EV Digest 2701
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Already half converted
by "Sell, Ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Universal Posts
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Andrew Wysotski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Who's selling this beauty?
by "Crabb, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Tango (WAS: Re: Corbin Motors (makers of the Sparrow) seems
to have gone under)
by Keith Richtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Corbin Motors (makers of the Sparrow) seems to have gone under
by "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Adam Kuehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
by "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Who's selling this beauty?
by "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Ultra/Super capacitors
by Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13) Re: Making the degree sign (please don't)
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Andrew Wysotski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17) Re: Corbin Motors (makers of the Sparrow) seems to have gone under
by Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: 2 controllers to 1 motor, or 0 controllers to 1 motor?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Real Marketing Solutions (WAS: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed)
by Ryan Fulcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Corbin Motors (makers of the Sparrow) seems to have gone under
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Tango accidents (Was: Corbin sparrow)
by Paul G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Paul G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: EV Marketing Mistakes / Sales Reps Welcomed
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2409114745&category=6737
I wonder how may batteries it takes? ;)
...Ken
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> I'm not sure this would work very well. I believe that belleville
> washers are made out of spring steel. If you "spank" a regular washer
> and then tighten it flat, it will probably be quite happy to stay flat
> (I.e. little or no pressure)
That is exactly right. When we were working on the Tango, we orderd a
box of belleville spring washers. What we got were plain steel washers
that had been dished like this. They were worthless.
We called the supplier. As I recall (Rick Woodbury handled it), most
hardware now comes from el-cheapo suppliers. If you don't provide a part
number and don't watch the brand, you'll get junk like this.
So, we re-ordered with an explicit part number, and got a real
belleville spring washer. It is indeed spring steel, and when squeezed
flat, it springs right back. That's what it is supposed to do. By doing
so, it keeps the connection tight even as the lead terminal creeps.
--
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 ---
Hi,
I'm a bit simple ...ask anyone here :)
So keeping it simple ...why is it that you would invest in these and then
try and sell them IF they are worth the returns you predict ?.
Anyone with any internet understanding knows that a site with the correct
text on the page and the correct key words in the meta tag can be called
anything and it can still come up on the first page of a search, having the
right name is only relevant if its the right name like ev.com is easier to
remember than electricvehicles.com, you just try typing
theverylastpageoftheinternet.com without spelling mistakes and without
putting in spaces.
You are right on with location location location, but here its name name
name not namenamename.
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 06:29 PM 4/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Besides which, if he were really that concerned about saving the planet, he'd be
>donating the names, or at least selling them at cost. The last thing a real EV
>company should need to worry about is paying a middle-man for rights to a useful
>domain name.
Right, it's better to spend all your money on a research and development and not worry
about marketing the end product in the real world. (like the research and development
aren't middlemen). Then blow millions on TV and billboards ads through a "old school"
ad agency (other middleman) and wonder why you are ineffective in making EV's catch on
with the general public. That's what the big companies have done so far and people in
their marketing departments still can't understand the value of domain names. I
understood this years ago and knew they'd loss their shirts advertising as they did.
In my opinion these "marketing" people need to be fired on the spot. In actuality the
Internet was first developed by the military and then the sex industry. It's the sex
industry that brought us the VCR and as funny as it may sound if you want to learn how
to market effectively on the Internet, study that industry for low cost methods. The
last industry to learn anything from is t!
he auto, unless you wish to study what not to do. If using keyphrase domain names is
the last method to use in your opinion, tell me a better way to get EV marketed so
that they are embraced by the masses?
>-Adam Kuehn
>
>>It's still spam and is in direct violation of the list charter. You
>>aren't going to make any friends here pulling these kinds of stunts.
>>
>>On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:21, Andrew Wysotski wrote:
>>> At 05:09 PM 4/2/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>>> >At 04:43 PM 4/2/2003 -0800, Andrew Wysotski stated:
>> > >>We own the largest block of alternative auto, keyword, domain names. We would
>> > >>like to sell them as a unit to one manufacturer. If anyone on this list is a
>> > >>sales rep to these manufacturers,
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
why would the ac not be hooked up? If it is electrically driven then there
is no
unnecessary power drain....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Hower [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Who's selling this beauty?
