I was curious how this thing works and asked Claude to visualize it -- mostly to see how good Fable is and I have to say, what it made was good enough for me to get a gist of it. Posted it here
Every plausibly cool electric car innovation leads me to the same thought: “5-10 years from now, the restomod potential will be wild once these come down in cost.” For this, I am imagining retrofitting a Pontiac Fiero to reduce as much weight as possible and see if extended flight becomes possible.
As an antique BMW enthusiast, I know some people that have swapped electric motors in to 2002s and 2000 CSLs and they said it was actually a pretty disappointing experience. You lose the vintage driving experience entirely.
wtf are you talking about? I drive one of these cars every day (that I need to drive, which isn’t that often really) without leaded gasoline.
It’s the punchy little m10 motor, 4 speed transmission, and incredibly low curb weight that make these cars fun to drive. You lose all that with an electric conversion.
As an aside, the most powerful F1 engine ever put on the track was made by modifying the little 4-banger m10 found in the BMW 2002. Fun fact.
> As an aside, the most powerful F1 engine ever put on the track was made by modifying the little 4-banger m10 found in the BMW 2002. Fun fact.
Supposedly BMW lacked a dyno that went high enough so it's an educated guess what the actual hp was, but definitely over 1,300hp... from a 4-cylinder (turbo charged, and only lasted a few laps, but still) engine!
I'd throw in the manual gearbox, the noise, vibration, smell, and being able to see the mechanical workings as well. We can get a punchy, lightweight vehicle with an EV conversion, but as you've heard from others, that leaves something to be desired
But yes, the vibration, sound, and feel of the incredibly simple (as in stripped down, not unsophisticated) mechanics around you all very much contribute to the special feeling of driving these cars.
My 1976 BMW 2002 is actually my first car. I used to drive it to high school more than half my life ago, and I still drive it today. I’ve driven some other classic cars, luxury and sport, and simply nothing feels like a 2002. Just a beautiful, balanced, timeless design.
I'm pretty sure the subtext of that comment was that the benefit of electric motors in retro cars is the emission reduction (and possibly cost and maintenance reduction), and not improved specs/experience. Saying "ye but it worsens the experience" misses the point.
But this is a thread about modifying 50-70 year old cars with electric drivetrains.
There are so few of these cars on the road anymore that I think very little progress is to be made on emissions levels by converting them to electric, especially when you consider that you’re ruining the driving experience.
From the animation: "Torque grows with the cube of diameter"
That seems like a pretty cool cheat-code to get more power. Perhaps it will mean you will start having cars with more distance from the ground to accommodate the large dia motor wheels.
Number 1 problem is battery weight though. Not electric motors.
I have a 84 w123 300D, and would love to add some more power to it. Lightweight hub motors would be great, but any decent size battery would be at least 200lbs+, which is hard to do on a old chasy.
Something to keep in mind with hub motors is that they’re unsprung weight, vs the battery pack is pretty much always sprung. While that’s not a huge differentiator for efficiency, it sure cuts down on the abuse the wheels and hub motors will experience
its less hard than you'd think unless you're really going for long range.
for my sailboat I am getting rid of a 300lbs diesel and a 30gallon fuel tank with a 45lbs PMAC.
That means I have opened up about 465lbs for batteries.
Now, with a sailboat you're never truly out of range -- but the point stands : these things are so much lighter than ICEs on average that there is a lot of opportunity even with battery weight as it is (and it's getting better daily).
I guess there's always the risk for a rig failure.
I looked a bit on doing the same, but came to the conclusion that it will be expensive to fulfil racing rules requiring the boat to be able to maintain speed for 5 hours ie around 25-30 NM range.
As it is now, I have about 500 NM diesel range on my boat, which is basically 3-4 days continuous runtime. Cutting it down to 25nm and 5 hours requires minimally 100kWh.
For a blue water boat, 500 NM is not quite acceptable, but can be fixed with jerrycans for a couple of dollars. An all electric blue water boat would clock in at an unrealistic 2MWh of batteries with a weight at least 20 metric tonnes. 10x the load capacity of my boat.
This is silly, but I've also wondered if you could make a boat that can anchor and recharge batteries from ambient current, sort of like stationary regenerative braking. I'm sure it would take way too long to be worth it, but it was a fun idle thought.
Perhaps the paddle wheel[0] will interest you, the spinning is used to calculate the velocity of the boat. Probably some other propeller or similar would be more practical - like a kicker motor that's easily lowered over the side. Just spitballing.
I don't think it'd be worth it considering solar options. Even wind generators are not "super efficient" in comparison but I don't have data.
I'm sure it wouldn't be worth it, because otherwise people would be doing it, it just seemed like a cool way to supplement solar or even to allow for indefinite underwater drones. Like, imagine a deep-sea research drone that could spit out an anchor and recharge whenever the battery got low. Almost certainly a case of "Cool, wouldn't really work well"
> BYD can be lighter because they skip on safety gear and proper structural elements - in my experience.
I'd love to hear more about your experience with BYD. The ex just bought one and my kids ride in it daily. I helped negotiate the sale - I drive a Tesla and I'm very happy with the BYD.
Brazilians got a bunch of them and they are super common in Brazil. Also common - broken suspension parts from driving them in Brazil.
Also, the only cars I’ve ever ridden on that the top of my head literally touches the headliner while sitting in the back seat. Other than that, they seem good?
Top-of-the-line NMC cells have energy density around 250Wh/kg at the pack level. The newer solid-state batteries can reportedly increase this to 400Wh/kg.
So a reasonable 75kWh battery pack is going to weigh around 300kg and in future around 200kg. This is... not a lot, actually. To a point where shaving off 20-30 kg from the electric motor weight is going to result in a noticeable performance/price difference.
Teslas also don't have "crazy" weight. Model 3 is 1700kg and a comparable (in size) Ford Focus is 1300kg.
The Model 3 performance model (more equivalent to the M3) weighs over 4K lbs. The model you are quoting is the lowest range and lightest of all Teslas.
i know series hybrids aren't as efficient as parallel hybrids (thanks technology connections!), but i wonder if they'd be a good candidate for fun restomods.
drop in a tiny, powerful electric motor and a small battery (crammed in whatever location is best for weight distribution), and then wire up a little genny powered off your existing fuel tank that can jump in as a range extender
Series hybrids can compete with parallel hybrids, because the full decoupling of the engine from the wheels claws back some of the efficiency you lose through the energy conversion. It's series-parallel hybrids they can't really compete with, because those are able to do the same trick, but they also lose less energy in conversion, because the engine does some of the heavy lifting.
Series hybrids are great for packaging, though. Parallel and series-parallel commit to certain packaging decisions like having a transmission, or a long, monolithic unit, because it's the mechanical coupling that buys them smaller motors and potentially better efficiency. Series hybrids don't care about any of that, so even though you have bigger motors and potentially higher losses, you have more freedom over where things go.
Personally, I think there's a massive untapped market in converting old cars to hybrid engines. You wouldn't try to upgrade the old engine, you'd design a smaller and more power dense package and rip all of the original gear out. Because electrification lets you cut the size of the engine down so aggressively, this is probably a feasible strategy. As you pointed out, series hybrids are probably best suited to this because of their packaging flexibility. As others have pointed out, there's tremendous potential there for replicating original driving characteristics using software and the electric motor. And if we're being honest, off-road vehicles probably should get rid of the transmission and low range, because electric motor torque is just better. As is, the potential for cars is enormous, but we're getting the worst possible outcomes thanks to legislation.
Reducing the motor mass by 200 kg means you've just removed 10% of the weight of the vehicle. You could theoretically now reduce the battery pack by 10% as well.
Not true. The CdA (coefficient of drag multiplied by frontal area) matters far more for range than the weight for range. That is a smaller EV, which may very well be heavier can have a higher range and efficiency.
Yeah, my comment was hand-waving away a bit of the reality of it, but swap the Fiero engine for a battery and some of these and it's got to be close to achieving full lift.
Electric engines are already very efficient (particularly compared to internal combustion). If you go from 90% to 95% efficiency, you don't save much in terms of battery.
ETA: Internal combustion engines half a century ago had an efficiency of 20%, now they're at 40%. That cuts the fuel you need to carry in half. Electric engines are near 100%, and as I said, going from 90% to 95% efficiency cuts required battery by a bit more than 5%, so peanuts.
But the motor is not the only thing that needs to be cooled. It’s mainly the battery, which has a narrow operating range. The power electronics that convert AC to DC also need to be cooled.
So you’re halving the cooling needs of the motor, which is nice but small compared to the other two. And even then, total cooling doesn’t impact range that much compared to warming the battery in cold climates.
If we halve waste-heat generation for a practical widget enough times, then we won't need liquid cooling for that widget at all. If the trend continues and gets good enough, then maybe we can get all the way to a complete passive-cooling snoozefest.
That's pretty boring, but boring is good. The systems we use every day without a thought because they boringly Just Work are, perhaps, our greatest successes.
Yup, the visualization didn't help me understand the concept any more than plain text. Superficial in the way that you would expect from a system that has no real world reference for what it is creating.
To get something better I expect more than a one-shot is needed, and the knowledge to guide it in the right way.
Thanks for sharing. I wish it was a bit more interactive especially when there are parameters, e.g. "Widen the disc and torque rises with diameter cubed" I wish there was a slider to see that effect and thus maybe why there might be a sweet spot.
Also I have "The Way Things Work" on my desk right now and can't help but wonder, could you adapt some of the pages of the book this way? It seems like exactly the kind of content that would benefit from such 3D (interactive) visual explainers.
Oof... well thanks for sharing but that's basically unusable for me. It neatly all packed in a 2MB file containing all assets, threejs, etc.
I assumed it's based on a three.js template due to the `Rendered live with three.js · Drag anywhere to orbit the model` kind of showcase but unfortunately that's not linked. I also imagine the 3D models are more that primitives (at least the arrows showcasing the flow) but I don't know where they came from, if that are also from a template or repository or if they are generated from a tube mesh.
So... I'm genuinely grateful that you took the time to share but I don't think I can do something with this except restarting from scratch, especially if it's one-shot.
I'd suggest, if you don't mind the extra effort, that you add a ReadMe.md in the repository to clarify how you did this, at least model name, version and prompt.
I mentioned elsewhere too. This was a one-shot thing that made me wow so I thought I share. You're kind with your comments but others are just hating it, even so I said 1. I don't know this motor technology and 2. It was a one shot experiment
If I had time and making a polished web page was my goal I could probably do better but this was not the point!
Very neat. Thank you for sharing! I assume this was one shot as well -what sort of prompt did you use?
I’m sure folks would be interested even in a blog post comparing just this process with different Anthropic models if that’s something you do and need a content idea. :)
Can you make a version of this that is more in the style of "the way things work" the cool inventions book from the 90s with cavepeople and wooly mamoths and that illustration asthetic?
Just as impressive was its ability to publish the source and get the version up on my personal site. That was also a one shot but aided by context and skills I have available for these purposes.
Thanks but I'm aware of it, linked to an alternative just yesterday (but might replace by the InternetArchive one instead). A Web version would be so neat as we'd be able to link to pages, even states of the interactive explanation, rather than the whole thing but it's already great to have that basis.
Yeah so the relationship between speed, power, frequency, size (both in the direction of primary flux excitation and in the direction orthogonal to both that and the movement), and torque at nominal values of current density (for a given conductor losses are proportional to the square or this value and to the total mass of that conductor in the machine; that's independent of any of the other scaling parameters; note this is absolute power not percentage) and peak flux limitations (core saturation, permanent magnet demagnetization), are sadly not trivial if you express them in a way that is even just _valid_ for the modern days where we can support electrical frequencies up to around a megahertz at scales up to around 100 kW, and even harder when you remember that core material has severe frequency dependence of it's limits.
E.g. for example for a given electrical frequency and decent radial flux synchronous machine, power density is quite static and torque density can actually be dialed quite freely from 2-pole machine (turboset in gas turbine running on the grid at 3600 rpm (or 3000 rpm outside NA and some Pacific Islands) to 40(+) (example deployed at Hoover dam, 180 rpm).
At those higher pole counts, the center of the rotor is no longer electromagnetically active, because the magnetic field lines keep to a narrow ring only about as thick as each pole is wide.
Unfortunately it's mechanically not that trivial to handle a cylindrical shell with a small air gap (this needs to be significantly smaller (about at least 10x) than the pole width) when using substantial torque and speed.
Circumferential velocity is practically limited by hoop strength of whatever the outer region of the rotor is made of, even if it's all very nicely balanced, because eventually the magnetic armature flux source (wires or magnets) will fly out.
Higher electrical frequencies limit the field winding core's magnetic permeability (magnetic field/force strength amplification relative to vacuum, for same electrical current) which hurts efficiency by dropping the useful mechanical power component of field voltage while the voltage resulting from the current (that needs to happen to cause the magnetic field in the direction of movement that causes the mechanical force) due to wiring resistance stays. (I think the permeability gives the ratio between voltage and current for otherwise identical mechanical load conditions and winding shape?)
Thinner wires have less fill factor because the insulation has to stay the same thickness as per-winding voltage stays, but magnetically inactive terminations are less wasteful (for losses and mass) when a decent number of effective turns (>>1, think >10~50 for most of the benefits) are used.
Note while the armature necessarily has an even number of poles in it's construction (north/south), the field is not forced to that.
Indeed, the iirc most smooth torque (under practical mechanical feasibility limitations and without undue sacrifice of efficiency) results from having a prime number (of field windings, in WYE-style connection) exactly one off from the armature pole count.
Note that for low losses all these torque-smoothing techniques _require_ only a single electrically directly driven winding in each slot (per mechanical field pole) and with that only GCD(field_slots, (armature_poles / 2)) windings get to share an electrical half-bridge (one single wire going to a single voltage-output terminal on the electronics board; note mainstream BLDCs have 3 of these, classic fridge compressors have 2, and modern stepper motors (e.g. 3D printer) have 4).
Any time you have multiple windings driven by different electrical source voltages you're wasting heat in the winding because the lowest-loss would require all conductor in the slot to to perfectly evenly share current.
There's just one problem with that: you need a nearby slot with exactly opposite phase to even possibly use more than a single (half) turn of "winding" in the slot.
If the voltage is still enough to not loose too much in the connections, you can use transistors developed for efficiently powering modern computer chips from comfortable voltages like 12V, but even then a "winding" has to be much longer than an armature pole to mitigate the losses of spreading the return current sideways to where a slot carries the current in the reverse direction.
Once the voltage at the transistor is over around 10V the benefits of more precise control of the field magnetization to the armature position (and how the shapes distort the field lines from anything that would look like a sine wave) could be useful.
In theory that'd also provide direct access to electronically control the air gap (well, net force normal to the air gap "surface") which _could_ be an alternative to mechanical bearings for very thin-shell constructions.
See maglev trains for a pretty practical application of using an electric motor to also levitate the "rotor" in a place where a mechanical bearing ("train wheels + bogies") performs poorly.
Hundreds of examples of axial flux motors exist online. If you look at the visualization it shows the iron cores in a perpendicular orientation with the hub. This is correct, but loses so much of what makes these specific motors interesting. The angled nature of the grey cores and copper wrapping smoothes the transition between each magnetic field.
Basically it is a pretty version of a dumbed down partially incorrect answer. With a knowledgeable user it would be very good, but he has no idea he is wrong. I’m not sure what Dunning Kreguer with graphics should be called.
You don't. You didn't know before either. The difference is trust. How do you trust it as much as you do the hypothetical humans making such representations? That's up to you.
I think humans develop expertise and brand names and get called out when they make mistakes and if they are too wrong, their reputation is damaged.
This doesn’t seem to apply to AI for some reason. It keeps generating incorrect results after incorrect results, yet people continue to trust its output.
Human trust differs from mathematical trust. And branding / marketing abuses the ambiguity.
There is no shame in a "likely to hallucinate" model that can be instantiated 1,000 times across 1,000 different machines spread throughout our planet. So, human trust is broken by machine trust.
I've starting going back to books, either at the library or e-books. Librarians are very good at telling you if nonfiction is biased, outdated, or incorrect.
> I think humans develop expertise and brand names and get called out when they make mistakes and if they are too wrong, their reputation is damaged.
Take a look at the Forbes billionaires list and some of their statements. Or maybe at the politician fact checkers. If only being wrong damaged reputations.
The question is for you to answer, first. Gotta do that work. (My answer will differ from yours.)
Then, predictably, finding the collection of supporting details + vetting the content in question.
This is an issue we, technology-folk, ought to help guide our non-tech-co-folk through engaging with, BTW. Our responsibility is rising with tech becoming more deeply entrenched / required for society's operations.
Yeah, I'm at once awed that something like that can be auto-generated (I presume?) and disappointed that it doesn't usefully or practically improve my understanding, beyond written synopses and human videos, at all.
Stuff like this reminds me that we still need a human in the loop to edit, to improve, to advance.
Auto-from-scratch just doesn't really achieve anything of actual value.
I am not an expert, but I do know some physics and I know how to read, and I’m pretty sure this is full of BS. Also it’s a really crappy visualization.
