Live data from Hacker News

Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

supercarblondie.com

451–460 of 616 posts

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#451
post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no area in the world that allows e-bikes with more than 750w motors. A 3kw motor is illegal (cf Surron), unless you are talking about an e-moped requiring registration.

They are not allowed, but still commonly owned and used. The law needs to catch up. There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to. They can't be treated like bicycles because they're too fast but aren't nearly as dangerous as motorcycles. We need a new category for light motorcycles. The real problem, IMO, is that the law is generally not deferential enough…

> There are clearly good reasons for people to want extremely powerful e-bikes and they should be allowed to.

They are called motorcycles. At > 4kw they are that (here). So either you get them registered a such, get a license and insure them, or downgrade them to under 4kw, get a license and insure them as a moped, or downgrade them to 2kw and pedal assist only and register them as a pedelec. All other options is 250w continuous (you can get away with about 500w peak) and pedal assist only.

You are also not insured if you drive an illegal bike on the road.

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#452
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You probably know already, but ICE cars only convert about 20–30% of fuel energy into motion, while EVs are often +90% efficient. So when an EV has to work harder (extra battery weight or colder weather), you notice the drop in range more. There's a kernel of truth here in that Otto engines suffer lower efficiency at part load, however I suspect the real reason is that gas car range is "good enough" and refilling i…

> That's because a) some batteries suffer degraded performance at low temperature, and b) ICE cars use the plentiful waste heat for cabin heating whereas an EV needs a heat pump or even resistive heating of the cabin air. You are making my point here actually. Combustion engines suffer from the exact same, but because they waste so much energy as heat already, less “extra” energy needs to be spent on that.

I don't think there's a contradiction here. Electric cars suffer degraded range when it's cold (in part) because they're so much more efficient that they don't produce enough waste heat to heat the cabin. And batteries are so much less energy dense than diesel and gasoline that the extra power draw reduces their range to a meaningful degree.

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#453
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of this motor is moderately interesting, but the power density doesn't really matter for most of the things you just mentioned. Almost every one of them is limited by the amount of batteries you can put in for both weight and power output reasons.

What do you mean? Modern LFP cells have quite high power density. LTO is even higher. An e-bike with a 100Wh battery and a 300W motor would be extremely useful if it were light enough: you could carry it up stairs, onto trains, etc easily, and it would give plenty of boost to navigate traffic for short distances and make it easier to go up hills. The idea would be that most of the energy would come from the rider. 10…

I have a trek ebike and it's fairly light if I take the battery off. Could easily carry it up stairs. I don't think the motor is the problem

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much any modern car battery out there. Many of those allow 350 kW charging , discharging that quickly is even easier.

kW measures output power, not capacity. What battery can output that power 'all day' as they claim?

[deleted]

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#455
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Modern LFP cells have quite high power density. LTO is even higher. An e-bike with a 100Wh battery and a 300W motor would be extremely useful if it were light enough: you could carry it up stairs, onto trains, etc easily, and it would give plenty of boost to navigate traffic for short distances and make it easier to go up hills. The idea would be that most of the energy would come from the rider. 10…

I'm super excited to fly an electric plane, but a lightweight motor isn't what's gonna make that possible. My current plane carries 561 kwh of energy in a 100 pound/ 17gal gas tank. Even if you say the engine is only 30% efficient, I am still carrying an absolute shitload of energy compared to what I could get out of 100 lbs of lithium batteries. The actual motor only weighs 84 lbs. So I have a weight budget of 184 l…

Very curious about this because there are electric planes in testing, so how do they do it?

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Range in EVs is impacted very little by weight

Exactly. I was very surprised to find out a fully loaded 40 ton electric truck only uses ~100kw / 100km ( https://www.youtube.com/@electrictrucker ) when my 2 ton Volvo averages 20-22kw/100km on road trips.

kWh not kW.

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dropping 10 lbs per motor is HUGE. Auto makers could drop 10lbs, 100lbs or even more from every EV right now by choosing more expensive materials, more expensive manufacturing processes, or simply cutting back on amenities. 10lbs is not significant in the grand scheme of things. The real question is how much it costs, what are the tradeoffs, and how practical is it. > But I did so in service of a point which you st…

10 lbs per motor in an aircraft is huge. And the fact that they can do it WITHOUT having to use more expensive materials or manufacturing or amenities is the thing that is huge about it . It's a fair take on your responses because talking about a SINGLE motor is missing the point. You're not engaging with the actual point that OP made, you're trying to dispute OP by engaging in your own point about what difference th…

> 10 lbs per motor in an aircraft is huge.

That's cool but the conversation was about cars. It's a welcome but tiny improvement for cars. Even after you multiply by 2 or 4, especially because the more motors a car has the smaller they are.

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#458
post #6

Could lead to significant efficiency gains for EV's, because 1/4 of the motor weight means better power-to-weight ratio... a lot of things will automatically get better. YASA was founded in 2009, a spin out from Oxford University following the PhD of founder and still CTO, Dr Tim Woolmer. "Over the decades that followed both of these technologies were explored. But despite the potential for weight reduction, smaller…

> Could lead to significant efficiency gains for EV's, because 1/4 of the motor weight means better power-to-weight ratio... a lot of things will automatically get better. EV motors are already lightweight. The electric motor in a vehicle like a Tesla Model 3 already weighs less than you do. Reducing that one component by 75% would be a weight savings equivalent to about a half of a passenger. Not a significant effic…

Then for drones ?

