Good point. probably possible. with electric motors and those kind of small resonance characteristics due to the motors natural frequencies could be an issue with gears with some backlash. so, a flywheel could be usefull there. I dont think it would solve any issues with the changing of gears. actually, the less inertia in that regard, the better. less force on the teeth if the rpms were mismatched as they are with sequential gear boxes.
Yeah a flywheel would definitely work against their goal of trying to get the eMotor to change RPMs as quickly as possible. It sounds like the existing mass of the rotor was too much as it is.
If they ever need variable ratios it would be good if they found a CVT that could work.
Despite the mindset expressed here (just as it is in a greater extent with Tesla and just about any other other EV manufacturers), though in keeping with this particular train of thought for the purposes of relaying an ideology in a manner in which it would be understood under the present frame of mind, I'd like to point out that the inherent proprietary operational disposition of any (electric) motor is in a single "gear" orientation. Any attempt to implement additional "gearing" would only serve to overly complicate a predominantly simple (singular) functional aspect of the technology, i.e., "over thinking" the basics, as previous history with the development of this technology demonstrates.
To this end, IMHO, my thoughts on this issue are that Tesla (or any EV manufacturer) should abandon any efforts to devise an "economical" method (note that I haven't mentioned that it could not be done, only that it would not be financially feasible from any reasonable perspective at this point in time given the exorbitant material cost of implementing a multi-geared transmission) as an ill-conceived pipe dream and stick with the time proven, standard method of operation commonly associated with motors, i.e., one speed/"gear".
With that said, it is my view that if it is the intent of any EV manufacturer to actually produce a multiple speed motor, they should do so by working to elaborate on/to evolve the parent technology while strictly adhering to the confines of that particular technology and not attempting to implement the technology of a completely differing discipline (electrical as opposed to mechanical), in the process avoiding pollution of an intrinsically pure technology (electric) with another (mechanic) that is atypically dirty like some form of bastardized cross-pollination.
Following this train of thought, instead of beating the metaphorical now long dead horse, if an EV manufacturer wishes to add differing speeds/"gears" to their motors, why not merely stick to the tech and simply add additional "poles" with associated "synchros" to "govern"/"modulate" their activation/operational "frequencies", hmm"?"
Why not merely go to "source" instead of outsourcing"?!?" Pass it along please.
Last edited by just-an-allusion; 12-04-2008 at 01:35 PM.
I really don't see what you're going on about here. Cars are inherently mechanical objects and you still seem to be missing the point of gearing.
Last edited by doug; 12-04-2008 at 01:30 PM. Reason: clarification
Sometimes progress comes in the form of baby steps instead of leaps and bounds, as we would all wish.
Last edited by just-an-allusion; 12-04-2008 at 12:37 PM.
Last edited by doug; 12-06-2008 at 11:20 AM. Reason: typo: then->than
If so, please note that nothing mentioned in the technique that I alluded to above refers to transferring the workload from the motor to the pavement, only in modulating/regulating the rate of the rotation of the motor, it's "speed", at any given time since that was the topic being discussed.
As for actually transferring the workload to the pavement...really, how hard could it be to facilitate?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)