EV Digest 4550
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: E-Meter Questions
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: E-Meter Questions
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) AGM batteries.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) New Lead-Acid Battery Helps Improve Electric Vehicle Range 23%
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: 4 wheel tilting (Re: tilting, Re: Racing 3wheels,)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Electravan Shunt.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Power requirement for "faster than an electric car" performance
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Tr...
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: New Lead-Acid Battery Helps Improve Electric Vehicle Range 23%
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Modeling the Freedom EV,
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) More Battery Discussion
by "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Kewet Question
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Details, production costs, ect Re: Freedom EV by Jerry Dycus
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Modeling the Freedom EV,
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Solar charging project
by James Jarrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Breaking in batteries
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Modeling the Freedom EV,
by keith vansickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 02:05:47AM -0400, David Roden wrote:
> On 2 Aug 2005 at 22:56, Lee Hart wrote:
>
> > You have to understand that the E-meter wasn't designed for EVs.
>
> But the Brusa meters are not as cheap as the E-meter, so ...
Do you know how much they are?
Perhaps Victor sells them?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dennis" <
How many amps does the E-Meter pull?
40 ma to 70ma when lit up and supply is 12v
Would it work to hook a second, small
battery to the traction pack's negative side and hook its positive to the
E-Meter's positive?
I;ve done this but only becuse I didn;t have a dc to dc converter handy, , I
would have to charge the meter battery once a week and it seemed to die when
I needed it most. all in all best get a dc to dc converter ,... along these
lines , I have though that if you have a few things that need a isolated
supply one could use a inverter to step up the voltage and then a
transformer to bring it back down and isolate it and use some of the
inverted 120ac to run a small fountan pump that people use to cool there
zilla's.
steve clunn
Thanks.
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nick Viera
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: E-Meter Questions
Hi Don,
Don Cameron wrote:
2. tapping into the pack at 24V has also caused at least two EMeters to
blow
up. Even though the manual says it will work, it is a real pain to have
to
ship the EMeter off for repair. EMeters are **not** user repairable.
Thanks for the info... I guess I won't be attempting this then.
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://septechnologies.biz/battery/products/sealed_lead_acid/index.htm
These batteries seem like a bargain. I think they are Hawkers but I'm not
sure. Anyone had experience with these batteries?
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Was this the Honda Civic with 25 Optimas. LR>...................
June 21, 1996
San Dimas, CA
A 4-passenger AC Propulsion electric vehicle equipped with Optima lead-acid
batteries traveled 145 miles on one charge today setting a new mark for EVs
in a test witnessed by Southern California Edison. The 145 mile range is a
new record for the SCE Pomona test course. The previous record was 120 miles
held by the Ford Ecostar using sodium-sulphur batteries. The previous best
for lead-acid powered EVs had been 118 miles, also set by AC Propulsion
using an earlier version of the Optima EV battery. The best performance by
any other lead-acid powered EV over the Pomona Loop is 85 miles. The
demonstrated 145 mile range also exceeds the ranges claimed by Honda and
Toyota for their nickel-metal hydride battery powered EVs introduced in
April at Eco Expo in Los Angeles, which were both less than 130 miles.
The 145 mile range was achieved with the same AC-150 electric drive system
that powers the Ohio State and Oklahoma entries in the Cleveland Electric
Formula Classic Race this weekend.
AC Propulsion president Alan Cocconi, who drove the car for the test
attributed the 23% range increase primarily to improvements Optima has made
to its EV battery. "We used our demo car that has 47,000 miles on it, and
didn't change anything for this test," said Cocconi. "After we installed the
new batteries in April, we began to realize that they had significantly more
capacity than Optima's previous generation of EV battery. We are getting
over 100 miles at 65-70 mph, and that's without any special attention to
efficient driving technique. We wanted an independent test for verification,
and that's what we got today."
The range test was conducted on Southern California Edison's Pomona Loop, a
route designed by SCE to represent typical driving on suburban streets. Run
at posted speed limits, this loop requires a faster, somewhat more
aggressive driving pattern than the US Federal Urban Driving Schedule which
is used to determine fuel economy ratings for conventional cars. The AC
Propulsion EV, with driver and passenger on board completed 7.5 laps of the
19.4 mile route for 145 miles with an average enerrgy consumption of 126
Wh/mile.
The Optima EV battery is similar to the starter battery that Optima produces
at its Colorado factory for aftermarket and racing applications. It uses the
same sealed, spiral-wound construction but requires specific formulations
for the electrolyte and electrode materials. "Tailoring changes for the EV
application is where Optima is really making progress," Cocconi observed.
"The range and battery life just keep getting better, but the important
factor for me, as an EV constructor, is that these batteries are presently
available in initial production runs at a price I can afford, and have
demonstrated 30,000 mile life in actual daily use. Some advanced batteries
promise even greater range, but with them, actual price and availability are
unknown.
