EV Digest 3466
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
by Paul G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Flooded Battery Pricing
by "Bobby R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Beefing up contactors
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Flooded Battery Pricing
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Flooded Battery Pricing
by Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: desulfator circuits?
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Flooded Battery Pricing
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) re: 6 V flooded US 125 prices
by elaine chiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Flooded Battery Pricing
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) Re: Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) CalCars Aim: "Green-Tune" 2004 Prius into PRIUS+ (LONG)
by Felix Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Flooded Battery Pricing
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: desulfator circuits?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: got torque?
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: desulfator circuits?
by "Chris Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
by stephen somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: got torque?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: LM3916
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) RE: desulfator circuits?
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: BatPack parts
by Jon Glauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Rod wrote:
If you go to a performance controller, (1000 amps or more) then definitely
change the entire drive train. With a 1000 amp controller we used to
routinely twist off transmission output shafts on a stock RX7 tranny and
your wimpy Metro tranny certainly won't handle the torque. I have always
thought a stock bodied high performance Metropolitan would be the perfect
sleeper except that looking from the back someone might notice the two wide
rear tires under the tubbed rear end with the ultra narrowed nine inch with
the tires almost touching each other :-)
I was about to post the same basic message :-) The old Metros are
cool (I was thinking of converting one myself), but low power in
stock form. In this situation I would suggest that it may be better
to ditch a tranny and use 2, 8 inch motors, a Zilla, and
series/parallel switching. At about 1800lbs the old Metro is not as
light as some of the late '60's and early '70's Japanese cars (its
about the same weight as the VW Beetle's of its time).
It would also be good to consider the braking system carefully - it
may not be up to the task of stopping a fast EV (plus its a single
circuit system).
Neon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I called the four local golf shops and got pricing for
Trojan T105 at $67.99-$70 a piece. I also got pricing
for US Battery US2200 at $70.38 from a dealer about 90
minutes away. Are these acceptable prices? What are
you paying? I thought I had read somewhere that these
should be attainable at around $50. I need 8 for my
Comuta Car, as the current ones are dated Aug 00 - Jun
01 and are only getting me about 10-15 miles.
Thanks
Bobby R.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
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.
I'd probably use a ceramic. It won't burn or melt, and is a lot less
likely to break than glass. But there are a zillion of them; you'd have
to ask an application engineer at a ceramics manufacturer for some
ideas.
The main reason I can see to shove something between the contacts is for
something like an emergency disconnect switch. It doesn't operate often,
but you want to be VERY sure it works when you *do* need it.
--
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" -- Margaret Meade
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I paid $55 each 2 years ago for 20 T-125's from a USB distributor in KC,
Missouri. He delivered them to the dealer in his network that was closest
to me. That was still around 125 miles away, but it was closer and cheaper
than Trojan quoted.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bobby R. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 10:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Flooded Battery Pricing
>
> I called the four local golf shops and got pricing for
> Trojan T105 at $67.99-$70 a piece. I also got pricing
> for US Battery US2200 at $70.38 from a dealer about 90
> minutes away. Are these acceptable prices? What are
> you paying? I thought I had read somewhere that these
> should be attainable at around $50. I need 8 for my
> Comuta Car, as the current ones are dated Aug 00 - Jun
> 01 and are only getting me about 10-15 miles.
>
> Thanks
> Bobby R.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just paid $71.95 a piece for US-145s. I hope that was a good price.
Sam
"Bobby R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I called the four
local golf shops and got pricing for
Trojan T105 at $67.99-$70 a piece. I also got pricing
for US Battery US2200 at $70.38 from a dealer about 90
minutes away. Are these acceptable prices? What are
you paying? I thought I had read somewhere that these
should be attainable at around $50. I need 8 for my
Comuta Car, as the current ones are dated Aug 00 - Jun
01 and are only getting me about 10-15 miles.
Thanks
Bobby R.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark-
It's good to know that Trojan looked at the desulfator claims.
Yet from where I sit, isn't it's just another hear-say datapoint...as
valuable, more or less, than those with seriously sulfated batteries who've
been repeatedly testing these devices and claim that batteries which always
failed to charge were later revived by a sufficient pulsating regimen.
