EV Digest 5502
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Three-wheel Go-cart
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Regen-ask a Prius owner
by "David Sharpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Three-wheel Go-cart
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Fw: Vectrix
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Question about NIMH patent(s)
by Aaron NMLUG-EV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: NiMH working (was Question about NIMH patent(s))
by jerry halstead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) EV external charger
by Aymerick SALERMO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Things that make you go Hmmm (was Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: AC vs. DC {getting long}
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: EV safety
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: WarP motor color, was: Welding on WarP 9 Motor Housing
by Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Motor sizes
by Gnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Things that make you go Hmmm (was Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Regen-ask a Prius owner
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) 200 miles highway range on flooded lead acid: Is it possible?
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Ken Trough wrote:
John Norton wrote:
Toyota believes that the execution of the retail program launch was
very successful. A comprehensive marketing program, strong dealer
support, and an enticing pricing level were keys to this success.
However, sales levels were very low. As a result, no business case
could be made for continuing sales of the RAV4 EV at these volumes.
Considering that they actively discourages ALL sales of this product,
Toyota created exactly the sales volume that they wanted, then used
the "poor numbers" as the foundation for fighting the CARB
requirements in court. They put out an intentionally inferior product,
and discourage the sales, then say that the technology cannot deliver
the performance that the public wants and that the public doesn't want
the product in any case.
Actively discouraged all sales of the product? How do you figure?
The anecdotal evidence provided here is sketchy at best. We have read
that every single solitary one was sold a year in advance, and we have
also heard that there was a dealer with 2 on the lot that wouldn't sell
them. Things that make you go hmmmm.
And the RAV4EV was an intentionally inferior product? Yet everyone says
it is the holy grail of EVs! (well, that and the EV1, which is also
simultaneously revered as the greatest car ever built and the result of
poor engineering and understanding of electricity, similarly
intentionally flawed) And, by the way - Toyota was not a party to the
lawsuit against the ZEV mandate.
You are kidding yourself if you believe that market forces alone
determined the fate of the RAV4EV. It was a project that was designed
to meet the letter of the CARB requirements, and further was designed
to be able to be killed the moment that Toyota was able to do so. They
had no intention of making the product profitable.
No, market forces alone did not determine the fate. It would not have
existed at all without the mandate. With the elimination of the
mandate, it went away. It was never an economic proposition (on its
own) in the Toyota lineup.
Before CARB was killed and before the hybrid "solution" was crafted,
Toyota was saying that in order to be successful, BEV sales had to be
in the millions at market introduction. I know this because I heard it
myself from high ranking Toyota officials. This was given as the
reason that more BEV designs were not introduced.
Interesting. CARB was "killed" in 2003. And the Prius introduction?
1997, in Japan - not California. Hit the US in 2000. Maybe all the
heavy breathing stuff makes for points in your world. I like facts.
Then the first couple of hybrids were introduced and they proved that
you can build a very successful and profitable product by starting
with a low production level and educating the end users as to the
value of the new product. The first hybrids were produced in very low
numbers while the market could get "brought up to speed" so to speak.
Typical of an introduction of a new product. But think about this. The
Prius sold over 6000 units in the US in 2000. Compare to the 2002
retail sales of the RAV4 EV - 300.
The very same thing could easily have been done with BEVs, though they
still quote the same tired rhetoric that a product has to immediately
sell in the millions of units range to be successful.
Your saying that the very same thing could have been done doesn't make
it so. I have yet to hear the same tired rhetoric - except from you -
about having to sell millions. Seems a silly thing to say - though I
don't put it past an executive saying it - when quite obviously the
Prius, with sales of 100k annually is a profitable product.
Toyota and the other automakers don't sell BEVs because they don't
want to sell BEVs, not because they cannot be made a profitable success.
And yet they sell hybrids. Again, things that make you go hmmm.
Don't forget to consider the overall lifecycle of an automobile.
Dealers make a LOT of money on repair and service of the very complex
ICE designs. The designs are getting more and more complex, requiring
more expensive repairs and greater profitability on parts and service
for both the automaker and the dealers, not to mention the sheer
complexity and the sheer number of parts means that there are many
more opportunities to sell upgrade and aftermarket components.
BEVs on the other hand have very few components comparably and require
significantly less service, maintenance and repair. Dealers do not
like this and neither do manufacturers.
I am sure that there would be plenty of service requirements. Don't kid
yourself, you still have wear items, and things still break. If they
don't., then they have lower warranty cost.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm, I've seen a number of them with a single rear axle, but the driven
wheel rides on the bearings over the axle.
In fact most of the ones I've seen have the rear axle welded to the frame.
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
>> Probably 90%(perhaps more) of the go-karts (gas and electric)
>> out there only drive one of the rear wheels.
>
> I don't think this is correct. Every go kart I've seen has a solid rear
> axle, so while there is only a single driven sproket on the rear axle,
> both rear wheels are driven.
