What's your lowest avg Wh/mi to date?

“The land based oberth maneuver vehicle also weighs 2250kg and has 45kWh energy and follows a ramp (maglev in vacuum) which is 4.412km deep (equivalent to 30 second freefall in vacuum on Earth). It consists of a 1350kg passenger section (16.22kWh gravitational potential energy), 750kg water (9.01kWh gravitational potential energy), and a 150kg tank (1.8kWh gravitational potential energy) and 18.03kWh of electromechanical potential stored in capacitors in the track. The vehicle coasts down the ramp reaching about 294m/s at the bottom (657mph). The water tank is ahead of the passenger section on a long tether. On the flat section at the bottom of the ramp, the passenger section “reels in” then releases the tank with the 18.03kWh electromechanical potential, bringing the tank to a halt on the tracks (from conservation of momentum), transferring all its kinetic energy plus the mechanical impulse to the passenger section. After the mechanical impulse at the bottom of the ramp between the tank and passenger section, the 1350kg passenger section is traveling 1096mph, can go 135 miles in 7.38 minutes (about 15.6x faster). At $0.004/gallon the water costed $0.79 (less than 1/7th the energy cost). The ratio of kinetic energy to total kWH consumed with the land based oberth maneuver vehicle is about 100% (~99.3% more of the vehicle’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy).

After traveling up a second ramp back to the surface, the passenger section still has 28.8kWh of kinetic energy (which is all the mechanical impulse + the kinetic energy the water tank had at the bottom of the ramp). The water is emptied from the tank at the bottom of the ramp and only the empty tank is lifted (the water is left to evaporate, and rock temp increases with depth). Factoring regen braking with 70% kinetic-to-kinetic efficiency at the destination, and using some of the recovered energy to recharge the capacitors, and some of the energy lift the empty tank, there is still a 0.36kWh excess of recovered energy from the regen above and beyond the energy used to push the vehicle at the ramp bottom. The excess energy comes from the lowered gravitational potential energy of the water left to evaporate at the bottom of the tunnel. It isn’t perpetual motion because the vehicle requires gravitational potential energy to move itself forward, and geothermal and solar energy to lift the water out of the tunnel.

In summary the hypothetical land based oberth maneuver vehicle can theoretically go 15.6x faster, for less than 1/7th the energy cost, with the same amount of energy and mass as a Tesla Model S.“

Is it correct to assume a 6374 190kv will be more efficient than a 6355 190kv if it’s on the exact same set up

whichever has lower resistance will be more efficient but the larger one can probably take more current before it becomes magnetically saturated which means it would be capable of more torque & power.

when building motors it’s easier to get lower resistance from a larger size motor, but if the copper fill is low on the bigger motor it could be higher resistance & less efficient than the smaller one.

2 Likes

Bump this thread.
I calculated I get a very high 27wh/mile on my new build :confused:

elofty direct drives, cloud wheels, avg speed of 25-30km/h. Fast accel ride style, normal braking style.
60a batt max (total)
40a motor max (each)

Does this sound about right? Or is something eating my wh?

1 Like

Your weight and the terrain are the other factors you didnt mention, but otherwise it seems to be almost on par with what @Mikenopolis got :thinking:, maybe a little higher than him.

2 Likes

it’s those damn comfortable squishy wheels

3 Likes

i average at about 25ish Wh/m with dual 6374 on pneummies, 15/72t and my fat ass on it.

Did you change wheel diameter at all and match in settings?

Lowest I’ve gotten reasonably is about 21wh/mi on my MTB. Reasonable being not going slow slow. Really it’s acceleration and staying around 30mph that eats watt hours. If I’m having fun and going fast, it rises to about 30wh/mi

4 Likes

forgot to mention!
I’m 150lb and terrain was all bike lanes and paved roads.
“524m elevation gain” according to my app. Mostly 2 big hills

1 Like

Wait, what? In the VESC?
I’m not using METr. I’m just dividing my max range (in my riding style) by my battery wh

My unity was set for 110mm diameter urethane wheels and was calculating the distance and Wh used for me.

I was using 200mm diameter wheels lol.

1 Like

ohh, yeah doesnt apply in my case I guess

1 Like

After loosing 30 kilos (60pounds) and no snow I’m getting around 19 wh/km when cruising around, goes up to 25 when I’m in a hurry

2 Likes

I just got 13.6 wh/m on my Indigo love child build!
8"tires with 6380s! I bet I can triple that number tonight!

2 Likes

Nice!

So far on my MTB, 8 inch T3 tires, 30-40psi, I have been getting anywhere between 25 and 35wh/mi… It seems taking it easy doesn’t improve the situation too much, and pushing it real hard doesn’t change the situation much either. Maybe pumping the tires up to 70psi will make a difference… what’s your tire pressure?

Strange, how my DDs can consume anywhere from 10-12 all the way up to like 40wh/mi depending on taking it easy or pushing it, those things eat amps like Pac-Man.

Grats on the weight dude… I’m working on it myself, been avoiding hot pockets as best I can, snacking on broccoli and nuts, drinking green tea and upping my cardio lately since covid quarantine gifted me with 20lbs.

I was talking it really easy because it was a shakedown run on the new build. I was at 45psi

2 Likes


Anyone know how to change metr to imperial?

1 Like

Klick the Arrow below the km/h stat.

In the new window you can use Imperial or metric

additionally under Settings in “Miscellaneous” you can find System aka Metric or imperial

1 Like

totally relate, also small and lite (unstable) boards helps a lot reducing the consumption : you just go 15km/h all the way