new cyclone 3000 w mid-drive kit?

Grantmac:

. The cyclone planetary is 5:1, not 6:1 they state that planely on their website.
It creates a wide setup with poor q-factor and significant loss in efficiency compared to a primary and secondary reduction from chains.

You can build what you like, but its really just bolting whatever cyclone sells onto a bike. Something I've already done and seen the limitations of. If I was to build a 6-10kw bike I'd be using the far superior QS motors in a two stage reduction.

You are so off the mark:IMG_0540.jpg

To state an issue of the Q-factor is so preppie of you. Are you a Roadie? This measurement of how steep one can bank while pedaling is of little concern to edirtbike rider as we do not pedal going uphill with these dirt bikes. We could remove the pedals and just install pegs.

QS motor vs Cyclone. You obviously haven't heard of or do not understand much of Thevinin's Equivalent Circuit for BLDC motors. All these motors get maximum torque at 50% of max RPM for a given operating voltage and 1/2 of that power/energy goes to heating and dissipation. There is No Way around these limitations. All of these motors display a peak efficiency somewhere beyond 50% max rpm and max RPM. Having a motor with a higher peak efficiency does not mean the motor is more efficient than another motor when running full spectrum RPM. You would have to presuppose a spectrum of RPM to make such a test. And then there is the question of how realistic (spectral densities)is that spectrum to what you you actually do using the motor.

To say one motor is more efficient than another presupposes some spectral band of RPM duration of operation which you do not know and I must say we run the full spectrum of RPM from stalled rotation( max torque)to max RPM.

Could that unsatisfactory Cyclone build of yours just be the result of your lack of skill and knowledge and no fault of Cyclone?

Have you got any more worthy (crazy to us) ideas about cyclone that we might deconstruct?

PS. Lightning Rods to ebikes is not equivalent to what Carrol Hall Shelby was to the finest sports racing cars.
 
Cyclone used to have a much less fancy but more informative website which had ratios, 5:1 was what they quoted.

In terms of efficiency the very best gears are around 99% PER mesh (how many in an epicyclic gearbox?) when run with low viscosity lubrication and excellent bearings. Gears generally run best a low RPM too.

Chains may not be fancy but they are pretty darn compact and efficient. You could drop weight, improve Q-factor, solve your chain growth/contact problem and run the same overall reduction.

Also if you are switching to a non-freewheeling rear hub then just use one from an OSET. At that point skip the motor freewheel and use regenerative braking. Easily done when you don't have excess chain growth requiring a sprung idler.
 
Grantmac,

Thanks for all the chatter of what I should do. Are you trying to get me to design the bike that you failed to do and would like to make use of my expertise? Well, it is going to happen. You and I ride in different circles.

You would rather pay OSET for a fixed hub? I have the skill to weld a worn out steel hub in my garage likely as good as an OSET One for it costs no $$$ when done my way

You talk about chain growth. Are you lacking math skills --like adding distances? You favorite 2 stage reduction will consume more chain than a one stage reduction like mine.

You say (unsubstantiated),"Gears generally run best at low RPM." Oh yes, maybe best? But the Cyclone gearboxes at their highest RPM, which is low, have held up flawlessly for me compared to chains.

You suggest regenerative braking. Are you clueless? My 4 piston Hayes Dominion Brakes modulate for dirt biking far better than the current state of regenerative braking for bikes. I solar charge my bike batteries so is the energy wasted when I don't regen?

You say solve my "contact problem". I have solved it. But I could employ the KTM motorcycle plastic channel solution instead of what I did, as on my bike the chain contact goes away as soon one sits on the seat.

You take issue with my "sprung idler" which suggest you do not course the bumpy trails as harddd as I do. This chain has NEVER come off while riding. FYI as soon as I sit on the seat the chain goes snug and with Horst LInk Specialized suspension the chain gains only a bit more tension upon compression. But upon bumps of the natural system frequency the suspension could rebound enough to get an unsprung chain system loose enough to derail, if the sprung idler were not keeping tension on the chain. Do you get it? I believe in using some redundancy and back ups. Yes, you can save weight by neglecting to add failsafe mechamisms and you often get an unstable piece of shit.

