EV Digest 2603
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Force Update, the Saga Continues..........
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Battery Storage Areas
by Jim Coate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: pick-up truck dimensions?
by Jim Coate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: pick-up truck dimensions?
by Jim Coate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: LIN bus link
by "Chris Brune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: BMS cost (was Re: LIN bus link)
by "Chris Brune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Tilley Scam Exposed in the Media
by "Tom Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: US Electricar Prizm on Ebay
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: LRR Revisited
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) (Shunt) controller options
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) RE: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by "Humphrey, Timothy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: fun donor car in Pacific Northwest ebay#2160088074
by "James Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: EV1s waiting - GM's response and its resulting sadness
by Sam Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) FW: Disposal of lithium-metal polymer batteries
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17) Avestor Lithium Battery
by "Mike Pengelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) New Product - AC Drive System
by Sam Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) EBEAA Meeting this Saturday, 2/22/03 10-12 in Alameda, CA
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20) Re: LRR Revisited
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Real Quiet here!
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Testing, please ignore
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) torque rod
by Seth Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Quiet Snowmobiles.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hi folks,
Well after the good news on one car we all knew the other car would be
worse. The faint noise I was hearing was the motor spinning merrily away
without moving the car. Would you believe a shredded gearbox? Somehow, the
differential gears and probably more inside the custom Solectria reduction
gearbox are broken apart and some even came out with the oil when I drained
it. Solectria is looking into my repair/replacement options, but I smell
major expense here. Anyone know of a wreaked Force with parts for sale?
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Lassiter wrote:
> so the difference comes between the wheel base.
This triggered a memory that "wheel base" is often reported in those
consumer magazines ranking various vehicles, so gives me a way to look
it up.
> Can you or someone out there give me a quick run down on the
> size vehicle's that you normally use and what type of power
> they produce, plus battery capacity?
It all depends on what your needs are... not to dodge your question, but
people convert motorcycles, various street cars, pickup trucks and up to
a Hummer (and bar stools, couches and boats too :-). Power produced is
say 10-100 horsepower (or 200+ for racers) and with a couple of KWH on
up to 30 or 40 KWH stored in the battery pack.
Assuming you want a basic 'round town car, something like a converted
Volkswagen or Geo or small pickup is the common way to go. The compact
car is smaller to begin with so in turn the motor, controllers, and
batteries can all be smaller for similar performance. On the other hand,
a pickup truck can literally hold a ton of lead without major body &
suspension modifications so in a way easier to convert. For my present
S-10 truck, the motor is nominally rated at 28 HP, and I can get 60-70
HP peaks with the present battery pack, which can store a usable 13 KWH
of power (when in good condition). My next tuck I'm dreaming of is
targeted for 100 HP peak and 30 KWH of storage.
If you are thinking about getting an EV, maybe tell us a little about
what you want to do with it - how many people to carry, what cargo to
carry, how far between recharging, how heavy a foot you have when
accelerating, etc. Then can narrow down what types of cars are a good
match.
_________
Jim Coate
1992 Chevy S-10
1970s Elec-Trak E20
http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So several good reasons to favor an S-10 over a Ranger. I assume that
little Toyota's and such have frames that don't work out well since they
aren't a common conversion.
On the S-10, when the body style changed in 1994 (93?), did the basic
frame layout stay the same, with the leaf springs under the rails, the
drive shaft centered, etc.? Or do I need to stick to the older version?
Alan Shedd wrote:
> Hi Jim:
>
> I have helped schools with S-10 and Ranger conversions. I think the S-10 is
> a little easier to convert if you are planning to put the batteries between
> the frame rails. (I think this is the most secure and best looking method.)
> The frame rails have a wider spacing on the S-10 than the Ranger. On the
> Ranger, the leaf springs are to the outside of the frame rails and the rails
> are about 37" outside to outside (on an '83) On the S-10, the leaf springs
> are underneath the frame rails. Also the rear suspension on the Ranger uses
> staggered shocks - the one on the right is angled forward while the one on
> the left is angled to the rear from the axle. Further, the differential
> housing is not centered between the rear wheels so the drive shaft runs at
> an angle from the back of the transmission to the differential. We were
> able to mount 5 T-145s in the engine compartment, three T-145s turned
> long-dimension fore and aft in a box on the left of the driveshaft in front
> of the axle, two on the right side and five more in a box behind the axle.
