SIM-Drive Corp announces new 'in-wheel' electric car

Apr 01, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
SIM-Drive Corp announces new 'in-wheel' electric car

(PhysOrg.com) -- SIM-Drive Corporation, a Japanese consortium based in Kawasaki-shi and comprised of 34 companies and municipalities, has announced that it has developed a functioning electric car based on in-wheel electric motor technology.

Named, the SIM-LEI, (Leading Efficiency In-Wheel ), the electric vehicle (EV) is roughly the same length as a sedan but only as wide as a compact. It sports the same lithium-ion batteries (supplied by Toyota Corp) as most other EVs on the market and can travel over two hundred miles on a charge. What’s unique about the SIM-LEI though, of course are the in-line electric wheels.

SIM-Drive Corp announces new 'in-wheel' electric car

While traditional cars have their motors under the hood, including most EVs, the SIM-LEI, uses small electric motors mounted in the individual wheel housings behind the tires. These motors than drive the wheels directly, rather than using a drive shaft, which makes them far more efficient than other cars. Until now, in-wheel motors have been thought to lack the power necessary to propel a car in a manner that most are used to. SIM-Drive appears to have overcome this problem however, with new technology (including using outer-rotors and inner stators, instead of the traditional inner rotors and outer stators) as the SIM-LEI is able to move from 0 to 62 mph in just 4.8 seconds. And because the individual motors can be fitted with sensors, allowing nearly instantaneous reaction to conditions, responsiveness is expected to be better than most cars now on the road. According to the company, the SIM-LEI is capable of traveling 333 km (207 miles) on a single charge.

SIM-Drive engineers also decided to put the batteries and inverters under the floorboards rather than in either trunk, likely because it brings them closer to the in-wheel motors; doing so has the added benefit of allowing far more leg room up front than most are used to with Japanese cars.

SIM-Drive Corp announces new 'in-wheel' electric car

SIM-Drive Corporation was formed in 2009 with the intent of pushing forward new technologies in the electric car market. The consortium is affiliated with Keio University and the SIM-LEI will likely be marketed through consortium members, Mitsubishi and Isuzu. No price has yet been set, though a target date of 2013 has been listed as the time frame for "commercialization" of the vehicle.

Finally, SIM-Drive, in its communiqués, has made it clear to the Japanese public that the vehicle, if successful, shouldn’t add any new additional stress on electricity demands (currently an issue with the rolling blackouts due to the Fukushima power plant problems) as its batteries can be charged at night when demand is low.

Explore further: Fukushima accepts 'temporary' radioactive waste storage

Related Stories

Introducing the Brabus High Voltage Car

Sep 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Ultimate High Voltage Concept electric car has been unveiled by Brabus at the Frankfurt Motor show in Germany. The sporty little car is a new model incorporating the Brabus Smart ED (Electric ...

Electric drive concepts for the cars of the future

Apr 19, 2010

The prospects look good that wheel hub motors will successfully become the accepted drive concept for electric vehicles. German researchers are engineering these motors, which are integrated into the car's ...

Jaguar’s new electric concept supercar -- the C-X75

Oct 04, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The new Jaguar C-X75 supercar concept model unveiled last week is primarily a plug-in electric car but with the added power and performance of micro gas turbines (jet engines) that would make ...

Toyota unveils 'green' sports car

Oct 06, 2009

Toyota unveiled Tuesday a new lightweight, sporty concept car inspired by an iconic coupe from the 1980s, saying its vision of the future was both mean and green.

Recommended for you

Future solar panels

4 hours ago

Conventional photovoltaic technology uses large, heavy, opaque, dark silicon panels, but this could soon change. The IK4-Ikerlan research centre is working with the UPV/EHU-University of the Basque Country ...

Storing solar energy

Sep 01, 2014

A research project conducted by Leclanché S.A., the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Romande Energie and with the financial support of the Canton of Vaud could bring a real added value in ...

Scientists get set for simulated nuclear inspection

Sep 01, 2014

Some 40 scientists and technicians from around the world will descend on Jordan in November to take part in a simulated on-site inspection of a suspected nuclear test site on the banks of the Dead Sea.