You make note of "dropping weight". I do not blame my trail riding failures on weight and then go for titanium parts and the likes. BTW this bike weights 78 lbs with a 6KW motor and the Sur Ron with pedals, 6kw motor with a longer range than mine comes in at 128 lb. I blame most of my trail failings on lack of sufficient skill for the difficulty.

Why the Hell would I want to try the unsubstantiated Crap you suggest that you hear from the likes of Fake News, Mr. Lightening Rods? My bike modifications are the evolved result of experience and knowledge to innovate to better meet what I think is the best achievable solutions for what I am trying doing with my machine.
 
Surely it is possible to have a constructive discussion, including disagreements that helps the community

without denigrating others, taking every chance to take childish potshots at members not even involved in the discussion.

Such a more mature approach would add to your credibility as well I'm sure.

Even if "be nice" is not an enforced forum rule, it is a principle reasonable people try their best to live up to
 
John61ct,

without denigrating others, taking every chance to take chilling potshots t members not even involved in the discussion

Grantmac introduced Lightning Rods' ideas to this discussion and I have had more than enough experience with LR and his products.

Karma exists because we have feelings and memory .......and WE GOSSIP. Society has evolved as such and that gossip helps us to know who to associate with so as to not get their bite. Mr Lightening Rod is free to join this discussion if he gets word and wants to participate.

You and I do not have the same idea of nice. Being nice ? A PC term? No thanks I like the way karma works. I love the gossip, it clues me in as to who is a good person to deal with. LR has sowed his seeds and he is reaping the "benefits" of his behavior.
 
The whole idea of karma is not "payback" in the human scale of reality, time & space, just cause and effect

Most important is to avoid trying to be its agent, or you yourself will suffer unforeseen negative results.

Let the universe handle things, just do your best to develop your consciousness, wisdom and especially compassion - for all beings, including inanimate ones.
 
John61ct,

I am passing on some awareness of LR's properties to help others avoids the pitfalls one can have with LR 's suggestions and deals. Get it? Helping others.

You say, "Let the universe handle things". If you actually believe your words, why do you suggest to me how to behave? Just let the universe handle it. Or you could say let the universe handle this freedom of expression?

You are denying a property of each of us has as part of the universe. We are part of that universe and an expression within.

Payback happens in this universe and so does good will.

My view of what karma could be is not some religious doctrine but an aspect of evolutionary biology we carry as part of our behavior to alert our friends to harm's way.

. Most important is to avoid trying to be its agent, or you yourself will suffer unforeseen negative results.

Nonsense

The right gossip is useful info and helps us navigate. We do not believe everything we hear but from some of what we hear we can make note of lurking bad possibilities.
 
Recognizing good ideas isn't product endorsement, just like pointing out bad ones isn't a reflection on someone's character.

Epicyclic gearing makes sense for motors needing high reduction. Such as those which need to match human cadence because they lack the power to run a single gear. But when you get a motor large enough that high reduction isn't necessary then other factors become more important like packaging.
Chains and jackshafts are rather efficient, very compact and on a bicycle the required components are already in place with the suspension designed around them.

While I enjoy my thrown together DH frame based cyclone powered light weight motorcycle, I recognize that the parts supplied by cyclone aren't particularly well designed or efficient. There are much better BLDC designs available now. CYC for a bicycle and QS for light motorcycles.
 
Grantmac,

Do you research anything you post on this site?

http://www.qs-motor.com/product/qs-motor-138-4000w-90h-pmsm-mid-drive-motor/

From the above link I see the QS 4000W mid Drive weighs 12.8 kg

See Cyclone site

https://www.cyclone-tw.com/product/1/data/15

From the Cyclone 6 kw motor site we see it weighs 5.6kg

It looks like parts designed by QS are not particularly well designed for saving weight? that is about 16 lbs heavier.
 
