new cyclone 3000 w mid-drive kit?

[gman1971]

gman1971,

come this Monday [receiving day]my C3000 ebike will be one up on yours. Yes, a Sabvotan controller from evolutiongnts is in the mail. I do not think the OEM controller can handle much over 80v maybe 82v briefly not to mention the low amperage and lack of programming features[but yes, thanks for informing us about 3 power modes]. I had been looking at a Kelly Sinusoidal Controller of similar capacity but with its shipping from China it's $ outlay compared to the Sabvoton is about the same. Plus with the Sabvotan controller, I have a line to the local expert. Thanks to Gman1971 and evolutiongts.

Sweet man, congrats. I am happy with the OEM controller, when I need more power I'll shunt it until it blows up; Right now I am cruising at 30-32mph and today I broke the 45mph mark on a downhill so this 380 dollar kit has exceeded all my expectations.

In order to take advantage of the three speed/power modes you need a high revving driveline; again, I am topping out at 45 in 13T downhill (at 43.9 volts); and cruising in 6th gear at 30-32 mph with 44 volts on the tank... so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

 

[robocam]

What do you mean by "using the RPMs?" Are you saying he should use a higher or lower overall gear ratio?

...In order to take advantage of the three speed/power modes you need a high revving driveline; again, I am topping out at 45 in 13T downhill (at 43.9 volts); and cruising in 6th gear at 30-32 mph with 44 volts on the tank... so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

 

[tomjasz]

so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

That's exactly what the 52T proponents are missing in the 48V 500w thread.

 

[EMCO]

Hello All......long time lurker, first time poster.

Does anyone have any experience mounting this kit on a Specialized FatBoy fatbike?

I'll be ordering my cyclone kit by the end of the week. My concern is clearing the frame behind the BB (witch is 100mm). Right behind the Bottom Bracket the frame flares out wide realy fast to go around that big fat tire and I'm wondering if the new chain rings will interfere with it. My stock chain rings on the front are 36/22.... a lot smaller than what comes on the cyclone. I'm hoping I can do the 3 ring setup on my bike, so I'll have the granny low gears for towing and climbing.

 

[gman1971]

so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

That's exactly what the 52T proponents are missing in the 48V 500w thread.

You mean, the BBS02 won't spin any faster than say 100 RPM? it should, right? shouldn't it? If it can't then you might as well get a Cyclone 3000W, so you can run unlimited RPM thus you can reach aero topspeed in 5th or 6th gear and taking a lot of stress out of the drivetrain... JMO... I am beginning to see I really made the right decision going with the Cyclone if these other kits are RPM limited...

G.

 

[gman1971]

so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

That's exactly what the 52T proponents are missing in the 48V 500w thread.

BTW, thanks for clarifying this.

G.

 

[gman1971]

Hello All......long time lurker, first time poster.

Does anyone have any experience mounting this kit on a Specialized FatBoy fatbike?

I'll be ordering my cyclone kit by the end of the week. My concern is clearing the frame behind the BB (witch is 100mm). Right behind the Bottom Bracket the frame flares out wide realy fast to go around that big fat tire and I'm wondering if the new chain rings will interfere with it. My stock chain rings on the front are 36/22.... a lot smaller than what comes on the cyclone. I'm hoping I can do the 3 ring setup on my bike, so I'll have the granny low gears for towing and climbing.

Then get the kit directly from Cyclone Taiwan, purchase it with a 3-chainring crank and the 100mm ISIS BB (try not to use the square tapered one, quality isn't as good as the ISIS BB, I have both and the square taper is NOT on any bike). That should fit on your bike AFAIK. I also have a 3 chainring setup (2 usable, 1 is the drivechain) on my MTB and I wouldn't have this any other way. Make sure you buy a BMX chain for the motor and the Pedro's 8-point flat wrench to install the ISIS BB.

G.

 

[robocam]

So he should run a higher gear ratio for a higher top speed? Are you referring to putting a 52T on a Bafang, lowering the gear ratio causing a reduction in top speed?

so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

That's exactly what the 52T proponents are missing in the 48V 500w thread.