The AC-150 electric drivetrain is a 150 kilowatt (200 horsepower) electric
motor and controller for vehicles in the 2500-4000 pound weight range. It
embodies advanced motor control, battery charging, and driver interface
circuitry and control logic to provide high performance, high efficiency,
recharging, and battery management functions in an integrated package. The
AC-150 is manufactured in California by AC Propulsion Inc.
CONTACT: Tiffany Mitchell (909) 592-5399
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
>> I'm far from being a racing head, so may be you can tell
>> why tilting during cornering (changing caster angle) isn't
>> used for 4 wheel race cars. Jsut because of complexity?
>
> It *is* used. Turn the front wheels of your car all the way in one
> direction and look; they lean the top of the wheel toward the inside of
> the turn.
>
> They don't lean the entire car like they would a motorcycle because that
> would be a lot more complicated. Also, cars don't have enough ground
> clearance to tilt the whole body more than a very few degrees.
FWIW not all tilting 3wh lean the body. Many just lean the wheels.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone know if the Electravans made by JET used a standard 50mv shunt.
My meter is not registeristing current. I have a 300 amp Westach I want to
install.
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jamie Marshall wrote:
>I'm feeling out the plan and budget for a conversion to
>do in the next couple years. The car is to be a VW
>Cabriolet.
Budget. How much are you willing to spend on the conversion?
That will determine where you work from. You stated your
requirements nicely.
>The requirement is that it surprise people who think
>electric cars are slow. I don't need racing
>performance, but I want it to perform better
>than before the conversion, and I want to pull away
>from the line with a
>bit of kick. I know there are no specifics here, but
>can anyone give me
>an idea of how many kilowatts I'm going to want?
The typical car on the road in the United states will do
0-60 in about 10-11 seconds and 1/4 mile drag race in 17-18
seconds or so, new cars being quite a bit faster(2005 model
year having 8-9 second 0-60 times and 16 second 1/4 mile
times). Judging by your statement, I'm assuming you want to
at least match the performance of a new car, if not exceed
it.
This is certainly doable, even under a strict budget given
your small range goals($7k or so if you do all your own
work). If you're willing to spend a little more, you could
build yourself a much better conversion that costs less to
operate overall and/or is faster.
>I've pretty much settled on a Z1k as the controller.
>Just because I really like the Zilla I have in my
>Sparrow, and I know it already.
Excellent choice. A 156V Zilla 1k with the batteries to
maximize its potential could easily meet all your goals. A
Zilla 2k 156V will cost a bit more, but give you racecar
like performance, exceeding your goal.
>My big question right now is batteries. As I pointed
>out, range is almost certain to not be the deciding
>factor. Typical commute is to be 6 miles, and the
>longest anticipated trip is only 12 miles (round
>trip). Just about anything that would give the power I
>want would also give the range.
The longest anticipated trip will be 12 miles. That means
you want at least 15 miles maximum range. You don't want to
discharge your battery pack to more than 80% depth of
discharge, otherwise you can suffer greatly reduced cycle
life. This figure also works in your favor because that 6
mile trip that you will take routinely will be just the
right length to offer maximum cycle life of the batteries.
You generally want to keep depth of discharge between
30%-50% each charge cycle for best cost per mile ratio.
>I had settled on exide AGMs because they seemed the
>most cost efficient I the long run (I already ruled
>out floodeds because I don't want to
>deal with them).
This would be the best fit for your goal.
>Now I'm wondering about Deka gel cells. List wisdom
>seems to be that these are very good and durable
>batteries if you respect their amp
>limits.
I'm completely unfamiliar with them, and I do believe the
list is much more familiar with the Exide Orbitals, as they
have been used more.
>Now, the Zilla is willing to respect a battery amp
>limit I give it, so can't I just stack on batteries
>until the total kilowatt rating of the batteries is
>enough to give the performance I want?
Yes, with a few caveats.
First of all, you don't want to have a higher input voltage
than your controller will allow. Assuming you're dead set on
a 156V Zilla 1k, this leaves you two options:
1) You use 156V single string of Exide Orbitals, and
maximize the controller's potential to deliver power.
2) Decide to use a dual or triple string, making charging a
little more complex. If you want a 156V input voltage, you
will double your battery pack weight with a dual string at
156V over a single string at 156V, thus negating some of
your performance given the controller's limits, but also
drastically increasing your range with greater battery
weight. You could use a dual string of lower input voltage,
say dual 92V string, but you will also suffer less
performance by not being able to use all your controller's
power since your pack will be below 156V.
>My assumption has been that watts is watts, and if you
>pull 600 amps from a 120 volt pack, that is the same
>power to the motor as pulling 300 amps from a 240 volt
>pack. Right?
Pretty much. Motor efficiency is the next factor you have to
take into consideration. For EV purposes, a motor that is
using less current is operating more efficiently(At least
when you're in the triple and quadruple digit motor amp
range). Higher motor voltage means less motor amps needed
for a given power output, and less motor amps will mean more
efficiency, thus allowing you to use more of that power
coming from your batteries.
>So knowing what kind of wattage I'll need to get
>"zippy" will tell me how many of each battery I would
>need, and the associated costs.