>
> This is why go kart driving technique involves leaning in the corners;
> you want to unload one rear wheel so it can spin because both are driven
> and there is no differential.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Prius gives an indicator in Whrs of energy returned. This may help regen
enquirers. David
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Victor Tikhonov
Sent: Friday, 19 May 2006 6:12 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Regen
Otmar wrote:
> FWIW, in my experience running both AC and DC regen cars, regen returns
> about 8% to 12% of the energy used around town, and with a lead acid car
> that can increase the range by 20% since the batteries do appreciate the
> mini fast charges.
Yesterday I clocked 19% of the amount of spent Wh got returned
to the pack. It was normal around town stop and go driving,
slight inclines and down grades (1-2%).
May be this was exception. When I try to gauge regen, I see typical
values 14%-17% (as reported by Wh counter).
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's all about design. You can design a delta style trike (single front
wheel) to handle braking safely. All you have to do is make sure the
central of gravity stays inside the triangle formed by the wheels.
Basically if you take the CoG and draw a cone extendeding downward at a 45
degree angle, and make sure the base triangle is outside this cone, then
it can't tip even when braking at 1G (nearly impossible in a simple cart)
This arrangement will skid before tipping.
Delta trikes might not perform as nimblely as tadpole designs, but they
are easier to build.
> I have to tell you guys, I don't think the two in the back and one in the
> front is all that good of an idea. I know there's that new trik EV on the
> west coast but think about it, what happens when you are hard on the
> brakes
> and you turn the wheel. How many times is it going to roll over.
>
> I've seen some nice trikes with one drive wheel in the back and two
> steering
> in the front. Makes a lot more sense to me.
>
>
> Mark Grasser
> 78 #358
> BIG REDs
> http://members.rennlist.com/mgrasser
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:15 PM
> Subject: RE: Three-wheel Go-cart
>
>
>> Neon John wrote:
>>
>>> Peter is correct, as a brief look at any web site selling kart parts
>>> will show. Suggest Northern tool as a good place to look. I'm using
>>> one of their differential axles (they sell a name brand but I can't
>>> recall the name at hte moment), cut down to an appropriate length for
>>> a 3 wheel scooter that I'm working on at the moment.
>>
>> Nope. Check a kart parts supplier, such as
>> <http://www.gokartsupply.com/partcat.htm>. Most karts use a solid rear
>> axle with a full-length keyway that allows one to positively attach the
>> hubs that the rear wheels mount to, as well as the single driven
>> sprocket and single brake disc that attach to this solid axle.
>>
>> I've driven a number of rental karts, and all have been of this drive
>> configuration, as have been the few electric karts I've seen, and the
>> few 'higher end' karts I've seen. I won't go sop far as to way that all
>> karts run solid rear axles with both wheels driven, but a quick online
>> search suggests that may well be the case... The only axles available
>> from kart suppliers seem to be of the solid variety, and even at the
>> 100-125cc shifter kart class the solid rear axle is used.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Roger.
>>
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I doubt it, it's probably closer to twice that. At least that's what
Uve's calculator indicates.
FWIW the typical sportbike has a Cd of .6, kinda offsets the reduced
frontal area compared to a car. I.e. the frontal area is about 1/3 of a
small car but almost twice the Cd, this means the aerodynamic drag is
almost 2/3 that of a small car.
> I figure that a sport bike conversion should do 50WH/mile at say
> 50mph. I know it's tempting to stab the throttle as it is will all
> EV's ;) The ones at the Maker Fare had only 4 12v 20ah BB AGM's IIRC.
>
> Somewhere on this continent I heard of a fellow that converted an old
> Goldwing to an EV. I'd like to know more of that project if anyone
> knows about it.
>
> I like my Goldwing as it gets 38mpg commuting and up to 45mpg on the
> highway fully loaded and with TONS of storage room. It would makes a
> good conversion I suspect.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Higher speed than 50km/h (37mph) with a motorbike is very energy
> consuming,
>> 100mph is way way way WAY WAY worst.
>> For few miles it's ok but if you want range and 100mph... you are
> going to
>> need a trailer for your batteries...or maybe a 156V/100Ah KOKAM pack
> (260lb)
>> on a big motorbike with a Z1K and 2 Perm motor...
>>
>> EV biker dream mode OFF :^)
>>
>>
>> cordialement,
>> Philippe
>>
>> Et si le pot d'échappement sortait au centre du volant ?
>> quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
>> http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
>> Forum de discussion sur les véhicules électriques
>> http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/Forum/index.php
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael Neverdosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fw: Vectrix
>>
>>
>> > So how about the specs on some of the 600cc bikes?
>> >
>> > In my experience most 600s are much quicker than 400s.
>> >
>> > Also how about 0-100mph times?
>> > While many of us don't really care because we don't ride that fast,
>> > most sportbike riders are very interested in higher speeds.
