this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
713 points (93.0% liked)

Technology

59575 readers
2969 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OhmsLawn@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'd be concerned with the amount of unsprung weight this adds, too. You're basically taking the transmission and adding that mass to the hub. Seems like it would be pretty crashy on rough surfaces.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I considered that but couldn't make any conclusions. The driveshaft and sun gear are not added to the unsprung. I'd guess only half the weight of planets and carriers is added. It definitely adds the weight of the ring gear to the unsprung mass.

I'm also curious how this affects rotational mass. So while every component spinning with the wheel from tire to motor shaft has rotational inertia, small-diameter components such as drive shafts have relatively little rotational inertia. Wheels and even brake discs have a lot more. I don't have numbers obviously but I'm curious if the rotational mass of the ring gear ends up being detrimental compared to a heavier-weight lower-inertia cv setup.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the ring gear the wheel body (or whatever it's called), that is, even a fixed axle would have weight there, the gearteeth even provide stiffness. CV joints also contain unsprung mass, I'd say there might be a bit of a difference but nothing drastic. With modern fancy biomimetic wheel body geometries and everything you'll probably definitely be lighter than 80s steel rims. What happened to spoked wheels, anyway.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The CV only contributes half it's mass to unsprung weight, and this system still requires a drive shaft and either a CV or u-joint. But with more mass at the hub.

Typical hubs are still lighter than this, because this setup still requires the hub structure, it's just adding gearing out there.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Half of the hub is unsprung, the transition between sprung and unsprung is at those fancy articulating planetary gears. The drive shaft is definitely sprung, it and the motor is completely static relative to the battery and everything.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yep.

Trucks used these as far back as pre-WWII. It a great solution for off road vehicles to gain clearance. At low speeds, even universal joints work fine for this setup, because the shaft rotates at 1/3 wheel speed, like a drives haft does going into a differential.

This puts a diff at each wheel.

Edit: These are called Portal Gears

[–] __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not quite portal gears, that has the input shaft fixed at the top. This is like an adjustable portal gear.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Meh, it's still a portal hub, where you put the input shaft is a minor difference. It's still putting the gearset in the hub, increasing the total weight of the vehicle, and increasing unsprung weight.

Calling it a new thing is a lie. All they've done is switch it to planetary gears. I'd bet lots of money this was tried a long time ago, and was shelved in favor of an offset input shaft.