> This was a long-bed truck and there was more room behind the axle to install
> more batteries but the school limited the voltage to 96 (ed. program rules).
> This arrangement provided good front-rear and side-to-side weight
> distribution.
>
> On an S-10 conversion, we located 2 T-145s up front. Three each in boxes on
> each side of the drive shaft (inside the rails) in front of the axle and
> eight in a box behind the axle. I have several photos, dimensions, and can
> put you in touch with people at each school who can run out and measure
> things you have questions about.
>
> You can get some dimensional data from service manuals for the trucks but
> there is no substitute for looking at on and measuring it the way you want.
> Let me know how I can help.
>
> -Alan
>
> Alan C. Shedd, P.E.
> Advisor to Georgia's Electric Vehicle Education Program
> (cell) 770-654-0027
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________
Jim Coate
1992 Chevy S-10
1970s Elec-Trak E20
http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Interesting... my present truck has 8 behind the rear axle, 8 between
the axle and cab (4 either side of the drive shaft) and 6 up front where
the radiator would have been. It seems to handle OK, although it has had
an extra leaf added to the springs on each side and possibly bigger
shocks. I bought it post conversion so maybe I just don't know what it
should feel like.
However, the truck I'm contemplating would have NiCads so that will make
it easier to reduce the weight behind the axle.
Thomas Shay wrote:
Be careful about putting battery behind the rear axles. There's risk
of oversteer and loss of control when the center of gravity is too
far back. Every expert will tell you that heavy loads in a pickup
should be placed as far forward as possible. Eight T-145s in a box
behind the rear axle is really asking for trouble.
If the center of gravity is too far back and the truck tends to oversteer,
wider
wheels and tires, more air in the rear tires and stiffer rear springs can
cure
the oversteer and restore safe handling at least to the extent that a
heavily
loaded pickup can be safe.
My Ranger had 17 T-105s in the pickup box with none behind the axle
centerline and three under the hood. It needed two leaves added to each
rear spring to restore the rear ride height. Front/rear weights were 1640
and 2240lbs with no driver or passenger. It did oversteer until I put
wider wheels and tires on the rear.
Tom Shay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Shedd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EVL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: pick-up truck dimensions?
I have helped schools with S-10 and Ranger conversions. I think the S-10
is
a little easier to convert if you are planning to put the batteries
between
the frame rails. (I think this is the most secure and best looking
method.)
The frame rails have a wider spacing on the S-10 than the Ranger. On the
Ranger, the leaf springs are to the outside of the frame rails and the
rails
are about 37" outside to outside (on an '83) On the S-10, the leaf
springs
are underneath the frame rails. Also the rear suspension on the Ranger
uses
staggered shocks - the one on the right is angled forward while the one on
the left is angled to the rear from the axle. Further, the differential
housing is not centered between the rear wheels so the drive shaft runs at
an angle from the back of the transmission to the differential. We were
able to mount 5 T-145s in the engine compartment, three T-145s turned
long-dimension fore and aft in a box on the left of the driveshaft in
front
of the axle, two on the right side and five more in a box behind the axle.
This was a long-bed truck and there was more room behind the axle to
install
more batteries but the school limited the voltage to 96 (ed. program
rules).
This arrangement provided good front-rear and side-to-side weight
distribution.
On an S-10 conversion, we located 2 T-145s up front. Three each in boxes
on
each side of the drive shaft (inside the rails) in front of the axle and
eight in a box behind the axle. I have several photos, dimensions, and
can
put you in touch with people at each school who can run out and measure
things you have questions about.
--
_________
Jim Coate
1992 Chevy S10
1970's Elec-Trak
http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee,
I completely understand some of the issues that you are trying to put out
there. As I design electronic products for vehicles for a living I
completely understand alot of the issues. Costing info that I talk about
really assumes leveraging the resources of the company I work for. They are
interested in making products for EVs, and I am interested in designing
them.
I am already working on another project that will use 100K/year of the
microcontroller, so high-volume pricing does apply. PCBs come from China,
etc...
What I was hoping to offer to the list was some infomation that might be
valuable to people in discussing the LIN bus. The LIN bus looks to me like
a viable alternative to CAN type buses for a battery monitoring system. If
someone has technical and/or financial reason to believe it is not I think
that would be valuable to me and the list.
Chris Brune
From: "Lee Hart"
> Chris Brune wrote:
> > I have been casually looking at the LIN bus for a BMS for the last
> > couple of weeks...
>
> > A drawback is that the bus really only wants to have 16 devices on
> > it. But I don't see why one couldn't build a gateway(s) to expand
> > the network up to the maximum number of nodes (which I believe is 60).
> > The 16 node limit is a hardware limit, not a protocol limit.
>
> To me, its seems that the LIN bus isn't really designed for this
> application (no isolation, not enough nodes, no enough noise immunity).
> So you have to change it. Once you've changed it, there is little point
> in worrying about compatibility.
>
> It's a little like saying you need a screw, but have this nice box of
> nails. So let's machine the nails into screws. It's a false economy --
> just get what you really need to do the job right.
>
> > I think optical isolation would be fairly easy.
>
> It's not. Speed, and power consumption become a problem. If you're not
> careful, your network's power consumption will run the batteries down.
>
> > The 8 pin MC68HC908QT4 has a 4ch 8 bit ADC. Probably could have
> > battery monitoring slaves for a cost of $5-10.
>
> I don't think you are being realistic about costs. It appears that you
> are picking a few chips, using their high-volume prices, and then
> assuming zero cost for everything else; all the rest of the parts, PC
> board (layout and tooling), software, packaging, and testing.
>
> I've struggled through this on a number of design. Here's something that
> works fairly well as a rule of thumb. I've heard it called the 1-3-9
> rule: List the obvious parts and their cost. Multiply by 3 to get the
> real parts cost, after you've included all the parts, shipping to get
> them, etc.
>
> Then multiply by 3 again to get the final cost you would have to charge
> someone just to break even (no profit). This includes the cost of your
> purchased software (like a C compiler), software development system and
> ICE, PC board layout and tooling, PC board assembly, testing, and
> packaging.
>
> For example, if your "obvious" parts cost $5 (a micro, a network chip,
> two optos, etc.), then expect your final BOM to be $15, and the finished
> module to be around $45. That's a lot of money per battery!
> --
> Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor, I think this is good information. Engineers always like to have a
cost target. I think a good target is a selling price of $10-$15 per
battery. The challenge will be how to get there and what features will it
have.
Chris Brune
From: "Victor Tikhonov"
> Lee Hart wrote:
> >
> > For example, if your "obvious" parts cost $5 (a micro, a network chip,
> > two optos, etc.), then expect your final BOM to be $15, and the finished
> > module to be around $45. That's a lot of money per battery!
> > --
> > Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> > 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> > Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> > leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
>
> Unspoken consensus is that about 15% of the battery pack is
> in the BMS is acceptable. Make it 20% for good BMS.
>
> For $150 LiIon cell (in quantity) this means the module
> must be $30 or less. Tough, but doable. 15% would be $22.5
>
> I don't believe one can even break even, the parts alone will cost
> $15...$20. Doing it as a hobby spending money as for everything else
> is OK, but selling such thing at some profit will be very difficult
> task, unless mass produced and committed customer(s) exist.
>
> I've gone through this analysis. I see at least 5 different
> listers work on their own BMS implementation. Best luck guys,
> just have realistic expectations. Unless a customer is ready
> to pay 1/3 to 1/2 of the pack cost for the BMS, you may find
> yourself in a wrong business.
>
> Victor
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The first part of the Tilley investigation is now online:
http://www.wsmv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1141479&nav=9Tb0E7wT
There is a link to a video clip that is the first part of the investigative
report on this page. Click on the "Inventor's company went bankrupt" link
under the picture of the gauges.
The video clip has the whole report, with footage of the Delorean EV. The
second half of the story should be online tomorrow.
