POWERTRAIN
Increasing the stiffness of an EV sideshaft can reduce wheel spin and extreme vibrations
SIDESHAFT DURABILITY
Taking the latest developments in powertrain
engineering, how can manufacturers improve the durability of sideshafts in electric vehicles?
T
he global transition to electrifi cation has brought a shift in the technical requirements for hardware
which has, historically, been engineered and optimised for conventional powertrains. Now, driveline components must withstand higher vehicle mass, greater acceleration torques, and up to 1,200Nm of braking force to enable key technologies like regenerative braking. However, fundamental diff erences
in the hardware requirements for an electric vehicle (EV) can be accommodated by redefi ning certain driveline components, so that they are optimised for the electric era, serving to improve the overall performance and durability of our cars.
08
www.engineerlive.com
EVALUATING THE DIFFERENCES The shift from front-wheel drive (FWD) to rear-wheel drive (RWD), favoured in EVs, and the increased weight of the battery packs have been two of the more signifi cant diff erences we’ve seen in vehicle dynamics in recent years. Unlike ICE-powered vehicles, which typically carry the majority of their weight on the front axle, the mass and dimensions of the battery pack in an EV alter the load distribution. The central location means that EVs generally have a lower centre of gravity and are more often positioned towards the rear axle. One of the major challenges of this extra weight, though, is that it
results in increased inertia of the vehicle and therefore higher torques both in acceleration and braking or in recuperation. This necessitates a shift in how suppliers develop, test and manufacture parts.
SIDESHAFT REQUIREMENTS As a direct result of e-drive units being larger than conventional ICE gearboxes, EV sideshafts are signifi cantly shorter than those in ICE vehicles, requiring diff erent mounting points and larger installation angles. As a result, we’re seeing increased plunge distances as well as changes to some basic requirements for the constant velocity (CV) joints.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