Grantmac,

Do you research anything you post on this site?

http://www.qs-motor.com/product/qs-motor-138-4000w-90h-pmsm-mid-drive-motor/

From the above link I see the QS 4000W mid Drive motor weighs 12.8 kg

See Cyclone site

https://www.cyclone-tw.com/product/1/data/15

From the Cyclone 6 kw motor site we see it weighs 5.6kg

It looks like motors designed by QS are not particularly well designed for saving weight? That would be about 16lbs heavier?

The QS motor 4000 w would put my bike at 94 lbs instead of the 78lbs with 6 kw Cyclone motor. That is a significant increase in weight and a significant decrease in power.
 
DingusMcGee said:
Grantmac,

Do you research anything you post on this site?

http://www.qs-motor.com/product/qs-motor-138-4000w-90h-pmsm-mid-drive-motor/

From the above link I see the QS 4000W mid Drive motor weighs 12.8 kg

See Cyclone site

https://www.cyclone-tw.com/product/1/data/15

From the Cyclone 6 kw motor site we see it weighs 5.6kg

It looks like motors designed by QS are not particularly well designed for saving weight? That would be about 16lbs heavier?

The QS motor 4000 w would put my bike at 94 lbs instead of the 78lbs with 6 kw Cyclone motor. That is a significant increase in weight and a significant decrease in power.

QS motors are under rated for even nominal, the Cyclone motors are almost rated for peak.

For example a lot of dirt bike conversions use the 3kw and 4kw QS mid motors, and they use them at 30kw and 40kw peak, without overheating or damage.

I have a QS 1kw motor, it has no internal reduction, it is 5kg, the cyclone coaxial with reduction is 5kg... the diameter is similar but the motor core is longer (70mm+ vs 45-50mm).
 
Tommm'

For example a lot of dirt bike conversions use the 3kw and 4kw QS mid motors, and they use them at 30kw and 40kw peak, without overheating or damage.

So the controller that puts out the 40Kw for these dirt bikes might operate at 400amp @100 volt? Or 300 volts at 100amp for the 30Kw.

Could you please provide some links so we see who is doing this and at what expense?

Tommm,
. ... the Cyclone motors are almost rated for peak.

My cyclone 4K coax motor has briefly consumed 6800+ watts or about 1.7x above the nominal rating but not 10X of the nominal rating. 12.8kg/5.6kg = 2.29. So maybe we could say the 4K Q motor is really a 4 x 2.69 = a 9.14 kw motor? If it can peak at 1.7 x we get 1.7 x 9.14= 15.54kw. But is that 30Kw for just 0.001 sec?

Consuming 40Kw = 53 hp when almost stalled produces a huge % of heat.
 
DingusMcGee said:
Tommm'

For example a lot of dirt bike conversions use the 3kw and 4kw QS mid motors, and they use them at 30kw and 40kw peak, without overheating or damage.

So the controller that puts out the 40Kw for these dirt bikes might operate at 400amp @100 volt? Or 300 volts at 100amp for the 30Kw.

Could you please provide some links so we see who is doing this and at what expense?

My cyclone 4K has briefly consumed 6800+ watts or about 1.7x above the nominal rating but not 10X of the nominal rating. 12.8kg/5.6kg = 2.29. So maybe we could say the 4K Q motor is really a 4 x 2.69 = a 9.14 kw motor? If it can peak at 1.7 x we get 1.7 x 9.14= 15.54kw. But is 30Kw for 0.001 sec?

The only way these ratings make any sense is in a controlled environment. Nominal should usually mean "guaranteed to not overheat using stated power continuously for Z time in a X temperature environment with Y airflow" .
Since a lot of these manufacturers don't run these tests, the wattages are more like a pissing match.

The QS mids seem to have taken up golden motor's space as they are quite cheap in the moto conversion community. If you are on facebook you can look into the "electric motorcycle builds" group, over the past year or two they have completely migrated for new builds. Just search QS motor/QS mid/QS 3kw inside there.