>
>
>
> It's a nice looking car, but $19,500?
> They used ratchet straps to hold the front three batteries together?
> I wonder what other short cuts they used to put this thing together.
> Rod
>
>
>
>
>
> Gordon Niessen
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> o> cc:
>
> Sent by: Subject: Re:
> Who's selling this beauty?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> .sjsu.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> 04/03/03 07:56 AM
>
> Please respond to
>
> ev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow, the car of my dreams. I wonder how you get a loan on an
> ebay listing?
>
> At 11:24 PM 4/2/2003, you wrote:
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item
=2409904770&cat
>egory=6327
>
>It's got one of Victor's AC drives and a Hawker pack - a starting bid of
>$19,500 is way out of my range, though!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 7:15 PM -0400 4/3/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing wrong with a Tango is when it meets up with a monster SUV.
Not really, it has a full NHRA spec cage in it.
Keith
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject : Re: Corbin Motors (makers of the Sparrow) seems to have gone
under
Date : Thu, 3 Apr 2003 19:15:37 -0400 The only thing wrong with a Tango
is when it meets up with a monster >SUV.
That's the mentality that puts all those monster SUV's out there to
begin with. Of course, the only thing wrong with a monster SUV is
when it meets up with a big rig... or a train... or a sharp curve... or a
gas station...
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 4:35 PM -0800 4/3/03, Andrew Wysotski wrote:
At 06:29 PM 4/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Besides which, if he were really that concerned about saving the
planet, he'd be donating the names, or at least selling them at
cost. The last thing a real EV company should need to worry about
is paying a middle-man for rights to a useful domain name.
Right, it's better to spend all your money on a research and
development and not worry about marketing the end product in the
real world. (like the research and development aren't middlemen).
Then blow millions on TV and billboards ads through a "old school"
ad agency (other middleman) and wonder why you are ineffective in
making EV's catch on with the general public.
Clever how you skirt the issue: If you are concerned for the planet
and believe that your domain names would make an effective
difference, donate the names. Pick the right outfit to donate to,
and you could even write off the donation.
If using keyphrase domain names is the last method to use in your
opinion, tell me a better way to get EV marketed so that they are
embraced by the masses?
Easy: Develop a vehicle which meets the needs of a large market share
and doesn't cost more than the readily-available alternatives.
Marketing can make a difference, but in the end, it is the product
which sells. In any case, as others have pointed out, it isn't the
domain name that really matters in the world of search engines, but
keywords and content. A short, memorable domain name may have a
minor impact for the sake of ease of use. Other than that, if you
don't already have the brand recognition, the domain name ain't worth
much.
We're way off-topic here, so this is my last post on the subject.
Meanwhile, go get a real job.
--
-Adam Kuehn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> The only thing wrong with a Tango is when it meets up with a monster SUV
No, the only thing wrong with a Tango is what happens when it meets up with
a wall. The Tango, as I understand it, has a rigid passenger cabin combined
with a rather massive battery pack - so the SUV will become the crush zone.
In the meantime, the Tango's 5-point harness should keep it's occupant from
bouncing about the cabin.
I'd rather be in the Tango than the SUV in that accident.
The problem is what happens when your rigid Tango meets a equally rigid
wall. I think some crash testing will have to be done if they are ever mass
produced to determine what happens in this situation, but I have some
concerns that it might not be pretty.
One appealing option is to design the rigid casing such that the battery box
becomes the crush zone. Batteries can absorb a lot of energy as they
collapse. Of course, there are a few problems with this idea... ;-)
S.
(As a side note, how well is the sparrow engineered for crashworthiness?
I've never really looked that hard at the chassis of it..)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My biggest worry about this car is that I seem to remember it having some
very odd coupler between the motor and the transmission.
Maybe the person who built it can comment more? I think they are on the
EVDL, or at least used to be.
It's a beautiful machine, but I wouldn't pay $19,5 for it.
S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crabb, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Who's selling this beauty?
> why would the ac not be hooked up? If it is electrically driven then
there
> is no
> unnecessary power drain....
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rod Hower [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:35 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Who's selling this beauty?