-Tom
Thomas Hudson
http://portdistrict5.org -- 5th District Aldermanic Website
http://portev.org -- Electric Vehicles, Solar Power & More
http://portgardenclub.org -- Port Washington Garden Club
http://portlightstation.org -- Light Station Restoration
http://klanky.com -- Animation projects
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mabe not , why not contact the buyer and let them know that when there tired
of fooling around with it you'll buy it .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trotman Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: RE: US Electricar Prizm on Ebay
> Well , I lost the bid on the car , it went for $3,300 but I could'nt click
> fast enough.
> I had it at $3,200 but was out bid in the last 20 sec.
> I will keep looking.
> Not many 5 passenger EV's out there.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Quick question:
How much difference does the type of type make?
Anyone have any pointers to any research on the topic?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Wilmer Hechanova [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 21 February 2003 2:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LRR Revisited
I'm needing to replace the tires of my '96 Tacoma EV and have done as much research as
I can. Tire reps seem to know little to nothing when you say "Low Rolling
Resistance." A tiny little bell rings when you say "Fuel Effiecient Tire." LRR tires
that have been used in EVs seem to have very low ratings in surveys among IC drivers
in regard to traction, ride and noise categories. Fuel efficiency never seems to be
rated in surveys.
Invictas are no longer available. Energy MXV4s have mixed reviews. Potenza is a
possibility but have no reviews that I've found. Integrity reviews have IC drivers
swearing never to buy them again. The Nokian rep says the Hekkapeliita Q is their
lowest LRR tire they make but their website seems to point to the NRT2 as being "fuel
efficient."
So . . . I give up. What available tire line is in the most use in EVs now? What's
the best compromise?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All
Had a request for a controller to replace a couple of rather old
shunt-field units by the local railway. There are two control methods, one
has a pot, the other is to be controlled by either 0 to 5V, 0 to 10V, or 4
to 20mA.
So we are looking for a controller to PWM a field (several applications)
over ranges up to 70A. B+ is nominally 110VDC, I talked to the Australian
importer of Curtis controllers, the ones that he knows of that can cope
with that voltage are 400+Amp units, and priced accordingly.
What is available in a manufactured item PWM controller that meets the
following spec?
- B+ maximum 150V
- Max current up to 100A
- isolated from case to 1500V <4mSec, alternatively we can add
supplimentary case isolation.
- Choice of pot or voltage inputs
Since this application meets parameters that would be needed to be met by
an EV shunt controller, I 'figgered this would be a good place to ask. And
how old are these controllers to be replaced? well, to get parts for one
they are negotiating with the local museum......
Thanks
James Massey
Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But the Tango isn't meant to be a piece of sh#t econobox, it is a two seater
sports car. It's competition is the Viper, Corvette, and Z-3's of the world,
and it's half the price of them and more than twice as efficient.
Your opinion may vary.
Stay Charged!
Hump
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 6:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: EV1s waiting,rant, an' stuff
>
>
> Only problem with the $ 25000 to $ 35000 Tango is that it can
> not compete
> economically with a $ 10000 Echo that gets 35 miles per gallon.
> Gasoline will need to atleast triple in price before the
> average person
> could financially justify a Tango or any other EV or Hybrid of similar
> high cost.
> Menlo Park III,
> Bill
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:11:48 -0500 "Chris Tromley"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bob Rice wrote:
> >
> > > Some of this inginuity were applied to EV
> > > technology, as well as energy saving stuff too. So we
> > > wouldn't need so much oil. Just the talent on this List,
> > > ganged up anf funded, could get EV's out there in big no.s
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. All the talent we need is right here on this
> > list right now. Unfortunately, we all need our day jobs to support
> > us.
> >
> > Is there anyone on the list who knows someone with more net worth
> > than
> > they will ever need, and a big heart? It's a serious question.
> > Twenty
> > to thirty employees, 15000 to 20000 sq. ft., maybe fifteen million
> > dollars (a big chunk of that for marketing). Shoot for 200
> vehicles
> > the
> > first year, ramping up to 1000/year in five years. DO NOT
> TRY TO BE
> > THE
> > NEXT GM OR FORD. Start small. Get a fully-functional EV available
> > to
> > the public. Market it like the new thing it truly is. They will
> > buy.
> > Then you grow.
> >
> > I have zero doubt that a company made from the talent of this list
> > could
> > open the eyes of the public to a whole new way to drive. The only
> > unknown in my mind is the certification process. How long, how
> > much?
> > For that matter, the quickest way to put production EVs on the road
> > is
> > simply to fund the certification and production tooling of Rick
> > Woodbury's Tango. Rick could probably have cars on the market
> > within
> > months of certification.
> >
> > This may read like the hopeful musings of an
> enviro-socio-idealist.
> > Not
> > true. This is from an engineering manager with a pretty firm grasp
> > of
> > what can and cannot be done. We are so near to making this happen,
> > yet
> > so far. We could literally change the face of personal
> > transportation.
> > How do we get there?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yeah, that looks like it would be fun. But I would be concerned about how
it would handle the extra weight of batteries et.al.
James
James F. Jarrett
Information Systems Associate
Charlotte Country Day School
(704)943-4562
Sure it's user-friendly...if you know what you're doing.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Carl Clifford
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: fun donor car in Pacific Northwest ebay#2160088074
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2160088074&category=418
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
billglic wrote:
> Only problem with the $ 25000 to $ 35000 Tango is that it can
> not compete economically with a $ 10000 Echo that gets 35
> miles per gallon. Gasoline will need to atleast triple in
> price before the average person could financially justify a
> Tango or any other EV or Hybrid of similar high cost.
Hi Bill,
I think you're talking about two entirely different demographics. It's
a little like saying a $35k Corvette can't compete with a $10k Echo.
Most people won't buy a Tango because they want to save the earth.
They'll buy it because it's such a kick in the pants. These people
wouldn't even consider an Echo.
I think it's a big mistake for a relatively small company to try to
market the first EVs as people-movers. That market is well served by
other companies that have lots of experience and oceans of cash. A
start up cannot compete. Not only on a business and production volume
level, but on a technological level as well. People-movers are
extremely challenging to design well and the established competition is
very refined.
If it was my company, the first vehicle offered would be a killer sports
car. You need to make a splash, with a target market that will be
passionate about the car. Performance sells. People pay big dollars
for big high-g grins. They are more forgiving of little failings in
creature comfort or features. People-mover buyers will literally chose
another brand if they don't like how you've laid out the cup holders.
Think about it. A 2500 lb. car with 288+ V, twin 8s and a Z2k would
have the acceleration junkies lining up to buy. They would give your
start up EV company lots of exposure, putting you on the map. Since
that performance level puts you in the $40k and up price range, your
profits should be adequate to develop more broad-market offerings for
future release. Even if you stayed with low volume performance cars you
could remain profitable. How many Vipers have been sold? You know they
would disappear as soon as they failed to make a profit.
This is the key. Get in the market first. Establish yourself, however
small. Encourage any EV competitors, because confirming in the public's
eye that EVs are real helps all the players. From there on, you help in
changing how the public drives as quickly as your business acumen
allows.
I *know* this can be done. How to start?
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've spoken with Jill A. Banaszynski at GM. Several quotes have been
"We received your e-mail with your request for an EV1 vehicle. However,
we
are sorry to report that we have concuded our donations of non-running
EV1s
to selected key educational institutions and museums around the country.
While we appreciate your interest in the EV1, we are no longer able to
offer any vehicles for donation, sale or lease.
We are sorry that we are unable to fulfill your request. Best of luck
with
your research project."
and
"Those vehicles have other planned uses and are being shipped out daily.
Also, the EV1 has been a lease-only vehicle, with none being sold."
Sadness :( "Other planned uses" sounds like "going to electric vehicle
heaven".
-Sam
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 11:29 PM, Sam Harper wrote:
Alan,
Do you know who owns/leased the vehicles? I want to give it one last
try.
-Sam Harper
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 09:53 PM, Alan Shedd wrote:
Attached are two photos of some of the EV1's that have been reclaimed
from
leases and are waiting in Atlanta for the truck to carry them to
their final
parking spot. I know much has been said on the list about the waste
of
resources, how many of us would love to give one of these a good
home, and
how unfortunate the auto industry's stance is on battery-electric
vehicles.
Many people in Atlanta used these cars as their daily transportation.
I
know they will miss them. I will miss seeing one occasionally go by
on the
road. There's not much else to say. What the auto industry cannot
or
will not accomplish is left for us to do. Keep your EVs running and
keep
working toward your goals.
-Alan
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
While I'm encouraged by the activity in alternative battery
technologies. I've been concerned that seemingly not much attention is
being paid to the environmental issues they may raise. The recent
discussion about the Avestor Lithium Metal Polymer batteries prompted me
to ask them directly. Here's their response:
*****************
AVESTORs' Lithium Metal Polymer (LMP), the SE 48S70 battery is not
considered either a hazardous waste nor a universal waste under USEPA
(United States Environmental Protection Agency) rules.
The AVESTOR SE 48S70 battery does not contain lead, cadmium, mercury or
any other constituent that would cause it to be a hazardous waste. As a
result, it would not be considered a universal waste.
The AVESTOR SE 48S70 does not have secondary chemical reactions (for
example ; hydrogen generation, hydrogen sulfide generation or oxygen
recombination). AVESTOR will recycle the batteries and will safely
dispose of them once the batteries have reached the end of their useful
life.
AVESTOR abides by all environmental rules and regulations both in its
manufacturing process and disposal of batteries.
I have also attached the technical bulleting relating to environmental
issues. This bulletin is also in the recycling section of our web site,
www.avestor.com.
****************
I know the SE48S70 we were discussing can't provide the discharge rates
we need, but I find it very encouraging that Avestor will recycle the
batteries free of charge at end-of-life. (They do make EV batteries,
though others have said only OEMs can get them.) According to the
attachment (which I will forward to anyone on request), 75% of the
materials are recyclable now. A higher rate is expected in the future.
And nearly 100% of the toxic materials are recyclable. (I couldn't find
the recycling section on the website.)
I don't want to discount Evercels. They seem to be a much smaller
company, perhaps that's why they haven't fully addressed the recycling
issue yet. Based on what I know today, though, I'm inclined to look
toward lithium for the future of EVs. I'm very interested in what some
listers are doing with BMS.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 20/02/03 18:57:05 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Who owns the rights to the Tropica design? I know where most (all?) of the
> drawings are but I don't know about the rights. Sadly, the molds are gone.
> Nobody wanted to store them.
99% of the value of the design was in the body mouldings. The chassis was too
costly in terms of materials and too costly in terms of labour. You can't
base an economically successful design on that starting point. By successful
I mean you don't go broke.
Paul Compton
BVS technical officer www.bvs.org.uk
www.sciroccoev.co.uk
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I talked to Avestor about their new Lithium 48V battery.
http://www.avestor.com/se48s70.ch2
I was interested for a work related project, but I though you might like to
know what they told me.
First the price is not for the weak of heart, about $3400US for their 70AH
48V battery. ($1000/KWHr)
The unit is not rated for cycling. They spec. it for 3 cycles/year with a
10 year guarantee.
It is designed purely for backup where infrequent power failures are
expected.
They specify a slow recharge rate, about 24 hrs. to 90% charge.
They also indicated that discharging below 42V would damage the battery.
Not exactly what you want for an EV but if you are backing up electronic
equipment it has some very positive features.
Mike Pengelly
Phoenix, AZ
'90 Mustang EV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey guys. I'm talking with a manufacturer now, because I want to
resell their AC drive systems. I'm not really doing this to sell
product, but I want to learn more about products, and I think this is a
way to do so. Would people be interested in a drive system with these
specs:
Inverter
-100kw power rating
-Input from 12-400 VDC
-Peak current: 400 amps Nominal current: 300 amps
-Efficiency - 97.5%
-Liquid cooled
-Output - three-phase AC for flux vector or Volt/hz controlled
induction motors
-Features such as pot-box control, cruise control, regen braking,
vehicle reverse, and real-time diagnostics
-10lbs
Motor
-Peak power - 100kw/135HP, continuous power - 50kw/67HP
-Peak output : 300nm/220lbft, continuous output - 150nm/110lbft
-Base speed - 3000rpm
-Max speed - 6000rpm
-Efficiency - 92%
-3 in. long (4.75in long total), 11.2in diameter
-45lbs
-Water cooled
-Built-in encoders for inverter
-Sam Harper
Distortion Networks, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
678-758-4615
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
sorry about late notice.