Want to perform like an average new car? Assuming 2,600
pounds weight including driver, you'll want a little 100
horsepower from the motor. DC electric motors at 1,000 motor
amps are about 50-60% efficient, so take battery input power
to the motor in kW and multiply by the motor efficiency at
that current to get what power the motor puts out.
If "zippy" is at least as good as the average new car as far
as acceleration goes, and range isn't much of a concern at
all, I'd go with the following setup:
-WarP 9'' series DC motor x1 $1,395
-Exide Orbital XCD30 battery x13 $1,274
-Cafe Electric Zilla Controller w/ Hall effect pedal
sensor(72-156V DC, 1,000 amp max) x1 $1,980
-Manzanita Micro PFC 20 Charger x1
$1,500
-Todd DC-DC converter x1 $400
-Steel for battery racks $100
-Battery Cable $100
-EV200AAANA contactors x1 $75
-Feraz Shawmut A50QS600-4 fuse x2 $220
-E-Meter x1 $235
-Solid-State Ceramic Heater Core x1 $75
-Steel for Adaptor Plate $50
-Miscallaneous components(Heat shrink tubing, tools, ect.)
$1,000
-Rudman Battery Regulators x13 $572
Your total would come to $8,976, not including taxes or
shipping or counting that other costs for steel and such
were estimates that could be higher or lower. This assumes
you do all your own work, machine your own adaptor plate.
Your conversion with this setup would overall weigh about
2,500-2,600 pounds weight including driver depending on
weight of driver, do 0-60 mph about 9 seconds, 1/4 mile drag
race in 16-17 seconds(IF you get traction. Front wheel drive
complicates things.), 100 mph top speed or so, 20 miles
range to full discharge when driven carefully, 15 miles
driven moderately, 8-10 miles if driven harshly with lots of
tire smoking. Seems perfect for your goals.
A 9'' motor at 156V and 1,000 amps, counting in its
efficiency losses(Between 50-60% efficient at 1,000 motor
amps), will make about 110-120 peak horsepower and 200-220
or so peak lb-ft of torque. Perfect for your needs.
Why such an expensive charger and regulators? If you skimp
on the charger, you have a much greater chance of committing
battricide. I don't mean to scare you, but it is very common
for someone to ruin their first battery pack after
conversion. Better charger plus regs minimizes that risk
heavily, and increases battery life so it will more than pay
itself off over the course of your conversion's use.
You could downgrade the motor to something cheaper, like a
7'' Prestolite, but performance will suffer some. You'll
slow your 0-60 time to about 11 seconds assuming same
weight, but since Prestolites are dirt cheap to find used,
you could save perhaps $1k over the new WarP 9''. A WarP 8''
would be somewhere between the two in performance and cost
$100 less than the WarP 9''.
One conversion setup you may want to look at that could meet
your goals nicely is Ryan Bohm's Nissan 200 SX. He's using
144V string of Exide Orbitals, 156V 1000A Zilla 1k, and a
7'' Prestolite motor. He can do 0-60 mph in about 12 seconds
which is quite normal although the low-end 0-30 mph
acceleration will be much better than normal, and range is I
think 6-12 miles depending on how driven and the outside
temperature. Talk to Ryan, and he'll probably let you know
all he can about his first conversion. His conversion is
much heavier than yours would be given his choice of car, so
you'd have a bit more range and with a larger 9'' motor
certainly much better acceleration.
http://www.evsource.com/conversion/index.php
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> On the legality side, something came to mind:
> http://motorcyclecity.com/Concept/Dodge_Tomahawk.htm
>
> Tomahawk motorcycle couldn't be registered as a motorcycle because of
> its dual front and rear wheels technically make it a car. So I'm
> thinking the same effect could be used to your advantage, adding a dual
> rear wheel could get it 4-wheel status while preserving the design.
>
While this would solve the problem in those few states that don't allow
trikes, or perhaps specific types of trikes, it wouldn't be a good idea
for someone planning to mass market their design.
The rules and requirements for registering homebuilt cars is only slightly
more diffacult than those for homebuilt motorcycles. This also applies to
very low volumn production.
Mass production, however, is an intirely different ball of wax. The
requirements to mass market a car are incredibly more onerous than for
motorcycles. A car, for example, requires millions of dollars worth of
crash testing before you can mass market it.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Correction. 28 Optimas.
This range figure can be had by having such a high voltage
pack, Peukert's exponent is virtually negated. Add to that
only needing 30-40 amps acceleration to keep up with traffic
and 25 amps to cruise at 65 mph, and you will come close to
matching the reserve capacity of the batteries.
The Optima D750s have 125 minutes reserve capacity at 25 amp
draws. This is 625 wh per battery to 100% DoD @ 25 amps
average draw.
