EV Digest 5005
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Link 10 question
by TiM M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Power brake vacuum assist
by "jmygann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Generating line power from cars
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Performance Discrepancies / Questions
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5) Re: Failure Modes (was Re: Motor control for direct drive
setup)
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6) Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Link 10 question
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: MG,
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Clutchless shift with rpm-matching?
by Osmo Sarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Clutchless shift with rpm-matching?
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13) Re: Clutchless shift with rpm-matching?
by Osmo Sarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) generator to power TAL inductive charger?
by "Charles Whalen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: fast charging over 100 amps
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Failure Modes (was Re: Motor control for direct drive setup)
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) fast charging at 100 amps
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) re fast charging over 100amps
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
It seems my E-meter has decided each % is equal to
1.3AH, every 10% I use it shows I'm down 13AH. My
batteries, US 145 are 244AH and that's what I set the
e-meter to. Shouldn't that work out to 2.4AH per
percent?
TiM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What Motor / Controller / Voltage are you going with ??
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Jim,
> I'm doing a Metro conversion, too, and since the car won't weigh
much more
> as an EV than it did as an ICE, I actually got rid of the power
booster
> altogether and replaced the master cylinder with a non-power brake
cylinder
> from a 1987 Honda Civic. Before removing the ICE, I drove the car
around
> for a few weeks with the new, non-power brakes, and had no
problems.
>
> There were two additional parts required: 1) a brake line
splitter, since
> the Metro's cylinder has three brake lines attached to it but the
Civic's
> has only two--the splitter is available from most any Toyota. I
got mine
> from a 4Runner; 2) I also had to grind a new push rod from an M6
100mm bolt
> to fit into the clevis.
>
> Bill Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of jim
> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Power brake vacuum assist
>
> Newbie with Metro conversion ... Any options for the power
brakes ?
>
> Has anyone tried this ...
> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/5565/powrbrak.html
>
> Can another master cylinder be used without vacuum assist ? An
older VW
> does not use vacuum assist
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
One win-win counterpoint: If the devices were placed at the bottom of
hills, or only worked while the light was red, and lay flush to the
road otherwise, it would be a form of regen. You would theoretically
save a bit of money on each stop (I'd estimate 0.001 cents each stop!
:) ) by the lessened brake wear.
--- Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> I can just imagine the can 'o worms this will open up with the
> lawyers
> and pundits. That thing takes a little bit of power from each car
> and
> therefore takes a bit of money. At what point does purchased
> energy
> enter the public domain, free to be harvested by anyone? Or does
> it
> at all? If the government can do it then why not private citizens?
> Why not a ramp every 10 ft at the mall to generate power for the
> overhead lights? Do I have the right to choose where my energy is
> dissipated? How 'bout the additional wear this thing will cause to
> car's suspensions? (Amateur pundits will cite speed bumps. Not the
> same. The speed bump is there to perform a legitimate traffic
> control
> purpose and does it with minimal invasive effects. This thing is
> there to "steal" energy from passers by, not a legitimate traffic
> control goal.)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It looks like the technology
is there, it has been proven (at least by the Rav4's example). And, we don't
have to use a $40,000+ battery pack (I don't think). How much would it really
cost to build one of these?
Well you won't have to spend $40,000+ for the Rav4 batteries but still too
much, more like $24,000
from Toyota at $1000 per module without a bms.
Toyota is probably the only company that has some of these batteries.
And, I am still not convinced that typical people with 144 V lead acid cars
are getting more than 10,000 miles out of
a pack. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I think quite a few are getting more than 10,000 miles. I've seen posts
about packs lasting 15,000 to
20,000. I bought my rabbit pickup in 2001 with a two month old pack of
T105s and am in the process
of swapping out the pack at a little over 20,000 miles. Just following the
advice of the experts on this
list about battery care really helps keep a beginner from murdering a pack.
George S.
Rav4EV
Rabbit pickup
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I always thought that the main failure mode happened when you were pushing
the throttle.
Can the controller fail full on when your just stopped and have your foot
off the throttle?
George S.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 2 zillas and the
power to feed them from the lithium pack the 4700lb chevy with all the good
suspension work should run 8.64 seconds in the qt.mi. at 157mph.I would not
expect this in your 1st run out but after 5-8 passes. These #s come from the VERY
predicitable Speedworld horsepower calc. on their site, but do not include my
multipiler. With that multiplier in the equa.you will run 8.48 in the qt.mi.