Lots of technologies can be trashed as ineffective or unreliable.
And any tester can cause a test to fail by intentionally or otherwise
failing to perform the test in the correct manner or not providing adequate
time to manifest the changes. For example, I could buy a brand new T105
battery, regularly overcharge it with a junk charger without knowing it's
junk, let it go dry, and find I have a battery which dies seriously
prematurely. Would I be correct in saying that the T-105s or their
technology is junk? Of course not---I simply failed to maintain or test it
correctly.
>From what I have read, the electronic desulfators need to be connected AND
OPERATING for some time (1week to over a month for deep Class 2 or 3
sulfation) before you see any effect.
It's clear from these claims that if anyone, whether a Trojan employee or
any other battery expert, simply hooks such a desulfator up on a battery
overnight and looks at the battery the next morning and says "huh, that
didn't work" is not doing their homework. Electronic desulfator testers
have documented the battery state over time with hydrometers as well as with
voltage measurements, showing that the internal resistance drops over time
while the desulfator is connected. I'd like to see any contrary evidence.
I take both sides' claims with a pound and a half of salt.
To say that 'we tested these things and they had no effect' does noone any
service.
Failing to provide any evidence as to what that testing constituted makes it
simply a he-said, she-said debate.
I know that from reading testimony from the desulfator camp, that at least
some data and photographs are out there to support their claims---and many
have claimed to have heavily sulfated "dead" batteries come back into use
with battery internal resistance dropping back into normal range.
They do indeed insist that the more sulfation, the longer the pulsation
required. There's also claims that incorporating EDTA treatment in the
process helps. Also it makes sense that the larger the battery capacity,
the larger the pulse required---it also makes sense that the desulfator be
closely attached to the battery.
It's true, fantastic claims need fantastic proof. I offer neither, just
some insight based on my reading thus far. When I do get my desulfator
circuit working properly, I'll take what data I can. In the mean time, I'd
suggest interested folks take a look at the forementioned desulfator sites.
-Myles Twete
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bobby R. wrote:
> I called the four local golf shops and got pricing for
> Trojan T105 at $67.99-$70 a piece. I also got pricing
> for US Battery US2200 at $70.38 from a dealer about 90
> minutes away. Are these acceptable prices? What are
> you paying? I thought I had read somewhere that these
> should be attainable at around $50. I need 8 for my
> ComutaCar, as the current ones are dated Aug 00 - Jun
> 01 and are only getting me about 10-15 miles.
2000-2001 isn't very old for golf cart batteries. Are you sure they are
bad? It might be worth doing a little testing first.
$70 each for T-105 type golf cart batteries is full retail. When you're
buying 8 you should be able to do much better. Sam's Club has them for
about $40 each (Exide brand last I knew). Any battery place can easily
match this price if they want to.
Or, if range is important, look for a T-125 or T-145 (or the US Battery
equivalents). They are a bit heavier and cost more, but provide more
range.
--
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" -- Margaret Meade
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
bobby,
I just replaced c.c.'s for $475 for 8 US battery 125's (including CA
sales tax of 8.25%) - that's under $60 each w/tax. could have had them
delivered/old ones picked up for $3 each more. maybe a battery
distributor would be a better bet than a golf cart sales place.
elaine
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I paid $55 each for US2200's, but that was because the manager mistakedly gave me a
"dealer price". So, at least you know that they can let them go for that amount.
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Bobby R. amadare
I called the four local golf shops and got pricing for
Trojan T105 at $67.99-$70 a piece. I also got pricing
for US Battery US2200 at $70.38 from a dealer about 90
minutes away. Are these acceptable prices? What are
you paying? I thought I had read somewhere that these
should be attainable at around $50. I need 8 for my
Comuta Car, as the current ones are dated Aug 00 - Jun
01 and are only getting me about 10-15 miles.
Thanks
Bobby R.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The proofs in the time slips guys. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
(I know I take a risk in posting to this list, but I hope you'll feel this
is appropriate: we see plug-in hybrids as a way to get back to pure BEVs
down the road, and I think if list members haven't heard about all the
ferment in the Prius world about EV-only mode, you'll want to know about
it. Feel free to contact me or post to some of the groups listed at the end
of the message. Thanks!)
Many of you have followed the evolution of the California Cars Initiative,
a volunteer effort started in 2002 to promote the next generation of clean,
efficient cars -- and get car companies to build them. We've been focusing
on what people variously call grid-connected, pluggable, plug-optional or
plug-in hybrids -- PHEVs. We've come close, but we haven't yet persuaded a
group of "Super Early Adopters" to custom-convert a few vehicles.
Yet people keep asking us about converting the new Prius. After many
conversations with Toyota engineers, we reluctantly accepted that the car's
electric mode couldn't power it safely at highway speeds.
But something changed for us a few months ago. We'd been following the
pioneering work of Wayne Brown and other experimenters: enabling the
EV-only button, then addressing the challenges of adding more batteries and
grid-charging to the Prius, while looking invisible to Toyota's exquisitely
designed Engine Control Unit.
We kept thinking about the enthusiasm and excitement of online threads on
these topics -- and on driving techniques to get well over 60mpg. And we
sensed the growing potential of the organized '04 Prius owners and fans
online -- now probably over 10,000 strong (see list below).
All this inspired us to a "Eureka" moment when we asked,
Why not convert Priuses so they're PHEV at low speeds and still hybrids at
high speeds?
WE REALIZED PRIUS PHEVs ARE WORTH BUILDING BECAUSE:
1. Many people will love an electric mode, even if only for neighborhood
driving.
2. Petroleum displacement and emission benefits will still be substantial.
3. Conversions of this hot car will get PHEVs into the national discussion
of energy options.
4. Early adopters can influence Toyota and other auto makers to see a
market for highway PHEVs.
5. If the demand became substantial, it will speed the development of
lighter, cheaper, more powerful batteries.
6. We can sponsor an awesome collaboration between legendary ZEV engineers
and pioneering garage-based inventors.
7. The results can be an unprecedented harnessing of consumer demand to
bring to the world great clean cars.
We came up with the PRIUS+ campaign -- which we're announcing first to
online communities.
PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT:
http://www.calcars.org -- EVERYTHING you want to know about PHEVs
http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html (also at easier-to-remember
http://www.priusplus.org) -- LAUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT
http://www.calcars.org/priusplusdetails.html -- ROADMAP to pages showing
how this can happen and how you can help.
It starts with money, of course. $50K for people-time, travel and
components to enable this non-profit effort to put together a
"proof-of-concept" vehicle, organize events to parade it in front of
opinion shapers and decisionmakers, and take orders to convert Priuses.
First buyers will be celebrity, entrepreneur and early adopter Prius owners
who can afford to spend $10-$20K and live without some or all of their
warranty. The cost depends on how many cars will share development
expenses. Our experts estimate Toyota could sell us their first run of PHEV
Priuses for just $4-8K more than an HEV -- and we hope eventually they will!
WHAT CAN YOU DO NOW?
To start, PRIUS+ needs your help reaching anyone in the categories of
sponsors and buyers above. Pitch the idea to them yourself or send us
contact info (we're very discreet). If you're simply a contented hybrid or
EV owner or fan who isn't connected to the wealthy and famous, we hope you
can help spread the word, consider supporting our effort with a modest
tax-deductible contribution (any amount, or $95 as a Charter Sponsor). And
send us your wishes (to [EMAIL PROTECTED]), since, if we succeed, your next
car can be a PHEV from an established dealer in your town.
Please feel free to forward this email freely. Thanks in advance for your
sending ideas and support, or for sharing your thoughts -- preferably at
either the Prius-2G and gridable-hybrids groups (see below).
Felix Kramer
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
PO Box 61222 Palo Alto, CA 94306
cell 650.520.5555 voice 650.599.9992
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
P.S. In the photo on the CalCars PRIUS+ pages, that's my '04 Prius with the
"PLUG OK" plates (7,000 miles, 48.5 mpg). I'm happy to make it available
for the "proof-of-concept" installation.
P.P.S. You can get a sense of the potential of online communities that
share experiences, ideas and strategies from the number of people involved
and the number of messages they post. All but two shown below are Yahoo
Groups (of course there are overlaps, and I haven't included Honda
hybrid-related and electric vehicle, biofuel and other alt-fuel goups):
# of ranked by # of
Members Group Name March messages
1,414 priuschat.com 4,386
1,363 Prius-2G 4,090
4,941 2004-Prius 1,507
8,363 toyota-prius 1,229
302 GreenHybrid.com 722
2,449 Prius Technical Stuff 303
369 gridable-hybrids 70
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'll second that Mr. Kilowatt!
Roderick
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Two 8" vs 1 9"...Zombie Gets a BIG motor!
> The proofs in the time slips guys. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On a Trojan battery, look at the code stamp on the negative pad. Mine is
stamp F 2 meaning the month and year 2002. There were only 1 week old.
I paid $90.00 for the T-145 which included the transportation cost right to
my house from the Trojan factory. I had larger 1 inch pads install and had
them balance in amperes, specific gravity and voltage difference of 0.01.
I have found that some batteries from many battery stores have batteries
that are over a year old. Never put on a maintainers and sulfated. Do your
own prorated and give them a offer.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Flooded Battery Pricing
> Bobby R. wrote:
> > I called the four local golf shops and got pricing for
> > Trojan T105 at $67.99-$70 a piece. I also got pricing
> > for US Battery US2200 at $70.38 from a dealer about 90
> > minutes away. Are these acceptable prices? What are
> > you paying? I thought I had read somewhere that these
> > should be attainable at around $50. I need 8 for my
> > ComutaCar, as the current ones are dated Aug 00 - Jun
> > 01 and are only getting me about 10-15 miles.
>
> 2000-2001 isn't very old for golf cart batteries. Are you sure they are
> bad? It might be worth doing a little testing first.
>
> $70 each for T-105 type golf cart batteries is full retail. When you're
> buying 8 you should be able to do much better. Sam's Club has them for
> about $40 each (Exide brand last I knew). Any battery place can easily
> match this price if they want to.
>
> Or, if range is important, look for a T-125 or T-145 (or the US Battery
> equivalents). They are a bit heavier and cost more, but provide more
> range.
> --
> "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
> world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" -- Margaret Meade
> --
> Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Myles Twete wrote:
> Electronic desulfator testers have documented the battery state
> over time with hydrometers as well as with voltage measurements,
> showing that the internal resistance drops over time while the
> desulfator is connected. I'd like to see any contrary evidence.
The problem, as Myles points out, is that most of the tests are not
really done properly. The tests are too short, done with too few
batteries, too little equipment, and there is no "control" group.
Traditional battery makers use standardized test proceedures, developed
over many years of experience. The tests are of course not perfect, but
they are consistent and reliable at showing what *normal* batteries do
under *normal* circumstances.
When desulfators are tested this way, they produce no useful results.
This should not come as any surprise. It is like saying, "If you are
healthy and eating right, taking vitamins has no effect."
In contrast, the desulfator's tests are usually rigged to exaggerate the
effects of their product as much as possible. For instance, they might
get a 5-year-old battery that has been sitting dead for six months,
connect their device, then use it to successfully start a car. This is
taken as "proof" that it works.
This is equivalent to finding a dying man in the desert, giving him
water and one of your "magic vitamins", and claiming that his recovery
was due to the vitamins.
I have a set of ten 12v Eveready 24EV flooded deep-cycle batteries, made
in 1995. Their rated reserve capacity is 140 minutes (58ah at 25a). They
were used in an EV until 1999, at which time they measured 35-40ah. I
let them sit until 2002, topping them off every few months with a float
charger.
Then, I tested them individually. Their capacity had fallen to 7-21 ah
with a 25a load, their self-discharge rate was high, and their full
charge voltage was low (only came up to 14.2v at 6-8 amps before their
voltage started to fall again).
