EV Digest 4943
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Any Solar Panel Distributors?
by Marc Breitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Bizarre charger behaviour: dilute electrolyte?
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Rush Revisited [was: Battery Beach Burnout (FL Race) Update] (long)
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Extra TAX/ snap on windows/ WHAT !!
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: OT: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Rush Revisited [was: Battery Beach Burnout (FL Race) Update] (long)
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: NAPA Floddies
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: what about battery swapping ? was: Look at fast charging from the
other end of the plug
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: NAPA Floddies
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: what about battery swapping ? was: Look at fast charging from the
other end of the plug
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Having difficulty (re)programming PFC-20
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: NAPA Floddies
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: OT: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: NAPA Floddies
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Any Solar Panel Distributors?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) RE: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) RE: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) EDTA Electric Vehicle Conference
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) Re: Myers motors update, cost
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hello all, im trying real hard to cut costs as im just a student, but Im
trying to find 1.6m^2 or slightly less of flexible solar panel. I want to be
able to "paste" it onto a fiberglassed (or some similar shell material). 12v
of course, watts really aren't a huge issue, cost is however. BP solar GAVE
AWAY 3 panels to my school's solar car team however we can't seem to get
sponsorships from anywhere (even though we, we being me and one friend
alone) beat the school team easily last year in a head to head. Anyhow, this
year its onto the national competition and I gotta get my gear in shape. If
anyone has any info please let me know.
~Marc
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is an append to my earlier post RE: my PFC not
allowing me to calibrate the charge point; ie, the
current will taper w/o LED going on; and just because
I raise the voltage on the charger, it won't follow
that the batteries will rise.
I'm thinking now that even though I use a battery
filler bottle, that it is filling the floodies too
high. Postings say to just cover the tops of the
plates, but these things bring the level to 1/4" under
the plastic tabs that make the "wells" of the cells.
It certainly makes sense that if the electrolyte is
more dilute, that voltage wouldn't rise as readily.
Has this happened to any of you before?
'92 Honda Civic sedan, 144V (video or DVD available)!
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> >Rassweiler, who regularly races his EV there, that there are only 120V
> >outlets and unfortunately no 240V outlets, which is what I need for
> >charging my RAV4-EVs. I can't charge from 120V. I could still
> >probably make it up
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 08:27:50PM -0500, Mark Grasser wrote:
> You could haul an isolation transformer and wire it for 110 in and 220 out,
> not much current though. Better would be to make a "Y" cable with two 110
> 15 amp plugs, plug one into an outlet and then look for another outlet that
> is on the other side of neutral.
>
Good point, but isn't the TAL inductive charger a 6.6KW unit?
I was also under the impression that you can not adjust the output current.
This means you would need a 55 amp 120 circuit to provide enough power.
I'm not sure how many 120's can put out 55 amps?
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The one I did had a Pinto engine/ tranny and rear , I got 20 orbitals in it
, The fraim it square tubing on mine , done to fit the body it looks like .
If you want to sell it let me know as I get people asking about it .
Steve Clunn
still looking for the side curtain windows. 8-) .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don B. Davidson III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Extra TAX/ snap on windows/ WHAT !!
Steve,
You "converted" to electric your 1929 Mercedes? I imagine there's room
under
the hood for lots of batteries as the VW pan is stretched to accommodate
this hood.
What I've got is the unassembled kit of the Bradley Baron (1929 Mercedes
replica) As this kit has sat in dad's barn since 1980, no guarantees how
"complete" this kit may be. I do provide the modified stretched VW pan and
remanufactured 1600 CC stock VW ICE
I certainly don't have the time, energy or $ to assemble the Baron
Don Davidson
----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Extra TAX/ snap on windows/ WHAT !!
Hi Don
looked at your web site , nice job, can't have to many ev web site's ,
didn't see www.grassrootsev.com on you links :-) ( just joking ) . Anyway
I
saw a picture of a 1929 Mercedes like the one I converted , and now
needs
a
side curtain ( snap on window) for driver side . Was wondering if you or
anyone one the list would know where I could buy them form. .
Steve Clunn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don B. Davidson III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
> This brings up a question from a new EV owner:
>
> I recently purchased three EV's (used/kit/conversion) Tax time is
> around
> the
> corner. Anything I can claim on my taxes as these are ZEV (zero
> emission
> vehicles)?
>
> I will be facing NY State Dept of Motor Vehicles for the first time
> next
> spring when I register my EV. Again, can I expect any "incentives" for
> using
> a ZEV or can I expect to be penalized for not buying gasoline and
> paying
> the
> "gas" tax? If that turns out to be the case, that's as silly as
> penalizing
> SUV's forcing them to pay more insurance because they will cause more
> damage
> than they will suffer in an accident. Just because the car is safer,
> means
> you have to pay more insurance? That's insane. As insane as it would be
to
> be forced to pay a tax for not polluting the air we breathe. Thought
that
> was the reason we have EV's (to save the atmosphere).
> Don Davidson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.spaces.msn.com/members/dbd3
>
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/662.html
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jerry halstead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
>
>
>> On Nov 26, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Steven Lough wrote:
>> > Yesterday at about 4pm, got a call from KOMO-TV, our local ABC
>> > affiliate here in Seattle. He wanted me to do an "ON-CAMERA"
>> > interview as a Hybrid owner, as to what I thought about a proposal
>> > put forward by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that high - mileage
>> > vehicles should be TAXED extra because they are using the same
>> > roads with SUV,s and other vehicles which buy more gas, pay more
>> > tax, yet the Hybrids pay LESS gas TAX...
>>
>> I ran into something similar when registering our first EV. They
>> made us pay double the registration fee since we wouldn't be paying
>> any gasoline taxes. I figured arguing with the clerk would be of
>> little avail. It was fun enough trying to convince her that the car
>> had zero cynlinders.
>>
>> -Jerry
>>
>> http://www.evconvert.com/
>>
>>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A GPS engine can be bought for ~$15 in quantity of 1000.
Victor
Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3) wrote:
I think that a GPS unit for 4.3 million cars (estimation) would be too
expensive. BUT, if you were to pay at the gas station for the miles you
drove it could do it then based on your odometer readings.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nick Austin wrote:
Also, GPS is very easy to block, won't that cause problems?
Anything can be tampered with. Blocking a GPS obviously must
block the engine from running. C'mon, much more challenging
technical tasks than this one have been solved.
<..snip..>
Technical implementation is not difficult.
It seems like it is.
Again, technical side is trivial. I use a GPS module in
EVision system, it is treated by a circuit as any other
sensor.
It's just instituting it that present problem. Exactly the
same as with EVs themselves - everyone knows how to build it
(and it is simpler technically than ICE) but no one does
(I mean OEM).
Thanks!
You're welcome, but for what?
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 07:51:18PM -0800, Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> A GPS engine can be bought for ~$15 in quantity of 1000.
>
> Victor
>
> Dewey, Jody R ATC (CVN75 IM3) wrote:
> >I think that a GPS unit for 4.3 million cars (estimation) would be too
> >expensive. BUT, if you were to pay at the gas station for the miles you
> >drove it could do it then based on your odometer readings.
>From http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/pdfdata/csa03/J05
REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAILERS
WHICH PAID FEES BY TYPE OF VEHICLE
CALIFORNIA, 1970 TO 2002
Passenger
Year vehicles
2002 20,482,295
At $15 a piece that would be $307 Million.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 08:00:59PM -0800, Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Nick Austin wrote:
>
> >
> >Also, GPS is very easy to block, won't that cause problems?
>
> Anything can be tampered with. Blocking a GPS obviously must
> block the engine from running. C'mon, much more challenging
> technical tasks than this one have been solved.