>> >
>> > I really think electric bikes are cool, fun and can be useful
>> > transportation but when doing a comparison it pays to at least give a
>> > nod to fairness.
>> >
>> > I used to beat cars, stoplight to stoplight in Long Beach, CA. all the
>> > time on my BICYCLE. A handy factoid but useless for evaluating
>> > transportation. I didn't burn nearly the fuel, pay the taxes or
>> > license fees and didn't have big monthly payments so I was very quick
>> > for very little money, as long as speeds were limited to about 25 mph
>> > or so.
>> >
>> > michael
>> >
>> > On 5/17/06, Charles Whalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Lawrence,
>> > >
>> > > You must not have read what I wrote, or at least you didn't do
> so very
>> > > carefully. Take a look at what I wrote; it's right here below
> as quoted
>> in
>> > > your response to me. I spoke of the Vectrix bike's acceleration
>> vis-a-vis
>> > > "comparable 400-600cc gas-powered maxi-scooters." That would be the
>> Suzuki
>> > > Burgman 400, the Yamaha Majesty 400, and the Honda Silver Wing
> 450 (I
>> think
>> > > it is).
>> > >
>> > > Here is the acceleration comparison with the Suzuki Burgman 400:
>> > >
>> > > Acceleration Vectrix Suzuki Burgman 400
>> > > 0-30mph 3.6 seconds 5.0 seconds
>> > > 0-50mph 6.8 seconds 8.3 seconds
>> > > 0-60mph 8.2 seconds 9.7 seconds
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 12:42 -0500, Lee Hart wrote:
> >> One of these days their patent rights are gonna expire and then
> >> it'll be open season on auto size NIMH battery packs!
>
> > Sure, but by then, lithium will have long since eaten their lunch in
> > the large capacity world. Forget NiMH for EVs; it's already history.
>
> The nimh cell is really quite a nice design. It (mostly) uses abundant,
> inexpensive materials (nickel, iron, potassium hydroxide, and water). It
> is cheaper than lithium based cells. It is the most environmentally
> friendly rechargeable battery; easy to recycle, and the least harmful
> when idiots throw them in landfills. They've been practical to mass
> produce, and have proven to have a very long life when not abused.
>
> The main thing holding it back has been the patent and licensing
> restrictions. If/when this goes away (patents expire), nimh could easily
> have a rebirth!
The main drawback I hear about with NiMH is leakage current.
Does anybody know why these tend to leak?
Do you think it is a tractible problem to solve?
aaron
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Victor,
Are these batteries available to the general public? If so, what's
the damage ($$$'s)?
The shade of green would really go well with my EV... ":^)
Thanks.
-Jerry
http://www.evconvert.com/
On May 19, 2006, at 4:04 AM, Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Speaking of NiMH, while my BMS is being tested and refined, I've
temporary downgraded ACRX to use NiMH batteries - same ones used
in NiMH equipped Rangers and some EV1's.
Here is a photo what it look like (there is no spacers made to fit
yet):
http://www.metricmind.com/misc/acrx_nimh.jpg
There are 24 batteries, 13.2V nom total. 85Ah capacity (hopefully I
can
get >80Ah since batteries were sitting unused for several years, so
waking up slowly); this yields max drop dead range of 125 miles at my
so-so 240Wh/mile consumption (wrong tires...).
The weight of the vehicle now is as follows:
Front = 1320 lb = 600 kg
Rear = 1540 lb = 700 kg
Total = 2860 lb = 1300 kg
With 28 Optimas it was 3380 lb = 1536kg. So I lost 520 lb
and gain ~2.5x capacity by switching to these batteries.
Will keep switching them until I'm satisfied. LiP pack
will be there (or in Toyota Scion xB it will be teated in)
shortly, and I'll post new photos.
Victor
--
'91 ACRX - something different.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I am looking for information about the way to make a vehicle communicate with
an external charger system. I heard there was some Norma like 9141, Keyword
Protocol, and FAKRA. Has anyone here done it before? Can someone help me out?
Thanks
Aymerick
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Typical of an introduction of a new product. But think about this. The
> Prius sold over 6000 units in the US in 2000. Compare to the 2002
> retail sales of the RAV4 EV - 300.
-snip-
> Prius, with sales of 100k annually is a profitable product.
>
> And yet they sell hybrids. Again, things that make you go hmmm.
>
So I'm reading in the paper that GM (non-makers of the "unwanted" EV1) are
cancling production of the Hummer H1 after selling them for 10 years.
Toatl 10 year sales volum was approx 1,000 vehicles. Obviously they
thought it was profitable to sell a huge gas guzzeling vehicle...until the
sales volume dropped below 30 per year.
Granted you could argue that they use the same production line as the
military vehicles.
The H2 is still in production, last year they sold 1,724 of them. I'm
pretty sure this has it's own production line.
