EV Digest 4996
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: CVT transmission for EV - long
by Seth Rothenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Are these chargers any different?
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: Setting up a Direct Drive
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re Alltrax and e-tec
by keith vansickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Setting up a Direct Drive
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Setting up a Direct Drive
by "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: PDAs and Alltrax
by "Paschke, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Motor control for direct drive setup
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Re Alltrax and e-tec
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: CVT transmission for EV
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) general questions re max for E-Tec
by keith vansickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Setting up a Direct Drive
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: CVT transmission for EV - long
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Setting up a Direct Drive
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Open source EV community site
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Setting up a Direct Drive
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Required horsepower
by "Peter May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Cushman's available & stability question
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: Motor control for direct drive setup
by "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: Setting up a Direct Drive
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Required horsepower
by "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Myers Motors Announces NmG Pricing Program
by Dave Stensland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) CVT transmission
by "David McWethy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Setting up a Direct Drive
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Open source EV community site
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) I can't locate an old posting that I found a few months ago
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
27) Re: Re Alltrax and e-tec and motor torque.
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
> Has ANYONE used the CVT transmission out of the Mini or any other for that
> matter? This looks ideal for my smart car and would make the little woman
> more likely to use the car. So if anyone knows anything good or bad about
> this trans please reply on list.
Related to this, I would like to hear if anyone knows what
happened to a transmission I saw presented in
Popular {Mechanics|Science} twenty-odd years ago.
I recall that there were two cones back-to-back,
and they were held so the axis was tilted but
the opposing sides of the cones were horizontal.
The funny thing is, I can't recall precisecly
how they transferred power - I can think of
two ways to do it...
a) by bolting them together and varying where
on the side of the cone the input is delivered
(and output is one conelength away, on the sister cone)
OR
b) they are not connected, just on a common axis.
The input would turn one cone, a cylindrical
widget would surround both, contacting opposing
edges of the two cones, thus transmitting and "gearing",
and the second cone would drive the output.
The second method, with the cylinder rings a bell, but
the not-connected axle does not. I think it actually
was two rings connected by a framework, not a whole cylinder.
Also, another CVT idea....
The wikipedia for CVT has a link to Anderson CVT.
They use a belt to do the gearing/transfer mentioned,
from the narrow of one cone to the wide of the other.
There's a big thing about durability of belts.
I had this idea, do you think it is nuts?
What if you had the two cones, facing each other,
side-by-side...one is input, the other output, and
the transmission is just a rubber wheel that is
jammed between them...position right-or-left to
change ratio. i.e. the space between the
Input surface and the output surface is constant
from the (narrow input/wide output) to the
(wide input/narrow output) side.
The problem is wear....
but it seems to me that this is such a simple
design, it may be possible to simply stipulate
that the ball has to be changed every X miles.
The only issue is if that X will be in hundreds or
thousands or....
Is that nuts - or is it nuts and bolts and axles, etc.?
Also, there are a couple ways to deal with this wear issue
to extend the time of required maintenance.
Anyone want to help?
(of course, I might need to figure out if any patents
will apply...)
Thanks
Seth
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would like to know "how" a bettery charger can detect that
> a battery is AGM versus Gel. These two type of batteries
> have very different charging profiles, and if treated the
> same, one or the other will suffer.
Careful here; there is a profound difference between a charge "profile"
and the profile setpoints. Your Interacter charger may use different
profiles for the different battery types, but this does not need to be
the case.
For instance, DEKA's recommended profiles for their AGMs and gel
products are *exactly* the same, however the specific setpoints
(voltage, current) differ between the two battery types. That is, the
charger would go through exactly the same sequence of steps for either
battery type, but would charge to a slightly different voltage for each
type and would use a slightly different finish current for each type.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've been thinking about John Wayland's Siamese setup, and I was wondering
if it would work to couple two motors together that way, but to be used not
together, but rather independently. One motor would have good low-end
starting torque, and the other would have good high RPM capability for
speed. So one motor would be your low gear, and the other would be your
high gear. The motor that was on would have to spin the unused armature of
the motor that was off, but that seems like it would be a negligible amount
of power lost.