What a difference a little NITRO makes!!!! Dennis Berube
Whoa, Dennis' ET predictions for the Monster Garage project Chevy sure
seem 'optimistic'! I respect Dennis, he's a great competitor, a friend,
and quite a character, too! He's still the top dog as far as having the
quickest electric ET, too. However, as excited I am about the rad one
week conversion that friends Rudman and Lawless did, these guys, the
ones that helped build the thing, both feel low to mid 13's are more
realistic, certainly not 12's....it's too heavy and there's just not
enough raw power to get the job done.
To investigate Dennis' predictions, I've done some research of my own,
and offer the findings as balance to what I feel is a wild prediction of
performance I personally, don't think is even close to being
correct...no offense is intended. I have tried very hard to keep past
predictions of performance as accurate as possible, whether it's my own
car, or someone else's. As an example, when Matt Graham first contacted
me more than a year ago about his proposed twin motor electric Nissan
240SX, I predicted it would run easy 14's, and that it could get into
the 13s'....he ran a 14.2 first time out. I've been pretty much right on
the mark with my car all along, too.
OK, here we go.....I plugged in a known performance spec list from my
own White Zombie, at three different 1/4 calculator sites. The first
one, Simple Horsepower Calculator, is at:
http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(2) 1/4 Mile ET
(3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
I entered my accurate data of 12.151 for the ET and 106.25 for the mph,
and my estimated data of 2550 lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb.
driver) weight. Historically, I've been within 50 lbs. on my electric
conversion weights. The calculator came up with this:
(1) Based on the ET, 281 hp
(2) Based on the mph, 239 hp
Since drag racing EVs typically have a lower top end speed as does a
gasser running the same ET, I tend to lean toward the mph based hp levels.
The second site, Horsepower Calculator, is at:
http://www.s-series.org/htm/calc/hpcalc.htm
This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Known 1/4 mile ET
(2) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(3) 1/4 Mile MPH
(4) 60 ft. Time
Note that this site adds a box for the 60 ft. time, which I feel really
improves the accuracy.
I entered the same accurate data of 12.151 for the ET, 106.25 for the
mph, and added 1.59 for a 60 ft. time, plus the estimated data of 2550
lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb. driver) weight. The calculator
came up with this:
(1) RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) from entered ET of 280.93 hp
(2) RWHP from MPH of 238.71 hp
(4) Break hp from ET of 337.116 hp
(5) Break hp from MPH of 286.452 hp
The third calculator site, National Driveline, is at:
http://www.nationaldrivetrain.com/calcs/dragcalc.html
This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(2) Vehicle hp
(3) RPM through the finish line
(4) Tire diameter
I used the same 2550 lbs. vehicle weight, and since the 239 hp from the
first site and the 238.71 hp that the second site were pretty much
identical, I rounded it to 240 hp, 6900 rpm from our tach data and
calculations using the rear end ratio and tire diameter, and 24 inches
as the current diameter of the Goodyear Drag Radials (before we burned
them down, these were actually 24.3 inch tires). The third performance
calculator came up with this:
(1) 1/4 Mile ET of 12.23
(2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 106.52 mph
(3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 4.63
(4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7.79 seconds
This data is surprisingly accurate. Compare the results to what the car
actually did:
Predicted ET of 12.23....actual ET of 12.151
Predicted top end speed of 106.52 mph....actual top end speed of 106.25 mph
Suggested ideal gear ratio of 4.63....actual gear ratio is 4:57
Predicted 1/8 mile ET of 7.79 seconds....actual ET of 7.602 mph
OK, now that I've demonstrated how accurate the three sites are with a
known vehicle's performance, let's now use the first site, Simple
Horsepower Calculator, the one that seems to have nailed my car's hp
pretty darn well, and see how Dennis' predictions of 8.48 seconds and
157 mph come out:
Again, this site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(2) 1/4 Mile ET
(3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb. estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb.
driver) and Dennis' 8.48 ET and the 157 mpg figures. The calculator came
up with these outrageous results:
(1) Based on the ET, 1588 hp!!
(2) Based on the mph, 1480 hp!!
I'm told the Chevy's incredible battery pack can deliver 3800 amps at
around 170 volts, or a whopping 646 kw!
Now, though that's a huge amount of delivered power, in the real world
of DC motors at BIG amps, a best case scenario is figuring 75%
efficiency, so for every hp generated (746 watts) the motors will
actually suck 1000 watts....this comes in at 646 hp, tops.
OK Dennis, where do you come up with at the least, 1480 hp? Where do you
get 157 mph? Where on earth, do you get 8.48 seconds?
