EV Digest 6861
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: AC/DC thing
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: EZGo Controller connection diagram?
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EZGo Controller connection diagram?
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Battery Venting
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Safety of inverter/controller or whole system?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Tesla roadster motor philosophy
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: EV count
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: EV count
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9) Re: Woohoo! just finished homemade capacitive discharge spot battery tab
welder
by Tony Hwang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: OJ dragster joins 125 club, gets closer to single digits58
by Chip Gribben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Thundersky Real World Experience
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Dream machine
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Doers vs talkers, was Otmar is getting rich?
by Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Standards (was Re: An indesent proposition
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Triangle wave generator
by "David Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) forget about acceleration... what about range?
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Troll Removal Survey
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Troll Removal Survey
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Tesla roadster motor philosophy
by "George Swartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) forget about acceleration... what about range?
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Troll?
by JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Tesla roadster motor philsophy
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Troll Removal Survey
by "Dmitri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) AGM battery info (long, but useful)
by "Steven Arlint" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Chevy motor adapters
by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
It will, but you can mimic this by imposing a current limit
to the DC controller, oversize the motor and stick to
a taller gear to start with. It will have constant torque
at the wheels just like AC system will.
The only advantage of AC setup in this situation is you don't
need to oversize AC motor and have giant shaft torque to have equal
torque at the wheels. (You must use taller gear in DC setup to
compensate for inability to run at high, compared to AC motor, RPM,
so you must have DC shaft torque x times more where x is difference
in gearing).
Victor
Jeff Shanab wrote:
Actually victor, I have often wondered if AC could give a lower but
constant acceleration down the track and so a slower 0-60 but a faster
1/4 mile.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John, As a reminder, EV Parts is more than an on road EV supply store. We
also offer golf cart parts and free tech support. On the 5 pin style 1206
Curtis controller pin one and two are your 0 to 5 k/ohm throttle input. Pin
three is half speed reverse and pin four is your key switch input to power
the brains. The fifth pin is not used. As a cautionary note to potential EV
people shopping on Ebay, do not buy the 9 pin version of this controller is
for the E-Z-GO DCS system (Drive Control System) made between 1195 and 1999.
It is made for shunt wound motors and uses a very expensive inductive
throttle. Avoid this controller for EV projects.
Roderick
Roderick Wilde, President, EV Parts Inc.
Your Online EV Superstore
www.evparts.com
1-360-385-7082
Phone: 360-582-1270 Fax: 360-582-1272
PO Box 834, Carlsborg, WA 98324
108-B Business Park Loop, Sequim, WA 98382
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 7:59 AM
Subject: EZGo Controller connection diagram?
I've decided to upgrade my Moms golfcart from it's contactor controller
(sticky, jerky, and wasteful) to a solid-state controller. To this end
I've picked up an E-Z-Go golfcart controller.
Anyone know where I can find a wiring diagram for hooking it up?
Especially the pinout on the 5 pin connector?
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 6/9/2007 10:46 AM
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:00 PM 6/10/2007, Roderick Wilde wrote:
John, As a reminder, EV Parts is more than an on road EV supply
store. We also offer golf cart parts and free tech support. On the 5
pin style 1206 Curtis controller pin one and two are your 0 to 5
k/ohm throttle input. Pin three is half speed reverse and pin four
is your key switch input to power the brains. The fifth pin is not
used. As a cautionary note to potential EV people shopping on Ebay,
do not buy the 9 pin version of this controller is for the E-Z-GO
DCS system (Drive Control System) made between 1195 and 1999. It is
made for shunt wound motors and uses a very expensive inductive
throttle. Avoid this controller for EV projects.
Thanks. I had forgotten that you guys handle Golf Cart stuff to!
Just for peoples info, this is the controller I picked up: (ebay of course)
http://www.casadelgato.com/EV/EZGOcont.jpg
So, B+ and B- are what I would assume to be battery connections.
M- is feed to motor, so I would guess the other side of the motor goes to B+.
pins 1&2 - 0-5K for throttle.
pin3 - half-speed reverse? - Tie it which way to get what?
Pin 4 - I'd guess this goes to B+ when the key is on. Correct?
I'll probably build my own throttle box, as paying $100 for one hurts too much.
(yeah, if I paid myself for my time, it would be a net loss!)
Next I'll have to order a roll of cable and connectors. I'll
definitely be replacing all that 10ga wire between batteries!
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michaela Merz wrote:
Well - my original question was, if one can eliminate _any_ acid
spray by using a filling system.
A good external venting system does indeed eliminate virtually all acid
spray at the batteries. They can make flooded batteries as clean as AGMs.
The challenge is to keep it leak-free. You wind up with a hundred or
more potential places for leaks. If you use cheap fittings and hoses,
there *will* be leaks!
Note that you'll also want to be very careful how you make your battery
terminal connections. If you put a lot of stress on them, they can leak
as bad (or worse) than the vent caps themselves.
'Miser Caps' are also a possibility as they somehow manage to let the
gas escape put are able to retain most of the moisture.
I tried some many years ago. They certainly reduced the amount of
venting and water loss; but they didn't eliminate it. My big problem was
that as the batteries aged, and their water usage went up, it
overwhelmed the catalytic caps and they failed. Recombining H2 and O2
back into water produces heat; and the heat melted the caps!
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
DC controller itself may be as reliable as AC inverter. The problem
is that a DC motor can (and will) run without controller at all, all
you need is a battery.
The commutator in a brushed DC motor is the inverter that makes AC for
the coils so it can run. It is a mechanical version of the transistor
inverter in any AC motor with an internal controller, such as a
brushless DC motor or AC induction motor with internal inverter -- they
all run immediately when you apply power.
So designer must take this into account and do something extra
(external contactors and logic+drivers controlling it) to prevent
that.
Yes; exactly the same as for an AC motor. AC drives must also have
fuses, contactors, circuit breakers, and safety interlock logic or they
can fail "on".
The difference is that most DC drives are built to be low cost, and so
leave out as much of these parts as they can get away with. Most AC
drives are designed to be feature rich, and so include most of these
parts. It is not AC vs. DC, but rather a low-end versus high-end system
question.
High-end DC systems include the extra fuses, contactors, and safety
circuits, just like high-end AC systems.
AC system technically doesn't need main contactors to kill the
battery to prevent runaways.
Then why do all AC drives include them? Because failed silicon can still
result in a catastrophe (exploding parts, melted wires, fires, violent
acceleration or deceleration, etc.)!
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter Gabrielsson wrote:
why is it that a sepex motor has less starting torque than a
series wound motor? It seems to me that torque is a function of your
field strength and the field strength is a function of the number of
amp turns you have. So whether you run 10 amps through 100 turns or
100 amps through 10 turns the torque should be the same?
Yes, you are correct as far as you went. But carry your thinking a
little further along.
With a series motor, what is the limit on field strength? Practically
none! If you switch full pack voltage to a stalled series motor, the
current heads for infinity (1000 amps or more is readily possible).
Since this current flows through the field winding, the field strength
likewise heads for infinity. You get huge amounts of torque; enough to
win drag races, or break things.
With a shunt or sepex motor, your maximum field strength is limited by
how it is wound and your pack voltage. Once you get to full pack
voltage, that's all the field strength you can get. So, you have a
finite torque limit, much less than for a series motor.
A shunt motor normally has a field that can stand full pack voltage
continuously. It is most likely being used as a generator, where it may
be asked to deliver its full power continuously. But this means there is
almost no "overhead" to supply a higher peak power, because the field is
as high as it can go already.
A sepex motor is usually wound for a lower voltage field; around 1/4th
of pack voltage. Now you have the ability to over-voltage it by 4:1 to
get more torque. Better; but still not as strong as the series field.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear fellow EV enthusiast, this is quite the complex
question.
Start with the 1137 EVs listed on the EV discussion
list:
-some of these are hybrids.
-some are not daily drivers; more like a science
experiment on wheels. Do they count?
-the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco is
one of the most successful EVs around. Yet it is a
public commuter. What about SFO's "MUNI" electric
commuter buses?
-what about golf carts. Technically, they are EVs.
Yet I wouldn't drive one daily to work. So are you
including LSEVs (low-speed EVs) and NEVs)
(neighborhood electric vehicles)?
I wish I could be of more help, but this is just the
tip of the iceberg...