User comments : 82

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fuviss_co_uk
Apr 01, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
apex01
Apr 01, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Milou
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
How about motorcycles with the same technology? So far this is the best thing on the road. I am in for the ride.
Nik_2213
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
Don't know about 'ugly' --Concept Cars tend to extremes-- but it does have those huge quarter pillars blocking the view. And, d'uh, the ground clearance looks a tad minimal...
But, in-wheel motors certainly simplify design !!
TabulaMentis
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
They need to get the milage up to 400 miles between charges.
Wonder how much the car cost?
Very futuristic design!
El_Nose
2.8 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
@milou

I don't think a bike has the same realistic demand to go electric. Look you get a motorcycle with a 4 gallon tank and you can go 200+ miles. its a 2 - or 3 cycle engine -- its like a lawnmower with really big wheels.... your miles per gallon are so large why would you need to go green.... carbon emissions are negligable from a bike.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
I can't wait for the price to go down on EV cars. I don't come nearly close enough to driving 200 miles in a day. Yes there are some times where i visit a friend in another town or grandparents a few states away.. but renting a car for those situations wouldn't be horrid, I travel more than 200 miles (more than 3 hours at 60mph) round trip so infrequently, that renting a car for those few times a year would still be cheaper than paying for gas the rest of the year.
Bob_Wallace
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2011
"They need to get the milage up to 400 miles between charges."

Do they really? MIT has rapid chargers which will do an 80% recharge in less than ten minutes. Drive 200, stop ten minutes, drive 160, stop ten minutes, drive 150.

A 520 mile day with only two pee stops.
fuviss_co_uk
Apr 01, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rgwalther
2 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
Only an insult if not true. Pretty intense response for a genteel Englishman.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
I only wrote my opinion about design, you don't have right to insult me
This is the internet, you will be insulted. How you respond to it dictates whether you're insulted again.
Mayday
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
If the concept frees up so much interior space, why does the design at the rear have such massive blind spots?
krundoloss
3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
Why dont they coat this thing with solar cells, that way it can charge while in daylight, charge while parked at work, increase the range, and just be waaayyy smarter. Less impact on electric infrastructure also. I wish they would say, "hey, lets use EVERY smart design feature in one awesome EV!".
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
"hey, lets use EVERY smart design feature in one awesome EV!".

Have you seen this?
http://www.youtub...pE2d3BaY
Bob_Wallace
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2011
Strikes me as a very interesting approach to building EVs.

You've got a generic base/frame which contains batteries and all the running gear. On top one could bolt any sort of body that fit. If someone wanted a car that looked more like a 1967 Firebird they might give up some efficiency, but they wouldn't have to build the car from the ground up.

Milou
2 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
I think it should go + 1,000 miles with half a charge! Today, we are lucky to get 100 miles on a full charge. If one is worried about mileage/charge look up "parallel hybrid" and educate lack of thinking. Design issues are easy to solve for each liking. At least now we have a vehicle we can use. Depends on price of course.
apex01
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
Imagine if this tech was combined with power generating brakes and solar panels. It would have plenty of range but the cost...
Leathersoup
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
I hope it doesn't make the wheels weigh too much, otherwise the handling on that vehicle will be horrible. There's a reason they try to keep the weight of wheels down.
Doug_Huffman
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2011
Yes, unsprung weight will make the ride and handling as unpleasant as its appearance. Clearly it was assembled by a committee and from elephant parts left over after building a mouse.
ormondotvos
4 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
Sure are a lot of people with more mouth than knowledge commenting today. Of course the motors are regenerative, lightweight and low mass. It's the whole point of the article. Duh.
Burnerjack
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
Doug huffman, you nailed it! Ferdinand Porche came up with this motor-in-wheel design about 1896 or around then. It sucked then, it sucks now.
What I really don't understand is why designers think we would want to drive something so flawed AND looks like a reject from the prop shop on the set of Lost in Space?!
Sacrificing style for function is one thing, sacrificing BOTH is stupid.
Ojorf
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2011
Looks like the back is wind tunnel designed or computer modeled, to optimise aerodynamics, without much thought to looks.
suddenlyatomseverywhere
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
Looks like they may need to account for storage space in whatever design revisions may follow. Regardless of the look I hope it would be able to attain good performance with a family of four and a load of groceries.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2011
Another unintended consequence of govt promotion of EV and elimination of oil, reduced tax revenues to pay for roads.
Solutions being tossed about could be quite libertarian, tolls.
End gasoline and fuel taxes and charge tolls bases upon the road, time of day, weight of vehicle, etc.
apex01
not rated yet Apr 01, 2011
Could this technology with regenerative braking be combined with the Aptera?
antialias
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
Look you get a motorcycle with a 4 gallon tank and you can go 200+ miles. its a 2 - or 3 cycle engine -- its like a lawnmower with really big wheels.... your miles per gallon are so large why would you need to go green

I get that already with my car (smart roadster)...still I think it'll be worth it to switch over when the mileage is around 400km per charge.

