Power in Flux
Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Is the R that different from the One?

              
   
   
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Clarksville, TN, United States
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    My Social Networking

    Follow jazclrint On Twitter

    Is the R that different from the One?

    So I found the Motorcyclist all electric issue the other day and re-read it. There are some things I noticed. The R only has a few more ponies (like 5 or so), the same amount of torque, pretty much the same size battery pack (14kWh, and don't know if they were rounding), and the chassis was designed by the same guy that has done the R. Clearly the chassis design is a huge leap forward, and I don't know if the same person has done the skin on both, but it appears, that the heart of the bike is pretty much unchanged.

    What are your guys thoughts?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pacifica, California
    Posts
    2,919
    Post Thanks / Like
    My thought is that the Mission One was supposed to be a prototype of a DOT street-legal high-spec performance motorcycle that Mission Motors intended to build in the near future (which was a year ago). Apparently, Mission Motors rethought their business plan and decided that becoming a motorcycle manufacturer was not for them. They then morphed the One into the R race bike, to demonstrate their technology to companies who might be looking to get into the EV business and don't want to develop their own technology but might be interested in leasing the tech from Mission. So the Mission R is just a vehicle designed to prove their concepts and to grab headlines by (hopefully) wining races.

    Personally, considering the difficulty and cost to manufacture and sell EVs, I think they made the right decision. I wish Electric Motorsport had gone in that direction and stuck with selling EV kits as they do now. If they had done that, I would have bought a Brammo - which would have made my life a lot easier.

  3. #3
    Moderator Nuts & Volts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    1,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    I spend a lot of time watching videos from Mission and the TT zerp yesterday just for the hell of it.

    These are my findings. The chassis is definitely different all around. The mission one had a large skeleton like tube frame with battery boxes spread all around (may be wrong on the battery box). The One had a conventional swingarm setup. The R has the double side trellis frame along the sides with the single large battery box. It also has the custom single sided swingarm.

    The motor controller between the two looked very much the same, with the R have a more refined model. 100kw model which is weird because that is only 134HP will the motor is 141HP ?? maybe a little overdrive

    The suspension setup looked pretty much the same on both. The rear shock is in the same orientation on both.

    The motor properly has the same dimensions for both but the R most likely has a better cooling system, improved winding, and/or improved rotor. Looking at specs both motors rev to 6500RPM, but the One motor only has 100 ftlbs will the R has 115ftlbs throughout the powerband.

    The battery is the same in both it seems. The R is definitely 14.4kWh and I determined that from the charging times presented for the One (120V= 8hours charge time) is 120V*15A*8hours=14.4kWh. Works with 240V as well, 240*30A*2hours=14.4kWh.

    To answer your question it seems like the heart is pretty much the same with some advancements
    Whats under my tank may shock you!!! R6 Build, Blog/, [/URL] OSU Current webpage

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    294
    Post Thanks / Like
    HTML Code:
    Looking at specs both motors rev to 6500RPM, but the One motor only has 100 ftlbs will the R has 115ftlbs throughout the powerband.
    That 6500RPM figure is listed as the max torque range, meaning the motor produces maximum torque from 0-6500 RPM. I believe the motor revs far beyond that, more in the range of 12000 RPM, otherwise they would have no need for their primary reduction gearbox.

  5. #5
    Moderator Nuts & Volts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    1,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cycleguy View Post

    That 6500RPM figure is listed as the max torque range, meaning the motor produces maximum torque from 0-6500 RPM. I believe the motor revs far beyond that, more in the range of 12000 RPM, otherwise they would have no need for their primary reduction gearbox.
    good call, I think the places I have read information from have mis-stated the 6500 as max. Most induction motors I have seen can rev to 10k+.

    Thou if the mission R is geared for 160mph and 12k on the motor then they only get max torque between 0-85mph, that wouldnt seem like the best use of that constant torque range? I dont know what kind of corner speeds racers have so maybe that is the best geared. The primarary reduction box may also be used to accommodate motor placement. Im just speculating
    Whats under my tank may shock you!!! R6 Build, Blog/, [/URL] OSU Current webpage

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Clarksville, TN, United States
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    My Social Networking

    Follow jazclrint On Twitter
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuts & Volts View Post
    good call, I think the places I have read information from have mis-stated the 6500 as max. Most induction motors I have seen can rev to 10k+.

    Thou if the mission R is geared for 160mph and 12k on the motor then they only get max torque between 0-85mph, that wouldnt seem like the best use of that constant torque range? I dont know what kind of corner speeds racers have so maybe that is the best geared. The primarary reduction box may also be used to accommodate motor placement. Im just speculating
    I would say that since the bike hasn't seen the track yet, they don't know what corner speeds they'll be seeing either. But, obviously corner speed depends totally on the corner, so from what I've seen watching racing, anywhere from 30 to 120 mph, depending. But I would think full torque from 0-85 would make for a hell of a sling shot. But since HP is completely related to RPM, and we are looking at 141hp, then I am sure there is still enough power after peak torque. Man I want to see this thing crush one of the euro . . . ah, I mean on the track.
    Last edited by jazclrint; 19 February 2011 at 1751.

  7. #7
    Moderator Nuts & Volts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    1,792
    Post Thanks / Like
    yea jazclrint, i figured it depended on type of corner, but really have no clue about the speed. That range is what I interested. Well after constant torque range, most motor have a somewhat constant power range (torque falls) so after 85mph the bike will not be able to pull as hard. So i have to agree with cycleguy that the motor will rev up to 12k RPM.
    Whats under my tank may shock you!!! R6 Build, Blog/, [/URL] OSU Current webpage

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Clarksville, TN, United States
    Posts
    683
    Post Thanks / Like

    My Social Networking

    Follow jazclrint On Twitter
    Sorry, I tend to state the obvious, just for clarification's sake.

    Any ideas on why the torque number is lower than the hp number? All of the power numbers I've seen on electric motors has the peak torque about double the hp. Is it the high RPMs? Because these numbers look more like peak numbers for ICE engines.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •