554
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

An engine for a third of the price of my weekly shopping trip….thats ace.

/s

[-] comrade19@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

300-400kW continuously should be the headline. Thats impressive. Lots of motors can try and make 1000hp if you feed them enough voltage but only for a split second before they overheat and burn out. I wonder how long it can do this 1000HP.

[-] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago

Until someone tests it independently, this should be considered BS.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 day ago

I'll give them some credence based on the cars their motors are already used in and the fact that their parent company is Mercedes-Benz. Doesn't look like they're a bunch of grifters seeking investment.

[-] chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I suppose, but I'm skeptical of car manufacturer claims, too, until independent testing is done.

I hope this is real and think it's awesome, but will wait to see if they exaggerated.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

Well, the peak output is a useless number, that's just record chasing. I think the continuous output is the number we should be looking at. That is a bit more believable and also started in the article that that number is an estimate for now.

So IMO they're not making any wild claims. There's "we measured this huge output for a short burst" and "we think that over a long period, it can do this slightly smaller, but still impressive number, but it needs to be verified"

Will be cool to find out if the continuous output is close to their estimate of course, but even if it's lower, it's still impressive by virtue of the super low weight.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 54 points 2 days ago
[-] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Did they update the page since you commented? I see kw and kg on there... 🤷

Now latest testing of an even lighter 12.7kg version on a more powerful dynamometer has shattered this record, with a staggering 750kW (>1000bhp) short-term peak rating, resulting in a new unofficial power density record of 59kW/kg

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 26 points 2 days ago

28 pounds = 12.7kg, for those wondering.

[-] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

But, how much is that in baby elephants?

[-] Gonzako@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Roughly a tenth of a baby elephant, or around two round trips of your neurons on a single line reaching the moon

[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago

Bro got that galaxy brain. Average is about 1.4 kgs, or roughly .5% of a giraffe for you standard pedants.

[-] Gonzako@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

It's the lead I eat every day. Helps keep my brain heavy and smooth

[-] BilSabab@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

cant wait for corporations to crush the competition with some bullshit yet again and then complain that we're at peak EV tech anyway

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Ah good thing the batteries are not the heavy part of the system otherwise this would be awkward.

[-] kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 days ago

This motor weighs 12.7 kilograms and has 1000hp. How much does a comparable motor weigh?

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Honytawk@feddit.nl 10 points 2 days ago

The size is less of an issue than the power usage.

Does it also use 1000% more power to get that strength?

The only real benefit in that case would be robot mech suits.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 days ago

I'm assuming the efficiency is similar to other electric motors. Maybe not the best, but likely acceptable. If it's not, the product is DOA.

If my assumption holds true, it would allow for lighter cars and better packaging by making even more room for the battery near the bottom of the car since these engines are so small, you could easily just use one per driven wheel and forget about differentials and such. And hybrids that put the motor in a ZF 8HP transmission could have wayyyyy more power available from the electric bit, as space is sorta constrained there.

I think trains could also benefit from a weight loss IF these are durable enough. They have multiple motors usually.

Weight is important in vehicles not just because of energy efficiency, but because the more sprung mass you have, the more work the suspension needs to do. And unsprung mass is even worse, so ideally your motors are sprung mass. Currently weight is still a bit of an issue for EVs due to the batteries, but if they can make up for it a bit by having super light weight motors, the difference between EV weight and ICE weight becomes smaller. Weight is also super important to road wear, I think it is by 4th power. So 20% heavier means twice as much wear already.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] solrize@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 days ago

1000 hp = 0.75 MW. If 98% efficient that's 15KW of heat dissipation Sounds like a subsystem bigger than the motor.

[-] pokexpert30@jlai.lu 3 points 1 day ago

I mean an ICE output more heat than power. So a 150kW ice engine requires like, 200kW heat dissipation ?

[-] kalkulat@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

Yep, I noticed that, you're right. And that's near-miraculous efficiency. The maker's website sez: "YASA also estimates that its all-important continuous power will be in the region of 350kW-400kW (469bhp-536bhp)." It also sez: "To achieve a 750kW short-term peak rating and a density of 59kW/kg ... " Devi'ls in the details ... The image on the 'superblondie' page shows A LOT of cooling built into whatever metal that is: https://supercarblondie.com/wp-content/uploads/YASA-tiny-electric-motor.webp

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] shininghero@pawb.social 35 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I wonder if we'll ever get enough standardization across EVs so people can start doing the electric equivalent of an LS swap.
I could see this being done on a Slate truck, along with an auxiliary EV battery bolted in the back.

[-] frezik 46 points 3 days ago

It's more about the batteries than the motor. You can make a motor that sucks down as much power as you want. The battery can't necessarily provide that without damage.

[-] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago

Could power it with a gas turbine 😅

[-] Truscape 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Hopefully solid-state batteries (once their production manages to ramp up to consumer vehicle scale) could allow for higher capacity and power delivery without the limitations or safety risks of current battery tech.

[-] frezik 25 points 3 days ago

I mean, I guess. Power output isn't what I'm really hoping for on new battery tech. What we have is perfectly capable of 0-60 times that only thoroughbred performance street cars can meet (like Ariel Atom territory), and the top speed is plenty.

Once you're putting down 500hp, tires start to become a limiting factor. The torque that goes behind that number can stress the limit on all but the largest tires with the stickiest compounds.

Safety, range, and weight reduction of new battery tech are great, though.

[-] SoleInvictus 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yep, I have an EV and the way my partner drove it just eats through tires. We're talking about $1.5k, 50k mile warranty tires being replaced at 20-25k because someone liked to pretend they're a fucking astronaut on launch day.

Not bitter.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago

We StRaPpEd MaGnEtS tO rEcLaIm EnErGy!!!w

[-] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Downvoted for alternating case

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 15 points 3 days ago

Once I figured out it was an axial flux prototype motor this whole article made sense.

[-] Exec@pawb.social 5 points 2 days ago

So when are we going to see these in trains?

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 days ago

Trains don't benefit much from lesser weight.

Drones, and planes are the most likely to benefit from this.

[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Quite the opposite, you want the locomotive to be as heavy as possible without exceeding axle or track load limits. The heavier it is, the more weight it can pull before slipping the wheels.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

"YASA" sounds like a mashup between YMCA and NASA. Even their logo looks like the Y's.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] teft@piefed.social 13 points 3 days ago

I'm gonna slap one on my fixie.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
554 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76648 readers
3075 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS