EV Digest 3463
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Ford Hybrid cleaner than Electric Cars, deisel hybrid
by Randy Holmquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Web Sites For Donor Chassis Specs?
by James D Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: EVLN(ZAP visited China to find crack)
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Ford Hybrid cleaner than Electric Cars
by Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Web Sites For Donor Chassis Specs?
by Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Beefing up contactors
by Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) BatPack parts
by Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Motor voltage for accessory motor
by Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: EVLN(ZAP crack LONG)
by "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Prizm battery drop. Interesting, need thoughts on a load system
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Electric Motorcycle Transmission?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Motor voltage for accessory motor
by Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) desulfator circuits?
by elaine chiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Beefing up contactors
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: desulfator circuits?
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Ford Hybrid cleaner than Electric Cars, deisel hybrid
by Brad Waddell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: BatPack parts
by "Andre Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: BatPack parts
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
by "" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
by stephen somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: EVLN(ZAP crack LONG)More Stuff
by "bobrice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Doesn't this sound exactly like what we have been fighting with EV's for the last 10
years.
False perceptions and prejudice.
Its an all present monster.
BTW, I drive a diesel powered Jeep Grand Cherokee. LOVE IT !!!! and the 36MPG. ;>)
BFN
Randy
> I asked quite a few people why they don't like *today's* diesels.
> They say they just don't, don't know why. Key word being "just",
> which is meaningless answer. Sort of like asking a kid why did he
> behaved badly today.
>
> If more people would overcome false perceptions and prejudice,
> we could perhaps have a bit cleaner air.
--
Canadian Electric Vehicles Ltd.
PO, Box 616, 1184 Middlegate Rd.
Errington, British Columbia,
Canada, V0R 1V0
Phone: (250) 954-2230
Fax: (250) 954-2235
Website: http://www.canev.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manufactures of: "Might-E Truck"
EV conversion Kits and components
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>I would like to hear if anyone has favorite web sites for locating specs on
>possible donor chassis. I mean things like curb weight, engine weight,
>gear ratios, and year/model interchanges for transmissions, suspension,
>brakes. Original 0-60 times would be interesting. Anything else that has
>proved useful in evaluating potential donor cars.
I don't think there is one. What works for me is to search for aftermarket,
tuner, and fan sites and find the data there, typically in a FAQ or newbie
forum. Finding the platform code for the vehicle you're interested in can
help a lot with searches.
David Thompson
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
Since I have two identical cars ('72 Datsun 1200 sedans), one with twin Netgain
(Warfield)
8's at direct drive, the other with an ADC 9 through a 4 speed tranny, and both are
nearly
the same weight as they are presently equipped, I'm in a pretty good position to
comment
on this subject.
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> So if I only had money for a zilla 1 k and could get 2 8" for the price
> of a warp 9, the quicker EV would be dualing 8"
Yes, but it's not dramatically so. In a light weight EV run at 156V-200+V with a stout
controller and aggressive batteries, you can get pretty formidable performance from a
single 9 incher through a tranny.
Blue Meanie, a light weight 2340 lb. EV with a single ADC 9 inch motor, a DCP 1200
Raptor
controller (a real 1200 amps to the motor), a competition clutch and flywheel setup
with
the factory 4 speed trany into a 3:90 rear end, and with 156V of Optimas (13 @ 585
lbs.)
is pretty zippy, with a 0-60 time of ~6-6.5 seconds, and the ability to easily pull
100+
mph. I'd estimate the 1/4 mile time at ~ 14.5-14.8 seconds (Blue Meanie's never made a
run
down the 1/4 mile track).
White Zombie is also light weight, at ~2450 lb. (when at its 216V mode with 18 Exide
Orbitals @ 720 lbs.), and even with the higher weight of two 8 inch motors and a large
and
heavy Ford 9 inch rear end setup @ 4:56 ratio, lacking the weight of a flywheel,
clutch,
tranny, the weight of a more posh interior, a full blown competition stereo system,
and a
motorized rear battery tray it actually weighs within 100-110 lbs. of Blue Meanie. The
Zombie has a more powerful Godzilla controller and runs higher voltage at higher
current
than Blue Meanie (216V pack discharged at 1400 amps vs 156V pack discharged at 1200
amps).
In this form, the Zombie ran a 13.7 second 1/4 mile time with a 0-60 sprint in less
than 4
seconds (0-60 time estimated by the way it easily jumps ahead of mid 12 second cars
all
the way through the 1/8th mile, cars that run 0-60 in the 4 - 4.3 second range). With a
much lighter battery pack, when it had 28 small 13.5 lb. Hawkers at 336V, the Zombie
weighed just 1995 lbs. and with a single 11 inch Kostov (modified for all out drag
racing)
it turned a best ET of 13.1 @ 99+ mph, so a single motor did quite well, thank you.
On the surface, it seems the dual 8-direct drive configuration out performs the single
9
inch - 4 speed tranny configuration, but keep in mind, the dual 8's are getting a full
1400 amps from a higher voltage source. If Blue Meanie were gutted of its street
goodies,
and the saved weight was made up in a matching 216V worth of stout Orbitals, and with a
Godzilla controller to send 1400 amps to the 9 inch ADC, hmmm, I don't know, it just
might
make a race out of it! The current 'in the works' reconfiguration of Blue Meanie up to
204V of Exide Orbitals and a Zilla Z1K, should drop the 0-60 into the mid to low 5
second
range and drop the estimated 1/4 mile time to 13.9--14.3 or so...that's not too far
from
the Zombie's twin 8 inch performance, but it 'is' not as good.
> 2 motors adds the series/paralell option, does that outweight the larger
> motor capabilities.
Good question. Dual 8's weigh ~ 210 lbs., where a single 9 incher is about 143 lbs., so
there's important weight savings with a single motor. That weight savings evaporates
though, when you add-in the flywheel, clutch, and tranny to get similar performance of
two
8 inch motors at direct drive. There are others things to consider, too, such as motor
heat. The direct drive twin motor setup, will typically see lower rpm at
accelerate-up-to-street speeds than a single 9 inch motor through a tranny's gear set,
so
there is a 'run cooler' advantage with the single motor and tranny combo. Another
advantage for the single motor and tranny combo is that the controller runs cooler and
works less hard, too, and you will not need a super mondo powerful controller, as you
need
with twin motors and direct drive.
>
> I guess it is just simple math 23+23 = 46 vs 28
> Is it less or more efficient?, provideing lossless coupling
It 'is' simple math, and yes, the twin motor setup does make the most power....as far
as
the efficiency of the whole thing, that one's still up in the air.
Here's a hint to add some confusion to the mix. It first had a single 9 inch ADC/5
speed
at 180V, then it had the single 11 inch race modified Kostov/5 speed at 240V (later
bumped
up to direct drive at 336V}, then it had the twin 8 Netgain-Warfields/direct drive at
up
to 408V...now, the Zombie's got something big and round presently being worked on and
destined to go under the hood (it will remain direct drive and will have variable
motorized brush timing), something that should make some serious torque (700-800 ft.
lbs.?) and HP (300+??)!! The twin 8's will be pulled very soon....right after I use
them
to blast off a mid-to-low 13 second run in a few weekends
from now, just to make it a bit tougher for Oat to catch me :-)...then, the Zombie goes
under the knife for it fourth motor transplant. Oh yeah, Rudman's involved, and the
Wayland-Rudman
dynamic duo means it will get wacky and wild along the way, but the Madman's expertise
on
these things is always an asset!
See Ya......John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 13 Apr 2004 at 16:42, Bruce EVangel Parmenter wrote:
> In November, 2002, ZAP's wholly owned subsidiary, Voltage Vehicles,
> acquired Ford's Th!nk electric vehicle assets for a reported $10
> million.
Uh ... somebody here apparently DID find crack in China. The above
statement is either wishful thinking, or a product of an overly fertilized
imagination.
Zap did bid some paltry sum for Think's assets; from what I heard, Ford didn't
even dignify the offer with a response. Kamkorp was the successful bidder. I
don't recall what the price was (if I ever knew) but you can bet it wasn't
US$10 million.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don Buckshot wrote:
He told this lady the exhaust gas from the Prius was cleaner than
the air going into the engine. How in the H.... can he say that?
Lightning Ryan replied:
Well, it IS cleaner .oO(not counting the CO2, which isn't a pollutant)
In that case, couldn't we make the same argument in favor of electric
power generation facilities? They burn cleaner than the Prius, right?
So if the Prius is actually cleaning the air, then the power plant must
be cleaning the air BETTER.
Jude
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Despite the general animosity I have for all things Micro$oft, I found
cars.msn.com to be my greatest research tool. I just wish it had GVWR
along with curb weight. I'm still looking for year/model interchange
information for my '88 Civic wagon. I need to beef up the suspension
and brakes a bit.
Jude
Electro Automotive wrote:
I would like to hear if anyone has favorite web sites for locating
specs on possible donor chassis. I mean things like curb weight,
engine weight, gear ratios, and year/model interchanges for
transmissions, suspension, brakes. Original 0-60 times would be
interesting. Anything else that has proved useful in evaluating
potential donor cars.
I use http://www.edmunds.com and http://www.carfolio.com a lot, but
they are not complete enough.
