EV Digest 5147
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: 1986 Toyota Pickup update/pictures
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) RE: For Your Viewing Pleasure..........BBB an' Stuff
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by MIKE & PAULA WILLMON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) newbie controller question
by Darin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) EV-1 controller acting up ...
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9) RE: newbie controller question
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by "Chris Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: EV-1 controller acting up ...
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Bush mentions battery tech, EVs
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: For Your Viewing Pleasure..........BBB an' Stuff
by Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Budget EV clutch/clutchless motor adapter solution
by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dana Havranek)
16) RE: Budget EV clutch/clutchless motor adapter solution
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Regen settings, was Re: E-Volks Geo Metro Conversion
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Clifornia smog procedure
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Ca Smog and Hybrids
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Ca Smog and Hybrids
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
I doubt it. I've always heard the tough part of emissions is not only
startup but when the driver nails the gas pedal, the unpredictable
constantly varying throttle that the consumer demands an unconditional
response to. Hybrids can smooth over the throttle issues with electric
power and keep the engine in a more modest and less varying range. The
Prius then has that constantly variable tranny which allows the engine
to operate at a basically fixed RPM which is way easier to manage
emissions on. Non-hybrids are typically built with so much more
displacement than is actually needed on average to get acceptable
acceleration. Hybrids need not be designed with so much displacement
headroom.
Danny
Chris Robison wrote:
They produce just as much carbon per gallon as any engine because carbon
in=carbon out.
This is exactly what I'm saying. Because of this, fuel economy and
emissions go hand in hand to some extent. *Less* carbon in == *less*
carbon out. Because the gallon gets you further, you're polluting less in
the same amount of distance. Maybe there are better methods such as
high-efficiency diesel, but the combined hybrid system does give you lower
emissions than just an ICE of similar output, if compared in a realistic
context.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Christopher Robison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I could be wrong about this, and I bring it up mainly to
> provoke discussion about it, but in my opinion if the two
> pieces of l-channel bolted to the end are your sole means of
> supporting the motor and reacting to torque, you may be in
> for a surprise the first time you hit the throttle hard.
I agree 100%. It looks like the motor can still twist, and when it
does those braces will twist (attempt to rotate upward or downward),
which will then either flex them where they bolt to the longitudinal
bedframe rails, or will twist the rails like torsion bars.
Extending the braces so that each can be secured to the endbell with two
bolts rather than one *might* help, but would result in a bending moment
being applied to the braces instead of (mostly) placing them in tension
as the present arangement does.
A better option might be to revise the attachment of the brackets to the
rails such that there is no bending stress applied there (so that the
brackets resist motor twisting purely by being placed in tension), but
this would require revising the bracket geometry somewhat so that the
brackets continue to support the end of the motor as well as keeping it
from rotating.
Finally, I didn't notice if the bedframe rails are attached to the
chassis using the original motor mounts or not, but assuming the motor
is attached to a tranny that still uses the original rubber mount(s), it
would be a very good idea to support the motor via the original rubber
motor mounts. If you don't, then your rigid bedframe rails/brackets
must resist the entire motor/tranny torque on their own and are likely
to fail fairly quickly no matter what you do.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
<http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/bobev99/album?.dir=/688e&.src=ph&.tok=phO
6gWEB2bKrU3EN>
Thanks Bob; very cool to finally see the Freedom EV.
I must admit to being surprised at it though; for some reason I was
expecting it to be based on the Solectria Sunrise body/molds that were
purchased, not on Jerry's e-Woody.
BTW, "Lumberghini" is actually the name that a BC EVer gave to his
creation several years ago, though I can appreciate its applicability to
Jerry's e-Woody ;^>
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris, I think your argument is valid and true under the current market for
hybrid cars. However I get from John's points that the level of difference is
arbitrarily set by the manufacturing processes. I think that the byproducts of
pure combustion are only CO2 and H2O. And if it is true what John alludes to,
that IC engines can be made to run with near perfect combustion then all the
arguments about emissions becomes moot. The question then moves to "If I'm
going to burn gas to run my car, how much am I willing to pay for it?" Even if
the emissions problems go away with better technology i.e. more efficient ICE
or better hybrid technology, you still have to buy gas. Oil companies want you
to still do this. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil industry bought all the
electric cars the manufacturers made and requested they be destroyed. Or at the
least reimbured them for the research and asked them not to continue. I would
contend that at some point in the near future t
he combustion efficiency and "pollution" of the IC engines will become moot and
the overall power conversion efficiency will become the way to decrease the
amount of money we pay for fuel and e.g. increase range. A truely efficient
power conversion and use process will decrease the amount we pay for fuel. I
think though that Big Oil will not like us much for doing so, because I don't
think the ultimate future will need to rely on major consumption of oil. I
think the electric-only crown is on the right track from a pure efficiency
standpoint.