Yes, unsprung weight will make the ride and handling as unpleasant as its appearance.
with an intelligent adaptation to curve radius / acceleration at each wheel you can make in-wheel motors very nimble on their feet. I don't know if they have tat already included but it would just be a matter of software. And with the center of mass so low you should get excellent handling.
antialias
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2011
Another note on the comments as to looks and mileage...I think some people are missing the point:

a) the US is not a leading auto manufacturer/supplier for anywhere but the US - so using these cars as a standard isn't sensible.
b) Stuff is closer together in most other parts of the world (at least those parts that can afford cars like this)
c) US designed/manufactured cars are fugly tincans that look shoddy right off the assembly line to anyone who lokks at it more than a second or two (face it: people outside the US are much less superficial) - which is mainly the reason for a)

These types of cars are perfect for Europe, Japan, or any large urban area
Doug_Huffman
2 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2011
I drive an 2K3 VW TDI and will spend any reasonable money on its upkeep before buying any new car. They ain't making any better or cheaper or more robust.
robbor
not rated yet Apr 02, 2011
shape reminds me of an old Citroen.
MikeGroovy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
e-traction.eu has a direct wheel drive tech as well, but for bus or freight truck size tires. I for one would love to not have a clutch or transmission(or oil changes, gas fill-ups etc!) 207 mi range is over twice the Nissan Leaf. Really there should be a way to increase battery range for long trips.. Just use a little trunk space. Since it is a tiny car maybe stopping somewhere to let it charge would be a good thing.
irjsiq
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2011
Hello PhysOrg Commenters:
Please Research the Behemoth 'Ore Haulers', which have been in use for half a Century in Mining Operations. As I recall, Each wheel IS an Electric Motor/Generator.

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
P.S. But tonight, our thoughts are With Japan, and the Nuclear Cataclysm continuing to Devastate that Island Nation!
Needed: A 'Compendium' of ALL ISSUES relating to 'radiation'!
"We The People" are Woefully illinformed and uninformed where 'Radiation' is involed!

Japanese Citizens, living near Fukushima, may NEVER be allowed to return to Their Homes, Their Land!

"We The People" must 'Brighten-Up'!
Get Informed!; then Educate Others, i.e. "the rest of Us"!
Rj
mrlewish
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
It's a show piece meant to fail. There is no reason to make a car so ugly. To me the obvious intent is to turn people off the the concept and start the ridicule. There are interests that would like this technology to fail economically.
ereneon
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
0-62 mph in 4.8 seconds?! That's pretty fast even for a pretty high performance internal combustion engine.
Jmaximus
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
This is great, too bad American car makers didn't come up with it.
Husky
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
whats under the hood is important, but this car has a face only a mother could love, the MIT citycar concept on the other hand looks and feels like made for the cellphone generation , sleek, custom skinnable/ retractable etc
Eikka
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
I remember the discussion about EVs.
I talked about wheel-motors, here now it is, more efficient than other EV like i have said.

In your faces whoever disagreed with me.


Excuse me if I don't believe claims of efficiency from some marketing department.

There's still the unavoidable issue that in-wheel motors have to produce massive torque at very low running speeds to make any amount of power to propel the car along, which leads to high ohmic losses in the motor windings due to the high current requirements, and subsequently leads to poor efficiency.

Of course they may argue that the motor is efficient because it has a peak efficiency of such and some at a speed of 65 mph when the motor is actually turning fast and not making much torque. Trouble is, that won't apply when you put your foot down at the green lights.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2011
There's still the unavoidable issue that in-wheel motors have to produce massive torque at very low running speeds to make any amount of power to propel the car along, which leads to high ohmic losses in the motor windings due to the high current requirements, and subsequently leads to poor efficiency.

And why is that? I do not agree with you, so some kind of evidence or article would help.

Of course they may argue that the motor is efficient because it has a peak efficiency of such and some at a speed of 65 mph when the motor is actually turning fast and not making much torque. Trouble is, that won't apply when you put your foot down at the green lights.