Shari Prange
Electro Automotive POB 1113 Felton CA 95018-1113 Telephone 831-429-1989
http://www.electroauto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electric Car Conversion Kits * Components * Books * Videos * Since 1979
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper just to buy a
contactor rated for high voltage DC?
After all the Czonka III is only about $80 or so.
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:54, David Chapman wrote:
> Thanks Mark and Lee,
> Appreciate all the backround tech and suggestions. One last question on this
> tho, what do you think is the best mechanical solid state insulator if
> brittleness is not an issue? Glass? That was my best guess. Regards, David
> Chapman.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
OK, I'm really intrigued with distributed controller design, and
specifically the BatPack (see http://www.redrok.com/ev.htm#batpack for
details). I've wanted to do this with single-battery modules for a
while, if for no other reason than the possible increase to my range and
battery life (if I carry 15 batteries, but only use 12 at a time, I can
discharge each battery less and get the same range).
Anyway, I'm having some trouble with the idea that this design allows
one to use lower-voltage switches on the packs. Wouldn't the voltage
still add up as you switched more packs in? Wouldn't the last one
potentially be switching full pack voltage, especially in the case of
failure? (I remember something about all the voltages in any loop
needing to add up to 0; on the last pack in line, doesn't one leg of
that loop carry full voltage?) The magic must be in that bypass line
with the diode. If it really works at all.
And what happens to the current? It looks like he's dead-shorting
batteries across the motor terminals. If you did that with YellowTops,
wouldn't you be throwing 1000 amps or more at the motor? How do you
regulate the current?
Jude
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Bohm wrote:
I'm highly considering just powering the ps and ac off of the traction
motor. One deciding factor is the accessory motor I already have -
it's rated for 120 volts, and I've decided to go 144. You can see it
here: http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?subsection=18&category=174
It's the top one. Think it could run at 144 without problems?
-Ryan
This is the one I intend to use. The folks on this list have pounded
into my head that you can overvolt a DC motor for a short time; the
greater the overvolt, the shorter the time. Considering that our EVs
usually run for less than an hour, the 20% overvolt shouldn't make much
difference.
God, I love Sir Plus. I remember back when their catalogs came with a
picture of the front end of a deer on the cover proclaiming their
selling price: "half a buck".
Judebert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> In November, 2002, ZAP's wholly owned subsidiary, Voltage Vehicles,
> acquired Ford's Th!nk electric vehicle assets for a reported $10
> million.
Uh ... somebody here apparently DID find crack in China. The above
statement is either wishful thinking, or a product of an overly fertilized
imagination.
Zap did bid some paltry sum for Think's assets; from what I heard, Ford
didn't
even dignify the offer with a response. Kamkorp was the successful bidder. I
don't recall what the price was (if I ever knew) but you can bet it wasn't
US$10 million.
Hi David and Others,
I agree with your statements above concerning who bought whom. It's sad that
ZAP couldn't have actually gotten the program. We might have something
viable to buy commercially if they had. Small companies don't usually have
the chips to sit at the really big tables, what a shame too.
>Ford spent
>about $123 million on its Th!nk program but decided to stop the
>effort due to poor customer demand and lack of government support
>for the cars.
I just wanted to stab some fun at this statement as well; Oh, poor, poor
Ford! Nobody wanted their wonderful little EV's, not a single person hardly.
There was LOTS of demand. I asked one of the top three managers at Bell
Ford to put in a special request for me to be able to get one here in
Phoenix. He was the G.M. of a large Ford store owned by the same person who
owned the Lexus dealership I was working at back then. I got no reply. The
program was set-up wrecklessly and, I feel, purposely to limit market
exposure. If anyone had a yard sale and only sold to people on the same
block, it would be a waste of time as well.
I bet there was a huge tax write-off for the losses they incurred.
~Lack of Governement support? I guess there's no way to know if Ford really
said this, or if someone at ZAP is confused.
As I recall, Ford got tired of complaints from customers. The dealership/s
may have tried to fix problems, but, having a car that was easy, but not
lucrative, to maintain spelled doom from the start. If not for the fear of
non-compliance with The ZEV Mandate, the program wouldn't have existed at
all. My personal belief is that they couldn't train their techs because
nobody wanted to work on the little ~wimpy golf carts~. (No offense to
anyone who made an honest effort. I invite feedback) So their customer
satisfaction index plumetted, and they were losing money on the warranty
service pay from the factory. I can't fathom that a car seemingly so simple
could hog-tie willing and trained service techs and managers as well.
When the unwilling and unenthusiastic plow into the unknown, lead by the
unwitting, there is nearly zero chance of anything even remotely resembling
success.
Personally, the (lack of) support factor is the farthest issue from my mind.
Ford didn't have to comply with CARB and the ZEVM, plain and simple, so
they chose to not. How sad.
Regards to All,
Rick
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Very good explanation.
Brief and to the point.
I like it.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: Prizm battery drop. Interesting, need thoughts on a load system
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:53 AM, Chris Tromley
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Chris Zach wrote:
> >
> > > Sort of since I am now convinced that resting battery voltage is
> > > no indication of capacity.
> > >
> > > And given that, what good are charge regulators? If my pack
> > > were truly out of balance I would expect the battery voltages
> > > to be all over the place, especially after running the pack at
> > > an "average" of 10vpb at "C" a few hours earlier...
> >
>
> > Maybe you're right, Hawkers all pretty much come up to the same
> > voltage when charged, regardless of capacity.
>
> The key point here is that battery voltage has *NO* relation to
> capacity.
>
> It does, however, have a relationship to state of charge (SOC). That
> is, a 5Ah PbA battery at 70%SOC will have the same resting voltage as
> a 50Ah PbA battery at 70%SOC, while a 50Ah battery at 50%SOC will
> have a different resting voltage than either.
>
> To answer Chris Zach's question about the merit of charge regulators,
> they operate during charge, and the on charge voltages are
> dramatically different from the resting voltages.
>
> Lower capacity batteries in a series string will reach 'full'
> (100%SOC) sooner than the higher capacity batteries, and as they near
> 'full', their voltages can shoot up dramatically. The function of
> charge regulators is to prevent the voltage of these 'early peakers'
> from reaching dangerous levels while allowing the remaining batteries
> to continue charging at an unreduced rate. Without regulators,
> either the high voltages of the low capacity batteries would cause
> the charger to terminate before the higher capacity batteries were
> full, or the high voltages would result in the low capacity batteries
> gassing excessively and so become even lower in capacity. Or both.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Roger.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Been there and done that on a Honda Helix. It is just too much trouble.
> Stright belt or chain to the back sprocket. Lots less trouble. The Helix
> just needed too much custom work. The Lectra glider by comparison is very
> easy and would be perfect with this motor. A BMW might work also. Just
go
> one speed. Get rid of the tranny. Use two sprokets. Increase voltage or
> pack size. 72v will give you a very fast wild ride. Lawrence
Rhodes........
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lightning Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 7:21 PM
> Subject: Electric Motorcycle Transmission?
>
>
> > I have an (unused) Kawasaki EX500 motorcycle that I would like
> > to convert, using an Etek at 48volts like electricmotorsport.com.
> >
> > I've checked out the shop manual and the transmission and clutch
> > are part of the lower end of the motor, so the engine oil is used
> > to lubricate the "primary chain" and transmission gears. The lower
> > end and transmission are fairly "open" within the engine.
> >
> > My question is, if the bottom end were hacked up and an Etek
> > mounted where the crankshaft and counterbalance shaft once
> > lived, would the transmission need to be (re)sealed and lubricated?
> > Or could it be run dry, or perhaps with a heavier gear grease?
> >
> > The hacking and mounting of the Etek wouldn't exactly be easy,
> > but it would simplify the transfer of power to the rear wheel.
> > It would also give me 6 gears for high starting torque and
> > higher top speed than the typical single gear/direct drive setup.
> >
> > L8r
> > Ryan
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is the one I intend to use. The folks on this list have pounded
into my head that you can overvolt a DC motor for a short time; the
greater the overvolt, the shorter the time. Considering that our EVs
usually run for less than an hour, the 20% overvolt shouldn't make
much difference.
I sat and hashed it out today, looking at all the pros and cons, and
decided I will just run the PS and AC off of the traction motor. In my
case, the pros outweigh the cons. For anyone interested in a Pacific
Scientific 2hp 120V DC motor, dual shafted, contact me off list. I can
provide a few more details. I'll sell it for $28 + shipping to wherever
you live. That's a bit less than I bought it for. It's the same one
as at the top of this site:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?subsection=18&category=174
I plan on having an "idle" or "power" switch that will either keep the
traction motor at an idle speed, or on only when the accelator is
pressed. I figure for average drives, the idle setting might be nice to
keep the AC and PS going at stop lights or standstill turns. But I
would want it off for nice clutchless takeoffs at the light :)
-Ryan
--
For April rebates on Zillas, visit http://www.evsource.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
can anyone tell me if desulfator circuits really work (or if you've
covered this refer me to the proper ev archives)?
i've been searching the web and they are either miracles or modern-day
snake oil.
elaine
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Most of the time that would be the best idea, however this is for a special
purpose. However I will be needing some high voltage contactors in the
future, who has the Czonkas for that cheap? Thanks David Chapman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Beefing up contactors
> Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper just to buy a
> contactor rated for high voltage DC?
