The WarpOne

[WarpedOne]

As I mentioned in ziggy's thread, I am also thinking about/working on a design of an alternative concept vehicle. Let's call it The WarpOne.

I don't want to interfere with ziggy's or other people's choices nor influence his or their design, I'd just like to get some wind into my thought processes and maybe also some good suggestion on part choices. Currently I'm not in a position to be able to actually go and build one, nevertheless I can enjoy designing one. I'll start with a some background reasoning about choices I've made.

Concepts

I was strong proponent on 1F2R approach as is evident from my previous postings to this and other forums. I think that is because VentureVehicles came out with a great looking design in this configuration. Everything else before it (including CarverOne, LifeJet, not to mention Zebras etc) looked very awkward to me.

But then I saw this (Peugeot LiiOn (http://www.carsbase.com/photo/Peugeot_LiiON_model_7421.html)):
http://www.carsbase.com/photo/Peugeot-LiiON_mp40_spic_42564.jpg

This vehicle looks just great. Unfortunately Peugeot is not a company that would actually build something like it, so we are on our own again. Also, it is only a single seater. In my point of view this is its biggest drawback. There just have to be an option to pick up a beautiful hitchhiker or place to put a bag. Not necessary at the same time though.

This design made me rethink 1F2R : 2F1R dilemma. 1F2R has one tilting narrow tire in front and two wider non-tilting tires in back. Ratio of amount of rubber actually touching the ground is somewhere close 1 : 4. That front tire is under high stress resulting in very short lifespan. If you drive over some dirt in the middle of a corner it, you could easily loose traction and slid.

2F1R approach seems much better from this point of view. 2 narrower tires in front and one wider tire in back. Ratio of rubber on the ground is somewhere around 1:1. Also there are two distant patches of rubber in front. If one goes over dirt and looses traction, there still is the other to reduce sliding. Yes, there is now only one tire in the back, but it is much wider than the front one in 1F2R configuration. Based on this I decided to go with 2F1R.

That LiiOn pictured above actually has three tilting wheels. This means the rear tire needs to be round and really wide to provide anything resembling enough traction. This might work for a shorter and lighter single seater, but I doubt it could work in a two seater that is longer and heavier. This is why I decided to go with a non-tilting rear wheel. Also, non-tilting wheel does not need to be round - we can use standard cheap car tire and get good traction.

Another basic design decision is that it is a pure electric vehicle. No ICE nonsense. Designer of that LiiOn said the electric motor should be put into the rear wheel. Now, this sounds very cool and elegant but unfortunately we cannot buy strong enough wheel-hub electric motor. They just don't exists. Also, sufficiently strong electric motors weigh from 50 to 100 pounds. You just don't want to have so much unsprung weight when whole weight on that wheel is only about 5 times as much. You would loose rear traction all too frequently. And because there is only one rear wheel, loosing its traction is not an option. So, the motor has go out of the rear wheel.

Another thing to note is that there is not much space in a vehicle like LiiOn to put batteries into. This is especially true for large prismatic cells. So I went with cylindrical cells that are distributed throughout the whole vehicle in smaller modules where-ever there is some free space. Many-module approach means any special cooling/heating for the batteries is not possible. Batteries need to be as safe as possible without any thermal conditioning. This is why I choose LiFePO4.

So, these are my starting points:

Warp One
- two front / one rear wheel configuration
- in the end it must look great
- front wheels tilts, rear wheel does not
- tandem two seater
- whole cabin tilts automatically
- pure electric propulsion
- capable of highway speeds
- as much range as possible under reasonable price (and other) constraints
- construction of body should not demand any very special tools, expensive procedures nor materials

Next: Basic parts and specifications (in writing, hold on with replies for now:)

[WarpedOne]

Basic parts and specifications

Electric propulsion is still a very delicate thing and it pays if vehicle is designed with specific parts in mind. I decided to use AC electric motor with direct drive of the rear wheel. AC drive-trains are a bit more efficient and have wider usable rpm range. This is very useful in direct drive vehicle as you can use higher ratio and still attain high speeds. AC tends to be more expensive than DC but if we compromise in the begging the result would be only worse.

I decided on Azure Dynamics AC24 motor and their DMOC445 controller. That is mostly because it is the one I could easily found on the web and seems appropriate.

Motor: Azure Dynamics/Solectria #AC24, aircooled, keyed shaft, C-Face - Price: 2,595.00 $
Controller/Inverter: Azure Dynamics/Solectria #DMOC445 - Price: 3,495.00 $

Specifications (http://www.azuredynamics.com/products/force-drive/documents/AC24_DMOC445ProductSheet.pdf) Supplier (http://www.electroauto.com/catalog/price-pts.shtml)

Now about the batteries. This vehicle is going to weigh about 1000 pounds, so we need a reasonable amount of energy to move it around. What about 10kWh? Tesla Roadster needs 50 kWh for a 250 miles of range. With 10kWh it would only go for 50 miles. Our vehicle is about 2,5 times lighter, has about half as much of aerodynamic drag and about half of rolling resistance. I feel that we can safely assume that 100 miles should be doable with those 10kWh. I'll take this 10kWh as a target.

I found these LFP cells from K2 Energy (http://store.peakbattery.com/lfp26.html) very promising. They are 26650 cells, storing about 3200mAh and rated for 12A / 28A discharge i.e 3.75C / 8.75C (continuous / 30 s pulse).

AC24 / DMOC445 system runs on 156VDC or 336VDC. 156VDC system is capable of 13kW continuous power and up to 30kW of peak mechanical power. 336VDC system outputs 17kW continuous with peaks up to 40kW. It also has higher peak efficiency and higher lasting max torgue (to 4700 rpm). Because of vehicle weight and desire for sportiness I decided to go with higher voltage configuration i.e. 336V system voltage.

Those K2 LFP cells are 3.2V nominal and store 3,2Ah. To get to 336V nominal we have to put 105 of them in series. 10kWh at 336 V means 30Ah pack. With 3.2Ah cells we have to put 10 of them in parallel. This results in the whole battery pack having 1050 cells and storing 10,7kWh of energy.

Cell weight is declared at 82g, so the whole pack without casing and wiring will weigh 86kg (190 pounds). Add 15 kg for wires and casings and we have the battery weight around 100 kg or 220 pounds. Not a problem.

Price: 11.50$/cell or 12,075.00 $ for one whole pack (without any mass buy discount)

Motor maximum electric power is rated at 47kW. This means it would draw about 140A at 336V or about 14A per cell (10 parallel). They are rated for 12A continuous discharge so this should poise no special problem for them. At half power of about 10kW (sustained highway driving) it would draw about 3A per cell.

Other:
- rear tire: 185 / 55 R14
- front tires: 120 / 70 R17
- max powered speed: 135 km/h (82 mph)

With above rear wheel dimensions, 11,000 max powered motor rpm and target 135kmh max speed, we found we need 8,5:1 rpm reduction from motor to the rear wheel. Max torque is thus available from 0 to 57 km/h (0 to 35 mph). Max torque on the rear wheel is about 680 Nm which is equivalent to about 2400 N of propulsion force. This is huge, imagine 240 kg (500 pounds) pushing you forward. If whole vehicle weighs 1000 pounds that results in half a g of acceleration giving 2.9 s 0 to 35 mph. 0 to 60 time would be about 7 seconds.

I feel such performance is quite acceptable. With good looking design such a vehicle should be a blast.

Next: The Design

[WarpedOne]

Now, keep in mind this is still a big work in progress. I haven't even
included all of my own main design points (like great looks, etc ...).


Spine tube

Warp One is based on one long strong tube. This is the main stressed member that holds everything together. Rear wheel is attached by a simple swing arm suspension and driven by a belt. Immediately after the wheel there comes electric motor. It is as close to the wheel as possible. Controller sits above motor. This spine tube does not tilt, it always stays horizontal. Same with the rear wheel, motor and controller.

http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=865&stc=1&d=1244500345

Front two wheels are also attached to this spine tube via two swing arms. Only lower two swing arms carry vehicle weight and are thus suspended. Upper arms control wheel tilt angle are not attached to this spine tube but to the cabin.

There are four small cylinders concentric with main spine tube, one in the front, one behind the front wheel arms, one in the middle and one directly in-front of the motors. These are cabin hinges. Cabin sits on them and rotates around them while driving through corners.


The cabin

Shown cabin will have to be redesigned for aesthetic purposes but the main points are demonstrated. These are that there is room for two adult persons and the cabin holds battery packs.

http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=866&stc=1&d=1244500345

As there is not much room for batteries, they're everywhere where there is some space. Under each seat there are two battery packs, in front there are two large ones, in lower side walls there will be two long flat packs (not shown).


Tilting

Of course, driving through corners, the whole cabin tilts. Current design allows for some 80 degrees tilting but the floor needs to be more circular. Now the edges come to low during fast cornering (low tilting).

http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=867&stc=1&d=1244500345


Dimensions

Current design is 1,3m high, 1.27m wide and 3,4m long. Wheel base is 2.66m. I'm not happy with any of these numbers, all of them should be less.

Motor, controller and batteries weigh about 160kg, add DC/DC controller, wheels, tubing and the sum goes up to some 300kg. Add 150kg for two people and we are very close to those projected 500kg. No problem yet.