Mike,
Anchorage, AK.
>
> Until I see the light, my argument stands. Hybrid vehicles produce
> "lessemissions" than ICE cars of similar performance, because
> their electric
> motors allow them to run more efficiently so they use less fuel.
>
> --chris
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is exactly what I'm saying. Because of this, fuel economy and
emissions go hand in hand to some extent. *Less* carbon in == *less*
carbon out. Because the gallon gets you further, you're polluting less in
No.. I think you are arguing different points. When John refers to
"emissions" he will likely be referring to the traditional pollutants:
NOx, CO, and unburnt hydrocarbons. These are the pollutants automakers
have been fighting to reduce for years, often by decreasing fuel
efficiency and increasing CO2 output (remember the days of "california
emissions" cars getting 2-3mpg less?). These gases are tested in
emissions stations. Many new cars operate without producing measureable
quantities of any of these pollutants, what comes out of the tailpipe is
basically CO2 and water vapor. The worst polluting new cars of today
are still better than the best new cars built 10 years ago.
While I wouldn't recommended experimenting, I have heard that a brand
new Civic produces so little CO (carbon monoxide) that there is almost
no danger of CO poisoning, even if the car is run in a closed garage for
hours. (It still would likely kill if the garage were fairly airtight,
eventually the engine would use up all the oxygen. Kids, don't try this
at home.) One Honda engineer joked that the air coming out of the
tailpipe was often cleaner (in terms of traditional pollutants) than
what when into the air intake, becuase the engine burned the incoming
pollution out of the air stream.
It has been only recently, and much to the automakers annoyance, that
CO2 has begun to be seen as a pollutant in its own right. The problem
with CO2 is there is basically no way to reduce it short of burning less
fuel by increasing engine efficiency (hybrid, smaller power/weight
ratios, cylinder shutdown), lightening the vehicle, or switching to a
fuel with less embedded carbon per unit of energy, like natural gas.
A number of posts refer to older high efficiency cars that got 60mpg or
more... this was mostly done by running the engines lean (which
increases NOx pollution) or by making the car significantly lighter by
decreasing strength, or using advance (expensive) materials. A brand
new 60mpg Honda CRX HF from the late 80's would not pass today's
standards for pollution or safety.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In choosing a controller, is it OK to go with one where the pack voltage
equals the upper voltage specified for the unit?
I seem to recall someone saying you should aim for a controller spec
with a higher limit than your pack. ...or was that in reference to amps...
E.G. if I'm planning a 48v pack, would a 24-48v controller suffice (I
should say "last")? Assuming appropriate amperage range of course.
I remain on the steep part of the learning curve, hoovering up info as I
go along.
Darin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 12:00:31PM -0500, Neon John wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 03:16:42 -0600, Christopher Robison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think perhaps the hybrids should not be exempt from emission testing,
> >but I think you'd find they do put out significantly less than cars
> >unassisted by an electric motor.
>
> No. Modern engine management enables either engine to run under most
> conditions with zero emissions. Total emissions are so low now that
> all the efforts at reducing them are concentrated on the first minute
> of operation, before the cats and oxygen sensors light off.
This is why we really need ILEVs (Inherently Low Emission Vehicles).
Trying to tame the emissions of a combustion process will always be
an uphill battle that you can not win.
