"In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing."
“What“ might be a long answer, but why anyone might want one is to have increased torque density for the given volume and diameter. So they are thin motors where the generated flux is parallel to the shaft. And they are like the standard PMSMs where you apply the same driving algorithm from the inverter side to use them.
> In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing.
For the AMG GT4 there will be 3 motors: two at the rear, and one at the front.
My interpretation (and my German's pretty lousy) is that each motor is combined with a gear system in a single package, and they're calling the overall package (motor plus gears) a High Performance Electric Drive Unit (HP.EDU).
The two rear motors will probably be independent, so no need for a mechanical rear diff (it'll be electronically controlled).
There's no mention of a front diff, so it's unknown whether that's built into the front HP.EDU or is a separate mechanical diff).
I remember when YASA announced it and when MB bought them. Amazing technology and advancement in electric motor design. Good to see they somehow try to commercialize it.
Ah, another fantastic British innovator (YASA) having to realize its potential (and ultimately the downstream economic benefits of commercialisation) abroad.
Brought to you by the only country to have a space programme and abandon it.
Did they have to? My impression is British companies sell out as soon as they can these days. Is this something that could be changed with policy? Does Germany incentivise running companies more? Or is this cultural, e.g. British people are more risk averse?
It's very difficult to raise late stage capital in the UK, especially for deep tech. We invent so much but our capital ecosystem is all tied up in land and our pensions providers don't want to know.
I think Germany has tax rules that make exits harder, whereas it's very easy in the UK to sell. If you have a more free market next to protective ones it makes sense that your IP is going to flow in that direction.
Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things. You will eventually struggle to choose to do something more efficient, as the european auto industry is currently displaying. The car where thid motor will be used will, given current market sentiment, be a massive flop. Here they are showing off how complex the manufacturing process is. Surely we’d all be better off with simpler and cheaper processes.
By that logic we should all just be writing assembly manually. Screw hideously complicated higher level languages. Screw LLMs in particular, so complicated!
> Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things
Is Mercedes stupid?
How did Carl Benz dare to do something as hideously complicated as building the first gasoline-powered car in history?
And why did they kept inventing complicated stuff that ended in all modern cars like ABS, adaptive cruise control, direct fuel injection, emergency brake assist, etc, etc?
Not all of those inventions are bad. But not all of them are coming from a place of necessity. All of them do increase complexity. My gripe with Mercedes is not that they are constantly pushing boundaries on what can be done with more tech. My main gripe is that the EVs they are building are essentially as complex as the ICE cars and follow largely the same design principles as the ICE cars. For instance, in the EQS, instead of applying engine breaking when the driver takes their foot off the pedal, they went to great lengths to _move the break pedal_ in proportion to the amount of engine breaking that is currently being applied as per the VCUs command. And yet the door cards on the EQS are not up to the standard of an S class.
My main gripe with MB is that they have this new technology that could simplify things and let them build a better product. Instead of building around it, they shove it in to their existing designs. I was expecting an electric S class to be more akin to a Lucid Air sans the teething problems of a new company. Instead, we get weak attempts at solving non issues.
And whilst they are certainly not in the market of producing affordable vehicles, I would hope that using EV tech they could create a better version of their existing fleet. I do not think anyone buying an A class cares about the 4 popper under the hood - losing it and simplifying radically, in my mind at least, would give them more budget and leeway to create a more compelling product.
It would have been awesome if that article had, at any point, explained what an electric axial flux motor was, and why anyone might want one.
Click "More" and scroll down:
"In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing."
“What“ might be a long answer, but why anyone might want one is to have increased torque density for the given volume and diameter. So they are thin motors where the generated flux is parallel to the shaft. And they are like the standard PMSMs where you apply the same driving algorithm from the inverter side to use them.
It's a bit buried, but it does:
> In contrast to conventional radial flux motors, the electromagnetic flux in an axial flux motor runs parallel to the axis of rotation. The key components are arranged in a disc‑shaped layout: two rotors sandwich the stator from the left and right. This design enables an especially compact motor architecture, high power and torque density, and new freedoms in drivetrain packaging. In the new Mercedes‑AMG GT 4‑Door Coupe, the motor at the front axle is just under nine centimetres wide; the two motors at the rear axle each measure around eight centimetres in width. The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle into so‑called High Performance Electric Drive Units (HP.EDU), where they are combined with a compact input planetary gearbox in a single housing.
> The three axial flux motors are integrated per axle
I wonder why they need tree motors per axle.
The translation's a little woolly.
For the AMG GT4 there will be 3 motors: two at the rear, and one at the front.
My interpretation (and my German's pretty lousy) is that each motor is combined with a gear system in a single package, and they're calling the overall package (motor plus gears) a High Performance Electric Drive Unit (HP.EDU).
The two rear motors will probably be independent, so no need for a mechanical rear diff (it'll be electronically controlled).
There's no mention of a front diff, so it's unknown whether that's built into the front HP.EDU or is a separate mechanical diff).
It's poorly worded. There aren't three motors per axle, there are three motors total: one on the front axle and two on the rear axle.
I got the impression that there were three motors altogether and they were integrated with the axles.
It's basically the V8 of electric motors. Different topology results in better power to weight ratio. From the outside they look pancake shaped.
https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Flux_capacitor .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_flux_motor
Here's a good video on it from my watch history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCO633KE7RA
Tangential, how much regen can this system support?
For example, can a car with 200kW propulsion have a 400kW regen (Tesla has upto 65) and are cost effective like friction brakes?
I remember when YASA announced it and when MB bought them. Amazing technology and advancement in electric motor design. Good to see they somehow try to commercialize it.
Glad YASA's achievements are being realised but the UK really needs to get it act together so we can fully realise the next tech breakthough.
This is gonna be wild in a few years when these things are parted out the way tesla motors have been… Everything about these is crazy!
If you’re not caught up https://youtu.be/m507ryWhc6c?si=Hq3dfjXYxEIlYzeo
Ah, another fantastic British innovator (YASA) having to realize its potential (and ultimately the downstream economic benefits of commercialisation) abroad.
Brought to you by the only country to have a space programme and abandon it.
Did they have to? My impression is British companies sell out as soon as they can these days. Is this something that could be changed with policy? Does Germany incentivise running companies more? Or is this cultural, e.g. British people are more risk averse?
It's very difficult to raise late stage capital in the UK, especially for deep tech. We invent so much but our capital ecosystem is all tied up in land and our pensions providers don't want to know.
The UK is by far the best country to raise venture capital in Europe, and is the third largest market in the world after the US and China...
I think Germany has tax rules that make exits harder, whereas it's very easy in the UK to sell. If you have a more free market next to protective ones it makes sense that your IP is going to flow in that direction.
I suspect it has more to do with Germany’s industrial scale in the automotive space (as opposed to incentives or culture).
Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things. You will eventually struggle to choose to do something more efficient, as the european auto industry is currently displaying. The car where thid motor will be used will, given current market sentiment, be a massive flop. Here they are showing off how complex the manufacturing process is. Surely we’d all be better off with simpler and cheaper processes.
China is working on the same type of engine: https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/chinese-axial...
Ye, and I’d wager China will put that motor into affordable vehicles first, not some BS AMG GT 4 door/4 seat hyper car.
Mercedes always brings their latest technologies to the highest tier of cars first. Almost every major innovation has first debuted on the S class
By that logic we should all just be writing assembly manually. Screw hideously complicated higher level languages. Screw LLMs in particular, so complicated!
He says, typing on one of the most hideously complicated things humanity has created.
> Never become dependent on doing hideously complicated things
Is Mercedes stupid?
How did Carl Benz dare to do something as hideously complicated as building the first gasoline-powered car in history?
And why did they kept inventing complicated stuff that ended in all modern cars like ABS, adaptive cruise control, direct fuel injection, emergency brake assist, etc, etc?
Not all of those inventions are bad. But not all of them are coming from a place of necessity. All of them do increase complexity. My gripe with Mercedes is not that they are constantly pushing boundaries on what can be done with more tech. My main gripe is that the EVs they are building are essentially as complex as the ICE cars and follow largely the same design principles as the ICE cars. For instance, in the EQS, instead of applying engine breaking when the driver takes their foot off the pedal, they went to great lengths to _move the break pedal_ in proportion to the amount of engine breaking that is currently being applied as per the VCUs command. And yet the door cards on the EQS are not up to the standard of an S class.
My main gripe with MB is that they have this new technology that could simplify things and let them build a better product. Instead of building around it, they shove it in to their existing designs. I was expecting an electric S class to be more akin to a Lucid Air sans the teething problems of a new company. Instead, we get weak attempts at solving non issues.
And whilst they are certainly not in the market of producing affordable vehicles, I would hope that using EV tech they could create a better version of their existing fleet. I do not think anyone buying an A class cares about the 4 popper under the hood - losing it and simplifying radically, in my mind at least, would give them more budget and leeway to create a more compelling product.