The same argument as above. You are forgetting that the energy transfers directly into the wheels than other methods, also it makes the car more responsive because of this. With the other methods it is much the same, but the energy transfer lags and looses efficiency. Also the we8 is much less here, more efficiency.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
Another unintended consequence of govt promotion of EV and elimination of oil, reduced tax revenues to pay for roads.
Solutions being tossed about could be quite libertarian, tolls.
End gasoline and fuel taxes and charge tolls bases upon the road, time of day, weight of vehicle, etc.
Or you could take the transmission tax, which goes into discretionary spending, and move it into paying specifically for roads and electrical infrastructure as it was originally intended.
HeloMenelo
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2011
Sweet Mother of...
Have you checked this thing from behind ?? It looks like the hunchback of notre dame !! This time i don't care about the tech, they're popping out uglier electrics by the minute these days. Get the looks right first !!! Did they just read what i said ?? Get the looks right !!! There i said it again. Then only can you brag about what's under the hood. I feel embarrassed just looking at it !

Just SHOW me the idiot who designed it, and all of the other fag shaped electrics out there. Hello, do you need someone to show you how to DESIGN a CAR ?? mmMMMMmmm obviously they do !!

OR tell me who's the oil Gnome sitting back laughing at all these ugly clown cars he funded into existence. It's a shame
this good technology is wasted on such useless designs.

Seems like tesla is the only company that is not using monkeys to design vehicles.
Eikka
2 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
And why is that? I do not agree with you, so some kind of evidence or article would help.


Simple physics.

Power equals torque by speed. If you have a wheel with a circumference of one meter, and you're moving at 1 m/s or about walking pace, and you want to put, let's say 20 kilowatts of power to that wheel to accelerate the vehicle, you need to generate 20 000 W : 2*pi rad/s = 3183 Nm of torque. Of course a car has four wheels, so that would be ~800 Nm per wheel, but that's beside the point.

The point is that if you had even a simple 1:2 reduction gear between the wheel and the motor, you would halve the required torque from the motor, and halve the current required because the torque is directly proportional to the current running through the coils.

And when you halve the current, the energy loss in the resistance of the circuits drops to 1/4. Meanwhile, the gears reduce the total efficiency by ~3% which is neglible. You can then build the motor much much lighter.
kaasinees
1.2 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2011
Sweet Mother of...


Please Get The Fuck Out...
Why the hell are you posting here if you think its ugly?
And you think your taste is the standard of humanity?
Get lost kid.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2011
The point is that if you had even a simple 1:2 reduction gear between the wheel and the motor, you would halve the required torque from the motor, and halve the current required because the torque is directly proportional to the current running through the coils.


The point of SIM-LEI design is to do it without reduction gears. Actually they removed it from an earlier design.
Eikka
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2011
That is precisely the reason why Tesla Motors originally planned to use a two-speed gearbox in the Roadster, but then dropped it because they ran into reliability issues with their design.

They wanted to have a different gear for lower speeds so they could let the motor run faster and easier, which would have made it more efficient under low speed city driving conditions.

It's the same story all over the place though. People expect electric cars to have no gears, and the manufacturers save money and time by not designing gearboxes, so we are not getting the best performance out of them. As a compromize, the cars typically have a low top speed of just barely over the usual speed limits, dictated by the motor's top speed because it has to work on a single gear.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
Eikka explain to me why the earlier design of SIM-LEI had a reduction gear, but in the new decided to remove it and has a higher milage?
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011

The point of SIM-LEI design is to do it without reduction gears. Actually they removed it from an earlier design.


And that is precisely what makes it less efficient than having separate motors with gears.

The article gives no proof on the claim that they had actually solved the issues of efficiency. It just says the system is "far more efficient than other cars." which could mean anything.

It's marketing bullcrap.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
Eikka explain to me why the earlier design of SIM-LEI had a reduction gear, but in the new decided to remove it and has a higher milage?


Could be any of a number of design parameters that have changed. It is impossible to comment on that.

Maybe they made the wheels narrower to have less rolling resistance, or changed the aerodynamics, or increased the number of battery cells because they got more room inside the vehicle.

Who knows.

What is known however is that high torque electric motors are generally less efficient by a wide margin compared to high speed low torque motors. They have increased cooling and material requirements, leading to much more overall weight and size as well.

The reason to use in-wheel motors is simplicity of design. It's the Apple way of doing things - take what is easier and cheaper for you, and then claim that it is superior.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2011
Could be any of a number of design parameters that have changed. It is impossible to comment on that.

true.

Maybe they made the wheels narrower to have less rolling resistance, or changed the aerodynamics, or increased the number of battery cells because they got more room inside the vehicle.