I wonder how developing electric motors compares to combustion engines. My hunch says that it’s the main reason the Chinese high-tech electronics industry was able to develop and iterate leading electric vehicles so fast. (Edit: My more clarified point is regarding the machinery required + place to accommodate them to work on electric motors vs. ICE metal parts and all the intermediary parts transfering power in the drivetrain. The shop in the video is smaller than many would imagine.)
When these hopefully go to the next generation Formula E cars, we’ll see some crazy improvements in cornering. The newest generation already has active 4WD. I imagine this can bring even better torque adjustment improvements.
The Chinese EV industry is actually lead by development of batteries, especially CATL. Along with the pack engineering, which is good old Mech.E stuff about heat transfer and physical strength.
Secondarily power electronics; at that scale, you can't just pick a bigger transistor and call it a day.
By comparison the motors seem to be a mostly solved problem, although I'm sure there's still some scope for power-to-weight engineering there, it's not as critical as the battery pack.
And is development of batteries (and better magnetics) not just chemical engineering and material science?
Motors might be a 'solved problem' - there might not be much innovation, Maxwell's laws aren't changing any time soon, but there will surely be a lot of incremental improvement - an early 1900s ICE is considerably worse than a 2000s ICE.
> n early 1900s ICE is considerably worse than a 2000s ICE.
But how much worse is a early 1900s electric motor from a modern one? I can't find data, but I suspect the first electric motor from the 1830s is more efficient than a modern ICE (even if we assume the ICE is built for efficiency, screw emissions). There is some room for improvement, but there isn't much difference between our best motors and perfection (a carnot cycle by contrast is as best much worse than perfection)
Early electric motors were awful, because there was no good way to control their speed.
For example, DC motors used in some late-1900s trains still had a giant variable resistor in series with their motor, burning away a huge chunk of the power as heat to force the motor to run at a lower speed during acceleration. AC motors weren't much better.
Electric motors only became truly efficient when variable-frequency drive became viable, which was in the 1980s due to semiconductor innovation.
Helped along by the somewhat Wild West attitude towards worker safety and industrial regulation - high energy density batteries are hard to get right, and extremely dangerous if done wrong. During manufacturing in particular.
> The Chinese EV industry is actually lead by development of batteries
This is the core point, but it applies for the whole of the industry. Motors just don't matter. An electric motor is an almost vanishing component of the weight and complexity of an electric vehicle. Cut the mass of the thing *in half* and you're looking at 100kg savings, tops. You could do that with a Model Y by just changing the roof material to something boring and not glass. You could almost do it by shrinking the oversized-as-is-the-fashion wheels.
So... it's great that Mercedez-Benz is producing these, I guess. But it won't make their cars anything more than incrementally better. Which is why we're seeing them crow about it in a press release and not a spec sheet.
If they’re small, light, and cheap, you can put 4 of them on the car and get independent all-wheel drive and insane acceleration.
We have a dual-motor EV and our lease is expiring this year. We have our eyes on the GLC EV, which will land in the U.S. with a tri-motor design at first. There’s no fun in a single-motor EV.
I thought that for a long time the german supply chain had an advantage in terms of the precision engineering to create drive chains for ICE - but EV's don't have the same number of moving parts and hence... end of advantage?
All the industrial processes and machine tool development that happened in the ICE car industry over the last century (and the electronic hardware manufacturing, more recently) was available day one.
According to wikipedia[1] the first industrial steam engine (1712) was invented almost 100 years before the invention of the steam locomotive (1804), arguably its greatest evolutionary feat.
>I wonder how developing electric motors compares to combustion engines. My hunch says that it’s the main reason the Chinese high-tech electronics industry was able to develop and iterate leading electric vehicles so fast.
The talent had very little impact to be honest. The primary factor was a government looking 50 years down the road seeing that:
1. ICE engines have little to no long-term future in transportation.
2. global warming is a thing whether the right wing in the US likes it or not.
3. They were never going to overtake the West in ICE engines and had to attack from a different angle.
The US' lack of breakthroughs in EVs has little to do with technology or expertise and everything to do with an administration that is openly hostile towards EVs and renewable energy in general. For the rest of the planet, EVs becoming the primary form of transportation is just an obvious and logical conclusion, even if it takes us another 25-50 years to get there.
China saw it and decided to heavily incentivize and subsidize the rapid expansion of EVs both to fix the air quality issues in China and corner the market.
> The US' lack of breakthroughs in EVs has little to do with technology or expertise and everything to do with an administration that is openly hostile towards EVs and renewable energy in general.
It has nothing to do with the current administration either. For one thing, China's dominance predates it. For another, the EU and Japan have failed equally hard at capturing any meaningful EV marketshare.
The current admin is actively hostile to EVs, but I think the real problem was the chicken and egg issue of charging stations: they wouldn't be built because there wasn't enough demand for them and EVs would be limited in sales because they wouldn't have chargers to use on the road.
This is where Tesla made a huge difference with Supercharger stations. I am no fan of Elon, but that work was fundamental in making EVs viable in America.
Nevertheless, there seems to be zero buy-in from commercial players in the US. It's such a weird uphill battle.
I live in the US, but every summer I spend a month in Sweden, and the past two years I've rented EVs for the entire stay, and the buildout of chargers these past 4-5 years has been astonishing. It's gone from crap to fantastic in a very short time, and that's without massive government intervention or subsidies or screaming and cajoling.
Because in Sweden, the primary driver of charging stops along highways and in the cities are gas stations.
They already make all their profit from incidental purchases and not the gas itself, so them pivoting to EV charging stops makes perfect sense. They already have the infrastructure in place to sell you overpriced hotdogs and coffee and snacks for your road trip, they already have restrooms in place.
But they also do the same in the cities, it seems like every city gas station has also put up a couple of 350W charging stations. It's not half-assed, they mean business. They all see the writing on the wall, in neighbouring Norway EV's are 90+% of all new car sales, Sweden is at ~30% right now, and climbing, so gas stations will go out of business if they don't pivot to EV charging.
It's fundamental market economy forces at work, the kind of stuff that the US normally prides itself of.
I think it's because the incumbents do not know how to build competitive, desirable, affordable EVs. I'm just an armchair observer, but that makes a fair amount of sense.
The other part is that a lot of money is made in the production and sale of fuel and those players have significant influence in how things work -- this is evident in the Trump admin's demonization of renewables and going all in on fossil fuels.
Watching all this craziness from the sidelines is crazymaking and heartbreaking. We can only keep China at bay for so long, and then when the dam breaks the domestic auto makers are going to go down, along with the whole economic ecosystem that supports them. It doesn't have to be this way...
In Europe, Tesla generally has a single-digit EV marketshare, so over 90% of consumers don't care about or use the Supercharger network, and are obviously demanding charging locations.
Two years ago in Sweden I rented a random Chinese EV , a NIO ET7, and its onboard navigation system was fully connected to all the major charging networks, so I could see charging stations, their speeds, and open stalls directly in the car navigation, no external apps needed. So there's a whole perfectly functioning non-Tesla ecosystem, and pretty much everything is tap-to-pay, so no apps, no registrations, no memberships, no nothing. And no lock-in.
Kinda ironic that Teslas big start and Supercharger buildout is now holding the US back compared to the rest of the world.
1. There is still no good answer for air transport, trans-oceanic shipping, long-haul trucking, and long-distance rail. ICE will be used there for a good while longer.
I think air transport and oceanic shipping will probably still take time owing to energy density concerns, but there are electric trucks already (with trials of roadside charging rails that can actively charge during driving), and for a large part of the world, electrified trains are the norm. It's a uniquely US problem that rail isn't electrified, even other major OECD countries are above 50% if not more, while in places like India it is almost 100% electrified railway (one of the largest networks in the world).
With mandatory breaks you have to take while trucking in a lot of countries, is it really that far out? I would imagine you could charge while you sleep.
I don't think we have the battery power density to power an 80,000 lb (~36,200 kg) truck at 65mph for 11 hours as allowed by the DOT Hours of Service Rules and Regulations (though I believe a 30 minute break is required after 8 hours, and the 11 hours of driving has to be within a 14 hour window, so some recharging stops may still work within those limits).
It would be awesome if they would implement a crude rule: no computers. You can use a computer to design the car--CAD/CAM/CAE are all fine--but no stored program computers are allowed in the race car. I think that would improve F1 tremendously.
Very funny idea. That basically means a carbureted gas engine, or a direct injection diesel with a mechanical governor and mechanically timed injection pumps - can't run a direct injection gas engine without a digital engine control unit, because the injection timings are much to precise to do mechanically.
So, basically '60s Formula 1. Might be fun to watch. We'd certainly see some crazy engine designs and a lot of re-fueling pit stops...
> can't run a direct injection gas engine without a digital engine control unit, because the injection timings are much to precise to do mechanically.
This is not accurate, the first production direct injection gasoline automotive engine was in the 1954 Mercedes-Benz 300SL. It's true, you probably won't be running piezoelectric injectors without computer controls, but there's nothing preventing direct injection.
But that would make it interesting. How many of the advances we've made in the past 75yrs could be accomplished some other way if you take the computer away? You don't need a computer to accomplish nanosecond timing. Maybe there's a clever analog way to run piezoelectric injectors.
To phrase it maybe a little more provocatively: how would you accomplish the precise timing necessary to achieve spherical implosion? This was possible with analog electronics in 1945. Surely in 2026 we can also build analog piezoelectric fuel injection systems.
To play devil's advocate, this starts to get into the territory of, how do you define a computer? If the analog circuitry is using sensors and passive components to inject fuel at spark at just the right time under varying conditions, "computing" them, one might say...
Maybe "no integrated circuits" might be a finer line.
A stored program computer, that is a device which can run arbitrary programs from storage, is a pretty rigorously defined thing. Like, we all have a pretty clear shared understanding that things like FPGAs and microcontrollers are computers, whereas you can have integrated circuits which don't have these capabilities.
To be clear, I don't think making elaborate analog ICs would be really "cheating" so long as they don't put a generic von Neumann machine on it.
EDIT: to be more clear, what I'd be trying to achieve with a rule change like this is making "computation" a somewhat larger investment in time and difficulty. By and large, at least in my opinion, profligate, non-essential computation has enabled many of the things that have made the sport less interesting. It's also made cars suck a lot. This would impose kind of a tax on those things.
Most F1 fans have an opinion on F1 regulations. I like your take.
I want to see F1 car design be about function/performance above all. I want to see awesome gadgets using insanely clever design. Then ideally that design should influence built items in the rest of the world.
F1 used to be influential in creating and developing high technology. Now it seems to be about gathering high technology from elsewhere so as to meet the insane regulations most efficiently.
> develop and iterate leading electric vehicles so fast.
How do you know this for a fact? Chinese press releases? You've driven one? Some auto blogger drove one?
After world war 2 Gorbachev or whoever visited the United States and during that trio visited a supermarket. He thought it was a facade, possibly, put on just for him, there's no way Americans are this prosperous (or whatever, this good at agriculture, farm equipment, etc)
Also do the race cars have 4 wheel drive, or all-wheel drive? I'm wagering all-wheel with "torque vectoring" and "Yaw control", like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X.
I am somewhat confused at the intensity of pushback for the statement “leading electric vehicles.”
Chinese EVs are leading and that doesn’t necessarily mean being the best, most advanced vehicles. They are leading in value/pricing, and in many regions they are leading in sales.
BYD sells almost double the EV volume of Tesla globally as of December 2025. They are objectively leading in that respect.
I think the parent comment of yours made a good point (or at least adjacent to a good point) about China’s ability to enter the market: they can’t compete with 100 years of internal combustion engine development along with the vast parts supplier network of the West, but they can compete on battery chemistry, battery supply, motors, and the more vertically integrated EV space where automakers don’t need to depend on a huge network of parts suppliers like they did in the past.
I also think that a lot of pushback to the innovation that China is delivering is criticism that is stuck in the past. If you buy a Xiaomi car, it integrates perfectly with all your Xiaomi consumer devices. You can control your rice cooker or robot vacuum from your car’s integrated infotainment system. This type of approach was exactly what Apple was going to deliver before they abandoned their automotive project.
Or, you can buy a Mercedes and you’ll get a car with more precise handling and perfectly tuned driving characteristics. The infotainment system looks like Windows Vista.
Which side of the aisle do you think most consumers care about? I think most people buy into Xiaomi’s approach.
I wouldnt be so harsh even with chinese combustion engines, its at this point a meme that is just copy pasted because everybody says so, but without actual experience. People dont understand how China is 3x bigger than Europe and 4x bigger than US, the scale of that market is absurd and competition numerous and fierce.
I've had MG suv rented recently with just gasoline engine and it was fine. This comes from long term bmw driver, they are not on the exactly same level, but light years ahead from similarly prices ie french vehicles. Handling was fine too, probably the biggest shock for me, this is where french, italian etc are losing me (bmw effect). And they cost 1/3 of bmw.
True, and on a similar wavelength, nobody seems to care that Kia/Hyundai engines are super mid.
Heck, nobody seems to care that Toyota engines/transmissions sound like a vacuum cleaner and have pretty mediocre NVH on models like the Corolla, but they buy those products for reliability and efficiency.
Semiofftopic but somehow I took offense at the Vista comparison. Aero Glass was peak UI design to me, and I'd certainly prefer it to modern paradigms like flat controls, or to stretch it even further, Corporate Memphis etc.
Curse you, Apple and Jony Ive. You only needed to tone skeuomorphism down not kill it.
I’m genuinely delighted that this reaction to that little phrase came up! It was definitely something of a half-joke on my part: the Mercedes infotainment system is very well-regarded, but it does not look “modern” compared to something like a Tesla, Rivian, or Xiaomi.
The hyperscreen from a physical hardware perspective looks strangely dated to me as well, depending on the specific car model.
Listening to the heads of the American and European car companies say the same and driving in them in china. I know that is different than personally disassembling one and reviewing it, but I am not sure the incentive for the other companies to say they have inferior products, unless it was a play for subsidies or deregulation of some form.
Personally I feel that the rest of the world continues to dramatically under estimate China’s progress and technological advancement at our own peril. Is there fluff and are their lots of untrue claims, of course, but that is certainly not something they have a monopoly on.
It's because the West still views Chinese people as dumb laborers: just a bunch of cheap bodies who can do nothing more than screwing together our brilliant inventions.
China creates something of equal quality as a Western company? It must've been IP theft! China competes on price? It must be state subsidies! China creates something innovative? Don't use it - it'll send your data back to the CCP! Or just pretend it doesn't exist.
In reality Chinese people aren't idiots. We've spent a couple of decades giving away all of our manufacturing knowledge for a few cents of shareholder value, so it is not exactly surprising that they now possess that knowledge - and are able to build upon it. China is dealing with huge demographic changes, so obviously they've been pushing for automation, so it shouldn't be a surprise that those factories are now rapidly automating. Which we could've done in the West, but outsourcing it to cheap Chinese labor was cheaper in the short term.
For every genius in the West there are ten geniuses in China, and with their top-down economic policy they are able to apply it where it truly matters.
We created our own worst enemy, and are now crying foul. If we don't get rid of our outdated racist biases soon and start treating China like the successful superpower that it is, we're going to get completely steamrolled in the next few decades.
So it looks like axial flux, the OG was introduced in 1820 something and it wasn't easy to manufacture. So radio flux came after that and has been around ever since. So axial flux is making its come back this year!
The video is very interesting too about decompounding returns when the motor is less with the other things need to weigh less too.
Especially the bit about potentially not needing brakes in the near future because the regen is so capable. Which would lead to less weight and less parts even again!
Also found it fascinating, although on the discussion about brakes I thought about how regen braking turns off in my EV when the battery is full, because there is no where to put the power. So you either keep some of the battery always available to soak up braking energy (and hope people never charge to full at the top of a mountain and exhaust the buffer) or you include a set of normal brakes for when regen is not possible, both options negating the weight savings. Right?
Interesting, it seems like keeping the battery at some level below 100% (e.g. 80%) would make sense then because I don't think regen would ever top it off that much right?
My understanding is that after 80% the rate of charge a lithium ion battery can accept diminishes.
Could the 80% Li-on battery accept the charge from the brake regen fast enough? Or would it still have to be drained somewhere else if the battery could not accept it?
i wonder how much heat you'd have to dump if you just used a resistive load and heatsinks. aluminum isn't very heavy. Look at the size of a rotor and brake shoe on modern cars, it can't be that much larger surface area as a heat sink to dump the charge. Although someone would have to test it. Since EV are so smart, wouldn't they know that all routes generally are downhill, and thus stop the charge at 80% or something? Further, the absorption phase means you have to dump excess current somewhere anyway if you're over 80% charged.
A few years ago I built a few small ones in my home lab. They are extremely efficient. With the right setup, have insane torque, and don’t require a lot of energy to do it. The best part for me was that they are completely brushless by design and are easily to keep clean.
"In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing."
Really the kind of thing that should be earlier in an article about… that very thing the reader is wondering about, but maybe we arent the target audience?