Both these vehicles cost more than the EV1, both sold in low numbers. The
EV1 could have out sold the entire 10 year run of H1s in one year in
California alone. Heck it could probably have out sold the total
production of both H1s and H2s in one year if they'd made enough of them.
Yet GM claims there wasn't enough demand to make them.
Certainly makes ME go Hmmm....
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think the problom with this paragraph Victor is the "the jury will
disreguard the last statement" type of style, the prices of the Z2k and
conclusion are given first. If these are not the comparison then why are
they in there?
Perhaps get rid of little jabs like "So we will have to settle",
"classic mismatch problem" or implying reversing contactors . and a
hall effect pedel sensor is avail, so do harp on that.
Perhaps... (Disclaimer,I am much of a writer)
Siemens offers a high voltage(380V) water cooled package that provides
regenerative braking and comes with an integrated dc-dc. Regenerative
braking saves on brake pads and can improve in town range by as much as
20%. AC motors allow higher voltage than DC motors and Siemens takes
advantage of the reduced amps and losses. The higher voltage also allows
lighter (smaller) wires throughout. The AC motor can be sealed up so
the water cooling allows for good continuous duty like climbing a long
steep hill and a compact soulution for fitting into conversions. For
comparison we look at the ADC 8" motor using a Zilla 1K
(http://www.cafeelectric.com) This controller can put out more amps to
accomadate the Advanced DC 's Motor characteristics, all the wireing
must be bigger and more heat is generated. The DC motor must have
airflow because of the brush dust and uses an internal fan. This is
adequete in most cases, but will overheat in long slow high current
draws like climbing that hill and will require adding a supplemental
blower. The ADC-Zilla combination ends up haveing more power for
impressive accelerations and is well suited to lower voltage packs and
heavier vehicles while retaining the stock transmission. Without
brushes, the AC motor can spin faster and because of it's flatter torque
curve and simple electronic reverse, lends itself to a single speed gear
reduction. The cost of the two systems is comparable at $6900 for the
complete Siemens motor and controller package, including pedal and
$4050 for the zilla-adc combo, keeping in mind that a liitle more money
will be needed for a dc-dc and larger cables in the ladder case..
to replace this
Thus far, there are no water cooled programmable DC
controllers taking 380V input, providing 100 kW output, featuring
regenerative braking and having integrated DC-DC converter, so no apples
to apples comparison will be possible. One of the best ones - water
cooled Zilla 2K comes to mind, but it is too powerful for a single 8"
ADC motor - classic problem of big mismatch. Besides, at $4900 the total
cost with a DC motor becomes $6100, just $800 less than complete AC
solution (still no regen) and we didn't even start shopping for a DC-DC,
and main + reversing +precharge contactors yet. Once we're done, it will
certainly cost MORE than AC setup. So we will have to settle for 348V
water cooled Zilla 1K. Compared to an AC inverter, it still provides
more raw power. At $2850 no regen, no DC-DC, no contactors, no dash
interface harness, no throttle sensor, no power cables and 10 times less
warranty period (comparing to Simovert 6SV1). With this choice, $4050 so
far.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Jeff and all,
When jacking up a heavy vehicle, I think for maximum safety. First I do not
use one jack at one point of the vehicle. I used four each 12 ton hydraulic
jacks, a low profile 5 ton floor jack, 4 large reinforce steel and cast iron
floor stands and four wheel blocks made of 4 x 4's cut at a 45 degree angle
with attach that sand type grip they used on steps.
I first block the wheels with the wheel blocks and first jack it with the
low profile floor jack enough to get the hydraulic jacks in. Next, I jack
up the vehicle evenly until I can get the floor stands in. Continue to jack
up the vehicle evenly with the jacks on 4 x 6 inch wood blocks until I can
extend the floor jacks so the vehicle is now 2 foot of the floor.
A stack of wood blocks in the sides of 8 x 8, 6 x 6, 6 x 4, and 4 x 4 is
built up under each tire, until the wood just touches the tires. This is
another back up support. A one time, I had just support the vehicle a stack
of wood timber that form a criss cross bridge that was 3-foot off the
ground. The huge 3000 lbs battery box had to be remove from the bottom of
the car.
If I'm working under the vehicle, like removing the motor and transmission,
I leave all the jacks in place in addition to the floor stands.
Before I get under a jack up car, I will violently bounce the vehicle to
made sure it is stable.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: EV safety
> As it happens, I was talking about this today at work. I ended up
> recanting an episode I will never forget. ( from when I was yueng and
> stupid, now I am a lot older...)
>
> I was just doing brakes on 1 front wheel and was using one of those
> bottle jacks on the street in front of my house. I was sitting on the
> ground with legs on either side of wheel, figuring this was a truck
> anyway and even if the jack failed I would be OK. Well I was lucky.
> I was fighting and tugging on a stuck part and the little bottle jack
> had impressed into the old blacktop, it came flying out and down came
> the truck. I moved, but not before the backing plate came to rest on the
> leg of my jeans.
