DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Interested to hear from owners / drivers of traditional VWs who might like an EV conversion. We are developing our new EV drive to be a bolt in for these vehicles, and to eliminate some inherent (significant) design flaws. Let me know which vehicle/s (rear engine / air cooled VWs only) you would like converted, & we will study that particular vehicle.

Good for other vehicles / new vehicles, as well; later on.
..............................

- EsDesign to reveal the simplest, & best, EV driveline -

EsDesign™ Co, located in Chonburi Province, Thailand, will disclose its patent pending EV driveline in the near future.

Using a radical rotor topology, the EsDrive Driveline provides the least friction, least weight and lowest parts count; handling, packaging and NVH are also greatly improved. Driveline friction will be close to halved, (low single digits), weight even more, with an extremely low unsprung weight possible.

There are no limitations to size, weight or torque capacity of the basic design; from personal scooters, right up to military behemoths, when designed to the application. Initially, it will be used for city cars and commercial vehicles; development for performance vehicles will follow.

The EsDesign Driveline will greatly reduce EV costs, finally making them more economical to purchase than equivalent ‘ICE’ (internal combustion engine) vehicles; running costs will also be considerably less. Reduced friction and weight will provide a greater range with a given battery, or the same range, with a smaller / lighter / more economical battery.
...................................

EsDesign was founded by auto eng. & industrial designer Stuart Saunders, who studied at UNSW on a scholarship with Leyland Australia. One of his first automotive inventions was a progressive rate, programmable rate independent suspension system for the rear of the Mini, with only one moving part for 2 wheels. Some of his later inventions were a number of 4WD systems, a no friction limited slip differential, and a 6W/°C CPU cooler.
Others; tinyurl.com/ssinventor.

For anyone interested in Electric Vehicles, EsDesign holds the IP on the most important development in EV drives for many years.

[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
This looks like an advertisement, not a discussion, and certainly not a discussion of a conversion.

It also appears (from the comment about unsprung weight) that the proposed product is an in-wheel motor; that's unlikely to be worthwhile.

I would be more interested if it actually existed and worked. "Patent pending" means not done and not patentable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
If anybody considers brians comment valid, pls advise. I will withdraw my offer and unsubscribe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
This looks like an advertisement, not a discussion, and certainly not a discussion of a conversion.

Wrong. How can I advertise something that, by your words, does not work, and cannot exist? You may have noticed I asked questions - that would imply dialogue, i.e. discussion.

It also appears (from the comment about unsprung weight) that the proposed product is an in-wheel motor; that's unlikely to be worthwhile.

Wrong. Remedial reading comprehension classes may be found online, I believe.

I would be more interested if it actually existed and worked. "Patent pending" means not done and not patentable.
Wrong. 'Patent Pending' means 'Patent Pending'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
It also appears (from the comment about unsprung weight) that the proposed product is an in-wheel motor; that's unlikely to be worthwhile.
Wrong. Remedial reading comprehension classes may be found online, I believe.
I have no difficulty with reading comprehension; however, if Stuart believes that what he wrote does not imply an in-wheel motor, he may need assistance with writing, or with his technical understanding of automotive technology.

Using a radical rotor topology, the EsDrive Driveline provides the least friction, least weight and lowest parts count; handling, packaging and NVH are also greatly improved. Driveline friction will be close to halved, (low single digits), weight even more, with an extremely low unsprung weight possible.
This ends in a claim of low unsprung weight. Unless the design is an in-wheel motor, the motor and transmission are not mounted to the hub, so they do not affect unsprung weight. So which is it:
  • an invalid claim?
  • an unclear description?
  • an inventor who does not understand the concept of unsprung weight?
My comment about the in-wheel design was to explain my personal lack of interest; the insulting response ensures that I would never deal with this person... and I wonder how many others will be driven away as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
This looks like an advertisement, not a discussion, and certainly not a discussion of a conversion.
Wrong. How can I advertise something that, by your words, does not work, and cannot exist? You may have noticed I asked questions - that would imply dialogue, i.e. discussion.
It is common to advertise products which are not yet exist, may never exist, and in some cases are never intended to exist. The promoter attempts to gain investment, deposits, or even payments for products which are never delivered. The opening pitch is often a "discussion", or "valuable information", usually with details which "will be disclosed later", with the request for payment later. It can be entirely sincere - an inventor trying to get something developed and produced - or entirely fraudulent (there is nothing and no intent to produce anything), or anywhere in-between.

You may have noticed I asked questions - that would imply dialogue, i.e. discussion.
Yes, but it is a not a discussion of a conversion - Stuart is not starting a conversion, and the discussion is of a drive system, not of the conversion process. I suggested that since the discussion is of a product, it belonged in the vendor section:
I have no problem with a discussion of the requirements for a proposed electric drive product in this forum... it just shouldn't be in this section. Try Parts Vendors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
I would be more interested if it actually existed and worked. "Patent pending" means not done and not patentable.
Of course my statement was rhetorical, not literal: use of the term "patent pending" only implies that it is likely that the invention has not been completed and is not patentable.