Cocconi was using considerably less amps if you multiply the
wh/mile figure by the range per charge. However, using 25
amps average, then a more reasonable range, 80-100 miles is
certainly doable, although for Coconni to say he could get
100 miles "without any special attention to efficient
driving technique" is a BIT of a stretch. 25 amps for
acceleration, aka 12.5 horsepower at 370V at 100% SoC, is
not a lot of power for acceleration for a 3,000 pound
conversion. Try 60 amps average, and you will only get 300
wh/battery according to Rich Rudman's data. So yeah, Cocconi
was definately pussyfooting it and probably holding up
traffic at speeds past 30 mph.
This Civic also had a .25 Cd, and did every drag reduction
trick imaginable.
I'm looking at using either 28 Orbitals or 25 Optimas in my
Triumph Spitfire coupe(GT6). This should yield me similar
results in range if in granny mode, using a slightly less
efficient DC motor. My draw at 65 mph, depending on outside
conditions, with 300V single string of Optima D750s, has
been simulated between 21 amps and 25 amps @ 50% SoC. This
is if I cut my coefficient drag down to .25 with every aero
trick imaginable, use LRR tires with a .006 Cr, and do every
brake, alignment, wheel, and transmission trick in the book
to cut drag. With either 28 Orbitals or 25 Optimas, 100
miles range to 80% DoD on the highway going 65 or so with
careful driving would be theoretically doable.
I say theoretically for a reason. Victor Tikhonov tried to
duplicate Cocconi's 100+ mile range CRX. I believe Victor
only got about 70 miles range when he had 336V of Optimas.
Looks to me like it's all in the driver technique, patience,
and making sure you have a very clean glider with proper
alignemnt. Add to that Cocconi's Optimas were kept heated to
about 105 degrees farenheit to maximize capacity. He had
such perfected management that you or I or even Victor
probably couldn't duplicate without lots of both time and
money.
I have a lead foot. I will be drawing a maximum of 700 amps
or so from my batteries(192V and 1,000A to the motor
maximum, counting in efficiency losses). I expect 20-30
miles range to 80% with lead foot, scaring old ladies,
flipping off soccer moms, hitting 120 mph a few times, and
maybe terrorizing law enforcement. My conversion would weigh
2,600 pounds including my weight without fiberglass and
lexan weight reduction, 2,400 pounds or so with weight
reduction. Blue Meanie on crack, maybe with some range. It
likely will not turn out that way, being a first conversion,
but I damn well will make the attempt.
Cocconi's record breakers are something to strive for in a
sense. They were horribly flawed, ugly, tacky science
projects. But they were fast and made use of every last watt
they could with plenty of watt hours on board. Energy
misers. The Civic did 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. It also used
handmade components that made the car cost $75,000 as a
hand-built prototype(Reportedly $20k in mass production,
however).
Wayland's pride and joy, Blue Meanie, is quite a bit faster,
far less expensive in components, and has a show finish and
sound system that make the 'normals' drool. But his range
sucks. Works for him, at least, but nowhere near the
pinnacle of EV achievement. It is also an energy miser, but
given his small battery pack, Peukert gets to rape the
battery pack repeatedly.
Why hasn't anyone ever tried to copy the best
characteristics of BOTH cars? Avoid all the expensive techno
bullshit that mere mortals cannot ever hope to afford(unless
the auto monopolies decide to mass produce EVs. heh...), but
choose a car that is sufficiently small, very desirable, but
has so much useless ICE-related shit that can be removed
from it that its glider weight could be less than 1300
pounds? Something aerodynamic enough to where subsequent
modifications could bring the coefficient drag down to Honda
Insight levels, yet with a smaller frontal area? Something
that looks good and makes people crap themselves in delight
at the mere sight of it? Sufficient battery room to fit such
a large pack into the car? While we're at it, keep the power
level similar to that of Blue Meanie, and make it a show car
without the tacky wires and labtop hanging all over the
place? And maybe it can have a passenger seat sufficient
enough that it can comfortably fit something other than a
Jack Russel terrier?
I think I found a conversion platform that can do it for
~$12k parts, less if you get some stuff used. Can't hurt to
try, although it will be an expensive trial. May not work,
and I've certainly got a lot to learn still(New to both
working on cars and with EVs, and welding, and fabricating,
and...). A few other platforms that could do what I outlined
above(or come reasonably close), best of Waylands and
Cocconi's cars combined:
-VW Kharmen Ghia
-Porsche 914
-Datsun 1200
-Fiat X1/9(Heavy!)
-Opel GT
-Honda Insight
-Triumph GT6
Only two on that list will seat 4 people. Its by no means
all inclusive, but is a very narrow choice list(Kitcars will
give you more options, but will scream tacky to the
'normals').
Someone is going to eventually get both 100 miles range plus
high performance on lead acid. It may not be me to be the
first on this list to achieve this, but I sure as hell will
try. Mathematically, it is perfectly doable, but will
require one to be very clever and attentive to every last
detail. Would John Bryan decide to shoehorn a 300V pack of
Optimas into his Ghia and install a Zilla 1k, he'd have it
down pat, but other sacrifices may need to be made(Would go
over GVWR so suspension and body adjustments needed, need to
fine tune handling, brake work/upgrade, ect.).
Cocconi is a role model for what to do and what not to do.
Wayland did everything right, but did what worked for him.
Time to combine the best characteristics of both their cars,
and make one killer EV.
I enjoyed that article. When I first read it 3 years back,
it really got me thinking a lot about what kind of EV I
wanted to build and drive, even if I may not have a 'need'
for such an over-powered and over-ranged car. Someone's
going to do it, as it's been doable for 10 years now. But it
will be no small achievement to do it right, simple as it
seems.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jerry, as I understand it the specs for the Freedom Ev are as follows:
Frontal area: 18 sqf
Height: 48"
Width: 54" ave, 60" max
Ground clearance: 4-10" variable
Cd: .23
COG: 12"
Wheel diameter: 23", rim 14"
Weight racing: 1000 lbs
Weight normal: 1400 lbs
Batteries Racing: 6ea Orbitals
Batteries normal: 12ea T105s
I'm assuming from some of your other comments that the 48" height is
measured from the top of the vehicle to the bottom and not to the ground.
Is this correct?
Could you explain exactly how you came up with some of these figures please?
Specifically how did you calculate this astonishingly low Cd? That's even
lower than the Insight (.25) Just by looking at the Freedom EV it appears
that it would have a higher Cd than the Insight, but it's not possible to
calculate, or even accurately estimate, Cd just by looking at something.
They've got some modeling software that comes pretty close to actual wind
tunnel tests, but every one I've tried has been to complicated for me.
What software did you use?
I also can't understand how you arrived at 12" for your COG.
You state that normally the vehicle will have 6=7" of ground clearance.
That means that virtually all of your weight (except the wheels) is at
least 6" off the ground.
The COG for a T105 is approx 6" up from the bottom. Assuming you don't
use any insulation on the bottom of the battery box, this means that the
COG for the batteries is going to be at least 12-13" up.
The COG of the vehicles body is going to be at least 24".
The COG of the driver (a significant portion of this vehicles weight) will
be approx 24" up.
Since the batteries are already at or above 12", where are you getting the
ballast to counteract all of the other heavy items that are far above your
claimed COG?
Perhaps you meant during racing when you lower the ground clearance to 4"?
I'm assuming you are getting part of this from using lower profile tires,
because if you use 23" diameter dires on 14" rims, the bottom of the rims
are going to be 4.5" inches up, or higher than the bottom of the frame.
You'll probably have a hard time finding a race director that will allow
you to race a vehicle with such an unsafe configuration.
So, assuming low profile tires and a 4" ground clearance...
Your race configuration also includes a significantly reduced battery
weight. Granted the Orbitals have a lower COG, that plus the 4" ground
clearance will lower your battery COG to approx 8", but 6 Orbitals only
weight 246lbs. The driver, seat & helmet are going to weigh almost this
much and, even dropping 2", their COG is going to be at least 20".
This means the combined COG of batteries and driver is at least 14".
The rest of the vehicle's COG is still up around 22" (perhaps more).
For racing you're almost certainly going to need at least a roll bar and
preferably a roll cage, this might move your COG up a bit.
I'm stumped, how did you come up with 12"?
Elsewhere you mentioned
" Also I have no polar moment, chassis twist so
transistion in turns is much faster than a 4wh car by
1/2 as much."
Do you know what "Polar Moment of Inertia" is? If so, can you explain the
above statement? It doesn't make sense to me.
Also chasis twist, which is pretty small in most race cars anyway, isn't
the only thing that effects transistion time in turns. I'm pretty sure
that suspension load/unloading also effects this, as does tire deflection,
etc.
I'm not saying that 3wh don't have an advantage in transistions, I just
can figure out any reason why they would. Can you explain?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Has anyone put Odyssey Batteries in their vehicle?
Check out the web site. Support Tab has a lot of technical information.
They claim long service life, Sealed Drycell Deep Cycle, military grade
durability.
Sizes up to 126 AH at 20 hour rate, with pulse current @ 5 sec rate to 2250,
and cold cranking rate up to 1225.
Any comments?
http://www.odysseyfactory.com/specs.htm
<http://www.odysseyfactory.com/specs.htm>
Dennis
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi folk's,
If anyone knows of a Kewet for sale, contact me off list. It doesn't have
to run and can be with dead batteries. (The Cushman's (3-wheel) I'm looking
at have to be 98-01' to have the beefy brakes & suspension for the ZEV
version so that narrows it down quite a bit (and pricey too)).
Thanks, Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Tom and All,
--- Tom Shay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Freedom EV has be mentioned a number of times on
> this
> discussion list, but is there somewhere on the
> Internet to get details
> about the car including pictures and information
> about building
> progress?
The only place now is the EVProduction Wiki with
pics under progress and pics of the white mock up are
under Jerry Dycus or E woody in the EV Photo Album.
Sorry I don't know how to put up the URLs.
The production tooling for the composite
unibody/chassis is just about finished with putting on
the final touches over the next few days as I
rearrange my shop to make room for producing them.