>
> After all the Czonka III is only about $80 or so.
>
> On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 02:54, David Chapman wrote:
> > Thanks Mark and Lee,
> > Appreciate all the backround tech and suggestions. One last question on
this
> > tho, what do you think is the best mechanical solid state insulator if
> > brittleness is not an issue? Glass? That was my best guess. Regards,
David
> > Chapman.
> --
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
> capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
> safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, they work, but, a lot of the advertising is exaggerated.
I will tell you that the disclaimer "your results may vary" definitely
applies.
Only a few of us have been able to repeat the claimed results.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "elaine chiu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:57 PM
Subject: desulfator circuits?
> can anyone tell me if desulfator circuits really work (or if you've
> covered this refer me to the proper ev archives)?
>
> i've been searching the web and they are either miracles or modern-day
> snake oil.
>
> elaine
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:56 AM 04/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
I never understood why none of the auto manufacturers never have done a
deisel hybrid when you could gain another 30-40% in fuel economy. We
designed one at GE-EV for the PNGV program at 80mpg, using a kubota tractor
engine for use in small cars. Does anyone know if there are diesel-hybrid
designs in the works and why not? Mark
Probably because of the somewhat small penetration of diesel filling
stations. I understand they are working on these at Chrysler for the
european market.
I have an EV and a gasoline car, but if Toyota or similar built a biodeisel
running vehicle today, I'd trade in for it soon. 100% biodeisel would be so
great for this region since it is never really cold out, and you can store
it safely in large quantities in your garage. Although most of my trips are
EV based, most of my miles are in the gas car, I suppose that is typical?
brad
Brad Waddell ** FLEXquarters.com LLC ** voice-mail/fax: 602-532-7019
Postal: 6965 El Camino Real Ste 105 #488 Carlsbad CA 92009 USA
Plug-in to your QuickBooks data at www.qodbc.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The diodes are connected in the opposite direction it would take to short
the small battery packs. The diode is there so that the current can bypass
the small pack when it is switched out of the circuit.
As long as the diode is good the switch will only have to deal with the
small pack voltage and not the total voltage in the string. But if the
diode fails open then the switch will see the total voltage of all the small
packs that are in the circuit at the time. If the diode fails shorted (more
common) then the small pack will be shorted.
The main problem with the concept is that all the diodes on the small packs
that are not in the circuit have to carry the full motor current, which can
be 1000 amps or more. Since all diodes have some voltage drop, say it is
just 1 volt, that would be 1000 watts of wasted power per diode.
The second problem is that all the small packs that switched in the circuit
are carrying the full motor current. Batteries are less efficient at high
currents, you can get more energy and therefore range out of a battery at
lower current then you can at high currents. A more conventional battery
pack and speed control spreads the power out over the entire pack resulting
in lower battery currents.
Thanks,
Andre' B. Clear Lake Wis.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jude Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BatPack parts
> OK, I'm really intrigued with distributed controller design, and
> specifically the BatPack (see http://www.redrok.com/ev.htm#batpack for
> details). I've wanted to do this with single-battery modules for a
> while, if for no other reason than the possible increase to my range and
> battery life (if I carry 15 batteries, but only use 12 at a time, I can
> discharge each battery less and get the same range).
>
> Anyway, I'm having some trouble with the idea that this design allows
> one to use lower-voltage switches on the packs. Wouldn't the voltage
> still add up as you switched more packs in? Wouldn't the last one
> potentially be switching full pack voltage, especially in the case of
> failure? (I remember something about all the voltages in any loop
> needing to add up to 0; on the last pack in line, doesn't one leg of
> that loop carry full voltage?) The magic must be in that bypass line
> with the diode. If it really works at all.
>
> And what happens to the current? It looks like he's dead-shorting
> batteries across the motor terminals. If you did that with YellowTops,
> wouldn't you be throwing 1000 amps or more at the motor? How do you
> regulate the current?
>
> Jude
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm speaking out of a state close to ignorance concerning how anything more
complicated than a diode works, but this is interesting, and I'll insert the
following questions (and put on my asbestos suit)...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Blanchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: BatPack parts
>
> The diodes are connected in the opposite direction it would take to short
> the small battery packs. The diode is there so that the current can
> bypass
> the small pack when it is switched out of the circuit.
> As long as the diode is good the switch will only have to deal with the
> small pack voltage and not the total voltage in the string. But if the
> diode fails open then the switch will see the total voltage of all the
> small
> packs that are in the circuit at the time. If the diode fails shorted
> (more
> common) then the small pack will be shorted.