Ok, this is all that I got for now. Comments, suggestions and corrections are welcome.

@moderator:
-i double posted the second post in this series, please delete one. I would do it myself but forum said they are waiting moderation
- if you could remove my last comment from the first post, that would be splendid
- if it is possible to host the images on this server, please do it. I'm not sure for how long those links will last

[ziggy951]

Sweetness man.

[Derwin]

@moderator:
-i double posted the second post in this series, please delete one. I would do it myself but forum said they are waiting moderation
- if you could remove my last comment from the first post, that would be splendid
- if it is possible to host the images on this server, please do it. I'm not sure for how long those links will last

Wow! Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Very nice, WarpedOne. I like it.

I'll download and then upload these pictures to the club servers. But for future reference, you can upload any photos to the club servers by yourself. Just upload them to each post, and they'll show up. If you need any instructions, just let me know.

Derwin

[RAN]

I like the fact that the rear wheel doesn't tilt. It allows for a much wider choice of tires (pun totally intended ;-).

Nice work WarpedOne!

[MikeB]

Those K2 LFP cells are 3.2V nominal and store 3,2Ah. To get to 336V nominal we have to put 105 of them in series. 10kWh at 336 V means 30Ah pack. With 3.2Ah cells we have to put 10 of them in parallel. This results in the whole battery pack having 1050 cells and storing 10,7kWh of energy.

From my experience with electric scooters, 1050 cells is going to be a maintenance nightmare. For long-term reliability, you need to monitor and manage individual cells with a Battery Management System (BMS), to protect against overvoltage (when charging) and undervoltage (when discharging). Monitoring that many cells is impractical, so you'll have to monitor a block of cells instead. If one cell in the block goes bad, you'll probably end up damaging and thus replacing the whole block.

I'd suggest going with much larger cells. My next bike is going to have 30 cells at 60Ah each, and a BMS to watch each one. For higher voltage, you might drop down to the 20Ah cells, but that triples the number you have to wire up to the BMS.

Try this as a source:
http://www.electricmotorsport.com/store/ems_ev_parts_batteries_thunder_sky.php


As a side note, 90-120 watt-hours/mile is typical power consumption for electric motorbikes. ie. I can get a little over 40 miles on a 4kWh battery pack, assuming 80% discharge limit, on a 350lbs scooter with a top speed of 52mph. You're aiming heavier, but more aerodynamic, so 120 is a likely real-world target. Going faster will reduce range significantly.

[RAN]

I would have to go with the Thunder Sky batteries as well. Tesla's taming of all those thousands of cells did not come easily or cheaply.

[WarpedOne]

I got multiple recomendations toward prismatic cells. Here (http://www.evcomponents.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=SE40AHA) they offer 40Ah modules from Sky Energy for 44$ a piece. 100 of them would only cost about 4.5k $. That is 8k $ cheaper than those K2 cylindrical cells. It would also mean no parallel connections, just straightforward series connections. Unfortunately, 100 of them are about 50% heavier (150kg), need additional compression (additional 20kg) and are somewhat bulkier i.e. harder to fit. On the other hand, they would also have more capacity (about 12,8kWh).

I'll try to modify the design to use these 40Ah cells from SkyEnergy.

[wireman]

Hey W One

For a very comprehensive look at the requirements for these batteries, go to www.metricmind.com (http://www.metricmind.com), and check out his (more advanced ev) section. He is an engineer who is doing his own ev conversions, and is a possible source for BMS's and other great things.

[WarpedOne]

Yes, BMS is still an open question. As is charger and other more mundane vehicle components like lights, stereo etc :)

And brakes!

I'm thinking about having only front non-servo brakes. It would simplify the system and save some energy (no vacum pump). There shouldn't be a problem in stoping a 1000 pounds vehicle with clasic nonservo disc brakes. Of course, on the rear wheel there would be regen braking. Regen power would be adjustable via small slider on the steering wheel or some similar aparatus. This slider is spring loaded so it automaticaly returns to previously set default amount. On the brake pedal there would be some sensor that would apply regen whenever you'd push on brakes. This should also be vairable - more pushing, more regen.

As I said in my opening posts, space is one of scarcest resource in such small and narrow vehicle. There ain't any boot to put a lot of big batteries into. Thats why I intended to use smaller cylindrical cells and put them where ever I could (below seats, into sidewalls, etc). People here and on other forums pointed out the very high price of such cells. Initial configuration of 1050 K2 cells would cost about 12,000 $. Prismatic cells with similar amount of energy would only cost about 4400 $. This was enough of a saving to warrant a try :)

So, here it is:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=868&stc=1&d=1244583188

I put these prismatic cells into the cabin floor and lower side walls. Under seats they are strapped together to prevent their swelling. I'm not sure how to prevent swelling of the modules in the walls and floor. A separate strap for every single module? There are 42 of them. Maybe some long angular aluminum bar across the middle of them would suffice? Open problem. Another larger amount of strapped cells come in the nose.

I've managed to install 104 of 40Ah prismatic cells from SkyEnergy. Their total cost is "only" 4,600 $ USD and they pack 12kWh of energy, so the range should be even about 20% higher than with those K2 cells.

So far I'm very happy with this. Total projected price for motor, controller and batteries is about 11k $. Target range is still around 100 miles, possibly even more, top speed still over 85mph and 0-60 time still about 7 seconds. If in the end, total cost won't exceed 20k $ (not including labor hours), I know what I'll be building in my garage in the near future :)

So, next step is going to be a first try at a nice outer body design. We'll see how that pans out (me included).

[WarpedOne]

I came accross a nice basic guide to who are those camber, caster and ackerman guys:Radio Controlled Model Car Handling (http://www.rctek.com/technical/handling/index.php)
Designing a vehicle means you must know them well.

[MVRacing]

I came accross a nice basic guide to who are those camber, caster and ackerman guys:Radio Controlled Model Car Handling (http://www.rctek.com/technical/handling/index.php)
Designing a vehicle means you must know them well.


Yes, it is very important... but even more important is that they are adjustable (over a wide range in the prototype). Don't forget bumpsteer.

[wireman]

No, W-1, you do not have to strap individual cells! Your idea of strapping cells in modules is CORRECT, but you must place pressure plates on both ends with either 4 long bolts, or 2 straps, to apply even pressure through the module. If clampage is not even, the module will deform. It is also not a good idea to clamp more than 12 cells together. More than that will make for difficulty in aligning the cells, and they must be aligned precisely! Not to mention that the module would be very heavy and awkward to install/service.

[WarpedOne]

Wireman, look at my last picture with cell placement. Cells that are facing each-other can be easily strapped, but where they are standing alongside they only touch with their narrow side, their "bellies" are free to swell. Probably this is something I don't want to happen.

[cearlnot]

WarpedOne

Except for the non-tilting rear wheel and wanting a hybrid I’m with ya all the way. I think a 2F3T with a high efficiency gen-set and Goldwing rear tire will be my ultimate tilter. Last fall I started building a non-tilting 2F1R using a Honda Civic hybrid drive train. I even got a wrecked 2005 civic hybrid. Unfortunately the damage was minor so I rebuilt it rather then striping its drive train. Hopefully I can use some of the bent tubing from the non-tilter to build the tilter.

My 2F3T will have the gen-set ahead/between the front wheels, batteries behind/between the front wheels and in a center tunnel running front to back under the seats and between your feet. Tilt controls will be electromechanical with the speedometer controlling the tilt to steering ratio and the steering wheel controlling steering at lower speeds to full tilting at higher speeds. Electric motor connected to a Goldwing rear swing arm.

There is no way in hell I could ever design a body as sweet as that Peugeot. It would be such a waist to build something as cool as a tilter with an ugly or poorly designed body. I’m good with welding mechanicals and electrical but designing and building a body scares me to death. I guess there’s a first time for everything.
Earl

[WarpedOne]

I’m good with welding mechanicals and electrical but designing and building a body scares me to death.
I am no less scared. Yesterday I gave my first try at replicating that LiiOn design. One evening wasn't enough to come anywhere near. And yes, great looks is one thing I'm not giving up on. If I turn up unable to do it, I might just abandon the whole idea of building it myself. But not yet :wave:
Fabrication will probably involve making a foam/wood models and a casting polyester (http://www.rqriley.com/frp-foam.htm) body panels from it. I'm not sure about canopy. Maybe something like this (http://autospeed.com/cms/A_111051/article.html).

I put some more thinking into battery packaging. Those cells that are facing eachother are easy to strap. Those that stand alongside eachother in the sidewalls will be sandwiched between two U-profiled rods. These rods will double as their frame and support for cabin floor. I'll post a picture of this later.