I don't like to put up a website until I have
something to sell and the first ones are spoken for
anyway by some of those supporting it so really no
need to sell for a while. And I want a good finished
one, a small factory before I go mainsteam public with
it. I'm doing it underground at home to save money
until sales allow me to get a real production place.
If you really want to know more details, there is
a list, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, see if that
works now I've changed my browser settings, though it
costs at least $25 to join though most put in much
more than that. That is where the money to do this is
coming from, from members of this and other lists I'm
on that want to see EV's put into production that
joined me. You would recconize many of them.
And if anyone wants to go into production of their
own EV, we are there to help you as that's the goal,
not just the Freedom EV. Most of the details needed to
do just that are already in it's archive.
Interestingly, it is only costing about $10k to
put it into production!! And people say it costs a lot
to do that!! Of course that's mostly for parts, some
proffessional mold work as I do most all the design,
labor for free.
And at $13k base price before options like A/C,
unlimited range generator, there is quite a good
profit built in.
I have been proposing this for many yrs and some
decided to see if I could do it ;-)) I, with my boat ,
composite low volume production experience made me
about the best one to actually get this done.
Though no reason others couldn't use a kitcar like
a Ferrari Daytona knock off, Fiberfab Valkrie
GT-40, ect to do the same with much less work. These
done right and Waylandized, could easily go for $50k+.
Expect a Freedom composite unibody/chassis in
about a month, a glider in about 2-3 months and a
finished one in 3-4 months depending on weather, money
coming in, luck in finding good sources of the many
parts needed which is the hard part.
I'll build only the first 2 completely then have
the glass production guys build the composite part and
hire others to assemble the production ones.
As it's a low production method with an upper
limit of about 3,000/factory/yr I'll be eventually
selling EV factories in a 40" container to those who
may want to do this in other states and countries as
there is already much interest in them.
I hope these matasisize into many more, different
EV's as they get experience, put their own mark on the
EV's/hybrids.
Right now could use a good suspension person who
could help in finding good ball joint, bushings,
steering parts sources at reasonable prices as that is
the most vexing problem at the moment. Fla has few
sources of them. I have fall back parts but would like
better ones.
While I will make good money on this, it's
purpose is to spread EV's through the county and
inspire others to do the same.
I'm not a long term production person but a
design, production setup, problem solver so once this
is going well, I'll sell out and just design, consult,
help and move on to non dam river/tidal electric
generators where the money really is amoung other
things.
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
I just don't have enough time to argue with
you over small details that may change. You refuse to
except my facts so no use arguing with you.
Lets just build it, test it to see just what
it does. The track will prove what is and isn't. My
experience tells me I'm right or a least close to it.
If I can get even close it will be a breakthrough.
Am I optimistic, sure!! But I usually make
my goals when I try things like this doing things the
Experts say can't be done.
Please feel free to bring whatever you want
to autocross race against it when you return.
I have an EV to build now.
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerry, as I understand it the specs for the Freedom
> Ev are as follows:
>
> Frontal area: 18 sqf
> Height: 48"
> Width: 54" ave, 60" max
> Ground clearance: 4-10" variable
> Cd: .23
> COG: 12"
> Wheel diameter: 23", rim 14"
> Weight racing: 1000 lbs
> Weight normal: 1400 lbs
> Batteries Racing: 6ea Orbitals
> Batteries normal: 12ea T105s
>
> I'm assuming from some of your other comments that
> the 48" height is
> measured from the top of the vehicle to the bottom
> and not to the ground.
> Is this correct?
>
> Could you explain exactly how you came up with some
> of these figures please?
> Specifically how did you calculate this
> astonishingly low Cd? That's even
> lower than the Insight (.25) Just by looking at the
> Freedom EV it appears
> that it would have a higher Cd than the Insight, but
> it's not possible to
> calculate, or even accurately estimate, Cd just by
> looking at something.
> They've got some modeling software that comes pretty
> close to actual wind
> tunnel tests, but every one I've tried has been to
> complicated for me.
> What software did you use?
>
> I also can't understand how you arrived at 12" for
> your COG.
> You state that normally the vehicle will have 6=7"
> of ground clearance.
> That means that virtually all of your weight (except
> the wheels) is at
> least 6" off the ground.
> The COG for a T105 is approx 6" up from the bottom.
> Assuming you don't
> use any insulation on the bottom of the battery box,
> this means that the
> COG for the batteries is going to be at least 12-13"
> up.
> The COG of the vehicles body is going to be at least
> 24".
> The COG of the driver (a significant portion of this
> vehicles weight) will
> be approx 24" up.
> Since the batteries are already at or above 12",
> where are you getting the
> ballast to counteract all of the other heavy items
> that are far above your
> claimed COG?
>
> Perhaps you meant during racing when you lower the
> ground clearance to 4"?
> I'm assuming you are getting part of this from
> using lower profile tires,
> because if you use 23" diameter dires on 14" rims,
> the bottom of the rims
> are going to be 4.5" inches up, or higher than the
> bottom of the frame.
> You'll probably have a hard time finding a race
> director that will allow
> you to race a vehicle with such an unsafe
> configuration.
>
> So, assuming low profile tires and a 4" ground
> clearance...
>
> Your race configuration also includes a
> significantly reduced battery
> weight. Granted the Orbitals have a lower COG, that
> plus the 4" ground
> clearance will lower your battery COG to approx 8",
> but 6 Orbitals only
> weight 246lbs. The driver, seat & helmet are going
> to weigh almost this
> much and, even dropping 2", their COG is going to be
> at least 20".
> This means the combined COG of batteries and driver
> is at least 14".
> The rest of the vehicle's COG is still up around 22"
> (perhaps more).
> For racing you're almost certainly going to need at
> least a roll bar and
> preferably a roll cage, this might move your COG up
> a bit.
>
> I'm stumped, how did you come up with 12"?
>
>
> Elsewhere you mentioned
> " Also I have no polar moment, chassis twist so
> transistion in turns is much faster than a 4wh car
> by
> 1/2 as much."
>
> Do you know what "Polar Moment of Inertia" is? If
> so, can you explain the
> above statement? It doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Also chasis twist, which is pretty small in most
> race cars anyway, isn't
> the only thing that effects transistion time in
> turns. I'm pretty sure
> that suspension load/unloading also effects this, as
> does tire deflection,
> etc.
>
> I'm not saying that 3wh don't have an advantage in
> transistions, I just
> can figure out any reason why they would. Can you
> explain?
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the links, I'll look them over. As to the comment on wind,
you are both right and wrong. Yes, Charlotte is a class 1 wind area on
the average but I'm not in Charlotte, I'm in Albemarle. I'm also on the
highest point in something like a ten mile radius. And to top it all
off, my property is at the "head" of a valley that runs the same
direction as the prevailing winds. So, I almost never have a day with
no wind, and average wind speeds of 7-10 mph are pretty common. Days of
70mph wind are far more common than I would like. So I know this is not
an *ideal* area for wind power, but it is a very *good* area for low
speed wind turbines.
> This is a page for wind maps http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/.
> This is the specific page for NC
> http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap3/3-30m.html if you look at
> Charlotte you will see that it is a class 1 wind area and for a wind
> application you want at least a class 3 area. You would be better off putting
> the $$ into PV panels. If you are thinking that the AIR X is a good low wind
> generator, it only starts to turn at 7 mph, and for it to produce elec the
> wind has to be constant, not just gusts. And in the wind world there is a big
> controversy about the specs of the AIR X output.
>
> Your solar panels need to have a PV charge controller that will charge a
> battery bank. Then you can use the stored energy to charge the golf carts as
> per your drawing. But you have to decide whether you want to use DC or AC. To
> efficiently use PV panels to directly charge EV batteries, you need a PV
> system on the order of 2kw or 2000 watts. And your drawing only shows 3
> panels at 90 watts or 270 watts total.
I don't see why I need a battery bank to store power just to charge the
vehicles. That seems wasteful to me. 90% of the time (or more, can't
be sure) 3 of the 4 units will be connected "charging" and only 1 maybe
2 will be out being used. So when they come back they will get the
lion's share of the current.
Yes I know that 270 watts is not a lot, and more would be better, that
is my goal eventually, but right now that 270 watts per hour more than 7
hours per day (solar day here year round is something like 7.24 hours)
equates to well over a kilowatt a day. I only mow once a week and the
golf cart usage is not that great so this seems like a good system, but
for when it can't do it, that is the grid backup.
James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
are you also breaking in your motor also.? What I do is charge them up
before using , then a short 2 mile test run , more charging , then some
(five )10 mile runs , then longer , always keeping an eye on the voltage ,
keeping it over 11v, when load is on. It takes about 3 months or longer
before I see them hitting there max ah. There seem to be so many
similarities between people and batteries , the first %20 of the life is
growing up %60 is productive and then a %20 end of life . That your thinking
about breaking your batteries in is good , Like people all the packs I've
had over time have all seemed a little different . Some seem to brake in
quicker , others I watch grow in ah over a long time , . What hurts is when
for some reason something happens that you didn't plan on . You don't get to
charge where you though , you tried to go further that you should have , ect
. then there you are , you've wacked you pack for some silly reason , .
Hopefully this won't happen to you . The voltage will start to drop faster
as you get to the end of you charge , be ready for it , don't be miles away
and have to limp home . Its a little like a water fall , when you get close
to it , things seem to happen faster and at some point your going over no
mater how hard you paddle back. I have been trying to put together a info
page with this kind of info cus this stuff come up with each new person I
put in an ev . Wish somebody else would do it so I could just copy it :-)
. Steve clunn
----- Original Message -----
From: "TiM M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV-List-Post" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:51 AM
Subject: Breaking in batteries
I have my new pack installed and the new controller is
almost ready to start the wheels turning. I was
wondering what the best way to break in a new pack of
flooded batteries? I know I should drive easy, then
charge and drive a little more and repeat. What is
easy? Low current draw and distance? I've got a 144V
pack, how for for the beginning cycles, and how many
are needed before all is good to go?