I think the more important thing, is "What is the
_growth_ of EVs in the US and worldwide?"
peace,
--- Jay Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there an estimate of how many EVs are in daily
> (or near daily) use in the
> USA?
> JLC
>
>
Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic? My $20 video/DVD
has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too!
Learn more at:
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I wish I was being sarcastic. :( Well, the voltage drops less if I hit the
footswitch quickly versus if I press it for 1/2 a second, but I don't have a
way of timing it, and yeah it's probably longer than 10ms. Didn't know it's
supposed to be that fast, maybe I'll look into some sort of electronic timed
switch.
- Tony
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:59:48 AM
Subject: Re: Woohoo! just finished homemade capacitive discharge spot battery
tab welder
You are being sarcastic correct?
if not:
2ms preweld 4ms weld has been recommended as a start point. anything
over 10ms has been warned against.
1 ms = 1/1000 second
1/2 second on the footswitch is 500ms ! I doubt if the mechanical switch
can actually switch less than 10ms
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I believe what you may be seeing is crankshafts that have a
> counterweight as part of the flywheel flange.
I believe you are correct.
> That isn't what they
> normally call externally balanced in hot rodder terminology in that
> it does not require a special flywheel or dampener, but it sure as
> heck would impact what we're trying to do.
Agreed.
> I'll have to take a look
> at a 350 crank and see if it looks like the counterweight could be
> machined off. I do seem to remember most Chevy cranks having
> something other than round flanges. I don't know that
> machining that weight off would be a show stopper.
Looking closely at the specific cranks offered on the gm site it appears
that the pre 86 (ie internally balanced) hubs have the flange, while the
86 forward (ie externally balanced) have round hubs:
pre 86:
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=884&CATID=883.html
Note that the hub is on the left of picture, with its *backside*
visible...
86 forward:
http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=888&CATID=883.html
Note that hub is on the right with front side visible.
So apparently they just moved the weight of that hub flange to the
flywheel starting in 1986. So now we need to know if the post 86 (ie 3"
pattern) has as much 'meat' on it as the pre 86. If it does, the post
86 would be the hub of choice.
> I wonder if the crank may not stick as far out of the block
> either, which raises questions about pilot bearing location, bell
> housing depth, etc.
I *think* the depth is the same, I've always slapped whatever
transmission onto the GM 621 bellhousing without worrying about
pilot shaft length.
> Another thought might be to standardize on the 3" bolt circle, if
> there are the same variety of aftermarket pieces available for it.
> That is probably the same pattern Electro-Automotive does for the
> Vortec V6.
This is my guess, I wish they would answer my email... Of particular
interest to me is the fact that they can cut the hub for the seimens
motors, which use a splined shaft, as opposed to a taperlock
arrangement.
> I would never recommend trying to cut off an old crank, To much to
> make it mount to the motor, Too much chance of getting the pattern
> off from what you are adding.
I would like to support both paths, ie. catalog the knowledge necessary
to build it from a crank, as well as to build one from scratch.
> Even having 10 sets made, would get some savings, For something like
> e-machine, it jumps the gap from one-off to cnc and once it is cnc,
> it can be "re-ordered".
I would be willing to be 1 or 2 of the 10. Bear in mind that I need
a slightly more complicated version, ie. splined shaft instead of
taperlock. The real complication here is that you need to machine
an area beneath the pilot bearing for the retainer bolt.
Victor's site (metricmind) has detailed pictures that might help
you to visualize this:
http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/main2.htm
Its 'frames', so once there, select "Adapter Plate and Shaft Coupler",
then "The shaft coupler". Examine pictures 1 thru 6.
---
Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Whewww Shawn! That's great. Welcome to the 125 MPH Club!
Aren't you glad OJ didn't end up hanging from the rafters of some
fancy restaurant?
And all so close to the 1 percent needed for the DR/B record.
But this proves there's still plenty of life in OJ yet. It ran great
at 10.9 with the A123s and now running 10.41 with the Deka's. 9's are
just around the corner. I can feel it.
Like you said, just get those batteries a little hotter and running
on a good sticky track and it's your's. I'd like to see it when it
happens.
Good going!
