Empulse Minus the R

[flar]

D'oh.  Mistrained fingers.  You'll notice I got it right in the first post...

[frodus]

I'm just giving you crap.

I'm wondering what other changes they've made. Sounds like the motor has the same power... But that could be limited by the controller ....

[protomech]

GVM huh? I can't find any general information about the term; presumably it's an initialization based upon an internal Parker designation for the motor. Maybe it stands for "Giant Vehicle Motor"? "Generator Von Motorstein"? Guessing.

Well, there's this:

SNEAPers:

The motor in the Generating Volt Meter (GVM), used to monitor and provide
negative feed-back control of the terminal voltage in our 1.7 MV Tandetron,
has stopped working after only twenty-seven years. Does anyone reading this
message have a complete GVM assembly (including the weldment that attaches
to the side of the accelerator tank) they don't need? It doesn't have to be
in working order, although that would be nice. If we have to replace these
things every twenty-five or thirty years, I would like to have a spare on
hand.

Actually, what I really need right now is the motor. All I know about it at
the moment (before I open the tank later this week) is it is a split-phase
induction motor, with a 4 microfarad oil-paper phase-shifting capacitor,
operating on single phase 208 VAC. It is General Ionex Corporation part
number A-08723, which is probably meaningless in 2008, but may have made
sense to someone in 1981 when it was penciled into a drawing.

Tandetron = mass particle spectrometer.

Okay, maybe that's not it.

GVM is a new-ish series of traction motor from Parker Hannifin. Parker has been working closely with Brammo on developing the Empluse RR Superbike. Brammo has squeezed significantly more than rated power out of their RR motor - EBoz may be okay with the power output of the bike today, but I doubt BrammoBrian will stop pushing. : )

Parker has a PDF brochure for the GVM lineup, check p. 11.

I think 142 mm, 210 mm, and 310 mm refer to rotor diameter. Empulse R uses 142 mm GVM - see here per discussions at Daytona with Jay Schultz. Mr. Schultz is one of the GVM tech guys at Parker, he was at Daytona supporting Brammo. See here (PDF) for another GVM brochure with a slightly more detailed take on the power and torque plots.

[ttxgpfan]

I am pretty sure GVM is simply a model designation.

IPM is what Lightning says the have for a motor, and the type of motor that was in the RR at Daytona.  It seems it can also be called a BLDC (MotoCzysz) and a PMAC if you want to, but is not induction. 

Seriously guys, I'm all for a Dragon Magic color designation scheme.

[frodus]

IPM motors are a combination of Permanent Magnets as well as an induction motor.... in a way. They're designed so that they do have an induction effect within the rotor, as well as have the magnets. It's a super efficient motor. Both the MotoCzysz and Lightning bikes use a Remy IPM motor.

[skuzzle]

So the Empulse motor has less torque but the same (peak?) horsepower as the Empulse R motor.  I assume that the R motor has more power over a greater range.  Is there a difference in efficiency/range?  Do both have the same cooling system?  Could we order the upgraded motor at a price point between the two bikes?  The R or non-R decision was much easier when the differences were limited to suspension and bling!

[BrammoBrian]

So the Empulse motor has less torque but the same (peak?) horsepower as the Empulse R motor.  I assume that the R motor has more power over a greater range.  Is there a difference in efficiency/range?  Do both have the same cooling system?  Could we order the upgraded motor at a price point between the two bikes?  The R or non-R decision was much easier when the differences were limited to suspension and bling!

Correct on the torque and power.  The Empulse (FYI - base model is internally designated "E1") motor makes slightly less torque, but the base speed (where torque falls off) happens at a higher rpm, leading to the same peak power.  Ideally, with gearing you can make both perform exactly the same, but as it happens, the R has a little more "area under the curve" owing to some characteristics of the IPM (internal permanent magnet as opposed to surface permanent magnet) that provides a bit more performance under a skilled rider.  Still, some riders will prefer the more ICE-like power curve of the E1 vs. the R.  The E1 motor character makes it more clear when a shift should occur, whereas it takes some time to get familiar with the power characteristics of the R and riders can initially feel "lost" in the gearbox (i.e. not know what gear to be in).  The efficiency of the motors is similar enough that the biggest impacts to range will be in riding style and environmental factors, rather than which motor you've got in the bike.  The water cooling system is the same between the motors.  There is no plan to offer an "upgrade" to the R motor for the E1.  The motor controller configuration is slightly different owing to the different characteristics of these motors.  Sport and Normal modes are maintained. 