Some notes on subsystems:
- Brakes: two nonpowered front motorcycle brakes, automatic regen braking in the rear
- Ligths: front motorcycle lights, rear motorcycle or small car lights and turn signals
- Mirrors: two motorcycle side mirrors
- Wheel hubs: ATV front hubs (and wheels?), car rear wheel hub?
- Steering: I'm thinking of adapting a classic car steering (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/steering2.htm) (no powerassist). I'm not sure yet there are short enough racks though. The cabin is only about three feet wide.
- Tilting: do you have any suggestions or ideas? It should be automatic, reliable and as simple and cheap as possible. A computer will probably be needed to control it though I'd prefer mechanical design if one was possible. Maybe a compressor and two or four pneumatic actuators? It shouldn't use much energy.
- Instrumentation: one big central speedometer, on one side there would be something like EVision (http://www.metricmind.com/evision.htm) for displaying various vehicle data, on the other side there should be a circular display of tilting parameters (current tilt angle, selfcheck status, ...)
- A/C: none, maybe a small heater (batteries will radiate some heat, about 10W)

[cearlnot]

WarpedOne
I think the non-tilting rear wheel makes the tilting systems a little more complicated. I don’t think the rear wheel will stay upright unless the tilt system tilts the rear wheel too. Doesn’t this mean that the tilt system tilts the body and front wheels in one direction and at the same time tilt the rear wheel in the opposite direction so it stays upright?
It must be getting late because I just can’t envision how everything will work.
Earl

[MVRacing]

Some notes on subsystems:
- Brakes: two nonpowered front motorcycle brakes, automatic regen braking in the rear
- Ligths: front motorcycle lights, rear motorcycle or small car lights and turn signals
- Mirrors: two motorcycle side mirrors
- Wheel hubs: ATV front hubs (and wheels?), car rear wheel hub?
- Steering: I'm thinking of adapting a classic car steering (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/steering2.htm) (no powerassist). I'm not sure yet there are short enough racks though. The cabin is only about three feet wide.


I would look at race car parts for some of these.
The steering rack in my car is about 20" wide in the body.
Mirrors are super light weight, high impact plastic body, convex lense for better field of view, and measure about 1.5" X 3"
Lights, I would go with LED front, rear, & signals for lower power consumption.
Front brakes, I would again look at race car parts ... you will be tring to stop about 1500lbs. I don't know if motorcycle brakes are large enough. My car uses a light weight aluminum calipers, single puck controled by a small master cylinder (3"x 3"x 1.75").
Just some ideas.

[WarpedOne]

Thank you MVR, I need ideas. Even if I don't choose one, it doesn't mean it was a waiste of time, it made me think about it.

cearlnot:
Take another look at my first picture. Rear wheel is fixed to that spine and can only move up and down but not around it. Spine rotation is prevented by front wheels. Of course, the spine (and rear wheel) will rotate to the outside somewhat, this will be counteracted by front suspension.

I was thinking about legalization of such a vehicle. I gave a quick look at the code around here. It doesn't look to bad (too imposible) but it does have some caveats. It goes something like this:

1. Braking : simple test
2. Markings on control systems: engineering assesment
3. Sound signal : use of homologised part
6. Prevention of unauthorized use : engineering assesment
7. Manufactures plate : engineering assesment
8. Illumination: engineering assesment
9. Mass and dimensions : engineering assesment
10. Place for rear license plate : engineering assesment
11. Max velocity, torque, power : engineering assesment
12. Tires : use of homologised part
13. Lights : use of homologised part
14. Extended outer parts : engineering assesment
15. Rearview mirrors : use of homologised part
16. Emissions : simple test
17. Fueltanks : engineering assesment
18. Susceptabily to unallowed modifications : engineering assesment
19. Electromagnetic interference : no test
20. Noise : simple test
21. Mechanical connecting devices : use of homologised part
22. Safety belts : use of homologised part / engineering assesment
23. Safety glasses : use of homologised part
24. Speedometer : use of homologised part

I don't have exact idea what engineering assesment actually means. But getting homologised safety glass canopy is going to be a problem. How big?

Edit: by "homologised part" i've ment homologated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologation) part

[WarpedOne]

Unfortunately, my english is more like engrish (http://www.engrish.com/)...
Of course, by "Safety glasses" I meant "Windshields". The code requiers homologised windshiled canopy.

[wireman]

You sure of that, W1? I thought that since this was classed as a motorcycle, we didn't have to even have glass for the windshield! Here in Texas, if you are wearing a helmet or goggles, you don't even need a windshield at all.

Oh, BTW--- your solution for the battery cells which are not face-to-face seems good to me! Sorry about the misunderstanding, but this tiny screen at the public library makes images so small that I didn't notice the way they were placed. Maybe you have already thought of this, but be sure to create a bay for those cells open to the outside, so if/when you must work on them you won't have to dismantle half the vehicle to get to them! Heh, Heh!

[WarpedOne]

No, windshield is not mandatory but if you have one it has to be homologised item. I don't have a clue what to do about it except dropping the whole idea of enclosed cabin. Homologisation of a custom built canopy might be mighty expensive business.:(:(:(

>> but be sure to create a bay for those cells open to the outside

Of course. The whole bottom will be a single removable panel exposing all of the lower part of the cabin. I'll make a drawing of it when I finally have at least partially good looking design.

[wireman]

Hey Warped1, I thought I understood from the context what you meant by homologized, but I think I am lost there. Could you give me a quick def.? And yeah, I figured you had it covered on the access to the batt's because you're talented and plenty sharp. Just thought I would poke you a bit! Really, I like what you have done, and I'm pleased to be a part of this dialog with you. And that goes for Ziggy too!!!

[AZEqualizer]

I think he is talking about what we call auto safety glass or sometimes it is referred to as laminar glass. In Arizona I would have to check for sure but I believe that the requirements for a 3 wheel enclosed vehicle is pretty open about type of windshield it can have (an adequate windshield if so equipped) . I will have to research it further for the 100% sure answer.

[WarpedOne]

I thought I understood from the context what you meant by homologized, but I think I am lost there.
I apologize for my language skills. Please bear with me :)

By "homologized" I meant this: Homologation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologation). Probably, "homologated glass canopy" would be a better way of expressing the idea?

I interpret it as I cannot just go and cut some existing windshield and glue parts of it back together again. Some certified authority needs to test it and certify it. I remember hearing this procedure is very expensive as they usually deal only with big manufacturers.

Wait! What if I do just that except gluing?

My intention was a clear glass bubble canopy in a single piece. What if I cut an existing homologated windshield into suitable shapes and mount them into a canopy frame? Hmm, this might be a light from the end of the tunnel.

On the other hand, I'm pleased to report that I got an idea for tilting mechanism. It would piggy back on steering assembly. I'll try to make an animation to demonstrate the idea. It is actually very simple.

[mark84gti1]

How's this for a canopy.
https://secure.steenaero.com/Store/site/product.cfm?id=FEAB7AE1-102E-BB20-1F3015706990B088

I hope this link works, I'm kinda new at this.

[WarpedOne]

Here are some pics of that steering/tilting control idea. No animation for now.

This is a view from front-left when the vehicle is going fast into left turn.
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=875&stc=1&d=1244911008

The cabin (green frame) leans onto the left (from drivers POV), front wheels (black) tilt at same angle and also somewhat turn into the corner. Dark pink are lower swing arms, light pink are upper swing arms, gray is main spline, brown/orange are front dampers. The main thing is yellow - connection between steering (rack) and tilting angle.

Let's look at the situation from the top:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=878&stc=1&d=1244911269
This yellow thing is fixed to the gray spline but it can rotate around the vertical axis. Light blue is the steering rack assembly, red is a rod that is fixed to the frame. When you turn the steering wheel, the rack moves to turn the wheels. But because rack is also connected to this "yellow thing" it makes it rotate. By rotating it pushes against red rod that is fixed to the frame and voila - the frame i.e. cabin tilts into corner.

This red rod is not completely fixed to the frame but can move toward the driver. By doing so the amount of cabin tilt angle will decrease. Rack tube is fixed to the frame, so this will also cause the front wheels to turn more.

This forward/backward movement of red rod must be dependent on speed. At slow speeds it has to be close the the "yellow thing" axes, as speed increases it has to move toward its end. This movement can be controlled by an electric motor and computer or some mechanical apparatus.

Take a look at front and side right view for better understanding. This pics are only for illustrating the idea, pictured dimensions of frame and members probably aren't adequate for forces involved.

[WarpedOne]

How's this for a canopy.https://secure.steenaero.com/Store/site/product.cfm?id=FEAB7AE1-102E-BB20-1F3015706990B088
I hope this link works, I'm kinda new at this.

Yes, link works, thank you!

Problem is, I'm not sure plane canopies could be mounted on a land vehicle without some additional certification.

[slowblast]

Telsa uses AC Propulsion’s 6 phase AC motor, any talk about 360V power pack is referenced to that technology. It is ~ 90% efficient at a very high cost. Most EV work is being done with 48V to 72V DC motors. (cheep) but only 60-70%. The other problem with Li batteries is that each cell requires a battery control module to regulate charging and discharging to keep the batteries imbalance. Sooner or later some one is going to come up with a car sized LI battery that is cost equivalent, that’s when EV will get exciting.. right now sky batteries are run ~$250 for a 12V 60Ah pack.

Here a little pre done LI battery pack.. still about $8k?

http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products/N5_range_extender

[WarpedOne]

Telsa uses AC Propulsion’s 6 phase AC motor
No, they don't.

Tesla Motors build their own motors, controllers and battery packs. They only use ACP's patent on reductive charging i.e. they use motor stator windings as part of their onboard charger. There is no ACP electronics in Tesla Roadster, only one patent and that will probably change with Model S.

Price for lithium is still somewhat high but its not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is energy density i.e. stored energy per unit of mass.

I'm am not building this vehicle to save money but to burn it on something I enjoy.

[rogwild]

WarpedOne, looks great from my 'novice's' point of view. If you want some 'technical feedback' (be ready for some 'criticism'); visit the 'Tilting' Forum on Yahoo Groups (lots of 'EXPERTS' over there (just ask them)).
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/tilting/?yguid=241752129
They also use an animation program that shows 'forces' and can expose 'stress' areas, and show friction and CG problems. I don't understand them most of the time, but they do have some interesting discussions on different 'tilting methods'.

[WarpedOne]

Just to document history, I'm posting today's design.
It still looks more like a dorkmobil than a great tilter. To improve on this I increased the rear wheel to 225/45 R17. I will also add a wing to the rear and "open up" the space around rear wheel.

Design is hard work.

P.S. Has anyone figured out a way to post decent sized pictures? Current limitations are beyond ridiculous.

http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=880&d=1245183566

[AZEqualizer]

WarpedOne - You either have to go to your profile and add an album then link to the picture there or you can send a larger picture to Derwin who can put it on the site and embed a picture for you.

[wireman]

WarpedOne:"Design is hard work."

You ain't kiddin' W1! I'm amazed that you have come as far as you have. Don't worry about dorkmobile on your first attempt. You will undoubtedly get many suggestions from the club now that you have something to show.

I haven't been able to work on my 1F2R much, and it is hard when you don't have solid model experience. I had to make a paper model of a part of my design this weekend just to see if one foam panel would fit!

[WarpedOne]

Ok, I've created an ablum. Pictures are still limited to resolutions up to 600 pixels and 90kb but it's better than ordinary attachments.
Is it possible to sort album pics?

Does the link in my signature work?

[rogwild]

I know you are at the very 'early' stages, but I noticed the 'naked' rear tire, and wonder if there is some federal or state regulation that requires it 'covered' for street use. You can just slap on a motorcycle style rear fender, but if 'required' you might want to incorporate it into the design. Just a thought/observation.
Have you figured out how much 'tilt' angle, that front wheel width will give you?

[WarpedOne]

I thought about either naked rear tire or thin black fender that looks just like the tire itself. Problem is, I want a two seater. This means the roof line is very high in the back. It needs visual stimulus to look good and is very easy to make it dorky. Proof for that are almost all 2F1R vehicles out there and this my design :)

Current design allows for 25 degrees tilt angle (i.e. 50 degrees in total). There will be trade offs. If I make the body narrower (there is some room for that), I loose on visuals. If I widen the front wheels I start to loose the point of tilting. Center of gravity will be very low because of all the batteries (300 pounds) in the cabin floor. How much tilt angle do I really need? I'll have to dig into calculations.

[Mike kZ]

How about leaning back the seat uprights. To do this you can lengthen the body to cover the rear tire, and at the same time lower the roof. This would make the car more streamline, and lower.

[WarpedOne]

A quick illustration of why I decided on a high voltage battery system. Here is a comparison of AC24/DMOC445 system at 156 VDC and 336 VDC system voltage.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=183

Desired max speed is about 140 km/h or 85 mph. We see that at lower speeds (up to 30 mph) there is not much difference - only about 10% in max torque (i.e. max acceleration). This gap then opens up to about 100% at max rpm. Higher system voltage gives us twice the torque of lower voltage system at highway speeds. We want this hence decision on 336V system voltage and about 100 LiFePO4 cells to supply it.

I decided to skip transmission and go with a direct drive. AC24/DMOC445 combination is capable of 11.000 powered rpm. Maximum torque is available up to 4700 rpm. What gear ratio would be best?

This vehicle should be capable of highway speeds and have good acceleration across whole legal speed range. First I intended to choose such gear ratio that max motor rpm would be just above max legal speed. In this way we get maximum torque at low speeds.

But what about middle speeds from 40 to 60 mph?

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=182

I plotted wheel torque curves for various possible gear ratios. If you look at red (1:8) and pink (1:12) curves you'll see that while pink curve is much higher at low speeds, it drops below the red one in the middle and higher speed range. This means that with direct drive higher low speed acceleration alway comes at the price of slower acceleration at middle and higher speeds. So, we need to figure out exactly how much wheel torque we really need at low speeds and provide exactly that much of it and no more thus saving higher speed performance.

Azure recommends a gear ratio around 1:10. It seems like a good starting point.


Mike kZ:

How about leaning back the seat uprights. To do this you can lengthen the body to cover the rear tire, and at the same time lower the roof. This would make the car more streamline, and lower.
True, but I don't wont the thing to be too long. Current wheelbase is already over 8.7 feets, like in a midsized car. I want the driver to be in the center of it not in front like in a bus draging the rear behind :) The devil is in details, it must all come and play together well.

[NortonF1]

@W1: Current Motorcycle tires allow tilt to about 52 degrees before You loose grip, so if You want decent cornering speeds I would suggest to have at least the 45 degrees of tilt that the Carver One has.....

Regards Hans

[wireman]

Hey WarpedOne

A suggestion (see I told you they would come). Don't bring the back of the canopy down, nor the side. Fastback the top with a 2in. drop (or less) and sweep the side up to meet it. To give you an example, go to http://www.3wheelers.com/projgal24.html and you will see something I think is Cool As Hell (CAH). The design is side-by-side so it's too wide up front, but add a wing to the lower edge of the rear up-swept part over the wheel and it would ROCK n ROLL!

[slowblast]

Figure out the height of the tires you will be using to get their circumference. That will give you the rpm of the tire R= 5280/C (per mile), for the max speed Mph you want then. The ratio between the max motor rpm and the max tire rpm is what the differential gearing should be. (Simple math?)
I saw someone that used a simple bolt-on Overdrive unit (used in reverse/under-drive) to improve the motor’s bottom end current loading.
This gave a simple 2 speed and since the overdrive was actuated electrically, he just designed its actuation, it into the motor controller. Since it used as under-drive, in cruse mode, it was just free wheeling (1:1) and didn’t degrade cruse mode power.

[slowblast]

Did you see this canopy? It might work good for your design.

[slowblast]

http://www.blueskydsn.com/kit_canopy.html the rest of the story (in 60 SEC).

[WarpedOne]

Yes, this canopy looks nice and usable. Homologation remains to be the problem though. I need something for which office will grant an approval and gave me license plates.

Currently I'm designing a new cabin frame:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=184

and door-frame:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=185

This frame would be made out of straight steel tubes welded together. Thicker tubes are about 1.57 inch, thinner are 0.78 inch thick. There are lots of them, too much to be content with. I need to figure out how much could they be bent and modify the design to use some bent tubes. Tube count should go down considerably. The other thing I need is check of statical stability. Anyone know of nice and simple software for doing it? All I can remember is that Rigs of rods game. Overkill for my needs.

[WarpedOne]

I've been rather busy last three days. I've consulted with an electrical engineer to how feasible it is to build a custom parallel charger. I dislike serial chargers as they would charge the pack at its nominal voltage of 380 VDC. Suitable chargers cost more than 2k $. I would also need 104 balancers that would bypass the current when some cell is full. This would cost at least another 2k $. So, the price for balanced charging of 104 modules comes about 4k $. And when the pack is almost full and only the strongest cell is still charging, you are wasting about 4 kW of power - heating the balancers of already full cells. 4 kW of heat is a lot. With cells in the walls there ain't a lot of ways to remove so much heat. The cells would get hot which is very bad for them.

My idea is to build a transformer with 104+ separate outputs at 4V each and than add 104 modules with a rectifier, current limiter and a switch. Charger would act like a 104 separate chargers, each charging its own module. The downside is every cell would need its own charging wires. I am willing to accept this. Charging would be at about 10A/cell, so these wires aren't really thick. The jury is still out how hard is to get a suitable transformer (240 AC, 4 kW, 104+ outputs at 4V/10A), logics of a single charging module is simple.

The other guy I met was a mechanical engineer. He gave a look at the whole design and especially the frame. I'm still not happy with it as it looks just to complicated. I'll also need to do some FEA to check for structural weaknesses. Here is updated frame:

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=186

What do you guys think of this new tail?
Motor and controller will get their own shell with some internal ducting for cooling.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=187


While looking at the model alone one can get a feeling that this thing is rather big.
Human model here is 5 feet 5 inches tall. It ain't so big after all.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=188

[Necoras]

You still need a roll cage. There needs to be top support for a rollover. What modelling tool are you using?

[WarpedOne]

There is - cabin frame that is not shown on the last picture. I'm using Maya.

[WarpedOne]

Ok, I'm still working 10 hours a day on this project, so some progress update is due.

Main body shell is completed. It may not be perfect but I'm not modifying it anymore for now. I widened the front wheels a bit to get more than 30 degree of max tilt angle. Vehicle is now 60 inches wide.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=189

I'm toying with an idea of open engine compartment i.e. no big shell over controller and motor as both are already sealed. Of course some panels are necessary to protect the gears and electric lines. I'll also add some provisions for better airflow toward the controller vents and along the motor.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=190

This is frame version 0.3. I'll still have to do same FEA on it to determine if it is really mechanically sound.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=191

Some new problems also poped up. I need a way of transferring power from motor to the rear wheel. I was thinking (as pictured) of simple gear reduction set and belt drive. Problem is, I'm not sure where to source such gears. 12.000 max motor rpm is a lot, gears need to be very balanced and precisely made. Such reduction gears also need oil so it would have to be enclosed. Azure Dynamics offer suitable gearbox AT1200 (http://www.electroauto.com/catalog/acgearbox.shtml) but it is intended for two-wheel drive so it includes differential. I'll fly a mail their way if maybe they could modify it to disable differential.

The other question is is beltdrive really suitable? Standard motorcycle belts probably aren't strong enough. Chaindrive might be better alternative?

Azure Dynamics sent me some papers that say max nominal battery voltage of DMOC445 is 312VDC and not 336VDC as some of their flyers say. This means I'll only need 94 cells and so 10% less power and range. Bugger. But it will also shave 30 pounds (5%) from total weight.

[Necoras]

My quick thought. Double the size of the rear wheel and put a hub motor in it. You'd get more traction because of the increased tire area touching the ground and weight on that tire, and your wouldn't have to deal with transferring power anywhere. No gears, belts, or chains to be precision made. All you'd need was a power line leading to it. Also don't most hub motors double as breaks? Not sure what it would do to your weight.

[WarpedOne]

Give me a link for a 40 kW, under 100 pounds, under $5k wheel motor and I'm all for it. Unfortunately, I can only use what I can buy.

Besides, it would totally kill rear traction on ordinary bumpy roads.

[Gunner]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/f35_2.jpg

How about making the nose more like an F35?

[ziggy951]

It doesnt translate well to a vehicle with wheels. Or one that tilts. The whole pointed nose doesnt work with the ground under the vehicle. Speaking for myself here but I initially tried a few jet mockups on my build and I just couldnt get it to look...not cartoonish.



Z

[WarpedOne]

I've been told that my images all use very unpleasant colors. Obviously my monitor has some color reproduction problems. I hope this new body color is kinder to the eyes.

I made a simple shell for motor and controller including some ducting for cooling. I really need a designer ...

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=193

[Mike kZ]

I think your other colors are easier to see things. The project is coming along great!

[WarpedOne]

Ok, I've changed it into plane red. I hope it turns out OK.

Here is another try at the rear end. I've integrated the air ducts and colored them in the main body color. I think I might be heading in the right direction.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=194

Central opening below the yellow light is the exit for air cooling the controller. Air cooling the motor would exit down below in front of the rear wheel.

[WarpedOne]

Here is guy (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/three-wheeler-26208.html) that is actually building his own trike. It is not a tilting machine but it has 2F1R configuration and is fully enclosed with windshields. And what is best is that he's from France i.e. Europe. If he could do it maybe there is a chance for me to do it also (legalization).

[Mike kZ]

Here is guy (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/three-wheeler-26208.html) that is actually building his own trike. It is not a tilting machine but it has 2F1R configuration and is fully enclosed with windshields. And what is best is that he's from France i.e. Europe. If he could do it maybe there is a chance for me to do it also (legalization).

Man a lot of his welds are scary looking!

http://www.ats-design.net/public/vehiculeselectriques/images/P2704090000.jpg

[WarpedOne]

Yeah, his welding skillz might not be the best but at least he is doing actual work. I'm still only shooting electrons :)

So, here is a pic of opened cabin door. That human standing beside is 5 feet 5 inches tall for some perspective.
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=195

And another pic of a Warp One v1.0 in action:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=196

I reached a point where I'm fairly satisfied with external design. Now I need to put together a list of questions for our authorities regarding what are my real options/possibilities in bringing this vehicle into real life.

My free days are over, tomorrow I need to go back to my old daily routine so I won't have that much time at my hands any more. We'll see how all pans out.

[esoneson]

If that dude is 6 ft 6, then the top of the open canopy is standing well over 9 feet. I suspect that if it is raining, you would want to exit the vehicle in your garage. My garage ceiling is 8 ft with the garage door hanging at about 7 feet. The single hinge at the front of the canopy may not be the optimal way to go to preserve the integrity of the rear canopy seal that is bound to hit the ceiling.

Nice car.

Also, I think I may have mentioned to you before about the motorcycle hub motor producing 10Kw continuous (20 peak) weighing in at 35-40 pounds with rim, not including tire. He's had his lithium powered bike (350 pounds) up to 75 MPH. Cruising at 40MPH using 33 amps.

Take that times three.........

http://www.doingitall.net/EnerTrac/
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7718

Eric

[WarpedOne]

You have a very valid point, the door must not open to high. I was already thinking about that but I don't know how to do double rotation in Maya so I pictured it simply like a single hinge rotation. The real plan is shown below. It would only open about 5 feet 5 inches high. The rain will remain an issue though.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=197

Regarding wheel motors: when I really could buy them, than I'll also think about them.

[MVRacing]

Really impressive!! Can't wait to see how you progress when the electron shooting is done. :burning:rubber:

[rickb]

Could the door hinge to the side and flip up like the access door on the MonoTracer? I'm certain you have considered all options with the amazing progress you've made.

[WarpedOne]

I could do that but than I could only enter from one side. I want to be able to enter from/exit to either side.

[Mike kZ]

Maybe the canopy should be a little longer to ease the entrance of the passenger.

[rickb]

I could do that but than I could only enter from one side. I want to be able to enter from/exit to either side.
This comment is just conversation and it is your design to meet your needs, but if the door were to hinged on one side it would provide for a wider opening for ease of passenger entry as well as easy access to what could be a storage compartment behind a flip forward passenger seat. Very nice either way. Is one option safer in case of a rollover emergency exit from the vehicle.:burning:rubber:

[WarpedOne]

Access to the rear seat is not limited by door/cabin length but by safety arc that is part of the frame. I cannot move it backward without considerably weaking the whole frame structure. Look at the middle of this picture:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=191

This vehicle is primarily oriented towards the driver, I'm not too concerned about passenger as long as there is a way to have one if need be.


Here is a higher quality rendering of current design:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=198

I've attached a short 360 degree fly-around clip. It is in a zip because wmv attachments aren't allowed.

[WarpedOne]

Here is a simple study of the interior. Just a steering wheel, dashboard contours and some upholstery.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=199

[Heaven Net]

| ...would humans one day be able to go at warp speed, but that we would have different levels of warp speed. We could go Warp One if we weren’t really in a hurry, Warp Five if we wanted to get there fairly quickly, and Warp Nine if we were fleeing...

[WarpedOne]

This project has just suffered a serious blow. More serious than those homologation issues.

This whole day I've been trying to calculate exactly how much do front wheels need to turn into a corner given its radius and vehicle speed.
It is easy to calculate the right amount of tilt, but the steering angle came out as obvious nonsense. I couldn't find what was wrong with the expressions. I also tried to attack the problem from the other side - given the lean angle and steering angle (and velocity if needed), what is the radius of the turn that the vehicle will take? I didn't bother with real conditions and slipping, pure ideal conditions. Results that came out were same nonsense.

Then I gave another shot at google and re-found this Tony Foale article (http://www.tonyfoale.com/Articles/Tyres/TYRES.htm) that nicely explains the problem that is hitting me:


As the inside edge of the tyre is forced to adopt a smaller radius than the outer edge, then for a given wheel rotational speed, the inner edge would prefer to travel at a smaller road speed, this happens if the wheel is allowed to turn about a vertical axis through the point of the cone. Just as a solid cone on a table if given a push. But if the bike was leaning over at 45° then for a normal size tyre the horizontal radius to the cone axis would be approximately 1.5 feet, an impossibly tight turn.


I was on the idea that front tire will behave just like a cone and hence got garbage for the radius. What happens in reality is this:

However, attempting this turn will generate a centrifugal force which tends to throw the bike away from the centre of the turn and hence it will describe a larger radius. This then is the main mechanism for generating the cornering force on a bike, and is often referred to and misunderstood as "CAMBER THRUST". To reiterate, As the wheel leans over, --- cambers ---, it tries to behave as part of a cone and turn a very tight corner, but the centrifugal force then generated forces this tight curve to straighten out and follow the turn radius that the rider desires.

The problem is, there is no analytical way (known to me?) of calculating this large radius beforehand. It depends on many factors including current road grip. Motorcyclist calculate it on the fly balancing the bike via handlebars.

Why is this such a big problem? Because I wanted to make tilt control very simple. No acceleration sensors and powerful and quick actuators to adapt current tilt angle to the current conditions. I had an idea about a simple geometric device that would control the tilt angle based on current speed and current steering angle. Now it turns out this is not exact science and I cannot make a simple half-passive device to control tilt.

Acceleration sensors and powered actuators are needed to dynamically measure centrifugal force and cancel it out via corrections to tilt angle. That in turns affects tire lean angle and turn radius the vehicle is making.

bang:h:1sadboycrying23230

Anyone with a good idea that is not "licence DVC from VanDerBrink"?

I don't need this system to be better than DVC, I just need it to at least "somewhat work". :confused:

[Derwin]

Anyone with a good idea that is not "licence DVC from VanDerBrink"?