> >
> >
> >
> > It's a nice looking car, but $19,500?
> > They used ratchet straps to hold the front three batteries together?
> > I wonder what other short cuts they used to put this thing together.
> > Rod
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gordon Niessen
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > o> cc:
> >
> > Sent by: Subject: Re:
> > Who's selling this beauty?
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > .sjsu.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 04/03/03 07:56 AM
> >
> > Please respond to
> >
> > ev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wow, the car of my dreams. I wonder how you get a loan on an
> > ebay listing?
> >
> > At 11:24 PM 4/2/2003, you wrote:
> > >http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item
> =2409904770&cat
>
> >egory=6327
> >
> >It's got one of Victor's AC drives and a Hawker pack - a starting bid of
> >$19,500 is way out of my range, though!
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I doubt 56lbs of caps would push a motorcycle to 120 mph. I think you
will need 30kW (kJ/sec) or more at that speed to overcome air drag. This
is based completely on the performance of ~45 hp motorcycles, so take it
with a tablespoon of salt. Or a kilo With only 300kJ available, I don't
think it will get there, as there will be voltage left to push to a high
speed. At 56 lbs, I would guess at 100-140V max, and ~48V-70V at the
end. At a 400A DC limit at which point, the ESR of the cap starts to
rear its ugly head, you are in the 20-30kW range.
One dirty secret about caps like this is that the current rating is
sometimes defined as when cap internal heating = power out at minimum
voltage.
If you are talking about the BCAP0010 for example, then at contactor
bypass, the DC ESR is the 30-40milliohm, for 56 lbs of caps. My 6.7"
golf cart motor has an armature resistance of ~50 milliohms. You can
really only get into contactor bypass when the voltage drops, but for
the last third of the run or so, the caps burn a significant amount of
power as heat. If/when you are bucking the voltage for the first part of
the run, the ESR doesn't hurt as bad.
For fun, 600A (BCP0010 max rated current) squared times 56 caps times
0.0007 ohms is ~14kW. That's also 600A at about 24V, so you wouldn't
take these caps that low (half a volt or so), so as to have heating
equal power out. But you might be able to come close to that with the
older Maxwell PC2500 at 1 milliohm.
Seth
Richard Furniss wrote:
>
> Mark Thomasson wrote,
>
> >Is this possible? Did I screw up the calculations?
>
> We will see in three weeks. This is part of the "Wicked Watts" announcement
> that I sent out.
>
> "Brigham Young University (BYU) will be there with a EV-1, factory motor
> with there custom built controller running on super capacitors and a pit
> crew of 15 engineering students, make your travel plans now this is a must
> see
> EVent."
>
> Let us know if you are planning on coming to the NEDRA EVent and make sure
> you stop by and say Hi.
>
> www.lasvegasev.com
> Richard Furniss
> Las Vegas, NV
> 1986 Mazda EX-7 192v
> 1981 Lectra Centauri 108v
> 3 Wheel Trail Master 12v
> Board Member, www.lveva.org
> Las Vegas Electric Vehicle Association
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Thomasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 9:58 AM
> Subject: Ultra/Super capacitors
>
> The new super capacitors have amazing energy storage capacity compared to
> older capacitor technology. Would they have any usefulness in battery only
> EV designs?
>
> Super capacitors are a long way from replacing chemical batteries entirely
> because of cost and low energy density. They are attractive for hybrid
> designs because they are light and can dump most of their stored energy
> quickly and efficiently (high power density).
>
> How about a capacitor powered dragster? My rough calculations indicate that
> 56 pounds of ultra capacitors (300 kjoules of energy) could push a 300 pound
> motorcycle and rider to 120 mph. This assumes 80% drive train efficiency
> and 20% energy lost due to wind drag. Remember that capacitor stored
> energy =.5 * C * V**2. When your capacitor bank's voltage has dropped to
> 45%, you have used 80% of the stored energy.
>
> 56 pounds of Maxwell ultracapacitors costs $3500 plus shipping.
>
> Is this possible? Did I screw up the calculations?
>
> See this link for capacitor information:
> http://www.maxwell.com/
>
> Thanks, Mark T.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
the sparrow was classified as a motorcycle and therefore did not need to
pass federal crash tests, but i hope no sparrowowner ever has to find out
from accidentially participating even in a slow speed crash with even a
small compact hybrid ev
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:47:12 -0800 "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The only thing wrong with a Tango is when it meets up with a
> monster SUV
>
> No, the only thing wrong with a Tango is what happens when it meets
> up with
> a wall. The Tango, as I understand it, has a rigid passenger cabin
> combined
> with a rather massive battery pack - so the SUV will become the
> crush zone.
> In the meantime, the Tango's 5-point harness should keep it's
> occupant from
> bouncing about the cabin.
>
> I'd rather be in the Tango than the SUV in that accident.
>
> The problem is what happens when your rigid Tango meets a equally
> rigid
> wall. I think some crash testing will have to be done if they are
> ever mass
> produced to determine what happens in this situation, but I have
> some
> concerns that it might not be pretty.
>
> One appealing option is to design the rigid casing such that the
> battery box
> becomes the crush zone. Batteries can absorb a lot of energy as they
> collapse. Of course, there are a few problems with this idea... ;-)
>
> S.
>
> (As a side note, how well is the sparrow engineered for
> crashworthiness?
> I've never really looked that hard at the chassis of it..)
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Hurley wrote:
They are universally readable if everyone uses the same font.
...and the same character set.
OK. True to some extent. It depends on what platform you are using as
to how much character set affects things. I find Macs much less
susceptable to these problems.
Unfortunately far too many people use the hideous readers supplied
by Micro$oft, which don't.
Yeah. Glad I don't.
We can't expect everyone on the list to use the same font, the same
character set, or the same anything-at-all. So let's just stick with the
standard 7-bit printable set, please.
Even then, people using British-English should avoid using the pound
symbol (currency) because American-English sees it as a hash mark
(also called a "pound" sign by some).
Hmm. Must be a Windows issue. � sign works fine for me under MacOS.
I bet it does!
I could tell you about it, but this is already well off topic and it
would take up a short ream in 10 Pt. type.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort
of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked
women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
-Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:10 PM 4/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>At 4:35 PM -0800 4/3/03, Andrew Wysotski wrote:
>>At 06:29 PM 4/3/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Besides which, if he were really that concerned about saving the planet, he'd be
>>>donating the names, or at least selling them at cost. The last thing a real EV
>>>company should need to worry about is paying a middle-man for rights to a useful
>>>domain name.
>>
>>Right, it's better to spend all your money on a research and development and not
>>worry about marketing the end product in the real world. (like the research and
>>development aren't middlemen). Then blow millions on TV and billboards ads through a
>>"old school" ad agency (other middleman) and wonder why you are ineffective in
>>making EV's catch on with the general public.
>
>Clever how you skirt the issue: If you are concerned for the planet and believe that
>your domain names would make an effective difference, donate the names. Pick the
>right outfit to donate to, and you could even write off the donation.
>
>>If using keyphrase domain names is the last method to use in your opinion, tell me a
>>better way to get EV marketed so that they are embraced by the masses?
>
>Easy: Develop a vehicle which meets the needs of a large market share and doesn't
>cost more than the readily-available alternatives. Marketing can make a difference,
>but in the end, it is the product which sells.
totally not true
>In any case, as others have pointed out, it isn't the domain name that really matters
>in the world of search engines, but keywords and content.
domains play a greater roll in search engines than keywords, everyone and anyone can
manipulate keywords on a monthly basis. That is why little guys can rank higher than
a lot of big business on the net.
>A short, memorable domain name may have a minor impact for the sake of ease of use.
sorry, I totally disagree with almost all of your statements. see below.
>Other than that, if you don't already have the brand recognition, the domain name
>ain't worth much.
>
>We're way off-topic here, so this is my last post on the subject. Meanwhile, go get a
>real job.