>
> Try as I might, I couldn't reach the jack, it really flew. Eventually I
> had to just give up, wriggle out of my pants and run into the house in
> my underware. There must of been 25 kids in the b-day party across the
> street front yard, luckly, none noticed the redfaced man without any
> pants running into the house.
>
> I have found that a 4000Lb EV is difficult to jack up and put on jack
> stands on even a slightly sloped driveway. the emergancy brake is only
> on the rear wheels and it likes to roll back on the floor jack. (Why
> isnt there a wheel lock on a floor jack, why not an emergancy brake on
> front right/rear left wheel.) I cringe everytime I have to do it.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Mike,
Thanks Ryan,
I wound up welding the motor mount tabs on and painting with the Ford Red
engine block paint from Schmucks.
I really like the clean look of the mounting tabs! Good job Mike.
-Ryan
--
- EV Source <http://www.evsource.com> -
Selling names like Zilla, PFC Chargers, and WarP Motors
E-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toll-free: 1-877-215-6781
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Oohh the frustrating, infuriating feeling of impotence against these companies
not wanting to sell their own product to us. You have to be a university
or do very large volumes or who knows what to meet their criteria of a
customer.
/Rant mode off
--- John Westlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man, I wish I had the sort of cash needed for those NiMH
> batteries(not to mention the experience needed to bring them
> back to usable condition).
>
> >From what I understand, their shelf life is much higher than
> that of Li Ions, arguably to the point where it isn't a
> factor under repeated use. Team Fate at UCLA, who are
> working on plugin hybrids, claims 1,750 cycles to 100% DoD
> from the Ovonic NiMH. Cobasys is the more conservative
> figure, 1,200 cycles.
>
> Imagine a very aerodynamic sports car equipped with them.
> Say, a 150 wh/mile @ 65 mph car with a 330V pack of them.
> That's 28 kWh on board, or near 190 miles highway range!
>
> Using Cobasy's numbers, that's near 230,000 miles battery
> life. Using Team Fate's numbers, that's 330,000 miles
> battery life. Most internal combustion engined cars don't
> even last that long.
>
> Forget lithiums. Whenever I get the cash to dump like Victor
> has, I'll be looking for some good NiMH. Probably can't beat
> them for operating cost and longevity...
>
> Please let us know about your Scion conversion.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm just wondering if someone can suggest what a brand and model
might be capable of 13kw continuous and 20kw .The 13kw (17.4hp)
is a brushed DC motor.
I'm trying to figure out how a system was setup in eastern Europe.
This was a electric motor on a sailplane for self launch. I believe
the guy used 21 li-poly cell phone batteries for storage. The one
picture I saw of the motor it looked a lot like some of the hub motors
with the fins and vents. Unfortunately that's about the extent of the
information. This is a interesting process as the cost of the battery
powered self launch is about 20 cents compared to about $40 for a tow
to about 3000 feet. Makes for a very cheap and green day of flying ;-]
Dave
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Damn! I hate it when I get the numbers wrong.
I was looking at a chart for monthly sales and reading it as anual sales.
Sorry about that.
FWIW The H1 sold approx 12,000 total vehicles over a 14 year run,
averaging less than 1,000 per year (not total like I said).
Last year they sold 374 of them.
The 1,724 figure for the H2 was for Sept 05.
Still my basic point is still valid. I'm sure that if GM actually offered
the EV1 it would easily out sell the H1 in it's best year, and probably
the cheaper H2. FWIW the H1 goes for approx $135,000. I'd even be
willing to bet that the first year sales of the EV1 would out sell the
entire run of H1s.
>> Typical of an introduction of a new product. But think about this. The
>> Prius sold over 6000 units in the US in 2000. Compare to the 2002
>> retail sales of the RAV4 EV - 300.
> -snip-
>> Prius, with sales of 100k annually is a profitable product.
>>
>> And yet they sell hybrids. Again, things that make you go hmmm.
>>
>
> So I'm reading in the paper that GM (non-makers of the "unwanted" EV1) are
> cancling production of the Hummer H1 after selling them for 10 years.
> Toatl 10 year sales volum was approx 1,000 vehicles. Obviously they
> thought it was profitable to sell a huge gas guzzeling vehicle...until the
> sales volume dropped below 30 per year.
> Granted you could argue that they use the same production line as the
> military vehicles.
> The H2 is still in production, last year they sold 1,724 of them. I'm
> pretty sure this has it's own production line.
>
> Both these vehicles cost more than the EV1, both sold in low numbers. The
> EV1 could have out sold the entire 10 year run of H1s in one year in
> California alone. Heck it could probably have out sold the total
> production of both H1s and H2s in one year if they'd made enough of them.
> Yet GM claims there wasn't enough demand to make them.
>
> Certainly makes ME go Hmmm....