Sorry to hear about the problems. But have you considered taking a look at the Dagne design.

Maybe you can learn a few things from that, and it surely does NOT use the DVC system from Carver.

Derwin

[RAN]

Man, I wish I knew how to help you, but other than Derwin's suggestion about taking a look at the Dagne, I haven't got a clue... this is way out of my element!

[WarpedOne]

Video Clip #3 - Dagne’s First Lean: This was the first time Dagne’s lean was actively controlled.

I'm afraid their system is quite sophisticated hence complicated. I'd like to avoid that and catch as many low hanging fruits as possible with a simple mechanical system. I might end with (experimentally determined) approximations that usually work but are not really exact. After all my design is limited to about 35 degrees of tilt. That by itself does not suffice for total canceling of centrifugal force under more spirited driving. So, if tilt angle is not exactly correct those lateral forces would also sometimes be felt under smaller tilt angles. I guess I'll have to live with it :|

Edit: Here is a spreadsheet of how big a problem "35 degree max tilt angle" limitation really is:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=200
Speed is given in the left column in mph, turn radius is given in top row in feet. Other numbers are the correct tilt angle to exactly cancel out the centrifugal force. Yellow numbers are just below the tilt limit, red ones are angles that wont ever be reached because of the tilt limit. In such circumstances some centrifugal force would be felt again though much less than in a car. If I won't be able to exactly determine the correct tilt angle only from current speed and steering angle, some centrifugal force would be felt also under lower speed/lighter turn conditions.

[rickb]

If it were simple we would probably have tilting trikes on the maket. Have you looked at the close up detail photos of the Life Jet 300. www.carshow.com/mercedes-benz/1997-f_300_concept/800x600/wallpaper_01.htm (http://www.carshow.com/mercedes-benz/1997-f_300_concept/800x600/wallpaper_01.htm) This probably doesn't help and is asor more complex as the Dagne. I think it is a cool vehicle none the less. Maybe info on Harley Davidson's Tadpole tilting trike design?

[rickb]

Sorry wrong site it's netcarshow......it's not going to get you to the photos which wouldn't have helped anyway......so nevermind.

[WarpedOne]

In this article Wikipedia - Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamic / Turning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics#Turning) it is said that approximate relation between turn radius and steering, lean, caster angles and wheelbase length is http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/d/e/4defe7aa9b93c1fc48dbbadd3f13ffcc.png. It is supposed to be about 2% accurate but this result is for vehicles with a single front wheel and a rear wheel that also leans. I don't know how it applies to my configuration with dual front leaning wheels and non-leaning rear wheel. If I don't find anything better this relation will have to do for first prototype.

[Necoras]

This might be a bit helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering if you haven't seen it already. I'd imagine that you'll need some automatic mechanism to initiate the countersteer and then experiment with the formula you have above. I'll be curious to see how you put together the leaning, turn angle of the wheels and the differential.

Your best bet is probably to try and build a scale model with the ability to set the wheels at different turn increments/angles and see what the turn radius is at various speeds/lean angles/wheel angle. You could then hopefully scale up to full size. It'd be more work, but with enough data points you could probably throw them into Matlab or something and have a regression formula pop out.

If your concern is cancelling out centrifugal force, what happens if you over tilt for a given speed? I assume you'd begin to tip over? If not, why not try to tip an extra degree for comfort's sake?

Good luck.

[WarpedOne]

I'd imagine that you'll need some automatic mechanism to initiate the countersteer and then experiment with the formula you have above. I'll be curious to see how you put together the leaning, turn angle of the wheels and the differential.

I won't need countersteer because I'll have active tilt control i.e. the tilt will be controlled by a mechanical system connected to the steering system with some added magic :)


Your best bet is probably to try and build a scale model with the ability to set the wheels at different turn increments/angles and see what the turn radius is at various speeds/lean angles/wheel angle.

I was thinking about this but then I saw that relation on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics#Turning). Currently I'm numerically investigating what tilt angles come out of it given speed and steering angle.


If your concern is cancelling out centrifugal force, what happens if you over tilt for a given speed? I assume you'd begin to tip over? If not, why not try to tip an extra degree for comfort's sake?

Main reason for tilting is exactly this - canceling out the centrifugal force. If you're riding a bike you need to do it very precisely or you fall over. But if you have more than two wheels this canceling by tilting need not be 100% correct all the time. Vehicle by itself is capable to stand up to this force to some degree. How much depends on its width and hight. Normal cars are so wide that centrifugal force in turns is not strong enough to turn them on the roof, they just lean a bit out of the corner.

My vehicle will be narrower and hence less resistant to falling over but will have some tilting ability to counteract this centrifugal force. So, if the tilt angle was not big enough, you'd feel some lateral force. This would mean that you're pushing the vehicle to hard and you're well advised to slow down. If the tilt angle was to big, you'd feel some lateral force into the corner. It would mean that the vehicle has less grip than under normal conditions and you're again well advised to slow down.

If you continue to push it hard or even harder this lateral force might become strong enough to overturn the vehicle. This could only happen when there is enough grip and you're simply going much to fast into hard corner. Then the vehicle might fall over. If there is not enough grip to even go into turn, the vehicle will just tilt but not fall over. It is wide enough to stand up even at maximum tilt angle.

Again, tilting/leaning won't depend on driver, it will automatically adjust to current speed and steering angle.

[WarpedOne]

That numerical investigation showed that I will probably need power-assisted steering, not at slow speeds but at high speeds.

It turns out that at 80mph tilt angle is about 50 times as large as steering angle. Gear ratio of the steering wheel is only about 10:1. This means that one degree turn of steering wheel will result in 5 degrees of tilt angle at 80 mph. Torque to tilt the cabin will come from the steering wheel, so you'll need to turn it 5 times as strong as needed to directly rotate the cabin. Not good.

Additional problem are outside forces producing torque one the cabin. This torque will strengthen 5-times and show on the steering wheel where driver would fight it to hold it still.

What all this means is that such vehicle would be practically undrivable at higher speeds and very dangerous. So I need powered steering that will help driver turn the steering wheel at such high speeds. And the tilting system will need to be designed in a way to transfer torque one way only - from steering wheel to the cabin. It will have to block the torque coming from the cabin (from the outside wind for example or too small tilt angle when more than 35 degrees was need).

[MVRacing]

I'm assumming you are aware that there is speed variable power assisted steering. I would imagine that the assist percentage could be programed with a few different sensors in addition to speed.

[WarpedOne]

Yes, such steering system is the current idea. I don't need additional sensors though, it is enough to feed it "customized" speed data :)
When going 80 I can just tell it that the vehicle is stationary and it will be working the strongest. And when going 20 I can tell it the vehicle is doing 80 so it wont interfere. Correct parameters are yet to be determined of course.

I still need a way to prevent cabin torque to rotate the steering wheel. Any idea?

[WarpedOne]

I use this thread as a general idea/link collector, so here is some more semirandom stuff. I looked around for suitable powersteering system and found Renault Clio (http://www.diskdrive.co.za/newsstories/road_tests/rt2002/RenaultClio14.htm).

It's powersteering has 3,4 turns lock to lock. My vehicle will have about 35 degrees of max steering angle so this would result in about 17,5:1 reduction ratio from the steering wheel to the front wheels. In hardest turning this would give about 3,5:1 ratio between tilt angle and steering wheel angle. Not to bad. With some electric powerassist this should be tolerable.

I also figured out a rather simple way of oneway torque transfer - only from steering to the cabin and not the other way. Something like this (http://www.automotsys.com.au/screwdrivedata.pdf), except the screw won't be driven by a motor directly but by steering pinion (or maybe rack). Now I need to find a system that uses suitable screw drive.

Again, any idea? :)

[WarpedOne]

Again, any idea? :)
Of course, here is one:
http://avtotrgovina.com/watermark.php?src=/images/AM-7022.JPG

This long screew will be fitted with gears and bearings and connected to the steering system. I'll need some lubrication and dust protectors. Nice.

[wireman]

Way to go W1! You have a gift for coming up with alternate applications for mechanicals. I would not have thought of that, and you are right, it is perfect for what you need! Dang, but your mind must be a junkyard! But, like the junkyard owner, if you say:"I need a...", he'll say: "Well, I aint got one, but I think I got something that'll work.

Now all you need do is: Attach the rod to the body, parallel to the ground, on an electric/hydraulic actuator which moves it up/down according to speed.
Have the rod slotted through the same bar (the YELLOW unit) that you had before, only mounted vertically.
Attach the slotted bar perpendicular to the end of the scissor mechanism.
As the scissor moves back and forth, the slotted bar forces the rod to describe an arc, and depending on the height of the bar in the slot, VOILA! More (or less) Tilt!

Is that what you had in mind? Can't wait to see a drawing of YOUR solution.

[Derwin]

Now all you need do is: Attach the rod to the body, parallel to the ground, on an electric/hydraulic actuator which moves it up/down according to speed.
Have the rod slotted through the same bar (the YELLOW unit) that you had before, only mounted vertically.Attach the slotted bar perpendicular to the end of the scissor mechanism. As the scissor moves back and forth, the slotted bar forces the rod to describe an arc, and depending on the height of the bar in the slot, VOILA! More (or less) Tilt!

