Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Richard230]

Revzilla seems to do a decent job of explaining why electric motorcycles don't accelerate like you might expect from their torque specifications. As you no doubt know it is all about electric motorcycles' use of direct drive to the real wheel: https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/electric-motorcycles-insane-torque-figures-explained

[Stonewolf]

I think the solution's a bit naive given the variety of drivetrain solutions going around. An Energica is going to be a lot closer to an ICE bike in terms of proportion than something using a hub motor or skipping torque reduction and going direct to final drive like Zero or Can-Am.

I like the idea of using ground thrust rather than torque because the existence of hub motors forces mfrs to quote wheel torque numbers that just read wild. Energica have changed how they quote stats a few times now trying to chase the popular number in different fields.

[TheRan]

I feel like it's easier to just ignore torque and look at power output, because that's torque multiplied by rpm which gives you the amount of work done and that's what we associate with performance (how quickly you get from A to B). You can have a low torque motor but you're going to need to spin it faster (or multiply via gearing) to get the same power as a torquier but slower spinning motor. That's what gas engines do, they have lower torque but they make up for it with gearing. You do have the variance with gas bikes of having multiple gearing ratios and they also lose more power through the transmission, but it gives you a fairly decent rough idea of a performance comparison (and more accurate comparing electric to electric). The gas bike gains some in the lower gears, loses in the higher gears, the electric bike is always pretty much at peak torque so has an instant response but then there's also differing torque curves among gas bikes.

[Specter]

Marketing..  no matter what product is being sold, it is going to be advertised in the most snazzy way possible, to get the plebes to drool over the seemingly impressive numbers.  Those with a bit more intelligence are going to look at all the numbers to get a bit better picture of the real story and what the thing really can do.

It's like TV's, Monitors, what ever they call them this week.   Oh its 4k   it's 8K !!!      yawn, fine.   interlaced?   native?  whats the bandwidth.  Dumb looks and drool.   refresh?    blank stare...

People should do their homework, but in a world where we have 2 generations of lazy shits now, who can't be bothered to spend more than 30 seconds concentrating on something, well, you see why the world is going to hell.   Hey Siri?  Is Alexis lying to me?

Aaron

[TheRan]

I'm guessing you're a boomer, in which case you should know that it's always been this way. If anything people cared even less about specs back in the day. A TV was just a TV of a certain size and whether it had colour or not, computers were advertised with megahertz and storage size and whether it had a modem, power drills they might have told you the RPM but not the torque.

There is much more information given about products these days (without having to search for it and trawl through spec sheets) and people do take notice of it. To go back to monitors as well as resolution the panel type and refresh rate are clearly advertised on anything other than the cheapest most basic stuff you'd find on an office desk. And the people for which it matters, gamers, designers, photographers, or just people who like stuff to look nice, are well aware of what is good and what isn't. They do do their homework, they research what is better for their needs, because unlike the boomers who had it easy they don't have heaps of cash to waste on the wrong stuff.

[T.S. Zarathustra]

Not the first time they are wrong. Direct drive is not the reason. It's the batteries/MC. Let's make it simple. Motor may be 1000 hp but if the batteries/MC can provide max 100 hp worth of "fuel" the motor will never output more than 100 hp.

[princec]

The only truth is the thrust curve graph, and they've got that spot on. Power and torque figures have always been crude measurements to bandy about. (I always wondered why they didn't do something like root-mean-square for torque which might have given a more useful indicator of how peaky an engine is going to be)

I notice in the comments someone exasperated about the lack of transmissions in EVs. They are presumably unaware of the fact that transmissions are there because ICE engines only work when they're already relatively fast and from a standstill they make zero torque etc. etc. you all know the score. They are a completely unnecessary addition to an electric motor. If you want to accelerate faster with an EV, you just put a bigger motor on it (and, probably, bigger inverter, controller, etc, etc). The Zeros are already so powerful they spin up unless tamed by traction control, which the article also mentions.

Cas

[Specter]

Being applied properly is also an important factor that many seem to miss.
I can be sitting on a 1000 hp motor / engine etc but if all it does is spin the tires or bounce up and down like a wheelie machine, then what good is it?

once a motor is at full speed, there is no more torque.

One thing I do like about the EGO over the Ribelle is your weight is a more forward so when you do hit it, the bike stays down a bit better to apply that torque to make it go.  Still have to be careful though it'll still lift at over 100 mph if you get too stupid on the throttle.

Torque / HP, this and that mean little if its poorly applied or you don't know how to work it properly.

Aaron