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Americans are numerically illiterate. Which is why all the dumbest Americans insist that "Why didn't they teach us how to balance a check book?", while, well, they were taught that , and every single check book comes with clear and simple instructions for its use They were also taught how to calculate loan details and the extreme power of how interest grows, but they were too busy crying "Oh this is lame, when am…

Sorry for the ignorance, what what does "balancing a check book" mean? Is that an euphemism or an actual activity? I can of course look up but interested in continuing the conversation.

"Balancing the check book" refers to the process of running your own log of check transactions using something like https://cdn.wallethub.com/wallethub/images/posts/14483/check... and ensuring that it matches the occasional official balance statement from your bank occasionally.

Don't want to make assumptions about what you know so forgive any overexplanation...

It is about ensuring that you manage your account balance, so as to not write checks that your account balance cannot actually fulfill. Writing a check that you can't actually pay because your checking account is too low is called "Bouncing" a check, and generally costs you money at your bank and the place that you wrote the check, and will often result in those places being less likely to accept a check from you.

A secondary purpose was to ensure that your bank did not pay out a check that you have no record of writing. The check system has almost no protection, so anyone who had ever gotten a check from you could theoretically attempt to create fraudulent and forged checks against your account. You would check your record against the banks to check for this.

You would do this constantly, as in writing down every check you write, and once a month or so, actually doing the math, comparing your record of checks against the bank's record of checks.

I would also consider it a euphemism for "Financial literacy" in plenty of people's heads.

It is without a doubt the simplest possible mathematical task you can have as an adult. It is literally addition and subtraction, and logging every check. Every single American who attends public school until 4th grade has been taught the required knowledge for this task: Addition, subtraction, and the concept of negative numbers.

People say "Schools should teach balancing a check book" as some sort of cry that they think schools should focus on "practical" skills rather than, say, persuasive essay writing or reading literature or learning art.

Those people are demonstrating that they are too stupid to even understand what they have been taught. These same people will sit in math class and argue about how they "will never use this", in reference to things like calculating interest. They will often also say "Schools don't teach critical thinking", openly and proudly ignorant of the hilarity of someone who can't follow very basic instructions that anyone can find in five seconds and often come with the checkbook complaining about not being taught how to think.

Similarly, Americans will complain that school didn't teach them how to "do their taxes", which is hilarious, because for 95% of Americans, your federal taxes are a couple of pages and about 14 lines of numbers you have to fill in, most of them are numbers you copy from another piece of paper, and the rest have literal worksheets to follow.

Most people joke about how VCRs used to constantly have the "12:00" blinking clock because nobody would set them because it's "too hard". As a literal child who fixed this exact issue, it was a single page of instructions, and they were trivial. But for the majority of Americans who like to speak up, it seems like they are totally incapable of following even the most basic of instruction.

Frankly, stupidity is not a moral failing. Nobody chose to be born stupid. But ignorance, especially fixable ignorance, IS. America has a serious problem of people being openly ignorant and thinking their ignorance should be anything other than an opportunity to improve. I think the biggest problem in the USA is how much respect and attention people who demonstrably refuse to learn and are ignorant of pretty much everything get. That's why, for example, you have people insisting that rail transport is impossible in the US because it's too big, despite the fact that we literally built a cross country rail network using public funds when the country was dramatically less populated than now, or how government inherently mismanages healthcare despite about 100 examples of government mismanagement producing better outcomes than we get.

Re: Tiny electric motor can produce more than 1,000 horsepower

#460
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of this motor is moderately interesting, but the power density doesn't really matter for most of the things you just mentioned. Almost every one of them is limited by the amount of batteries you can put in for both weight and power output reasons.

What do you mean? Modern LFP cells have quite high power density. LTO is even higher. An e-bike with a 100Wh battery and a 300W motor would be extremely useful if it were light enough: you could carry it up stairs, onto trains, etc easily, and it would give plenty of boost to navigate traffic for short distances and make it easier to go up hills. The idea would be that most of the energy would come from the rider. 10…

As the other poster mentioned, they're not even on the same planet as the current power density of the combined engine + fuel in an aircraft.

There are two things you are missing in these examples:

1. The motor won't scale down to a 2lbs and a few hundred watts. That's just not how it works.

2. The weight of the battery pack is partially about energy density, but it is also about the ability to discharge, which takes more batteries to make up for it. Let's say you wanted one of the motors in the article giving your device a "boost" of 500hp (sure, we can scale it back, but roll with me), your battery needs to output 400kW instantaneously. If it was a 48v pack, which is 13 cells in series, they would need to deliver 8,333 amps. Most cells are rated for something like 20a, so you need to put more in series to get the voltage high enough to get that to a reasonable number. A 400v car architecture is 112 lithium cells in series for example.

This is before packaging considerations, the increase in complexity of the base system, etc. When you look at the overall system, you're just not gaining that much. Cars are actually uniquely good for hybridization and electrification.

Post reply on HN