Wrong. 'Patent Pending' means 'Patent Pending'
Under the pointless tautology, there is a significant point: 'patent pending' means that there will be a patent, but it does not exist yet, pending some event. It should imply that the patent application has been filed and will be issued pending administrative processes, but the lack of issuance is often because the idea is not patentable, or an application has not been completed will not stand up to the scrutiny resulting from publication.

EsDesign™ Co, located in Chonburi Province, Thailand, will disclose its patent pending EV driveline in the near future.
I suppose that a definition of "near future" would be beneficial. The above is the start of a block of text which has been used before, nearly verbatim.
  1. InsideEVs discussion: EsDesigns' New EV Driveline
  2. comment posted to Innovation & Tech Today article: Solid-State Batteries: The Next Generation for Electric Vehicles
  3. comment posted to Autocar article: Petrol and diesel car sales ban could come in 2032
Over the past couple of years, there has been a slight difference: what was
... before the end of 2018
is now just
... in the near future
If this design exists, why has it now been "disclosed"? The obvious answer is that it does not exist in a workable form, and there is no patent application.

So what is going on? Here's a clue:
EsDesign was founded by auto eng. & industrial designer Stuart Saunders, who studied at UNSW on a scholarship with Leyland Australia. One of his first automotive inventions was a progressive rate, programmable rate independent suspension system for the rear of the Mini, with only one moving part for 2 wheels. Some of his later inventions were a number of 4WD systems, a no friction limited slip differential, and a 6W/°C CPU cooler.
Others; tinyurl.com/ssinventor.
This might look impressive, but a statement in the linked article is interesting...
“My best inventions are mechanical; differentials, drivelines and 4WD systems; unfortunately, with the current patent system, they will never see light of day,” said Stuart.
So there's the problem. The patent system requires the open publication of the patented invention, making it available to the world but only if commercial users pay the patent holder for the privilege. Openly publishing an invention means replacing the mystery and intrigue with real information... and real criticism of the faults and failings of the invention. For many inventors, saying "if you could only see this you would be amazed" is preferable to that exposure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
Offer withdrawn.
I think that it is interesting that a serious offer like this would be withdrawn because only two people expressed scepticism... and of those one suggested that the discussion was appropriate but simply belonged in another section of the forum.

On the other hand, the complete lack of positive response (although after only a very short time) might suggest that there is no real interest.

Unsubscribe.
You know that placing the word "Unsubscribe" in a forum discussion doesn't change whether or not you get notifications of posts, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
Me - 'with an extremely low unsprung weight possible.'


Brian - 'It also appears (from the comment about unsprung weight) that the proposed product is an in-wheel motor; that's unlikely to be worthwhile'

Wikipedia - 'The major disadvantage of a wheel hub motor is that the weight of the electric motor increases the unsprung weight, which adversely affects handling and ride'

Brian ''an inventor who does not understand the concept of unsprung weight?'

or - the other?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
Me - 'with an extremely low unsprung weight possible.'


Brian - 'It also appears (from the comment about unsprung weight) that the proposed product is an in-wheel motor; that's unlikely to be worthwhile'

Wikipedia - 'The major disadvantage of a wheel hub motor is that the weight of the electric motor increases the unsprung weight, which adversely affects handling and ride'

Brian ''an inventor who does not understand the concept of unsprung weight?'

or - the other?
Very adequate web searching skill. ;) Now let's work on understanding. :rolleyes:

The only reason to mention unsprung weight in a discussion of electric drive motors is that the motor is in-wheel, and therefore causes an unsprung weight problem. If it is not in-wheel, its design has no effect on unsprung weight, so any claim of low unsprung weight is as irrelevant as saying "any colour of body paint possible".... it's true, but has nothing to do with the motor. So does the inventor not understand this, or is he just throwing in claims which he knows are pointless?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Very adequate web searching skill. ;) Now let's work on understanding. :rolleyes:

The only reason to mention unsprung weight in a discussion of electric drive motors is that the motor is in-wheel, and therefore causes an unsprung weight problem.

Untrue. If auto manufacturers could have a vehicle with zero unsprung weight, they would love to do so - irrespective of drive system & motor location.

'If it is not in-wheel, its design has no effect on unsprung weight',

Untrue. Neither IRS nor live rear ends (generally) have in wheel motors; yet they have very different unsprung.