>
>
> --
> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
> legalistic signature is void.
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Why didn't I think of that! I have a Prius and on a typical 12 mile commute I
get about 8 to 12 'little green leaves'. Each leaf represents 50wh so that
makes 400 to 600 wHs of regen. That's about 2 to 3 miles. Right around 20%.
YMMV
--- David Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Prius gives an indicator in Whrs of energy returned. This may help regen
> enquirers. David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Victor Tikhonov
> Sent: Friday, 19 May 2006 6:12 PM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: Regen
>
> Otmar wrote:
>
> > FWIW, in my experience running both AC and DC regen cars, regen returns
> > about 8% to 12% of the energy used around town, and with a lead acid car
> > that can increase the range by 20% since the batteries do appreciate the
> > mini fast charges.
>
> Yesterday I clocked 19% of the amount of spent Wh got returned
> to the pack. It was normal around town stop and go driving,
> slight inclines and down grades (1-2%).
>
> May be this was exception. When I try to gauge regen, I see typical
> values 14%-17% (as reported by Wh counter).
>
> Victor
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Actually it's worse than that, the Universities got surplus/used
batteries. The patent is owned by an oil company (Shell?) and they simply
refuse to allow ANYONE to build NiMH in EVs size for ANY price or
regardless of criteria.
The only ones they allow are replacement modules for EVs sold due to the
California EV mandate and then only until those vehicles' warranties run
out.
> Oohh the frustrating, infuriating feeling of impotence against these
> companies
> not wanting to sell their own product to us. You have to be a university
> or do very large volumes or who knows what to meet their criteria of a
> customer.
>
> /Rant mode off
>
> --- John Westlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Man, I wish I had the sort of cash needed for those NiMH
>> batteries(not to mention the experience needed to bring them
>> back to usable condition).
>>
>> >From what I understand, their shelf life is much higher than
>> that of Li Ions, arguably to the point where it isn't a
>> factor under repeated use. Team Fate at UCLA, who are
>> working on plugin hybrids, claims 1,750 cycles to 100% DoD
>> from the Ovonic NiMH. Cobasys is the more conservative
>> figure, 1,200 cycles.
>>
>> Imagine a very aerodynamic sports car equipped with them.
>> Say, a 150 wh/mile @ 65 mph car with a 330V pack of them.
>> That's 28 kWh on board, or near 190 miles highway range!
>>
>> Using Cobasy's numbers, that's near 230,000 miles battery
>> life. Using Team Fate's numbers, that's 330,000 miles
>> battery life. Most internal combustion engined cars don't
>> even last that long.
>>
>> Forget lithiums. Whenever I get the cash to dump like Victor
>> has, I'll be looking for some good NiMH. Probably can't beat
>> them for operating cost and longevity...
>>
>> Please let us know about your Scion conversion.
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Most here are familiar with Dick Finley's "Red Beastie", a
converted Toyota XTraCab that is loaded with 40 Trojan T105
golf cart batteries and gets 120 miles highway range(At
roughly 60 mph).
But I think it is time to expand upon this concept. I don't
feel the long range 'lead sled' concept has seen its full
potential.
Why? Aerodynamics, aerodynamics, and again, aerodynamics.
Trucks have horrible aerodynamics. But it is possible to
change that.
In another topic I linked and mentioned an article
describing how Phil Knox improved his highway fuel economy
nearly 30% by building aerodynamic modifications to his
truck. I'll link it again:
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=870
Of all the long range 'lead sled' trucks built, none of them
have made such extensive use of aerodynamic modifications.
These conversions could benefit greatly from these
modifications insofar as range and top speed are concerned.
If it can result in a 30% fuel economy increase for a gas
truck, it can result in at least the same increase in range
for an electric truck. In the case of "Red Beastie", this is
an additional 40 miles range or more.
Many think advanced batteries are needed for an EV to
achieve range and performance comparable to the minimum
gasoline-powered car.
I say hogwash.
It is theoretically possible to get range comparable to an
IC passenger vehicle on lead acid batteries, given proper
attention to efficiency.
What would be interesting is if someone could build a lead
acid powered EV that could meet ALL of the following
constraints:
a) 0-60 mph in 18 seconds or less
b) Top speed 90 mph or greater
c) 200 miles range or greater at 60 mph
d) Capability to seat 4 or more adults
e) Under $20,000 total cost, including donor chassis and
shipping for components
The performance parameters above are basically what an IC
economy car could achieve in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It
may not be fast at all, even could be described as anemic,
but it is acceptable performance for keeping up with
traffic. Even the cruising range is there.
Is it possible to achieve these parameters using flooded
lead acid golf cart batteries? Without any advanced
batteries needed? I'm about to explore this possibility.
Demonstrating this sort of performance would make an
electric vehicle conversion practical and palatable to a
much larger percentage of the population.