>
> The main problem with the concept is that all the diodes on the small
> packs
> that are not in the circuit have to carry the full motor current, which
> can
> be 1000 amps or more. Since all diodes have some voltage drop, say it is
> just 1 volt, that would be 1000 watts of wasted power per diode.
Would it be better to use FETS or igbt's instead of diodes? Have them on
when the small subpack is not in the circuit, and switch them off when the
subpack is in the circuit. Control would be more complicated, but would
losses be less? Of course now your silicon cost goes up (which is what you
were trying to avoid in the first place), and those fets or igbts have to
carry full motor current.>
> The second problem is that all the small packs that switched in the
> circuit
> are carrying the full motor current. Batteries are less efficient at high
> currents, you can get more energy and therefore range out of a battery at
> lower current then you can at high currents. A more conventional battery
> pack and speed control spreads the power out over the entire pack
> resulting
> in lower battery currents.
They are also switched in and out of the circuit several times a second, so
it "should" average out. It looks for the subpack with the highest voltage
to put into the circuit. That "should" average out the wear and tear on the
batteries, and a more sophisticated control algorithm that tracks SOC and
battery currents could also help by switching them in and out to keep the
individual currents under control.
Another random thought: what about adding small PWM circuits for each low
voltage subpack to provide a "soft start" capacity? Again, more
complicated, but you could vary the PWM of each subpack to control the
overall motor voltage. In this way, you could establish current limits to
help save the subpack batteries from high instantaneous currents, and you
could even establish different limits for each subpack, though I can see few
instances where you would want to. With a sophisticated enough control
system, you could even limit the current supplied by weaker, lower capacity
batteries in the string, or take them out when they got too discharged. You
would still need a way to bypass individual subpacks, though.
>
> Thanks,
> Andre' B. Clear Lake Wis.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jude Anthony
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: BatPack parts
>
> > OK, I'm really intrigued with distributed controller design, and
> > specifically the BatPack (see http://www.redrok.com/ev.htm#batpack for
> > details). I've wanted to do this with single-battery modules for a
> > while, if for no other reason than the possible increase to my range and
> > battery life (if I carry 15 batteries, but only use 12 at a time, I can
> > discharge each battery less and get the same range).
> >
> > Anyway, I'm having some trouble with the idea that this design allows
> > one to use lower-voltage switches on the packs. Wouldn't the voltage
> > still add up as you switched more packs in? Wouldn't the last one
> > potentially be switching full pack voltage, especially in the case of
> > failure? (I remember something about all the voltages in any loop
> > needing to add up to 0; on the last pack in line, doesn't one leg of
> > that loop carry full voltage?) The magic must be in that bypass line
> > with the diode. If it really works at all.
> >
> > And what happens to the current? It looks like he's dead-shorting
> > batteries across the motor terminals. If you did that with YellowTops,
> > wouldn't you be throwing 1000 amps or more at the motor? How do you
> > regulate the current?
> >
> > Jude
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
DUDE! ;-)
Ref. your last paragraph;
You need to get your hands on a Discovery Channel Film crew.
Stay Charged!
Hump
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John Wayland
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
>
>
> Hello to All,
>
> Since I have two identical cars ('72 Datsun 1200 sedans), one with twin
> Netgain (Warfield) 8's at direct drive, the other with an ADC 9 through a 4
> speed tranny, and both are nearly the same weight as they are presently
> equipped, I'm in a pretty good position to comment on this subject.
>
> Jeff Shanab wrote:
>
> > So if I only had money for a zilla 1 k and could get 2 8" for the
> > price of a warp 9, the quicker EV would be dualing 8"
>
> Yes, but it's not dramatically so. In a light weight EV run at 156V-200+V
> with a stout controller and aggressive batteries, you can get pretty
> formidable performance from a single 9 incher through a tranny.
>
> Blue Meanie, a light weight 2340 lb. EV with a single ADC 9 inch motor, a
> DCP 1200 Raptor controller (a real 1200 amps to the motor), a competition
> clutch and flywheel setup with the factory 4 speed trany into a 3:90 rear
> end, and with 156V of Optimas (13 @ 585 lbs.) is pretty zippy, with a 0-60
> time of ~6-6.5 seconds, and the ability to easily pull 100+ mph. I'd
> estimate the 1/4 mile time at ~ 14.5-14.8 seconds (Blue Meanie's never made
> a run down the 1/4 mile track).