Chip
On Jun 10, 2007, at 2:36 AM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 10, 2007 1:38:46 AM EDT
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: OJ dragster joins 125 club, gets closer to single digits
After being rained out at PODC and having a wheel hub problem on
Wednesday night, the Orange Juice racing team was anxious to get to
the track Friday night to find out just what this car would do with
it's new Lmc brush timing and Deka AGM batteries. Severe storms
cancelled our Friday run but we snuck out to the newly reopened
Quaker City Raceway in Salem, Oh today and managed to get in three
runs within three hrs. Traction was no problem today. The hot sun
and well manicured surface instantly cured our "up in smoke" ills.
In fact we had so much traction we couldn't keep the front end on
the ground until after 100+ ft. Second time driver Eric Stanislaw
did an awesome job at manhandling the torque and was rewarded on
the third run with a 10.41 at 127 MPH. Not bad for 240 volts of
AGM. He had to lift only once on the third run to bring it back
down, which was much better than his first two ( 10.72 @ 123 and
10.57 @ 125). We were contemplating one more run, cranking it up
and just letting the front end do what it wanted but we decided to
end on a good note. The run for single digits on 240 volts is
going to be soooooo close. I think a trip back to Mason Dixon and
the hot Maryland sun may be in order. It would be great to hit the
9's in Chip's backyard. Funny, all it took to get OJ off her lazy
rear end was to pay a little attention to a bike named AGNS.
Shawn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> David,
>
> a skip is a large metal box used to take rubbiush away from building
> sites, looks a bit like a swim ended barge.
LOL, swim ended?
For those who care, in the USA a Skip is called a Dumpster.
> when Peter said "won't be skiping" he probably means he won't be
> throwing them away.
>
> UK English is English.
>
>
>
> David Roden wrote:
>> On 8 Jun 2007 at 5:17, Peter Perkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I certainly won't be skiping them anytime soon.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand what "skiping" means. (Maybe this is UK
>> English?)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 ---
Otmar's controller, Rudmans charger, motor tweeked by Husted & built by John
Wayland. But the batteries are still a problem. Sure there are some fine
batteries out there that will get the job done for a short range performance
oriented commuter but I'm still licking my chops for the lithium dream and
the 100 plus mile car with a stock curb weight. I just don't want to spend
35k doing it. Lawrence Rhodes.......
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jim Husted wrote:
I'll start saying that having just spent time with Oat
he's about as nice a guy as is out there!
If he is so nice howcome he strongly refuses to show even a superficial
picture of the innards of a controller when asked when he has alread
shown it off on national tv.
If he is so nice howcome he won't answer which transistors he uses so
others could benefit from his experience and help promote EVs.
If he is such a martyr making no money howcome he is so against telling
the cost of the parts so we can see the sacrifice he makes for us all.
I do computer graphics for a living and if someone asks me how is this
done I tell them without reservation and with the intent of optimal
communication for their benefit. And last I checked the world wasn't
dying because of lack of exposure of computer graphics.
The zilla is an interesting example of what can be done but please don't
pretend that everything he does and says is golden. That sickens me Jim
when big things are on the line here. The pettyness of this community
has surprised me. I had assumed that anyone into EVs were in it for the
idealistim since it is obviously easier to use gas cars but that
certainly wasn't the case. There is a small army of Otmar asskissers
here willing to deeply irrationally defend Otmar from any criticism. how
dare I. as if he was a god. This is not about Otmar people.
For me it's about how to change this world from a combustion base into
EV based and Otmar is far from 'nice' in this respect. get your
priorities straight people
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Seriously. I look to the computer industry as an example and I know the
> critiziems about hardware vs software.
>
> My video card is ATI, I will never buy ATI again, I now buy NVIDIA
> and it fits in the same slot.
> My power supply is an Antec, it would make Rich proud, PFC and
> effiencient.
> My monitor is...
> My diskdrives are Western Digital
> ...shall I go on?
Good example of a standard that was NOT created by group consensus. IBM
developed the original PC bus (on their own). This was folowed by a 1/2
dozen different "Standard" busses that were mutually incompatible. The
ones we have today (and there are STILL more than one, in fact there are
at least three different graphics card busses) are the ones that survived
due to popularity, not any kind of group commitee.
> We already have a few de-facto ones. RegBus,EVil Bus, Andersosn
> connectors.(not all of the standards need to be our own.)