*********START OF MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT***********
EV Charging Infrastructure
by Marc Geller, PENEAA Member &
Chapter Charging Coordinator for EBEAA
Saturday, February 22, 2003
>From 10 to 12 noon
Meeting Location: Alameda First Baptist Church
1515 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA
Visitors welcome, open to the public.
Marc Geller, who drives a Ford TH!NK City in San Francisco and across the
Bay Bridge to the East Bay, will be discussing the ins and outs of EV
charging infrastructure. He will also present opportunites we have as a
Chapter to coordinate with local business to install public charging
stations around the East Bay. We'd like to propose a letter to local
business to get infrastructure installed. Also be prepared to share any
contacts you might know to get governmental participation.
Also plenty of discussion about production and conversion EVs, and how
people can get an EV for local or commute driving. Arrangement of carpooling
and participation in the CARB meeting, changed to next month - March 27-28.
More planning for potentially 2 rallys - Pleasant Hill/Concord in the Spring
and possibly San Leandro area in the Fall.
Directions: Church is on North side of street, at the corner
of Santa Clara Ave and Stanton St in Alameda. Turn North on
Stanton St. and left into the parking lot.
http://www.geocities.com/ebeaa
**********END OF MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT************
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sorry if this is a repeat; it looks as if maybe it didn't cross the
listserver.
> The Nokian rep says the
> Hekkapeliita Q is their lowest LRR tire they make but their
> website seems to
> point to the NRT2 as being "fuel efficient."
The Hekkapeliita Q is a winter tire. I wouldn't expect it to be LRR, but I
suppose it's possible. The NRT2 is an all-season tire and is billed as "low
rolling resistance for fuel efficiency."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or
switch to digest mode? See http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
1991 Solectria Force 144vac
1991 Ford Escort Green/EV 128vdc
1970 GE Elec-trak E15 36vdc
1974 Avco New Idea rider 36vdc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thou shalt not send me any thing which says unto thee, "send this to all
thou knowest." Neither shalt thou send me any spam, lest I smite thee.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi All;
Is the list down? Really quiet here.! Not getting my daily feed of EV
stuff!
Seeya??
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 20 Feb 2003 at 19:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Gasoline will
> need to atleast triple in price before the average person could financially
> justify a Tango or any other EV or Hybrid of similar high cost.
Of course. This is the eternal issue facing EVs -- or for that matter any
other new product that seeks to compete with an established one --
especially a product that already generally satisfies its customers and has
no apparent vulnerabilities.
The first problem is that EVs just don't have the economy of scale that
fuelers do, so they can't compete on equal footing. This is the classic
chicken-and-egg deal.
The other problem is that the real social cost of fuel burners isn't borne
by the users. If it were, EVs could more easily become competitive. But
since the social cost is spread around invisibly, the user has no incentive
to use a vehicle that's less damaging. This is also part of the reason that
big SUVs and trucks are popular as one-passenger everyday commuter vehicles;
their true social cost (including collision injuries) isn't directly borne
by those who own them.
If the public (or visionary leaders) deemed EVs and their environmental
benefits to be publicly important, the first problem could be solved with
subsidies. After a time economy of scale would kick in and the subsidies
could be gradually withdrawn. This was in part the idea behind CARB's
incentives.
The second issue could be dealt with by imposing use taxes based on social
cost -- a carbon fee, for example; a smog-production-index tax based on HC
and NOx emissions; perhaps weight-based road taxes paid in cash at license
renewal time; maybe even yearly fees based on a vehicle's safety rating as
determined by crash testing.
Don't hold your breath. In the US, this isn't going to happen any time
soon. Our most powerful "leaders" deem corporate profitability more
important than environmental preservation. Even the most feeble efforts to
implement cost reassignment, such as CARB's, have been effectively rammed
into the ground.