>
> White Zombie is also light weight, at ~2450 lb. (when at its 216V mode with
> 18 Exide Orbitals @ 720 lbs.), and even with the higher weight of two 8 inch
> motors and a large and heavy Ford 9 inch rear end setup @ 4:56 ratio,
> lacking the weight of a flywheel, clutch, tranny, the weight of a more posh
> interior, a full blown competition stereo system, and a motorized rear
> battery tray it actually weighs within 100-110 lbs. of Blue Meanie. The
> Zombie has a more powerful Godzilla controller and runs higher voltage at
> higher current than Blue Meanie (216V pack discharged at 1400 amps vs 156V
> pack discharged at 1200 amps). In this form, the Zombie ran a 13.7 second
> 1/4 mile time with a 0-60 sprint in less than 4 seconds (0-60 time estimated
> by the way it easily jumps ahead of mid 12 second cars all the way through
> the 1/8th mile, cars that run 0-60 in the 4 - 4.3 second range). With a much
> lighter battery pack, when it had 28 small 13.5 lb. Hawkers at 336V, the
> Zombie weighed just 1995 lbs. and with a single 11 inch Kostov (modified for
> all out drag racing) it turned a best ET of 13.1 @ 99+ mph, so a single
> motor did quite well, thank you.
>
> On the surface, it seems the dual 8-direct drive configuration out performs
> the single 9 inch - 4 speed tranny configuration, but keep in mind, the dual
> 8's are getting a full 1400 amps from a higher voltage source. If Blue
> Meanie were gutted of its street goodies, and the saved weight was made up
> in a matching 216V worth of stout Orbitals, and with a Godzilla controller
> to send 1400 amps to the 9 inch ADC, hmmm, I don't know, it just might make
> a race out of it! The current 'in the works' reconfiguration of Blue Meanie
> up to 204V of Exide Orbitals and a Zilla Z1K, should drop the 0-60 into the
> mid to low 5 second range and drop the estimated 1/4 mile time to 13.9--14.3
> or so...that's not too far from the Zombie's twin 8 inch performance, but it
> 'is' not as good.
>
> > 2 motors adds the series/paralell option, does that outweight the
> > larger motor capabilities.
>
> Good question. Dual 8's weigh ~ 210 lbs., where a single 9 incher is about
> 143 lbs., so there's important weight savings with a single motor. That
> weight savings evaporates though, when you add-in the flywheel, clutch, and
> tranny to get similar performance of two 8 inch motors at direct drive.
> There are others things to consider, too, such as motor heat. The direct
> drive twin motor setup, will typically see lower rpm at
> accelerate-up-to-street speeds than a single 9 inch motor through a tranny's
> gear set, so there is a 'run cooler' advantage with the single motor and
> tranny combo. Another advantage for the single motor and tranny combo is
> that the controller runs cooler and works less hard, too, and you will not
> need a super mondo powerful controller, as you need with twin motors and
> direct drive.
>
> >
> > I guess it is just simple math 23+23 = 46 vs 28
> > Is it less or more efficient?, provideing lossless coupling
>
> It 'is' simple math, and yes, the twin motor setup does make the most
> power....as far as the efficiency of the whole thing, that one's still up in
> the air.
>
> Here's a hint to add some confusion to the mix. It first had a single 9 inch
> ADC/5 speed at 180V, then it had the single 11 inch race modified Kostov/5
> speed at 240V (later bumped up to direct drive at 336V}, then it had the
> twin 8 Netgain-Warfields/direct drive at up to 408V...now, the Zombie's got
> something big and round presently being worked on and destined to go under
> the hood (it will remain direct drive and will have variable motorized brush
> timing), something that should make some serious torque (700-800 ft.
> lbs.?) and HP (300+??)!! The twin 8's will be pulled very soon....right
> after I use them to blast off a mid-to-low 13 second run in a few weekends
> from now, just to make it a bit tougher for Oat to catch me :-)...then, the
> Zombie goes under the knife for it fourth motor transplant. Oh yeah,
> Rudman's involved, and the Wayland-Rudman dynamic duo means it will get
> wacky and wild along the way, but the Madman's expertise on these things is
> always an asset!
>
> See Ya......John Wayland
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net email virus protected
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
just got my hands on a chopped lowered lavender to hot pink flame painted
metro.(MACHO). need some advice on a relatvely hot ev conversion.
spsomerville no wax(sinecere)
signature SP SOMERVILLE
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Rick an' All;
Comments added
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: EVLN(ZAP crack LONG)
> > In November, 2002, ZAP's wholly owned subsidiary, Voltage Vehicles,
> > acquired Ford's Th!nk electric vehicle assets for a reported $10
> > million.
> But I don't think Zap had that kinda bux, EVer?
> Uh ... somebody here apparently DID find crack in China. The above
> statement is either wishful thinking, or a product of an overly fertilized
> imagination.