At the time, there was controversy on the EV list about the Home Power
desulfator article. So I built one and tried it. I wired it to 5 of
these batteries in parallel for 3 months. The other 5 were left sitting
the the same 3 months.
When I retested, there was no difference between the ones with the
desulfator and the ones without it. *All* of them were slightly worse,
and had just lost most of their charge over that 3 months.
Then, I started cycling the batteries; add water, charge at bulk rate to
14.2v, charge at low current until voltage stopped rising, discharge to
10.5v, and repeat. On every battery, their capacity came up and internal
resistance went down. Here is a summary of their amphour capacities:
batt# amphour capacity at 25a, in successive tests
----- ---------------------------------------------
#1 15.88 22.37 25.51 27.16 27.85
#2 8.84 16.43 21.00 22.53 29.14 30.24
#3 21.56 25.51 31.07 26.08
#4 18.41 20.53 30.06 30.28
#5 16.62 22.98 25.01 26.04 24.75 28.10
#6 16.59 23.53 23.51 27.06 29.26
#7 8.58 16.43 22.03 22.77 28.17 27.99
#8 12.75 19.64 26.57 26.02 30.56
#9 21.07 26.61 29.14
#10 7.26 12.50 17.30 19.92 20.90 24.19
#10 26.23 25.82 27.59 30.03 31.00 30.68 (continued)
These were 'sulfated' batteries, as the desulfator makers like to claim.
Yet, the pulser had no discernible effect.
What *did* make a huge difference in capacity was simply to start
cycling the battery properly. All of them came up to about 30ah, which
was 50% capacity for a 7-year-old set of cheap floodeds. And, you can
see that the capacity continued to improve with further cycling, though
at a slower rate (as you can see from the 12 cycles on battery #10).
The "noise" in the data (large variations in capacity between batteries
and between tests) illustrates the problems inherent in battery testing.
You can't do a single test and assume that you know what caused the
changes. Even with an automated tester like I was using, the capacity
would jump up or *down* for no apparent reason.
--
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the
world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!" -- Margaret Meade
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
David, I would have loved a ride in your scary Met! I totally agree with
your added advice on steering, front brakes and chassis. Were they a
unibody?
Roderick
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
> Many years ago I stuffed/shoehorned a built 302 into one with a severely
> narrowed 9" and beefed C-4. I had to chop the fenderwells out, fit a
> straight front end and run fenderwell headers. Thing was freaking scary!!
I
> would much rather see one done as an EV, would be really neat and much
more
> drivable. See Rods previously posted sage advice on dumping the original
> drivetrain with the addendum of figuring on doing some work on the
chassis,
> steering and front brakes as well (assuming you go with the 9" you will
> already have decent rear brakes). David Chapman.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stephen somerville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
>
>
> > THANKS, anyone done this?
> >
> > Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:If you go to a performance
> controller, (1000 amps or more) then definitely
> > change the entire drive train. With a 1000 amp controller we used to
> > routinely twist off transmission output shafts on a stock RX7 tranny and
> > your wimpy Metro tranny certainly won't handle the torque. I have always
> > thought a stock bodied high performance Metropolitan would be the
perfect
> > sleeper except that looking from the back someone might notice the two
> wide
> > rear tires under the tubbed rear end with the ultra narrowed nine inch
> with
> > the tires almost touching each other :-)
> >
> > Roderick
> > "Suck Amps EV Racing"
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "stephen somerville"
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:52 AM
> > Subject: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
> >
> >
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > signature SP SOMERVILLE
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Paul G wrote:
I was about to post the same basic message :-) The old Metros are cool
(I was thinking of converting one myself), but low power in stock form.
In this situation I would suggest that it may be better to ditch a
tranny and use 2, 8 inch motors, a Zilla, and series/parallel switching.
Another option is to use 100 kW max MES-DEA system; its AC induction
motors come integrated with single speed transmission as one unit.
No beefing tranny, no 2 motors complications, no series-parallel
switching stuff, no contactors for electric reverse, 9000 rpm covers
all driving needs without shifting...