The RegBus and EVil Bus were developed by an individual. He polled the
list and then did it his way (as I recall a lot of folks were pushing for
CanBus at the time)
Where the list, as a whole, tries to decided on a standard they usually
just get bogged down in disagreements.
"Standards" are developed by those who DO things, not those who discuss
them. The list, as a whole, can't DO anything other than discuss things.
--
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 ---
Hello Lee
I'm trying to educate myself to the point of being able to design and build
my own controller. I've rented that 4 part series introduction to
electronics from smartflicks. I've been reading a lot of stuff from the net.
I'd love to save money on a controller, and I understand the fallacies in
this approach to that goal, but that is not the reason that I'm interested
in doing this. I do projects like this because I like to learn new things
and I like an in depth knowledge of my hobbies.
As an example when I got into computers and trained myself and acquired my
MCSE+I (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer + Internet) I also taught
myself programming.
Anywho there is such a mass of information out there and I'm not as young as
I used to be, so I feel like I'm floundering. I need some direction. :)
Can you point me in the direction of some resources for this goal?
Thanks for you time.
David Hankins
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:16 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Triangle wave generator
Chet Fields wrote:
> [a micro] may not be a good idea as it may lock up and cause the
> MOSFETs to be stuck...
Danny Miller wrote:
> It is far easier to design a system- and do it right- with a uC.
This is one of those questions where the best answer depends on your
skill level.
If you happen to be a skilled programmer and an expert in microcomputer
based design, then this is the best approach (for you).
If you happen to be a skilled analog design engineer and an expert with
opamps, then that's the best approach (for you).
Heck, if you are skilled with vacuum tubes and have a bunch of them
lying around, even they would be a satisfactory approach.
You can build a great design with *any* of these technologies. Or, if
you don't know what you're doing, you can build a lousy design with any
of them, too!
My usual concern with microcomputers is that it's so easy to build
really flaky designs with them. Do a shoddy job designing the hardware,
and it crashes from static electricity or noise. Do a shoddy job on the
software, and it's buggy and crashes.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You cannot machine that counter weight off, because you will be going into
the flywheel bolt holes.
One thing about cutting a flange off a crank shaft, is first cut it with the
main bearing journal in tack. This will leave a stub so you can chuck it
into the lathe.
When the machinist is done installing the taper lock, then he can cut off
this stub to the correct length.
Dress up this main bearing journal so it is parallel with the nose section
on the front of the crank flange. This nose press fits into the flywheel to
center it. Have the machinist chuck on the OD diameter of this nose section
to true up the main journals.
Then turn around the flange and chuck the main journal in the lathe and
proceed to bore and cut a taper in the crank flange. The taper cut for the
taper lock bushing will only cut about 0.125 inch of the nose section, so
there is some there for centering.
I had one coupler did this way, but was only key and install 4 set screws 90
degrees apart. I had two couplers with the taper lock bushing install.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
> > I believe what you may be seeing is crankshafts that have a
> > counterweight as part of the flywheel flange.
>
> I believe you are correct.
>
> > That isn't what they
> > normally call externally balanced in hot rodder terminology in that
> > it does not require a special flywheel or dampener, but it sure as
> > heck would impact what we're trying to do.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> > I'll have to take a look
> > at a 350 crank and see if it looks like the counterweight could be
> > machined off. I do seem to remember most Chevy cranks having
> > something other than round flanges. I don't know that
> > machining that weight off would be a show stopper.
>
> Looking closely at the specific cranks offered on the gm site it appears
> that the pre 86 (ie internally balanced) hubs have the flange, while the
> 86 forward (ie externally balanced) have round hubs:
>
>
> pre 86:
> http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=884&CATID=883.html
> Note that the hub is on the left of picture, with its *backside*
> visible...
>
>
> 86 forward:
> http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=888&CATID=883.html
> Note that hub is on the right with front side visible.
>
> So apparently they just moved the weight of that hub flange to the
> flywheel starting in 1986. So now we need to know if the post 86 (ie 3"
> pattern) has as much 'meat' on it as the pre 86. If it does, the post
> 86 would be the hub of choice.
>
> > I wonder if the crank may not stick as far out of the block
> > either, which raises questions about pilot bearing location, bell
> > housing depth, etc.
>
> I *think* the depth is the same, I've always slapped whatever
> transmission onto the GM 621 bellhousing without worrying about
> pilot shaft length.
>
> > Another thought might be to standardize on the 3" bolt circle, if
> > there are the same variety of aftermarket pieces available for it.
> > That is probably the same pattern Electro-Automotive does for the
> > Vortec V6.
>
> This is my guess, I wish they would answer my email... Of particular
> interest to me is the fact that they can cut the hub for the seimens
> motors, which use a splined shaft, as opposed to a taperlock
> arrangement.
>
> > I would never recommend trying to cut off an old crank, To much to
> > make it mount to the motor, Too much chance of getting the pattern
> > off from what you are adding.
>
> I would like to support both paths, ie. catalog the knowledge necessary
> to build it from a crank, as well as to build one from scratch.
>
> > Even having 10 sets made, would get some savings, For something like
> > e-machine, it jumps the gap from one-off to cnc and once it is cnc,
> > it can be "re-ordered".
>
> I would be willing to be 1 or 2 of the 10. Bear in mind that I need
> a slightly more complicated version, ie. splined shaft instead of
> taperlock. The real complication here is that you need to machine
> an area beneath the pilot bearing for the retainer bolt.
> Victor's site (metricmind) has detailed pictures that might help
> you to visualize this:
> http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/main2.htm
>
> Its 'frames', so once there, select "Adapter Plate and Shaft Coupler",
> then "The shaft coupler". Examine pictures 1 thru 6.
>
> ---
> Steve
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:06:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Chevy motor adapters
>> I believe what you may be seeing is crankshafts that have a
>> counterweight as part of the flywheel flange.
>
> I believe you are correct.
>
>> That isn't what they
>> normally call externally balanced in hot rodder terminology in that
>> it does not require a special flywheel or dampener, but it sure as
>> heck would impact what we're trying to do.
>
> Agreed.
Here is a funky picture of the back of a mid 70's Chevy crank:
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/partshelf/crank1.jpg
Note that it has a two step hole in the back, the bigger, shallower one
indexes a torque converter, the deeper one I believe holds a pilot bushing
for a manual. This needs further study, as that second step, if it is
required for the pilot bushing, means this adapter must be significantly
longer, and therefore the adapter deeper, for use with a manual than if it
is not required.
Sitting next to it is a torque converter eliminator coupler made for this
crank.
Following is the laymans description of it I'm sending Electro Automotive:
See the attached picture "crank1.jpg". Sitting next to the crank is the TCI
coupler that bolts to the crank.
Please note that my measurements are of a crank with some surface rust, made
with 30 year old Sears vernier calipers, so accuracy is iffy.
First, a 1985 and older Chevy crank typically has a crank counterweight cast
into the flywheel flange. It is not round, it's almost rectangular with the
rectangle offset to one side. That should have no impact on us, since we're
not trying to balance the inside of the ICE. Slightly raised from the
counterweight is the actual flywheel mounting surface of the flange.
The flywheel mounting face is round, 4.5" diameter (not critical, as the
circle is actually cut into in a couple places due to the balancing).
Sticking up about .335" in the center is a round protrusion, 2.488" diameter
(according to my vernier caliper), which sticks through the hole in the
flywheel. This protrusion is bored with a 1.70" hole, .546" deep. If an
automatic with a torque converter is used, the torque converter front snout
indexes in this hole. My TCI convertor eliminator may also, depending on
the depth it is set to (it is adjustable). The manual transmission pilot
bushing, as I remember, does not seat in this hole. There is a second hole
farther in.
The second hole is cast to a depth of 1.95", but only finish bored to 1.377"
deep and 1.085" diameter. I believe this is where the pilot bushing is
seated. I haven't looked at one in a long time.
Bolt circle measures 3.73".
6 Bolts plus one hole for an indexing pin which seems generally unused
The six holes are equally spaced. I've heard of cranks with unequal
spacing. If that's true, it must be on the small block 400 flange. It uses
an unbalanced flywheel and needs to make sure the flywheel is properly
indexed.
Bolts are 7/16"x20. I don't have one to measure, but I'm seeing 1" long
flywheel bolts advertised for sale. The flange is about 1/2" thick with
through holes.