At the National Drivetrain site, I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb.
estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb. driver) and the more realistic 646
hp figure, plus 5000 rpm and 26 inch tires. The calculator came up with
these results:
(1) 1/4 Mile ET of 10.98
(2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 119.18 mph
(3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 3.25
(4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7 seconds
Note, that if I'm off on the rpm or the tire size, it still doesn't
change the ET or the MPH figures. Of course, a scorching 10.98 would
make us all proud! However, an 11 second ET is a far cry from a
predicted 8.48 seconds! Likewise, the 119 mph is a far cry from the
predicted 157 mph! If the battery pack can't actually deliver the full
3800 amps, or if at that level the voltage falls below 170, or if both
are on the optimistic side of things, then the actual horsepower will be
less. With 3600 amps from twin Zilla 1800 amp controllers and keeping
the pack sag to 170 volts, it comes in at 612 kw, and the car would run
an 11.17 @ 117 mph. Still killer, but approaching 3 seconds slower and a
full 40 mph shy of Dennis' predictions.
Dennis, care to correct me on any of this? Did you slip up with your
figures, or were you merely using Neutrino logic and cold fusion
calculations here?
See Ya.....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Assuming the batteries can max out the controllers:
<http://www.cafeelectric.com> says a zilla can do 640 kW. 2 Zillas
would give 1.28 MW (as in MegaWatts!).
Converting 1.28 MW to hp gives 1700 hp. With around 20% motor and 15%
driveline loss, that is still about 1200 rwhp.
Can the batteries do it? 1.28 MW for batteries with 1.5 kW/kg would
give about 1800 lbs of batteries, with 2800 lbs for the
glider+motors+controllers. That's within the realm of possibility.
So I don't know what exactly was done, if the batteries were maxed
out, etc, but theoretically it is fun to dream!
I'd propose we do a fun guess pool like before. Berube says 8's,
Wayland says 13's. I'll do some of my own calculations and tender a
guess, too. May the best bench racer win! :)
--- John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello to All,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >With 2 zillas and the
> >power to feed them from the lithium pack the 4700lb chevy with all
> the good
> >suspension work should run 8.64 seconds in the qt.mi. at 157mph.I
> would not
> >expect this in your 1st run out but after 5-8 passes. These #s
> come from the VERY
> >predicitable Speedworld horsepower calc. on their site, but do not
> include my
> >multipiler. With that multiplier in the equa.you will run 8.48 in
> the qt.mi.
> >What a difference a little NITRO makes!!!! Dennis Berube
> >
> >
>
> Whoa, Dennis' ET predictions for the Monster Garage project Chevy
> sure
> seem 'optimistic'! I respect Dennis, he's a great competitor, a
> friend,
> and quite a character, too! He's still the top dog as far as having
> the
> quickest electric ET, too. However, as excited I am about the rad
> one
> week conversion that friends Rudman and Lawless did, these guys,
> the
> ones that helped build the thing, both feel low to mid 13's are
> more
> realistic, certainly not 12's....it's too heavy and there's just
> not
> enough raw power to get the job done.
>
> To investigate Dennis' predictions, I've done some research of my
> own,
> and offer the findings as balance to what I feel is a wild
> prediction of
> performance I personally, don't think is even close to being
> correct...no offense is intended. I have tried very hard to keep
> past
> predictions of performance as accurate as possible, whether it's my
> own
> car, or someone else's. As an example, when Matt Graham first
> contacted
> me more than a year ago about his proposed twin motor electric
> Nissan
> 240SX, I predicted it would run easy 14's, and that it could get
> into
> the 13s'....he ran a 14.2 first time out. I've been pretty much
> right on
> the mark with my car all along, too.
>
> OK, here we go.....I plugged in a known performance spec list from
> my
> own White Zombie, at three different 1/4 calculator sites. The
> first
> one, Simple Horsepower Calculator, is at:
>
> http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
>
> This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (2) 1/4 Mile ET
> (3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
>
> I entered my accurate data of 12.151 for the ET and 106.25 for the
> mph,
> and my estimated data of 2550 lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb.
>
> driver) weight. Historically, I've been within 50 lbs. on my
> electric
> conversion weights. The calculator came up with this:
>
> (1) Based on the ET, 281 hp
> (2) Based on the mph, 239 hp
>
> Since drag racing EVs typically have a lower top end speed as does
> a
> gasser running the same ET, I tend to lean toward the mph based hp
> levels.
>
> The second site, Horsepower Calculator, is at:
>
> http://www.s-series.org/htm/calc/hpcalc.htm
>
> This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Known 1/4 mile ET
> (2) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (3) 1/4 Mile MPH
> (4) 60 ft. Time
>
> Note that this site adds a box for the 60 ft. time, which I feel
> really
> improves the accuracy.