The QS mids spin very slow(2800-3500 at 72v depending on model) for the volts they are given, they use it from 72v to 96v, QS even provides tables about motor performance at 96v.
The guys building motos based on it either use: QS's own controllers (cheapest option) called votol em200 or em150, sabvoton 200a unlocked to 250a, bac4000/8000, or APT 72400 or APT 96 series going high voltage.
The motor usually lets them go 70-90mph on a sport moto for the 3kw version, or 90-110mph for the 4kw version. For dirt bikes they usually use a 2kw (pit bikes) or 3kw motor.
 
Thanks for the update Tommm.

So the cyclone 3K motor at 4.1kg when ratioed to 12.8 kg would look somewhat like 12.8 /4.1 = 3.122. This ratio 3.122 x 3kw = 9.36 kw.

The QS 2000 weighs 8.8 kg which is more than half of the QS 4000.

One wonders though what would be the wattage of a Cyclone motor weighing 12.8kg ? Maybe 13kw? Cyclones 18kw which is rated 14.4 kw continuous weighs 10.5 kg.

The data clearly shows that cyclone motors that weigh more have more output than a lighter cyclone motor but not exactly proportional.
 
At continuous 2.4kw the Cyclone "3K" is heading for thermal damage in my experience. At least when used for very steep technical climbs at lower RPM.

I haven't used the QS "1Kw" in similar conditions since my focus has shifted towards building very lightweight pedal assist EMTBs rather than ultralight motorcycles. Mainly due to a shift in living situation where trail access requires a very legal looking bike but with the benefit of amazing trails direct from home.
I do have a DH bike specifically waiting to be converted into a UL motorcycle, actually I think a similar generation of Norco to what Dingus is using.

I'm still debating power system however. If the CYC X1 can finally achieve reliability I'll be tempted in that direction with a left hand parallel drive. Or perhaps the QS1kw in a similar configuration using the left BB as a jack shaft. The 150mm rear hub offers a lot of real estate for LHD setups.
 
. by Grantmac » Dec 16 2020 12:28am

At continuous 2.4kw the Cyclone "3K" is heading for thermal damage in my experience. At least when used for very steep technical climbs at lower RPM.

You likely were in or had too high of a gearing?. Low RPM with high torque causes excessive heating.
 
The second Cyclone motor has been installed into a Speciaized Big Hit but into the small version of the bike which has a 24" rear wheel. A 26" rin and tire will not fit .

Its main feature is that it does not have sprocket jump. Sprocket Jump is a term describing the addition of 2 more sprockets one gets when adding a secondary chain reduction.

Nor does it have the chain growth one gets when adding a secondary reduction. Chain growth is measured by subtracting the total links in your old single stage reduction from the total links added that are incorporated into both the new secondary chain reduction and the new primary chain reduction.
IMG_0405.JPG.

There are no sprockets on the BB axle. The plate you see is a worn out 8" MK tile saw blade.IMG_0404.JPG

The overall ratio appears to be 6(planetary) x 40/24 = 10.00 not 11:1

The ratio adjusted to a 26" wheel is 6 x 40/24 x 26/24 = 10.833:1

For this 6Kw motor we use 410H chain.
 
Tommm,

I just went for this motor for my 3rd Big Hit ebike. The link is slow.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001338135757.html?spm=2114.12010615.0.0.5ba159c8w5H9RD&gps-id=pcStoreJustForYou&scm=1007.23125.137358.0&scm_id=1007.23125.137358.0&scm-url=1007.23125.137358.0&pvid=a4d3d267-bdce-4a33-a686-7535d57be100

This motor may have the power of the Cyclone 18K at less than half the overall price. It is about twice as heavy as the Cyclone 6K but rated at 3K. The extra steel? Must be doing something?
 
The QS3000 is more like 1.5x the power of the 18kw cyclone, plus a better design for a single speed (IPM). The QS2000 is closer to the 18kw cyclone.

Chain growth will be increased by not using a sprocket at the crank. Its distance from the swingarm pivot which does it. Concentric countershaft sprocket=zero growth on single pivot designs, countershaft sprocket +10" ahead of the pivot= lots of growth.