The following setup will be simulated, with costs and weight
tallied and donor vehicle cost not included. Shipping is
assumed to cost 10% of all components marked with *.
-WarP 9'' series DC motor x1 160 pounds $1,575 (EV Source)*
-Trojan T145 flooded lead acid Golf Cart battery x40 2,840
pounds $5,140 (Trojan Battery)*
-Godzilla Controller(72-300V DC, 1,000 amp max, HEPI) x1 16
pounds $2,555 (EV Source)*
-PFC 20 Charger x1 20 pounds $1,525 (EV Source)*
-Vicor DC-DC converter (300Vmax, 12Vout, 200W) x1 8 pounds
$700 (Vicor)*
-E-Meter x1 $229 (Xantrex)*
-Solid-State Ceramic Heater Core x1 $75 (Grassroots EV)*
-Adaptor Plate x1 15 pounds $800*
-Miscallaneous components(Heat shrink tubing, fuses, steel
for battery racks, ect.) 150 pounds $1,500*
-Donor Vehicle 1980s Mazda B2000 pickup truck w/extended cab
2,600 pounds $1,000
-Sheet metal, plastic, fiberglass, and other components for
aerodynamic modifications 30 pounds $100
-Nokian 205/70R15 LRR tires x4 $268 (Nokian)*
-Leaf Springs x4 $300 (Renegade Hybrids)*
-Redline MTL synthetic transmission oil $15
-alignment correction to 0 camber, 0 toe is free with tire
replacement
Roughly 600 pounds of IC related components can be removed
from the donor. The donor has an estimated drag coefficient
of .45 and an estimated frontal area of 22 square feet. With
aerodynamic modifications, the drag coefficient is expected
to be reduced to .25. The donor vehicle cost was an
estimate. It is assumed normally 2 passengers will occupy
the vehicle, so 350 pounds will be added to account for 2
passengers and any other onboard items.
The Nokian NRT2 LRR 205/70R15 tires chosen have a .0085
rolling resistance coefficient. The specific model was
chosen for its ability to handle a 1,480 pound payload per
tire. This allows room for a gross vehicle weight of 5,920
pounds, or 681 pounds of passengers and luggage. These tires
are also rated to 118 mph. The tires are assumed to have no
weight change over stock tires. This is incorrect, but the
weight of the stock tires is unknown.
Total Cost: $17,249
Total Weight with two occupants and lugage: 5,589 pounds
Max Weight: 5,920 pounds
In order to maximize range, the following aerodynamic
modifications could be done with sheetmetal, plastic, and
fiberglass:
-aeroshell, a tapered bed cover made of fiberglass
-underbelly, made of corrugated plastic
-grille block, made of corrugated plastic
-rear wheel skirts, made of sheet metal
-front air dam, made of sheet metal
-side skirts, made of sheet metal
-rear diffuser, made of sheet metal
-wheel covers, made of corrugated plastic
-build shaved door handles from parts found in junkyard,
weld a sheetmetal backing plate to where the door handles
were
This would get the drag coefficient down to an estimated
25, similar to Phil Knox's pickup truck.
Further, the brakes can be adjusted so that they don't drag.
So the following truck will be modeled:
Weight: 5,589 pounds
Drag Coefficient: .25 (from aero mods)
Frontal Area: 22 square feet
Drivetrain efficiency: 93% (slight boost from synthetic oil)
Tires: 205/70R15, which means a tire diameter of 25.34
inches.
The Mazda B2000 pickup has the following gear ratios:
1- 3.622
2- 2.186
3- 1.419
4- 1
5- .858
F- 3.909
The batteries would be arranged in a single 240V string. The
Zilla would be configured to limit maximum current draw to
450 amps, maximum motor current to 1,000 amps, and maximum
motor potential to 170V. At 450 amps, the Trojan T105
batteries would sag to roughly 4.5V, allowing a maximum of
122 horsepower from the batteries. The 500A limit is imposed
to prevent battery damage.
Thus modeling the 9" motor, we get the following torque
versus speed curve and power versus speed curve under
maximum acceleration:
0 RPM 220 lb-ft 0 HP
1000 RPM 220 lb-ft 42 HP
1500 RPM 220 lb-ft 63 HP
1750 RPM 220 lb-ft 73 HP
2000 RPM 195 lb-ft 74 HP
2500 RPM 178 lb-ft 85 HP
3000 RPM 164 lb-ft 94 HP *peak motor horsepower, limited by
battery pack*
3500 RPM 132 lb-ft 88 HP
4000 RPM 105 lb-ft 80 HP
4500 RPM 83 lb-ft 71 HP
5000 RPM 69 lb-ft 66 HP
5500 RPM 55 lb-ft 58 HP
6000 RPM 44 lb-ft 50 HP
A motor redline of 6,000 RPM was chosen to prevent motor
damage. The batteries are the limiting factor in
acceleration and power that the motor can deliver. Stiffer
AGMs would extend the torque curve out more dramatically
improving acceleration but add greatly to the cost.