No they improved the wheel motor. Maybe it is lighter etc(partialy because of no gears or shaft), Maybe more battery cells, well thats because of the reduced weight. Also shafts do not lose 3%, more like 10% overall.

They have increased cooling and material requirements, leading to much more overall weight and size as well.

Already fixed in the new design.

The reason to use in-wheel motors is simplicity of design. It's the Apple way of doing things - take what is easier and cheaper for you, and then claim that it is superior.

No, apple steals ideas and claim they innovated it.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
Also shafts do not lose 3%, more like 10% overall.


That depends on how many gear contacts you have. For a full gearbox with many gears and differentials, that may be true, but not for a simple reduction gear and a U-joint.

Unless you are a really horrible engineer.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011

No, apple steals ideas and claim they innovated it.


Please check what "innovate" means.

It is exactly what they are doing.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
It is exactly what they are doing.

Name one thing???

Wikipedia:
On a lower level, innovation can be seen as a change in the thought process for doing something, or the useful application of inventions or discoveries.[1]


The only thing they have been succesful at is marketing, partially because of their ignorant fanboys. I must admit some of their products look nice, but nothing special, nothing useful.

Wikipedia:
It may refer to incremental, emergent, or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations.

NAh they dint innovate anything. One thing you name i can name something from the same time-line or even a precursor. All they did is buy and steal ideas and patent/market it.
Stuff like patenting icons and multi-touch, or a folder structure, insane.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
It is exactly what they are doing.

Name one thing???


Stop trusting blindly in wikipedia.

http://www.merria...innovate
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
Good job, PhysOrg.asm, deleting the f-bombs. You've had 24 hours.
sstritt
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
One thing no one talks about is the life cycle of the batteries. They will need to be replaced after several years, and since they represent a large portion of the vehicle's cost, this means very little resale value. EV's = disposable cars.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
Stop trusting blindly in wikipedia.

http://www.merria...innovate

Wikipedia explained it better. And i still stand by my point.
Sonhouse
not rated yet Apr 02, 2011
Why dont they coat this thing with solar cells, that way it can charge while in daylight, charge while parked at work, increase the range, and just be waaayyy smarter. Less impact on electric infrastructure also. I wish they would say, "hey, lets use EVERY smart design feature in one awesome EV!".


That would be good if they can come up with solar cell paint that is also 50 percent efficient. Even then, you would get MAYBE 1 kw from the cells, so parking all day would give you maybe 8 kw/hr more, if a car takes 25 kw, that would only be about 20 minutes of drive time, say 100 km max. I would like to see that done on campers, large bodies with huge surface area, go camping, it sits all day in the sun, stay a week, get a full charge.....
zevkirsh
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
I hope it doesn't make the wheels weigh too much, otherwise the handling on that vehicle will be horrible. There's a reason they try to keep the weight of wheels down.


the WHOLE point of this design is to eliminate the drive train without using hub motors which are terrible. hub motors are terrible because its makes the wheels heavy and it makes your motors extremely vulnerable. the wheel is the most vulnerable part of the car and is always vibrating. you don't want hub motors if you need a reliable car with a robust engine.

still , i would like to see how wheel well motors are designed into the car. seems like having 4 engines is 4 times as risky , since if any single engine goes wrong, the whole car fails.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2011
Luckily these are not hub wheels motors ^_^

seems like having 4 engines is 4 times as risky , since if any single engine goes wrong, the whole car fails.

Wrong, and even if that is true, how is it different from having 1 engine?
toyo
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
Gents,
I agree there's not enough information about the technology to assess its likely impact on the market, but one thing I CAN assess is its bad case of UGLY!
I predict a brief and inglorious lifetime for this car - on the basis of looks alone! :-))
sstritt
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
Kinda looks like a VW beetle crossed with an Imperial Stormtrooper!
Eikka
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
Wikipedia explained it better. And i still stand by my point.


The Wikipedia article on "innovate" itself states that it is bulls**t rambling: "This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.". Wikipedia explained nothing. I don't even see what point you are trying to make.

The joke is lost on you, because you simply didn't get that Apple (or the joker; me) is using the word "innovate" in the literal sense that they present something that exists as if it was new, which is the dictionary deftinition. They take something and then innovate. They don't have to claim that they do, because they do.

Many such companies do, because people have confused ideas about concepts like innovate, because of places like wikipedia. It's marketing.

Luckily these are not hub wheels motors ^_^


I'm sorry, but can you really be that obtuse?