>
> I entered the same accurate data of 12.151 for the ET, 106.25 for
> the
> mph, and added 1.59 for a 60 ft. time, plus the estimated data of
> 2550
> lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb. driver) weight. The
> calculator
> came up with this:
>
> (1) RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) from entered ET of 280.93 hp
> (2) RWHP from MPH of 238.71 hp
> (4) Break hp from ET of 337.116 hp
> (5) Break hp from MPH of 286.452 hp
>
> The third calculator site, National Driveline, is at:
>
> http://www.nationaldrivetrain.com/calcs/dragcalc.html
>
> This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (2) Vehicle hp
> (3) RPM through the finish line
> (4) Tire diameter
>
> I used the same 2550 lbs. vehicle weight, and since the 239 hp from
> the
> first site and the 238.71 hp that the second site were pretty much
> identical, I rounded it to 240 hp, 6900 rpm from our tach data and
> calculations using the rear end ratio and tire diameter, and 24
> inches
> as the current diameter of the Goodyear Drag Radials (before we
> burned
> them down, these were actually 24.3 inch tires). The third
> performance
> calculator came up with this:
>
> (1) 1/4 Mile ET of 12.23
> (2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 106.52 mph
> (3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 4.63
> (4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7.79 seconds
>
> This data is surprisingly accurate. Compare the results to what the
> car
> actually did:
>
> Predicted ET of 12.23....actual ET of 12.151
> Predicted top end speed of 106.52 mph....actual top end speed of
> 106.25 mph
> Suggested ideal gear ratio of 4.63....actual gear ratio is 4:57
> Predicted 1/8 mile ET of 7.79 seconds....actual ET of 7.602 mph
>
> OK, now that I've demonstrated how accurate the three sites are
> with a
> known vehicle's performance, let's now use the first site, Simple
> Horsepower Calculator, the one that seems to have nailed my car's
> hp
> pretty darn well, and see how Dennis' predictions of 8.48 seconds
> and
> 157 mph come out:
>
> Again, this site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (2) 1/4 Mile ET
> (3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
>
> I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb. estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200
> lb.
> driver) and Dennis' 8.48 ET and the 157 mpg figures. The calculator
> came
> up with these outrageous results:
>
> (1) Based on the ET, 1588 hp!!
> (2) Based on the mph, 1480 hp!!
>
> I'm told the Chevy's incredible battery pack can deliver 3800 amps
> at
> around 170 volts, or a whopping 646 kw!
> Now, though that's a huge amount of delivered power, in the real
> world
> of DC motors at BIG amps, a best case scenario is figuring 75%
> efficiency, so for every hp generated (746 watts) the motors will
> actually suck 1000 watts....this comes in at 646 hp, tops.
>
> OK Dennis, where do you come up with at the least, 1480 hp? Where
> do you
> get 157 mph? Where on earth, do you get 8.48 seconds?
>
> At the National Drivetrain site, I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb.
> estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb. driver) and the more
> realistic 646
> hp figure, plus 5000 rpm and 26 inch tires. The calculator came up
> with
> these results:
>
> (1) 1/4 Mile ET of 10.98
> (2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 119.18 mph
> (3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 3.25
> (4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7 seconds
>
> Note, that if I'm off on the rpm or the tire size, it still doesn't
>
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tim you have to account for the Peukert factor. Your batteries are
rated 244 AH at the 20 hour rate. Most EVs discharge at near the 1
hour rate. The capacity of a lead-acid battery varies depending on
the rate at which it is discharged. Your batteries can deliver 244
AH over 20 hours, and something like 130AH-140AH over one hour. Your
Link 10 should be set to a battery capacity of 244 AH and a PK
exponent of about 1.14. This will automatically correct for the
lower effective capacity at higher discharge currents. There is
information on this in your Link 10 manual starting on page 39.
If you were discharging your batteries at about 12 amps your meter
would report use of about 2.4 AH per percent.
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV List Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)
At 09:17 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
It seems my E-meter has decided each % is equal to
1.3AH, every 10% I use it shows I'm down 13AH. My
batteries, US 145 are 244AH and that's what I set the
e-meter to. Shouldn't that work out to 2.4AH per
percent?
TiM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is ridiculas Dennis...
Low 13 if we get lucky, and don't wind it into a Rusted knot.
These Lion should be in a a much better prepared chassis... as you well know
and dream about.
If the chassis was completely stripped and prepped, and the motors... put
%80 of the electrical to the ground.... maybe 10s.
I like the compliments Dennis, but dropping totally out of sight times on
the list is just about telling lies.
You have no clue to the car's actual wieght and poor state of trim.
Rich Rudman
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: MG,
> Rich and Shawn good job in a very short amount of time.With 2 zillas and
the
> power to feed them from the lithium pack the 4700lb chevy with all the
good
> suspension work should run 8.64 seconds in the qt.mi. at 157mph.I would
not
> expect this in your 1st run out but after 5-8 passes.These #s come from
the VERY
> predicitable Speedworld horsepower calc. on their site,but do not include
my
> multipiler.With that multiplier in the equa.you will run 8.48 in the
qt.mi.
> What a difference a little NITRO makes!!!! Dennis Berube
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
To help to shift on the fly: when the clutch pedal (without a clutch)
or a hand switch is pressed, or gear is shifted to neutral, the
controller would ignore the acc pedal signal and set motor rpm to same
as gearbox rpm. Maybe the speedometer sensor signal could be used to
give the gearbox rpm?
Would it be very complicated construction? Easier in AC or DC system?
Thanks in advance,
Osmo Sarin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm currently doing exactly that (in a new conversion) and new inverters
will have this clutchless shift RPM matching function as standard
feature. Reads tranny shaft rotation speed and immediately sets slip
compensated motor frequency to match as soon as you grip and move shift
stick.
Have no idea how one would adjust frequency (I should say rotation
speed) of a DC motor and make it stable. Using analog throttle
input seem too coarse - how does one set the rotation to, say,
3,548 min^-1 for easy shift if the tranny is going this fast?
One more AC setup advantage :-)
Victor
Osmo Sarin wrote:
To help to shift on the fly: when the clutch pedal (without a clutch) or
a hand switch is pressed, or gear is shifted to neutral, the controller
would ignore the acc pedal signal and set motor rpm to same as gearbox
rpm. Maybe the speedometer sensor signal could be used to give the
gearbox rpm?
Would it be very complicated construction? Easier in AC or DC system?
Thanks in advance,
Osmo Sarin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John,
As I said previously, the packs (as they are configured) are only good
for a peak of 1.2kw each x 384 pcs.= 612 Hp.
To put it another way 3200 amps at 144 volts total. I believe the
cells are capable of more but the configuration we used was never
intended to be punished the way we are treating them. When you see the
show you, and others, will immediately see the weak link in the battery
system. I base my performance numbers on the above figures because I
know them to be attainable, (at least for short bursts).
Assuming I can get the cells for my personal use let's try to get to
Dennis' numbers.
Here's what we know.
384 pc battery pack = 612 peak hp and 1000lbs, (including very heavy
interconnects)
We strip the cells from their heavy casings and replace connections
with more efficient design
Revised battery pack = 612 peak hp and 400 lbs
OJ 2 chassis with 12 Lemco's and no battery or driver = 750lbs
Non beer drinking Driver= 100 lbs
Total GVW = 1250 lbs.
Peak Wheel HP = 460 hp
Now we're getting somewhere.
My calculator shows 8 flat is feasible. If I can keep the brush gear
from melting, the front end on the ground at least once in a while,
etc, etc.....
I think it would take the reactor from the Ronald Reagan Aircraft
Carrier to get this 62 Chevy as it is into the 8's.
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:41:31 -0800
Subject: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
Hello to All,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With 2 zillas and the >power to feed them from the lithium pack the
4700lb chevy with all the good >suspension work should run 8.64 seconds
in the qt.mi. at 157mph.I would not >expect this in your 1st run out
but after 5-8 passes. These #s come from the VERY >predicitable
Speedworld horsepower calc. on their site, but do not include my
>multipiler. With that multiplier in the equa.you will run 8.48 in the
qt.mi. >What a difference a little NITRO makes!!!! Dennis Berube
>
Whoa, Dennis' ET predictions for the Monster Garage project Chevy sure
seem 'optimistic'! I respect Dennis, he's a great competitor, a friend,
and quite a character, too! He's still the top dog as far as having the
quickest electric ET, too. However, as excited I am about the rad one
week conversion that friends Rudman and Lawless did, these guys, the
ones that helped build the thing, both feel low to mid 13's are more
realistic, certainly not 12's....it's too heavy and there's just not
enough raw power to get the job done.
To investigate Dennis' predictions, I've done some research of my own,
and offer the findings as balance to what I feel is a wild prediction
of performance I personally, don't think is even close to being
correct...no offense is intended. I have tried very hard to keep past
predictions of performance as accurate as possible, whether it's my own
car, or someone else's. As an example, when Matt Graham first contacted
me more than a year ago about his proposed twin motor electric Nissan
240SX, I predicted it would run easy 14's, and that it could get into
the 13s'....he ran a 14.2 first time out. I've been pretty much right
on the mark with my car all along, too.
OK, here we go.....I plugged in a known performance spec list from my
own White Zombie, at three different 1/4 calculator sites. The first
one, Simple Horsepower Calculator, is at:
http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(2) 1/4 Mile ET
(3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
I entered my accurate data of 12.151 for the ET and 106.25 for the mph,
and my estimated data of 2550 lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb.
driver) weight. Historically, I've been within 50 lbs. on my electric
conversion weights. The calculator came up with this:
(1) Based on the ET, 281 hp
(2) Based on the mph, 239 hp
Since drag racing EVs typically have a lower top end speed as does a
gasser running the same ET, I tend to lean toward the mph based hp
levels.
The second site, Horsepower Calculator, is at:
http://www.s-series.org/htm/calc/hpcalc.htm
This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Known 1/4 mile ET
(2) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(3) 1/4 Mile MPH
(4) 60 ft. Time
Note that this site adds a box for the 60 ft. time, which I feel really
improves the accuracy.
I entered the same accurate data of 12.151 for the ET, 106.25 for the
mph, and added 1.59 for a 60 ft. time, plus the estimated data of 2550
lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb. driver) weight. The calculator
came up with this:
(1) RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) from entered ET of 280.93 hp
(2) RWHP from MPH of 238.71 hp
(4) Break hp from ET of 337.116 hp
(5) Break hp from MPH of 286.452 hp
The third calculator site, National Driveline, is at:
http://www.nationaldrivetrain.com/calcs/dragcalc.html
This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(2) Vehicle hp
(3) RPM through the finish line
(4) Tire diameter
I used the same 2550 lbs. vehicle weight, and since the 239 hp from the
first site and the 238.71 hp that the second site were pretty much
identical, I rounded it to 240 hp, 6900 rpm from our tach data and
calculations using the rear end ratio and tire diameter, and 24 inches
as the current diameter of the Goodyear Drag Radials (before we burned
them down, these were actually 24.3 inch tires). The third performance
calculator came up with this:
(1) 1/4 Mile ET of 12.23
(2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 106.52 mph
(3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 4.63
(4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7.79 seconds
This data is surprisingly accurate. Compare the results to what the car
actually did:
Predicted ET of 12.23....actual ET of 12.151
Predicted top end speed of 106.52 mph....actual top end speed of 106.25
mph
Suggested ideal gear ratio of 4.63....actual gear ratio is 4:57
Predicted 1/8 mile ET of 7.79 seconds....actual ET of 7.602 mph
OK, now that I've demonstrated how accurate the three sites are with a
known vehicle's performance, let's now use the first site, Simple
Horsepower Calculator, the one that seems to have nailed my car's hp
pretty darn well, and see how Dennis' predictions of 8.48 seconds and
157 mph come out:
Again, this site has open boxes where you can enter data:
(1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
(2) 1/4 Mile ET
(3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb. estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb.
driver) and Dennis' 8.48 ET and the 157 mpg figures. The calculator
came up with these outrageous results:
(1) Based on the ET, 1588 hp!!
(2) Based on the mph, 1480 hp!!
I'm told the Chevy's incredible battery pack can deliver 3800 amps at
around 170 volts, or a whopping 646 kw!
Now, though that's a huge amount of delivered power, in the real world
of DC motors at BIG amps, a best case scenario is figuring 75%
efficiency, so for every hp generated (746 watts) the motors will
actually suck 1000 watts....this comes in at 646 hp, tops.
OK Dennis, where do you come up with at the least, 1480 hp? Where do
you get 157 mph? Where on earth, do you get 8.48 seconds?
At the National Drivetrain site, I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb.
estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb. driver) and the more realistic
646 hp figure, plus 5000 rpm and 26 inch tires. The calculator came up
with these results:
(1) 1/4 Mile ET of 10.98
(2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 119.18 mph
(3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 3.25
(4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7 seconds
Note, that if I'm off on the rpm or the tire size, it still doesn't
change the ET or the MPH figures. Of course, a scorching 10.98 would
make us all proud! However, an 11 second ET is a far cry from a
predicted 8.48 seconds! Likewise, the 119 mph is a far cry from the
predicted 157 mph! If the battery pack can't actually deliver the full
3800 amps, or if at that level the voltage falls below 170, or if both
are on the optimistic side of things, then the actual horsepower will
be less. With 3600 amps from twin Zilla 1800 amp controllers and
keeping the pack sag to 170 volts, it comes in at 612 kw, and the car
would run an 11.17 @ 117 mph. Still killer, but approaching 3 seconds
slower and a full 40 mph shy of Dennis' predictions.
Dennis, care to correct me on any of this? Did you slip up with your
figures, or were you merely using Neutrino logic and cold fusion
calculations here?
See Ya.....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
..I ment matching the motor+gearbox input and the gearbox output rpm´s
of course.
Osmo
19.12.2005 kello 09:03, Osmo Sarin kirjoitti:
To help to shift on the fly: when the clutch pedal (without a clutch)
or a hand switch is pressed, or gear is shifted to neutral, the
controller would ignore the acc pedal signal and set motor rpm to same
as gearbox rpm. Maybe the speedometer sensor signal could be used to
give the gearbox rpm?
Would it be very complicated construction? Easier in AC or DC system?
Thanks in advance,
Osmo Sarin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In the aftermath of hurricane Wilma this fall, our local grid was down for a
week and a half, during which time we had no way to charge our two RAV4-EVs
and had to go back to driving our old Honda Civic, which now only serves as
a standby back-up for just such kinds of emergency needs. Last year the
grid was down for two 1-week periods after hurricanes Francis and Jeanne, so
this has unfortunately become an annual ordeal. I am looking to buy a
portable diesel generator to use for powering a few essential household
circuits (e.g. refrigerator, a few lights, and hopefully even one of our two
19.5-SEER CAC units) plus also for powering the TAL inductive charger
(although when using the TAL, that would be the *only* circuit connnected to
the generator, i.e. everything else would be turned off and disconnected).
The reason I want to use a diesel generator and not a gasoline generator is
two-fold. First, it would allow me to use a renewable fuel -- B100
biodiesel, as opposed to non-renewable gasoline, which is something that we
are purposely trying to move away from and minimize in our lives. Second, I
don't really have any good place to store a large amount of (smelly,
volatile, and dangerous, especially in 95 degree heat) gasoline on my
property for an extended period of 4-6 months, which is how long our
hurricane season runs here. But I can definitely store B100 biodiesel
[which of course is just trans-esterified (i.e. thinned-out) vegetable oil]
in 55-gallon drums inside our air-conditioned garage studio. Two 55-gallon
drums would likely power all of our essential needs for about 8 days or so.
In a quick internet search, I found the following two 6.5kW portable diesel
generators:
(or semi-portable, I guess I should say, as these things weigh around 520
lbs., so I'm not sure how easy they are to push around, even on the wheel
kits that come with them as accessories, which kind of begs the question of
how would I even be able to lift them up and turn them over to install the
wheel kit on them in the first place)
Kubota GL7000
http://generator.kubota.jp/gl/gl_7000_usa.html
Yamaha EDL6500S
www.yamaha-motor.com/outdoor/products/modelhome/452/0/home.aspx
Both of these generators have 4-stroke, 2 cylinder, liquid-cooled diesel
engines, and both have a maximum continuous output rating of 27.1A at 240V.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the TAL draws a continuous 27A. So my
question is: would these generators be able to power the TAL, or would
27.1A not provide enough headroom (at only 0.1A) above the 27A that the TAL
needs to be able to run?
I temporarily ran the TAL off of my 30A dryer circuit without any problems
for the first month that I had it until I got a new 40A, 240V circuit
installed, so I know that as little as 3A is enough headroom for it to run
OK, but 0.1A leaves me wondering and somewhat doubtful. Anyone know?
Or would I need to move up to Kubota's next highest model, which is the 10kW
GL11000 that has a maximum continuous output rating of 41.7A at 240V?
(and is even heavier at 650 lbs!)
http://generator.kubota.jp/gl/gl_11000_usa.html
(Yamaha doesn't have a higher output model above its 6.5kW diesel
generator.)
Does anyone have any experience with either Kubota or Yamaha diesel
generators and/or know anything about their quality and reliability?
Thanks for any advice.
Charles Whalen
Delray Beach, Florida
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "TiM M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: fast charging over 100 amps
Way to go Steve. I'm impressed with what you've
done with your mowers and your truck. Charging at 100
plus amps.. I only whish I had access to something
like that.
Yes with fast charging , I'll never have to sit around and read a book
again :-) .
I thought the video was pretty cool, but would be
even cooler with sound.
Its a different sound , the hi ra a ta ta of the gas engine is gone but now
you can hear allot of other sounds , those hydro transmissions and the
blades still make a bit of noise ,
How about two clips with sound
comparing the gas mower to the electric one.
Hay I got to get ready for the BBB drag races. :-) / ya I need a camera
with sound , yep , that's what I need .
On the clip I didn't even have the motor turned up when I started, 1/2 way
through the pass I reached back and bumped it up . The power is there but
what would you expect with 8" motor and 400 amp Curtis. 96v .
That
would show how you're reducing noise pollution as well.
I have had a few people tell me they didn't know I was there ( ah another
excuse for not paying the yard man)
Steve Clunn
TiM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Viera"
Steve Clunn wrote:
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 ) .
This was one of those first rides and I didn't have everthing hooked up .
The car had a clutch but I didn't use it as I didn't want to blow the motor
. I had a bad pot box set up and it got hooked full on . I didn't have
disconect or a way to trun off the contactor inside the car, .
My Jeep still doesn't have a manual mechanical disconnect in the High
Voltage system, but I do have a clutch. Though I don't consider it a
desirable "emergency disconnect" as blowing up the motor to stop a
controller failure seems a bit drastic.
Right , you don't want to blow the motor . A nice mechanical disconnect is
somthing I haven't seen for sale yet . There is the thing that hooks to a
anderson and pulls the anderson ( probable miss spelled ) plug apart .
Anyways, I'd like to know is if it is reasonable to assume that a
full-on controller failure situation could be stopped safely through the
use of the main contactors (even if it blows the crap out of them)?
The main contactor has always worked for me ( when I could get to it) and
I've have a few crutis's and one zippy that blue full on .
For example, my Jeep has two main contactors, one on the positive side
of the battery pack and controlled by the Zilla (and ultimately the
ignition switch), and another one on the negative side of the battery pack
and controlled by the ignition switch. I've got a Zilla 1K controller and
a 160-volt pack of 8-volt floodeds.
sounds pretty good , for a low voltage systum :-) but if there was a nice
manul disconect for less than $50 it would ad to your piece of mind. .
If (god forbid) the controller should ever fail full-on, am I wrong in
thinking that I can simply switch the ignition switch off (dropping the
contactors) and avoid a crisis?
That you have the clutch , and a controller that will open the contractor ,
and have more that one contactor this would seem like you have enough to me
, along with 8v golfers that can't put out big amp anyway.
Steve Clunn
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Its been over a month since I started using my electric lawn mower on the
job , I have probable cut over 100 yard with it . I added 15 more 6v GC's
to my work truck .I am running 2 parallel strings of 120 v with the idea of
making a dump charger for the 96v orbital pack on the mower. I really needed
the extra batteries , and come home form time to time having used 200 ah
through the day . With some parts from an old golf cart speed controller I
set up a dump charger. This is a set up with a wiper and a coil for
resistance will lots of taps. Yesterday I got to try it out . The set up is
just some heavy cables form the truck pack to the mower with the golf cart
speed controller in-between. So yesterday I had these 3 good size yards
together ( 3ed time cutting them with the e mower) . I cut 1 and 1/2 ( used
20 ah ) and go back to the truck to try out the dump charger. Plug it in and
start pushing the wiper along the pads . 40 60 80 and one pad away for full
its charging at 107 amp. 8-o not a sound just +107 . My lawn customer
comes out and we are talking about the mower and hy bread cars , he's
telling me how they don't really pay and I'm making points about it being a
step in the right direction. I'm watching the e meter . and it's down to -5
ah in no time , still pumping around 100 amps and the voltage is about 13.8
. I've ready to go again and I said to my customer , look it's all charged
up . He was impressed , I was impressed . This puts an end to me ever
having to use a gas mower again. I haven't started my gas (back up) mower
since getting the electric going . When charging fast like this how hi can
the voltage go on a excide 12 v orbital ?
Steve Clunn
You can see a video of it cutting some thick grass on www.grassrootsev.com
under projects .
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "TiM M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: fast charging over 100 amps
> Way to go Steve. I'm impressed with what you've
> done with your mowers and your truck. Charging at 100
> plus amps.. I only whish I had access to something
> like that.
Yes with fast charging , I'll never have to sit around and read a book
again :-) .
> I thought the video was pretty cool, but would be
> even cooler with sound.
Its a different sound , the hi ra a ta ta of the gas engine is gone but now
you can hear allot of other sounds , those hydro transmissions and the
blades still make a bit of noise ,
> How about two clips with sound
> comparing the gas mower to the electric one.
Hay I got to get ready for the BBB drag races. :-)
On the clip I didn't even have the motor turned up when I started, 1/2 way
through the pass I reached back and bumped it up . The power is there but
what would you expect with 8" motor and 400 amp Curtis. 96v .
That
> would show how you're reducing noise pollution as well.
I have had a few people tell me they didn't know I was cutting ther grass ( ah
another
excuse for not paying the yard man)
Steve Clunn
--- End Message ---