Now it is time to simulate acceleration and top speed. The
following acceleration calculator was chosen for its ease of
use and accessability:
http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/accel_sim.htm
The proper gear ratios, torque versus RPM, weight, drag
coefficient, and tire rolling resistance parameters were
input. A drivetrain loss was estimated at 7%, which would
account for a slight efficiency boost from synthetic
transmission oil. It is estimated the front/rear weight
distribution will entail 70% rear, 30% front due to the bed
being loaded with batteries, and wheelbase was estimated at
110 inches. In order to prevent the program from committing
an error, a launch RPM of 100 was chosen.
The optimum shift points for maximum acceleration were 3,920
rpm for 1st to 2nd gear, 3,810 rpm for 2nd to 3rd gear,
3,650 rpm for 3rd to 4th gear, and 3,300 rpm for 4th to 5th
gear. A shift duration of ½ second was assumed.
We get the following estimations:
0-30 mph acceleration: 4.6 seconds
0-50 mph: 12.7 seconds
0-60 mph: 17.7 seconds
Top speed: 111 mph
1/8 mile drag race: 12.7 seconds @ 50 mph
¼ mile drag race: 20.5 seconds @ 64 mph
This meets the specified performance parameters. It's about
as fast as a typical gasoline powered car from 0-30 mph, and
from 0-60 mph, about as fast as an 80s model pickup truck
with an anemic 4 cylinder engine. It wouldn't be fast, but
it would be able to safely merge with traffic. An added perk
from the Zilla is that it would easily smoke its tires and
pull tree stumps.
For range, a simulation is going to be performed with Uve's
Calculator. The above parameters will be entered, along with
a brake/steering drag coefficient of .002 to account for
corrected alignment and machined brakes. A relative wind
factor of 1.2 was chosen to represent an aerodynamic
vehicle, and a wind speed of 7 mph was chosen to represent
outside wind conditions in average weather.
http://www.geocities.com/hempev/EVCalculator.html
The following results were obtained:
Range at 50 mph was 377 miles in 3rd gear.
Range at 60 mph was 216 miles in 3rd gear.
Range at 70 mph was 162 miles in 4rd gear.
And just for curiosity's sake, range at 90 mph was
calculated at 102 miles in 4th gear.
This is within the constraints outlined above.
In theory, such a vehicle is possible. In practice, no one
has tried it. The closest to it are John Wayland's Red
Beastie and Brian Methany's Polar Bear, two trucks
that have achieved 120 miles highway range on similarly
large battery packs. Neither truck has extended cab, so they
could only seat 2 or 3 adults.
This truck I outlined would be a passenger vehicle capable
of seating 4 adults, accelerating from 0-60 mph in under
17.8 seconds, topping out at 111 mph, and doing 200 miles
per charge at 60 mph. This would require the proper
efficiency modifications to achieve this range and top
speed. Without the efficiency modifications, range and top
speed would be comparable to the two conversions referenced
above.
Such a vehicle as I outlined would not only be beneficial in
demonstrating that advanced batteries are not needed for a
conversion to compete with gasoline powered cars in range
and top speed, but it would also serve as a viable platform
for a conversion business to harvest ideas from.
If the $17,000 component price is too high, performance
could be sacrificed for a significant cost reduction. A
lower voltage setup with two battery strings in parallel, a
cheaper charger and controller, and less luxuries such as
heating could result in a conversion with similar range and
a price tag around $8,000. But 0-60 acceleration would
increase to around 40 seconds with a 120V, 400A Curtis
controller and the batteries split in 2 parallel strings.
For a few thousand dollars greater than the projected $17k
concept, AGMs and regs could be put in place of the flooded
batteries, allowing performance comparable to the new cars
of today. But this would bring costs near $20,000. A Zilla
2k would add even greater costs, but allow rapid
acceleration.
A custom built midsize or luxury car based on a pickup truck
chassis would have similar carrying capacity, increased
passenger and cargo room, but also significantly less weight
and frontal area compared with the fully outlined conversion
concept of the Mazda B2000. Purpose built as an EV, the same
battery pack could be fit into the car concept. This reduced
weight and frontal area would result in dramatically
increased acceleration and increased range provided the same
attention is paid to efficiency. Perhaps in a purpose built
car with this setup, a 0-60 acceleration time of 14
seconds(comparable to a 1st generation Toyota Prius) a range
of 250 miles at 60 mph, 200 miles at 70 mph, and top speed
in excess of 120 mph could be achieved. No advanced
batteries needed.
So, what do you think of this idea? Criticisms? Suggestions?
If I had the cash, I'd attempt this truck!
Is it a feasible concept?
Dick Finley pushed the envelop with his pickup. Were he
alive today, I'm sure he would keep pushing it more. This
concept appears to expand upon his final conversion in a big
way.
--- End Message ---