See my analysis of this issue below:
The issue most people seem to miss is that the engine running behind
all these advanced anti pollution controls is just as dirty today as it
was 10 years ago. That's to say, incredibly dirty. When the emissions
systems on these new cars starts to fail, you will have the exact same
problem.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/speeches/speech4.gif
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/speeches/mto-9508.htm
"The second major challenge that we are facing is the problem of in-use
deterioration. While all new vehicles offered for sale must be designed
and produced to meet emissions standards, actual in-use performance is not
as good. Too often, broken or malfunctioning parts or simply lack of
proper maintenance or repair results in vehicle emissions significantly
above the standards."
http://tinyurl.com/c56xg
>From that URL:
Median Age of Automobiles and Trucks in Operation in the United States
Year Autos LT All Trucks
2003 8.6 6.6 6.7
2004 8.9 6.4 6.6
>From http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html:
An average vehicle, therefore, traveled farther in 1994 than in 1988:
11,400 miles per year compared with 10,200 miles per year (Figure 3.2).
So, now we can figure out how much the average US car pollutes:
11400 Miles per year * 8.9 year old car == 101460 Miles on avg car in US.
Now that we know how many miles the average car has gone today, we can
see how bad its pollution is today. If you look at the gif I posted above,
you can see that the average US car is emitting twice the legal limit of
HC today.
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My EV-1 controllers seem to be acting up. I have 2 controllers and 3 cards,
so I swapped the parts around to attempt to diagnose it, but different cards
(even with the same settings) are producing different, all undesirable results.
Also, I used the troubleshooting steps in the manual with no success.
Details:
Bases: 2 different EV-1B bases
Control Cards: 1H3, 5H9, 5E9
Test Voltage: 24 V
Test Motor: 1 HP (perm mag)
With the 1H3 card (24 - 48 V), the controller seems to work fine with all
bases, but of course I can't take it over 48 V.
With the 5H9 card, the controller works, but if the batteries aren't fully
charged, the controller can get stuck on (PMT driver not hooked up for this
test, but it would open the contactor if it was) somewhere between 25 and 50 %
throttle position. That's no good!
With the 5E9 card, the controller works below about 50% throttle position,
but above 50%, it starts surging full on / full off. It's like the caps aren't
charging fast enough, and it is running out of stored energy on the discharge.
Or, the on / off pulse isn't working right and on is too long and off is too
short. It isn't dangerous, like the other condition, but it is very
annoying. By the way, the Jet 007 with EV-1C had this same condition at about
35 MPH
in 2nd gear (surging). Never could figure out why.
The 5H9 is a rebuilt model and tested good in a lift truck. The 5E9 card is
brand new. This is the first time it has even been hooked up. No matter how
I adjust the control pots, I can't get them to stop exhibiting these
behavious. I also tried them on each of the bases. I'd like to get at least
one of
the controllers working at 84 V so that I can use it in my EV project. The
other one I can save for parts.
Is it possible that 24 V just isn't enough to run these, even though they are
rated at 24 - 84 V? Maybe they are dropping under load and messing up the
control signals. I don't understand why they are failing in different ways.
Adjusting them all different ways has little to no effect.
Can anyone shed some light?
Thanks,
Steve
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You can usually match the controller to the nominal battery pack voltage.
For instance a 24-48V controller is generally built to run on 2,3, or 4
lead acid batteries. You have to check with the manufacturer for exact
specs. For instance IIRC an 24-48v Alltrax controller will actually run with
up to 60v and has components built to withstand up to 72v. This is because
4 lead acid batteries will actually be above 48v when they first come off
charge.
damon
From: Darin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: newbie controller question
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:30:14 -0500
In choosing a controller, is it OK to go with one where the pack voltage
equals the upper voltage specified for the unit?
I seem to recall someone saying you should aim for a controller spec
with a higher limit than your pack. ...or was that in reference to amps...
E.G. if I'm planning a 48v pack, would a 24-48v controller suffice (I
should say "last")? Assuming appropriate amperage range of course.
I remain on the steep part of the learning curve, hoovering up info as I
go along.
Darin
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:10:09 -0600, Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>This is exactly what I'm saying. Because of this, fuel economy and
>>emissions go hand in hand to some extent. *Less* carbon in == *less*
>>carbon out. Because the gallon gets you further, you're polluting less in
>>
>>
>No.. I think you are arguing different points. When John refers to
>"emissions" he will likely be referring to the traditional pollutants:
>NOx, CO, and unburnt hydrocarbons. These are the pollutants automakers
>have been fighting to reduce for years, often by decreasing fuel
>efficiency and increasing CO2 output (remember the days of "california
>emissions" cars getting 2-3mpg less?). These gases are tested in
>emissions stations. Many new cars operate without producing measureable
>quantities of any of these pollutants, what comes out of the tailpipe is
>basically CO2 and water vapor. The worst polluting new cars of today
>are still better than the best new cars built 10 years ago.
Leave out the "traditional" part and we agree. Three way cats and
fast control systems have been in use almost 20 years now. What the
3-way cat did was allow the engine to be tuned for best performance,
with the cat cleaning up whatever came out. As long as a stoich
mixture can be maintained, there is essentially no emission.
Transient response is still somewhat of a problem area. Very
difficult to control things when the driver snaps the throttle open
literally between power strokes. Moderately rapid transitions are
easily handled, the kind of transitions involved in normal driving.
One of the things driving throttle-by-wire is the ability to
hard-limit the speed of throttle movement. The driver can snap the
throttle open and closed as fast as he wants but the PCM will only
allow the actual throttle valves to open and close so fast, slow
enough to remain in closed loop control.
Oxygen sensors are now fast enough to detect individual cylinder
firings. This is used by some models to detect incipient misfire. It
also allows cylinders to be trimmed individually which makes transient
response much easier to deal with.
Ford has been able for at least two model years to eliminate the fuel
sensor on flex-fuel cars. The PCM can read the oxygen sensor
sufficiently well to compute the gas/alcohol mix and tune accordingly.
A remarkable achievement, IMHO.
>
>While I wouldn't recommended experimenting, I have heard that a brand
>new Civic produces so little CO (carbon monoxide) that there is almost
>no danger of CO poisoning, even if the car is run in a closed garage for
>hours. (It still would likely kill if the garage were fairly airtight,
>eventually the engine would use up all the oxygen. Kids, don't try this
>at home.) One Honda engineer joked that the air coming out of the
>tailpipe was often cleaner (in terms of traditional pollutants) than
>what when into the air intake, becuase the engine burned the incoming
>pollution out of the air stream.
This is true. Another example. Ford has had to start making its own
air for emissions tests instead of using atmospheric air. A couple of
years ago on one of my visits I was surprised to see one of the
largest compressed gas cylinder farms I've ever seen in a formerly
vacant hall. These cylinders contained research grade nitrogen and
oxygen which were blended under computer control to make the air the
cars burned during emission testing.
I asked one of the engineers why and he told me that the level of
pollutants in the air around the plant is sufficient to affect the
emissions of the cars under test. My next, obvious question was, why
not use liquid oxygen and nitrogen instead of the tank farm. The
response was that even it isn't clean enough, that it takes research
grade ("6 nines pure") gases.
>
>It has been only recently, and much to the automakers annoyance, that
>CO2 has begun to be seen as a pollutant in its own right. The problem
>with CO2 is there is basically no way to reduce it short of burning less
>fuel by increasing engine efficiency (hybrid, smaller power/weight
>ratios, cylinder shutdown), lightening the vehicle, or switching to a
>fuel with less embedded carbon per unit of energy, like natural gas.
Or, of course, we can just ignore the fruitcakes who consider CO2 a
pollutant and go forward.
>
>A number of posts refer to older high efficiency cars that got 60mpg or
>more... this was mostly done by running the engines lean (which
>increases NOx pollution) or by making the car significantly lighter by
>decreasing strength, or using advance (expensive) materials. A brand
>new 60mpg Honda CRX HF from the late 80's would not pass today's
>standards for pollution or safety.
Yup. Anyone else remember the Honda 600? The first little
rollerskate they imported in the early 70s? The motorcycle dealership
where I worked started selling 'em. It had a Honda 450 motorcycle
engine bored out to 600cc. The roof line wasn't even as high as a
semi truck's tire. Weight was probably under a kilopound. I know
that 4 of us strapping young men could pick one off the flat bed truck
and set it on the ground without too much effort.
It achieved mileage in the 50 mpg range. Of course, one really needed
to get out and push on hills. It would literally vanish under the
wheels of a semi truck if it ever got hit. It's easy to get economy
if performance and safety are removed from the equation.