My cyclone 2.4kw build uses a very high ratio first gear (24.75:1 if the gearbox is 6:1). It still won't climb what I want it to continuously, even in our very temperate weather.
 
DingusMcGee said:
You likely were in or had too high of a gearing?. Low RPM with high torque causes excessive heating.
Some use cases - steep long hills, heavy loads

require pushing that low,

with strong enough controller and battery

then thermal sensors in the motor are required to set the limit.

To me that is the best place for the bottleneck to reside.

 
Grantmac,

Chain growth will be increased by not using a sprocket at the crank. Its distance from the swingarm pivot which does it. Concentric countershaft sprocket=zero growth on single pivot designs, countershaft sprocket +10" ahead of the pivot= lots of growth.

Are you lacking in kinematic awareness as to how my overall chain system's net chain pathways (upper and lower about the two sprockets) change in length as the swingarm changes angle? Please note and study the location of the black fixed idler pulley (and the fact that the chain runs on the bottom side of the pulley) on the lower chain pathway. Then consider whether the lower chain pathway gets longer or shorter upon suspension compression. Hint#1: it ought to be obvious that the upper chain pathway gets shorter upon suspension compression. Hint#2: the black pulley's shaft is just forward of and down from the lower stays pivot point.

What rate of change in overall chain length comes about from suspension compression as the black fixed idler pulley' location is moved toward the rear axle but it's pivot remains anchored to the BB shell (as it is now)?
 
it turns out I was after the 6k motor after all and not the 4k motor. Paco offered me a motor core alone to swap onto my 4k gearbox at a discount but I opted to buy a full motor instead, so he sold me one with free overnight shipping straight from china.

This motor is so much bigger and feels way more torquey, the 4k felt like a rubber band effect trying to catch up to the 80 amps being overfed to it, while this motor handles it effortlessly and feels like it can still take a little more, though with some cooling efforts, as it still heats up about the same as the 4k. so I do question how much more headroom I've bought myself. I did notice the outer casing for this motor is a MUCH more of a solid and thick piece of aluminum and definitely helps to absorb some heat. I still plan on venting the motor by forcing air through it with a blower fan connected by a hose like my 3k build, that was the only reason i could do 5kw continuous on that motor with no issues. My goal for this build is 96v nominal with ~90 batt amps for ~8.5kw of power, I feel this 6kw motor should be able to handle it with the right gear ratio and adequate cooling.

Can anyone comment on the cyclones ability to pair with a sabvoton controller? I've been reading it's a bad choice since it has a maximum ERPM of 30,000, and according to sabvoton that doesnt change between 72v and 96v versions. the cyclone is 8 pole pairs, so 30,000 / 8 mean it should only be able to spin this motor up to 3750rpm. Well I have a 96v sabvoton and tried it anyway, found the right hall phase combo to spin smooth and forward, but when I feed it 25s 96v nominal and spin it up without a chain, the app states a maximum of 5900rpm! I have the correct pole pair number in the app, and this is the rpm the motor is calculated to reach at 96v (62.5kv, at 72v it does 4500rpm, so 62.5kv @ 96v is exactly 6000rpm ), but shouldnt this not be possible even under no load? The goal was to acheive the rpms you get while using flux weakening on 72v, without having to actually use flux weakening. That way that gap of torque you feel before flux weakening kicks in is gone. I wanted the power band to extend morr finer control all the way into those speeds where flux weakening is more of an on off switch. Unfortunately the streets arent dry enough around here to test at speed but will I disappointed and wont get it past 4k rpm once theres a load?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20201220_074014_990.jpg
    IMG_20201220_074014_990.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 2,154
matt912836 said:
it turns out I was after the 6k motor after all and not the 4k motor. Paco offered me a motor core alone to swap onto my 4k gearbox at a discount but I opted to buy a full motor instead, so he sold me one with free overnight shipping straight from china.

Can you shoot some comparison pics?
 
Back
Top