Mk II Cyclone

[Quicken]

I have seen the cyclone drive-through-the-gears kit mentioned here, but am not sure if the Mk II version is the same one people have talked about already.

MkII Cyclone

The road-legal 180W version is rated like this:

Max speed 3600Rpm
Rated speed 2600Rpm
Rated output 180W
Max output 350W
Rated Torque 9.1Kg-cm
Max Torque 22Kg-cm
Rated Amp 9.5A
Insulation class E class
Driver Built in
Control method PWM
Ambient temperature -15C~40C
Efficiency: 97.6%
weight 1.1Kg

Elsewhere on the egopt site, there is a which kit? page (it doesn't have a unique link), where the cyclone kit is compared with the nano, currie electrodrive, and heinzmann motors. On the Cyclone, it say this:

The Cyclone aims to do what the better purpose-built electric bikes can do - drive the chain/crank and so let you use the gears. It can tackle the steepest hills, yet take you to the full legal speed - and then some!. Because of the wide variations in frame geometry and chainwheels, it isn't a 'universal fit' kit, but it does have special appeal to recumbents, trikes and some road bikes.

It offers a choice of 3 motor powers, various parts to aid fitting and a half-grip speed control. The MkII system uses an in-line gearbox and motor assembly driving a 12T 3/8" sprocket. Like the electro-drive, the speed controller is integrated with the motor.

Pros
Motor speed and torque can be adapted to the road conditions using the gears
Range of motor powers (180W, 360W & 500W)
Ideal for bikes with long chain runs, such as recumbents, trikes and small-wheel, long wheelbase folders

Cons
Hard to fit - needs expertise
24V less desirable for high power motors
(freewheel) Chainwheel only available in 44T
Pedal cranks need to be wide apart - dog-leg cranks supplied and new bottom bracket may be needed
Small installed base

Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Q

 

[flecc]

Nearly all true, though the reference to inline motor and gearbox is misleading. They're not, they're transverse.

Reports I've heard on the 180 watt legal version is that it's a bit gutless, not surprising as it's peak is 350 watts, low by today's standards. Even the Twist unit which was accepted as being low powered raised 390 watts. In both cases they make up for this by using the gears of course, but it means you need patience when climbing hills, especially if a Quando flies past at twice your speed with the rider not pedalling.

I would go for the 350 watt personally if going the Cyclone route

Judging by the videos, it's also a bit noisy in Currie fashion, much noisier than today's hub motors. Doubtless this is in part due to the spur gear drive chain, there being no space or budget within the price for helicals.

Still the best way to drive a bike, but there's so little available space, especially width, for an add-on like this, the design is compromised, the motor and gearbox being restricted despite the spread of the crank system for the rider. It could be better with an inline drive like the TGA Electrobike, but the worm drive losses are encountered then.
.

 

[coops]

motor power ratings - input or output?

Hi Flecc

Just wondered if you can help clarify something...

Reports I've heard on the 180 watt legal version is that it's a bit gutless, not surprising as it's peak is 350 watts, low by today's standards. Even the Twist unit which was accepted as being low powered raised 390 watts. In both cases they make up for this by using the gears of course, but it means you need patience when climbing hills, especially if a Quando flies past at twice your speed with the rider not pedalling.

Any idea if these figures (and likewise the torq/quando's 570W) are the peak power input (i.e. total power supplied into motor from battery) or output (i.e. actual useful/effective power output to drive wheels, after inefficiency losses)?

Are the peak power figures manufacturers give out usually one or the other?

(Though, more often there's just one figure given, and thats usually the continuous power rating - often the most output at or near max efficiency of motor... is that right?)

This confusion has been niggling at me for a bit and some clarification would be good

Stuart.

 

[Miles]

It must be good, it has a peak efficiency of 97%.

 

[flecc]

They seem to vary quite a bit Stuart, it's often not possible to find out. The 576 watt peak on the Torq/Quando is power consumption, but the efficiency is very high so the difference isn't great at the best points on the power curve. Because of the lack of information in this industry, for calculation purposes it's often necessary to make assumptions based around what facts are known and any actual performance indicators known. Back calculation in other words, and comparison with others where information is known. I also carry out physical performance checks where possible to verify.

If any manufacturer or supplier doesn't like the assumptions and conclusions I draw, tough, they've only themselves to blame for the lack of information for customers. They need to learn from the motor industry and supply full technical information as well as the propaganda. That's an important part of how customer trust is built. Message over and hopefully understood by those who need to know!

The figures for the Twist and Cyclone are low enough relative to the rating for us to fairly safely assume they're the effective power output or close to it. In the case of the Twist, the performance supports that assumption
.

 

[coops]

They seem to vary quite a bit Stuart, it's often not possible to find out. The 576 watt peak on the Torq/Quando is power consumption, but the efficiency is very high so the difference isn't great at the best points on the power curve. Because of the lack of information in this industry, for calculation purposes it's often necessary to make assumptions based around what facts are known and any actual performance indicators known. Back calculation in other words, and comparison with others where information is known. I also carry out physical performance checks where possible to verify.

If any manufacturer or supplier doesn't like the assumptions and conclusions I draw, tough, they've only themselves to blame for the lack of information for customers. They need to learn from the motor industry and supply full technical information as well as the propaganda. That's an important part of how customer trust is built. Message over and hopefully understood by those who need to know!

The figures for the Twist and Cyclone are low enough relative to the rating for us to fairly safely assume they're the effective power output or close to it. In the case of the Twist, the performance supports that assumption
.