Holy Moly! I thought you said you wanted to keep this simple. That sounds pretty complicated to me.

Did you get a look at the tilting mechanism that I posted here...

http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14329#post14329

This guy came up with something that seems pretty dang simple, but yet works like a charm.

Derwin

[wireman]

No Derwin,

Sorry but this STUPID machine at the public library won't let me access the vid. I will try to get a look at it tomorrow on another computer. One which doesn't have "super safe search internet blocking" programing! The idea is good, cause kids use these machines unsupervised, but you would be AMAZED at what else gets blocked that shouldn't be!

In WarpedOne's case, I was simply following his design parameters. He had already figured this out, but had it oriented so there would have had to be some kind of wild a** ball joint connecting the adjustable rod to the slotted guide. This way requires only a roller bearing on the rod, and is only three moving units, none of which are difficult to make, or adjust.

[WarpedOne]

Wireman:

Is that what you had in mind? Can't wait to see a drawing of YOUR solution.
Well not exactly, but I'll consider your idea.
I don't have a drawing yet because I'm still trying to put together a whole design that will meet up with all demands. Problem is that speed angle : tilt angle ratio covers very wide interval. From about 10:1 at walking speed up to 1:60 at highway speeds. This means that when going very slow, turning the steering wheel for 10 degrees ony result in about a degree of tilt angle. At 85 mph 0.1 degree on steering wheel must result in 6 degrees of tilt.

The other thing is I wan't this sistem as failsafe as possible and I trust mechanical systems much more than hydraulics and electronics. Especialy in road vehicles where temperatures, humidity and vibrations are very demanding factors.

Next thing is maximum tilt is 35 degrees. It is enough for stability but must be factored into the mechanism in a way that when more tilt ange would be needed steering still works but tilt angle stays at these 35 degrees.

And yet another thing: I only have about 1kW of power available for powering the thing (usuall power limit of car EPS systems). First idea was to get all the power from steering wheel i.e. driver but I realized that forces are much too high for something like that to work in practice.

So, all these and than some more must all come together and it takes time. When I have something that works at least on paper be assured I'll show it :)

[JoeU]

Derwin,

Please check your link above. When I clicked on it, 20 or more new windows opened up and each time I tried to close one more opened up. I finally had to shut down my computer to stop them. I think you created a bot!

[wireman]

Hey W1

Yes, I understand your reluctance on the electric/hydraulic front, because I design the same way you do, if it is at all possible. Always better to have straight mechanical links accomplishing the desired action.

[Derwin]

Derwin,

Please check your link above. When I clicked on it, 20 or more new windows opened up and each time I tried to close one more opened up. I finally had to shut down my computer to stop them. I think you created a bot!

Hmmm. Sounds like that is a problem with YOUR computer! You may have some kind of virus or adware on your system that is causing that. But I can assure you that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this club or that link. And, NO! I have not created any "bots", so don't worry about that.

The link above is simply to another thread within the club.

Again, I would check your computer for adware or something similar, because that sounds like the problem that you have.

Derwin

[Derwin]

Always better to have straight mechanical links accomplishing the desired action.

That's why I like the tilting mechanism that I have posted in the other thread.

Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Derwin

[WarpedOne]

Take a look at it and let me know what you think.
I'm not sure how well FTC approach scales with vehicle size, weight and speed. Another unknown variables are vibrations and oscillations that result from uneven road surface when going straight at high speed. Some steer-angle damping is necessary.

Another big problem of this approach might be that it has no self-correction under side wind high-speed conditions. Freely castoring front wheels won't offer much resistance to it hence very unstable at faster speeds. Imagine doing 80 on a highway when a sudden strong wind comes from the side. You could easily find yourself on the side lane or even off the road before you could react.

Another "problem" is, you can only steer as much as you tilt. With maximum tilt of 35 degrees this is quite limited steering for a vehicle with 2,66m wheel base, hence I'm afraid I won't be able to use it in my design. But he also pointed the shortcomings ob double wishbone suspension. I'll look into the options.

[WarpedOne]

After quite a few days of trying and banging head I'm still unable to put together a tilting mechanism that "should" work. I want to drive the tilt angle via "screw drive". In this way the cabin won't turn the steering wheel in drivers hands.

I did some calculations and figured out that even power-steering won't be powerful enough. Under highest speed hard cornering a 10 degree steering wheel angle needs to result in 35 degrees of cabin tilt. Under given dimensions I would need about 50 - 75 turns of this screw drive to produce maximum cabin tilt. Gear ratio between steering shaft and screw drive needed to accomplish this is somewhere between 1:1800 and 1:2700. Electric power steering motors have about 40 Nm of torque. There is only about 0,02 Nm of torque left after such multiplication of rotational speed. Not enough even to overcome the friction.

The main problem is in that "yellow tilter" device that I pictured somewhere above. It can only rotate for about 90 degrees from side to side. This is not enough of travel to variably transmit all power under "bearable" force conditions. I would need a variable transmission over longer spectrum, basicaly a CVT with a gear ratios from 50:1 to 1:3,5. A non-existent thing.

Basically all this means that a tilt control via mechanical linkage to the steering wheel is just not possible. Tilting will have to be fully powered by electric motor or even hydraulics. Damn :(

Ok, I'll go with pure electric tilt-drive then and non-powered steering system. A powerful electric (from a power-steering system?) motor spins that screw-drive. It is driven by electronics that takes current speed and current steering angle and computes the correct tilt angle. It can still be faster than reactive systems that measure centrifugal force and try to overcome it and hence need less power and use less energy. A FTC system would still use even less energy because it would need to overcome lower cabin torque.

[Derwin]

After quite a few days of trying and banging head I'm still unable to put together a tilting mechanism that "should" work.

What about that system from Australia?

Derwin

[WarpedOne]

That system uses hydraulics for tilting. It is a way of controlling steering angle by letting it adjust itself. It is a clever idea but I'm not yet sure a good idea for high speed vehicle.

[Derwin]

Check this out....

http://www.fallbrooktech.com/NuVinci.asp

This was mentioned way last year in the club, and I thought maybe it's something that you can use.

Derwin

[Derwin]

Sorry about the above post......That refers to something else, obviously!

[WarpedOne]

Basically all this means that a tilt control via mechanical linkage to the steering wheel is just not possible. Tilting will have to be fully powered by electric motor or even hydraulics.
I've slept over this a little and it occurred to me that the second sentence doesn't really follow from the first one. OK, FULLY mechanical linkage might not be possible and SOME electric or hydraulic thing needs to be included.

What if it is possible to devise a system that only engages its powered stage when the speed goes above a certain limit and then it ADDS some tilt angle to what that completely mechanical system provided. In this way at low speeds there would be very little power draw to tilt and we also have a back up if the powered part of tilt control fails. Low speed driving would still be possible.

A light from the end of the tunnel? :)

[Derwin]

That system uses hydraulics for tilting. It is a way of controlling steering angle by letting it adjust itself. It is a clever idea but I'm not yet sure a good idea for high speed vehicle.


I don't know, but I'm pretty dang sure this guy created this exactly for high speed vehicles. He claims that his system is better than the Carver system, and better than the one used on the Clever vehicle.

Check it out again. You may save yourself a lot of trouble if you can use his system.

Derwin

[WarpedOne]

Tilting mechanism is currently on hold as I fish for another idea how to make it work using as little power and energy as possible. FTC is not out of the question.

I gave a closer look at possibilities of legalizing homebuilt vehicles. It turns out there is more than one problem. The code around here has a category for "Unique vehicles". Among other things it states that if the vehicle has enclosed cabin it has to have homologated windshields and a windshield wiper. This vehicle won't have a wiper because the cabin is curved too much for one to work at all. I'll try to add a way to spray some watter onto the front of canopy to remove dirt. Raindrops should be removed by wind alone. Obtaining homologated windshields for a unique vehicles is next to impossible though as price rises into millions of $.

I managed to found someone that repairs gliders (http://www.gliderservice-novak.si/html/e/glavna/glavna_e.htm) here in Slovenia. He knows where to get new canopies (from here (http://www.mecaplex.ch/)) and I'll try to get one from him. For legalization purpose I'll just create a coupe version without canopy (pictures coming).

I decided I'll use off-the-shelf charger: Zivan NG3 (http://www.zivanusa.com/NG3BatteryCharger.htm). It supports voltages up to 312VDC at 7.5 A i.e. 2.3kW. It costs about $ 1k and is available in the local neighborhood - Italy. It's a bit on the bigger side (22" long) but only weighs about 15 pounds. I'll mount it in the front between the front wheels.

Of course, I also need BMS. I decided to use these (http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/custom-made-bms-lifepo4-pack-32464.html) custom-made BMS modules from Dimitri. Each BMS module has 2 LEDs showing the status of one cell. I'll mount all those 100 or so BMS modules together in a grid above the dashboard. In this way, charging status will be easily visible from the outside of the vehicle (hundred green and led lights:) ). Of course every module will have to be connected to its own cell with two dedicated wires resulting in some spaghetti wiring. I'll try to organize those into bearable form.