'so any claim of low unsprung weight is as irrelevant as saying "any colour of body paint possible".... it's true, but has nothing to do with the motor. So does the inventor not understand this, or is he just throwing in claims which he knows are pointless?
You should add ('AFAIK!') Here, let me do that for you. 'AFAYK'


The reason to state that an extremely low unsprung weight is possible, is that an extremely low unsprung weight is possible.

Vehicles with effectively zero unsprung mass are known to have an exceptional ride.

BTW Lower than ANY OTHER EV driveline.

BTW An apology is in order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
The reason to state that an extremely low unsprung weight is possible, is that an extremely low unsprung weight is possible.
Another idiotic tautology. :rolleyes:

Vehicles with effectively zero unsprung mass are known to have an exceptional ride.
More of what we all know, except that the claim has escalated from "low" unsprung mass (which is unrelated to a non-hub-mounted drive system) to "effectively zero" (which is physically impossible).

BTW Lower than ANY OTHER EV driveline.
How many times will Stuart dodge the issue that the characteristics of a drivetrain which is not mounted on the hub does not affect the unsprung mass? Will he eventually unveil some aspect of his design to explain this nonsense? Stay tuned... ;)

By the way, "driveline" means the combination of components of the powertrain excluding the prime mover (which is an electric motor in this case). Is Stuart imagining some sort of magic shaft, in addition to his miracle motor?

BTW An apology is in order.
:D Sadly, this forum's small collection of "smilies" does not include the usual ROTFL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
I missed most of this the first time, because Stuart (and many other users of forums using this style of wiki markup) doesn't understand how to use the Quote feature, so his text ends up in a block which looks like I posted it. Let me assure other members that I didn't post this crap...

The only reason to mention unsprung weight in a discussion of electric drive motors is that the motor is in-wheel, and therefore causes an unsprung weight problem.
Untrue. If auto manufacturers could have a vehicle with zero unsprung weight, they would love to do so - irrespective of drive system & motor location.
Of course they would. They would like infinite tire traction, too, but that is also unrelated to the powertrain. See next part...

If it is not in-wheel, its design has no effect on unsprung weight...
Untrue. Neither IRS nor live rear ends (generally) have in wheel motors; yet they have very different unsprung.
Summary for anyone trying to follow this who is not familiar with automotive technology: What is located on the moving suspension parts contributes to unsprung mass (mass which has motion not controlled by the suspension's springs and damping), which is why in-wheel location is relevant and inboard location is not.

The final drive (differential and final reduction gearing stage) is unsprung mass in a typical live beam suspension (front or rear), and sprung mass in a typical independent suspension (front or rear), so IRS typically has lower unsprung mass than a live beam axle. That is entirely unrelated to the type of engine (or motor) or transmission. With the prime mover (engine or motor) and transmission sprung, all that is left unsprung is the outer drive joint and outer half of the shaft. The only way to avoid having the jointed shaft is to place the prime mover on the hub (that's usually an electric motor, but it's the engine in a typical scooter)... but Stuart says that his design is not an in-wheel motor.

So... Stuart is claiming that his driveline (not electric motor) miraculously reduces the unsprung mass of the shaft and joint, and even (since he claims to reduce it to "effectively zero") negates the mass of the suspension, brakes (if outboard), hub carrier, bearings, hub, wheel and tire.

Picking a specific model of air-cooled VW looks like a pretty trivial thing, compared to all this, doesn't it? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
A.f.a.b.k
i missed most of this the first time, because stuart (and many other users of forums using this style of wiki markup) doesn't understand how to use the quote feature, so his text ends up in a block which looks like i posted it. Let me assure other members that i didn't post this crap...



Of course they would. They would like infinite tire traction, too, but that is also unrelated to the powertrain. See next part...


Summary for anyone trying to follow this who is not familiar with automotive technology: What is located on the moving suspension parts contributes to unsprung mass (mass which has motion not controlled by the suspension's springs and damping), which is why in-wheel location is relevant and inboard location is not.

The final drive (differential and final reduction gearing stage) is unsprung mass in a typical live beam suspension (front or rear), and sprung mass in a typical independent suspension (front or rear), so irs typically has lower unsprung mass than a live beam axle. That is entirely unrelated to the type of engine (or motor) or transmission. With the prime mover (engine or motor) and transmission sprung, all that is left unsprung is the outer drive joint and outer half of the shaft. The only way to avoid having the jointed shaft is to place the prime mover on the hub (that's usually an electric motor, but it's the engine in a typical scooter)... But stuart says that his design is not an in-wheel motor.

So... Stuart is claiming that his driveline (not electric motor) miraculously reduces the unsprung mass of the shaft and joint, and even (since he claims to reduce it to "effectively zero") negates the mass of the suspension, brakes (if outboard), hub carrier, bearings, hub, wheel and tire.

Picking a specific model of air-cooled vw looks like a pretty trivial thing, compared to all this, doesn't it? ;)
a.f.a.b.k.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top