Yes. If you have a laser printer, that windup sound you hear at the start of a job is the polygon mirror motor spinning up thousands of RPMs - those are PCB stator motors. As were VCR head motors.
"Advantages : A motor can be built upon any flat structure, such as a PCB, by adding coils and a bearing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor with image of "A miniature DC brushless axial motor used in a Digital Data Storage drive, showing the integration with PCB construction techniques."
It doesn't make that a good idea. Armature losses are proportional to torque squared - doesn't matter if it is radial or axial design. That's why all the EVs today have gear boxes with ratios like 13:1. Get rid of that gearbox and the steady-state losses go up with the square of that ratio. Then there are the issues of sprung mass, and where to put the mechanical brakes.
> you can integrate all into one hub (breaks, bearings, gears etc) and it weights pretty much the same.
You would get to delete about half the mass of the half-shaft but otherwise you are cramming a lot of stuff into the wheel volume and it all has to survive living out there. Now your HV wiring and any cooling connections to the motor have to flex with the movements of the suspension and probably need guarding against rocks and other road debris. I think all EVs now have the drive electronics tightly coupled to the motors - now that either has to be separated or made compact enough to fit and rugged enough to survive a much higher vibration regime. We do have small amounts of electronics on hub assemblies today (I'm thinking of electronic parking brakes) so there is some precedent but that circuitry is much less challenging than an inverter handling 100s of kW.
>no loss on diff
I doubt there's much loss from differentials in EVs. They don't have the bevel gear of diffs used in longitudinal layout ICE vehicles and mostly the gears in a diff don't move relative to one another (unless you are doing donuts!), so the whole cage mostly acts like a solid gear giving whatever final ratio.
Do they claim enough reliability and peak power capability to delete the mechanical brakes? I know Brembo is working on electric brakes that would eliminate the hydraulic circuits and pistons. I don't know what they plan to do to make sure the electrical side is as robust as the split-diagonal brake system we've been using for 60 years or so.
Having four wheel motors solves any issues that compromise a single unit, but I don't think they've answered how they would mitigate potential system issues that might bring them all down at once.
You could add a short drive shaft behind the springs to put the motor on the car body. That'd give you some additional advantage of moving much of the brake weight off of the wheel as well.
A very good YouTube video from Munroe Live (an engineering firm specializing in "design for manufacturing") explaining it: https://youtu.be/dCO633KE7RA "Axial Flux Motors Explained"
Visited Astrall Dynamics, a Chinese startup that builds quadrupeds with axial flux motors here in Shenzhen. Super cool to see the robots in actions, carrying 60kg of weight up over 20 flights of stairs quite rapidly. The high torque at the compact form factor was super impressive. As far as I understood they are more complex to manufacture, especially at scale.
> In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing.
To build on what others have said. Multiple motors per axle allow you to get rid of the diff, and you get torque vectoring basically for free.
Then there's braking. More driven wheels means more braking energy that can be recouped via regen. In traditionally rwd cars you lose out here because braking energy tends to be directed forward.
Also there's packaging. One large motor might impinge on the cabin.
Also you get benefits wrt mass production.
A smaller motor is easier to handle. Potentially could avoid the need for high voltage cables. Which eases repair.
For the AMG GT4 there will be 3 motors: two at the rear, and one at the front.
My interpretation (and my German's pretty lousy) is that each motor is combined with a gear system in a single package, and they're calling the overall package (motor plus gears) a High Performance Electric Drive Unit (HP.EDU).
The two rear motors will probably be independent, so no need for a mechanical rear diff (it'll be electronically controlled).
There's no mention of a front diff, so it's unknown whether that's built into the front HP.EDU or is a separate mechanical diff).
Kind of orthogonal. Traditional AWD and part-time 4WD systems are solutions to get power from a single motor to both the front and rear of a vehicle. AWD has a center differential to account for differences in front and rear driveshaft speeds when driving on high-traction surfaces. 4WD just locks the front and rear driveshaft rotation together, which is a simple and robust solution that only works on loose surfaces.
With separate front and rear electric motors, there's no center differential to worry about, and a sufficiently sophisticated motor control system can make it behave well on and off road.
This is probably the most succinct explanation I've ever read of the differences and the advantages of one over the other. I've been trying to understand this from different sources for years now.
I'm not sure that the traditional notion of traction control applies, given that there are three independent suppliers of power, so you don't necessarily need the mechanics of diffs and computer-controlled brakes to provide maximum traction.
What would it mean to "turn off" traction control in a car with independent motors per wheel? (OK this is a 3-motor/4-wheel scenario, but hypothetically…)
With software control and independent motors, we're likely to see increases in low-traction capability (for the right price-point and probably aimed at particular buyers)
“What“ might be a long answer, but why anyone might want one is to have increased torque density for the given volume and diameter. So they are thin motors where the generated flux is parallel to the shaft. And they are like the standard PMSMs where you apply the same driving algorithm from the inverter side to use them.
I would be careful about that video, it seems relatively "explaining this new amazing innovation that has no/negligible downsides (please invest in us)" rather than "explaining the practical pros & cons of this technology".
I’d opt for the V10 from the F2004 Ferrari F1 car if I had to pick an engine to listen to, it’s what a race car should sound like. There’s just something about a V10, it sounds musical.
That BRM V16 is a close second though! It’s probably more impressive given it’s 50 years older than the Ferrari engine and was not designed by computers.
Most motors have N-S axis of magnets aligned tangential to the axis of rotation. Axial flux motors have N-S poles parallel to rotation. This allows motors to be thinner and wider as well as anyhow more lighter and sometimes easier made. Whether they make sense depends, it seems.
> Mercedes-Benz subsidiary YASA (Yokeless and Segmented Armature) makes AFMs that have powered various concept (Jaguar C-X75), prototype, and racing vehicles. It was also used in the Koenigsegg Regera, the Ferrari SF90 Stradale and 296GTB, Lamborghini Revuelto, McLaren Artura and the Lola-Drayson.[9] The company is investigating the potential for placing motors inside wheels, given that AFM's low mass does not excessively increase a vehicle's unsprung mass.[10]
> In July 2025, YASA announced a prototype 550 kW (738 hp) 13.1 kg (29 lb) motor, equating to power density of 42 kW/kg, which the company claimed to be the highest ever achieved.[11] By contrast, the state of the art EV motor from Lucid Motors offers a 500 kW, 31.4-kg motor, or 16 kW/kg.[12]
> The first application of these motors will be in the High Performance Mercedes‑AMG GT 4-Touring Coupe.[14]
Thanks for posting this. Axial flux motors aren't some new sci-fi invention. We've had them in gadgets for a long time like in the floppy drive example. This is just one of the first industrial scale implementations of high-torque applications.
Consider the thousand or so comments at https://hn.algolia.com/?q=axial for more details. While it’s no substitute for a well-written comprehensive article, it certainly is a smorgasbord of answers.
As far as I understand it's so small and lightweight you can put one on each wheel and remove brakes and still save weight (something something unsprung weight bad).
Very cool. Good to see more axial flux motors in the wild - will be interesting to see if they become the new standard in future. With smaller material costs the cost to manufacture at scale could actually become lower than radial
I expect radial will still dominate for at least another decade or so outside of premium performance focused cars. Radial has been battle-tested and proven. Axial still has a few more years to prove it's reliability in the field. Higher loads and stresses, tighter tolerances could make the axial motors less reliable overall especially at mass market trims. Mercedes is probably over-engineering for reliability and performance on the premium car
Radial is also "good enough" for most applications. The efficiency, form factor and weight improvements of axial is nice, but they aren't the limiting factor. Radial is already highly efficient, reasonably light and small. The real level for weight is the battery
I'd like to see these if these can be scaled down into ebike size, or beyond that into micromobilty form factors that people carry around (like lightweight scooters and skateboards).
I remember when YASA announced it and when MB bought them. Amazing technology and advancement in electric motor design. Good to see they somehow try to commercialize it.
Four years ago, when YASA's invention was discussed on HN, it attracted very little interest. Mercedes apparently saw more potential and decided to invest.
I know what a "motor" is and I know what "electric" means but I have no idea what an "electric axial flux motor" is. I'm pretty sure it's not what Doc Brown used to travel through time but it could be.
About once a week I think I'm too dumb to be on this site and today is that day. Off to duckduckgo to do some research.
Edit: it's actually pretty simple. Here is the wikipedia on them:
An interesting part here is probably manufacturing and not the motor itself : going from a prototype to something you can mass produce reliably is often the hard part
I want to do an engine swap in my 1980s Toyota pickup (like on Back to the Future) from a 100 hp 22r to a 150-250 hp fuel injected inline 4 or turbodiesel to raise the thermodynamic efficiency from 20-25% to ~40% to nearly double fuel economy.
Unfortunately, most modern engines are transverse mounted. They can fit any transmission with an adapter plate, but then they're set too far back into the firewall to access stuff like the high-pressure fuel pump (which is often mounted on the transmission side for easy access on front wheel drive vehicles). I feel that's by design for planned obsolescence.
So I really wish that someone would offer a 4-6" thick 100-200 hp (100 kW) axial flux motor insert between the engine and transmission. Optionally with a simple battery management system (BMS) storing perhaps 5 kWh to provide up to 15-20 miles of electric range and hybrid fuel economy with regenerative braking.
If anyone knows of one, please let us know! If not, then those of you who won the internet lottery could make a killing investing in a novel product that everyone wants but doesn't know it yet.
something like a BMW 330e drivetrain has that (as do most German RWD hybrids), the biggest issue there is going to be the inverter and control software.
There isn't going to be a lot of improvement in overall EV performance/capability from better motors. Existing, boring motors are already close to 100% efficient, already small, and already powerful.
Advancements here chip away at margins, its nice but nothing to get super excited about. Whereas a modest ~20% increase in energy density from batteries would be amazing. Every little bit we improve there unlocks new capabilities. Towing long distances, smaller affordable economy cars and sports cars, airplanes, etc.
While you are eight at the efficiency part, motor designs like these reduce supply chain complexity, improve resiliency and bring costs down. So while this isn‘t going to give you more range, there certainly is a non trivial impact in stuff like that
For years we've been seeing the hype about how axial flux electric motors will save 100 or even a couple of hundred pounds per car. Does this announcement mean we're finally starting to see the first increment of that actually happening?
(The motor is less important than the battery in terms of total weight, long term durability, etc. But nonetheless, any improvement helps!)
All motors are generators. It's only a matter of how you are creating the magnetic field with the stator windings.
In order to generate a higher regen, you'd have to somehow get more energy in the motor first... and since its only rated for 200kW, good ol' physics limits you, IF thats all the energy you put into the system.
If you roll it down a hill, or do something exotic like inverting the magnetic fields .... you can exceed the motor rating. But thats usually not recommended because the motor driver itself isnt rated to handle that power.
In general the rating of a motor is about heat dissipation, which in turn is a function of efficiency. What this means is you can exceed the rating by "some amount" for "some amount of time". Many motors are rated for not what they can deliver, but what they can deliver continuously without overheating, but you can get a lot more power out of them for a short time.
> can a car with 200kW propulsion have a 400kW regen
At the motor level it should be the same, in propulsion you’re converting current to torque and in regen you’re converting torque to current, with the same hardware. The high voltage wiring is the same and will set the same limit on current regardless of direction.
I believe bidirectional inverters are generally symmetrical as well, so that should not be a factor.
Which I reckon leaves two factors:
1. Battery C rates, afaik pretty much all chemistries have a higher discharge rate than charge rate, especially when trying to maintain them for a long time, so by that account regen power would at most be the same as propulsion (if the entire power train is sized for the battery’s charging rate).
2. Artificial limitations, obviously you could always artificially under-prop, though that seems unlikely outside of niche applications.
tldr: I don’t think so, except on a technicality (that you can artificially hobble propulsion).
How far fetched is the idea to use Super-Capacitors to take up the energy generated by braking and then slowly feeding it to the battery at a rate that it supports?
The energy density on super capacitors is pretty bad. If you imagine full power 200kW braking for 5 seconds that's 1 mega joule and at a best case 8 watt hours per liter you're going to need 35 liters minimum. Really you probably need to double that so you can float up and down and never fully saturate the capacitor as power inflow is going to drop as you get closer and closer to fully charged.
So how do you stop then if the batteries are (close to) fully charged? You'd need to shunt that power into a big resistive load, and then dump that heat.
I’ve long wondered why we don’t ditch the friction brakes.
Just have the battery stop charging and report 100% full when it’s only 98% (or whatever) so there is enough capacity for some solid emergency stops in the first few minutes of driving.
Even if you have to resort to the resistor, who cares? It’s not like this is a common scenario
That's fine, until someone charges their cabin up in Truckee and decides to drive down 80 to the central valley (a hour or so drive you can do in neutral).
Regenerative braking also loses a lot of its stopping power at slow speeds. Going from "slowly rolling forward" to "full stopped" takes a lot longer than the instantaneous it is with friction brakes.
Am I reading you right that breaking power (that you want to regenerate in the system) >> speeding power? Obvious now I come to think of it, and still pretty nifty new thing learned if true!
I am speculating but here might be reasons axial flux motors have advantage over radial flux motors:
1) torque: torque = applied force x length of the lever. Because the radial flux rotor must fit inside the stator, therefore radius << motor outside diameter. With the axial flux motor, the rotor is adjacent to the stator, therefore radius < motor outside diameter. Axial rotor radius > radial rotor radius.
2) space efficiency: in a radial flux motor you have 1 rotor, the coils arranged so that one end of the coil's magnetic field is useful to work on the rotor, the other end is not used. In an axial flux motor, (1) pancake rotor at each end of the coils, total (2) rotors, the coils can act on a rotor at each end. There is no free lunch here, to do useful work you still must provide more energy to the coil, but you can get the most from the space.
There must be someone here with a better handle on the electromagnetism, please correct me where I err.
Think of the motor as a barrel and you can decide whether you put the magnets covering the barrel walls or covering the top and bottom, and your goal is to have the most magnet surface. At short barrel lengths, you get more magnet surface if you cover the top and bottom instead of the walls.
The area of the top+bottom is (2 * pi * radius * radius)
The area of the wall is (2 * pi * radius * length)
For them to have equal magnet area, you need length to be equal to the radius, which is bad. That makes your motor really thick. In the axial design, you can make the motor thin and still have the same magnet area as before, so your motor now weighs a lot less.
If you want a visual of how significant this size difference is, this image shows the sizes of the two motor types in relation to each other at equal strength because the axial motor no longer needs any of the barrel length: https://imgur.com/qwe3tuH
For family cars we need 4x 30-50 hp units. If the motor can weigh around 7 kg it can be placed directly on wheel. Adding durable brake discs (rarely used) and 2 inverters front ad back and we have the EV platform of the next 100 years
Personally, I'd rather see FWD with 1 100HP motor in a 2200-lb 4-seater under $20K US, but that will never happen as the supply is artificially constrained to create high-end cachet.
Some EV models have gone back to drum brakes. The main drawback of drum brakes is overheating, which is why they can’t be used for performance vehicles, even though drum brakes can deliver more braking power. EVs with strong regenerative braking reduces pressure on the brakes, making the heat build-up less of a problem.
The main advantage of this is cost, not weight or performance, but it does show that EVs have different profile to ICE cars.
Can regen brakes keep a car stopped? I would think that the braking force diminishes as the rotor speed approaches zero so it wouldn’t keep you in place on a steep hill, but I’m not sure.
In my experience, it’s usually but not always enough for the hills in SF. But more importantly, regen can’t handle emergency braking (it would generate too much current and heat), and you can’t regen at all if the motor loses its path to the battery.
Good point, I guess the motor could be engaged just enough to hold the car still on a slope but there might be heat issues doing that for too long. Mechanical brake will do that easily so also needed for that reason.
well you could have really cheap drum brakes that probably would last the lifetime of the vehicle. Maybe not even hydraulic - electro-mechanical with a mechanical (E brake) fallback.
even better a motor brake already is a thing. Its kinda of like air brakes, requires current to disengage and looks liek a little clutch thats slapped on the shaft or housing.
Ah, another fantastic British innovator (YASA) having to realize its potential (and ultimately the downstream economic benefits of commercialisation) abroad.
Brought to you by the only country to have a space programme and abandon it.
Britain didn't abandon it's space programme. It abandoned a launch rocket programme though. That was over 50 years ago and the rocket was less capable and more expensive than alternatives at the time.
What alternatives? By your logic only one country should have a launch rocket. Thankfully that’s not a world we live in because that makes no sense. But I’m happy for you if you can be content with a space programme without a rocket, that’s a nice low bar to live with, you can basically never miss.
Did they have to? My impression is British companies sell out as soon as they can these days. Is this something that could be changed with policy? Does Germany incentivise running companies more? Or is this cultural, e.g. British people are more risk averse?
It's very difficult to raise late stage capital in the UK, especially for deep tech. We invent so much but our capital ecosystem is all tied up in land and our pensions providers don't want to know.
> UK is by far the best country to raise venture capital in Europe
For late stage? Continental Europe has its banks and industrial policy. America and China have their deep pockets. Scaling out of the UK is incredibly hard, doubly so post Brexit, that’s why they sell early.