 

[EMCO]

Then get the kit directly from Cyclone Taiwan, purchase it with a 3-chainring crank and the 100mm ISIS BB
G.

http://www.cyclone-e-bikes.com/order-3chain.htm

I'm not seeing a 100mm/ISIS BB/3 chainring option.

Even on Luna, I only see an option for 68-73mm & 83mm BB on the ISIS.

I totally agree with you, I do want the ISIS BB.

 

[gman1971]

What do you mean by "using the RPMs?" Are you saying he should use a higher or lower overall gear ratio?

...In order to take advantage of the three speed/power modes you need a high revving driveline; again, I am topping out at 45 in 13T downhill (at 43.9 volts); and cruising in 6th gear at 30-32 mph with 44 volts on the tank... so in order to take advantage of the switches you need to use the RPMs this motor has to offer, and IMO a 13T-44T-44T-11T doesn't lend itself to that.

G.

The final result is exactly the same, but internally it makes a world of difference, and here is why:

Lets assume the motor puts out 1000 watts, (POWER = 1000W), very simple, any combination of RPM multiplied by a Torque that results in 1000 WATTS will be a valid number, so 100RPM and 10Torque would be a valid motor output. So lets assume our motor is spinning at 500 RPM, so b/c of that the motor has very little torque of just 2 TQ units. (whatever, NM, FtLbs... etc)

So, at the motor you have the freewheel sprocket that connects to the crank. This is (n my case) a 13T motor sprocket and a 44T chainring. B/c the smaller is driving the bigger we have torque multiplication, so our motor puts 2 TQ x ( 44T / 13T ) = ~6.76 TQ at the crank; but WAIT!! we can't just count torque alone, b/c the power would be ZERO, so in order for POWER to conserve throughout the entire drivetrain we also need to divide the RPM by the reduction ratio, which yields a total 147 RPM at the crank. Now at our crank we have a cadence of ~147 RPM and a torque of 6.76 TQ, which effectively yields 1000 Watts of power. So far so good; we haven't invented a perpetual motion machine... yet...

Anyhow... now we have the two chainrings exchange, and this is the real tricky part, b/c you can't solve this use RPM alone, you have to use another interpretation of POWER for solving this; so we know that Power = Torque x RPM, but Power is also Force x Linear Velocity (kph, mph etc) And the reason why we can't use POWER = RPM x TORQUE is because both chainrings are spinning around the same axis and torque is the "rotational force" which is independent of the diameter of the rotating disk, which will be identical for both chainrings but not the force at each point of contact with the chains. So we must convert our RPM into LINEAR VELOCITY and then use our power formula to determine the force because of power conservation.

So a 44T is ~182mm chainring and is spinning at 147 RPM which means the input drive chain is moving at of 2.8 meters/second. Now we plug 2.8 meters/second into the POWER equation and we get 1000W = 2.8 m/s x FORCE, and we solve for force and we get 357 UNITS OF FORCE.
So while 44T chainring is receiving 357 Force units at 2.8 m/s the 48T chainring with 199mm is also spinning at 147 RPM so that speeds the cassette chain up to 3.06 meters/second and now we plug the speed 3.06 into the POWER equation and we get 1000W = 3.06 m/s x FORCE, we solve for force and we get total 326 FORCE UNITS going through the chain. So we reduced the amount of force from 357 to 326, a 10% decrease in force means longer lasting drivetrain.

So now we have 1000 watts of power in the form of 326 Units of Force and 3.06 meters/second going through the chain down to the cassette... So now our input force is constant, and when we change the cassette sprocket we are changing the lever point, the further from the axle the more torque it has, but it also spins slower, all governed by the equation POWER = TORQUE x RPM.

But now, lets run the numbers with a 48T-44T chainring instead of a 44T-48T
We know our first reduction is 13T/48T, so we have 7.3 Torque, a 10% increase on the crank, and crank is now spinning slower at 135 RPM... so far so good. Power still 1000 watts.... But now the second chainring is smaller, 44T, so that is going to slow down the output chain speed compared to the input chain. So at 135 RPM the input drivechain is moving at 2.81 m/s, so therefore the 44T chainring is making the cassette chain move at 2.57 m/s, we plug this velocity figure into our power equation and we have 1000W = 2.57 m/s x FORCE, we solve for FORCE and we get 390 UNITS OF FORCE, vs the 326 UNITS OF FORCE on our previous example of 44-48T a whopping 20% increase in frame flexing, sprocket bending, chain stretching force. And 20% is not something to be taken lightly...

This is the secret to keeping your drivetrain alive when running several kW (this is how real high power bikes do it too, they have a huge rear sprocket so they can run a shitton of RPM through the chain and let the final sprocket do the lever (torque multiplication) using the wheel axle as fulcrum)

Hope this helps,

The moral of the story is if your motor has the RPM capabilities, then you should always aim for higher RPM and not for more torque (unless you like fixing bent stuff)

G.

 

[evolutiongts]

Basically by running less reduction overall, the RPM's should go up throughout.

Surely though running more speed through the chain and sprockets would wear the drive train similar to running more force.

With my Sabvoton controller I reduced the phase amps, its much smoother than the cyclone controller.

In Theory there should be less shock to the drive train .

 

[DingusMcGee]

EMCO,

Does anyone have any experience mounting this kit on a Specialized FatBoy fatbike?

I have a Lightning Rod Small Block mounted in a Specialized Fatboy and the situation will be similar. The BB shell width of the Fatboy is 100 mm and the shell uses a PF-30 [press fit 30] bearing cups. You will need to get a PF-30 to BSA Adapter. They are hard black plastic and ideally the 2 pcs couple together. But most likely you will not find this adapter for 100mm BB's -- no problem just get the 83mm SRAM from BikeWagon N Salt Lake for about $30. The piece labeled drive side goes on the chainwheel side. You will be better off getting a threaded rod press to push these 2 pieces into the alum BB shell. They do have English BSA threads near the outer rim so no hammering is better to not harm the threads.

The BSA adapter has rims on it of 0.060" so you will have to widen with washers/shims the C3000's frame BB zone to 100mm + 2 x 1.524 mm = 103.048mm to get a fit such that these alum pieces remain parallel.

The situation appears as simple as this: The right side is threaded first and getting these caps started/screwed into the plastic threads is difficult and you must avoid cross threading. The right bearing cap holds the alum frame to the rim of the adapter so this cap must be tight. Next turn the left side into the adapter leaving enough thread for the lock ring to fully thread on the bearing cap and tight against the left side of the alum frame.

The problem is that with the width of the bearing caps are now some what more than 100mm [now: 103.048 +alum thickness 0.23" right alum frame + 0.12" left alum frame = 112 mm] apart and this wider space permits the axle to translate sideways about 1/2". This free play happens because bearings are not pushed up to the stopping hubs on the BB axle by the bearing caps since the bearing caps stop at the alum frames.

You can shim/washer this free play out either internally or externally. The internal method [very clean] adds shims/washers between the bearing caps and the bearings to fix the BB axle to where the alignment of the motor pulley and chain ring are in the same plane.

For the external method you would add shims/washers between the outside of the bearing caps and the inner face of the crank arms.

I chose the external method as backing out the bearing caps out of the plastic is very strenuous even when you use anti-seize and you may not get it exactly right the first try. Some of my spacers were made from bronze sleeve bushing stock as it cuts with a copper tubing cutter. But since the bronze stock is the same ID as the OD of the axle you will need to ream the bronze sleeve to get it to slide over the axle. I used a Critchley Reamer to make an easy slide. It is useful to have some precision measuring tools [calipers] to measure how long to make each section.

The internal method relies on the friction resistance of the plastic PF-30 adapter ends to not allow the PS-30 adapter sections to move outward. There is also some resistance to these 2 plastic parts moving apart gained from the spreading resistance of the alum frame flanges.

The external method uses hard spacers and forces the axle into a fixed location with respect to the BB shell. But without internal shims/washers the bearings can slide a little on the axle. That is from inside the cap to bearing stops on the axle. Ideally, the bearings would give the most stability when farthest apart, ie. next to the caps. I suspect this allowable movement without internal stops for the bearings is not much of a problem as I did the fixative measure of adding internal washers latter.

 

[gman1971]

Basically by running less reduction overall, the RPM's should go up throughout.

Surely though running more speed through the chain and sprockets would wear the drive train similar to running more force.

With my Sabvoton controller I reduced the phase amps, its much smoother than the cyclone controller.

In Theory there should be less shock to the drive train .

I am running more reduction actually, Normally 1 RPM of the motor equals 1 mph, in my bike 1 RPM is .5 mph. So in order to run 1 mph I have to spin the motor at 2 RPM, thus reducing force throughout the drivetrain.

It shouldn't wear the drivetrain the same way because the force at every pin is reduced and then it gets distributed along double the sprocket teeth. So if I have 350 units of force, distributed along 5 teeth (11T) every pin in contact is subjected to 70 units of force. Because I've reduced the force going through the chain by 20% now I have 280 units of force distributed over 9 teeth, (17T) for a total of 31 units of force at every pin. So I've halved the stress at the pin/sprocket contact point.

The only unknown is plate to plate friction, which might (or might not) be a factor, but it won't "stretch" the chain the same way... and this is where keeping the chain lubed and clean would help deal with that, kinda like your car engine, if you rev fast without oil, it will seize up.

So far I haven't had to touch a single thing on my bike (I've cleaned the chain once or twice, no stretch yet) and I am over 1k miles already, this thing is absolutely rock solid. I've noticed my top speed is kinda gone up; I tested today and I was cruising at 34 mph with 44.3 volts on the "tank" The motor case gets up to about 30F higher than ambient temp; that's running 1600-1800 watts average through it and 2200+ watts bursts... so I think its doing fairly well. The Motor has gotten so silent at full RPM that sometimes I can't tell I am on an eBike. Plus my number of shifs is gone down from several dozens of shifts per trip to not even ten times on the same 8 mile distance.

EDIT - Today I almost hit 48 mph on the same place I usually top out at 43-45 mph... I am very close to breaking the 50 mph barrier on 12S with this eBike, so I can only imagine its going to be a freaking rocket on 18S... 50% more power, holy molly...

G.

 

[Leebolectric]

well...it only to took about 50 miles to COMPLETELY roach the bottom bracket that came stock.
I was unaware that a BB could be THAT bad...so heavy, and so little function...pssssh.

I will be upgrading to a ISIS beefier setup, otherwise all running smooth even in sloppy mud.

 

[gman1971]

well...it only to took about 50 miles to COMPLETELY roach the bottom bracket that came stock.
I was unaware that a BB could be THAT bad...so heavy, and so little function...pssssh.

I will be upgrading to a ISIS beefier setup, otherwise all running smooth even in sloppy mud.

Sorry to hear that... may I ask how it roached out?

This is why I've said to everyone who's asked me over PM to get the ISIS BB... the non ISIS BB is UTTER RUBBISH (and I am not angry b/c of the caps, just stating the fact is just that UTTER RUBBISH)

G.

 

[Leebolectric]

basically all the bearings are crushing out of their retainers.
the cranks wobble side to side about an inch at the pedals.
been riding for 30 years, never had a bb go that bad, let alone that fast.
walmart bikes hold up better...yes, UTTER RUBBISH.

Judging by this one, I wouldn't suggest the Cyclone ISIS bb.
I'm getting a nice TruvativeGigaPipeDH, tried and true quality.

 

[gman1971]

basically all the bearings are crushing out of their retainers.
the cranks wobble side to side about an inch at the pedals.
been riding for 30 years, never had a bb go that bad, let alone that fast.
walmart bikes hold up better...yes, UTTER RUBBISH.

Judging by this one, I wouldn't suggest the Cyclone ISIS bb.
I'm getting a nice TruvativeGigaPipeDH, tried and true quality.

Ouch... that is bad, mine wobbled too thats why I kept my ISIS BB... maybe you should talk to Eric at Luna to have them send you a replacement? I mean, a BB failing after 50 miles is just ridiculous... same as my old GNG motor shaft breaking after 120 miles...

EDIT- does the Truvativ fit over the motor? The Cyclone ISIS BB is much wider than a regular ISIS BB...


The good news is that so far I haven't had any issues with the Cyclone ISIS BB, and that's 1000 miles running 1.6 kW average at 30+ mph.

If the Cyclone ISIS BB Fails I'll check the TruvativeGigaPipeDH you described... but lets knock on wood it survives...

 

[Leebolectric]

ya, some things I would worry about warranty...but I don't want another crappy bb...
...I knew when I bought the kit, it would have some issues to tune up, so I'm not stressed.
I'm just sharing to help others watch out for the issues I had

 

[StinkyGoalieGuy]

Will that Truvative bottom bracket work with this motor? If you look at the Cyclone ISIS BB, it's axle extends out from the shell quite a bit, presumably to allow the cranks to clear the motor.

The Truvative BB doesn't extend out from the shell:

 

[StinkyGoalieGuy]

Gman, what is the total length of the motor including the freewheel, in other words, what is the minimum width required between the cranks?

 

[Leebolectric]

Yes, it WILL work.
It is built slightly differently...but functions the same.
The outer collars grab the mounting plates well.
The BEST part besides the multiple sealed bearings...is that there is greater thread engagement on the non-drive side.
The stock style have a 3mm ring to apply all the torque...the GigaPipe engages deep into the actual threads of the bb shell.

My Tangent kit uses the 128mm spindle, should be the same on this motor.

 

[robocam]

So you're using this Truvativ GigaPipe bottom bracket with your ISIS crank arms from a Cyclone crankest?

Yes, it WILL work.
It is built slightly differently...but functions the same.
The outer collars grab the mounting plates well.
The BEST part besides the multiple sealed bearings...is that there is greater thread engagement on the non-drive side.
The stock style have a 3mm ring to apply all the torque...the GigaPipe engages deep into the actual threads of the bb shell.

My Tangent kit uses the 128mm spindle, should be the same on this motor.

 

[gman1971]

Gman, what is the total length of the motor including the freewheel, in other words, what is the minimum width required between the cranks?

172 mm, and I would say 175mm at the very minimum to clear the left crank without any risk of interference with the motor; this motor is pretty darn thick, I have my doubts that the Truvativ BB will work for this application... but what do I know.

G.

 

[robocam]

I understand your theory behind trying to make the drivetrain last longer by reducing the load on the chain, but I thought we were talking about maximizing top speed. There is a gear ratio that should give you maximum velocity (with other factors held constant, such as grade or wind), and it shouldn't matter how it is achieved (high or low-revving driveline).

When you say that the final result is exactly the same, I hope you don't mean the overall gear ratio is exactly the same, because if it is the same, the top speed should be the same. The overall ratio is what determines how fast your motor is spinning, and from a top speed perspective, that's all that matters (assuming you don't have some power-robbing inefficiency in your driveline).

So when you mentioned "RPM capabilities," it didn't make sense to me because if the overall ratio is the same, the motor will be spinning at the same rpm whether your driveline is high or low-revving. The only component that will spin slower or faster would be your crankset.

Now if we're talking about changing the overall ratio to maximize top speed, that would make sense because we're trying to find a point between being gear-limited and wasting energy without increasing top speed, and the best way to do that would probably be to run tests using a continuously variable transmission and then match the gear selection to the results of that test.

BTW, how's the efficiency increase from the higher overall ratios of your new 44-48-32 crankset? Are you still using significantly less energy on your commute? It's so neat that you achieved this boost by random luck in your attempt to decrease component wear =)

The final result is exactly the same, but internally it makes a world of difference, and here is why:...

...The moral of the story is if your motor has the RPM capabilities, then you should always aim for higher RPM and not for more torque (unless you like fixing bent stuff)

G.

 

[tomjasz]

basically all the bearings are crushing out of their retainers.
the cranks wobble side to side about an inch at the pedals.
been riding for 30 years, never had a bb go that bad, let alone that fast.
walmart bikes hold up better...yes, UTTER RUBBISH.

Judging by this one, I wouldn't suggest the Cyclone ISIS bb.
I'm getting a nice TruvativeGigaPipeDH, tried and true quality.

Who pedals?<wink>