Thanks Flecc, just as I thought & agree completely on the 2nd paragraph/point! I'm interested to know roughly how efficient the torq/quando motor is (is it an incorrect assumption that the same motor should run at same-ish peak power and efficiency at "optimum" motor/wheel rpm in each bike, albeit at different bike travel speeds due to wheelsize difference?...) - the highest peak efficiency for hub motors that I've seen torque graphs for (incl. some crystalyte) is about 75-80%, 85%ish exceptionally - and if this info is not given, an approximation based on physical performance measurements in various terrains is still useful.

It would be interesting to compare the performance of a bike with the torq/quando motor, but with the same wheelsize as e.g. a twist, for power & range in such conditions - as you've said, the former packs a punch & has higher peak power output (576W minus small inefficiency losses) while the latter is lower at 390W but has very high efficiency... maybe it'll never happen anyway!

Stuart.

 

[flecc]

I think it a generally fair assumption that efficiency remains the same for different wheel sizes/gearing, as long as the overgearing doesn't go too far. In this respect the Torq can easily be borderlined by a rider. With a fit rider doing their bit as the design intends, it's perfectly ok, but when a rider's input falls short of that, the bike behaves as being very overgeared. The performance fluctuates widely with very small changes in conditions, such as a slight slope or a bit of headwind, so the motor easily gets pushed down into the current wasting region below maximum torque, that's below 12 mph. For good range, it's important the rider makes up enough to keep it at that or more when the throttle is open.

The normally geared Quando, with the same power but peak torque in the 8+ mph region, keeps itself above that with contemptuous ease in all but the worst situations. Even on a 14% hill, the rider need only casually twirl the pedals with barely any pressure to keep at 10 mph. I sometimes wonder if it really needs me at all.

The old Twist's overall efficiency came from several sources:

It's software being sparing with the way the power was doled out by measuring all the time the rider input and drawing clever conclusions from that what was really needed rather than just doling out the full amount all the time.

The low drag rideability of the bike with a handy handlebar on/off meaning that whenever motor help wasn't needed, the rider switched off. I always left home without switching on, only doing that when the first hill arrived. To encourage switching off, the motor made a slight swooshing sound with the pedal thrusts, not unpleasant, but enough to make one prefer riding without power whenever it was convenient. Whether deliberate or not, it was a clever touch.

The virtual total disconnection of all motor elements when cycling without power or on overrun downhill, so no extra drag and no waste of kinetic energy.

The light weight at 22 kilos, coupled with tyres that weren't too large profile or high drag.

Hub motors can never do all those things, so comparison is difficult. I've just read the test of the new Twist with hub motor, and that makes it painfully apparent how much it's lost.
.

 

[flecc]

I'm still puzzled by the Mark II reference on the Cyclone motors. Those on the UK site appear identical to the ones that have been there for ages. Going to the manufacturers site doesn't show any differences either, the photos and specifications being unchanged for a very long time.

The powers appear the same, the statement that the Mark II is inline is, as I've mentioned above, incorrect. The illustrated motors and gearboxes are clearly transverse as before.

I think it's probably been Mark II for a long time.

 

[Quicken]

I'm still puzzled by the Mark II reference on the Cyclone motors. Those on the UK site appear identical to the ones that have been there for ages. Going to the manufacturers site doesn't show any differences either, the photos and specifications being unchanged for a very long time.

The powers appear the same, the statement that the Mark II is inline is, as I've mentioned above, incorrect. The illustrated motors and gearboxes are clearly transverse as before.

I think it's probably been Mark II for a long time.

Thanks for the link Flecc. Interestingly, there is a 250W version listed there. Wouldn't that be borderline road legal, given the confusing UK/european legislation here at the moment? Also, if someone were to buy the 360W kit here, how would the police know it's nominal rated output? Couldn't you just claim it was the lower powered version?

Cheers,
Q

 

[flecc]

That's definitely what I'd do, get the 360 watt, peaking at 480 watts. That's still not powerful, but probably as much as cycle gearing systems could stand for a while anyway.

It's the lack of sophistication and Currie style noise that held me back from pursuing it, but I've no doubt it would do the job well, especially for a very hilly area. They've got English speakers in the Taiwan business if you do pursue it, I've had emails from there from a lady named Savanah who is very helpful.

 

[Quicken]

That's definitely what I'd do, get the 360 watt, peaking at 480 watts. That's still not powerful, but probably as much as cycle gearing systems could stand for a while anyway.

It's the lack of sophistication and Currie style noise that held me back from pursuing it, but I've no doubt it would do the job well, especially for a very hilly area. They've got English speakers in the Taiwan business if you do pursue it, I've had emails from there from a lady named Savanah who is very helpful.

Actually, both websites say the 360W rated version peaks at 550W, not 480W. Having no experience of electric bikes, I really don't know how loud to expect this to be.

Cheers,
Q

 

[flecc]

That was from memory on previous site visits, so perhaps they've uprated it a bit after all. I'm judging the sound on that video of the "Beast", the climb up that St Pauls hill on that UK site. Although admittedly the camera was near to the motor, it's noticeable that the cars climbing the hill as they overtake are suspiciously silent, indicating a low sound level setting. The Cyclone sound is very similar in nature to the Currie as well.
.

 

[Miles]

Yahoo! Groups

 

[flecc]

Since my above posting I've learnt of a big issue on weather vulnerabilty, rain leakage and severe corrosion. For me it put a further nail in it's coffin.
.