I think continental Europe has nothing on the UK when it comes to banks and financial markets. The UK has the deepest pockets in Europe because it is a hub for global capital. Brexit does not seem to have made a difference:
To be clear, I think there is a tone of late-stage capital in the UK that gets invested in the U.S. I’d love to see data for total late-stage money raised by British versus EU companies.
UK has City of London that dwarfs the banks of continental Europe. we're talking big banks, Fintech, HFT, etc. When you deal with Austrian banks you realize they're 10-20 years behind the UK.
> and industrial policy
Continental Europe has a large but somewhat inefficient(compared to Asia) and heavily subsidized industrial policy, acting more a a jobs program for politicians chasing votes and state subsidies, that the UK gave up on during Thatcher(for better and worse), and stayed in the niche, low volume but highly important aerospace and defense parts that dwarfs that of continental Europe.
Ofc that also means the labor market in UK is very K-shaped. Highly paid skilled niche jobs in London and the university research centers, and then a wasteland everywhere else.
I think Germany has tax rules that make exits harder, whereas it's very easy in the UK to sell. If you have a more free market next to protective ones it makes sense that your IP is going to flow in that direction.
It’s cultural. It is not difficult to raise a lot of money in the UK. The problem is that the UK (government, investors, employees and employers) got so high on the margins of services and finance in the 90s, that it has never recovered from this all-consuming addiction. Everything else simply attracts no interest comparatively, economic diversification be damned.
Only slightly related but does anyone know anything about motors with magnetic bearings? As in, no contact or friction. I'm looking for a hardware project
There are fluid dynamic bearings which were used in VCRs and probably hard drives and definitely laser printer mirror motors - two sets of precise herringbone patterns cut into the ID of a bearing column and a tiny bit of oil that gets entrained between rotor shaft and that bearing column. As the motor speeds up the oil forms pressurized donuts. Only works at speed and generally only useful when there aren't side loads so applications are limited. Rolling element bearings are a quite developed technology and hard to beat in most applications.
Closest I can think of is flywheel "battery" storage tech many of which do have magnetic bearings and also some way to get power in and out of the flywheel so basically a motor. It's not exactly what you're looking for but there's prior art out there.
Probably not. A huge disadvantage of axial flux motors is they have a large number of poles, which means that they get less efficient at high speed because they require say 5x as much switching.
This makes them kind of unsuitable for power generation and really high power motors (despite their power density) where the main way you get more power is just to spin really fast.
The other disadvantage is they have such a low amount of material in them, that the stator overheats really easily. And the topology of the motor makes it really difficult to get the heat out efficiently, which again limits their maximum power.
Probably not, it is called „Axialflussmotor“ which is a literal translation. According to wikipedia, it is also called „Scheibenläufermotor“, but I‘ve only ever encountered the literal translation being used (but also not an engineer)
For a century Germany's comparative advantage has been [mechanical] engineering. As a European I want (need?) Germany to succeed. Ergo: more of this, please.
Their advantage was mechanical engineering. They have historically not done well with electrical systems. So this is a change - hopefully for the better.
Electrical auxiliary stuff used to be and maybe still is a source of trouble. Power electronics should be fine, there's plenty of know-how available in the country, and with any luck, car companies won't have time to home-grow a mismanagement structure to fuck it up like they did with software.
Software and battery cells are the main challenges.
This headline claims large-scale production, but the article never indicates what that would be in terms of quantity per year.
Their motor is pretty cool. So are lots of other ideas and concepts. This is supposed to be about production. Arguably, the coolest thing about Yasa is the machines and process they have created to produce their motor in production quantities.
It disappoints me when an article promises to be about production but seems more to be a press release about the product.
I wish them well and would be excited to learn more about their actual production capacity.
I mean in EV's, a fancy expensive concept motor isn't going to help, autonomy should have been their direction 10 years ago, they are on the downward slope of their existence im afraid. Its the equivalent of Blockbuster adding a tape rewinding service to try and boost sales vs Netflix streaming.
That is also not guaranteed. VW (with its array of brands) leads the european BEV market by a lot. [1] (sorry I only found data for April 2026 right now but earlier months were similar)
One additional point of data. In Q1 of this year they delivered 200K BEV worldwide [2] while Tesla did 350k [3].
Calling that 10 years behind is not warranted in my opinion. I would agree to say competitive and challenged.
Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things. You will eventually struggle to choose to do something more efficient, as the european auto industry is currently displaying. The car where thid motor will be used will, given current market sentiment, be a massive flop. Here they are showing off how complex the manufacturing process is. Surely we’d all be better off with simpler and cheaper processes.
This entire product is easier to build than the existing technology, has more simple tooling and will be simpler and cheaper.
Designing the manufacturing machinery is exactly what happens in any manufacturing process. Those robots are general purpose that have been adapted for the required tasks, that's a normal process.
Why would you build a motor that's twice as heavy with copper and much wider when you don't need to?
Efficiency and cost savings at scale usually involve an increase in complexity: in mass manufacturing, complexity is generally a fixed cost and so can be amortized over larger volumes.
By that logic we should all just be writing assembly manually. Screw hideously complicated higher level languages. Screw LLMs in particular, so complicated!
> Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things
Is Mercedes stupid?
How did Carl Benz dare to do something as hideously complicated as building the first gasoline-powered car in history?
And why did they kept inventing complicated stuff that ended in all modern cars like ABS, adaptive cruise control, direct fuel injection, emergency brake assist, etc, etc?
Not all of those inventions are bad. But not all of them are coming from a place of necessity. All of them do increase complexity. My gripe with Mercedes is not that they are constantly pushing boundaries on what can be done with more tech. My main gripe is that the EVs they are building are essentially as complex as the ICE cars and follow largely the same design principles as the ICE cars. For instance, in the EQS, instead of applying engine breaking when the driver takes their foot off the pedal, they went to great lengths to _move the break pedal_ in proportion to the amount of engine breaking that is currently being applied as per the VCUs command. And yet the door cards on the EQS are not up to the standard of an S class.
My main gripe with MB is that they have this new technology that could simplify things and let them build a better product. Instead of building around it, they shove it in to their existing designs. I was expecting an electric S class to be more akin to a Lucid Air sans the teething problems of a new company. Instead, we get weak attempts at solving non issues.
And whilst they are certainly not in the market of producing affordable vehicles, I would hope that using EV tech they could create a better version of their existing fleet. I do not think anyone buying an A class cares about the 4 popper under the hood - losing it and simplifying radically, in my mind at least, would give them more budget and leeway to create a more compelling product.
> "instead of applying engine breaking when the driver takes their foot off the pedal, they went to great lengths to _move the break pedal_ in proportion to the amount of engine breaking that is currently being applied as per the VCUs command"
Regenerative braking slows the car more aggressively than an ICE where you take your foot of the gas, so the pedal change isn't putting on the brakes, it's communicating to a driver used to ICE that the car is slowing more than might be expected.
There may also be a sports-related reason for people who habitually left-foot brake.
It depends how much you draw from the motor/generator. One can modulate it as they want, whatever can't go into the battery due to chemistry or drive constraints can be disposed of as heat.
You clearly have never used a car like that. You develop muscle memory for where the pedal is - finding that the pedal is not where it used to be does not inspire much confidence.
Every other manufacturer has managed to control regen breaking via throttle modulation - even ICE hybrid cars have been doing that for ages.
I've used left-foot-braking in my (ICE-powered) daily driver for years.
Regenerative braking is very different to taking your foot off the accelerator in a conventional ICE car, it's much more powerful a stopping force than traditional engine-braking.
I understand the rationale for moving the pedal to illustrate the amount of "braking" force. I'll admit I'm not exactly a typical driver though.
I'd support that. It does feel unusual in most cars' cruise control that you can push the accelerator to three-quarters of its travel before you start to accelerate (e.g. if cruise control is at 50–60mph).
If you push the gas pedal, you'd expect to go faster, wouldn't you?
They used to, but not by design. Back when throttles were still cabled I could feel the cruise control doing its thing by lightly resting on the pedal.
The equilibrium of "good enough vs technological simplicity" for cars was probably reached in the 1950s. Everything after that was more or less solving "non-issues" with ever-increasing complexity ;)
Great, they finally started mass-producing 19th century technology, let's cheer that! Nowadays, while Chinese and Americans are producing GPUs, AI and li-ion batteries, German high-tech is an engine invented by Faraday
Mercedes acquired Yasa (UK) couple of years ago and now getting up to the speed in the production.
Here is a nice video that explains axial flux motors with a factory visit
https://youtu.be/B2Hl4c1iZK0?si=VfDYARyuaPVj1nKm
They are so, so, small.
I was curious how this thing works and asked Claude to visualize it -- mostly to see how good Fable is and I have to say, what it made was good enough for me to get a gist of it. Posted it here
https://azimi.me/axial-flux-motor-explainer/
Every plausibly cool electric car innovation leads me to the same thought: “5-10 years from now, the restomod potential will be wild once these come down in cost.” For this, I am imagining retrofitting a Pontiac Fiero to reduce as much weight as possible and see if extended flight becomes possible.
Here’s a build series of an ex-Apple/NASCAR/Tesla engineer turned YouTuber swapping Tesla Model 3 drivetrain to a 50s Jag.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoTU9_iCGa6i_C38pwQyg0pBG...
As an antique BMW enthusiast, I know some people that have swapped electric motors in to 2002s and 2000 CSLs and they said it was actually a pretty disappointing experience. You lose the vintage driving experience entirely.
Yeah, it was also so sad to lose the vintage brain damage when we migrated away from leaded fuels: https://dupri.duke.edu/news-events/news/20th-century-lead-ex...
wtf are you talking about? I drive one of these cars every day (that I need to drive, which isn’t that often really) without leaded gasoline.
It’s the punchy little m10 motor, 4 speed transmission, and incredibly low curb weight that make these cars fun to drive. You lose all that with an electric conversion.
As an aside, the most powerful F1 engine ever put on the track was made by modifying the little 4-banger m10 found in the BMW 2002. Fun fact.
> As an aside, the most powerful F1 engine ever put on the track was made by modifying the little 4-banger m10 found in the BMW 2002. Fun fact.
Supposedly BMW lacked a dyno that went high enough so it's an educated guess what the actual hp was, but definitely over 1,300hp... from a 4-cylinder (turbo charged, and only lasted a few laps, but still) engine!
I'd throw in the manual gearbox, the noise, vibration, smell, and being able to see the mechanical workings as well. We can get a punchy, lightweight vehicle with an EV conversion, but as you've heard from others, that leaves something to be desired
>I'd throw in the manual gearbox
AKA the 4 speed transmission I mentioned :)
But yes, the vibration, sound, and feel of the incredibly simple (as in stripped down, not unsophisticated) mechanics around you all very much contribute to the special feeling of driving these cars.
My 1976 BMW 2002 is actually my first car. I used to drive it to high school more than half my life ago, and I still drive it today. I’ve driven some other classic cars, luxury and sport, and simply nothing feels like a 2002. Just a beautiful, balanced, timeless design.
I'm pretty sure the subtext of that comment was that the benefit of electric motors in retro cars is the emission reduction (and possibly cost and maintenance reduction), and not improved specs/experience. Saying "ye but it worsens the experience" misses the point.
But this is a thread about modifying 50-70 year old cars with electric drivetrains.
There are so few of these cars on the road anymore that I think very little progress is to be made on emissions levels by converting them to electric, especially when you consider that you’re ruining the driving experience.
From the animation: "Torque grows with the cube of diameter"
That seems like a pretty cool cheat-code to get more power. Perhaps it will mean you will start having cars with more distance from the ground to accommodate the large dia motor wheels.
Number 1 problem is battery weight though. Not electric motors.
I have a 84 w123 300D, and would love to add some more power to it. Lightweight hub motors would be great, but any decent size battery would be at least 200lbs+, which is hard to do on a old chasy.
Something to keep in mind with hub motors is that they’re unsprung weight, vs the battery pack is pretty much always sprung. While that’s not a huge differentiator for efficiency, it sure cuts down on the abuse the wheels and hub motors will experience
its less hard than you'd think unless you're really going for long range.
for my sailboat I am getting rid of a 300lbs diesel and a 30gallon fuel tank with a 45lbs PMAC.
That means I have opened up about 465lbs for batteries.
Now, with a sailboat you're never truly out of range -- but the point stands : these things are so much lighter than ICEs on average that there is a lot of opportunity even with battery weight as it is (and it's getting better daily).
I guess there's always the risk for a rig failure.
I looked a bit on doing the same, but came to the conclusion that it will be expensive to fulfil racing rules requiring the boat to be able to maintain speed for 5 hours ie around 25-30 NM range.
As it is now, I have about 500 NM diesel range on my boat, which is basically 3-4 days continuous runtime. Cutting it down to 25nm and 5 hours requires minimally 100kWh.
For a blue water boat, 500 NM is not quite acceptable, but can be fixed with jerrycans for a couple of dollars. An all electric blue water boat would clock in at an unrealistic 2MWh of batteries with a weight at least 20 metric tonnes. 10x the load capacity of my boat.
> there's always the risk for a rig failure.
Don't forget rudder and keel - especially if sailing off the coast of western europe...
This is silly, but I've also wondered if you could make a boat that can anchor and recharge batteries from ambient current, sort of like stationary regenerative braking. I'm sure it would take way too long to be worth it, but it was a fun idle thought.
Perhaps the paddle wheel[0] will interest you, the spinning is used to calculate the velocity of the boat. Probably some other propeller or similar would be more practical - like a kicker motor that's easily lowered over the side. Just spitballing. I don't think it'd be worth it considering solar options. Even wind generators are not "super efficient" in comparison but I don't have data.
[0] https://www.westmarine.com/bg-h3000-paddlewheel-sensor-w-pla...
I'm sure it wouldn't be worth it, because otherwise people would be doing it, it just seemed like a cool way to supplement solar or even to allow for indefinite underwater drones. Like, imagine a deep-sea research drone that could spit out an anchor and recharge whenever the battery got low. Almost certainly a case of "Cool, wouldn't really work well"
Uh, car batteries are much heavier than most ICE’s. The curb weight on teslas’s are crazy high.
BYD can be lighter because they skip on safety gear and proper structural elements - in my experience.
Brazilians got a bunch of them and they are super common in Brazil. Also common - broken suspension parts from driving them in Brazil.
Also, the only cars I’ve ever ridden on that the top of my head literally touches the headliner while sitting in the back seat. Other than that, they seem good?
Great to know, thanks. Israeli roads are typically well maintained, but I'll keep an eye out for suspension damage.
In this Atto 3, I've ridden in the back a few times and my head does not touch the headliner. I'm 170cm.
Yeah, I’m 182+ cm, so a bit bigger. It still surprised me. BYD Dolphin if I remember was the worse.
The suspension issues seem like a common theme though, they aren’t built as sturdily as most cars on that front.
Top-of-the-line NMC cells have energy density around 250Wh/kg at the pack level. The newer solid-state batteries can reportedly increase this to 400Wh/kg.
So a reasonable 75kWh battery pack is going to weigh around 300kg and in future around 200kg. This is... not a lot, actually. To a point where shaving off 20-30 kg from the electric motor weight is going to result in a noticeable performance/price difference.
Teslas also don't have "crazy" weight. Model 3 is 1700kg and a comparable (in size) Ford Focus is 1300kg.
If you stop cherry picking the lightest Tesla, you’ll see what I mean.
400 kg == 881 lbs, and that is their lightest model with lowest range.
Model 3 LR with 360 miles of range is 1820 kg. Still nothing crazy.
That is over 4K lbs, and more than an older model full sized Toyota Tundra.
Newer model Tundras are over 5k lbs, but that is also crazy.
BMW M3. Curb Weight: 3988 lb [1]
Tesla Model 3. Curb Weight: 3721 lb [2]
[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/3-series
[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3
The Model 3 performance model (more equivalent to the M3) weighs over 4K lbs. The model you are quoting is the lowest range and lightest of all Teslas.
The Tesla model S (actually more equivalent to the M3) is over 4500 lbs [https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2026/features-specs/].
No one is realistically saving weight by switching to batteries. Because batteries are heavy for the energy and gasoline is hella energy dense.
i know series hybrids aren't as efficient as parallel hybrids (thanks technology connections!), but i wonder if they'd be a good candidate for fun restomods.
drop in a tiny, powerful electric motor and a small battery (crammed in whatever location is best for weight distribution), and then wire up a little genny powered off your existing fuel tank that can jump in as a range extender
Series hybrids can compete with parallel hybrids, because the full decoupling of the engine from the wheels claws back some of the efficiency you lose through the energy conversion. It's series-parallel hybrids they can't really compete with, because those are able to do the same trick, but they also lose less energy in conversion, because the engine does some of the heavy lifting.
Series hybrids are great for packaging, though. Parallel and series-parallel commit to certain packaging decisions like having a transmission, or a long, monolithic unit, because it's the mechanical coupling that buys them smaller motors and potentially better efficiency. Series hybrids don't care about any of that, so even though you have bigger motors and potentially higher losses, you have more freedom over where things go.
Personally, I think there's a massive untapped market in converting old cars to hybrid engines. You wouldn't try to upgrade the old engine, you'd design a smaller and more power dense package and rip all of the original gear out. Because electrification lets you cut the size of the engine down so aggressively, this is probably a feasible strategy. As you pointed out, series hybrids are probably best suited to this because of their packaging flexibility. As others have pointed out, there's tremendous potential there for replicating original driving characteristics using software and the electric motor. And if we're being honest, off-road vehicles probably should get rid of the transmission and low range, because electric motor torque is just better. As is, the potential for cars is enormous, but we're getting the worst possible outcomes thanks to legislation.
Jeep/Stellantis certainly had problems trying to do this:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/jeep-tells-4xe-hybrid-owners-t...
Reducing the motor mass by 200 kg means you've just removed 10% of the weight of the vehicle. You could theoretically now reduce the battery pack by 10% as well.
Not true. The CdA (coefficient of drag multiplied by frontal area) matters far more for range than the weight for range. That is a smaller EV, which may very well be heavier can have a higher range and efficiency.
The Cd matters for highway driving, but weight is the dominating factor for city driving.
As efficiency improves across motors and inverters, wouldn't regen make CoD matter more, possibly tilting it to the dominant factor again?
Regen recoups about 80% of the kinetic energy, and it is already up close to the theoretical physical limit without switching to exotic materials.
Cd will never be the dominating factor at speeds which do not produce significant aerodynamic drag.
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of room for improvement there.
Yeah, my comment was hand-waving away a bit of the reality of it, but swap the Fiero engine for a battery and some of these and it's got to be close to achieving full lift.
Unsprung mass is a concern, though, and being able to put motors in the wheel has benefits.
I think the cited weight loss comes from energy efficiency gains leading to less battery capacity needed.
Electric engines are already very efficient (particularly compared to internal combustion). If you go from 90% to 95% efficiency, you don't save much in terms of battery.
ETA: Internal combustion engines half a century ago had an efficiency of 20%, now they're at 40%. That cuts the fuel you need to carry in half. Electric engines are near 100%, and as I said, going from 90% to 95% efficiency cuts required battery by a bit more than 5%, so peanuts.
Going from 90% to 95% efficiency you're halving the thermal loses, thus reducing the need for cooling by half. It's a big deal.
Same with going from 99% to 99.5% efficiency. It still reduces the cooling needed by half.
> reducing the need for cooling by half
But the motor is not the only thing that needs to be cooled. It’s mainly the battery, which has a narrow operating range. The power electronics that convert AC to DC also need to be cooled.
So you’re halving the cooling needs of the motor, which is nice but small compared to the other two. And even then, total cooling doesn’t impact range that much compared to warming the battery in cold climates.
I think you’ve overstated your case.
Half is half.
If we halve waste-heat generation for a practical widget enough times, then we won't need liquid cooling for that widget at all. If the trend continues and gets good enough, then maybe we can get all the way to a complete passive-cooling snoozefest.
That's pretty boring, but boring is good. The systems we use every day without a thought because they boringly Just Work are, perhaps, our greatest successes.
I was responding to
> I think the cited weight loss comes from energy efficiency gains leading to less battery capacity needed.
So, no, the efficiency gains of electrical engines do not lead to significantly less battery capacity needed.
In the video the yasa guy said most of the weight loss is from getting rid of the yoke.
This is happening now in the openinverter.org community
I'm going to replace the differential and the automatic transmission in my truck with a 4-cylinder engine and an electric transmission.
This viz is superficially neat, but hard to get info out of. It seems like a demo in a movie.
What did you like most about it?
Yup, the visualization didn't help me understand the concept any more than plain text. Superficial in the way that you would expect from a system that has no real world reference for what it is creating.
To get something better I expect more than a one-shot is needed, and the knowledge to guide it in the right way.
Look at the beauty of an interactive visualisation of an internal combustion engine made by a human being - https://ciechanow.ski/internal-combustion-engine/
It’s possible to actually learn something from this, whereas the one fable created is just slop with pretty colours.
Can you elaborate a little on what you asked Claude to do here? This is a pretty impressive one-shot.
You made this with Fable? How many prompt? It is amazing.
Thanks for sharing. I wish it was a bit more interactive especially when there are parameters, e.g. "Widen the disc and torque rises with diameter cubed" I wish there was a slider to see that effect and thus maybe why there might be a sweet spot.
Also I have "The Way Things Work" on my desk right now and can't help but wonder, could you adapt some of the pages of the book this way? It seems like exactly the kind of content that would benefit from such 3D (interactive) visual explainers.
Code is here https://github.com/mohsen1/axial-flux-motor-explainer
Feel free to steal! This was one shot with Claude Code. You can take it and adopt it to your need
Oof... well thanks for sharing but that's basically unusable for me. It neatly all packed in a 2MB file containing all assets, threejs, etc.
I assumed it's based on a three.js template due to the `Rendered live with three.js · Drag anywhere to orbit the model` kind of showcase but unfortunately that's not linked. I also imagine the 3D models are more that primitives (at least the arrows showcasing the flow) but I don't know where they came from, if that are also from a template or repository or if they are generated from a tube mesh.
So... I'm genuinely grateful that you took the time to share but I don't think I can do something with this except restarting from scratch, especially if it's one-shot.
I'd suggest, if you don't mind the extra effort, that you add a ReadMe.md in the repository to clarify how you did this, at least model name, version and prompt.
I mentioned elsewhere too. This was a one-shot thing that made me wow so I thought I share. You're kind with your comments but others are just hating it, even so I said 1. I don't know this motor technology and 2. It was a one shot experiment
If I had time and making a polished web page was my goal I could probably do better but this was not the point!
I made it live and editable here: https://hallway.com/workspaces/f7cfb27c-0a0b-4ca3-9b28-cc7eb...
I asked mythos to make a "The Way Things Work"-inspired version.
Published: https://banagale.com/the-way-the-motor-works/
Source: https://github.com/banagale/the-way-the-motor-works
It lacks cave people but has the woolys.
Very neat. Thank you for sharing! I assume this was one shot as well -what sort of prompt did you use?
I’m sure folks would be interested even in a blog post comparing just this process with different Anthropic models if that’s something you do and need a content idea. :)
Here's the prompt I used:
---
Can you make a version of this that is more in the style of "the way things work" the cool inventions book from the 90s with cavepeople and wooly mamoths and that illustration asthetic?
https://github.com/mohsen1/axial-flux-motor-explainer
If able, expand on the abilities of the page as requested in this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48475428
---
So ya, that was a one shot to build.
Just as impressive was its ability to publish the source and get the version up on my personal site. That was also a one shot but aided by context and skills I have available for these purposes.
Wow, crazy man, crazy!
fig 4 timing looks wrong --- electromagnetic field from the windings is supposed to be 90 degrees ahead, on average, of the permanent magnet field.
https://archive.org/details/TWTK_WIN
Thanks but I'm aware of it, linked to an alternative just yesterday (but might replace by the InternetArchive one instead). A Web version would be so neat as we'd be able to link to pages, even states of the interactive explanation, rather than the whole thing but it's already great to have that basis.
Yeah so the relationship between speed, power, frequency, size (both in the direction of primary flux excitation and in the direction orthogonal to both that and the movement), and torque at nominal values of current density (for a given conductor losses are proportional to the square or this value and to the total mass of that conductor in the machine; that's independent of any of the other scaling parameters; note this is absolute power not percentage) and peak flux limitations (core saturation, permanent magnet demagnetization), are sadly not trivial if you express them in a way that is even just _valid_ for the modern days where we can support electrical frequencies up to around a megahertz at scales up to around 100 kW, and even harder when you remember that core material has severe frequency dependence of it's limits.
E.g. for example for a given electrical frequency and decent radial flux synchronous machine, power density is quite static and torque density can actually be dialed quite freely from 2-pole machine (turboset in gas turbine running on the grid at 3600 rpm (or 3000 rpm outside NA and some Pacific Islands) to 40(+) (example deployed at Hoover dam, 180 rpm). At those higher pole counts, the center of the rotor is no longer electromagnetically active, because the magnetic field lines keep to a narrow ring only about as thick as each pole is wide. Unfortunately it's mechanically not that trivial to handle a cylindrical shell with a small air gap (this needs to be significantly smaller (about at least 10x) than the pole width) when using substantial torque and speed.
Circumferential velocity is practically limited by hoop strength of whatever the outer region of the rotor is made of, even if it's all very nicely balanced, because eventually the magnetic armature flux source (wires or magnets) will fly out.
Higher electrical frequencies limit the field winding core's magnetic permeability (magnetic field/force strength amplification relative to vacuum, for same electrical current) which hurts efficiency by dropping the useful mechanical power component of field voltage while the voltage resulting from the current (that needs to happen to cause the magnetic field in the direction of movement that causes the mechanical force) due to wiring resistance stays. (I think the permeability gives the ratio between voltage and current for otherwise identical mechanical load conditions and winding shape?)
Thinner wires have less fill factor because the insulation has to stay the same thickness as per-winding voltage stays, but magnetically inactive terminations are less wasteful (for losses and mass) when a decent number of effective turns (>>1, think >10~50 for most of the benefits) are used.
Note while the armature necessarily has an even number of poles in it's construction (north/south), the field is not forced to that.
Indeed, the iirc most smooth torque (under practical mechanical feasibility limitations and without undue sacrifice of efficiency) results from having a prime number (of field windings, in WYE-style connection) exactly one off from the armature pole count. Note that for low losses all these torque-smoothing techniques _require_ only a single electrically directly driven winding in each slot (per mechanical field pole) and with that only GCD(field_slots, (armature_poles / 2)) windings get to share an electrical half-bridge (one single wire going to a single voltage-output terminal on the electronics board; note mainstream BLDCs have 3 of these, classic fridge compressors have 2, and modern stepper motors (e.g. 3D printer) have 4).
Any time you have multiple windings driven by different electrical source voltages you're wasting heat in the winding because the lowest-loss would require all conductor in the slot to to perfectly evenly share current.
There's just one problem with that: you need a nearby slot with exactly opposite phase to even possibly use more than a single (half) turn of "winding" in the slot.
If the voltage is still enough to not loose too much in the connections, you can use transistors developed for efficiently powering modern computer chips from comfortable voltages like 12V, but even then a "winding" has to be much longer than an armature pole to mitigate the losses of spreading the return current sideways to where a slot carries the current in the reverse direction. Once the voltage at the transistor is over around 10V the benefits of more precise control of the field magnetization to the armature position (and how the shapes distort the field lines from anything that would look like a sine wave) could be useful. In theory that'd also provide direct access to electronically control the air gap (well, net force normal to the air gap "surface") which _could_ be an alternative to mechanical bearings for very thin-shell constructions. See maglev trains for a pretty practical application of using an electric motor to also levitate the "rotor" in a place where a mechanical bearing ("train wheels + bogies") performs poorly.
> 42 kW/kg
Is that right? One could get ~200hp from something the size and mass of a small dog?
what was the prompt for this, did you use a CAD/threejs skill or grab a model from somewhere?
The issue with this is, without an expert, how do I know I am getting an accurate representation?
Hundreds of examples of axial flux motors exist online. If you look at the visualization it shows the iron cores in a perpendicular orientation with the hub. This is correct, but loses so much of what makes these specific motors interesting. The angled nature of the grey cores and copper wrapping smoothes the transition between each magnetic field.
Basically it is a pretty version of a dumbed down partially incorrect answer. With a knowledgeable user it would be very good, but he has no idea he is wrong. I’m not sure what Dunning Kreguer with graphics should be called.
You don't. You didn't know before either. The difference is trust. How do you trust it as much as you do the hypothetical humans making such representations? That's up to you.
I think humans develop expertise and brand names and get called out when they make mistakes and if they are too wrong, their reputation is damaged.
This doesn’t seem to apply to AI for some reason. It keeps generating incorrect results after incorrect results, yet people continue to trust its output.
I don’t know what to make of this.
"Trust" is an abused term, nowadays.
Human trust differs from mathematical trust. And branding / marketing abuses the ambiguity.
There is no shame in a "likely to hallucinate" model that can be instantiated 1,000 times across 1,000 different machines spread throughout our planet. So, human trust is broken by machine trust.
I've starting going back to books, either at the library or e-books. Librarians are very good at telling you if nonfiction is biased, outdated, or incorrect.
wait until AI starts publishing printed books :)
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Dave-Gary/author/B0BY6Z6HP8/al...
I would hope that librarians vet those and exclude them before they hit the shelves :(.
You first heard about this effect with the phrase "computer says no".
> I think humans develop expertise and brand names and get called out when they make mistakes and if they are too wrong, their reputation is damaged.
Take a look at the Forbes billionaires list and some of their statements. Or maybe at the politician fact checkers. If only being wrong damaged reputations.
The question is for you to answer, first. Gotta do that work. (My answer will differ from yours.)
Then, predictably, finding the collection of supporting details + vetting the content in question.
This is an issue we, technology-folk, ought to help guide our non-tech-co-folk through engaging with, BTW. Our responsibility is rising with tech becoming more deeply entrenched / required for society's operations.
THIS was the output of one prompt?
WOW, pretty cool!! :-)
Esp.if you scroll etc. Impressive.
Honestly, I don't think this actually provided much above a paragraph of text.
The visuals didn't show much, and I learnt a lot more from one of the YouTube videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCO633KE7RA) posted below.
It's neat that a whole interactive deck can be produced without effort. But it's just not very interesting.
Yeah, I'm at once awed that something like that can be auto-generated (I presume?) and disappointed that it doesn't usefully or practically improve my understanding, beyond written synopses and human videos, at all.
Stuff like this reminds me that we still need a human in the loop to edit, to improve, to advance.
Auto-from-scratch just doesn't really achieve anything of actual value.
It's unfortunately just slop.
Nice! Did fable generate that animation? Looks crisp
Tbh it did a pretty good job
can you share your prompts?
I am not an expert, but I do know some physics and I know how to read, and I’m pretty sure this is full of BS. Also it’s a really crappy visualization.
I wonder how developing electric motors compares to combustion engines. My hunch says that it’s the main reason the Chinese high-tech electronics industry was able to develop and iterate leading electric vehicles so fast. (Edit: My more clarified point is regarding the machinery required + place to accommodate them to work on electric motors vs. ICE metal parts and all the intermediary parts transfering power in the drivetrain. The shop in the video is smaller than many would imagine.)
When these hopefully go to the next generation Formula E cars, we’ll see some crazy improvements in cornering. The newest generation already has active 4WD. I imagine this can bring even better torque adjustment improvements.
The Chinese EV industry is actually lead by development of batteries, especially CATL. Along with the pack engineering, which is good old Mech.E stuff about heat transfer and physical strength.
Secondarily power electronics; at that scale, you can't just pick a bigger transistor and call it a day.
By comparison the motors seem to be a mostly solved problem, although I'm sure there's still some scope for power-to-weight engineering there, it's not as critical as the battery pack.
And is development of batteries (and better magnetics) not just chemical engineering and material science?
Motors might be a 'solved problem' - there might not be much innovation, Maxwell's laws aren't changing any time soon, but there will surely be a lot of incremental improvement - an early 1900s ICE is considerably worse than a 2000s ICE.
> n early 1900s ICE is considerably worse than a 2000s ICE.
But how much worse is a early 1900s electric motor from a modern one? I can't find data, but I suspect the first electric motor from the 1830s is more efficient than a modern ICE (even if we assume the ICE is built for efficiency, screw emissions). There is some room for improvement, but there isn't much difference between our best motors and perfection (a carnot cycle by contrast is as best much worse than perfection)
Early electric motors were awful, because there was no good way to control their speed.
For example, DC motors used in some late-1900s trains still had a giant variable resistor in series with their motor, burning away a huge chunk of the power as heat to force the motor to run at a lower speed during acceleration. AC motors weren't much better.
Electric motors only became truly efficient when variable-frequency drive became viable, which was in the 1980s due to semiconductor innovation.
Surely the variable resistor would only have been on the field winding. It wouldn't waste that much energy.
Figuring out where to place it, or how to do this took time. I'm sure some early attempts were really bad.
Helped along by the somewhat Wild West attitude towards worker safety and industrial regulation - high energy density batteries are hard to get right, and extremely dangerous if done wrong. During manufacturing in particular.
And only get cheap at scale.
> The Chinese EV industry is actually lead by development of batteries
This is the core point, but it applies for the whole of the industry. Motors just don't matter. An electric motor is an almost vanishing component of the weight and complexity of an electric vehicle. Cut the mass of the thing *in half* and you're looking at 100kg savings, tops. You could do that with a Model Y by just changing the roof material to something boring and not glass. You could almost do it by shrinking the oversized-as-is-the-fashion wheels.
So... it's great that Mercedez-Benz is producing these, I guess. But it won't make their cars anything more than incrementally better. Which is why we're seeing them crow about it in a press release and not a spec sheet.
If they’re small, light, and cheap, you can put 4 of them on the car and get independent all-wheel drive and insane acceleration.
We have a dual-motor EV and our lease is expiring this year. We have our eyes on the GLC EV, which will land in the U.S. with a tri-motor design at first. There’s no fun in a single-motor EV.
I thought that for a long time the german supply chain had an advantage in terms of the precision engineering to create drive chains for ICE - but EV's don't have the same number of moving parts and hence... end of advantage?
Standing on the shoulders of giants, mainly.
All the industrial processes and machine tool development that happened in the ICE car industry over the last century (and the electronic hardware manufacturing, more recently) was available day one.
AFAIK Chinese electric cars used western motor drivetrains and often still do?
I'm not saying there isn't room for innovation but... Electric motors have been around for a century now already in many applications.
It's not like the Dawn of the steam engine
According to wikipedia[1] the first industrial steam engine (1712) was invented almost 100 years before the invention of the steam locomotive (1804), arguably its greatest evolutionary feat.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine
The timeline of the electric motor isn't much behind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_electric_motor.
Low power and high power electronics don't actually have a lot in common other than the broad types of engineers you need to be educating.
China has industrial policy. The country and companies are able to invest in BEV technology knowing that everyone agrees on the direction.
>I wonder how developing electric motors compares to combustion engines. My hunch says that it’s the main reason the Chinese high-tech electronics industry was able to develop and iterate leading electric vehicles so fast.
The talent had very little impact to be honest. The primary factor was a government looking 50 years down the road seeing that:
1. ICE engines have little to no long-term future in transportation.
2. global warming is a thing whether the right wing in the US likes it or not.
3. They were never going to overtake the West in ICE engines and had to attack from a different angle.
The US' lack of breakthroughs in EVs has little to do with technology or expertise and everything to do with an administration that is openly hostile towards EVs and renewable energy in general. For the rest of the planet, EVs becoming the primary form of transportation is just an obvious and logical conclusion, even if it takes us another 25-50 years to get there.
China saw it and decided to heavily incentivize and subsidize the rapid expansion of EVs both to fix the air quality issues in China and corner the market.
> The US' lack of breakthroughs in EVs has little to do with technology or expertise and everything to do with an administration that is openly hostile towards EVs and renewable energy in general.
It has nothing to do with the current administration either. For one thing, China's dominance predates it. For another, the EU and Japan have failed equally hard at capturing any meaningful EV marketshare.
The current admin is actively hostile to EVs, but I think the real problem was the chicken and egg issue of charging stations: they wouldn't be built because there wasn't enough demand for them and EVs would be limited in sales because they wouldn't have chargers to use on the road.
This is where Tesla made a huge difference with Supercharger stations. I am no fan of Elon, but that work was fundamental in making EVs viable in America.
Nevertheless, there seems to be zero buy-in from commercial players in the US. It's such a weird uphill battle.
I live in the US, but every summer I spend a month in Sweden, and the past two years I've rented EVs for the entire stay, and the buildout of chargers these past 4-5 years has been astonishing. It's gone from crap to fantastic in a very short time, and that's without massive government intervention or subsidies or screaming and cajoling.
Because in Sweden, the primary driver of charging stops along highways and in the cities are gas stations.
They already make all their profit from incidental purchases and not the gas itself, so them pivoting to EV charging stops makes perfect sense. They already have the infrastructure in place to sell you overpriced hotdogs and coffee and snacks for your road trip, they already have restrooms in place.
But they also do the same in the cities, it seems like every city gas station has also put up a couple of 350W charging stations. It's not half-assed, they mean business. They all see the writing on the wall, in neighbouring Norway EV's are 90+% of all new car sales, Sweden is at ~30% right now, and climbing, so gas stations will go out of business if they don't pivot to EV charging.
It's fundamental market economy forces at work, the kind of stuff that the US normally prides itself of.
So why is that not happening in the US?
I think it's because the incumbents do not know how to build competitive, desirable, affordable EVs. I'm just an armchair observer, but that makes a fair amount of sense.
The other part is that a lot of money is made in the production and sale of fuel and those players have significant influence in how things work -- this is evident in the Trump admin's demonization of renewables and going all in on fossil fuels.
Watching all this craziness from the sidelines is crazymaking and heartbreaking. We can only keep China at bay for so long, and then when the dam breaks the domestic auto makers are going to go down, along with the whole economic ecosystem that supports them. It doesn't have to be this way...
Oh, right, the US has this weird Tesla oligopoly.
In Europe, Tesla generally has a single-digit EV marketshare, so over 90% of consumers don't care about or use the Supercharger network, and are obviously demanding charging locations.
Two years ago in Sweden I rented a random Chinese EV , a NIO ET7, and its onboard navigation system was fully connected to all the major charging networks, so I could see charging stations, their speeds, and open stalls directly in the car navigation, no external apps needed. So there's a whole perfectly functioning non-Tesla ecosystem, and pretty much everything is tap-to-pay, so no apps, no registrations, no memberships, no nothing. And no lock-in.
Kinda ironic that Teslas big start and Supercharger buildout is now holding the US back compared to the rest of the world.
1. There is still no good answer for air transport, trans-oceanic shipping, long-haul trucking, and long-distance rail. ICE will be used there for a good while longer.
I think air transport and oceanic shipping will probably still take time owing to energy density concerns, but there are electric trucks already (with trials of roadside charging rails that can actively charge during driving), and for a large part of the world, electrified trains are the norm. It's a uniquely US problem that rail isn't electrified, even other major OECD countries are above 50% if not more, while in places like India it is almost 100% electrified railway (one of the largest networks in the world).
With mandatory breaks you have to take while trucking in a lot of countries, is it really that far out? I would imagine you could charge while you sleep.
I don't think we have the battery power density to power an 80,000 lb (~36,200 kg) truck at 65mph for 11 hours as allowed by the DOT Hours of Service Rules and Regulations (though I believe a 30 minute break is required after 8 hours, and the 11 hours of driving has to be within a 14 hour window, so some recharging stops may still work within those limits).
In most EU countries you have to take a break after 4.5 hours for about 45 minutes. And you can only drive 9h per day.
Sounds feasible to me.
The new season of Formula One feels (unfortunately) like Formula E!
In Formula E the drivers control engine behavior and regen. It is much better than F1 right now.
It would be awesome if they would implement a crude rule: no computers. You can use a computer to design the car--CAD/CAM/CAE are all fine--but no stored program computers are allowed in the race car. I think that would improve F1 tremendously.
Very funny idea. That basically means a carbureted gas engine, or a direct injection diesel with a mechanical governor and mechanically timed injection pumps - can't run a direct injection gas engine without a digital engine control unit, because the injection timings are much to precise to do mechanically.
So, basically '60s Formula 1. Might be fun to watch. We'd certainly see some crazy engine designs and a lot of re-fueling pit stops...
> can't run a direct injection gas engine without a digital engine control unit, because the injection timings are much to precise to do mechanically.
This is not accurate, the first production direct injection gasoline automotive engine was in the 1954 Mercedes-Benz 300SL. It's true, you probably won't be running piezoelectric injectors without computer controls, but there's nothing preventing direct injection.
But that would make it interesting. How many of the advances we've made in the past 75yrs could be accomplished some other way if you take the computer away? You don't need a computer to accomplish nanosecond timing. Maybe there's a clever analog way to run piezoelectric injectors.
To phrase it maybe a little more provocatively: how would you accomplish the precise timing necessary to achieve spherical implosion? This was possible with analog electronics in 1945. Surely in 2026 we can also build analog piezoelectric fuel injection systems.
To play devil's advocate, this starts to get into the territory of, how do you define a computer? If the analog circuitry is using sensors and passive components to inject fuel at spark at just the right time under varying conditions, "computing" them, one might say...
Maybe "no integrated circuits" might be a finer line.
A stored program computer, that is a device which can run arbitrary programs from storage, is a pretty rigorously defined thing. Like, we all have a pretty clear shared understanding that things like FPGAs and microcontrollers are computers, whereas you can have integrated circuits which don't have these capabilities.
To be clear, I don't think making elaborate analog ICs would be really "cheating" so long as they don't put a generic von Neumann machine on it.
EDIT: to be more clear, what I'd be trying to achieve with a rule change like this is making "computation" a somewhat larger investment in time and difficulty. By and large, at least in my opinion, profligate, non-essential computation has enabled many of the things that have made the sport less interesting. It's also made cars suck a lot. This would impose kind of a tax on those things.
Most F1 fans have an opinion on F1 regulations. I like your take.
I want to see F1 car design be about function/performance above all. I want to see awesome gadgets using insanely clever design. Then ideally that design should influence built items in the rest of the world.
F1 used to be influential in creating and developing high technology. Now it seems to be about gathering high technology from elsewhere so as to meet the insane regulations most efficiently.
> develop and iterate leading electric vehicles so fast.
How do you know this for a fact? Chinese press releases? You've driven one? Some auto blogger drove one?
After world war 2 Gorbachev or whoever visited the United States and during that trio visited a supermarket. He thought it was a facade, possibly, put on just for him, there's no way Americans are this prosperous (or whatever, this good at agriculture, farm equipment, etc)
Also do the race cars have 4 wheel drive, or all-wheel drive? I'm wagering all-wheel with "torque vectoring" and "Yaw control", like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution X.
I am somewhat confused at the intensity of pushback for the statement “leading electric vehicles.”
Chinese EVs are leading and that doesn’t necessarily mean being the best, most advanced vehicles. They are leading in value/pricing, and in many regions they are leading in sales.
BYD sells almost double the EV volume of Tesla globally as of December 2025. They are objectively leading in that respect.
I think the parent comment of yours made a good point (or at least adjacent to a good point) about China’s ability to enter the market: they can’t compete with 100 years of internal combustion engine development along with the vast parts supplier network of the West, but they can compete on battery chemistry, battery supply, motors, and the more vertically integrated EV space where automakers don’t need to depend on a huge network of parts suppliers like they did in the past.
I also think that a lot of pushback to the innovation that China is delivering is criticism that is stuck in the past. If you buy a Xiaomi car, it integrates perfectly with all your Xiaomi consumer devices. You can control your rice cooker or robot vacuum from your car’s integrated infotainment system. This type of approach was exactly what Apple was going to deliver before they abandoned their automotive project.
Or, you can buy a Mercedes and you’ll get a car with more precise handling and perfectly tuned driving characteristics. The infotainment system looks like Windows Vista.
Which side of the aisle do you think most consumers care about? I think most people buy into Xiaomi’s approach.
I wouldnt be so harsh even with chinese combustion engines, its at this point a meme that is just copy pasted because everybody says so, but without actual experience. People dont understand how China is 3x bigger than Europe and 4x bigger than US, the scale of that market is absurd and competition numerous and fierce.
I've had MG suv rented recently with just gasoline engine and it was fine. This comes from long term bmw driver, they are not on the exactly same level, but light years ahead from similarly prices ie french vehicles. Handling was fine too, probably the biggest shock for me, this is where french, italian etc are losing me (bmw effect). And they cost 1/3 of bmw.
True, and on a similar wavelength, nobody seems to care that Kia/Hyundai engines are super mid.
Heck, nobody seems to care that Toyota engines/transmissions sound like a vacuum cleaner and have pretty mediocre NVH on models like the Corolla, but they buy those products for reliability and efficiency.
Semiofftopic but somehow I took offense at the Vista comparison. Aero Glass was peak UI design to me, and I'd certainly prefer it to modern paradigms like flat controls, or to stretch it even further, Corporate Memphis etc.
Curse you, Apple and Jony Ive. You only needed to tone skeuomorphism down not kill it.
I’m genuinely delighted that this reaction to that little phrase came up! It was definitely something of a half-joke on my part: the Mercedes infotainment system is very well-regarded, but it does not look “modern” compared to something like a Tesla, Rivian, or Xiaomi.
The hyperscreen from a physical hardware perspective looks strangely dated to me as well, depending on the specific car model.
I think with xiaomi yu7 and Tesla killing the model S, the chinese are leading in everything when it comes to EVs.
you consider the question asked to be "intense"?
Listening to the heads of the American and European car companies say the same and driving in them in china. I know that is different than personally disassembling one and reviewing it, but I am not sure the incentive for the other companies to say they have inferior products, unless it was a play for subsidies or deregulation of some form.
Personally I feel that the rest of the world continues to dramatically under estimate China’s progress and technological advancement at our own peril. Is there fluff and are their lots of untrue claims, of course, but that is certainly not something they have a monopoly on.
It's because the West still views Chinese people as dumb laborers: just a bunch of cheap bodies who can do nothing more than screwing together our brilliant inventions.
China creates something of equal quality as a Western company? It must've been IP theft! China competes on price? It must be state subsidies! China creates something innovative? Don't use it - it'll send your data back to the CCP! Or just pretend it doesn't exist.
In reality Chinese people aren't idiots. We've spent a couple of decades giving away all of our manufacturing knowledge for a few cents of shareholder value, so it is not exactly surprising that they now possess that knowledge - and are able to build upon it. China is dealing with huge demographic changes, so obviously they've been pushing for automation, so it shouldn't be a surprise that those factories are now rapidly automating. Which we could've done in the West, but outsourcing it to cheap Chinese labor was cheaper in the short term.
For every genius in the West there are ten geniuses in China, and with their top-down economic policy they are able to apply it where it truly matters.
We created our own worst enemy, and are now crying foul. If we don't get rid of our outdated racist biases soon and start treating China like the successful superpower that it is, we're going to get completely steamrolled in the next few decades.
Aren't you getting your analogy backwards? American supermarkets have the same role in the story as Chinese cars.
It was Yeltsin.
That was a good video, and I also liked the Munro video that does a nice job of explaining how these work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m507ryWhc6c
Great video!
So it looks like axial flux, the OG was introduced in 1820 something and it wasn't easy to manufacture. So radio flux came after that and has been around ever since. So axial flux is making its come back this year!
The video is very interesting too about decompounding returns when the motor is less with the other things need to weigh less too.
Especially the bit about potentially not needing brakes in the near future because the regen is so capable. Which would lead to less weight and less parts even again!
Also found it fascinating, although on the discussion about brakes I thought about how regen braking turns off in my EV when the battery is full, because there is no where to put the power. So you either keep some of the battery always available to soak up braking energy (and hope people never charge to full at the top of a mountain and exhaust the buffer) or you include a set of normal brakes for when regen is not possible, both options negating the weight savings. Right?
Interesting, it seems like keeping the battery at some level below 100% (e.g. 80%) would make sense then because I don't think regen would ever top it off that much right?
My understanding is that after 80% the rate of charge a lithium ion battery can accept diminishes.
Could the 80% Li-on battery accept the charge from the brake regen fast enough? Or would it still have to be drained somewhere else if the battery could not accept it?
i wonder how much heat you'd have to dump if you just used a resistive load and heatsinks. aluminum isn't very heavy. Look at the size of a rotor and brake shoe on modern cars, it can't be that much larger surface area as a heat sink to dump the charge. Although someone would have to test it. Since EV are so smart, wouldn't they know that all routes generally are downhill, and thus stop the charge at 80% or something? Further, the absorption phase means you have to dump excess current somewhere anyway if you're over 80% charged.
Or you could dump the power into a realllly loud horn
Or really bright break lights
A few years ago I built a few small ones in my home lab. They are extremely efficient. With the right setup, have insane torque, and don’t require a lot of energy to do it. The best part for me was that they are completely brushless by design and are easily to keep clean.
Tracking-free link: https://youtu.be/B2Hl4c1iZK0
Came here for this, thank you for providing a link
Edit.... Video doesn't seem to explain very well either
That's Kryten, woah! :D Huge fan of Red Dwarf
It would have been awesome if that article had, at any point, explained what an electric axial flux motor was, and why anyone might want one.
Click "More" and scroll down:
"In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing."
Really the kind of thing that should be earlier in an article about… that very thing the reader is wondering about, but maybe we arent the target audience?
> that very thing the reader is wondering about
Don’t mistake your curiosity for everyone else’s
It's a press release.
This is the same design that enables the PCB Stator Motors, right?
Yes. If you have a laser printer, that windup sound you hear at the start of a job is the polygon mirror motor spinning up thousands of RPMs - those are PCB stator motors. As were VCR head motors.
"Advantages : A motor can be built upon any flat structure, such as a PCB, by adding coils and a bearing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor with image of "A miniature DC brushless axial motor used in a Digital Data Storage drive, showing the integration with PCB construction techniques."
Floppy disk drive motors, but for cars.
For some reason that reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2LvQUcwqc
> This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging.
Hand waving.
No, it means the motor is smaller and it can be put into the wheel
It doesn't make that a good idea. Armature losses are proportional to torque squared - doesn't matter if it is radial or axial design. That's why all the EVs today have gear boxes with ratios like 13:1. Get rid of that gearbox and the steady-state losses go up with the square of that ratio. Then there are the issues of sprung mass, and where to put the mechanical brakes.
>gear boxes with ratios like 13:1.
you add planetary gears
>sprung mass
you can integrate all into one hub (breaks, bearings, gears etc) and it weights pretty much the same.
what you gain is more space for a bigger battery, torque vectoring, no loss on diff and CVs
> you can integrate all into one hub (breaks, bearings, gears etc) and it weights pretty much the same.
You would get to delete about half the mass of the half-shaft but otherwise you are cramming a lot of stuff into the wheel volume and it all has to survive living out there. Now your HV wiring and any cooling connections to the motor have to flex with the movements of the suspension and probably need guarding against rocks and other road debris. I think all EVs now have the drive electronics tightly coupled to the motors - now that either has to be separated or made compact enough to fit and rugged enough to survive a much higher vibration regime. We do have small amounts of electronics on hub assemblies today (I'm thinking of electronic parking brakes) so there is some precedent but that circuitry is much less challenging than an inverter handling 100s of kW.
>no loss on diff
I doubt there's much loss from differentials in EVs. They don't have the bevel gear of diffs used in longitudinal layout ICE vehicles and mostly the gears in a diff don't move relative to one another (unless you are doing donuts!), so the whole cage mostly acts like a solid gear giving whatever final ratio.
YASA claims their integrated brake/wheel motor is lighter than comparable (supercar) disc brake systems.
Do they claim enough reliability and peak power capability to delete the mechanical brakes? I know Brembo is working on electric brakes that would eliminate the hydraulic circuits and pistons. I don't know what they plan to do to make sure the electrical side is as robust as the split-diagonal brake system we've been using for 60 years or so.
Having four wheel motors solves any issues that compromise a single unit, but I don't think they've answered how they would mitigate potential system issues that might bring them all down at once.
aren't there other issues with having the motor in the wheels? Unsprung mass, plus the wheels can get pretty banged around?
You could add a short drive shaft behind the springs to put the motor on the car body. That'd give you some additional advantage of moving much of the brake weight off of the wheel as well.
Yeah that's exactly what the words say, thanks for parsing it for me.
No, it's hand waving because it doesn't explain how or why. That's what "hand waving" means.
A very good YouTube video from Munroe Live (an engineering firm specializing in "design for manufacturing") explaining it: https://youtu.be/dCO633KE7RA "Axial Flux Motors Explained"
Edit: a video from them on this particular YASA tech being discussed : https://youtu.be/m507ryWhc6c
[dead]
Visited Astrall Dynamics, a Chinese startup that builds quadrupeds with axial flux motors here in Shenzhen. Super cool to see the robots in actions, carrying 60kg of weight up over 20 flights of stairs quite rapidly. The high torque at the compact form factor was super impressive. As far as I understood they are more complex to manufacture, especially at scale.
It's a bit buried, but it does:
> In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing.
> The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle
I wonder why they need tree motors per axle.
It's poorly worded. There aren't three motors per axle, there are three motors total: one on the front axle and two on the rear axle.
To build on what others have said. Multiple motors per axle allow you to get rid of the diff, and you get torque vectoring basically for free.
Then there's braking. More driven wheels means more braking energy that can be recouped via regen. In traditionally rwd cars you lose out here because braking energy tends to be directed forward.
Also there's packaging. One large motor might impinge on the cabin.
Also you get benefits wrt mass production.
A smaller motor is easier to handle. Potentially could avoid the need for high voltage cables. Which eases repair.
The translation's a little woolly.
For the AMG GT4 there will be 3 motors: two at the rear, and one at the front.
My interpretation (and my German's pretty lousy) is that each motor is combined with a gear system in a single package, and they're calling the overall package (motor plus gears) a High Performance Electric Drive Unit (HP.EDU).
The two rear motors will probably be independent, so no need for a mechanical rear diff (it'll be electronically controlled).
There's no mention of a front diff, so it's unknown whether that's built into the front HP.EDU or is a separate mechanical diff).
In terms of traction control, does this translate to something between "4WD" and "AWD"? Or is it orthogonal?
Kind of orthogonal. Traditional AWD and part-time 4WD systems are solutions to get power from a single motor to both the front and rear of a vehicle. AWD has a center differential to account for differences in front and rear driveshaft speeds when driving on high-traction surfaces. 4WD just locks the front and rear driveshaft rotation together, which is a simple and robust solution that only works on loose surfaces.
With separate front and rear electric motors, there's no center differential to worry about, and a sufficiently sophisticated motor control system can make it behave well on and off road.
This is probably the most succinct explanation I've ever read of the differences and the advantages of one over the other. I've been trying to understand this from different sources for years now.
Thanks! Makes perfect sense. Great explanation!
I'm not sure that the traditional notion of traction control applies, given that there are three independent suppliers of power, so you don't necessarily need the mechanics of diffs and computer-controlled brakes to provide maximum traction.
What would it mean to "turn off" traction control in a car with independent motors per wheel? (OK this is a 3-motor/4-wheel scenario, but hypothetically…)
With software control and independent motors, we're likely to see increases in low-traction capability (for the right price-point and probably aimed at particular buyers)
I got the impression that there were three motors altogether and they were integrated with the axles.
“What“ might be a long answer, but why anyone might want one is to have increased torque density for the given volume and diameter. So they are thin motors where the generated flux is parallel to the shaft. And they are like the standard PMSMs where you apply the same driving algorithm from the inverter side to use them.
Here's a great Instructable on building one yourself, much better explanations in there.
https://www.instructables.com/Designing-and-Building-an-Axia...
Here's a good video on it from my watch history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCO633KE7RA
This one gives a shorter more high level overview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0CNZPenCb8
I would be careful about that video, it seems relatively "explaining this new amazing innovation that has no/negligible downsides (please invest in us)" rather than "explaining the practical pros & cons of this technology".
The AI voice is annoying, the content is as personal a a vanilla yogurt but the animation is clear.
Great video. I didn't know I was so interested in engine design before I watched it.
It's basically the V8 of electric motors. Different topology results in better power to weight ratio. From the outside they look pancake shaped.
I want a V12 or V16, thank you very much.
I'd like a 600 HP 1.5l supercharged V16 - doesn't even need to be in a car, mainly just to listen to!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Racing_Motors_V16
If the displacement isn’t measured in cubic meters, can you even call it an engine?
Bonus points if you have to heat that crap you call fuel before you inject it into the massive cylinder.
If it doesn’t make at least 200kW per cylinder, can the engine even do any real work?
Then all you need is a good recording and decent headphones
A good recording and a sound system which can move the exact amount of air that the engine has moved, to be precise.
Ok, me too now. But you can’t have that, so maybe you could settle for a high-reving V8 in a tunnel?
I’d opt for the V10 from the F2004 Ferrari F1 car if I had to pick an engine to listen to, it’s what a race car should sound like. There’s just something about a V10, it sounds musical.
https://youtu.be/gLyqoX3LZrk
That BRM V16 is a close second though! It’s probably more impressive given it’s 50 years older than the Ferrari engine and was not designed by computers.
https://youtu.be/A4w22LJrLeU
V5?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VR5_engine
We owned an vw inline 5 Passat (quantum in North America). Good engine and synchro awd.
Since they're relatively compact they will probably start stacking them. Like pancakes.
Stick two of them together on the same axle then.
Why do you need an axle?
Put the engine and its transmission to the wheel mounted next to each wheel.
No need for differentials etc, if they can work out a steering mechanism for each, then you've got 4WD with 4W steering.
In the video there's talk of how you can use them as regenerative braking as well, so have that as part of the wheel structure.
No axles, no differentials, independent suspension, electronically controlled power to each wheel, regenerative braking.
Gonna be a fun decade or more of innovation coming.
Wouldn't putting them in the wheel increase unsprung mass, which would degrade the feel of the car?
I think he was talking about small engines the size/weight of existing disk brake assemblies. So either no change or weight reduction.
Won't mechanical brakes still be needed? Regenerative braking only goes so far, and needs a backup.
One in every wheel
Most motors have N-S axis of magnets aligned tangential to the axis of rotation. Axial flux motors have N-S poles parallel to rotation. This allows motors to be thinner and wider as well as anyhow more lighter and sometimes easier made. Whether they make sense depends, it seems.
This sounds straight out of an 89’s sci-fi flick. What time we get to live in!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor
The automotive part is interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor#Automotive
> Mercedes-Benz subsidiary YASA (Yokeless and Segmented Armature) makes AFMs that have powered various concept (Jaguar C-X75), prototype, and racing vehicles. It was also used in the Koenigsegg Regera, the Ferrari SF90 Stradale and 296GTB, Lamborghini Revuelto, McLaren Artura and the Lola-Drayson.[9] The company is investigating the potential for placing motors inside wheels, given that AFM's low mass does not excessively increase a vehicle's unsprung mass.[10]
> In July 2025, YASA announced a prototype 550 kW (738 hp) 13.1 kg (29 lb) motor, equating to power density of 42 kW/kg, which the company claimed to be the highest ever achieved.[11] By contrast, the state of the art EV motor from Lucid Motors offers a 500 kW, 31.4-kg motor, or 16 kW/kg.[12]
> The first application of these motors will be in the High Performance Mercedes‑AMG GT 4-Touring Coupe.[14]
Thanks for posting this. Axial flux motors aren't some new sci-fi invention. We've had them in gadgets for a long time like in the floppy drive example. This is just one of the first industrial scale implementations of high-torque applications.
> Axial flux motors aren't some new sci-fi invention
Indeed not. The first ever electric motor was an axial flux motor built by Michael Faraday in 1821. It's definitely not a new idea.
Consider the thousand or so comments at https://hn.algolia.com/?q=axial for more details. While it’s no substitute for a well-written comprehensive article, it certainly is a smorgasbord of answers.
I was curious before reading the article and read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor
As far as I understand it's so small and lightweight you can put one on each wheel and remove brakes and still save weight (something something unsprung weight bad).
https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Flux_capacitor .
[dead]
Very cool. Good to see more axial flux motors in the wild - will be interesting to see if they become the new standard in future. With smaller material costs the cost to manufacture at scale could actually become lower than radial
I expect radial will still dominate for at least another decade or so outside of premium performance focused cars. Radial has been battle-tested and proven. Axial still has a few more years to prove it's reliability in the field. Higher loads and stresses, tighter tolerances could make the axial motors less reliable overall especially at mass market trims. Mercedes is probably over-engineering for reliability and performance on the premium car
Radial is also "good enough" for most applications. The efficiency, form factor and weight improvements of axial is nice, but they aren't the limiting factor. Radial is already highly efficient, reasonably light and small. The real level for weight is the battery
I'd like to see these if these can be scaled down into ebike size, or beyond that into micromobilty form factors that people carry around (like lightweight scooters and skateboards).
I remember when YASA announced it and when MB bought them. Amazing technology and advancement in electric motor design. Good to see they somehow try to commercialize it.
Four years ago, when YASA's invention was discussed on HN, it attracted very little interest. Mercedes apparently saw more potential and decided to invest.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31701133 Inside Yasa: how a British firm is revolutionising electric cars (2 points | 0 comments)
I know what a "motor" is and I know what "electric" means but I have no idea what an "electric axial flux motor" is. I'm pretty sure it's not what Doc Brown used to travel through time but it could be.
About once a week I think I'm too dumb to be on this site and today is that day. Off to duckduckgo to do some research.
Edit: it's actually pretty simple. Here is the wikipedia on them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor
It could use some more diagrams, but it makes the gist of it pretty simple to understand.
An interesting part here is probably manufacturing and not the motor itself : going from a prototype to something you can mass produce reliably is often the hard part
Glad YASA's achievements are being realised but the UK really needs to get it act together so we can fully realise the next tech breakthough.
I want to do an engine swap in my 1980s Toyota pickup (like on Back to the Future) from a 100 hp 22r to a 150-250 hp fuel injected inline 4 or turbodiesel to raise the thermodynamic efficiency from 20-25% to ~40% to nearly double fuel economy.
Unfortunately, most modern engines are transverse mounted. They can fit any transmission with an adapter plate, but then they're set too far back into the firewall to access stuff like the high-pressure fuel pump (which is often mounted on the transmission side for easy access on front wheel drive vehicles). I feel that's by design for planned obsolescence.
So I really wish that someone would offer a 4-6" thick 100-200 hp (100 kW) axial flux motor insert between the engine and transmission. Optionally with a simple battery management system (BMS) storing perhaps 5 kWh to provide up to 15-20 miles of electric range and hybrid fuel economy with regenerative braking.
If anyone knows of one, please let us know! If not, then those of you who won the internet lottery could make a killing investing in a novel product that everyone wants but doesn't know it yet.
You could swap the 2LTE engine, that’s the equivalent hilux diesel for 80s. You may have to import though, they are few and far between in the us.
Totally with you, I want more options for my Tacoma also!
I’ve been playing with idea of importing a lhd hilux from Mexico
something like a BMW 330e drivetrain has that (as do most German RWD hybrids), the biggest issue there is going to be the inverter and control software.
This video explained to me what an axial flux motor is and how it's different to radial flux.
Amazing what materials science achieving to get this sort of power as well as the engineering and manufacturing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCO633KE7RA
This is gonna be wild in a few years when these things are parted out the way tesla motors have been… Everything about these is crazy!
If you’re not caught up https://youtu.be/m507ryWhc6c?si=Hq3dfjXYxEIlYzeo
There isn't going to be a lot of improvement in overall EV performance/capability from better motors. Existing, boring motors are already close to 100% efficient, already small, and already powerful.
Advancements here chip away at margins, its nice but nothing to get super excited about. Whereas a modest ~20% increase in energy density from batteries would be amazing. Every little bit we improve there unlocks new capabilities. Towing long distances, smaller affordable economy cars and sports cars, airplanes, etc.
While you are eight at the efficiency part, motor designs like these reduce supply chain complexity, improve resiliency and bring costs down. So while this isn‘t going to give you more range, there certainly is a non trivial impact in stuff like that
The main benefit here seems to be smaller and lighter for the same power output.
Or the same size and same weight for MORE POWER!!1!
For years we've been seeing the hype about how axial flux electric motors will save 100 or even a couple of hundred pounds per car. Does this announcement mean we're finally starting to see the first increment of that actually happening?
(The motor is less important than the battery in terms of total weight, long term durability, etc. But nonetheless, any improvement helps!)
Tangential, how much regen can this system support?
For example, can a car with 200kW propulsion have a 400kW regen (Tesla has upto 65) and are cost effective like friction brakes?
Their founder/CTO discusses that here and their ability to match the braking power density of carbon ceramic brakes: https://youtu.be/B2Hl4c1iZK0?si=bCLQnfovjY7t-eYm&t=900
All motors are generators. It's only a matter of how you are creating the magnetic field with the stator windings.
In order to generate a higher regen, you'd have to somehow get more energy in the motor first... and since its only rated for 200kW, good ol' physics limits you, IF thats all the energy you put into the system.
If you roll it down a hill, or do something exotic like inverting the magnetic fields .... you can exceed the motor rating. But thats usually not recommended because the motor driver itself isnt rated to handle that power.
In general the rating of a motor is about heat dissipation, which in turn is a function of efficiency. What this means is you can exceed the rating by "some amount" for "some amount of time". Many motors are rated for not what they can deliver, but what they can deliver continuously without overheating, but you can get a lot more power out of them for a short time.
You're also ultimately limited at the point where the tires lose grip and start sliding. Which can vary a lot based on road surface and conditions.
> can a car with 200kW propulsion have a 400kW regen
At the motor level it should be the same, in propulsion you’re converting current to torque and in regen you’re converting torque to current, with the same hardware. The high voltage wiring is the same and will set the same limit on current regardless of direction.
I believe bidirectional inverters are generally symmetrical as well, so that should not be a factor.
Which I reckon leaves two factors:
1. Battery C rates, afaik pretty much all chemistries have a higher discharge rate than charge rate, especially when trying to maintain them for a long time, so by that account regen power would at most be the same as propulsion (if the entire power train is sized for the battery’s charging rate).
2. Artificial limitations, obviously you could always artificially under-prop, though that seems unlikely outside of niche applications.
tldr: I don’t think so, except on a technicality (that you can artificially hobble propulsion).
How far fetched is the idea to use Super-Capacitors to take up the energy generated by braking and then slowly feeding it to the battery at a rate that it supports?
The energy density on super capacitors is pretty bad. If you imagine full power 200kW braking for 5 seconds that's 1 mega joule and at a best case 8 watt hours per liter you're going to need 35 liters minimum. Really you probably need to double that so you can float up and down and never fully saturate the capacitor as power inflow is going to drop as you get closer and closer to fully charged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor
400kW regen is going to be a fairly alarming level of stopping for a normal vehicle. It's OK to leave emergencies to the friction brakes.
The idea is deleting the friction brakes entirely, saving costs, maintenance and weight.
And 400kW isn't really all that much for a sports car. I remember 911 ads from the '80s that boasted "brakes with more than 1000 horse power".
So how do you stop then if the batteries are (close to) fully charged? You'd need to shunt that power into a big resistive load, and then dump that heat.
I’ve long wondered why we don’t ditch the friction brakes.
Just have the battery stop charging and report 100% full when it’s only 98% (or whatever) so there is enough capacity for some solid emergency stops in the first few minutes of driving.
Even if you have to resort to the resistor, who cares? It’s not like this is a common scenario
That's fine, until someone charges their cabin up in Truckee and decides to drive down 80 to the central valley (a hour or so drive you can do in neutral).
Regenerative braking also loses a lot of its stopping power at slow speeds. Going from "slowly rolling forward" to "full stopped" takes a lot longer than the instantaneous it is with friction brakes.
You also need some sort of parking brake, and friction brakes do the job nicely.
Am I reading you right that breaking power (that you want to regenerate in the system) >> speeding power? Obvious now I come to think of it, and still pretty nifty new thing learned if true!
I am speculating but here might be reasons axial flux motors have advantage over radial flux motors:
1) torque: torque = applied force x length of the lever. Because the radial flux rotor must fit inside the stator, therefore radius << motor outside diameter. With the axial flux motor, the rotor is adjacent to the stator, therefore radius < motor outside diameter. Axial rotor radius > radial rotor radius.
2) space efficiency: in a radial flux motor you have 1 rotor, the coils arranged so that one end of the coil's magnetic field is useful to work on the rotor, the other end is not used. In an axial flux motor, (1) pancake rotor at each end of the coils, total (2) rotors, the coils can act on a rotor at each end. There is no free lunch here, to do useful work you still must provide more energy to the coil, but you can get the most from the space.
There must be someone here with a better handle on the electromagnetism, please correct me where I err.
Think of the motor as a barrel and you can decide whether you put the magnets covering the barrel walls or covering the top and bottom, and your goal is to have the most magnet surface. At short barrel lengths, you get more magnet surface if you cover the top and bottom instead of the walls.
The area of the top+bottom is (2 * pi * radius * radius)
The area of the wall is (2 * pi * radius * length)
For them to have equal magnet area, you need length to be equal to the radius, which is bad. That makes your motor really thick. In the axial design, you can make the motor thin and still have the same magnet area as before, so your motor now weighs a lot less.
If you want a visual of how significant this size difference is, this image shows the sizes of the two motor types in relation to each other at equal strength because the axial motor no longer needs any of the barrel length: https://imgur.com/qwe3tuH
My highlights:
> In the Coupé, the engine on the front axis is 9 cm (3.5 inch) wide, the two engines on the rear axis are 8 cm wide each (<3.2 inch).
> The fully electric "Performance" model accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.1 seconds.
ETA: Images of the engine:
https://media.mercedes-benz.com/article/bebac2af-acdc-465a-9...
https://media.mercedes-benz.com/article/bebac2af-acdc-465a-9...
So the engines have the same size of a disk brake?
That's incredible.
For family cars we need 4x 30-50 hp units. If the motor can weigh around 7 kg it can be placed directly on wheel. Adding durable brake discs (rarely used) and 2 inverters front ad back and we have the EV platform of the next 100 years
Motors in each wheel eats tires.
Personally, I'd rather see FWD with 1 100HP motor in a 2200-lb 4-seater under $20K US, but that will never happen as the supply is artificially constrained to create high-end cachet.
I assumed it was to target the most motivated, price-insensitive buyers while recouping fixed costs.
Agreed, but after this winter my next car has got to be AWD
do we need disk brakes?
Some EV models have gone back to drum brakes. The main drawback of drum brakes is overheating, which is why they can’t be used for performance vehicles, even though drum brakes can deliver more braking power. EVs with strong regenerative braking reduces pressure on the brakes, making the heat build-up less of a problem.
The main advantage of this is cost, not weight or performance, but it does show that EVs have different profile to ICE cars.
As opposed to relying solely on engine braking (or the EV equivalent thereof)?
I'd personally prefer a belt-and-suspenders approach.
Yes, you must be able to stop independently in the case of some kind of total power failure in the drivetrain.
Can regen brakes keep a car stopped? I would think that the braking force diminishes as the rotor speed approaches zero so it wouldn’t keep you in place on a steep hill, but I’m not sure.
In my experience, it’s usually but not always enough for the hills in SF. But more importantly, regen can’t handle emergency braking (it would generate too much current and heat), and you can’t regen at all if the motor loses its path to the battery.
Good point, I guess the motor could be engaged just enough to hold the car still on a slope but there might be heat issues doing that for too long. Mechanical brake will do that easily so also needed for that reason.
At the very least you need something to keep the car from rolling away when it's parked.
well you could have really cheap drum brakes that probably would last the lifetime of the vehicle. Maybe not even hydraulic - electro-mechanical with a mechanical (E brake) fallback.
even better a motor brake already is a thing. Its kinda of like air brakes, requires current to disengage and looks liek a little clutch thats slapped on the shaft or housing.
you'd need close to a megawatt of engine/inverter to only brake on regen.
Great overview on overcoming traditional motor flux saturation & density issues https://youtu.be/m507ryWhc6c?t=397
I wish this was produced in large-scale: https://www.koenigsegg.com/dark-matter
Ah, another fantastic British innovator (YASA) having to realize its potential (and ultimately the downstream economic benefits of commercialisation) abroad.
Brought to you by the only country to have a space programme and abandon it.
Britain didn't abandon it's space programme. It abandoned a launch rocket programme though. That was over 50 years ago and the rocket was less capable and more expensive than alternatives at the time.
What alternatives? By your logic only one country should have a launch rocket. Thankfully that’s not a world we live in because that makes no sense. But I’m happy for you if you can be content with a space programme without a rocket, that’s a nice low bar to live with, you can basically never miss.
Did they have to? My impression is British companies sell out as soon as they can these days. Is this something that could be changed with policy? Does Germany incentivise running companies more? Or is this cultural, e.g. British people are more risk averse?
I suspect it has more to do with Germany’s industrial scale in the automotive space (as opposed to incentives or culture).
Yeah. Traditional car makers have enormous demand for EV innovations. Germany has more and bigger traditional car makers.
It's very difficult to raise late stage capital in the UK, especially for deep tech. We invent so much but our capital ecosystem is all tied up in land and our pensions providers don't want to know.
The UK is by far the best country to raise venture capital in Europe, and is the third largest market in the world after the US and China...
> UK is by far the best country to raise venture capital in Europe
For late stage? Continental Europe has its banks and industrial policy. America and China have their deep pockets. Scaling out of the UK is incredibly hard, doubly so post Brexit, that’s why they sell early.
I think continental Europe has nothing on the UK when it comes to banks and financial markets. The UK has the deepest pockets in Europe because it is a hub for global capital. Brexit does not seem to have made a difference:
https://www.uktech.news/funding/late-stage-funding-surges-as...
Regarding AI (since that's the hot thing of the day), but IMO indicator of where the money is:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/funding-ai-...
[In the EU] "Most late-stage capital comes from the US and UK."
Now, regarding YASA, it isn't surprising that they were acquired by a car manufacturer. And, well, the UK has virtually none at this point...
To be clear, I think there is a tone of late-stage capital in the UK that gets invested in the U.S. I’d love to see data for total late-stage money raised by British versus EU companies.
>Continental Europe has its banks
UK has City of London that dwarfs the banks of continental Europe. we're talking big banks, Fintech, HFT, etc. When you deal with Austrian banks you realize they're 10-20 years behind the UK.
> and industrial policy
Continental Europe has a large but somewhat inefficient(compared to Asia) and heavily subsidized industrial policy, acting more a a jobs program for politicians chasing votes and state subsidies, that the UK gave up on during Thatcher(for better and worse), and stayed in the niche, low volume but highly important aerospace and defense parts that dwarfs that of continental Europe.
Ofc that also means the labor market in UK is very K-shaped. Highly paid skilled niche jobs in London and the university research centers, and then a wasteland everywhere else.
I think Germany has tax rules that make exits harder, whereas it's very easy in the UK to sell. If you have a more free market next to protective ones it makes sense that your IP is going to flow in that direction.
It’s cultural. It is not difficult to raise a lot of money in the UK. The problem is that the UK (government, investors, employees and employers) got so high on the margins of services and finance in the 90s, that it has never recovered from this all-consuming addiction. Everything else simply attracts no interest comparatively, economic diversification be damned.
> Brought to you by the only country to have a space programme and abandon it.
I mean, so did France; they both essentially folded theirs into ESA.
Seems like China is using them in buses already?
https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/cas-in-media/202606/t2026060...
Only slightly related but does anyone know anything about motors with magnetic bearings? As in, no contact or friction. I'm looking for a hardware project
There are fluid dynamic bearings which were used in VCRs and probably hard drives and definitely laser printer mirror motors - two sets of precise herringbone patterns cut into the ID of a bearing column and a tiny bit of oil that gets entrained between rotor shaft and that bearing column. As the motor speeds up the oil forms pressurized donuts. Only works at speed and generally only useful when there aren't side loads so applications are limited. Rolling element bearings are a quite developed technology and hard to beat in most applications.
I think air bearings exist? Maybe some prior art to consider
Oh yeah tons. I'm not looking to invent just tinker
Closest I can think of is flywheel "battery" storage tech many of which do have magnetic bearings and also some way to get power in and out of the flywheel so basically a motor. It's not exactly what you're looking for but there's prior art out there.
maglev but those do linear acceleration instead of rotational. seems tricky though for cars with such uneven surfaces.
I wonder if that is even possible since the whole point of the motor is an imbalance of magnetic forces.
According to Claude it requires active control. So complicated and only used in very niche applications.
Theoreticaly the rotor could float on top of the stator, although It it would have to be always on.
I would guess that hydro and other generator forms would benefit from this design as well?
Personally I’d love to see this make it’s way into power tools and CNC motors.
Probably not. A huge disadvantage of axial flux motors is they have a large number of poles, which means that they get less efficient at high speed because they require say 5x as much switching.
This makes them kind of unsuitable for power generation and really high power motors (despite their power density) where the main way you get more power is just to spin really fast.
The other disadvantage is they have such a low amount of material in them, that the stator overheats really easily. And the topology of the motor makes it really difficult to get the heat out efficiently, which again limits their maximum power.
Most generators don't have the size/weight constraints that this solves for.
Only if they could mass produce flux capacitor.
And reversed the polarity of the neutron flow.
I wonder, is axial flux motor as cool sci-fi sounding in German as it is in english?
Probably not, it is called „Axialflussmotor“ which is a literal translation. According to wikipedia, it is also called „Scheibenläufermotor“, but I‘ve only ever encountered the literal translation being used (but also not an engineer)
For a century Germany's comparative advantage has been [mechanical] engineering. As a European I want (need?) Germany to succeed. Ergo: more of this, please.
Yasa is a British company, for the record.
Their advantage was mechanical engineering. They have historically not done well with electrical systems. So this is a change - hopefully for the better.
That's not quite right.
For example Siemens and Bosch are large enterprises specialised in industrial scale electrical machines and parts (among other fields).
Infineon was spun off from Siemens 25 years ago an plays an important role in chip manufacturing for automative systems.
Electrical auxiliary stuff used to be and maybe still is a source of trouble. Power electronics should be fine, there's plenty of know-how available in the country, and with any luck, car companies won't have time to home-grow a mismanagement structure to fuck it up like they did with software.
Software and battery cells are the main challenges.
Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.
Mercedes-AMG GT 63, costs like 150k, no?
This headline claims large-scale production, but the article never indicates what that would be in terms of quantity per year.
Their motor is pretty cool. So are lots of other ideas and concepts. This is supposed to be about production. Arguably, the coolest thing about Yasa is the machines and process they have created to produce their motor in production quantities.
It disappoints me when an article promises to be about production but seems more to be a press release about the product.
I wish them well and would be excited to learn more about their actual production capacity.
Will it be expensive, unreliable, and repairable only by MB dealers? Much like their gas cars.
That is one angry looking car.
That is such a cool name!
hi
[dead]
[German] !!!!
It remains to produce the flux capacitor for time travel now :P
"axial flux motor" sounds like good progress towards the flux capacitor we've been waiting for
10 years behind Tesla, they are doomed
Actually, 137 years behind Tesla ;)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/axial-flux-motor-yasa
... Eh? No. No current large-scale production car uses axial flux motors. You're talking concept cars, plus a few oddities like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_Artura
I mean in EV's, a fancy expensive concept motor isn't going to help, autonomy should have been their direction 10 years ago, they are on the downward slope of their existence im afraid. Its the equivalent of Blockbuster adding a tape rewinding service to try and boost sales vs Netflix streaming.
That is also not guaranteed. VW (with its array of brands) leads the european BEV market by a lot. [1] (sorry I only found data for April 2026 right now but earlier months were similar)
One additional point of data. In Q1 of this year they delivered 200K BEV worldwide [2] while Tesla did 350k [3].
Calling that 10 years behind is not warranted in my opinion. I would agree to say competitive and challenged.
[1] https://cleantechnica.com/2026/06/01/europe-ev-sales-report-... [2] https://www.volkswagen-group.com/de/pressemitteilungen/volks... [3] https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-first-quarter-2026-...
Volume alone is a bad metric, Tesla makes profit on their EV's sales Mercedes makes a loss, not sustainable.
My understanding is that all current Teslas use radial flux motors
Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things. You will eventually struggle to choose to do something more efficient, as the european auto industry is currently displaying. The car where thid motor will be used will, given current market sentiment, be a massive flop. Here they are showing off how complex the manufacturing process is. Surely we’d all be better off with simpler and cheaper processes.
China is working on the same type of engine: https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/chinese-axial...
Ye, and I’d wager China will put that motor into affordable vehicles first, not some BS AMG GT 4 door/4 seat hyper car.
Mercedes always brings their latest technologies to the highest tier of cars first. Almost every major innovation has first debuted on the S class
This entire product is easier to build than the existing technology, has more simple tooling and will be simpler and cheaper.
Designing the manufacturing machinery is exactly what happens in any manufacturing process. Those robots are general purpose that have been adapted for the required tasks, that's a normal process.
Why would you build a motor that's twice as heavy with copper and much wider when you don't need to?
He says, typing on one of the most hideously complicated things humanity has created.
Efficiency and cost savings at scale usually involve an increase in complexity: in mass manufacturing, complexity is generally a fixed cost and so can be amortized over larger volumes.
By that logic we should all just be writing assembly manually. Screw hideously complicated higher level languages. Screw LLMs in particular, so complicated!
A typical modern car is already hideously complicated and a different type of motor would not change this.
What is the current market sentiment? Share of EVs is slowly rising so having a good motor as important as ever.
> Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things
Is Mercedes stupid?
How did Carl Benz dare to do something as hideously complicated as building the first gasoline-powered car in history?
And why did they kept inventing complicated stuff that ended in all modern cars like ABS, adaptive cruise control, direct fuel injection, emergency brake assist, etc, etc?
Not all of those inventions are bad. But not all of them are coming from a place of necessity. All of them do increase complexity. My gripe with Mercedes is not that they are constantly pushing boundaries on what can be done with more tech. My main gripe is that the EVs they are building are essentially as complex as the ICE cars and follow largely the same design principles as the ICE cars. For instance, in the EQS, instead of applying engine breaking when the driver takes their foot off the pedal, they went to great lengths to _move the break pedal_ in proportion to the amount of engine breaking that is currently being applied as per the VCUs command. And yet the door cards on the EQS are not up to the standard of an S class.
My main gripe with MB is that they have this new technology that could simplify things and let them build a better product. Instead of building around it, they shove it in to their existing designs. I was expecting an electric S class to be more akin to a Lucid Air sans the teething problems of a new company. Instead, we get weak attempts at solving non issues.
And whilst they are certainly not in the market of producing affordable vehicles, I would hope that using EV tech they could create a better version of their existing fleet. I do not think anyone buying an A class cares about the 4 popper under the hood - losing it and simplifying radically, in my mind at least, would give them more budget and leeway to create a more compelling product.
There may also be a sports-related reason for people who habitually left-foot brake.
It depends how much you draw from the motor/generator. One can modulate it as they want, whatever can't go into the battery due to chemistry or drive constraints can be disposed of as heat.
You clearly have never used a car like that. You develop muscle memory for where the pedal is - finding that the pedal is not where it used to be does not inspire much confidence.
Every other manufacturer has managed to control regen breaking via throttle modulation - even ICE hybrid cars have been doing that for ages.
I've used left-foot-braking in my (ICE-powered) daily driver for years.
Regenerative braking is very different to taking your foot off the accelerator in a conventional ICE car, it's much more powerful a stopping force than traditional engine-braking.
I understand the rationale for moving the pedal to illustrate the amount of "braking" force. I'll admit I'm not exactly a typical driver though.
Why not move the gas pedal too, when using cruise control then?
If you push the gas pedal, you'd expect to go faster, wouldn't you?
They used to, but not by design. Back when throttles were still cabled I could feel the cruise control doing its thing by lightly resting on the pedal.
The equilibrium of "good enough vs technological simplicity" for cars was probably reached in the 1950s. Everything after that was more or less solving "non-issues" with ever-increasing complexity ;)
And why had that cars be to be refueled in pharmacies?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wiesloch_Stadtapotheke_E...
Great, they finally started mass-producing 19th century technology, let's cheer that! Nowadays, while Chinese and Americans are producing GPUs, AI and li-ion batteries, German high-tech is an engine invented by Faraday