Wheel motor, hub motor, the difference is semantic. Save for some minor technical details, they are the same.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
These motors than drive the wheels directly, rather than using a drive shaft


If there is no shaft between the motor and the wheel, then the motor is necessarily coupled directly to the wheel, which means that it is effectively the same as a hub motor. The weight of the motor then has to be suspended by the springs and shocks, which means that its weight will affect the ride quality just the same as a hub motor.

So I see no technical improvement here.

kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
Manufacturers are constantly optimising the driving range for electric vehicles, and sure enough, a Japanese startup recently made a breakthrough with its first prototype. Dubbed the SIM-LEI, this cute four-seater from SIM-Drive sips juice off a Toshiba 24.9kWh lithium ion battery, and can go from zero to 100km/h (62mph) in just 4.8 seconds, with maximum speed topping at 150km/h (93mph). What's more impressive, though, is that SIM-Drive managed to squeeze out a driving range of 333km (207 miles) on a JC-08 cycle (a standardised test that simulates driving in congested Japanese city traffic), putting the LEI well ahead of its competitors on the chart -- Nissan's Leaf does about 100 miles, for instance. Sadly, mass-production won't kick off until 2013, which should hopefully let the others do a bit of catching up with this remarkable newcomer.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
SIM-Drive managed to squeeze out a driving range of 333km (207 miles) on a JC-08 cycle (a standardised test that simulates driving in congested Japanese city traffic), putting the LEI well ahead of its competitors on the chart -- Nissan's Leaf does about 100 miles, for instance.


What was left unsaid that Nissan Leaf gets 100 miles on a different test standard - the 10-15 - which is being phased out. Nobody seems to agree how far it actually goes though, because the range for electric cars varies wildly with ambient conditions. The EPA L4 test gives it a range of 73 miles (105 city), while the FTC SAE standard gives it 96-110 miles, and real world tests give it up to 138 miles, but also as low as 47 miles.

The whole business of determining a standard range for an electric car is based on who does the testing and who interprets the data, which is why comparing them is incredibly difficult and open to outright fraud.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
Then of course you get things like, whether or not the heater or AC was on during the test and so-on. That's a famous trick, used by all of the manufacturers in the marketing drumming up before they have to put the cars to an offical test. Since the test is done on a dynamometer, you can even leave the lights off and gain a couple percentage points from that.

So, it isn't cut and dry that the performance of the car actually is what they claim.
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2011
Well then. There is insufficient data to argue about this.
I still believe in-wheel motors are alot more efficient.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
In fact, if you run the numbers of 24.9 kWh and 207 miles, you get 120 Wh per mile, which is less than half of what other electric cars do.

For example, driving the 207 miles in 3 hours would mean that the car uses only 8 kW (11 HP) of power before you count out the losses, which means that the power to the wheels is on par with a small scooter.

The difference in motor efficiency cannot explain a difference of 50%, so either that figure is complete bull, or they have done something substantial to the car's aerodynamics and rolling resistance that the others haven't.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
Well then. There is insufficient data to argue about this.
I still believe in-wheel motors are alot more efficient.


There is no rational reason why they would be. Electric motors like to run fast.

Electric motors by their very nature perform worse the slower they have to turn relative to their maximum speed. The worst being the point where they have to do high torque from a standstill, because the coils are virtually in a state of short circuit. The efficiency is almost completely nil until the motor picks up speed.
kaasinees
1.2 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2011
, because the coils are virtually in a state of short circuit. The efficiency is almost completely nil until the motor picks up speed.

The coils in this design are different from other EVs. Thats why they remove the reduction gears.
Anyway, even if they are as bad as you say, the weight that has been saved can be used for more batteries.

I will just wait for a decent comparison test.
Eikka
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011

The coils in this design are different from other EVs. Thats why they remove the reduction gears.


You don't know what you're talking about and are just tossing up words and hoping they'll stick, and the explaination would be too long for this forum. Sufficient to say, the coils can't be too different due to various design constraints such as getting the motor to rev up fast enough for highway speeds while still maintaining high efficiency at low speed torque.

And the efficiency of the motor could explain at most a difference of 10%, because electric motors are efficient.

They haven't broken the laws of physics.


Anyway, even if they are as bad as you say, the weight that has been saved can be used for more batteries.


No weight is saved with in-wheel motors, because their power to weight ratio is much much worse than on-board high speed motors'. What they save is in volume - space inside the car.

