EV Digest 3977
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Long Range EV Ideas
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Basic electrical question
by D Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: SAFT Nicads (aircraft starting)
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) T-Zero pic anyone?
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: T-Zero pic anyone?
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Golf cart vs. AGM wars
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7) inverters in the strangest places
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) long range EV ideas
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Range + Golf cart vs. AGM wars
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Golf cart vs. AGM wars
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Trying to avoid battricide...SOC stuff
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Basic electrical question
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Golf cart vs. AGM wars
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
This lightning method is already done with full size cars for NASCAR bodys
and funny cars. For Example, the El Camino in full stock weighs 4500 lb.
The same El Camino with replacements fiber carbon for nose section, front
and rear fenders, doors, tail gate, interpanels, cargo bed, lexon glass,
aluminum dash, roof,floor panels, and wrap over fiber panels over round
aluminum bumpers.
The frame is a ladder type 2 inch square tubing.
With a 1000 hp engine and equipment, roll cage and driver, this car weigh in
at a low 2200 lbs!!
Now lets subtract about 800 lbs of the ICE equipment and add 800 lbs of
batteries to drive this car the same distance as 4400 lb car with 1600 lbs
of batteries.
The below ratio formula can be used to estimate the energy needed for a
certain weight at a certain speed and range.
Volts = Amps = Weight = MPH = Range = Ratio = Time
It was found by experimentation that it takes:
2400 Watts for 100 lbs at 50 MPH in 60 Min. with a 1 to 1 gear ratio.
or it would take about:
600 watts = 100 lbs = 50 MPH = 60 Min = 4:1 Ratio
6000 = 1000 = 50 = 60 = 4:1
12000 = 2000 = 50 = 60 = 4:1
24000 = 2000 = 50 = 120 = 4:1
The number of batteries it would take would be:
24000/240 AH = 100 volts
No of T-145 or 100/6 = 16.6 or 17 batteries
17 batteries x 71 lbs = 1227 lbs
The full size car above example would weigh 1400 lbs and would weight 2627
lbs.
Now you could go the other way and purchase a Cam Am Group 7 Race Car that
would normally be a mid engine car. I have one of these in the body shop
which is getting a complete overhaul.
This car weighs 1300 lbs with engine. Now remove the engine and equipment
of 600 lbs and add a 250 lbs of motor, controller and battery charger.
This would weigh 1300 -600 +250 = 950 lbs.
Add the 1227 batteries + 950 lbs = 2177 lbs.
You now could make a 100 miles with 12000 watts at 50 to 60 mph in two
hours.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Chancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Long Range EV Ideas
> Hi folks,
>
> I keep dreaming up ideas for EVs that I will never get around to building,
> but I thought I might share some of these daydreams and see what you folks
> think.
>
> 1. Big Pack Kit Car:
>
> Build a custom from steel box tubing, patterned after a VW Beetle pan, but
> based on heavier suspension components from say a VW bus. As part of the
> frame, build in supports for 4 battery packs for standard GC2 golf cart
> batteries. 8 batteries in front of the from axle, 10 in front of the rear
> axle above the transmission, and 4 on each side of the motor behind the
> rear axle. Total 26 batteries. With T-145s this would amount to 1846
> pounds of batteries, a very weighty pack. Add a 9" Advanced and a baby
> Zilla, with say a PFC-50 for charging. Also add one of those slick
> automatic watering systems. Now, top it off with a Kelmark GT kit car
> body
> modified to add a flip-up front for accessing the front pack. The Kelmark
> already has dual rear hatches that could be used to access the rear
> battery
> pack or a flip-up could be built here as well. Each battery pack would be
> enclosed in a fiberglass box with ventilation fans. At something like
> 3500
> to 3800 pounds, the resulting EV would not be a stellar performer on
> acceleration, but the range would be outstanding. Assuming 175-200 Watt
> hours per mile at 60 mph, a highway range of 100-120 miles seems at least
> possible.
>
> 2. Plug-in Hybrid Pickup:
>
> Pretty much a standard pickup conversion except that no batteries would be
> installed under the hood. Instead there would be a 8 to 10KW genset,
> either off the shelf or custom assembled from perhaps a modified 3 phase
> motor and a small 10 to 15 hp gas engine. Again I like the idea of a 144
> or 156 volt system to get the performance up a bit while still using the
> forgiving golf cart batteries. To fit this many batteries may mean
> sacrificing some if not all the cargo space in the bed. The result would
> be an EV with good range and the ability to extend that range as needed.
>
> Substituting about an equal weight of AGMs should result in about the same
> range without the watering hassles and with much better performance, but
> would require some sort of battery management system.
>
> So, crazy or do-able, or already been done?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Chancey,
> '88 Civic EV
> '95 Solectria Force
> Kansas City, Missouri
> EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
> My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
> Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
> Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Joe Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Concur on isolation.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I figured out what happened, and it's pretty obvious after you pointed me
in the right direction. I have these two digital meters, and they are both the
same, they are just configured differently as far as scaling and decimal point.
And they do have a common ground between signal in and 5v power in. So this
common ground made the - terminal the same wire on each meter input.
I had the shunt installed in the positive leg after the bridge rectifier, and
the + and - wires on either side of the shunt for the amp gage. And of course
I had the + and - of the volt gage across the + and - of the output. So I
actually had dead shorted the variac output. The positive output went to the
negative sense wire on the shunt, ran up through the board traces, over to the
negative of the voltmeter, through it's negative, and down to the negative of
the variac output.
I am looking at it, and wondering if I put the shunt in the negative leg of the
variac output, whether that would fix it or not. But I think I am just going
to build another transformer 5v supply. Batteries would work, but these are
LED meters, so batteries would not last very long.
Dave F
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Anyone know what AHr these are? I thought I saw someone mention 14 which is
kinda small. David C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: SAFT Nicads (aircraft starting)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Cover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "EVList" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:14 AM
> Subject: Fwd: Re: SAFT Nicads (aircraft starting)
>
>
> >
> > --- Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: SAFT Nicads (aircraft starting)
> > > Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 07:08:30 -0800
> > >
> > > Now he can afford the shipping. Lawrence Rhodes.......
> >
> > If anyone knows who bought these, can you find out if they plan on
> reselling any?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Dave Cover
> >
> > PS I'm close enough to go pick some up!
> >
> > Yeah! Me too! Count me in on that. Hava trusty rusty Ford Van to
collect
> them in!
>
> Seeya
>
> Bob
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I havn't noted anyone else posting on this so I figured I better. Anyone that
wants a nice picture of a T-Zero can drop by your local Checker auto and get
the 2005 calender titled "Carcepts". Its "Ms" April. I am kinda facinated by
the Boano Indy Lincoln and the Ghia Gilda as well. Worth a look and one can
always use a calender. David Chapman.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Doh! So impressed to see an electric on a calender I posted without looking
at the whole year. Check out the 2004 Honda Kiwami (December). Not a BEV but
close enough. Oh, and take a peek at August. Sigh. DC.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I read all the posts between Wayland and others regarding the issue. I think
it's interesting and would like to ask a question.
One of Wayland's points seems to be (and I *hope* I don't misquote or
misrepresent) that the lead sleds can only deliver on their promise of long
cycle
life and what not under special circumstances - basically by babying them and
not
demanding high power from them.
My question is this - let's say that my vehicle isn't an issue in terms of
how much lead I can pack into it. Let's say it's strong enough and big enough
and safe enough for me to put a big hunk o' lead in it. Let's consider
something like a big-ass van that I've possibly modified structurally (if
necessary)
to carry thousands of pounds of lead. Or perhaps a big-ass hearse or some big
old station wagon that I've gutted or something. Or perhaps a pickup truck
would even do. 1) Could I stick enough lead (gold cart bats) into this thing
to get what Wayland might call good performance (let's say equivalent
performace to an ICE) and beyond that size the pack large enough to keep the
power
draws low enough to baby the pack? In other words, can you sort of "have your
cake and eat it too" by getting performance and long battery life by packing in
a
ton of lead, at the expense of carrying around a huge amount of weight, and
not having much room in the vehicle for anything else? 2) If this is possible,
would you at this point be paying more than you would for a pack of AGMs
sized to deliver similar performance, after factoring in life of the batteries
and
what not? I suppose the question is, at this point does your cost/cycles end
up being more than for AGMs?
I understand that there might be enough variables here to make some of this
unanswerable. I understand we don't know the exact size of the pack necessary
to drive whatever vehicle I am positing here, and therefore the cost and what
not. But what does the "gut" tell some of the EV experts out there? Does
Wayland, Lee, or some of the other gurus out there want to take a shot at this?
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just thought I'd share
I was at costco and they have a little roadside emergancy
light/pump/1500 watt inverter, they claim it has advanced lead batteries
and can jumpstart the car with 900+ amps. They include a table on how
long you can watch a 13" TV or use a notebook computer or portable
vacuum . Are bolder cells back in production?
oh yeah...$78.00 IIRC
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is a guy here in fresno, that sold me my solar, that has an
electric PU he is adding a genset to up front.
He didn't give up his bed, all the batteries are underneath.
How about this idea instead:
Batttery up the Pickup as usual for good weight balance and a flip
up bed to access batteries under bed.
use one of those trailer mounts but mount a plate with a genset on it.
90+% of the time you drive without the genset, it stays at home as avail
emergancy power. But when you need to head out to gradma's house you
bolt in the genset.
Preferably this is a propane genset using one of those RV tanks attached
to the plate(I wonder how many miles one of those tanks would yoeld) You
know the ones, the ones that people use on their barbeques that are
exchangable at orchard supplies and such.
or...
dump pack trailer
You have a trailer of batteries that allow you to charge more than
your EV can handle at the excellent midnight to 7am .05/kwh price.
This can provide most of a midday charge fro people with schedules
like me work->home->school->home
It could serve as whole house backup ?
or be connecte3d to truck to extend range.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Sam and All,
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I read all the posts between Wayland and others
> regarding the issue. I think
> it's interesting and would like to ask a question.
>
> One of Wayland's points seems to be (and I *hope* I
> don't misquote or
> misrepresent) that the lead sleds can only deliver
> on their promise of long cycle
> life and what not under special circumstances -
> basically by babying them and not
> demanding high power from them.
John's a little biased towards AGM's because of
the way he drives, shows his EV's and a good fit for
him.
But it's a costly fit compared to GC batts as
AGM's cost 3-4x what GC's do for a given range.
AGM's usually give about 75-80% of the energy of a
GC per lb in all but 1/4 racing conditions.
But adding many pounds to an EV isn't going to
help it's racing performance.
That said, GC can deliver 800 amps so not as much
of a slug as John says. And a lot faster at mile
40!!!!!!!
Also as far as maintaince, AGM's do take some,
charging is difficult as you need regs that have to be
disconnected to equalize the batts + buying,
installing, maintaining the regs. Blow it once
charging and you may need a new, expensive pack. On
GC's, just put water in them to bring them back.
On GC you just need to water them once a month,
not a bad idea as they, like any batt, ICE, should
inspected that often.
While if you need reasonable performance, GC's
cost 3-4 times less for a given range, cheaper
equipment to charge and last longer in most cases. Not
to mention a lot more range in real world driving.
And in an EV range is more important than high 1/4
mile times for 98% of EV users. Not that GC's are slow
compared to most ICE cars.
An EV with 40-50% of it's weight in GC will give
good performance, long life with the right motor,
controller setup. And a good controller will still
give you 1-2,000 motor amps for a hole shot while
keeping batt amps at 500-800.
So if you want to race, get AGM's. If not, GC's
are the way to go by far.
Over 20 yrs, even ni-cads are less costly than
AGM's!!!!!
The Triumph GT6 sounds like a good starting point
for a nice EV, easily made better aero and lightweight
so the batt pack doesn't have to be big.
And for those AGM racers and other people that
need extreme range, the generator, sometimes hybrid
idea is a good way to get range and speed at the
track. Even a 30 mile range will take care of most
trips and with an eff gen, could get very good mileage
on those few other long trips.
And no reason it needs to weight more than 1/8 the
batt pack it's charging. It must have either a DC or
3ph AC output to charge batts well.
Sam, for you an early RX-7 with GC batts could
give great range, performance from light weight and
good aero.
A 2 motor setup can cut the need for higher
powered batts as they can start in series making twice
the torque for the same amps. This with a Zilla would
get you up the track quite quickly on GC's.
HTH's
jerry dycus
>
> My question is this - let's say that my vehicle
> isn't an issue in terms of
> how much lead I can pack into it. Let's say it's
> strong enough and big enough
> and safe enough for me to put a big hunk o' lead in
> it. Let's consider
> something like a big-ass van that I've possibly
> modified structurally (if necessary)
> to carry thousands of pounds of lead. Or perhaps a
> big-ass hearse or some big
> old station wagon that I've gutted or something. Or
> perhaps a pickup truck
> would even do. 1) Could I stick enough lead (gold
> cart bats) into this thing
> to get what Wayland might call good performance
> (let's say equivalent
> performace to an ICE) and beyond that size the pack
> large enough to keep the power
> draws low enough to baby the pack? In other words,
> can you sort of "have your
> cake and eat it too" by getting performance and long
> battery life by packing in a
> ton of lead, at the expense of carrying around a
> huge amount of weight, and
> not having much room in the vehicle for anything
> else? 2) If this is possible,
> would you at this point be paying more than you
> would for a pack of AGMs
> sized to deliver similar performance, after
> factoring in life of the batteries and
> what not? I suppose the question is, at this point
> does your cost/cycles end
> up being more than for AGMs?
>
> I understand that there might be enough variables
> here to make some of this
> unanswerable. I understand we don't know the exact
> size of the pack necessary
> to drive whatever vehicle I am positing here, and
> therefore the cost and what
> not. But what does the "gut" tell some of the EV
> experts out there? Does
> Wayland, Lee, or some of the other gurus out there
> want to take a shot at this?
>
> Thanks.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could I stick enough lead (gold cart bats) into this thing to get
> what Wayland might call good performance (let's say equivalent
> performace to an ICE) and beyond that size the pack large enough
> to keep the power draws low enough to baby the pack? In other
> words, can you sort of "have your cake and eat it too"?
Well, sort of.
You can certainly match the performance of a normal ICE car, using only
flooded lead-acids. One way is to use a smallish pack (like 25% of total
weight in batteries), and just torture them to an early death. This is
what people commonly do in a first EV with a dozen or so 12v marine
batteries.
Another way is to crowd in enough floodeds so the load on each one isn't
too high. This way, you don't shorten their life from excessive current.
But this also means you need to get something like 50% of the total
vehicle weight in batteries.
But, you will not get to the ultimate in performance with either of
these methods. Floodeds will always be heavier for a given amount of
power, and a lighter vehicle will always outperform a heavier one.
> 2) I suppose the question is, at this point does your cost/cycles
> end up being more than for AGMs?
This is what I was getting at by the 1-hour discharge rate. If you drive
so as to discharge the batteries in less than an hour, then you're
likely to be overstressing floodeds during accelleration, and so AGMs
could be a better, cheaper choice.
The extreme example of this is of course 1/4-mile drag racing. You are
trying to discharge the batteries in *seconds* and not minutes, so AGMs
are the only sensible choice.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Bohm wrote:
> I got back from a short drive, and let the batteries sit for a
> couple hours... But my measurements after letting them sit are
> worrying me. They are all in about the 11.8V range. According
> to what Lee recently said, that would be below 0% SOC for any
> of the batteries he mentioned.
It worries me that their voltage is this low. This indeed implies that
they are very dead. However, there are two mitigating circumstances.
First, they were cold; second, you only waited 2 hours after driving.
Cold batteries sag more and take longer to recover, and 2 hours is not
enough time for the voltage to stabilize. So if you can, wait more like
8-24 hours after driving and measure the voltage again.
> Does anyone have any rough numbers for how SOC changes with
> temperature?
Actual state of charge doesn't change with temperature, but the USABLE
amount of charge left does. For example, a battery can be at 50% SOC at
70 deg.C -- half its amphours are left. Chill it to 0 deg.F, and its
voltage hardly changes -- it is *still* technically at 50% SOC. However,
if you put it under a heavy load, its voltage falls almost immediately
below 1.75v/cell (dead). It is not dead, but its internal resistance is
so high that you can't get EV-levels of current from it any more. So, it
is effectively dead (0% SOC) at this temperature and current.
But, let it warm back up to 70 deg.F. Again, its voltage doesn't change
-- but now you have a much lower internal resistance, and have your
capacity back!
> I'd like to build that into my SOC measuring device... along with
> current measurement and raw, instantaneous voltage. Not sure how to
> do it after that - a table lookup seems to be the most reasonable,
> other than it will be a big table!
The relationship is complex, and difficult to program into any sort of
instrument. It is also hard because you don't *know* the relationship.
I think one of the better ways to do it is the "dual meter" approach.
Get an analog meter with two pointers that cross (the type used in SWR
meters for radio use). Wire one to measure battery current, and the
other for battery voltage. The place where the two pointers cross
defines the present battery operating point. At any given current, the
voltage changes from some value at 'full' to another value at 'empty'.
This defines a line across the dual meter's face.
The simplest way to label such a meter is with colored red-yellow-green
bands that show the combinations of values for full-empty and good-bad
battery. You can thus tell at a glance that this voltage represents 50%
SOC at the present current.
Of course, you can digitize the process as well; but it will be harder
to label the scales.
--
"Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has!" -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, it would work with reduced accuracy.
You would need to connect bat negative to the negative input of both meters.
As the meters draw different currents from the supplies (because of varying
numbers of segments lit), it induces a few millivolts of error in the shunt
wires causing the shunt current causing a bias in the reading. The voltage
reading error would be imperceptible. You really need separate (isolated
negative) supplies for these meters to prevent the error.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: Basic electrical question
>
>
> Joe Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Concur on isolation.
>
> Joe Smalley
> Rural Kitsap County WA
> Fiesta 48 volts
> NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Well, I figured out what happened, and it's pretty obvious after you
pointed me in the right direction. I have these two digital meters, and
they are both the same, they are just configured differently as far as
scaling and decimal point. And they do have a common ground between signal
in and 5v power in. So this common ground made the - terminal the same
wire on each meter input.
>
> I had the shunt installed in the positive leg after the bridge rectifier,
and the + and - wires on either side of the shunt for the amp gage. And of
course I had the + and - of the volt gage across the + and - of the output.
So I actually had dead shorted the variac output. The positive output went
to the negative sense wire on the shunt, ran up through the board traces,
over to the negative of the voltmeter, through it's negative, and down to
the negative of the variac output.
>
> I am looking at it, and wondering if I put the shunt in the negative leg
of the variac output, whether that would fix it or not. But I think I am
just going to build another transformer 5v supply. Batteries would work,
but these are LED meters, so batteries would not last very long.
>
>
>
> Dave F
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The question I see is about power vs. longevity.
I could not find the rated internal resistance so I assumed a golf car
battery has 6.7 milliohms of internal resistance. If someone has a real
number for the internal resistance, please rework my calculations with the
real number.
T-105 Golf Car batteries are rated at 75 Amps for 115 minutes. If a 60 pound
battery makes 75 amps at 5.5 volts, then it can produce 412 watts or about
0.4 hp to the ground. If you assume that the battery makes up 50% of the
vehicle weight, each 0.4 HP needs to accelerate 132 pounds down the road.
Assuming that there is no friction (Never happens) the vehicle will do 60
feet in 4.1 seconds, the eighth mile in 20.8 seconds and the quarter mile in
33 seconds at 40.6 mph.
I would call it a slug.
If you try to go faster than this, the battery life will suffer. A little
bit for each increment of speed, but getting significant when you cross the
one hour rate. This is the crossover point according to Lee Hart (Saturday,
December 18, 2004 11:39 PM)
If you double the current to 150 amps (about the one hour rate) , the
voltage might drop to 5 volts for a electrical power of 750 watts for a
ground HP of .75 HP. The performance increases to 3.4 seconds at 17 MPH at
60 feet, 16.9 seconds at 39.7 MPH at the eighth mile and reaches the quarter
mile in 26.9 seconds at 50 MPH.
An Aerostar XLT (stretch version) with a 4 liter engine goes 0 to 50 in
about 8 seconds. Taking almost 27 seconds to get to 50 miles per hour on
flat ground would be flat unacceptable to me.
If you add wind resistance, the numbers get even worse.
I gave up on flooded batteries for street cars many years ago. I did not get
adequate performance, I hated to water them, I hated cleaning the corrosion
off the terminals, and they did not last very long on the hills around here.
I changed to AGMs and would not consider going back.
I would consider going back to flooded batteries on a golf car since 1) the
number of cells is down reducing the number of terminals to clean, 2) the
number of cells to water is down, 3) the access to the top of the batteries
is better under the battery box lid, 4) the speed (current demand) is lower,
5) the calendar life expectancy is better and 6) the price is less per watt
hour.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 3:01 AM
Subject: Golf cart vs. AGM wars
> I read all the posts between Wayland and others regarding the issue. I
think
> it's interesting and would like to ask a question.
>
> One of Wayland's points seems to be (and I *hope* I don't misquote or
> misrepresent) that the lead sleds can only deliver on their promise of
long cycle
> life and what not under special circumstances - basically by babying them
and not
> demanding high power from them.
>
> My question is this - let's say that my vehicle isn't an issue in terms of
> how much lead I can pack into it. Let's say it's strong enough and big
enough
> and safe enough for me to put a big hunk o' lead in it. Let's consider
> something like a big-ass van that I've possibly modified structurally (if
necessary)
> to carry thousands of pounds of lead. Or perhaps a big-ass hearse or some
big
> old station wagon that I've gutted or something. Or perhaps a pickup
truck
> would even do. 1) Could I stick enough lead (gold cart bats) into this
thing
> to get what Wayland might call good performance (let's say equivalent
> performace to an ICE) and beyond that size the pack large enough to keep
the power
> draws low enough to baby the pack? In other words, can you sort of "have
your
> cake and eat it too" by getting performance and long battery life by
packing in a
> ton of lead, at the expense of carrying around a huge amount of weight,
and
> not having much room in the vehicle for anything else? 2) If this is
possible,
> would you at this point be paying more than you would for a pack of AGMs
> sized to deliver similar performance, after factoring in life of the
batteries and
> what not? I suppose the question is, at this point does your cost/cycles
end
> up being more than for AGMs?
>
> I understand that there might be enough variables here to make some of
this
> unanswerable. I understand we don't know the exact size of the pack
necessary
> to drive whatever vehicle I am positing here, and therefore the cost and
what
> not. But what does the "gut" tell some of the EV experts out there? Does
> Wayland, Lee, or some of the other gurus out there want to take a shot at
this?
>
> Thanks.
>
--- End Message ---