John
---
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 ---
I think this is it exactly. Perhaps John and the automotive industry do
not consider CO2 to be a pollutant.
To be honest, I can't claim to know if it really is a harmful pollutant or
not. No one can. I do know that right now there's a signifigantly higher
amount than has been in our atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.
As a reminder:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
I don't think anyone credible is currently arguing against this data. What
is being argued is how much it matters, and there definitely are people on
both sides of the argument. Those that believe its aid to plant life will
be a benefit, and those that feel that it's responsible for global
warming, and that we're now heading toward several tipping points that
will place the situation well beyond the hope of remediation or reversal.
That there is no consensus -- that we really don't know what's going on,
in our personal lives this kind of uncertainty would generally be a cause
for caution. "Whoa, hold it. What's going on here?" The content of carbon
we've dug out of the ground and pumped into the atmosphere, ultimately
harmful or not, is something unnatural, which hasn't occurred during the
modern human occupation of the planet. I find it intuitive that we should
slow down, do whatever it takes to release less CO2 into the atmosphere
until we know more about what the consequences are. *Because* we don't
know. And if that means changing the official definition of automobile
emissions to include CO2, then that too seems sensible. My guess is that
Toyota has already done that, or has recognized that the public is soon
going to make that choice for them, and are spending money now to gain
competency at a known method of dealing with it. Again there may be better
methods, but they've made their choice and have set their strategy.
As it stands, the largest frozen peat bog on earth is being revealed by
melting permafrost and when it starts thawing, we'll have far worse
concerns than CO2.
http://tinyurl.com/97o46
--chris
On Fri, February 3, 2006 3:10 pm, Mark Farver said:
>
>>This is exactly what I'm saying. Because of this, fuel economy and
>>emissions go hand in hand to some extent. *Less* carbon in == *less*
>>carbon out. Because the gallon gets you further, you're polluting less in
>>
>>
> No.. I think you are arguing different points. When John refers to
> "emissions" he will likely be referring to the traditional pollutants:
> NOx, CO, and unburnt hydrocarbons. These are the pollutants automakers
> have been fighting to reduce for years, often by decreasing fuel
> efficiency and increasing CO2 output (remember the days of "california
> emissions" cars getting 2-3mpg less?). These gases are tested in
> emissions stations. Many new cars operate without producing measureable
> quantities of any of these pollutants, what comes out of the tailpipe is
> basically CO2 and water vapor. The worst polluting new cars of today
> are still better than the best new cars built 10 years ago.
>
> While I wouldn't recommended experimenting, I have heard that a brand
> new Civic produces so little CO (carbon monoxide) that there is almost
> no danger of CO poisoning, even if the car is run in a closed garage for
> hours. (It still would likely kill if the garage were fairly airtight,
> eventually the engine would use up all the oxygen. Kids, don't try this
> at home.) One Honda engineer joked that the air coming out of the
> tailpipe was often cleaner (in terms of traditional pollutants) than
> what when into the air intake, becuase the engine burned the incoming
> pollution out of the air stream.
>
> It has been only recently, and much to the automakers annoyance, that
> CO2 has begun to be seen as a pollutant in its own right. The problem
> with CO2 is there is basically no way to reduce it short of burning less
> fuel by increasing engine efficiency (hybrid, smaller power/weight
> ratios, cylinder shutdown), lightening the vehicle, or switching to a
> fuel with less embedded carbon per unit of energy, like natural gas.
>
> A number of posts refer to older high efficiency cars that got 60mpg or
> more... this was mostly done by running the engines lean (which
> increases NOx pollution) or by making the car significantly lighter by
> decreasing strength, or using advance (expensive) materials. A brand
> new 60mpg Honda CRX HF from the late 80's would not pass today's
> standards for pollution or safety.
>
> Mark
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My EV-1 controllers seem to be acting up.
> With the 1H3 card (24 - 48 V), the controller seems to work
> fine with all bases
> With the 5H9 card, the controller works, but if the batteries
> aren't fully charged, the controller can get stuck on (PMT
> driver not hooked up for this test, but it would open the
> contactor if it was) somewhere between 25 and 50 %
> throttle position.
> With the 5E9 card, the controller works below about 50%
> throttle position, but above 50%, it starts surging full
> on / full off.