But, 24.9 kWh isn't much more than the 24 kWh of the Leaf.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2011
You don't know what you're talking about and are just tossing up words and hoping they'll stick, and the explaination would be too long for this forum. Sufficient to say, the coils can't be too different due to various design constraints such as getting the motor to rev up fast enough for highway speeds while still maintaining high efficiency at low speed torque.


I suggest doing actual research in the motors before making such claims.
apex01
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
This breakthrough combined with the following: http://www.physor...-3d.html
http://www.physor...021.html
It looks like the future of electric cars will be bright.
HeloMenelo
1 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2011
Sweet Mother of...

"Why the hell are you posting here if you think its ugly?
And you think your taste is the standard of humanity?"

hahaha !!!
Because it IS Ugly son, not even a Mother would love it ! And no i will stay here to see what
they come up with next and if it is ugly again, i WILL speak as i please... !!!

And as for my taste being the standard.. Not according to everyone i forwarded it to.. ;)
Eikka
2.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011

I suggest doing actual research in the motors before making such claims.


No amount of research can change how the world works.

You can increase the efficiency by putting more magnetic poles in the motor, which effectively works the same as using a reduction gear because the "step size" of the motor is shorter, to make it seem simple.

However, then the top speed of the motor will come down and you won't be able to go 65 mph on it anymore because the required drive frequency goes up so much that you start to lose power because the motor's impendance resists you putting current into it.

So, the coils(poles) have to have low impendance (few turns of wire) and there can't be too many of them to get you a nice rpm range, which means that at low speed, their impendance will be very small, and since the motor has fewer poles it spends a larger portion of time simply passing DC through the coils and heating them up to maintain torque.
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
The simple explaination is that if you have a coil, and you apply voltage to it, the current through the coil will start to rise at a rate depending on the impendance of the coil. The current stores energy in a magnetic field, which then turns the motor.

Once it reaches as high as it can go for that particular voltage being applied, and you switch it off, the coil returns most of the energy back as a "kickback" or back-EMF. What isn't returned is the portion of energy used to turn the motor during that pulse.

Now, if you don't switch the drive voltage off right after the peak, in the case that the motor isn't turning fast enough, you lose all the bits that occur between the slopes - the DC bit. Coils react only to changing current, so they store energy as magnetic field on the up slope and return it back on the downslope. Anything in between, it simply acts as a resistor and makes heat.

So you want the motor to turn fast enough that it doesn't need to go into the "DC" mode.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
But since you have the motor coupled directly to the wheel, it can't turn very fast because you aren't driving very fast. At 10 mph your motor would turn something like 450 rpm which is very slow for an electric motor designed to go 3000 rpm so that you could also go 65 mph.

Because once over the nominal speed of the motor, the impendance of the coils means that they can't react fast enough to the voltage being applied and they simply won't pass more current. The faster you try to make it go, the less power you get and the car won't accelerate much beyond the motor's designed speed.

So, while you could try to trick yourself higher efficiency at low speeds by increasing the impendance of the coils, or using many more of them, you would then kill your high-speed power and you'd make a golf cart out of your car, unable to drive on the highway because the motor wheezes out.

The solution: design the motor to run faster and use gears.
trekgeek1
4 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
I hope it doesn't make the wheels weigh too much, otherwise the handling on that vehicle will be horrible. There's a reason they try to keep the weight of wheels down.


If you have strong power steering actuators that move the wheels quickly, you won't even notice the weight of the wheels. In fact, having the weight in the wheels would probably make it feel very stable.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
Seems likely that this would be an 8 or 16-pole motor which direct coupled should reach highway speed at about 900-1000 rpm. Using higher voltage you can reduce the wire size and wheel weight for the same wattage. I don't know what higher frequency causes coil impedance, but I have seen high frequency electric motors rated for up to 60,000 rpm. I know that higher frequency motors have bearing issues and require special engineering to drain induced voltage from the shaft. Perhaps ceramic bearings?

I've been a fan of the wheel as motor concept for years now. One benefit they haven't described yet would be the ability of applying variable power & frequency to the wheels for turning and traction. In a turn the outer wheels should be fed a higher frequency to push the car through a turn. For traction the current should be reduced for slipping wheels and increased for those with traction. Electronics should be able to provide these features faster than you could detect it.
Kieseyhow
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
In-Wheel motors are the BEST way to design an EV. Now we need a company that creates service vehicles with hydraulic technology to eliminate the driveline and transmission. Also, all EVs should employ either TSCi technology, or turbine designs for their range extenders. I like what one person said about combining the best of everything. Not enough collaboration exists in all aspects of engineering and design. With radical new engineering and modular components, your EV could look like anything you wanted it too. Multiple EV's could conceivably be combined to create delivery vans and light trucks. There are so many possibilities.

