Maybe the motor is supposed to turn with the wheel, that doesn't sound like a good idea.
You'd have an added complication of making the shock absorber the pivot point, and attaching the motor to the top point. Or having a separate pivot point where the motor or wheel can slide up and down.
This does raise the question of why not just attach the motor straight to the wheel.
The standard response to that is a hand wavey "unsprung mass". But has it actually been tried and shown to be an issue?
So, that's probably not it.
I think this only works with RWD, because the turning wheels can't be sprung without also having to rotate the springs.
It would be a better suspension (closer to racing suspensions) than standard, because wheels wouldnt toe in/out when they moved down/up. Looks expensive as hell though
"This does raise the question of why not just attach the motor straight to the wheel. The standard response is ...unsprung mass"
Afaik with high performance motors, if you want optimal performance and space efficiency you take the unsprung mass for granted and move everything in wheel and try to reduce the mass as much as possible. As a bonus you do not need joints, just a planetary gear system.
A motor per wheel simplifies everything.
No diff, no CV joints, you don't need this, just a simple planetary gearbox.
You gain space, lower manufacturing costs (theoretically, assuming multiple motors doesn't offset the other cost reductions, although as you could base a 2wd and 4wd high performance version on the same motor, that's an even harder case to make).
Benefits according to the article: "reduced packaging size, improved ride quality, greater durability and, importantly, increased efficiency."