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lee Hart
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Setting up a Direct Drive
Rodney A wrote:
> As far as I know, most two motor direct drive systems physcially connect
> the motors together (belt or chain, etc) and then connect to the
driveshaft
> or reduction gearbox.
>
> What about running two motors on the rear axle, one attached to each wheel
> (via a lightweight reduction gearbox) thus eliminating the differential
> (which would make up for the extra weight of the additional reduction
> gearbox)? The advantage of this setup might be a little more torque and
> power (less mechanical losses) plus with the motors in parallel (which
they
> would be most of the time) you get an electronic traction control.
The Tango does this. Two motors, each with its own 5:1 gear reducer, drive
the
rear wheels independently. There is no diferential. A single controller
operates both motors. The motors can be switched in series or parallel to
provide an electric 2-speed "transmission".
--
Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What are the absolute highest limits (volts amps) for
the E-tec with an alltrax 7245
anyone with firsthand experiance???
--- mreish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Peter Ohler wrote the EVDash program for palm
> pilots, but that is
> >for an ELink meter ( http://www.ohler.com ) The
> last post I saw
> >about the Alltrax was when someone listed the basic
> logging
> >protocols for anyone interested to use. I haven't
> heard anything
> >since...?
>
> This has been a topic of conversation of late on the
> EM list. See
> below for links.
>
> --
>
> The Electric Motorcycle Portal
> http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/
>
> Electric Motorcycle Listserv
> http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/listserv
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bill Dennis wrote:
I've been thinking about John Wayland's Siamese setup, and I was wondering
if it would work to couple two motors together that way, but to be used not
together, but rather independently. One motor would have good low-end
starting torque, and the other would have good high RPM capability for
speed. So one motor would be your low gear, and the other would be your
high gear. The motor that was on would have to spin the unused armature of
the motor that was off, but that seems like it would be a negligible amount
of power lost.
You mean by using a larger pulley/sprocket on one of the motors? And
power one motor, then the other one sequentially as you increase in
speed...?
--
Stefan T. Peters
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, December 15, 2005 11:35 am, Bill Dennis said:
> I've been thinking about John Wayland's Siamese setup, and I was wondering
> if it would work to couple two motors together that way, but to be used
> not
> together, but rather independently. One motor would have good low-end
> starting torque, and the other would have good high RPM capability for
> speed. So one motor would be your low gear, and the other would be your
> high gear. The motor that was on would have to spin the unused armature
> of
> the motor that was off, but that seems like it would be a negligible
> amount
> of power lost.
You could have the high-torque motor at the front, and the high-speed
motor between it and the driveshaft, and the two motors connected via a
1-way sprag clutch like in a Lenco transmission. So when you're running at
low speed, the two motors turn together, the sprag clutch transmitting
power between the motors. At high speed, the fast motor spins the
driveshaft and the clutch slips so the slower motor in front can
completely stop.
--chris
>
> Bill Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Lee Hart
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 9:47 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Setting up a Direct Drive
>
> Rodney A wrote:
>> As far as I know, most two motor direct drive systems physcially connect
>> the motors together (belt or chain, etc) and then connect to the
> driveshaft
>> or reduction gearbox.
>>
>> What about running two motors on the rear axle, one attached to each
>> wheel
>> (via a lightweight reduction gearbox) thus eliminating the differential
>> (which would make up for the extra weight of the additional reduction
>> gearbox)? The advantage of this setup might be a little more torque and
>> power (less mechanical losses) plus with the motors in parallel (which
> they
>> would be most of the time) you get an electronic traction control.
>
> The Tango does this. Two motors, each with its own 5:1 gear reducer, drive
> the
> rear wheels independently. There is no diferential. A single controller
> operates both motors. The motors can be switched in series or parallel to
> provide an electric 2-speed "transmission".
> --
> Lee A. Hart 814 8th Ave N Sartell MN 56377 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was going to write such a program, but other projects have pushed it
back in priority.
Phillipe has the protocol specs on his website. It should be very easy
to implement now that we have the specs. Search the message archive for
his alltrax posts. Maybe someone with more time can get to it before I
can.
> Stephen Paschke
> Senior Consultant
> Keane, Inc.
> Office 303-607-2993
> Cell 303-204-9280
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ree3
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: PDAs and Alltrax
I am building a skate pusher with E-tek. So far so good. I noticed a
post
that said that the Alltrax controller can be be monitored with a PDA
like a
palm pilot and that the person who made the program and has the details
on
how to set it up has a "personal page" with details. After 2 hours of
struggling with this archived news group including performing 50 or so
auto
limited searches yet to find the link. Could someone point me to it.
Thanks much
Rich
**************************************************************
This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender immediately by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies. You are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on
it, is strictly prohibited.
TIAA-CREF
**************************************************************
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you want to drive it on the road in Australia, you've got to have a
mechanical disconnect switch within reach of the driver.
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Rice
> Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 2:20 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Motor control for direct drive setup
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Motor control for direct drive setup
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chris Robison"
> >
> > . If you don't have a way to disconnect
> > > power, as others have said it's possible that your brakes
> will fail to
> > > match the motor's torque and you may run into
> something/someone before
> > > your fuse blows.
> > >
> > I can remember thinking one time " my this car has good
> pick up even with
> me
> > pushing as hard as I can on the brakes ) .
> >
> And STANDING on the brakes to ease it into a telephone
> pole to STOP it
> and amid tire smoke trying and disconnecting the nearest
> power cable! Wow!
> What A fireball when I did! Don't try this at home!
> A positive" Scram" system was in place on the next flight!A
> Big ass knife
> switch at the end of a hunk of closeline to the cab!
>
> Seeya
>
> Bob
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:08:44 -0800 (PST), keith vansickle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What are the absolute highest limits (volts amps) for
>the E-tec with an alltrax 7245
>anyone with firsthand experiance???
I called and asked. 90 volt max peak, not to exceed ever.
John
>
>
>--- mreish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Peter Ohler wrote the EVDash program for palm
>> pilots, but that is
>> >for an ELink meter ( http://www.ohler.com ) The
>> last post I saw
>> >about the Alltrax was when someone listed the basic
>> logging
>> >protocols for anyone interested to use. I haven't
>> heard anything
>> >since...?
>>
>> This has been a topic of conversation of late on the
>> EM list. See
>> below for links.
>>
>> --
>>
>> The Electric Motorcycle Portal
>> http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/
>>
>> Electric Motorcycle Listserv
>> http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/listserv
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.-Ralph Waldo Emerson
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rodney A wrote:
Actually, the Nissan Murana also has CVT.
Not really sure how it works, but the engine is a 3.5-liter VQ35 V-6
engine and produces 245 horsepower and 246 pound-feet of torque
Cheers
Rod
It's evidently just a bigger, much tougher version of the CVTs found in
most scooters... I guess materials technology has come a long way since
the 90s!
Here is a description of how it works:
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/NissanMurano/ I guess it's actually
an Audi designed transmission. Go fig.
--
Stefan T. Peters
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
to those familar with the E-Tec motor
I am building a motor cycle with an e-tec and would
like to know how far I can reasonably push it. The
bike and rider will have a weight of 650 lbs. I am
planing a 72v system with an alltrax 7245 controller,
giving me the possibility of going 450 amps at 72 v
for accelleration and crusing at somewhat less than
200 amps.
Has anyone tried these with the e-tec?
Do you think it will hold together?
Can it be reinforced in some fashion to take these
extra stresses?
any info would be appreciated
thanks
keith
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>>You mean by using a larger pulley/sprocket on one of the motors? And
>>power one motor, then the other one sequentially as you increase in
>>speed...?
Remembering that I probably don't understand what I'm talking about, but I
was not thinking of any pulley/sprocket. The two motors share a single
shaft, which one or the other turns. The shaft is connected to a
differential with a 5:1 or so reduction. One motor is designed to provide
lots of torque. The other motor is designed for RPMs.
At startup, you supply electricity to the high-torque motor. Then at some
point, switch to the high RPM motor.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
Speaking (typing?) very generally...
An ICE is only really useful in the 2000 to 4000 rpm range.
Below that it has too little power, and above that it is too noisy and
life is reduced.
(yeah, I know, I'm speaking very generally)
Anyway, that's why ICE cars have multi-gear gearboxes - to make that
limited rev range available at any speed from starting to highway
speeds.
(we'll skip the going backwards bit for this discussion)
So, a CVT gives you an "infinitely" variable range from starting gear to
highway gear, meaning that the ICE can sit on it's even narrower "sweet
spot" rpm to give it the best efficiency and economy.
An equivalent sized electric motor has useful power from 0 to 6000 rpm.
(remember, I'm generalising)
With the right sized parts, you can run from starting right up to
highway speeds in the one gear.
With less than optimal parts, you might need a low gear and a high gear,
but that's about it.
What you do need in an EV is efficiency since our "fuel tanks" are
relatively much smaller than the ICE equivalent with respect to range.
CVTs have more losses than a manual gearbox (and much less than direct
connect), so the advantage of running the motor at its most efficient
rpm is lost.
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Seth Rothenberg
> Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 4:19 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: CVT transmission for EV - long
>
>
> > Has ANYONE used the CVT transmission out of the Mini or any
> other for that
> > matter? This looks ideal for my smart car and would make
> the little woman
> > more likely to use the car. So if anyone knows anything
> good or bad about
> > this trans please reply on list.
>
> Related to this, I would like to hear if anyone knows what
> happened to a transmission I saw presented in
> Popular {Mechanics|Science} twenty-odd years ago.
> I recall that there were two cones back-to-back,
> and they were held so the axis was tilted but
> the opposing sides of the cones were horizontal.
>
> The funny thing is, I can't recall precisecly
> how they transferred power - I can think of
> two ways to do it...
> a) by bolting them together and varying where
> on the side of the cone the input is delivered
> (and output is one conelength away, on the sister cone)
> OR
> b) they are not connected, just on a common axis.
> The input would turn one cone, a cylindrical
> widget would surround both, contacting opposing
> edges of the two cones, thus transmitting and "gearing",
> and the second cone would drive the output.
>
> The second method, with the cylinder rings a bell, but
> the not-connected axle does not. I think it actually
> was two rings connected by a framework, not a whole cylinder.
>
>
> Also, another CVT idea....
> The wikipedia for CVT has a link to Anderson CVT.
> They use a belt to do the gearing/transfer mentioned,
> from the narrow of one cone to the wide of the other.
>
> There's a big thing about durability of belts.
>
>
> I had this idea, do you think it is nuts?
> What if you had the two cones, facing each other,
> side-by-side...one is input, the other output, and
> the transmission is just a rubber wheel that is
> jammed between them...position right-or-left to
> change ratio. i.e. the space between the
> Input surface and the output surface is constant
> from the (narrow input/wide output) to the
> (wide input/narrow output) side.
>
> The problem is wear....
>
> but it seems to me that this is such a simple
> design, it may be possible to simply stipulate
> that the ball has to be changed every X miles.
> The only issue is if that X will be in hundreds or
> thousands or....
>
> Is that nuts - or is it nuts and bolts and axles, etc.?
>
> Also, there are a couple ways to deal with this wear issue
> to extend the time of required maintenance.
> Anyone want to help?
> (of course, I might need to figure out if any patents
> will apply...)
>
> Thanks
> Seth
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bill Dennis wrote:
You mean by using a larger pulley/sprocket on one of the motors? And
power one motor, then the other one sequentially as you increase in
speed...?
Remembering that I probably don't understand what I'm talking about, but I
was not thinking of any pulley/sprocket. The two motors share a single
shaft, which one or the other turns. The shaft is connected to a
differential with a 5:1 or so reduction. One motor is designed to provide
lots of torque. The other motor is designed for RPMs.
At startup, you supply electricity to the high-torque motor. Then at some
point, switch to the high RPM motor.
Bill Dennis
I see. I thought all electric motors made great torque at low speed,
even the ones designed for high RPM? I'm missing something here. :(
/ /
--
Stefan T. Peters
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
FYI, just an update...
The domain (evforge.net) has been registered, the IP has been allocated
(67.137.159.199), and the appropriate legalese has been given to a
representative of the *Seattle Electric Vehicle Association*. There is
initially space allocated for 50 personal project websites @ 100MB limit
each, and the main resource site has 500MB set aside for it, with future
space already installed for waaay more. Lightning Ryan will be the
webmaster, the call is still out for more moderators (make sure
everything stays nice and clean & legal), and at least one secondary DNS
is needed. Just email Me or Ryan (offlist, please) with your server info
if you would like to help with DNS. The EVForge server is just about
there, have been a few "redos", but the final result is much better then
I had originally hoped.
Please realize that this represents literally thousands of dollars and
dozens of long hours just to get this far. I'm not half-assing anything
here, as I firmly believe in this service, and how much it can
potentially help the community. The server is set to run completely
stand-alone, with all firewall, Web, Email, DNS, backups, and everything
else provided inside the case. This is important, as things may change
in the future, and this way the EAA can relocate the server wherever it
may need to at any time with little difficulty.
I know many have been banting back and forth about the merits of
"open-source" or whatnot. I think the term "open-source" is simply being
used as a buzzword in this situation. I'm just trying to provide a free,
well made "community center" for ppl that convert and experiment with EV
vehicles. Hopefully then it won't be so fragmented and we can start
moving toward what the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) and the
"other" EAA (the Experimental Aircraft Association) have.
--
Stefan T. Peters
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
No, probably I'm the one who's missing something, like a full understanding
of motors and the direct drive problem.
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stefan T. Peters
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 11:45 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Setting up a Direct Drive
Bill Dennis wrote:
>>> You mean by using a larger pulley/sprocket on one of the motors? And
>>> power one motor, then the other one sequentially as you increase in
>>> speed...?
>>>
>
> Remembering that I probably don't understand what I'm talking about, but I
> was not thinking of any pulley/sprocket. The two motors share a single
> shaft, which one or the other turns. The shaft is connected to a
> differential with a 5:1 or so reduction. One motor is designed to provide
> lots of torque. The other motor is designed for RPMs.
>
> At startup, you supply electricity to the high-torque motor. Then at some
> point, switch to the high RPM motor.
>
> Bill Dennis
>
>
I see. I thought all electric motors made great torque at low speed,
even the ones designed for high RPM? I'm missing something here. :(
/ /
--
Stefan T. Peters
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all.
I have been searching google and the net in general to answer my
question and came across this list. Hopefully, someone can help me.
I was intending to build an EV for my small farm. Purpose built and for
certain tasks I have in mind. What I am trying to find out is what or
how much horsepower is needed at the wheels? What I mean is if I use say
a 2 hp motor and it goes through a 10:1 gear box or whatever, how do I
know what it will be capable of. Or in another way, I way 130kgs, I want
to tow say 100kgs, the car itself ways whatever kgs, how do I calculate
the required horsepower (at the wheels) required to move it etc?
Hope you all find it an interesting question and can provide a few
ideas.
Alternatively, I would love to hear from people on or off list (which
ever is more appropiate) with the horspower they have at the drive
wheels and what weight etc they can move?
Many thanks, Peter
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes split it but the designs I have seen including my Lehar cart all have
the batteries under the driver & in front of the axle. Common sense says
put some behind the axle on a three wheeler. 72vdc is a good voltage for a
Cushman. I've seen others with 12 golfcart batteries. LR.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:41 AM
Subject: Cushman's available & stability question
Hi from snowy VA,
I'm heading up to NY Long Island this week-end to pick up a 01' Cushman
3-wheel meter maid to convert to the ZEV 99' (direct drive no tranny)
version that Cushman made some for the EVS-14 Orlando show & get an
*honest* 40 MPC. Anyway Jonathan Guzzardo at (631)-291-7391said to call
him if anyone wants another one. He has a 2000 model for about $2k with a
blown engine. These are from the NYC Wednesday's auto auction where the
cops sell about 8 of these every two weeks while transitioning to Westward
Industries "GO-4".
Usually the tranny's are worn but in a 72v ZEV model Cushman direct drove
the rear differential with a 7" GE motor & control which has also used an
ADC 7" motor & Curtis control for 40mph speed. Field weakening gets it to
45mph with 12ea 6V floodees mounted 5" off the road just in front of the
rear axle on the ZEV version (I have a photo of the batts). I met a guy
at the Vancouver show that said it was better to put 4 batteries behind
the rear axle for handling & stability (falling over) but I don't know.
He made a small truck and had 4 mounted behind the rear axle & 8 mounted
in front of the rear axle. Does anyone know or had handling experience
for vehicle stability, is Cushman right or is it better to put 4 behind
the rear axle?
Thanks, Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Gross vehicle weight of the truck is ~ 2085#
I 'm looking at ~ 800# battery pack.
With a standard setup, I'm figuring it will weigh in at ~ 2850#.
Without transmission/clutch/bell housing should be no more than ~ 2700#
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Shanab [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:50 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: RE: Motor control for direct drive setup
it seems about right.
26" = 26/12 or 2.166feet * PI = 6.8 feet per tire revolution.
5280 ft/mile / 6.8feet = 776.47 Rotations/mile * 4.875 = 3785 motor
rotations.
If we cover the mile in 1 minute then 3785rpm = 60mph (63rpm/mph)
3970 rpm = 63mph and 4000 = 63.5mph
The other side of the coin
lets say truck weights 3500 lbs
motor puts out 400lb.ft at x amps
400*4.875 = 1950 lb.ft /1.08ft =1805 lb force 1805/3500 = .516G launch
(corvette is .625) if you had a high enough voltage pack and could stay at
current limit of x amps
60miles/hr x 5280ft/mile x 1/3600 hr/sec = 88 feet/sec V = V0 + at
//equation of motion for constant acceleration
88 = 0 + .516(32)t ==> t = 88/(32*.5) = 5.5 seconds (0-60 time)
//32ft/sec is "G" in the correct units
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:35 AM 15/12/05 -0700, Bill Dennis wrote:
I've been thinking about John Wayland's Siamese setup, and I was wondering
if it would work to couple two motors together that way, but to be used not
together, but rather independently. One motor would have good low-end
starting torque, and the other would have good high RPM capability for
speed. So one motor would be your low gear, and the other would be your
high gear. The motor that was on would have to spin the unused armature of
the motor that was off, but that seems like it would be a negligible amount
of power lost.
Hi Bill
Two motors of the same basic type, talking DC motors here. Are you thinking
along these lines?
Motors ganged together like the old Zombie setup, but one motor has a high
number of field turns, for high field strength and high torque but low peak
RPMs, the other has a weaker field allowing high RPMs. De-power the
high-torque one to stop it trying to be a generator once its' RPM limit is
reached. Since it is the same type as the other it can handle the higher
RPMs without getting thrown apart.
Better to have specially wound fields and tap-out some of the turns on both
motors to have high torque/low RPM from both motors, then *clunk* lower
torque high RPMs. Ex-forklift contactors could do this OK, as long as you
didn't try and switch whilst power is on, since the voltage is only that
across the field winding (maybe 10% of the motor volts).
Or similarly, series/paralell the fields in the motors (a thought just
before I clicked "send").
Just throwing ideas into the pot.
James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Your question is missing some important parameters. We need to know not
only how much weight you want to pull, but how fast you want to pull it
and with what kind of resistance. Are you pulling it on a trailer with
decent wheels over well-maintained roads or trails, or are you pulling it
on skids across uneven ground? How much do you care about acceleration?
What about hills?
Power (the subject of your question) can be seen to comprise two
components -- a force (pounds, Volts, PSI, etc), and a speed or rate at
which that force is applied (ft/sec, Amps, CFM, etc). For example, for
about $40 I bought a winch at Harbor Freight that runs on a small, wimpy
12V motor. It can generate an enormous amount of force -- we used it to
slide a palette weighing several hundred pounds up a pair of wooden ramps
into the back of a pickup truck. But, it took forever, moving at maybe a
quarter inch per second under load. What small amount of mechanical power
the motor could generate was geared to heavily augment torque at the
expense of speed.
So, to pull 500kgs, you can do it with a 1/15th horsepower motor, but
you'll be moving it very slowly.
Maybe it would help to describe the load, and where you'll be carrying it?
--chris
On Thu, December 15, 2005 1:37 pm, Peter May said:
> Hi all.
>
> I have been searching google and the net in general to answer my
> question and came across this list. Hopefully, someone can help me.
>
> I was intending to build an EV for my small farm. Purpose built and for
> certain tasks I have in mind. What I am trying to find out is what or
> how much horsepower is needed at the wheels? What I mean is if I use say
> a 2 hp motor and it goes through a 10:1 gear box or whatever, how do I
> know what it will be capable of. Or in another way, I way 130kgs, I want
> to tow say 100kgs, the car itself ways whatever kgs, how do I calculate
> the required horsepower (at the wheels) required to move it etc?
>
> Hope you all find it an interesting question and can provide a few
> ideas.
>
> Alternatively, I would love to hear from people on or off list (which
> ever is more appropiate) with the horspower they have at the drive
> wheels and what weight etc they can move?
>
> Many thanks, Peter
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Folks,
Maybe I missed something that came across the list earlier, but I just
got an update from Myers Motors. They've announced a pricing structure
for the NmG that's sounds more affordable than what I've seen in the
past.
Here's the deal...
Under the program, Myers Motors offers the NmG at three pricing levels:
$24,900! Brand New Vehicle with less than 300 miles (Myers Motors
drives the vehicle's initial miles, ensuring every NmG starts off with
a balanced battery pack that has been properly broken in for longer
life and better performance).
$22,500! New vehicle with "ambassador agreement." Buyers purchasing an
NmG at this very attractive price agree to help spread the valuable
Myers Motors message by:
- Allowing 3-inch high "MyersMotors.com" lettering on both sides of the
vehicle for one year.
- Handing literature to the many people who will approach them with
questions and comments about their vehicle.
- Being a host for three events in their city by allowing their vehicle
to be available for test rides and demonstrations.
- Providing feedback to Myers Motors on how it can help power the
electric vehicle transformation, our country needs. This feedback will
include comments on vehicle performance, people's reactions, or the
names of people and companies interested in owning an NmG.
$19,900! Evaluation vehicles (3) with less than 3000 miles each.
Vehicles have been upgraded to brand new specifications, with some
battery wear.
$18,900! Pre-owned vehicles (2) with less than 4000 miles on them.
Vehicles have been upgraded to brand new specifications, with some
battery wear.
See the complete story on my website.
Best regards,
-Dave Stensland
Megawatt Motorworks, Inc.
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I don't know about Nissan's CVT but the one in the Subaru Justy was
considered a problem unit - too many repairs.
Dave
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Stefan T. Peters wrote:
Bill Dennis wrote:
I've been thinking about John Wayland's Siamese setup, and I was
wondering
if it would work to couple two motors together that way, but to be
used not
together, but rather independently. One motor would have good low-end
starting torque, and the other would have good high RPM capability for
speed. So one motor would be your low gear, and the other would be your
high gear. The motor that was on would have to spin the unused
armature of
the motor that was off, but that seems like it would be a negligible
amount
of power lost.
Someone suggested this as DC/AC system once before. Use series DC for
its great starting torque, then switch to AC for its higher efficiency/
top RPM. You would need some way to decouple the DC motor from the
driveline to avoid overreving it. The added complexity of two different
drive system is probably not worth the gains, but it might be fun to
build for an exotic project.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just answered an email from someone who is looking forward to creating a
project page @ EVForge.net. I figured it's info anyone who is interested
could use, so here is the response:
The bandwidth for the server is currently set at 512Kb. It is using HFSC
(hierarchical fair share curve) based traffic shaping. This is fancy
talk for every type of service (DNS, web, ftp, email) is given a minimum
amount of the total bandwidth, but each one can potentially use almost
all of it depending on how busy it is compared with the others. So each
service will "act" like it has up to 512Kb of bandwidth. This will make
the Web pages quite snappy. No connections are refused or dropped to
accomplish this, individual packets are delayed/reordered instead (the
traffic shaping part). This is called a "graceful degradation of
service", and no public hosting companies are currently using it AFAIK.
It *is* used by virtually all major online retailers, to guarantee
"quality of service" for their potential customers.
The *available* bandwith is actually around 3Mb/s, but given that that
is costing us just over $200/Mb a month (wholesale), we want to be sure
this "catches on" before dedicating any more to this particular server.
To put it in perspective, 512Kb/s dedicated bandwidth is up to 4.3GB of
data transferred every 24 hours, or 130 billion bytes a month, or over
12 million page views a month. Should be plenty ;)
This is designed to provide a "SourceForge" level (or better) of service
for EV experimenters. The only limit on each users' site is storage
space, not activity. I will be talking with Ryan and coming up with a
prelim set of terms, then they will be posted on the forum and open to
comment till after the holidays. The main site (evforge.net) will
definitely be up before christmas (hopefully next week), and the initial
content will be a forum, a resource (aka links) directory, a file
collection (PDFs and what not), a picture gallery, and an article
collection. These will all be user contribute-able and all will have a
comment area.
We will then see how it goes. We are hoping to have the project hosting
signup and review procedures done and running by early January. Kinda
depends on the feedback in the forums. Every step of the process/rule of
the system will be open for discussion and decided by the users. We
(admin/moderators) are just here to serve.
--
Stefan T. Peters
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I few months ago, I did an extensive search of the archive searching for info
on the GE EV-1 controller. I was trying to determine if the 48 V controller
could be modified to run at 84 V. I successfully figured that out (change the
card to the latest revision and it is ready to go). I have also done this in
the past successfully.
In my search I came across a post - don't remember what year or by who. It
was about modifying the EV-1 controller for higher current. Maybe putting in a
second SCR. Really I have no idea how the modification was done, but I know
I recently found the info in the archive. Problem is, now I can't find it.
Does anyone know who made that post, designed the controller mods, or know any
information about this type of controller upgrade?
I have an EV-1B at 84V, but I would like to increase the current capability.
I can get a second complete unit very inexpensively (about $50), but I don't
know how to combine them - what parts to change - to double the current
capacity. I'm looking to produce an 84 V, 600 A controller from the parts in
those
two EV-1B controllers. Can you help?
Thanks,
Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi John, Keith and All,
Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:08:44 -0800
(PST), keith vansickle
wrote:
>
>What are the absolute highest limits (volts amps) for
>the E-tec with an alltrax 7245
>anyone with firsthand experiance???
I called and asked. 90 volt max peak, not to exceed ever.
I believe John is talking about the Altrax.
You sould keep the E tek within it's rating of 330 max amps and
150 cont amps and 48vdc cont. Though you may for a short time bring the voltage
higher to force more amps at top rpm, I don't reccomend it.
So you can get by with a much less expensive controller at 48vdc
if you are not racing.
For commuting stick within the motors specs if you want long life.
You can get away with over amping a series motor but PM's are not
as forgiving having burned up my E tek. Yet I replaced it with a series motor
of 1/3 it's rating and it's still doing fine for several yrs since..
Stefan, series motors have much more torque, about 3x's, than any
other type including Shunt, PM, BLDC and AC and the only way to go, especially
if you want direct drive without very high costs. You can make the other work
by throwing money at it.
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
John
>
>
>--- mreish wrote:
>
>> >Peter Ohler wrote the EVDash program for palm
>> pilots, but that is
>> >for an ELink meter ( http://www.ohler.com ) The
>> last post I saw
>> >about the Alltrax was when someone listed the basic
>> logging
>> >protocols for anyone interested to use. I haven't
>> heard anything
>> >since...?
>>
>> This has been a topic of conversation of late on the
>> EM list. See
>> below for links.
>>
>> --
>>
>> The Electric Motorcycle Portal
>> http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/
>>
>> Electric Motorcycle Listserv
>> http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/listserv
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
--- End Message ---
