In this technical analysis, we will provide an objective comparison between two prominent companies in the industry: Beyond Motors (BM) and Emrax. While differences exist, it is important to underline that both companies provide a range of viable options for various applications.
.svg)
The axial flux motors market continues to advance with manufacturers racing to deliver enhanced performance, efficiency, and adaptability. In this technical analysis, we will provide an objective comparison between two prominent companies in the industry: Beyond Motors (BM) and Emrax. While differences exist, it is important to underline that both companies provide a range of viable options for various applications.
BM motors have classic axial flux pancake construction, with in-runner rotor discs. This enables the BM motor to be mounted via holes on the outside diameter of the stator. The design is not only easy to implement but is also mechanically stable and strong. Furthermore, the joints and structural components of the whole system take much lower loads and stress under mechanical shocks and vibrations, providing a robust solution for various applications.
Emrax motors, on the other hand, are outrunners, which makes them more challenging to mount and potentially unstable during vibrational loads and temperature changes. This aspect might necessitate additional consideration during the integration phase of a project.
BM offers the option for automotive standard IP67 connectors, while the mechanical strength enables stacking up to three motors for increased power and torque. Emrax also offers configuration options, though limited to a Twin stacked motor.
Both manufacturers equip their motors with encoder or resolver position sensors and offer similar controller compatibility.
A comparison between specific models from both manufacturers is summarized in the following tables:
The comparison between BM's AXM2 and Emrax's 208 and 228 models shows interesting contrasts:
This places AXM2 as an option that emphasizes continuous performance, while Emrax's models may appeal to applications requiring higher peak torque.
When it comes to AXM3 and Emrax 268, the key differences lie in power density and continuous torque:
These variations make AXM3 an attractive option in scenarios prioritizing consistent torque performance.
The AXM4 and Emrax 348 comparison paints a picture of two competitive models with distinct characteristics:
These aspects may make AXM4 suitable for applications that require robust continuous performance.
In the realm of axial flux motors, where precision meets power, Beyond Motors (BM) emerges with nuanced advantages that warrant attention. While both Beyond Motors and Emrax offer solid choices, BM's focus on mechanical stability and seamless integration sets it apart.
BM's axial flux pancake construction and ease of mounting offer a practical edge over Emrax's outrunner design. Beyond this, BM's models consistently exhibit superior continuous torque, torque density, and power-speed dynamics. These distinctions subtly emphasize BM's commitment to reliable performance under various conditions.
Emrax, a respected contender, showcases differences that gently underscore Beyond Motors' strengths. BM's AXM2, AXM3, and AXM4 models present a compelling proposition for applications requiring both power and reliability, subtly indicating a higher level of engineering finesse.
In the landscape of engineering choices, Beyond Motors' offerings subtly tip the scales in favor of those seeking optimum performance with a blend of robustness. In this nuanced comparison, BM's emphasis on continuous performance, mechanical integrity, and hassle-free integration makes it a discreet frontrunner for those who recognize the subtle yet decisive differences.
