EV Digest 4143
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Does only size matter? (For DC motors?)
by "Mark Thomasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Question: Max efficiency charging with 3 phase alternator
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: 3 phase alternator-why not an induction machine?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas
by "Virtual Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
> Do I want to sell it for $40k today? No, but it is the only bracket
> to hope to win in.
Victor, now you're missing one detail.
All the racers would be facing the same dilemma.
I mean, the guys who indeed put in $100k+ in parts into their car wouldn't
at all be interested in entering into a contest where they might have to
sell for $100k. They'd compete in the $1M+ club to cover their investment
just like you'd want to race yours in the $100k+ club to do the same. Sure,
those rich investors could race in the $100k class, but someone will end up
getting a good deal on a high tech racer afterwards if they did so.
Only the guys who either really really want to win, or, really want to sell
their rig (maybe at a loss) would enter into a lower category.
It does force you to trade risk of investment loss versus risk of being out
of your league...kind of a 'guts' poker game.
-Myles
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You're missing Peter's point. See it as an appraisal how much
> people think it worth, just like a house. No one can force
> you to sell it, the only purpose is to put you in fair
> competition bracket.
Actually, as I understand this sort of 'claimer' system, it is exactly
the case that if someone wants to buy the vehicle at the end of the
race, you *must* sell it. That is the point; otherwise, I could put
$30k into a car but claim it was only $5k and then refuse to sell it
after blowing all the real $5k vehicles away.
Since 'claimer' type systems are apparently in place in other forms of
racing, does anyone know what would happen if someone like Ryan were to
race his vehicle in the appropriate price class and win, but then refuse
to sell it if someone wanted to buy it? I would expect this should be
allowable, but that if the owner refuses to sell then they immediately
lose any record they might have had claim to with that vehicle since it
immediately becomes suspect of belonging in another class.
To answer someone else's question, I assume that if more than one person
wants to buy the vehicle that either some lottery would be held to
determine the winning buyer, or the car would go to the highest bidder
(i.e. there is no reason why supply and demand could not result in a $5k
class vehicle selling for $10k if several people are interested in it,
although I expect that might just force the new owner to run it in the
$10k class ;^>.
I think that the price brackets are a good idea as it really is money
that makes you go faster, not voltage, etc., just as Dave Cloud says.
Ultimately the NEDRA recordbook will be dominated by those with
sponsorship (it already is, so some extent) or deeper pockets and
without some form of differentiation based on vehicle cost, etc. the
hobbiests, etc. will be driven away. The claimer system is a form of
'self-policing' to keep people honest in which class their vehicle races
in, but I don't see it working at the present time because there simply
isn't the required 'critical mass' of racers and serious wannabes for
there to be any real concern that someone might actually 'claim' a $5k
or $10k or higher vehicle.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Everything correct Peter except little detail: if you spent 5
> years tinkering with your $5k car to make it win and sold it
> for $10k pocketing the difference, you won't built another
> one for $5 AND spend another (now perhaps down to] 3 years
> tinkering again. Your 3 years time worth more than that difference.
Peter was just using the $5k parts cost in a $10k bracket as an example.
Obviously, you would race your car in the bracket that would allow you
to recover your costs and/or build a new vehicle.
> Imagine I put ACRX on track today. There are no more than
> $40k worth of hardware in it (purchase spread over few years).
>
> How much time is invested? Well over $100k.
Be that as it may, it would certainly cost far less than $100K to pay
someone to professionally convert another CRX to be identical to yours.
Assuming that you could replace the $40k worth of present hardware for
the same $40k, I think it would be crazy not to sell the car to someone
for $100k since the $60k difference will easily pay for another CRX (or
nicer donor) and professional conversion if you haven't got the
time/desire to do it yourself and provide the opportunity to 'correct'
all the little things that we always notice in hindsight with our
conversions.
> Do I want to sell it for $40k today? No, but it is the only
> bracket to hope to win in.
Remember that if it took you $40k of parts and $100k of labour to build
your car, then it should take a similar amount of hardware and labour to
build competing $100k class vehicles. If the classes are based only on
hardware costs, or if some competitors value their time at $0/hr then
there is a fundamental problem.