[BrammoBrian]

GVM stands for "Global Vehicle Motor"... so when we say "GVM Motor", we're being rendundant redundant. 

[frodus]

Wow, thanks Brian for the response.

[skuzzle]

Yes, Thanks Brian for the information!

[EmpulseRider]

According to a recent FB post it would appear that the E1's are finally rolling off the production line! Just in time for riding season.

[CAT in HAWAII]

So the Empulse motor has less torque but the same (peak?) horsepower as the Empulse R motor.  I assume that the R motor has more power over a greater range.  Is there a difference in efficiency/range?  Do both have the same cooling system?  Could we order the upgraded motor at a price point between the two bikes?  The R or non-R decision was much easier when the differences were limited to suspension and bling!

Assuming the batteries Te the same, and the controllers, upgrading the motor to a bigger one would (should) increase the power, but also detriment the range, which I wouldn't want to give up,,

To me, just passing 1500 miles, and my average daily commute is 60 miles, and not much battery to spare when I get home, I wouldn't want to lose any range,,,

But ,, if you are close to the spirited driving areas, then heck! It would be a little more exciting,,
I can't get around the island of Oahu, even with. Two hour lunch and level two charging,,, and I just sold my XL1200S last week,,, so,, I'm just fun day or commuting daily for the foreseeable future,,,

Unless,,, battery capacity doubles in the BRAMMO labs!!! & we get a chance to get super capacity batteries,, I to the Empulse frame,, THAT would be sweet!

[flar]

Both bikes are spec'd with the same range.  Bigger does not necessarily mean less efficient for electric motors...

[bigd]

Speaking of tax breaks, the way budget talks are going in Congress, I really would be surprised if the tax rebate for electric motorcycles continues next year.  So anyone sitting on the fence this year might keep an eye on the budget talks and if EV rebates get cut they might want to factor that into their buying decision.

Also, state rebates seem to be evaporating too. One more thing to check on. 

Yup, the Colorado rebate for "two wheeled" EVs is gone. Seems like killing EV tax rebates / credits would be small beans compared to the other wasteful programs they could cut. Things like that get more press than the billions we give the oil industry. IMO, electric vehicle sales would do great on their own if nothing was subsidized at all, but thats another discussion...

Please know the facts about subsidies and "big oil". But again, the sales pitch is based on a giant distortion — a lie. Obama and the Democrats talk about huge “subsidies” — as if taxpayers are signing billion-dollar checks to oil and gas companies. . oil companies don’t get subsidies. Rather, like every other business, they’re allowed to take tax deductions for the expenses they incur.Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses. Now, some energy-sector players do get federal subsidies, and they’re massive. They’re the “alternative-energy” companies the White House is so fond of. The wind and solar sectors alone take in $12.5 billion annually in direct subsidies.

[protomech]

Howdy bigd.

You're correct that the oil companies receive few direct subsidies in the form of cash money grants. Most of the oil industries' subsidies are in the form of tax deductions. Tax deductions are not inherently "bad" of course; they're just tools used to encourage certain types of behavior.

Where the tax deductions become problems is when they outlive their intended purpose, are abused in ways contrary to the intention, or are special purpose loopholes pushed through with limited or no discusson.

The Senate "Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act of 2012" (subsequently dropped), was designed to repeal some of the indirect tax subsidies.

These tax benefits add up to an estimated $70 billion over 10 years.

An op-ed at the NY Post offers an alternative view:

Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.

Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.

The oil industry is rather mature and pretty healthy, financially-speaking. I'm disinclined to give them special tax breaks to help them out with oil well exploration, give them a break on royalties paid producing oil on American soil, or allow them to access to special tax loopholes on royalties paid out to access foreign fields.

The "substantial risk" of seeking new energy sources (= new oil fields) is that they'll pull a BP and then settle with the federal government to limit their liability.

However, the biggest subsidy of all paid out to the fossil fuel industries - oil, coal, natural gas - is that they don't have to worry about the downstream effects of our oil habit.