able to make significantly better motors at significantly less cost and stated, "What I really want to emphasize is that we did all this without compromise: our cars as just as powerful, they go just as far, they cost the same or less, and the factories have the same output". I do not recall Tesla *ever* announcing that it has decided to compromise motor longevity in order to make them cheaper. So if you have some evidence to back up your assertion to the contrary, please share it. In 2018 (before the move away from rare earth magnets), Tesla tweeted "The Model 3 drive system is designed and validated for over 1 million miles - this is what the gears look like after testing [photo of gears in pristine condition]". Even if moving away from rare earth magnets did reduce longevity, what makes you think it would reduce longevity sufficiently so that the motor would not continue to outlive the rest of the vehicle? Let's assume you are correct in claiming, "there is a race to the bottom to gain a competitive edge". It is entirely possibly that *many other companies* are engaged in such a race, but since Tesla is to EVs as Apple is to smartphones; the company competes on "our products are perceived as status symbols and hence people are willing to pay more", so the company has been able to avoid entering into the race to the bottom on costs/quality. Tesla has already announced that its next-generation vehicle platform should dramatically cut manufacturing costs, so, as far as I am aware, there is not necessarily a need to Tesla to cut costs & quality on its electric motors. If you have any evidence to suggest that Tesla has done so, please share it. Even your assertion that hard disk drives are faster than cheap SSDs is dubious.
the steering isn't hard, Our Diesel UPS trucks wheels come out to 85 degrees compared to first gens 62 you don't need rear steering, just a better shaped steering knuckle. If they're hub motors it would be easier.
I keep tuning in to get your report on the Tesla big rig that crashed and burned. It was big news in America and it closed a major freeway down for hours. I keep wondering why it veered off the highway, off the interstate highway, and ran into the trees. What caused that? Then it burned for hours on end and closed everything down for miles. WHAT A STORY! Why have you not covered it?
Very high revs in a vehicle motor are not a good thing in themselves. The speed has to be reduced to around 1000rpm at the wheels, and a 30 to 1 reduction will probably have to be done in two or three stages. Each stage of gearing has an efficiency of about 98%, so the efficiency is down to the low 90s when you include the transmission. The losses from the transmission are worse than this in practice because the biggest loss is from churning of the lubricating oil, and this loss remains about the same as load is reduced which means that the efficiency at light loads is much lower. The efficiency gain from the amorphous magnetic material would also apply in a larger and slower-running motor, and the overall efficiency would be better because of the lower losses in the transmission.
I think that the Chinese might be overstating their "break through", here. 98.5% efficiency? Just think about that, for a second. Copper losses, windage, hysteresis losses and frictional losses in a motor that spins at 30,000 RPM being only 1.5%? I didn't come down in the last shower, you know.
The Tesla model S Plaid motor spins at a max 23,000 RPM (with no load) and has a single reduction gear of 9.73:1 A 265 /30/20 tire will do circa 800 revs per mile. 180 miles per hour = 144,000 revs per hour = 2400 RPM for the tires. 23,000 / 9.73 = 2363 RPM after the reduction gear. There is no need for a 30:1 reduction gear - more like 12.5:1 for 180 mph top speed or 10.4:1 for 220mph
Forecasters are warning that “dangerous heat and humidity” will spread across the central and eastern United States this week, threatening to break records for high temperatures and ending a spell of fall-like weather. The heat wave will bring unusually hot temperatures to the Upper Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, said a meteorologist at the Weather Prediction Center. The EXTREME heat and humidity could make it feel like 106 to 117 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of the country. In some places in the Midwest, it could be the hottest temperatures they’ve seen in many years, perhaps ever. Not only is it late, it’s the HOTTEST, too. So that’s EXTREMELY unusual. Columbus, Ohio, and Chicago are expected to reach a high of 97 on Monday. Louisville, Ky., is expected to hit a high of 101 on Wednesday and Thursday, while Washington could register 101+ on Wednesday. Excessive heat warnings are issued within 12 hours of “extremely dangerous heat conditions,” which means the daytime heat index feels like 105 for at least two days and the low temperature does not drop below 75. HOW'S YOUR HOAX TREATING YOU?
I think e.g. at ebikes You cannot use a normal powerfull brushless motor from an RC-plane, with max 30.000 rpm, because you then suboptimise and need a big gearbox with huge rpm-reduction and big losses. So at least at e-bikes, lower rpm motors and smaller simple gears inside the motor, are better and more efficient. Maybe its a little like this in ev cars too, although electric cars use higher revolotions on the wheels... ;-)
There are bearings which hold up to 60,000 rpm. In the early Model S Tesla simply used cheap trash everywgere - including the bearings - to keep the cists down.
@@thyristo When I think of shortcuts to save money or changing a product that has earned rep to game the market/consumers, one group is far and away at the head of the pack.
Sam says battery chemistry is changing every week, but it isn’t. Once you commit a design (ex: battery) to a large scale production line, that’s it. Nothing changes until the scheduled end of that production run. That could be years. Changes cost big money and upset all the forward factory floor planning. An improvement in laboratory research takes years to perfect and be made workable and financially viable.
I think when he says battery chemistry is changing every week it's because there are so many different researchers and manufacturers working on the problem simultaneously. For a given manufacturer, yes, they make a commitment and that's it for a period of time.
Might see a revolution in electric motor *COOLING* yes, absolutely...most easy economic way to do this is simply bathe the entire product in some type of liquid such as oil or synthetic oil ideally and add an oil pump to circulate the fluid to provide crazy efficient cooling to the engine product. Some of this has been hinted at with the new Starship Rocket engine if you look at new now as the *"fueling infrastructure"* is now #integral to the engine itself or built in to the housing as opposed to be globbed on to the exterior as was true previously (for the puposes of monitoring the engine design/performance was why before done rocket engine in way was done.) A modern ICE platform engine could be done this way as well i might add...get rid of all the fuel lines etc and simply encase the entire matter into a *"housing"* but yes in the meantime and for *COOLING* purposes could be what is being done here for an electric motor. There is a lot in the "wrap" (how an copper coil is literally wrapped around the magnet to create the power system) meaning is using "wound" but if instead of winding take a *"Y"* shaped magnet hinted at by your Tesla chargine cable interface and charger and then "wrap" along a 3 axis depending upon how done specifically but that would increase suraface area from a single "wind" to a massive "wrap" also there are 3 dimensional aspects to this as well but yes...cooling remains a major issue with these types of drive lines so if made #integral_cooling thermal efficiency of the unit would be increased very materially #steady_state kind of thing with temperature however not pure electrical although that matters very much as well and create first and foremost very *ROBUST* drivie unit (free of failure ever, probably last longer than the vehicle actually) but also as a practical matter more "efficient" meaning with same amount of applied energy can travel a further distance all other matters being equal and they are in a battery electric vehicle. Would not call this a "breakthrough" as say a fully autonomous vehicle working system in the wild and actually working wholly run by computer would be #driverless_car but yes possible a new *#BENCHMARK* be had here have to see the producted as delivered holisitc functioning as working to make that a valid claim absolutely. Definitely possible tho. Battery electric hybrid vehicles are putting out crazy amazing good thermal efficiency to create work effort numbers going on a long time now though (over 12 Months running anyways.) 😮😮😮
Motors, transformer with efficiency nearly 100% are nothing unusual, but the stumbling block for many things electric now is the lack of means to store a lot of power, until there is a tech break through in energy storage, the most efficient motors are useless without power. High speed bearing is no problem, sure it be expensive, but jets have them for a long time already.
