EV Digest 5492
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: AC vs. DC
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: RAV, Insight motors, was: Vectrix
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: AC vs. DC
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Subaru as a donor
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Fw: Vectrix
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Fw: Vectrix
by "Michael Neverdosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Fw: Vectrix
by "Michael Neverdosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: AC vs. DC
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Fw: Vectrix
by Mark Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Fw: Vectrix
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: AC vs. DC
by "Michael Neverdosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: AC vs. DC
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: EV / Hybrid Question
by "Jonathan Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: Fw: Vectrix
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) New RUSSCO website (WAS Re: Otmars new home)
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: AC vs. DC
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
Regen and high RPM range basically come for free. In fact you'd pay
extra to design an AC controller with fundamentally disabled regen.
Nothing is "free". Regen adds twice the power semiconductors, and
doubles the amount of control logic.
Really? News to me. So the inverter with regen needs 12 IGBTs
and without regen - 6?
Regen adds software overhead. Drivers just turn on and off
power stage transistors, regen or no regen.
It's like saying a light bulb for DC current must be cheaper
than one for AC AND DC. No, the universal is cheaper, working on AC
is natural for a light bulb - it will be more expensive to
produce a light bulb working only on DC or only AC.
> Higher rpm requires more expensive
> bearings, stronger rotors, and better balancing.
Higher RPM has nothing to do with ability to regen Lee.
Balancing better of course cost more, but this is not
AC vs DC comparison - any motor for *given* RPM requires
*that* much balancing.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I can't speak about milk float in details, i'm only aware of them by people
mouth and internet pages like this one:
http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/
UK friends may explain milk float history/technics better than i :^)
For French made EV cars which use Leroy-somer 120V sep-ex motors, i'm
talking as an owner which make all servicing himself:
Citroen Saxo electric
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/452.html
Peugeot 106 electric
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/329
Renault rapid (called "Express" here)
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/331
Renault Clio (still not on the EValbum but i will make this soon Mike ;^)
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/images/ClioAvD.jpg
you can read 11 000 EV number in europe here (was arround 8000 for France
but some are being exported to germany and nordic countries):
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cicommunication.com%2Ffr%2Fdetails_communique.asp%3Fnum_communique%3D684&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools
cordialement,
Philippe
Et si le pot d'échappement sortait au centre du volant ?
quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
Forum de discussion sur les véhicules électriques
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/Forum/index.php
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:19 PM
Subject: RE: RAV, Insight motors, was: Vectrix
> Philippe,
>
> Please give some references which vehicles you are talking about
> as it may be different in your part of the world then here.
>
> As a reference: I am talking about current Hybrids (Honda and
> all Toyota-based power trains) and professional EVs, such as
> the RAV4-EV, Ranger and my own US Electricar, which is using
> the Hughes AC motor. I believe the Ranger used in essence the
> Siemens AC motor like Victor is offering.
> The RAV4 EV uses the same principle as the Hybrids:
> PM brushless AC motors.
> http://www.toyoland.com/trucks/rav4.html
> http://www.insightcentral.net/encyclopedia/enspecs.html
> http://www.toyota.com/prius/specs.html
>
> The others use an AC induction motor which does not require
> the controller to be phase-locked to the magnets, but works on
> the limited slip allowed by the Eddy currents in the rotor.
>
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:07 AM
> To: ev
> Subject: Re:RAV, Insight motors, was: Vectrix
>
>
> Wrong: majority of producted road Ev use sep-ex and DC motors !!! even
> more if you count industrial EV :^)
>
>
>
> ---------- Initial Header -----------
>
> >From : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To : ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Cc :
> Date : Tue, 16 May 2006 16:33:30 -0700
> Subject : RAV, Insight motors, was: Vectrix
>
> