500+hp UTV 490 ft/lb

UTfball68 said:
That much power in something that small...hope people have their life insurance paid up.
Click to expand...

Don't think insurance will matter, with that much torque, I don't see how it would be possible to make it useful in a package like a UTV, you wouldn't be able to modulate it low enough to even get the thing to move off the line... Pretty sure it's just a 'because we could' kind of endeavor, not meant to actually be used as a practical veicle.
 
weight.JPG
 
zuke said:
Don't think insurance will matter, with that much torque, I don't see how it would be possible to make it useful in a package like a UTV, you wouldn't be able to modulate it low enough to even get the thing to move off the line... Pretty sure it's just a 'because we could' kind of endeavor, not meant to actually be used as a practical veicle.
Click to expand...

It's an electric vehicle. Traction control is easy to implement in the motor control system if it's got any level of sophistication.
 
Fabrik8 said:
It's an electric vehicle. Traction control is easy to implement in the motor control system if it's got any level of sophistication.
Click to expand...

This exactly... Which would be pretty much always. That being said, 3500lb is an enormous pig of a utv and the last place I want to be in an electric vehicle is 20 miles out on a trail somewhere.
 
Fabrik8 said:
It's an electric vehicle. Traction control is easy to implement in the motor control system if it's got any level of sophistication.
Click to expand...

A sophisticated traction control system requires a lot more than just cutting the power at the motor, But I don't know how this thing is actually put together. If there are multiple motors, or independently controlled brakes at the hub, that would allow for a good traction control system.

Since they are claiming '4900lb/ft after gear reduction', I'm assuming one electric motor, and one transfercase, and traction control, if there is any, is going to consist of cutting the voltage to the motor. If you do that, you might as well have just used less voltage to begin with.

But, given what the probable price for this thing is gonna be, multiple motors or independent braking at each wheel is quite possible, But I still come back to: why?
 
Just read further on how it's put together, and Yup, a motor at each wheel, so you could do some pretty sophisticated Traction control.... Gotta have some terrible-high unsprung weight though :)
 
zuke said:
Just read further on how it's put together, and Yup, a motor at each wheel, so you could do some pretty sophisticated Traction control.... Gotta have some terrible-high unsprung weight though :)
Click to expand...
Why? I haven't dug into the details of this one but it isn't hard to make the motors sprung weight if you wanted to.

In our robotics competitions it's clear that the ones designed with 4 motors, one right at each wheel, are by far the most maneuverable and give most options for awesome traction and steering. The logic and implementation of traction control is actually quite simple and can be done with a small PIC.
 
If you don’t think there’s to much power in these machines already just go to buscoe beach and wait for the meat wagons to rush in.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Why? I haven't dug into the details of this one but it isn't hard to make the motors sprung weight if you wanted to.
Click to expand...

It's all direct drive through gears, with the gear reduction right at the wheels, hence, the motors have to be unsprung..
 
zuke said:
It's all direct drive through gears, with the gear reduction right at the wheels, hence, the motors have to be unsprung..
Click to expand...
I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. You can direct drive via CVs, or even gear through a portal or whatever, so that the motor is chassis mounted and not moving with the suspension.
 
RatLabGuy said:
I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. You can direct drive via CVs, or even gear through a portal or whatever, so that the motor is chassis mounted and not moving with the suspension.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it could be done that way, although packaging would get to be a challenge with the size of a SxS, and wanting to have as long control arm as possible. You'd probably end up with the motors back to back close to the center of the frame, then you'd start facing issues with heat dissipation, and fitting your steering system into that area.
 
cbjeeper said:
The problem for me is the $35,000 price tag. I'd be hesitant to off road that expensive of a toy.
Click to expand...



Yes, cost difference between it and a turbo SXS is like $8000. Hard to justify only a 5% increase in power to weight ratio.
 
zuke said:
Yeah, it could be done that way, although packaging would get to be a challenge with the size of a SxS, and wanting to have as long control arm as possible. You'd probably end up with the motors back to back close to the center of the frame, then you'd start facing issues with heat dissipation, and fitting your steering system into that area.
Click to expand...

Looking at the dyno video, the motors are sprung weight and has cv axles.

Much better this way as the torque reaction is into the chassis and not directly on a-arms, and definite bonus to less unsprung weight

0c67d102cfd457569c6fec8ada811922.png



 
A 3500lb SxS sounds like a really heavy Sami or a stock TJ...
 
Mac5005 said:
Looking at the dyno video, the motors are sprung weight and has cv axles.
Much better this way as the torque reaction is into the chassis and not directly on a-arms, and definite bonus to less unsprung weight
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the rear, and that looks like a good way to package it. Sort of like a portal box for the gear reduction, and letting them put the motor facing out from the center rather than into it.

In all the pictures of the front, I see CV axles, and the arms pivot near the center, like most UTVs, But I don't see the motors at all, I wonder where they are, and how they are attached to the CV?
 
Back
Top