> Point is this , IMHO money classification must be *in
> addition* to existing rules. Else simple difference
> "sponsorship - no sponsership" will make all the difference
> in outcome, not even going into how much.
Yes, I think this is a good point. Dave's suggestion is that in theory
HP is HP and so there may be little need for (as many) voltage classes
as there presently are, in the extreme doing away with voltage classes
entirely. At the present time, differentiating competitors within a
class based on vehicle cost, etc. may increase the incentive for more
un-sponsored wannabes to become racers.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes, once started.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: NEDRA rule changes
> Hmmm...I think it would be an interesting event, building a vehicle that
use
> a cable instead of a battery pack. Lighter vehicle, with the quick
> disconnect acting as the shut down at the end of the 1/8 or 1/4 mile...Do
> the rules explicitly state that the vehicle must be self contained?
>
> David C. Wilker Jr. USAF (RET)
> Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.
> - Harold S.
> Hulbert
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:05 AM
> Subject: RE: NEDRA rule changes
>
>
> >> 1/4 mile extension cord?...
> >
> > Just like a TOW missile...
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Damn Myles, you finally got Dave's ideas in simple terms!!
Now if the rest of the list can get thier minds around it... Dave will be
pleased.
And yes he IS reading our posts.
He just can't reply....yet.
He's blown over a hour of my phone time today....I gotta get some work done.
See ya
----- Original Message -----
From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
> > Do I want to sell it for $40k today? No, but it is the only bracket
> > to hope to win in.
>
> Victor, now you're missing one detail.
> All the racers would be facing the same dilemma.
> I mean, the guys who indeed put in $100k+ in parts into their car wouldn't
> at all be interested in entering into a contest where they might have to
> sell for $100k. They'd compete in the $1M+ club to cover their investment
> just like you'd want to race yours in the $100k+ club to do the same.
Sure,
> those rich investors could race in the $100k class, but someone will end
up
> getting a good deal on a high tech racer afterwards if they did so.
>
> Only the guys who either really really want to win, or, really want to
sell
> their rig (maybe at a loss) would enter into a lower category.
>
> It does force you to trade risk of investment loss versus risk of being
out
> of your league...kind of a 'guts' poker game.
>
> -Myles
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Oh. Then I guess the 1:1 scale slot car is out too. Oh well, back to the
drawing board.
David C. Wilker Jr. USAF (RET)
Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.
- Harold S.
Hulbert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: NEDRA rule changes
Yes, once started.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: NEDRA rule changes
Hmmm...I think it would be an interesting event, building a vehicle that
use
a cable instead of a battery pack. Lighter vehicle, with the quick
disconnect acting as the shut down at the end of the 1/8 or 1/4 mile...Do
the rules explicitly state that the vehicle must be self contained?
David C. Wilker Jr. USAF (RET)
Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.
- Harold
S.
Hulbert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: NEDRA rule changes
>> 1/4 mile extension cord?...
>
> Just like a TOW missile...
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ken Trough wrote:
What makes a vehicle go faster is more money, not more voltage.
Dragster class might have something like 6 divisions: $5K, $10K,
$20K, $50, $100K, Unclaimable. For example, it you entered your
vehicle in the $10K category, you would have to sell it at the end of
the event for that price.
No offense to Dave Cloud, but this has got to be the most ill
conceived idea for classes I have ever heard! So if I sink $5K into an
electric motorcycle and race it at a NEDRA event, I have to sell it
for $5K at the end of the day?!? Ridiculous! I've probably got far
MORE than $5K worth of labor into the unit, not to mention the fact
that I just MIGHT like to race it more than one day.
I think the key thing is you have to be _willing_ to sell it for that
amount. I doubt most competitors would actually get many offers. If
you think the labor you put in to building that car is worth $5k then
you better add $5k to the cost of the components before picking which
bracket to race in. Otherwise your buyer just got your labor for free.
It does seem like a _fair_ system. Estimating cost on purchases price
and labor costs etc... nothing beats letting the free market decide the
real price. The problem of someone buying really expensive stuff and
racing in a class well below what that stuff is worth (throwing the
money away) is a tough one. Maybe require equipment receipts on
request... but that adds complexity.
If we agree that racing is often a great place to encourage
experimentation with an eye on improving the mass market I think this
idea has merit. Maybe not as a replacement, but as a supplement to the
current Nedra system.
The cost of EVs is too high. Mass production can solve this, but we
have to sell the cars first. The parts we have available are excellent,
but Americans are price conscience. If we are going to sell EVs we have
to do it cheaper than ICE. Otherwise EVs will remain a niche, hobbyist
thing.
The mass look at an EV's weaknesses (real or perceived, new tech, range
etc) and perceive it as "less" than a ICE car. Most disruptive
technologies start at the bottom, where margins are low and the
entrenched competitors (the existing auto companies) are already weak.
The Japanese got a foothold in the American market with the cheap small
cars. They were generally considered inferior, but first movers
accepted the flaws becuase the cars cost less. (And yes you can argue
gas prices at the time helped too, but the EV market can't bet on fuel
prices) Over time quality, size and price increased as consumers saw
the Japenese cars as "less risky" or better than their American
counterparts.
If J Consumer is faced with a $2500 engine swap on his 5 year old car
becuase he forgot oil changes for the first 35,000 miles (it happens
more often than you think) but for $3000 up front plus $100/month
battery lease can install a low maintainance EV kit he might consider it.
If the Woodbury's could sell a $10,000 "plain Jane" Tango to the public
(and give a $40,000 2000amp dual motor version to the auto press for
testing) they would probably have no problem breaking into the market.
The Tango's an especially hard problem, no matter how fast it goes or
how many luxuries it has it _looks_ like a tiny econobox, and people
will want to compare it to tiny econoboxes.
So adding a system to Nedra that encourages experimentation with lower
cost components might be good for EVs..
Eh.. I'm not thinking too clearly.. so maybe this makes no sense.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Read this article for an even better source of "oil".
far better than pulling energy from any of our
existing carbon sinks. Much less effect on greenhouse
gases.
Gadget
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm
=====
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Some things to think about:
The air intake ports on the ADC will plug up with grass and dirt, air flow
will be reduced, and the motor will overheat, unless you duct clean air in
from about the deck.
My 6.7 ADC is a 72 volt motor. If it's rated for 4 hp at 72 volts, it's
only good for 2 hp at 36 volts.
You may have to change the gear ratio to get the same torque, since the
speed-torque curves are probably different.
If a tractor pull takes less than one minute, your GE motor can probably
put out over 10 hp for that length of time without overheating. To get more
power than you have now, consider raising system voltage to 48v or even
higher (may need a new controller, or bypass contactor for full 48v to the
motor armature). If cooling is an issue, add a forced air fan blowing on
the motor, or even a water spray.
Keeping your existing motor, fixing it, and upgrading the
batteries/controller seems a more practical and cost effective way to
improve performance than changing the motor to a 6.7 ADC. Mark T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Zach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Does only size matter? (For DC motors?)
> I've thought about the 6.7 myself but the problem for me is that the ADC
> motor is typically wired series, not shunt. The shunt motor in the
> Elec-trak is great mainly because it can keep the tractor at a constant
> speed while going level, up hills, and (more important) down hills.
>
> Kind of like a normal lawn tractor where the engine has a governor on
> the butterfly valve of the carb and the throttle changes the bias of the
> governor. Keeps speed constant up and down hills.
>
> Is it really just a 1hp motor?
>
> Chris
>
> Markus L wrote:
> > .........................
> > I'd like to beef up my elec-trak E20. It has a fully enclosed 36V DC
> > motor, rated continuous at 1.2 HP (power curve see
> >
> > ..........................So I was
> > thinking if I should rather try to get an ADV 6.7" rated at 4HP
> > continuous.
> > The GE motor is fully enclosed, which is good as the motor is
> > mounted underneath the tractor where all the grass clippings and
> > dirt fly around. The ADC is open, air cooled and also a bit shorter.
> > ................ What I want is a beefy motor
> > down there that can deliver lots of torque for small periods of time.
> > (I would like to take it to a garden tractor pull at some time)
> >
> > What do you guys suggest? Should I get the existing motor fixed and
> > invest another $100 or so into it or should I go with a new motor
> > (prob. $400 or more) which may also give me more torque.
.>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.6 - Release Date: 3/1/05
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roger Stockton wrote:
Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Actually, as I understand this sort of 'claimer' system, it is exactly
the case that if someone wants to buy the vehicle at the end of the
race, you *must* sell it. That is the point; otherwise, I could put
$30k into a car but claim it was only $5k and then refuse to sell it
after blowing all the real $5k vehicles away.
C'mon Roger, this can easily be inspected and hardware cost verified
few days ahead of race. False submissions of course disqualified.
Wjy do they have safety inspection, don't they *trust* if I say
it is safe? Same thing.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich Rudman wrote:
> Yea Seth I read that PCIM issue also.
> I did some checking and it's like $200 for a To-220 device.
> But the specs are too kill for. It's clear these devices will
> revolutionize power silicon architecture.
Rich, Seth... you are looking at it wrong. Silicon carbide devices take
the specs we want in the wrong direction. They have higher forward
drops, run hotter, cost more, and generate more emi. This is the
'brute force' way to do it: "I can solve any problem with a big enough
hammer."
This is not the way to make better, cheaper, power devices that will
expand usage. The answer lies in finesse. Don't look to faster devices;
instead, look at ways to minimize losses and maximize the performance of
devices that make use of their intrinsic strengths and weaknesses.
For example, resonant and quasiresonant switching. Lossless snubbers.
Different circuit topologies.
Really good design requires a careful balancing act between all the
competing factors. Not cookbook circuits, saved with unobtainium parts.
--
"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 ---
Evan Tuer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:12:36 -0800, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmmm...I think it would be an interesting event, building a vehicle that use
> > a cable instead of a battery pack. Lighter vehicle, with the quick
> > disconnect acting as the shut down at the end of the 1/8 or 1/4 mile...Do
> > the rules explicitly state that the vehicle must be self contained?
>
> How about a large electric winch on a truck at the far end of the
> track... Strip everything out of the car except the brakes :)
Naa... make it a slot racer! Embed copper strips on the pavement, power
them from a huge battery in the pits, and pick up the power with brushes
in the car. :-)
--
"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 ---
>> I *have* a Prius, and it *does* work like this.
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> I don't doubt that it does cycle the motor on and off, what I'm
> saying is that I don't think it's more efficient than if they
> were to use the exact same motor and exact same car MINUS all
> of the hybrid parts at a steady cruise speed, even 20-30 mph.
Ah, but it is. You can see this on the built-in mpg display.
If the hybrid battery is off-line for some reason (too cold, too hot,
broken, etc.) the mpg at high speeds where the engine runs continuously
is hardly affected. But at low speeds where the engine would normally be
able to cycle on/off, mpg drops considerably.
Here's a simple test. The Prius computers are programmed so the engine
*must* run at over 42 mph. So, if I drive at a constant 43 mph, I get 55
mpg. If I drive the same route at 41 mph (so the engine can cycle
on/off), it jumps up to 65 mpg.
> If you look at the mileage specs for the Prius it gets far better
> mileage in stop and go city traffic than it does at steady highway
> cruising.
Well, it's not far better; but it is a little better. The published
specs for the Prius have the problem that they are tested using EPA
standard tests, which aren't structured to take into account it is a
hybrid.
> If you need less than 50% of the power, simply turn off some of the
> cylinders.
I don't think this helps much. Most of the losses in an ICE (friction,
oil and water pumps, air pumping losses, etc.) will remain the same
whether the cylinders are firing or not.
> Better still, build an ICE that is actually two separate ICEs
> linked together and shut down 1/2 of it entirely when not used,
Now *that* should work.
> I stated that a SERIES hybrid will never be more efficient than
> a straight ICE at steady cruising speed and you gave an example
> of a series/parallel hybrid that /might/ be. You can't really
> prove that it is without removing all of the hybrid parts and
> checking the mileage, at your hypothetical speed, without them.
I agree; the Prius isn't a perfect test bed, since it can operate as
either a series or a parallel hybrid. Also, we don't know exactly what
its computers are doing (much less have a way to control them).
However, the Prius *does* operate as a series hybrid, a parallel hybrid,
a pure EV, and a pure ICE at different times. And, the multi-function
display *does* show you which mode it is in, and the mpg you are getting
in that mode. I'm just saying that a casual reading of these displays
seems to contradict your statement.
> Can you build one that gets better mileage than a highly optimized
> ICE designed to maximize fuel economy? I don't think so, in fact
> I'm sure you can't.
The Toyota Echo is very similar to the Prius; almost the same size, same
shape, same engine; but no hybrid system. The Prius gets better gas
mileage, even though it weighs more. Again, this is only anecdotal
evidence and not a rigorous experiment.
All high mileage records have been set straight ICE setups.
True; but I think that is because of the contest rules. Also, they don't
care how you drive; most of the winners start the engine and run it
right at its peak efficiency point (which makes the car accellerate);
then shut off the engine and coast; and repeat as necessary. It's an
impractical way to drive.
>> Obviously, you need a very efficient motor and generator...
> You forgot about battery efficiency.
No; I didn't forget. But you may or may not be using the battery. For
example, aiesel electric locomotive is a pure series hybrid; the
electric motor and generator are just acting like a continuously
variable transmission.
If you *are* using a battery for temporary energy storage, then its
efficiency matters too. So will whatever you have for a controller and
battery charger.
> Building a series hybrid that gets over 100 mpg is certainly possible.
> For an individual to expect cobble one together in his garage, is
> perhaps overly optimistic.
I agree; it ain't easy! But, I would not want to discourage anyone from
trying by saying it is impossible.
--
"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 ---
I would apologize for calling this guy a Lackey on a Open list.
I do apologize for my strong characterization of the author. I am
unaware of his work as I do not read Newsweek. I was responding to what
appeared to me to be a completely ridiculous piece of writing nonsense.
It seemed so fantastically over the top with it's claims and
characterizations that I assumed it must be from a shill or some fringe
author looking to make a name for himself. I clearly should have left
the personal name calling out of it. I am sometimes a bit overly
passionate when I come across the media trumpeting things that appear to
be utter rubbish to me.
I just last week attended a symposium at WWU on the subject of foreign
oil reduction through the use of ethanol and methanol (among other
options) and the data that was presented painted a very different
picture than this writer laid out in his article. I also recently
attended a major Green Power conference in Seattle that had a number of
experts in this field saying many the same things as I asserted with the
data to back it up.
As this entire topic is pretty much off topic for this forum, if anyone
wants to discuss my views on this subject, please contact me back
channel.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX - 801-749-7807
message - 866-872-8901
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EVDL Folks...
The people at Cloud Electric will be posting to this forum for Dave Cloud,
hence the name "Virtual Dave Cloud".
We shall see how this goes.
Here is the first posting by Virtual Dave -
----------------------------------------------
To set the record straight...
It looks like I made a typo error in my original post. The word it should
have been _if_ instead of _it_. So it appears everyone misunderstood me.
(Sorry). So I will attempt to explain claimers one more time. Dragsters
will always compete against Dragsters, Street cars will always compete
against Street cars, and so on for the rest of the classes we have now. Lets
say we divide into six different classes.
First division unclaimable. This means no one can claim your vehicle. This
is what we have now. Nothing will change This division is for competitors
that wish never to sell their vehicles at any cost. The next five divisions
might be like this.
100 K Division
50 K Division
20 K Division
10 K Division
5 K Division
You can choose what division you enter. In other words what you would sell
your vehicle for, plus extra to meet one of the categories. For example, if
you are not willing to sell your vehicle for less than 75k , you would enter
in the 100 K division. I hope this is clearer to everyone.
Also any vehicle in the claimer division can be purchased at the end of the
race not just the winning vehicle. This still excludes the unclaimable
division which no one can purchase ever. If two or more people want to claim
the same vehicle, then the Race Director or someone else could auction off
even higher then the claimer division they entered.
Yours Truly,
Dave Cloud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
425 788 9293
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just got a call from Dave and spent a great deal of time on the phone with
him. He firmly believes that the system of Claimer Races will bring in more
racers wanting to build electric race cars. I am still having a hard time
understanding how this would give someone that currently isn't interested in
building an electric car for racing around to wanting to do so. By posts
here he appears to believe it evens out the playing field for low budget
racers. As Dennis Berube pointed out in an earlier post, you can go bracket
racing any weekend and possibly even win money. This truly evens out the
playing field. Dennis is currently beating much more expensive cars that go
way quicker. If best ET is what you are after then you are going to have to
spend some money. There are still low budget people like David who are
racing and being more than competitive in the voltage divisions. Besides
Dave, William Kuehl of Las Vegas comes to mind. He has three NEDRA World
Records. Dave told me he plans to build a 10 second car running lower than
100 volts for Woodburn. This should do more to get people out to the races
and building electrics than any Claimer Brackets in my own opinion. I also
owe Dave a public apology. He said he has never stuck a contactor, so I
stand corrected. He has blown the tips off them though. I remember back when
NHRA had all class races. There became so many people envolved in the sport
that it became extremely competetive with people spending an additional ten
thousand or more to take a tenth of a second of their time to "buy" the
record so I understand where Dave is coming from. It is just that we have a
long way to go to get to that point. I will be glad when we get there and
have to come up with a better solution. The NHRA came up with bracket racing
to solve the problem. Hey, maybe someday we could come up with that idea as
well :-) For now the system we have drives people to push the limits of EV
technology which is part of the purpose of NEDRA.
Roderick Wilde
NEDRA President
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't forget the Vetter economy runs of the 80's. They streamlined sub
250cc motorcycles and geared them up & got 500mpg. I have the last ABS
Streamliner fairing. Those bike could do 60mph at 3hp. This is everyday
driving too. Not just eggshell foot(or I guess that would be hand).
http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/Motorcycle_Designs/Streamliner.html
Lawrence Rhodes....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
I see Ken is on a tare.
This post is written, by one of the top editors at Newsweek. Fareed
Zakaria., Maybe you should post this to him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At least it looks that way. I read some of his stuff just this week.
This stupid Lackey has one of the best known By lines in the world... and
a
good opinion to match.
I would apologize for calling this guy a Lackey on a Open list.
Funny I thought it was a nice Pun on what should be happen, not what is
happening.
EtOH can come from many sources. And yes I wouldn't mind seeing some
transportation Gigabucks get into the hands of our farmers...they could
use
it.
500 miles per gallon means you are NOT using much of that gallon for much
at
all.
This is nice fiction... It's sad to see the main stream world
actually thinks this can happen. 500 mpg can't Haul my Ass down a road
with
3000 lbs of steel wrapped around me. 500 MpG is like Bike pedal power.
It's
a low power thing.
I hate it when Everybody gets so depressed when 50 to 100 is all we can
do... in the real world. More than that means you are doing Flintstones
drives in modified bike frames.
I don't buy that line about using all that airable land can't make
enough Ethanol... I have read that line from the 70s anti alt energy
propaganda. I don't buy it, we can make EtOH from many sources, and there
are things that can be done to make it a lot more Eff, and the by products
are also saleable. it's called fertilizer.
And When you have mountains of un sellable over production... And it's
going
to ferment one way or the other, extracting some fuel value from it is
better than feeding a Billion Rats for a couple of years.
I don't mind Agribusiness sucking ... they need to make a profit one way
or
the other....Making EtOH or Bio diesel It doesn't matter to me.
Also Any Alcohol based fuels are easier and cheaper made by the
Petro-chemical world using Waste Nat gas, and water. In fact it's a great
way to turn the methane into something that can be trucked around without
out high pressure. IE liquid Fuel is safer than pressurized Gas.
Limited supply of Natural Gas??? What on earth are you talking about??? We
actually have quite a bit of Nat gas supplies and reserves, AND we can
make
recovery sources from Biowaste. It can be done.
They are finding Nat Gas under just about any rock...if you look hard
enough.
There is a whole new source of Nat gas... methane Hydrates in the oceans
just off the continental shelves, and in the deep oceans around Gas and
oil
seeps. The quantity of these sources is like 100 times the total petroleum
reserves ever found or will be found. WE got Nat Gas..... getting it to
the
user and into the power and transportation sector is not easy or cheap,
BUT
we won't be running out of Methane supplies anytime soon. Only if, life
as
we know it, leaves this planet. Reforming it to a Alcohol... I think is a
KEY technology. Not doing this requires those huge Oil field flares that
we
have seen on every Oil and gas field wells. As well as belching from
refineries. We got Gas... how to use it may take some efforts.
Poppy Cock!! Fuels are here to stay. What and we use for Feed stocks, and
where we get it, will change.
And how we store it and convert it to useful work will change. This is the
part I am working on.
Don't forget this is the US of A , it all is a matter of co$t . When the
cost of the supplies out weighs the price we are wiling to pay, change
will
happen and Damn Fast.
$50 bucks a barrel to a Mid east nation State that may or may not have had
a
hand in 9-11, is Way too much to pay for my 12 mile per gallon freedom.
As of yesterday... it was $51 a Barrel light sweet crude. But it was
leaving
the Persian Gulf at about $25 Bucks a Barrel. Again look to see that the
greedy middle me are the ones screwing thier own
customers for every dime they can. Remember Enron? We have a steady supply
backed by the US military, of cheap oil, But the Thiefs are within, not
outside.
To Heck with them, WE will make our own and use it wisely
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Trough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
Hypothetical Bush said:
> "It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of
> electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element
> among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of
> policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American
> car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in
> this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per
> gallon."
Stupid lackey writing this article added:
> Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can
> run on a combination of 15 per cent petroleum and 85 per cent ethanol
> or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of
> gasoline. (You donât get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the
> crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum.
This argument is TOTAL NONSENSE. If we converted ALL the airable land in
the US to corn production (where ethanol comes from), you still would
not have enough ethanol to replace today's foreign oil dependence. Not
to mention the little fact that if you look at the NET energy equation,
it takes far more oil to cultivate, seed, grow, harvest, and refine the
corn than you are saving by reducing gasoline with ethanol.
Ethanol = FOREIGN OIL pure and simple, and is a huge boondoggle that is
designed to keep the giant corn agribusiness sucking at the teat of
government waste.
Methanol is not much better, due to the very limited supply of natural
gas and the already huge demands on that supply. All the known and
suspected sources of natural gas in the entire world would not allow us
to replace gasoline with methanol for our current domestic usage
patterns. We need to be conserving our limited natural gas resources,
not trying to expand the usage.
That is why this foreign oil problem is so systemic. Fuel based
solutions are no solution at all. Merely more smoke (cough) and
mirrors.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX - 801-749-7807
message - 866-872-8901
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Rich! Your politics are showing :^D
Don't forget about that good old EVDL charter!
-----------------------------------------------------
Rich Rudman wrote:
I see Ken is on a tare.
This post is written, by one of the top editors at Newsweek. Fareed
Zakaria., Maybe you should post this to him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At least it looks that way. I read some of his stuff just this week.
This stupid Lackey has one of the best known By lines in the world... and a
good opinion to match.
I would apologize for calling this guy a Lackey on a Open list.
Funny I thought it was a nice Pun on what should be happen, not what is
happening.
EtOH can come from many sources. And yes I wouldn't mind seeing some
transportation Gigabucks get into the hands of our farmers...they could use
it.
500 miles per gallon means you are NOT using much of that gallon for much
at
all.
This is nice fiction... It's sad to see the main stream world
actually thinks this can happen. 500 mpg can't Haul my Ass down a road
with
3000 lbs of steel wrapped around me. 500 MpG is like Bike pedal power. It's
a low power thing.
I hate it when Everybody gets so depressed when 50 to 100 is all we can
do... in the real world. More than that means you are doing Flintstones
drives in modified bike frames.
I don't buy that line about using all that airable land can't make
enough Ethanol... I have read that line from the 70s anti alt energy
propaganda. I don't buy it, we can make EtOH from many sources, and there
are things that can be done to make it a lot more Eff, and the by products
are also saleable. it's called fertilizer.
And When you have mountains of un sellable over production... And it's
going
to ferment one way or the other, extracting some fuel value from it is
better than feeding a Billion Rats for a couple of years.
I don't mind Agribusiness sucking ... they need to make a profit one way or
the other....Making EtOH or Bio diesel It doesn't matter to me.
Also Any Alcohol based fuels are easier and cheaper made by the
Petro-chemical world using Waste Nat gas, and water. In fact it's a great
way to turn the methane into something that can be trucked around without
out high pressure. IE liquid Fuel is safer than pressurized Gas.
Limited supply of Natural Gas??? What on earth are you talking about??? We
actually have quite a bit of Nat gas supplies and reserves, AND we can make
recovery sources from Biowaste. It can be done.
They are finding Nat Gas under just about any rock...if you look hard
enough.
There is a whole new source of Nat gas... methane Hydrates in the oceans
just off the continental shelves, and in the deep oceans around Gas and
oil
seeps. The quantity of these sources is like 100 times the total petroleum
reserves ever found or will be found. WE got Nat Gas..... getting it to the
user and into the power and transportation sector is not easy or cheap, BUT
we won't be running out of Methane supplies anytime soon. Only if, life
as
we know it, leaves this planet. Reforming it to a Alcohol... I think is a
KEY technology. Not doing this requires those huge Oil field flares that we
have seen on every Oil and gas field wells. As well as belching from
refineries. We got Gas... how to use it may take some efforts.
Poppy Cock!! Fuels are here to stay. What and we use for Feed stocks, and
where we get it, will change.
And how we store it and convert it to useful work will change. This is the
part I am working on.
Don't forget this is the US of A , it all is a matter of co$t . When the
cost of the supplies out weighs the price we are wiling to pay, change will
happen and Damn Fast.
$50 bucks a barrel to a Mid east nation State that may or may not have had
a
hand in 9-11, is Way too much to pay for my 12 mile per gallon freedom.
As of yesterday... it was $51 a Barrel light sweet crude. But it was
leaving
the Persian Gulf at about $25 Bucks a Barrel. Again look to see that the
greedy middle me are the ones screwing thier own
customers for every dime they can. Remember Enron? We have a steady supply
backed by the US military, of cheap oil, But the Thiefs are within, not
outside.
To Heck with them, WE will make our own and use it wisely
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Trough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
> Hypothetical Bush said:
> > "It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination
of
> > electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one
element
> > among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of
> > policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American
> > car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in
> > this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per
> > gallon."
>
> Stupid lackey writing this article added:
> > Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can
> > run on a combination of 15 per cent petroleum and 85 per cent ethanol
> > or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of
> > gasoline. (You don’t get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the
> > crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum.
>
> This argument is TOTAL NONSENSE. If we converted ALL the airable land in
> the US to corn production (where ethanol comes from), you still would
> not have enough ethanol to replace today's foreign oil dependence. Not
> to mention the little fact that if you look at the NET energy equation,
> it takes far more oil to cultivate, seed, grow, harvest, and refine the
> corn than you are saving by reducing gasoline with ethanol.
>
> Ethanol = FOREIGN OIL pure and simple, and is a huge boondoggle that is
> designed to keep the giant corn agribusiness sucking at the teat of
> government waste.
>
> Methanol is not much better, due to the very limited supply of natural
> gas and the already huge demands on that supply. All the known and
> suspected sources of natural gas in the entire world would not allow us
> to replace gasoline with methanol for our current domestic usage
> patterns. We need to be conserving our limited natural gas resources,
> not trying to expand the usage.
>
> That is why this foreign oil problem is so systemic. Fuel based
> solutions are no solution at all. Merely more smoke (cough) and
> mirrors.
>
> -Ken Trough
> Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
> http://visforvoltage.com
> AIM - ktrough
> FAX - 801-749-7807
> message - 866-872-8901
Roy LeMeur
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cloudelectric.com
http://www.dcelectricsupply.com
Cloud Electric Vehicles
19428 66th Ave So, Q-101
Kent, Washington 98032
phone: 425-251-6380
fax: 425-251-6381
Toll Free: 800-648-7716
My Electric Vehicle Pages:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evpage.html
Informative Electric Vehicle Links:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evlinks.html
EV Parts/Gone Postal Photo Galleries:
http://www.casadelgato.com/RoyLemeur/page01.htm
>
--- End Message ---