It would also be good to consider the braking system carefully - it may
not be up to the task of stopping a fast EV (plus its a single circuit
system).
Can you say REGEN ?
Neon
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jorg: Good point about the Tzero traction control. Their website has
an awesome video where you can hear the tire doing micro-chirps -- it
is right on that perfect ragged edge of traction.
In addition to the fabulous traction control, the system gives a
couple more advantages that help it accelerate so fast. One is that
you lose no time to shifting. The other is a bit more subtle, you
have more area under the torque curve at the driven wheels.
When you shift from 1st to 2nd, there is a big drop (about 1/3) in
torque to the drive wheels. When an electric motor is in constant
power mode (which the AC Prop system is for the upper 1/2 of its
RPM), it acts just like a continuously variable transmission with the
motor at its power peak. You have no sudden drops in torque. Rather
than the torque stair stepping down, it goes down smoothly. I'll try
a Leehartian graph (View in Courier font):
|
|_________
| |\_
Torque | | \_
at | |____\__
Wheels | | \__
| | \__
| |________\___
| | \___
| | \___
| | \
|
|
|________________________________________
Wheel RPM
The upper curve is the AC motor, and the stair stepped curve is the
ICE that has to shift. For this example both cars have the same peak
horsepower, but the electric motor has more area under the curve, so
it accelerates faster, all other things being equal.
--- Jorg Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The numbers are in the right ballpark.
>
> The question you have to ask yourself is, with only 200HP and only
> 165
> ft-pounds, how does the AC Propulsion tZero (which is powered by
> the
> 150kW drive you saw on eBay) get a 0-60 time of 4.0 seconds? And
> why is
> that so much of a better time then nearly any gas car out there,
> including Ferraris? (I think the Ford GT finally beat the number -
> but
> it has 550HP and 500 ft-lbs.)
>
> The answer is that the ACP-150 has traction control that limits the
> speed of the drive wheels. So when you see a tZero take off, it's
> getting the maximum push from the tires all the way from 0 to
> around
> 45mph. Only at around 45 does the torque at the wheels start being
> less
> than what it would take to burn rubber.
> ...
=====
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
- an excellent rebuttal to the market-speak of the desulphator sellers.
When they produce credible evidence of their products' performance using
control groups in addition to the batteries equipped with the
wonder-widget, *then* I'll become a believer. Not before.
I'll respond specifically to one point:
> In contrast, the desulfator's tests are usually rigged to
> exaggerate the effects of their product as much as possible.
> For instance, they might get a 5-year-old battery that has
> been sitting dead for six months, connect their device, then
> use it to successfully start a car. This is taken as "proof"
> that it works.
In my first job as an engineer I worked with a pretty sharp tech. One
of his favorite jokes was to take instructions from an engineer for a
new test, asking what was the phenomenon being investigated, the test
setup, procedure, duration, etc. etc. He would end the conversation
with, "And what kind of data do you want?" It always got a wry smile.
Many people without experience in a test lab seem to believe that
testing is conclusive by nature. In actual fact you can make a test
produce just about any results you want, depending on how sloppy you
are. Intentionally or otherwise. The less sloppy you are, the less
control you have over the final results. That's not a situation the
marketing guys like.
Never accept test results unless you know the test was done properly.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks, i am looking into the ac system is metric
minds a good start?
--- Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul G wrote:
> >
> > I was about to post the same basic message :-)
> The old Metros are cool
> > (I was thinking of converting one myself), but low
> power in stock form.
> > In this situation I would suggest that it may be
> better to ditch a
> > tranny and use 2, 8 inch motors, a Zilla, and
> series/parallel switching.
>
> Another option is to use 100 kW max MES-DEA system;
> its AC induction
> motors come integrated with single speed
> transmission as one unit.
> No beefing tranny, no 2 motors complications, no
> series-parallel
> switching stuff, no contactors for electric reverse,
> 9000 rpm covers
> all driving needs without shifting...
> >
> > It would also be good to consider the braking
> system carefully - it may
> > not be up to the task of stopping a fast EV (plus
> its a single circuit
> > system).
>
> Can you say REGEN ?
>
> > Neon
> >
>
> --
> Victor
> '91 ACRX - something different
>
=====
signature SP SOMERVILLE
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I always wanted to post a comment on this and now it is good opportunity.
The traction control of tzero is excellent and allows the car to
maximize capability of its traction motor. No other vehicle I know
of, EV or not, has that level of control.
Now, the test conditions for demonstrating tzero outrunning
Porsche Carrera 4 next to it in the rain, of course, are not
fare comparison to conclude that tzero is simply more powerful
car - and this is impression most of the readers will get.
As whole car it is quicker than Carrera because it has additional
system carrera doesn't - and this system has nothing to do with
torque of tzero motor. Moreover, knowing this, the rainy day was
choosen to put tzero at maximum advantage and other vehicle
at max disadvantage.
The poing is they just demonstrated how effective *traction
control* is, not how powerful t-zero is. It's like having studded
tires on one car and bold on one with more powerful motor, and
do the test on ice.
Sorry, but if I will have studded tires on my bicycle and tzero
will have regular tires, I guarantee you I will outrun it on ice.
This tells you nothing about *power* of t-zero's drive system,
traction control or not.
If you want to compete in torque/power, make all other variables
equal. I.e. if Porsche would have same traction control and the same
everything else (weight, tires, etc) but more raw motor power,
it would of course outrun t-zero. Again, traction control is
remarkable achievement of ACP I admire, but the message to
masses created by PR dept. creates wrong impression, and looks
like it is intentional.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
David Dymaxion wrote:
Jorg: Good point about the Tzero traction control. Their website has
an awesome video where you can hear the tire doing micro-chirps -- it
is right on that perfect ragged edge of traction.
In addition to the fabulous traction control, the system gives a
couple more advantages that help it accelerate so fast. One is that
you lose no time to shifting. The other is a bit more subtle, you
have more area under the torque curve at the driven wheels.
When you shift from 1st to 2nd, there is a big drop (about 1/3) in
torque to the drive wheels. When an electric motor is in constant
power mode (which the AC Prop system is for the upper 1/2 of its
RPM), it acts just like a continuously variable transmission with the
motor at its power peak. You have no sudden drops in torque. Rather
than the torque stair stepping down, it goes down smoothly. I'll try
a Leehartian graph (View in Courier font):
|
|_________
| |\_
Torque | | \_
at | |____\__
Wheels | | \__
| | \__
| |________\___
| | \___
| | \___
| | \
|
|
|________________________________________
Wheel RPM
The upper curve is the AC motor, and the stair stepped curve is the
ICE that has to shift. For this example both cars have the same peak
horsepower, but the electric motor has more area under the curve, so
it accelerates faster, all other things being equal.
--- Jorg Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The numbers are in the right ballpark.
The question you have to ask yourself is, with only 200HP and only
165
ft-pounds, how does the AC Propulsion tZero (which is powered by
the
150kW drive you saw on eBay) get a 0-60 time of 4.0 seconds? And
why is
that so much of a better time then nearly any gas car out there,
including Ferraris? (I think the Ford GT finally beat the number -
but
it has 550HP and 500 ft-lbs.)
The answer is that the ACP-150 has traction control that limits the
speed of the drive wheels. So when you see a tZero take off, it's
getting the maximum push from the tires all the way from 0 to
around
45mph. Only at around 45 does the torque at the wheels start being
less
than what it would take to burn rubber.
...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I love this solution! (I'm not going to implement it, but
Jim's thinking is brilliant!). Might be good for commutavan or other
minimalist's car designs.
Not good for color blind drivers...
Jim Coate wrote:
What about putting a single low-voltage LED on each battery? Then a
bundle of plastic fibers back to the dash board and you can remotely see
all 50 at once. If one battery is going low (< 10.5 volts) sooner than
the rest, it needs help. If all the batteries go under at once then it's
time to ease off the go pedal, or re-charge the entire pack.
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks, Lee, for the detailed test results!
I see why you have concluded that the desulfation pulser didn't help.