Can public policy actually influence the vehicle mix? Yes! I've seen it
work -- and I've seen it broken.
Until 1999 South Korea had strongly progressive vehicle use and purchase
taxes based on vehicle weight and engine displacement. Not only were the
taxes paid up front at purchase time, but also yearly in cash. This kept
the issue in the owner's attention since he had to ante up a hefty payment,
instead of paying it a few Won at a time in the fuel costs (though there
were taxes on fuel too -- higher than ours, lower than Europe's).
As a result, Korea's vehicle population was mostly small cars for
individuals and efficient trucks for tradespeople. Their numbers grew at a
modest rate, and so did fuel usage. But in 1999, two things went wrong.
First, the US trade representative coerced Korea into flattening their tax
rates, to remove the disincentive on larger vehicles. This was ostensibly
to encourage Korea to import more US vehicles, since Detroit apparently
didn't know how or didn't care to produce small vehicles appropriate to
Korea's then-current needs.
Second, the Korean government allowed low fuel taxes on diesel and LPG fuels
with the stipulation that only vehicles capable of carrying 7 passengers or
more could use these fuels. The idea was that commercial buses and trucks
would pay the lower taxes (a questionable policy in the first place), but
individuals would not.
You can guess what happened. In one year, Korea's SUV and van population
increased 80%. Funny, they all just ^happen^ to have 7 seats. Though some
use LPG, many of them burn low-tax diesel, making the smog worse.
And it gets better. Almost NONE of them are US vehicles. The Ford
Explorers and Rangers in the Seoul showroom sell a few hundred a year at
most. All those SUVs and vans on the roads wear badges reading Hyundai,
Kia, Daewoo and (especially) Ssangyong. Not only did the US arm-twisting
help to increase Korea's energy use and damage its already lousy air, it
didn't do a darn thing to help sell US vehicles in Korea.
But it sure made more money for the Korean automakers, who price their large
vehicles the way US automakers do. And you should hear them squawk every
time someone suggests changing that seven-seat diesel tax policy!
Carefully-considered public policy could do a lot to make EVs viable
anywhere, including the US. But rather little of the sort is done in Europe
and Asia right now, and practically nothing in the US.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation, or
switch to digest mode? See http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
1991 Solectria Force 144vac
1991 Ford Escort Green/EV 128vdc
1970 GE Elec-trak E15 36vdc
1974 Avco New Idea rider 36vdc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Thou shalt not send me any thing which says unto thee, "send this to all
thou knowest." Neither shalt thou send me any spam, lest I smite thee.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Testing, please ignore
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone know where to get a nice torque rod? I would like to find
one with the rubber vibration absorbers on the ends. Thanks in advance
for any info
Seth
--
QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Has anyone on the list developed a working real world usable snowmobile
conversion. With some real range. Looks like the Park Service needs help.
Maybe this is a job for the EVlist. Lawrence Rhodes..
3.
EVERYBODY MUST BE YELLOWSTONED
Snowmobiles will be permitted in Yellowstone and Grand Teton under
the National Park Service's final environmental impact statement,
released yesterday. The park service acknowledges that the plan is
not the best one in terms of improving air quality, reducing noise,
or protecting the health of park workers, visitors, and wildlife.
Under the plan, only "cleaner and quieter" snowmobiles will be
allowed in the parks and riders will have to receive training or be
accompanied by a guide. The plan will also cap the number of
machines allowed in the parks at 1,100 per day (which is about how
many enter, anyway) and distribute the total load over different
entrances to reduce congestion. Park officials said the plan strikes
a balance between today's unlimited use and the Clinton proposal to
phase out snowmobiles entirely, but former National Parks Service
Director Roger Kennedy criticized the proposal for giving equal
weight to snowmobile access and human and environmental health: "It
says to the world we are striking a different balance, and commerce
will supervene the health of the world."
straight to the source: Billings Gazette, Mike Stark, 21 Feb 2003
<http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2003/02/21/bu
ild/wyoming/20-park-snomos.inc>
--- End Message ---