You know I would have respectfully disagreed with your points, but when you add
something like "go get a real job at the end", you aren't worth my breath. In your
above post your marketing ignorance is apparent. I'd love to point out just how
mistaken your statements are and no the few things you mentioned aren't a better
marketing plan. I couldn't disagree with you more. No the product isn't what
determines market acceptance. The part about using a short domain name, which has to
be branded in people's heads is another myth. If you sell real estate in San
Francisco, it is better to own www.sanfranciscorealestate.com because people will
punch in "san francisco real estate" as a search string. Rather than try to get
people to remember some brand name like www.sf4re.com. One must think in terms of the
consumer, and how they search for information. Furthermore, if you want business, you
must address the needs of the consumer and list the BENEFITS TO THE CUSTOMER, rathe!
r than just say look how big and great we are, end of advertisement. These are such
marketing basics.
I wrote this for other people who care -- I do not owe you that much respect. You
obviously don't understand Internet marketing. So best wishes to you.
Also can someone politely let me know what is the focus of this list and why EV
marketing shouldn't be a topic? I have watched this list for a while. I see posts
buy and selling scooters, batteries etc., yet when I discuss marketing, I seemed to
have triggered a few people emotionally. I don't get it, but either way I will stop
posting to this list unless I hear another "genius" telling me to get a job.
respectfully to the list
Andrew
>--
>
>-Adam Kuehn
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You know folks, if you'd just ignore him, he'll probably go away and
bother some other list.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Except the SUV might decapitate the Sparrow driver.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:47:12 -0800 "Jon \"Sheer\" Pullen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The only thing wrong with a Tango is when it meets up with a
> monster SUV
>
> No, the only thing wrong with a Tango is what happens when it meets
> up with
> a wall. The Tango, as I understand it, has a rigid passenger cabin
> combined
> with a rather massive battery pack - so the SUV will become the
> crush zone.
> In the meantime, the Tango's 5-point harness should keep it's
> occupant from
> bouncing about the cabin.
>
> I'd rather be in the Tango than the SUV in that accident.
>
> The problem is what happens when your rigid Tango meets a equally
> rigid
> wall. I think some crash testing will have to be done if they are
> ever mass
> produced to determine what happens in this situation, but I have
> some
> concerns that it might not be pretty.
>
> One appealing option is to design the rigid casing such that the
> battery box
> becomes the crush zone. Batteries can absorb a lot of energy as they
> collapse. Of course, there are a few problems with this idea... ;-)
>
> S.
>
> (As a side note, how well is the sparrow engineered for
> crashworthiness?
> I've never really looked that hard at the chassis of it..)
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:15:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The only thing wrong with a Tango is when it meets up with a monster SUV.
I see this sentiment about a lot of cars, and in the case of the Tango
it's particularly wrong:
1. Look at how the thing's built! And how much it weighs.
2. Look at how maneuverable it is. It would be the most freak of accidents
that couldn't be avoided in it.
3. The safety issue is way overblown:
a. A "monster SUV" would be so much paper under a semi --- there's
always something bigger out there
b. How many accidents have you witnessed ever, much less one serious
enough that size difference would be a safety issue, much less
actually been in? Now compare with hours and miles on the road...
c. Yes, every little bit helps, but there is a point of diminishing
returns where worrying about it is probably more likely to cause
you to die of a heart attack than the extra measure will save you
in an accident.
--
Alan Batie ______ alan.batie.org Me
alan at batie.org \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle
PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers
27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ spamassassin.taint.org NO SPAM!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Levine Family wrote:
> My Kewet has a Curtis controller with 350A peak, and I have an
> unused 275A version of the same voltage (a rebuild by Golf Tech).
> Can I add the second controller to boost the peak current
To use two Curtis controllers at once, you will need a pair of
inductors, one in each M- lead. They'll be big; each at least as big as
your two fists together. They should provide at least 50 microhenries of
inductance at the controller's current limit current (275 or 350 amps
for the controllers you have).
> or should I just install a bypass contactor?
Personally, I would do it that way. In this case, you need to arrange
the circuit so you can't close the bypass contactor unless the
controller is already fully on, and not in current limit. And, you have
to open the bypass contactor only when the motor current is below the
controller's current limit.
> If I do the latter, I was thinking of adding a 12V battery in the
> circuit to give higher-than-usual voltage, but don't know if I need
> to do something with the controller circuit or if it is OK to just
> switch between the 2 setups without a pause.
