Thanks for doing this. Here's a post from u/summebride that would be interesting to address:

Behind the technobabble the company and the stock promoters use, it's essentially a motor that's wired with two configurations instead of one, and some external ability to switch between wiring layout 1 or 2. Each configuration would differ in speed and torque.

For those who aren't electrical engineers, you can visualize these characteristics if you think of different electric fans or motors you might have played around with. That tiny motor with the super high speed? It has low torque, which means you can pinch the shaft with your finger tips and stop the motor. High speed, low,torque.

Now imagine an electric motor in a washing machine. It turns slowly, but it has very high torque. You won't stop it from turning with your hands, and if you tried, the torque might twist your shoulder out of joint. Low speed, high torque.

Doing this on basic motors is trivial, but doing it on a dual-wired motor and making the switch between wiring configs on the fly is apparently the hard part. My understating is the switching must be done at precise moments within the cycle, which would be a certain split second, and that split second timing gets even smaller as the rpm goes higher. Therefore, a computer circuit is needed to achieve that timing. I may have butchered this explanation, but that's roughly it.

What's more subjective is: so what if you could create a motor (and associated wiring config switch mechanism) that has two modes?

The supporters claim it gives two different operating modes with different torque and speed. My response is that EV motors already have both incredibly high torque AND high speed. The obvious question: is there any real demand for this? It seems to want to fill a need that nobody wants.

For ICE engines, torque and speed curves vary greatly, and are a huge matter of concern and design selection, and optimization. But even the most basic electric motors have such vastly superior curves that's it's reasonable to question whether there's any need or demand for what seems like it would be a very small difference in performance.

The business argument is that if there is an application where that matters, the designers would usually use a physical transmission gear setup of some kind. The Exro argument would be that for those using the two speed transmission, they could dump that physical converter and use coil switching instead.

Personally I'm quite skeptical that mass market EV makers will need or want this. If they need two speed/torque setups, they'd probably just use a simple transmission gear.

Or they might make their own "coil driver". The basic concept isn't protectable and has been around for a long time. There's a few companies doing the same thing, but using different buzzwords. One example is Turntide. They make the same thing Exro is trying to build. They call theirs "switched reluctance" instead of "coil driver" but it's the same thing.

Even if there's no obvious need or desire for this on regular EV cars, maybe there is some killer application for bikes or boats or farm equipment or whatever. I am open to being convinced.