Thanks,
TiM
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter and All,
> I just don't have enough time to argue
> with
> you over small details that may change. You refuse
> to
> except my facts so no use arguing with you.
> Lets just build it, test it to see just
> what
> it does.
take this advice! after all is said and done the
proof is in the product that you are actually
producing and that is the significant thing you are
really doing something not just thinking
about/planning it/disigning it you are very soon going
to have a real manifestation of your ideas and weither
or not it is perfectly what you/we all want it will
exist and that is the most significant thing that you
can say
The track will prove what is and isn't. My
> experience tells me I'm right or a least close to
> it.
> If I can get even close it will be a breakthrough.
> Am I optimistic, sure!! But I usually make
> my goals when I try things like this doing things
> the
> Experts say can't be done.
> Please feel free to bring whatever you
> want
> to autocross race against it when you return.
> I have an EV to build now.
> Thanks,
> Jerry Dycus
> --- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jerry, as I understand it the specs for the
> Freedom
> > Ev are as follows:
> >
> > Frontal area: 18 sqf
> > Height: 48"
> > Width: 54" ave, 60" max
> > Ground clearance: 4-10" variable
> > Cd: .23
> > COG: 12"
> > Wheel diameter: 23", rim 14"
> > Weight racing: 1000 lbs
> > Weight normal: 1400 lbs
> > Batteries Racing: 6ea Orbitals
> > Batteries normal: 12ea T105s
> >
> > I'm assuming from some of your other comments that
> > the 48" height is
> > measured from the top of the vehicle to the bottom
> > and not to the ground.
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > Could you explain exactly how you came up with
> some
> > of these figures please?
> > Specifically how did you calculate this
> > astonishingly low Cd? That's even
> > lower than the Insight (.25) Just by looking at
> the
> > Freedom EV it appears
> > that it would have a higher Cd than the Insight,
> but
> > it's not possible to
> > calculate, or even accurately estimate, Cd just by
> > looking at something.
> > They've got some modeling software that comes
> pretty
> > close to actual wind
> > tunnel tests, but every one I've tried has been to
> > complicated for me.
> > What software did you use?
> >
> > I also can't understand how you arrived at 12" for
> > your COG.
> > You state that normally the vehicle will have 6=7"
> > of ground clearance.
> > That means that virtually all of your weight
> (except
> > the wheels) is at
> > least 6" off the ground.
> > The COG for a T105 is approx 6" up from the
> bottom.
> > Assuming you don't
> > use any insulation on the bottom of the battery
> box,
> > this means that the
> > COG for the batteries is going to be at least
> 12-13"
> > up.
> > The COG of the vehicles body is going to be at
> least
> > 24".
> > The COG of the driver (a significant portion of
> this
> > vehicles weight) will
> > be approx 24" up.
> > Since the batteries are already at or above 12",
> > where are you getting the
> > ballast to counteract all of the other heavy items
> > that are far above your
> > claimed COG?
> >
> > Perhaps you meant during racing when you lower the
> > ground clearance to 4"?
> > I'm assuming you are getting part of this from
> > using lower profile tires,
> > because if you use 23" diameter dires on 14" rims,
> > the bottom of the rims
> > are going to be 4.5" inches up, or higher than the
> > bottom of the frame.
> > You'll probably have a hard time finding a race
> > director that will allow
> > you to race a vehicle with such an unsafe
> > configuration.
> >
> > So, assuming low profile tires and a 4" ground
> > clearance...
> >
> > Your race configuration also includes a
> > significantly reduced battery
> > weight. Granted the Orbitals have a lower COG,
> that
> > plus the 4" ground
> > clearance will lower your battery COG to approx
> 8",
> > but 6 Orbitals only
> > weight 246lbs. The driver, seat & helmet are
> going
> > to weigh almost this
> > much and, even dropping 2", their COG is going to
> be
> > at least 20".
> > This means the combined COG of batteries and
> driver
> > is at least 14".
> > The rest of the vehicle's COG is still up around
> 22"
> > (perhaps more).
> > For racing you're almost certainly going to need
> at
> > least a roll bar and
> > preferably a roll cage, this might move your COG
> up
> > a bit.
> >
> > I'm stumped, how did you come up with 12"?
> >
> >
> > Elsewhere you mentioned
> > " Also I have no polar moment, chassis twist so
> > transistion in turns is much faster than a 4wh car
> > by
> > 1/2 as much."
> >
> > Do you know what "Polar Moment of Inertia" is? If
> > so, can you explain the
> > above statement? It doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> > Also chasis twist, which is pretty small in most
> > race cars anyway, isn't
> > the only thing that effects transistion time in
> > turns. I'm pretty sure
> > that suspension load/unloading also effects this,
> as
> > does tire deflection,
> > etc.
> >
> > I'm not saying that 3wh don't have an advantage in
> > transistions, I just
> > can figure out any reason why they would. Can you
> > explain?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