Assuming that the extra 12v does not put the controller over its maximum
voltage, it will work. The contacts of this extra 12v contactor will arc
a bit, so I'd let up the throttle before switching it. It will also have
to be a SPDT contactor; common to controller B+, normally-closed to your
present pack voltage, and normally-open to the pack plus the extra 12v.
--
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 ---
Andrew Wysotski wrote:
>totally not true
ok, ok, we're not here to tap dance on eachothers toes,
you're the marketing expert, tell us how to solve this problem...
If we're going to talk about marketing, shouldn't there be a product
involved?
The problem in EV land is that there isn't much in the way of product,
Because the public doesn't realize that the product exists (or works).
Those (GM) with the power to create a good product, won't sell it for
whatever reason, which simply makes it look like the EV must not work!
>No the product isn't what determines market acceptance.
How can you say that the product doesn't matter?
" I'd like to sell you my newly developed EV, it never needs
recharging, ever! "
WOW! aughta be accepted by everyone, should sell like hotcakes!
except it isn't true, and lies and deception don't help anyone.
The Sparrow and the Tango are two good examples.
Where the Sparrow is a great idea, the product was shotty.
Likewise the Tango is a great EV, and it looks like it may
even be a very solid product, no duck tape required!
Personally, I'de rather buy an under-marketed reliable product,
that an unreliable product that was available everywhere.
Most EV buyers know something about EV's and they are willing
to do some digging to find what they want, or resort to building it.
Those that don't know about EV's aren't even interested, They most
likely don't even know they exist. So they are NEVER going to
search the internet for them.. I'm not sure how your marketing
is going to help us out here..
What EV land needs is a good solid product, like the EV-1, Tango, etc...
Then these products need to actually go up for sale..
And that product should have some advertising/marketing, obviousely.
But the kind of advertising that EV's need is BIG LOUD ATTENTION
grabbing stuff like: ( prime time television adds )
"This EV does 0-60 in 4 seconds" - video of the Tango eating the Viper
"Recharges in 15 seconds" - video of someone plugging it in on their way
into the house.
"This EV has a 100 mile range, why are you still buying gas?"
"Only costs $1.05 per recharge!" - [EMAIL PROTECTED] = $10
I think that the Tango needs to employ some of these tactics,
Initially $80,000 for a "Viper eating EV!" Let everyone know it's not SLOW.
Then eventually $20,000 for a production commuter EV that gets to use the
HOV lane, and costs 1/20 to run and maintain. But none of this can be done
without a product. And even then unless you know it exists you aren't going
to search google for "tango electric"
Where the first match is the right one, for http://www.commutercars.com
Notice that neither Tango, nor Electric, nor EV are strings in the
domain name.
Wonder why it was the first match? I didn't search for commuter or car,
humm.
>domains play a greater roll in search engines than keywords, everyone and
>anyone can manipulate keywords on a monthly basis. That is why little guys
>can rank higher than a lot of big business on the net.
umm, are you sure, how long have you been writing search engion software?
I can tell you that the URL generally has much less to do with the content
of a site than the actuall content of the site has to do. It's the
content, meta tags,
text, the words on a page that determine the content of that page, not
the fact that
the page lives at yahoo.org/block2937457/foo_bar.html
Sure a GOOD domain name is a good start for your web prescense.
But it's only the start, the content is what truely matters.
>sorry, I totally disagree with almost all of your statements. see below.
is that right, go figure?
>You know I would have respectfully disagreed with your points, but
when you add
>something like "go get a real job at the end", you aren't worth my
breath. In your
>above post your marketing ignorance is apparent. I'd love to point out
just how
>mistaken your statements are and no the few things you mentioned
aren't a better
>marketing plan. I couldn't disagree with you more.
blah blah blah, did someone hurt your feelings with that one liner.
I so respect you more for your paragraph worth of blah blah blah...
