No, it means the motor is smaller and it can be put into the wheel

It doesn't make that a good idea. Armature losses are proportional to torque squared - doesn't matter if it is radial or axial design. That's why all the EVs today have gear boxes with ratios like 13:1. Get rid of that gearbox and the steady-state losses go up with the square of that ratio. Then there are the issues of sprung mass, and where to put the mechanical brakes.

	▲	zardo 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		YASA claims their integrated brake/wheel motor is lighter than comparable (supercar) disc brake systems.
	▲	ed_balls 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>gear boxes with ratios like 13:1. you add planetary gears >sprung mass you can integrate all into one hub (breaks, bearings, gears etc) and it weights pretty much the same. what you gain is more space for a bigger battery, torque vectoring, no loss on diff and CVs

▲

MostlyStable 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

aren't there other issues with having the motor in the wheels? Unsprung mass, plus the wheels can get pretty banged around?

	▲	parineum 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You could add a short drive shaft behind the springs to put the motor on the car body. That'd give you some additional advantage of moving much of the brake weight off of the wheel as well.