What if you park underground? Or under a tree :)
I don't think you would be able to get away with disabling the engine.
>
> ><..snip..>
> >
> >>Technical implementation is not difficult.
> >
> >It seems like it is.
>
> Again, technical side is trivial. I use a GPS module in
> EVision system, it is treated by a circuit as any other
> sensor.
It seems like we have a hard time keeping odometers honest. A GPS based
system to track mileage seems much more complicated and prone to failure
and abuse then an odometer. Don't you think?
If our goal is to track mileage, then why not install a system to allow
the pump to read the odometer.
Also, what do you do if you drive your car on private property for some
percentage of its total miles?
What if you put gas into gas cans? If the tax is too high, I'm sure some people
would do this to refuel there cars. What if too cars were next to the pump?
Seems like many technical issues still exist.
>
> It's just instituting it that present problem. Exactly the
> same as with EVs themselves - everyone knows how to build it
> (and it is simpler technically than ICE) but no one does
> (I mean OEM).
instituting a scheme like this is another problem, but practical technical
issues seem to still exist.
>
> >Thanks!
>
> You're welcome, but for what?
For this discussion!
Thanks again! :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Charles Whalen put a great deal of effort into a very long and thoughtful
post. He makes some interesting points. I appreciate his time and I'm sure
others do too.
However, I would encourage the list to NOT respond to the political elements
of his post online. I think it's best to avoid any discussions of politics
on the EV list. In the past, they too often have degenerated into flame
wars.
Please read Charles's post and if you have comments or suggestions, email
them directly to Charles, NOT to the EV list.
Thanks.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please use evadm at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 27 Nov 2005 at 15:04, Michaela Merz wrote:
> It
> says, they have a reserve capacity of about 100 minutes. How would I have to
> compare that to, say, Trojans?
Reserve capacity in golf car batteries is at 75 amps. I think the T-105s
are 115 minutes RC.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please use evadm at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Doug Weathers wrote:
> Battery swapping, because of the additional complexities it introduces,
> will add costs at both ends of the charging cable. Both the vehicle and
> the recharging infrastructure will become more expensive, perhaps to
> the point of making this technology economically unviable when compared
> to competing approaches."
True enough; swappable batteries add costs. However, they also reduce other
costs. Whether you use them or not depends on how the pros and cons balance
out.
Swappable battery packs are common when one party owns all the associated
equipment (vehicle, battery packs, and charging/swapping facilities). This
prevents cheating (seeking personal gain at someone else's expense) from
distorting things. You can't steal from yourself.
But when a battery pack is being leased, it is hard to measure its true value.
The supplier tends to overestimate its value (and overprice it accordingly).
And the user tends to abuse it (since it doesn't hurt him if he damages it).
Neither party can easily measure what the other is doing. It's human nature
for people to cheat when they aren't being watched.
The main benefit of swappable packs is to allow "instant" recharging and
"infinite" range. The equipment is not unavailable for use for hours while
charging. It can be "recharged" by swapping the pack even faster than a
gasoline-powered vehicle can be refuelled. This allows nearly continuous use
of important equipment. For instance, a warehouse can use their electric
forklift trucks 3 shifts a day, by having 1 pack in the truck and 2 on the
charger, and swapping packs each shift.
If it saves you time or money to have your EV ready *now* instead of in a few
hours when it gets done charging, then a swappable pack has value to you. You
need to decide what you will pay for this ability. The designers then know
how much cost they can add to the battery box and related equipment to make
quick-change pack feasible.
> I just can't see how to get from where we are to the future where
> we're all swapping battery packs. I can't imagine a business plan
> that doesn't require an enormous up-front investment.
A business plan that *does* require an enormous up-front cost will
automatically be a failure. The money just isn't there to make it worthwhile.
But you don't need a big investment; there already *are* successful battery
leasing programs. Many large battery systems are leased; for stationary
batteries, electric forklifts, and golf carts, for example. Most of these
plans are like the rent-to-own furniture rackets that take advantage of
customers who don't know any better. For instance, you can lease a set of
batteries for your golf cart for "only $9.95/month". Keep paying that monthly
bill, and you get "free" replacements forever. But that's not really a good
deal; golf cart batteries last 5 years, and a set of six cost about $300 --
that's only $5/month.
But it isn't all gravy for the seller of such a lease, either. The customer
with that $9.95/month lease is likely to abuse the batteries horribly (what
do I care? If I wreck 'em, I get new ones free!). They won't keep them clean
or add water; they won't avoid deep discharges or excessive charging. In
short, they will cheerfully commit battricide and fully expect someone else
to pay for it!
So, most battery leasing outfits include "maintenance" in the deal. They come
out periodically to clean and water your batteries, and insure that you have
reasonable chargers and SOC limiters to block usage if the battery gets too
deeply discharged.
I feel that as soon as there are more than a handful of on-the-road EVs in any
one service area, the firms that are already doing battery leasing in other
markets will find it worthwhile to offer it to on-the-road EV owners, too.
> For whatever reasons, the massive effort to develop the infrastructure
> and the EV in parallel has failed in the USA.
The "massive effort" was only the auto companies' tiny efforts, seeking to
monopolize public charging stations for "their" vehicles and nobody else's.
The simple answer is this: If you already own an electric fork lift or golf
cart, you already know the dealers that sell, service, and maintain them in
your area. These people already provide the "infrastructure" needed to
support the vehicles in use. As the market grows, they would be only too
happy to grow this infrastructure themselves, just out of their own profits.
No major government mandates or spending is needed. No new NEC standards, and
no new "custom designed for EV" connectors, cords, or charging receptacles
are required.
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> The T105 may only deliver 20 amps for 9 hours or 9 x 20 = 180 amp.hr.
> At 75 amps is 115 minutes or 1.9 hrs x 75 amp = 142.5 amp.hr.
> For this reason, it is difficult to compare the rated
> ampere-hour capcity with reserve capacity.
Not really too difficult if you have the Peukert exponent:
C(i) = T(i) * i
T(i) = Tr * (25/i)^n
Where:
C(i) = capacity at current (i)
T(i) = discharge time available at current (i)
Tr = discharge time at reserve capacity rate (25amps)
n = Peukert exponent
For the T-105, as mentioned, Tr = 447 minutes and n~1.24
With that information,
T(75amps) ~ 447 * (1/3)^1.24 ~ 115 minutes
C(75) ~ 143a-hr
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Weathers
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> You did a good job addressing the points I raised about battery
> swapping. Of course all of these issues can be solved or worked
> around. My central thesis, which I didn't do a very good job of
> articulating, is this:
>
> "Battery swapping, because of the additional complexities it
> introduces, will add costs at both ends of the charging cable. Both
> the vehicle and the recharging infrastructure will become more
> expensive, perhaps to the point of making this technology
> economically
> unviable when compared to competing approaches."
>
Thanks Doug.
I must admit that the points I wrote were really just to say how a
system COULD work, not that I think that things will turn out that way.
I think that if/when EVs become more prevalent, most people will charge
them at home.
There will probably be a market for fast charge stations, simply because
that is the way that we are used to things working - it is hard to
change old habits.
But who really know how things are going to turn out?
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob;
To get the voltage set pot to have an effect on the charging voltage, the
yellow LED must be ON. If the yellow LED is off, the current control is
dominant and you are still in bulk phase. You must turn the current knob up
to get the yellow LED to come ON before you are actually setting the voltage
limit with the trim pot.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:16 PM
Subject: Having difficulty (re)programming PFC-20
> Today, I had the rig on charge at 175V, and the
> cutback light came on, so I tried to up the voltage.
> The voltage wouldn't rise. (From calibration
> procedure).