Based on these observations, my first guess would be that the voltage is
too low for the 5xx cards to work properly. The controllers are
supposed to work down to 1/2 of nominal pack voltage, which suggests
that a 24-84V card ought to run down to 12V, but you might still run
into trouble. Due to the EV1 subjecting the batteries to the full motor
current pulses, I have observed that when an EV1 is running it can cause
a battery with fine nominal voltage to sag dramatically each time the
controller turns on the main SCR (you need to watch the battery voltage
with a 'scope to see this).
My first attempt would be to up the test voltage to 48V and see if the
5xx cards start behaving normally.
My next attempt would be to add inductance in series with the PM motor
load you are using, or replace it with a larger/more inductive motor.
It could be that the unusually low inductance of the load is interfering
with the control's ability to control the motor loop current (hitting
the PM motor with full battery voltage when the SCR turns on could cause
it to draw a very large spike of current as it attempts to accelerate to
full speed, even if the motor is unloaded).
Hope this helps,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
From the 01/31/2006 state of the union address:
We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase
our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in
pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
Does anyone else find the wording a bit strange in the passage above? I
think that the placement of the term "pollution-free" makes it sound
like Hydrogen-powered cars are pollution-free whereas electric cars are
not. Maybe misleading to those that aren't knowledgeable about EVs?
Roderick Wilde wrote:
Look, all politics aside. the words were uttered and millions of
people heard them. The cat is out of the bag. Whether he believes one
word of what he said or doesn't, it just doesn't matter. People will
start Googling this stuff and find out he truth. One, we are thirty
years behind third world countries as far as energy independence,
two, the battery technology already exists, and third, people on this
list have been satisfying their transportation needs for years
electrically.
I agree; well said Rod!
--
-Nick
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
http://go.DriveEV.com/
http://www.ACEAA.org/
--------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks! It's been a while since we saw any new ones of the Freedom.
The black one that Jerry is standing by was actually produced from the
mold, right?
On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At Last ! A Link that should get by the Spam, an attachments police, to be
> able to be opened. Sorry the pix are crappy, cheepo camera I had to take
> apart in the dark to get the damn film out, rewind by feel, stuff. If you
> ever developed your own 35mm film, you know what I mean!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Paul;
Interesting....
I need to hold one of these in my hands and eyeball it.
Does stock linkage usually work with them?
Dana
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: paul wiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In the motor adapter/clutch-clutchless discussion, Has anyone looked at the
> "ram
> Coupler" for a solution? These things rock on a dirt track. Positive lockup
> but
> a slipper cone for pulling away. Down side? no ring gear for a starter for
> the
> ICE. Up side? Simple operation, light, small and lends itself well to the
> electric motor world. A builder could use a motor adapter and just bolt it in
> place of the clutch/flywheel assy, or buy a blank and have a machine shop
> mount
> it to your motor shaft.
>
> Simple operation is....pedal up=positive lock up, pedal halfway
> down=neutral,
> pedal on the floor=slipper cone spooling up input shaft/car starting to role.
> Here is just one site that a google search turned up.
> http://www.ramclutches.com/zen-cart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2
> paul
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new
> and
> used cars.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
paul wiley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the motor adapter/clutch-clutchless discussion, Has
> anyone looked at the "ram Coupler" for a solution?
I have to think that this device really doesn't merit consideration in a
thread with "budget EV" in the subject line ;^>
It looks like this thing goes for $500, and essentially replaces the hub
normally used in a conversion as well as the flywheel/clutch/pressure
plate. Now, one does have to buy the hub when doing a conversion, but
the flywheel is typically already present (free), and the clutch/presure
plate from the displaced ICE may also be reusable (free), so $500 for a
ram coupler instead of perhaps $200-250 for a hub (prices from
http://www.evparts.com) doesn't seem to be a really good deal.
A quick peek at <http://www.clutchnet.com> suggests that even if one
were unable to reuse the existing clutch and pressure plate, or wanted
to upgrade to skookum performance parts (though this is not really in
keeping with the "budget" nature of the discussion), it would cost about
$150-200 for a high performance pressure plate and $140-165 for a high
performance sprung hub disc, bringing the cost of a high-performance
clutch type Metro (in keeping with the "budget" subject line)conversion
within about $50 of the cost of one using the ram coupler. A budget EV
would probably make do with a new stock level clutch and plate, which
runs about $125 complete for a Turbo Metro version including throwout
and pilot bearings (e.g.
