SHENGYI new style lighter 9c type DD motor

I ran a sensorless up until now. It kinda worked but sensored is more silent and powerful.
And sensorless doesn't make the axle any better.
Need to find the bag of SS41 sensors I got centuries ago from Ed Lyen.
 
Does anyone know the hall sensor wire and phase wire config for these motors ?
I have one on my dillenger outlaw, their supplier: http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/500W-electric-bike-cassette-motor_1858734395.html

Im trying to wire it up to my lyen controller but not having much luck, the 9c configs listed here:

http://www.lyen.com/Manual/Color_Linings.htm

results in order of being found when searching for 9c:

1) motor rotates slowly forward & noisy
2) motor rotages at a slighty faster speed than first result in reverse but not as noisy.
4) ignored sensorless config
3) motor does not rotate but jitters
4) motor moves slowly forward making horrible sound.
 
I don't recall the combo since I already gave up on mine, but I do this with every motor:
Connect the phases in any directions, then try all the 6 possible hall combos until you have a working one (less than 3A current at full rpm).
If the motor is spinning the wrong way, switch any two phase wires and the same colored hall wires at the same time, thus reversing the direction.

Now the reason I gave up on the motor. The axle flat eventually ovalized and destroyed the torque plate in the process. Using a puny 72V/25A controller!
So make sure you torque those tiny bolts properly!
 
I figured it out last night, the phase AND hall combo's must be

Y:Y
B:G
G:B

for anyone else that google leads here :)
 
36V250W-450W-crystalyte-bicycle-hub-motor-rear-cassette-motor-DGW12C.jpg


What is this motor and are there reviews for it?

http://www.aliexpress.com/item/36V250W-450W-crystalyte-bicycle-hub-motor-rear-cassette-motor-DGW12C/1720945811.html
 
I don't recommend this motor for anything over 50A phase current, and no regen. The axle flats got deformed on my motor over time, I had to stop using it.
 
This motor has been improved with a much larger 14mm axle (10mm flat) which solves the problem of rounding the axle flat going back and forth between drive and regen. It is being used in the new RADcity bike which was released December 1st. I bought two of these and the motor is quieter than the previous version which was used in the RADwagon and the regen is also stronger. Of course this could be caused by changes to the Sine wave controller firmware between the two bikes.
 
cwah said:
Simple answer:
- dual hubbies are more efficiency when torque or acceleration is required. It reaches faster top efficiency. In city commuting, dual hubby is most efficient.
- for long straight road, single motor is more efficient
Click to expand...

Anytime copper loss is more than ~2x core loss, then a second motor would make a more efficient system.

Or have the right sized rear motor for the designs intended drive cycle and keep the front end nimble. If you are accelerating at a reasonable rate, your front wheel is nearly unweighted or off the ground. This a second excellent reason to keep it all in a single correctly sized rear motor, as the end-turn copper on the sides of the windings is all added resistive copper loss, going to a 2x stator width single rear motor eliminates this significant inefficiency in compared copper losses. Dual motors offers significantly more surface area for thermal dissipation ~1.5-2x if the motor only grows in stator width (but saves mass vs 2 motors from deleting the extra set of bearings and side plates.)
This is why growing radius helps more than width due to added cooling surface area growth being substantially greater than going wider, and the ability to run lower saturation levels in materials to make design torques for the lowest net stator iron and magnet mass.

Where you mention above that dual hubs is most efficient for commuting, I think you may find that not to be the case vs a single appropriately designed rear motor alone. Something starting in a 273mm or greater radius with width of the lamination stack chosen to match the applications needs would be pretty hard to beat for ultimate efficiency vs any combination of width or quantity of also direct drive motors using same grade/quality of magnetic materials in ~203mm.
 
liveforphysics said:
Where you mention above that dual hubs is most efficient for commuting, I think you may find that not to be the case vs a single appropriately designed rear motor alone. Something starting in a 273mm or greater radius with width of the lamination stack chosen to match the applications needs would be pretty hard to beat for ultimate efficiency vs any combination of width or quantity of also direct drive motors using same grade/quality of magnetic materials in ~203mm.
Click to expand...

you're blithely skipping over the increased angler momentum
 
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:
liveforphysics said:
Where you mention above that dual hubs is most efficient for commuting, I think you may find that not to be the case vs a single appropriately designed rear motor alone. Something starting in a 273mm or greater radius with width of the lamination stack chosen to match the applications needs would be pretty hard to beat for ultimate efficiency vs any combination of width or quantity of also direct drive motors using same grade/quality of magnetic materials in ~203mm.
Click to expand...

you're blithely skipping over the increased angler momentum
Click to expand...

LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top