I only wrote my opinion about design, you don't have right to insult me
This is the internet, you will be insulted. How you respond to it dictates whether you're insulted again.


Too bad people are not mature enough to let things go and focus on positive and creative comments in general. All this slandering just wastes time.
Kieseyhow
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
...There's still the unavoidable issue that in-wheel motors have to produce massive torque at very low running speeds...

These motors do that. Ring motors, especially ones with regenerative circuitry and stepper or hybrid stepper tech can do these things easily; they are designed for this.

...which leads to high ohmic losses in the motor windings due to the high current requirements, and subsequently leads to poor efficiency.
I am not faulting you, but you are incorrect. Some motors use ceramics.

...Of course they may argue that the motor is efficient because it has a peak efficiency of such and some at a speed of 65 mph when the motor is actually turning fast and not making much torque.

even at 150mph the rotational speed of a car wheel is a fraction of what a modern motor is capable of. With stepper motors, the torque goes down as the speed goes up, PERFECT for a car. Stepper motors develop maximum torque at 0rpm, excellent for braking and energy recovery
Kieseyhow
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
...difference in motor efficiency cannot explain a difference of 50%, so either that figure is complete bull, or they have done something substantial to the car's aerodynamics and rolling resistance...


I submit to you the GROSS inefficiency of the standard automotive drive train. A normal ICE vehicle achieves no more than 15 to 25% of the fuel energy ultimately going into moving the car forward; older cars can actually be less than 10% efficiency. In-Wheel motors completely do away with all that mechanical, heat and friction, spare parts, and high centre of gravity that creates poor handling. Also these are RING motors, very light, massive torque, and likely incorporate modern ceramics technology, in-motor semiconductors, and hysteresis energy recovery. These are not motors like you find in a power tool, or the bumper car at the local fair. Your use of math to make your point is commendable, I try to bass an equation on reality, not on textbook formulae however.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
In-Wheel motors completely do away with all that mechanical, heat and friction, spare parts, and high centre of gravity that creates poor handling.
No they certainly don't. They may reduce it, but they do not provide frictionless locomotion nor any reduction in parts usage or center of gravity. They actually increase the dependence on electrical control or 'drive by wire' as each wheel motor must be a standalone unit which communicates with a central controller.

I appreciate your zealous push for new technology but try to not lie about it. There's nothing that will turn consumers off faster than being lied to. That and article necromancy for the lose.
Kieseyhow
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2011
This breakthrough combined with the following: http://www.physor...-3d.html
It looks like the future of electric cars will be bright.


Thank you for introducing something for the ignorant to ponder.

Also, when the Lithium-Air battery finally comes into production, you will EASILY attain 1000km range from even today's electric cars. They are lighter, smaller and pack up to 1000 times the storage capacity. Think of a car battery pack that you can lift out and carry inside to charge. Of course these will probably be extremely dangerous if crushed or you stick your tongue on to see if it is still charged ... :P

The landscape is changing so quickly that you cannot argue about what is NOT possible unless you spend a lot of time doing research into what IS.
Kieseyhow
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
I appreciate your zealous push for new technology but try to not lie about it. There's nothing that will turn consumers off faster than being lied to. That and article necromancy for the lose.


I was talking about the drive train section of the standard car. I am presuming that the readers of this forum are not complete idiots and can understand this. Obviously the motor itself generates heat, and has friction. Why would you even consider that I would assume YOU or others do not know that?
Kieseyhow
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2011
Whether we like it or not, "drive by wire" and completely new designs for vehicles is coming. Sooner or later cars may not even have a steering wheel and standard controls we have all become accustomed to at all. Just like the computer is likely to lose the mouse and keyboard completely.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 22, 2011
I was talking about the drive train section of the standard car. I am presuming that the readers of this forum are not complete idiots and can understand this. Obviously the motor itself generates heat, and has friction. Why would you even consider that I would assume YOU or others do not know that?
Unlike you, I do not presume that the person writing a comment is not an idiot. I've seen so many free energy, perpetual motion machine, aether theory bullshit on here that I no longer give anyone the benefit of the doubt, especially not a new account.