<http://www.clutchcityonline.com/geo_metro.htm>).
A few things seem to go against the use of the ram coupler in a street
conversion:
- it is not recommended to use a solid hub clutch disc in place of a
sprung hub one, and the ram coupler is essentially a solid hub type
coupling
- the ram coupler is recommended for *non-shifting* applications; so it
could be acceptable if one only used the coupler as an emergency
mechanical disconnect, but would not be a good choice if one wanted to
shift gears regularly (as would be expected in a budget conversion since
the multi-speed tranny is used to allow use of a cheaper, less powerful
controller)
- the odd pedal control of the ram coupler might preclude its
suitability as an emergency disconnect since in an emergency one's
instinctive reaction will be to mash the clutch pedal to the floor,
however, this will engage the cone clutch instead of disconnecting the
motor from the drivetrain. This might be worked around by limiting the
clutch linkage such that with the pedal mashed to the floor the best one
can do is get the ram coupler into its neutral position.
The lower inertia of the ram coupler and its positive lockup might make
it attractive for racers, but not if they retain a tranny since shifting
will be impaired (not prevented, necessarily, but slowed).
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Reminds me how much I wish Ford put more regen in the Ranger! Does anyone know
how I can get the controller reprogrammed?
Might be a bad idea. If I recall, the Ranger has rear wheel drive. If
you were to use too much regen you could lock up the rear wheels which
would be extremely bad. Ford probably limited it thinking "what about
wet roads, what about snow"?
Even in the Prizm you have issues of brake balance.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris wrote:
> I also know that Toyota has been losing money on the Prius hand over fist.
Can you please provide some evidence of that?
Toyota is pretty proud of their revenue they make with the Prius
and has increased production cautiously year over year, to stay
on the black side, it is also in their official press releases
that they are satisfied with the financial sitation of Prius
production, so I would not expect they make a loss and continue
to do so and introduce new Hybrid models that also will make a
loss. That is not Toyota's strategy.
I am afraid that you have listened to unreliable messengers.
This issue was just discussed a few days ago on one of the Prius
Yahoo groups, apparently there are misinformed people or trolls
that do not like the Hybrid technology to succeed.
As we all know, trolls as well as adversaries can be very
persistent, but that does not make them right.
If you have new info about the Prius, I like to read it.
Regards,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-610-423-5743
Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Chris Robison
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hybrid efficiency, was: Increasing Range
On Fri, February 3, 2006 1:05 pm, Neon John said:
> This is where your intuition fails you. Let's consider the abstract
> case of a black box. No matter what goes in the black box, nothing
> but air and water comes out. It follows that if more stuff goes in
> during one session than another, the output is the same - nothing.
This conclusion is logical, but you have failed to present a convincing
argument in support of the original premise. Burn gasoline, and it doesn't
go away -- it turns into something else. Potentially several substances,
none of which are good for you.
> out but not during the FTC. WOT is only loosely regulated so there is
> significant emissions during full power operation. The (correct)
> logic is that the vehicle spends only a small amount of time at WOT
> and so it's not worth controlling.
Agreed.
> If the feds continue with sillier and sillier standards, we're going
> to get to pay for such expensive add-ons as cat and intake air
> preheaters, phase change block warmers and other things that function
Like the "silliness" of the standards that presented the public with the
unacceptable burden of paying for the development of cars that crush
during an accident instead of killing their occupants, this is a matter of
opinion, and opinions change over time.
> I'm sure Toyota's motivations were many and varied. I'm not at all
> familiar with that company so I have to speculate. I imagine that the
> hybrid had been under development for quite some time as a basic R&D
> project. It developed to the point that it could be commercialized at
> a time when Toyota management detected an opportunity. They're pretty
> good at that. BTW, you do know, don't you, that Ford and Toyota did
> joint development on the project. I saw the prototypes running around
> the test track a good 5-6 years ago.
I also know that Toyota has been losing money on the Prius hand over fist.
What "opportunity" did they see when they decided to produce the Prius? An
opportunity to lose millions of dollars producing unnecessarily complex
cars to mitigate a problem that no longer existed?
> There are several other ways of achieving the goals Toyota achieved
> with their hybrid. A gas engine (Atkins or Otto) with a CVT is one. A
> high speed diesel is another. Toyota apparently decided to make a car
> with a driving experience as similar to conventional cars as possible.
But what goal could they have had, if there is truth in what you've
claimed, repeatedly now, that engines were already producing no emissions?
None of these options solve the first-minute problem.
>>
>>If gas engines produce no emissions, I invite you to prove it to me by
>>standing in a closed, non-ventilated garage with a brand new Chevy or
>
> I didn't realize you were impressed with stunts.
No, I'm impressed with logical discourse, and the fact that you've chosen
not to even attempt to respond to my analogy rationally and instead
dismiss it by calling it a "stunt" does not impress me. The point that I
was making is that the stuff that running automobiles produce does not
support life. At the very least there's way too much of it in our
atmosphere now ... and those instrument measurements I do trust.
> Might I suggest a
> more meaningful "test". It's pretty hard to get into the major OEMs'
> emission testing facilities but there are others. Why don't you take
> a trip to either the EPA's or CARB's facility and witness an FTC
> cycle? You too can see the instruments (practically) zeroed out most
> of the time. They use the same equipment as the OEMs, normally the
> Horiba test suite. It's an interesting and impressive thing to watch.
Honestly, all the instruments output in the world would not convince me
that an engine's output contains no substances which have been considered
biologically or environmentally harmful by the majority of the scientific
community.
> Sagan? You mean the publicity whore who'd say almost anything to get
> attention and who was too proud to admit he was wrong ("nuclear
> winter" for example)? Yeah, that Sagan. If he'd said that the sky
> was blue I'd have had to go check before believing him.
Another dodge. Whatever personal flaws Sagan may have had are irrelevant.
Since you belittle the character of my example instead of the value of the
point itself, I'll spell it out for you. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof. I don't care who made that statement, its meaning has
undeniable merit. And that describes a continuum; a statement like yours
requires proof beyond what I would accept from a set of instruments, no
matter how expensive they are or how well their operators are paid. Indeed
you're asking me to completely reevaluate my understanding of the nature
of matter.
Until I see the light, my argument stands. Hybrid vehicles produce "less
emissions" than ICE cars of similar performance, because their electric
motors allow them to run more efficiently so they use less fuel.
--chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here in Ca they use a dyno and a 2 speed test 15 an 25 mph. The dyno
resistance is adjusted to match the vehicle weight.
I am surprised to hear they are dynoing to 55 mph in other states. Do
they require you to tie the vehicle down? jumping off a dyno at that
speed will break stuff and kill things.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
They give hybrids an engine code of "G" that exempts them from smog
inspections, When I take my EV to the referee, they will give it that
same code. I started to clarify that mine was not a hybrid but was told
that it is called the hybrid catagory but really is the catchall for
exempt vehicles.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I can coorborate Neon John's claim about the bag test. It is the way to
get things approoved in Ca. If you make an adapter for sale, and an
emmision part bolts to it, then you must submit for this test for each
engine family it goes on. The test has been adapted for people
submitting EV's for production/certification. The Wh's used are
recorded for the drive cycle and an avg wh/mile is calculated. This is
multiplied by California's current energy mix emissions and a grams
CO2/mile and other polutants is assigned.
The Air resources board pointed out that this is a litle unfair in that
the refinery power and fuel transportation emmision mix is not included
in the fuel based vehicles, but EV's easily come out on top anyway. (no
surprise)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The engine code for EVs is 'E'. If you are not in that category, you're not
eligible for the white CA HOV stickers, EV parking stickers, and you're not
counted as an EV for CA DMV stats purposes.
I has this same problem registering my TEVan, but they eventually gave up and
changed my engine type to 'E'.
Just FYI.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 05:45:13PM -0800, Jeff Shanab wrote:
> They give hybrids an engine code of "G" that exempts them from smog
> inspections, When I take my EV to the referee, they will give it that
> same code. I started to clarify that mine was not a hybrid but was told
> that it is called the hybrid catagory but really is the catchall for
> exempt vehicles.
--- End Message ---