Tesla the person said alternate current is better. Hundred years later today battery direct current motor is still evolving, and will power Tesla vehicles.
honestly I would be more interested in cost and longevity. Yes it may be more powerful (don't need) what i need is longer life and again cost. 4 wheel steering well Hummer EV has it and a few other Ice cars have 4 wheel steering
Think this motors will be very expensive. Centrifugal force is enormous, requiring exotic materials for the rotor and the bearings, What is with induction resistance? Beside this, you can buy electromotors with 500.000 rpm, CELOROTON for example.
@@robertfonovic3551 you need to have a look at the construction of the rotor. The outer part is held by a very thin piece of metal. That bridge needs to be as thin as possible to reduce the magnetic field being shorted. That is why Tesla carbon wrap their rotors. Carbon wrapping allows the removal of that link so you get a stronger magnetic field. The thinner the link the more torque you get but the lower the top speed. Induction motors don't have this problem but they are less effecient.
Like comparing a Formula 1 engine to a regular car engine. 30,000 rpm just means requiring a bigger ratio in the reduction gearbox, and how long do you think bearings will last at 30,000 rpm compared to 5,000 rpm, and at what cost? The power converter will also have to operate at a higher frequency which will push up switching losses, so I suspect that energy losses are just being transferred from the motor to mechanical and electrical losses elsewhere.
CNC spindles have been doing 30k rpm for a long time. No issue there. The electronics have no problems running at that speed. The limit is the rotor flying apart. That is a little hard to do when you have magnets in the rotor.
@@franciscoshi1968 I've seen the damage done to a 285Kva alternator following a governor failure in a big diesel. Needless to say, we didn't repair the alternator. That probably hit maybe 3000 RPM, tops.
We're not talking about the difference between 5,000 rpm and 30,000 rpm - Tesla's electric motors already spin at a maximum 22,000 rpm and last for years and hundreds of thousands of miles - it's a moderate increase of 36% but not a quantum leap.
The efficiency of an electric motor is calculated by dividing the power out (torque in newton metres times speed in radians per second = watts) by the power in (volts times amps = watts). This gives efficiency as a decimal fraction. Multiply by 100 to get it as a percentage. To convert speed in rpm to radians per second, multiply by pi and divide by 30.
@@larryc1616 The 15% loss you quoted in an ICE car is correct Larry but people don’t realise that this also applies to an EV. A Tesla 3 for example has a 9:1 ratio reduction epicyclic gear train and differential, and this incurs a 15% loss of efficiency. If a drive system is not 1:1 and requires a gear-set of any type, there is a 15% loss straight away regardless of what power unit is driving the input shaft. You can check any of this out through the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), it’s been like this for decades. The introduction of full synthetic oils has increased the efficiency a little but not dramatically. Tesla gear-trains use standard off the shelf ATF (automatic transmission fluid) even though the gear train is “fixed” (no clutch or torque converter).
That motor is going to require some very expensive materials if it is going to last more than a few hours, and if it is running 30,000 RPM it is going to require some fairly heavy gear reduction. Better to just add a few kWh of batteries instead if you want that 50km more range.
I am not not remotely an engineer, but a little modicum of common sense tells me that any thing running at 30000rpm will not last very long or will require plenty of monitoring and regular replacement of parts.
I'd like to see cup holders able to keep your drink hot or cold as required. For example, 40C would be enough to keep a hot drink hot for much longer. Similarly, say 4C would be cold enough to keep your cold drink cold much longer. You could choose by way of a switch or it could be automatically detected.
Is this accurate? Google search quote: "Some sources state that lowering your speed on the highway from 65 mph to 50 mph (if that's safe and possible) can increase EV driving range by up to 30%."
Depends what you are in - perhaps in a brick shaped EV that might be true the difference in my model 3 is around 10-15%. Wind resistance at 65mph is 69% greater than 50 mph.
@@TB-up4xi The reason for my comment was that ICE vehicles are most efficient per mile at 45 MPH. It got me thinking at what speed are EVs most efficient per KWH and at what speed do the EV manufacturers determine an EVs range. I did several Google searches and all the results were similar.