The attached photo "coupler2.jpg" shows the coupler in place at the front of
the trans. From the straightedge to the crank flange face on the front of
the coupler (which should be the same as a flywheel) is about .5 inches.
I'm guessing this is about the same as the Vortec spacing.
We've got a few people interested now on the EV discussion mailing list.
Here is a link to "coupler1.jpg":
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/partshelf/coupler1.jpg
>
>
>> I'll have to take a look
>> at a 350 crank and see if it looks like the counterweight could be
>> machined off. I do seem to remember most Chevy cranks having
>> something other than round flanges. I don't know that
>> machining that weight off would be a show stopper.
>
> Looking closely at the specific cranks offered on the gm site it appears
> that the pre 86 (ie internally balanced) hubs have the flange, while the
> 86 forward (ie externally balanced) have round hubs:
>
>
> pre 86:
> http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=884&CATID=883.html
> Note that the hub is on the left of picture, with its *backside*
> visible...
>
>
> 86 forward:
> http://www.gmpartsdirect.com/performance_parts/store/catalog/Product.jhtmlPRODID=888&CATID=883.html
> Note that hub is on the right with front side visible.
>
> So apparently they just moved the weight of that hub flange to the
> flywheel starting in 1986. So now we need to know if the post 86 (ie 3"
> pattern) has as much 'meat' on it as the pre 86. If it does, the post
> 86 would be the hub of choice.
I don't know if I buy that. If all the 1986 and later motors are externally
balanced by the flywheel because the counterweight was removed from the
crank, that means all the aftermarket flywheels for 1986 and later engines
are out of balance, so we can't use them without a lot of extra work. One
of the reasons I'd think we want to do this is because of the variety of
balanced low inertia flywheels that are out there.
>> I wonder if the crank may not stick as far out of the block
>> either, which raises questions about pilot bearing location, bell
>> housing depth, etc.
>
> I *think* the depth is the same, I've always slapped whatever
> transmission onto the GM 621 bellhousing without worrying about
> pilot shaft length.
>
>> Another thought might be to standardize on the 3" bolt circle, if
>> there are the same variety of aftermarket pieces available for it.
>> That is probably the same pattern Electro-Automotive does for the
>> Vortec V6.
>
> This is my guess, I wish they would answer my email... Of particular
> interest to me is the fact that they can cut the hub for the seimens
> motors, which use a splined shaft, as opposed to a taperlock
> arrangement.
>
>> I would never recommend trying to cut off an old crank, To much to
>> make it mount to the motor, Too much chance of getting the pattern
>> off from what you are adding.
>
> I would like to support both paths, ie. catalog the knowledge necessary
> to build it from a crank, as well as to build one from scratch.
Looking at the back of my chevy crank, it'd be very hard to make that thing
balance. If only rare forged cranks with a round flange are suitable, it
may be that cutting up cranks with a 3.5" bolt circle is not worth pursuing.
If the 3" bolt circle crank ends are usable, and there are a sufficient
number of forged ones around, then that might be a possibility, if there are
sufficient aftermarket couplers and flywheels available in that pattern.
>
>> Even having 10 sets made, would get some savings, For something like
>> e-machine, it jumps the gap from one-off to cnc and once it is cnc,
>> it can be "re-ordered".
>
> I would be willing to be 1 or 2 of the 10. Bear in mind that I need
> a slightly more complicated version, ie. splined shaft instead of
> taperlock. The real complication here is that you need to machine
> an area beneath the pilot bearing for the retainer bolt.
> Victor's site (metricmind) has detailed pictures that might help
> you to visualize this:
> http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/main2.htm
>
> Its 'frames', so once there, select "Adapter Plate and Shaft Coupler",
> then "The shaft coupler". Examine pictures 1 thru 6.
>
> ---
> Steve
I've got to look at a Chevy pilot bushing installed again. I'm visualizing
a pilot bushing set a whole lot deaper into the flywheel than that one is.
If I'm visualizing a taper lock hub realistically (I've never seen one), I'm
hoping the pilot bushing can fit between the taper lock retaining screws.
Maybe even into the motor shaft (except that my motor shaft would need to be
bored to hold the bushing).
Marty
--- End Message ---