You indicated all 5 batteries were in parallel with one desulfator across
them. This would bias against the pulser having much effect since the
current pulses would be split between 5 batteries. From what I've read, the
typical pulser circuit which they claim dishes out about 5amp pulses
shouldn't be used for more than something like 200amp-hours of batteries. I
guess you could say that since yours only got up to 30amp-hour capacity,
this should fit, but to give it a fair test, I'd have considered testing it
on only one battery at a time---guess that would require 5 desulfators, but
at least then you'd not be spreading the energy across too many plates.
Frankly, I think that even 5amp pulses into one battery seems too little.
Since each analogy begs another, and you offered a fine one, I'll offer
this:
If you were pressure washing your house, and you knew that one spray head
required the full flow to be effective, you wouldn't branch off that main
hose with five hoses and nozzles in order for 5 guys to pressure wash the
house faster, would you?
Your pulser circuit may or may not have worked fine with one battery, but
with several in parallel, the furthest batteries may not see much of the
pulsed energy.
Then again, I'm no spurt, let alone an ex-spurt.
Thanks again-
-Myles
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, I have another resource for you about something similar, or the same:
http://innovexpo.itee.uq.edu.au/2001/projects/s348757/index.html
click "Thesis Document" at the bottom.
-Jon Glauser
Jude Anthony wrote:
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 ---
Lol, you probably would have Rod. Scared the heck outta me. The darn thing
would go anywhere except where it was pointed. Too short and too narrow for
the power and weight distribution. It was pretty hacked up when it came to
my shop but it had a rudimentary uni-body type construction. We ended up
making a new frame as the only way to get the SB Ford in was to convert to a
MAS (Econoline style) front end. The front track was actually wider than the
rear by quite a margin. And I do recall the decision to go with a C-4 as a
C-6 made the tranny tunnel too big to fit a gas pedal in any semblance of
normal position. The RE was so narrow the rear meats did look like they were
gonna touch and the track locator/ladder bar setup looked like a wheelie bar
off a dragbike. Hmm, I just remembered I have a 36" wide 9" housing laying
around and 3 dozen SVR-14s, find a Metro body in good condition and maybe we
could build an EV "dingy" to load in the back of Going Postal :-). Wish you
could get some major funding from the Discovery channel or a corperate
sponsor, I have a lot of ideas I have been itching to try out. TTYL David
Chapman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
> David, I would have loved a ride in your scary Met! I totally agree with
> your added advice on steering, front brakes and chassis. Were they a
> unibody?
>
> Roderick
> "Suck Amps EV Racing"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:17 PM
> Subject: Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
>
>
> > Many years ago I stuffed/shoehorned a built 302 into one with a severely
> > narrowed 9" and beefed C-4. I had to chop the fenderwells out, fit a
> > straight front end and run fenderwell headers. Thing was freaking
scary!!
> I
> > would much rather see one done as an EV, would be really neat and much
> more
> > drivable. See Rods previously posted sage advice on dumping the original
> > drivetrain with the addendum of figuring on doing some work on the
> chassis,
> > steering and front brakes as well (assuming you go with the 9" you will
> > already have decent rear brakes). David Chapman.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "stephen somerville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
> >
> >
> > > THANKS, anyone done this?
> > >
> > > Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:If you go to a performance
> > controller, (1000 amps or more) then definitely
> > > change the entire drive train. With a 1000 amp controller we used to
> > > routinely twist off transmission output shafts on a stock RX7 tranny
and
> > > your wimpy Metro tranny certainly won't handle the torque. I have
always
> > > thought a stock bodied high performance Metropolitan would be the
> perfect
> > > sleeper except that looking from the back someone might notice the two
> > wide
> > > rear tires under the tubbed rear end with the ultra narrowed nine inch
> > with
> > > the tires almost touching each other :-)
> > >
> > > Roderick
> > > "Suck Amps EV Racing"
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "stephen somerville"
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 6:52 AM
> > > Subject: ev conversion 61 nash metropolitan
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > signature SP SOMERVILLE
>
--- End Message ---