>
> Finally, I upped the current knob. The voltage went
> up, but the current does too, and I'd prefer to baby
> the batteries from now on.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But riddle me this. If you discharge a 100AH battery at a high rate so
you take 50AH out and it comes to 75 Peukert AH, if you switch to a
lower load where Peukert's isn't significant are there 50AH or 25AH left
until the battery reaches the specified cutoff voltage?
Danny
Myles Twete wrote:
The T105 may only deliver 20 amps for 9 hours or 9 x 20 = 180 amp.hr.
At 75 amps is 115 minutes or 1.9 hrs x 75 amp = 142.5 amp.hr.
For this reason, it is difficult to compare the rated
ampere-hour capcity with reserve capacity.
Not really too difficult if you have the Peukert exponent:
C(i) = T(i) * i
T(i) = Tr * (25/i)^n
Where:
C(i) = capacity at current (i)
T(i) = discharge time available at current (i)
Tr = discharge time at reserve capacity rate (25amps)
n = Peukert exponent
For the T-105, as mentioned, Tr = 447 minutes and n~1.24
With that information,
T(75amps) ~ 447 * (1/3)^1.24 ~ 115 minutes
C(75) ~ 143a-hr
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ha! Killing the engine when GPS is out would be bad... everybody's
engine dies in a tunnel! Actually bad antennas, temporary GPS satellite
probs, trees, etc are going to happen.
There was talk that a nonworking module would somehow alert officers in
the area. Of course if you simply unhook the module it couldn't call
for help. Presumably some sort of transponder, where the officer sends
out a challenge and only a working module would transmit back the
correctly coded response, would be needed. Nonetheless people taking
measures to interfere with the GPS antenna while providing an innocent
excuse will happen. Other thoughts would be that car computers have to
record mileage (much simpler) and it would be checked at registration
time or whenever.
I doubt this will fly, it's incredibly invasive and there's no way to
keep the government from tracking you, hidden code is inevitable.
I saw Schwarzenegger (famous for his love of his Hummer) had proposed
the mileage tax, which means the Hummers get taxed at the same rate as
the hybrids.
Given the overriding interest the nation, if not the planet, has in
reducing fuel usage and reducing emissions, it is a horrific plan.
Decades of work have gone into providing incentives to get hybrid
technology out there and this not only removes the incentive but in fact
reverses it, which puts all that effort to waste.
Danny
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Nick Austin wrote:
Also, GPS is very easy to block, won't that cause problems?
Anything can be tampered with. Blocking a GPS obviously must
block the engine from running. C'mon, much more challenging
technical tasks than this one have been solved.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Essentially, it is the government that pays for the building and
maintenance of public roads.
They get their big bucket of funds through taxes.
Taxes on your income, taxes on your purchases, taxes on your imports,
taxes on your sales.
Sometimes they try to work things so that there is a direct relationship
between the tax and the thing it is being spent on, like tax on
cigarettes going to health care and tax on fuel going to roads.
But ultimately it doesn't really matter where they get the funds from as
long as the roads get built and maintained.
So when it comes to putting rules in place to extract extra funds from
one particular group, it really is just a lose-lose situation.
The target group gets pissed off because they have to pay proportionally
more money than everyone else.
The public in general gets pissed off because there is now an extra lump
of beaureacracy that makes simple things (like filling their car) just a
little bit harder, and is obviously costing tax-payers dollars to
enforce and administer.
And everybody gets pissed off at the people that suggested the idea in
the first place because the real reason that they are proposing this
extra tax is not to raise money, but to punish the target group in the
eyes of the voters.
(And we all know that hybrid-driving greenie tree-huggers need to be
punished, don't we?)
Mark
(sorry - this is getting very OT)
Ob EV content:
Should people who charge EVs from private sources (like their own solar
or wind gens) pay some sort of road tax, or should the govt simply cover
roads costs with funds from general taxes?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Danny Miller wrote:
Ha! Killing the engine when GPS is out would be bad... everybody's
engine dies in a tunnel! Actually bad antennas, temporary GPS satellite
probs, trees, etc are going to happen.