> I think the Chinese, God Bless them, are Serious about EV's There is
activity Over There, to get cars up and running, and market them, the Hai
Bao, being a example, of which I was impressed with the turned down,
defanged one at T de Sol , last year, of which I made a trip to to meet in
person. I wasn't disapointed, they did a danm nice job, considering it was a
ground up EV, Not a conversion of Something Else.
> Zap did bid some paltry sum for Think's assets; from what I heard, Ford
> didn't
> even dignify the offer with a response. Kamkorp was the successful bidder.
I
> don't recall what the price was (if I ever knew) but you can bet it wasn't
> US$10 million.
> Kamkorp? What's THAT? Sounds like a camera maker, sorry couldn't resist.OK
A Hai Bao means Black Leapard in Chinese, correct me if I;'m wrong? My
Chinese isn't that good, hell, English, ether<g>! My suggestion for the USA
market would be " Gofur" the cute little critter, with a cartoon Gopher as a
logo, as the car would be a Go-fur, gofur work, all the other enchanting
places we go EVery day.In a 50 mile range from home.
>
> Hi David and Others,
>
> I agree with your statements above concerning who bought whom. It's sad
that
> ZAP couldn't have actually gotten the program. We might have something
> viable to buy commercially if they had. Small companies don't usually have
> the chips to sit at the really big tables, what a shame too.
> I guess that they, the Chinese invasion, will hafta bring their own
tables. Sigh! For what the Chinese are spending on defense, they could
make-put Hai Bao through the Crash tests they need to get through to sell
the car here, so they could turn the AC controller up to real hiway speeds,
like , say, a Think.
Didn't Ford spend big bux testing and cretifing Thinks for the US Roads?
Will the current builder be able to import them here, or YOU could go to
Norway and buy one, bring it home on the Queen Mary2 this summer. Folks used
to do that sort of thing in Cunard's hayday, Gees! There was even a Renault
in the cargo bay of the Titanic, if ya saw the movie?
> >Ford spent
> >about $123 million on its Th!nk program but decided to stop the
> >effort due to poor customer demand and lack of government support
> >for the cars.
> Probably a good part of that was making the car crashworthy, air bags,
all thre goodies that are nice to have nowadaze?
> I just wanted to stab some fun at this statement as well; Oh, poor, poor
> Ford! Nobody wanted their wonderful little EV's, not a single person
hardly.
> Nobody wanted the EV-1 ether, not a single person, hardly...DIDN'T want
to buy it when the leases ran out!!
> There was LOTS of demand. I asked one of the top three managers at Bell
> Ford to put in a special request for me to be able to get one here in
> Phoenix. He was the G.M. of a large Ford store owned by the same person
who
> owned the Lexus dealership I was working at back then. I got no reply. The
> program was set-up wrecklessly and, I feel, purposely to limit market
> exposure. If anyone had a yard sale and only sold to people on the same
> block, it would be a waste of time as well.
>
Yup I offered a check for the EV 1 I drove at EVS in Montreal, GM guy just
laughed, couldn't have it!
> I bet there was a huge tax write-off for the losses they incurred.
> I'll bet! Although if they DID the EV thing they could keep writing it off
taxes as it went along. Pluss the good PR' See we ARE doing good things for
the environment" Better than those @#$% Hummer ads" Like Nothing Else" they
say. Thank God that they are " Like Nothing Else!!
> ~Lack of Governement support? I guess there's no way to know if Ford
really
> said this, or if someone at ZAP is confused.
We all know what happened to CARB?!
> As I recall, Ford got tired of complaints from customers. The
dealership/s
> may have tried to fix problems, but, having a car that was easy, but not
> lucrative, to maintain spelled doom from the start. If not for the fear of
> non-compliance with The ZEV Mandate, the program wouldn't have existed at
> all. My personal belief is that they couldn't train their techs because
> nobody wanted to work on the little ~wimpy golf carts~. (No offense to
> anyone who made an honest effort. I invite feedback) So their customer
> satisfaction index plumetted, and they were losing money on the warranty
> service pay from the factory. I can't fathom that a car seemingly so
simple
> could hog-tie willing and trained service techs and managers as well.
>
> When the unwilling and unenthusiastic plow into the unknown, lead by the
> unwitting, there is nearly zero chance of anything even remotely
resembling
> success.
>
The story of the EV movement in a nutshell, I mean for the Big Guyz, we
carry the flag, as individuals.
> Personally, the (lack of) support factor is the farthest issue from my
mind.
> Ford didn't have to comply with CARB and the ZEVM, plain and simple, so
> they chose to not. How sad.
> How sad! An outrage, in MY humble opinion as a Nobody, telling Everybody!
My two Mil worth
Bob
--- End Message ---