>The part about using a short domain name, which has to be branded in
people's
>heads is another myth. If you sell real estate in San Francisco, it is
better to own
>www.sanfranciscorealestate.com because people will punch in "san francisco
>real estate" as a search string. Rather than try to get people to
remember some
>brand name like www.sf4re.com. One must think in terms of the
consumer, and
>how they search for information. Furthermore, if you want business,
you must
>address the needs of the consumer and list the BENEFITS TO THE CUSTOMER,
>rather than just say look how big and great we are, end of
advertisement. These are
>such marketing basics.
A myth huh. Do you even know why we use domain names? it's because the real
names of the web sites are "216.239.51.100"-google "64.58.79.230"-yahoo.
Try remembering those. It's all about being easy to remember. But I
guess you would
know this having invested in some 534 domain names, you bought them for what
$100 each, $50 and are selling them for $10,000 to $50,000. Are you nuts?
I'de rather buy http://www.hibrid.com for <$100 than spend $36,287 for your
http://www.hybridgasolineelectricvehicles.com
>I wrote this for other people who care -- I do not owe you that much
respect.
>You obviously don't understand Internet marketing. So best wishes to you.
So who do you owe that much respect? Your $10,000 Sucker Clients?
>Also can someone politely let me know what is the focus of this list
and why EV
>marketing shouldn't be a topic? I have watched this list for a while.
I see posts
>buy and selling scooters, batteries etc.,
The focus of this list is the advancement of Electric Vehicles,
We talk about batteries, motors, whole EV's, even marketing,
as I have through out this post, what are you talking about?
>yet when I discuss marketing, I seemed to
>have triggered a few people emotionally. I don't get it, but either
way I will stop
>posting to this list unless I hear another "genius" telling me to get
a job.
Umm, you haven't discussed any marketing, What you have been blabing on
about
are domain names, search engines, how correct you are, and how stupid
others must
be for not agreeing with you.
>respectfully to the list
>Andrew
" totally not true "
I think what Adam really meant was:
Go get a real Life, and quit lieing to yourself (and others).
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>You know folks, if you'd just ignore him, he'll probably go away
>and bother some other list.
I know, I'm sorry :(
However I did try to bring up some "usefull" and "worthwhile" marketing
topics.
1. Noone will look for something that they don't know exists.
2. EVs need adds that get the publics attention, and make them realize
EV's are real.
3. EVs need adds that dismiss the publics misconseptions.
4. EVs need adds that get the public excited about EV's.
5. EVs need to do all of this at once in a cheap and quick 15 second tv add.
L8r
Ryan ( my sincerest appologies to the list )
PS. Andrew! No need to reply to this message, I know you have none of
the answers.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes indeed, my solution to the monster SUV situation is to avoid contact
with them. It's worked for over 20 years so far.
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:13, Alan Batie wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:15:37PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The only thing wrong with a Tango is when it meets up with a monster SUV.
>
> I see this sentiment about a lot of cars, and in the case of the Tango
> it's particularly wrong:
>
> 1. Look at how the thing's built! And how much it weighs.
> 2. Look at how maneuverable it is. It would be the most freak of accidents
> that couldn't be avoided in it.
> 3. The safety issue is way overblown:
> a. A "monster SUV" would be so much paper under a semi --- there's
> always something bigger out there
> b. How many accidents have you witnessed ever, much less one serious
> enough that size difference would be a safety issue, much less
> actually been in? Now compare with hours and miles on the road...
> c. Yes, every little bit helps, but there is a point of diminishing
> returns where worrying about it is probably more likely to cause
> you to die of a heart attack than the extra measure will save you
> in an accident.
>
> --
> Alan Batie ______ alan.batie.org Me
> alan at batie.org \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle
> PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers
> 27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ spamassassin.taint.org NO SPAM!
>
--
EVDL
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sheer wrote:
No, the only thing wrong with a Tango is what happens when it meets up with
a wall. The Tango, as I understand it, has a rigid passenger cabin combined
with a rather massive battery pack - so the SUV will become the crush zone.
Oh come on! Comparing a rigid cage of 3000lbs to a rigid rail frame
of 8000lbs is going to be hell. I won't guess the outcome since its
more than just mass. But in an equal situation and if both act as
rigid as we think the Tango was driven backwards with the result of
some severe G forces on the occupant(s).
However, I would suggest you pull out that old toy with the chrome
balls on strings. Pull all but two out and smack one against another.