It is trivial to set kill engine delay for such things.
If all else fails, engine may be allowed to run but
it's the same as if you lost parking ticket and thus
charged for whole day: if you have no GPS or it's unhooked,
it is assumed you make, say, 100 miles a day. So it is in
your interest to have it functional.
I'm not proposing particular technical solution here just
to get criticized. All I'm saying there must be means
instituted to make people pay only according to the
damage they produce. If GPS proved to be bad idea,
something else will take care of the issue.
There was talk that a nonworking module would somehow alert officers in
the area. Of course if you simply unhook the module it couldn't call
for help.
The module can be made unhookable - like integral
part of the engine ignition computer - may be even made on one chip.
Nonetheless people taking
measures to interfere with the GPS antenna while providing an innocent
excuse will happen.
See above - then they just get charged for max (reasonable)
mileage - they'll stop coming up with funny excuses pretty fast.
Again, one way or the other the system certainly can be made to work.
I mean taxing-per-damage system.
I doubt this will fly, it's incredibly invasive and there's no way to
keep the government from tracking you, hidden code is inevitable.
First, it is only *receiver*, so no tracking is possible.
Whether GPS transmits back anything can be easily verified.
Don't be so paranoid. You or anyone else can easily be
tracked right now from satellite capable of reading your
license plate if they really want to. So if you still don't want
a unit - fine. Just pay for 100 miles per day. Your choice.
Units don't come from govt, just like OBD2 diagnostic ones.
I saw Schwarzenegger (famous for his love of his Hummer) had proposed
the mileage tax, which means the Hummers get taxed at the same rate as
the hybrids.
Except weight classes must be factored in too, and currently it
isn't proposed.
Given the overriding interest the nation, if not the planet, has in
reducing fuel usage and reducing emissions, it is a horrific plan.
Decades of work have gone into providing incentives to get hybrid
technology out there and this not only removes the incentive but in fact
reverses it, which puts all that effort to waste.
I don't understand what exactly is waste.
Before people used ICEs and paid x dollars for roads
repair. Now, everyone (hopefully) will drive hybrids
or better, generate far less emissions and reduce imported
oil consumption - obvious pluses. But they will still wear
roads to the same degree, so it will cost the same to repair,
so why do you expect road repair tax reduced? Your fuel type
and efficiency really should make no difference - it has no
impact on the road damage degree. Only your weight and miles
driven do.
Think about it.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nick Austin wrote:
At $15 a piece that would be $307 Million.
So? It's less than one tank full. Good fog light cost more.
I can argue it is only 0.07% of the cost of a $25k car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hypothetically, what happens when everyone is driving hybrids?
Extra taxes for everyone I guess!
I say just bump up the gas tax till it covers all the costs, when
everyone is driving hybrids this will need to happen anyway,
and at the point that BEV/PHEV's start becoming popular
then we can start looking into transportation-electricity taxes.
By that time I'd prefer to go entirely to an annual registration
mileage*weight type fee (once electricity is a "common" fuel).
I mean how are you gonna tax someone for the electricity they
are making on their own with PV or wind systems on their
roof, not that I wouldn't put it past 'em.
L8r
Ryan
Now for some crazy number crunching, entirely off the wall...
Let's say gas taxes are $0.50/gal (No Idea what they really are)
Insight pays:70mpg, 1700lbs = $0.0071/mile, /weight=$0.000,004,20
Prius pays:50mpg, 3400lbs = $0.0100/mile, /weight=$0.000,002,94
Truck pays:10mpg,6800lbs = $0.050/mile, /weight=$0.000,007,35
Since the Insight is half the weight of the Prius, but doesn't get twice
the mileage, it actually pays more once you factor in weight. The
"Truck" is obviously paying more, and rightly so it's a bad choice
for a commuter vehicle, but worth the cost as a real working vehicle.
Anyway, no idea what this proves, probably nothing at all. If we were
to normalize the tax*weight*mileages out to say $0.000,005 or so, then
driving 30,000 miles a year would cost the operator of an vs gas taxes:
Insight : $225 vs $214 - $11 extra
Prius : $510 vs $300 - $210 extra
Truck : $1020 vs $1500 - $480 less
Like I said, till we start to "not use gas" we should just keep it a gas
tax.
I'll pay the extra registration*mileage tax once I can plug-in, not till
then.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'll say "50Ah left", because
you took out only 50Ah out,
with usable 25Ah left to drive on.
Danny Miller wrote:
But riddle me this. If you discharge a 100AH battery at a high rate
so you take 50AH out and it comes to 75 Peukert AH, if you switch to a
lower load where Peukert's isn't significant are there 50AH or 25AH
left until the battery reaches the specified cutoff voltage?
Am I right?
As I understand it Peukert doesn't actually lower the actual capacity,
just the usable capacity at some particular high rate, like the rates
used in EV's. So if you drive you're 100Ah ev to the end if it's
usable range of 75Ah you could still sit in the driveway and burn
the remaining 25Ah off through the headlamps. Though this wouldn't
do the batteries much good, all 100Ah of the capacity is always there.
Of course I could be wrong...
L8r
Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Flexible panels typically have very poor efficiency.
Most of the solar raycing teams use individual cells and conformal
coating, however, that might be a bit out of your league at this point.
How about a compromise? Use lots of very small panels. Perhaps not as
aerodynamic, but much better power output.
The Energy Alternative has small panels for sale VERY cheap. These panels
are only 5" x 5" (127mm x 127mm) and cost $3.25 each in quantities of 20.
Each panel produces at least 1.3 watts, a 1.6m^2 array would produce at
least 140 watts.
http://www.theenergyalternative.com/energy_efficient_products/index.html?item=412
Make sure you select the square panels. The round ones take up more
surface area and produce slightly less power.
These panels are very light, they are built on a fiberglass substrate with
conformal coating so you can mount them directly to the surface of your
solar bike.
Each panel produces >5.6V at peak power. For charging you'd want 6 panels
in series and then parallel sets of 6 panels.
However, if you are NOT running a MPP tracking system, during racing you
might be able to get away with only 5 panels in series. You could either
leave the other panels in the pit for charging, or rewire the array during
raycing. Rewiring is more complicated, but would give you the best power
output.
> Hello all, im trying real hard to cut costs as im just a student, but Im
> trying to find 1.6m^2 or slightly less of flexible solar panel. I want to
> be
> able to "paste" it onto a fiberglassed (or some similar shell material).
> 12v
> of course, watts really aren't a huge issue, cost is however. BP solar
> GAVE
> AWAY 3 panels to my school's solar car team however we can't seem to get
> sponsorships from anywhere (even though we, we being me and one friend
> alone) beat the school team easily last year in a head to head. Anyhow,
> this
> year its onto the national competition and I gotta get my gear in shape.
> If
> anyone has any info please let me know.
>
> ~Marc
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Why come up with some elaborate solution when one already exists? The
Odometer. Tampering with that is already a chrime. Just have it read
quarterly and pay your tax accordingly.
-----Original Message-----
From: Victor Tikhonov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
Nick Austin wrote:
>
> Also, GPS is very easy to block, won't that cause problems?
Anything can be tampered with. Blocking a GPS obviously must
block the engine from running. C'mon, much more challenging
technical tasks than this one have been solved.
> <..snip..>
>
>>Technical implementation is not difficult.
>
> It seems like it is.
Again, technical side is trivial. I use a GPS module in
EVision system, it is treated by a circuit as any other
sensor.
It's just instituting it that present problem. Exactly the
same as with EVs themselves - everyone knows how to build it
(and it is simpler technically than ICE) but no one does
(I mean OEM).
> Thanks!
You're welcome, but for what?
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I say just bump up the gas tax till it covers all the costs, when
everyone is driving hybrids this will need to happen anyway, and at the
point that BEV/PHEV's start becoming popular then we can start looking
into transportation-electricity taxes.
This is the only sane approach to this issue. Exempt the truckers and
the taxis but keep the excessive road taxes on the backs of the daily
drivers and elective cruisers. This will both cover the expenses of road
maintenance (on the backs of those who do the most damage to the
environment), and it will also encourage people to switch to more energy
efficient rides like hybrids and BEVs.
With oilers in power though, we can expect lots of direct attacks on
fuel efficient alternatives while government funding and incentives
continue to be stripped and eliminated in the name of "budget cuts".
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM/YM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I thought it was a two tier system? You pay for the mileage AND the weight.
The Hummer would pay almost double for the same mileage since it is heavier.
I think that all this elaborate electronic equipment is not needed. The
odometer works in tunnels, under trees, is accurate, and fair.
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Extra TAX on High-Milage Hybrids ?? WHAT !!
Ha! Killing the engine when GPS is out would be bad... everybody's
engine dies in a tunnel! Actually bad antennas, temporary GPS satellite
probs, trees, etc are going to happen.
There was talk that a nonworking module would somehow alert officers in
the area. Of course if you simply unhook the module it couldn't call
for help. Presumably some sort of transponder, where the officer sends
out a challenge and only a working module would transmit back the
correctly coded response, would be needed. Nonetheless people taking
measures to interfere with the GPS antenna while providing an innocent
excuse will happen. Other thoughts would be that car computers have to
record mileage (much simpler) and it would be checked at registration
time or whenever.
I doubt this will fly, it's incredibly invasive and there's no way to
keep the government from tracking you, hidden code is inevitable.
I saw Schwarzenegger (famous for his love of his Hummer) had proposed
the mileage tax, which means the Hummers get taxed at the same rate as
the hybrids.
Given the overriding interest the nation, if not the planet, has in
reducing fuel usage and reducing emissions, it is a horrific plan.
Decades of work have gone into providing incentives to get hybrid
technology out there and this not only removes the incentive but in fact
reverses it, which puts all that effort to waste.
Danny
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Nick Austin wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, GPS is very easy to block, won't that cause problems?
>
>
> Anything can be tampered with. Blocking a GPS obviously must
> block the engine from running. C'mon, much more challenging
> technical tasks than this one have been solved.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
If anyone needs to split a room at the Pan Pacific Vancouver Hotel, I got a
room for 7 days Dec 3rd - Dec 10th for $136 per night convention rate (or $68).
It's normally much higher and overlooking the Pacific Ocean with heated pool,
Jacuzzi exercise room at the resort. Check out www.edtaconference.com for
more info. I'll be reporting for BEST magazine in the UK (Batteries Energy &
Storage Technology). Let me know who's going and we can meet there also.
have a nice day, Mark
Mark E. Hanson
184 Vista Lane
Fincastle, VA 24090
540-563-2000x290-W
540-473-1248-H
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At $35K they're not going to sell many. We thought at the DEVC that a small
cost effective EV should be priced below $10k to sell to the masses and
compete with gas vehicles. I'll wait for some used ones to turn up on
evalbum or Ebay though.
mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "EV Discussion List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Myers motors update
>
>
> > <<<<
> > The company calculates that a driver charged 11 cents
> > per kilowatt
> > will pay about 55 cents for the "fill up" that powers
> > the NmG about
> > 30 miles.
> > The pollution-free NmG can be fully recharged in 4 to
> > 6 hours using a
> > 110-volt outlet and less than half that time using a
> > 220-volt outlet.
> >
> > Priced at $35,000, the NmG comes in dazzling exterior
> > colors.
> > >>>>
> >
--- End Message ---