I still need to decide on DC/DC converter. I'll mount it in the nose, where there is enough airflow to cool it without a vent. It's power rating depends primarily on how much power will be needed by tilting mechanism. Other things won't need much. There will be single front and rear light, maybe even LED lights. Steering will be manual.

Do I need a cabin heater? Probably not yet.

Here's a bit updated design. I replaced the front rims, added brakes and replaced seats.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=201

[WarpedOne]

Here's a quick update on how things are going.

Dimitri from http://www.cleanpowerauto.com (http://www.cleanpowerauto.com/) modestly recommended BMS from TTPacks in a DIY variant. In this way the total BMS cost is going to be around $600. With Zivan at $1000 this is acceptable price for charging. BMS modules would be mounted on top of the dashboard, offering good view of battery balance.

http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=203


One of the project starting axioms was that the has vehicle has to be completely enclosed i.e. it has to have fully enclosed cabin with heating. It turns out this is nearly impossible to do legally around here. So, the roof has to go, this will be a coupe with removable glass canopy :burning:rubber:
Another thing is I might need to redesign the whole thing. Competent people are suggesting to me that non-tilting rear wheel is going to be a big problem. Actually, the problem is preventing it from tilting. Front suspension might not be able to keep it completely upright or under one degree of tilt. Such redesign will have both positive and negative consequences, all of them far reaching.

One amongst them is that this vehicle is turning out quite similar to Dagne. I don't want to compete with them. What to do?

[Derwin]

One amongst them is that this vehicle is turning out quite similar to Dagne. I don't want to compete with them. What to do?


Well, since it's just a PERSONAL project, I don't see the problem. And I don't see how you would "compete" with Dagne by simply building a vehicle for yourself, or even offering PLANS for others.

To me, what your doing is working on a personal project. Am I wrong?

Derwin

[WarpedOne]

To me, what your doing is working on a personal project. Am I wrong?
No, it is a personal project with a little help from my friends :)

[WarpedOne]

Well, I'm still checking the forum every day and I'm still working on my own design. This work has many faces, here are some of them.

The first scaled clay model (10:1, unfinished):
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=204
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=205

Study of front suspension and tilting aparatus:
http://www.flytheroadclub.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=18&pictureid=206

I abandoned that build thred of mine as I became the sole poster. I started writing "The MasterPlan" with all build details so I didn't need that thread as idea dump anymore. "The MasterPlan" is in Slovene language so no point in asking for it

[WarpedOne]

It's been three months since my last post. In this time I managed to complete the first scaled model (more pics (http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1154&d=1263033257), even more pics in my album (http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/album.php?albumid=18))

http://flytheroadclub.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1180&d=1263034831

I am not happy with the looks so I am looking for a designer to add some "visual niceness".
The roof/canopy will need to go because of stupid regualtions around here.

I also found this:
http://cawholesaledeals.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/reverse-trike-tmw8.jpg

Has anyone any info on it?
This front suspension is almost exactly what I'll need to build only stronger and connected to a car steering system and custom tilt control system.

[rickb]

contact Bob Mighell at http://www.tiltingmotorworks.com/about.html I bet he would be happy to discuss his projects.

[WarpedOne]

Thanks for the link! Exactly what I was looking for.

[Derwin]

I believe it was Bob that I spoke with from TMW a long time ago...probably about a year ago. I was asking him about the motorcycle they created, and he gave me some good information. He seemed very nice, and very open about what they have going on there. If it wasn't Bob, I apologize. But it was either Bob, or somebody else with the company.

Maybe you can get a few pointers from them. Let us know what you find out.

Derwin

[WarpedOne]

OK, time for another update.

I contacted Bob from above and found out what I needed to know. Almost all parts on the picture are custom built and not strong enough for my design. I will "steal" his idea of front brakes with a ring instead of a disc. I need to find a supplier though. Any ideas?

I've managed to came across a designer and got some inputs on design. Here is my current study.
It still ain't there yet, but it is a major step forward.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1441816/Design_10_e.png

[rickb]

WarpedOne...................Very nice improvement. The body lines flow to a much more unified appearing rear end. The front end and grill are Jaguar-like. It looks equally good from both front and rear side views.

[Mike kZ]

Not bad! I like the rear wheel cover.

[wireman]

Yeah WarpedOne! Integration on your design has taken a major leap forward. I agree with Mike kz about the rear wheel cover. It smooths the transition from the belt line to the lower frame and suspension. Your original looked a bit choppy in that area, which did not mesh well with the fluid lines from the front. Also, the re-conceptualizing of the "pig snout" grille is a great improvement, even if it is derivative from a Jag. What works, WORKS! Keep it up!

Oh, BTW, do you still plan to incorporate the pop top (a la Stirling)? The drawing doesn't have the break line on it anymore. On my 1f2r I am now considering a slide canopy, and it looks as though your design would lend itself to that method if your body/ canopy line is low enough.

[WarpedOne]

Slide canopy? Like fighterjets? I guess it would be a bit hard to get in and out?

Yes, I still "plan" to have a "pop top", I just hadn't come to the point of incorporating that brake line yet. It's a minor thing design wise, I'll add it when I feel more like done.

That Jag gille will probably have to go because I'll try to go with a single front light to reduce associations with a car and point out this vehicle is more a bike thing than a car thing.

Canopy is still a very foggy business. A canopy from s sailplane I intended to use just doesn't "feel" right... actually it looks totally wrong on this design as it is narrow and low in front and wider and higher towards the end. It might work better with a 1F2R vehicle.

[MikeB]

That Jag gille will probably have to go because I'll try to go with a single front light to reduce associations with a car and point out this vehicle is more a bike thing than a car thing.

A single front light is one of the reasons that motorcycles are more dangerous than cars. You need 2 or even 3 points of light in order for your brain to figure out how far away an oncoming vehicle is, and how fast it's approaching. A single point of light could be a half mile down the road, or it could be 5. But a pair of lights will increase their visual separation as they get closer, providing perspective clues. Adding a pair of lights to the forks of a motorcycle provides a triangular light pattern that is distinct from a car, but still gives solid perspective clues, not to mention better road illumination. If you really want a single headlight, make sure that a pair of foglights or driving lights are part of the design.

[WarpedOne]

Mike, you have a valid point. I'll consider it when the time comes, for now I'm planing to use one main headlamp with integrated high and low beam and two blinkers.

Here is current design, I call it v2.0.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1441816/Design_10_h.png

I feel the improvement over last years design is big enough to warrant it's own scaled model. I not going to build it by myself though. I'm looking for someone with a 3D printer that won't charge and arm and a leg for one print (700 € or 1000 $).

I love this black/white tire color. I wonder why modern cars don't use this anymore?

Edit: Here is a VRML model of this design (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1441816/trike.wrl). It is a bit over 3 Mb in size. You'll need a VRML player to view it in all of its 3D glory. I recomend Cortona3D (http://www.cortona3d.com/Products/Cortona-3D-Viewer.aspx) VRML viewer.

[wireman]

I love this black/white tire color. I wonder why modern cars don't use this anymore?
IMHO W1, the white on black theme only seems to work with vehicles that have a retro look to them. Although your design is extremely contemporary, it does have those older Jag cues. Plus, the front wheels/ fenders are evocative of the Bucket T hot rods of yesteryear.

On another subject; After seeing your v2.0 above, I understand why you seemed skeptical about incorporating a sliding top into the design. It was difficult to tell from the 3/4 down angle view, but I can now see that the body and canopy has a diminishing angle practically from the front of the vehicle. This is usually the death of a slider, because the two sides must be parallel, and you don,t have a lot of room to offset the front part of the guide/ roller track inboard. It will

[wireman]

AHEM!! As I was saying! Sorry W1. A slider will work on my 1f2r because even though the cockpit area looks delta shaped, it is an optical illusion. The meet line between body and canopy is actually straight, and the belt line at the entry point is only 28 in. off the ground. Entry is by stepping over a sill and side console into a well provided by flipping up the bottom of the seat (a la theater seats). Once you are standing in the well, you then flip it down under you as you sit.The seat bottom is spring loaded, so it automatically flips up as you stand. Ergonomically, this should be easy for anyone over four feet tall, and in reasonably good shape. Hey, this one"s for me anyway, and at 54 I can still rise from sitting cross-legged on the floor without using my hands! Worried about getting around the steering wheel? Heh, it aint got none!

Also, I noticed that the front end no longer seems to have room for the set of batteries you had located there. What's the story there?

[WarpedOne]

Ha, sharp eyes you have there mister! :)

Actually, there is not much story yet. This is only a study of a design that is at least somewhat pleasing to the eye. Those batteries from the nose will have to go somewhere else or just go away. I take good looks over 5% more range anytime. There is similar story with motor space in-front of rear wheel, cooling air intakes etc.
This is still a very unfinished business. Next step is a 3D print and then a transfer into Solidworks.

[wireman]

Appreciate the compliment W1, thanks! Got you covered on that 5%/ range decision. Understandably, your design will go through many tweaks and adjustments before it can be built, but your progress (and even your frustrations) are fun and informative to participate in. I wait (and Lord, we FTR'ers have learned waiting haven't we) to see the result of your next step. I'm betting it will be great!2thumb:up