The answer is 2 rigid vehicles hitting each other. Use a little
double back tape to attach a small piece of foam to one ball. Try the
game again - and notice how much less force makes its way to the
second ball.
The point is that RIGID is not the best answer. Its a pretty good
answer, but 2 totalled cars because the ends gave while the passenger
compartments remained intact is a better answer to saving lives (or
more specifically, reducing the G forces the people inside each
ball). Death is not just a matter of mass - that is why SUV (total of
all makes and sizes) have a 6% greater death rate that of passenger
cars (total of all models again).
Crumple, when it leaves the passenger compartment out of the way, is
*better* than rigid. I'll take an accident in my 1750lbs Geo Metro
any day before I take one in my '65 Dodge at 3000lbs (given a choice
I'll take NO accident!). I know what a rear end hit at 20mph feels
like. It was a puff in the Metro and a hard *bang* in the Dodge (plus
a couple days of neck pain). The Dodge only needed a new bumper, But
the Metro needed a $1000 in repair, even though it needed no paint
work. But the Metro treated me better even though it nearly gave its
"life" doing it (if it had been a year older they would have totalled
it, my Dodge was already over 25 years old and it wasn't even close
to totalled).
I prefer passenger safe crumple zones over a rigid frame car. I have
driven for over 1/2 my life. I have lived to learn my beliefs.
"Physics" is more than vehicle damage.
Neon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't get it, but either way I will stop posting to this list
unless I hear another "genius" telling me to get a job.
So list, what I see is that someone wants to sell good domain names
for profit. Even worse, they want to do it in the name of "promoting
EVs" (like we don't find this uphill enuf). We have alot of members
here that sell EV stuff at a slight profit and give you useful parts,
others that sell at cost, and even EVs that are being sold at a loss.
We may all want to refrain from saying any "jewel" EV catch phrases -
so as not to give our new resident profiteer any more domain names to
register.
I might note that I have no problem finding
<http://www.cloudelectric.com>, <http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/>,
<http://www.manzanitamicro.com>, or <http://www.EVParts.com>. This
list is not normal, but ones I know (along with the all important
<http://evalbum.com>). I used parts of the name of each (never the
full name) and found each on Google on the first page.
Neon
P.S. - I also tested a new domain name of my own design. I won't say
it as "someone" may want to hold that one ransom too (instead, I
think I may just register it myself for my web page).
NEW TOPIC - who has advice on who I should register my domain name
with. I would like to hear from individuals as businesses on who they
use and why. Price is important, but also a reliable redirect service
and as customer support rate with me too. Feel free to respond
offlist to me if you prefer. Thanx!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Godaddy.com I have all my domains registered through them. Costs about
$8 or $9 a year.
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 21:49, Paul G wrote:
> >I don't get it, but either way I will stop posting to this list
> >unless I hear another "genius" telling me to get a job.
>
> So list, what I see is that someone wants to sell good domain names
> for profit. Even worse, they want to do it in the name of "promoting
> EVs" (like we don't find this uphill enuf). We have alot of members
> here that sell EV stuff at a slight profit and give you useful parts,
> others that sell at cost, and even EVs that are being sold at a loss.
>
> We may all want to refrain from saying any "jewel" EV catch phrases -
> so as not to give our new resident profiteer any more domain names to
> register.
>
> I might note that I have no problem finding
> <http://www.cloudelectric.com>, <http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/>,
> <http://www.manzanitamicro.com>, or <http://www.EVParts.com>. This
> list is not normal, but ones I know (along with the all important
> <http://evalbum.com>). I used parts of the name of each (never the
> full name) and found each on Google on the first page.
>
> Neon
>
> P.S. - I also tested a new domain name of my own design. I won't say
> it as "someone" may want to hold that one ransom too (instead, I
> think I may just register it myself for my web page).
>
> NEW TOPIC - who has advice on who I should register my domain name
> with. I would like to hear from individuals as businesses on who they
> use and why. Price is important, but also a reliable redirect service
> and as customer support rate with me too. Feel free to respond
> offlist to me if you prefer. Thanx!
>
--
EVDL
--- End Message ---
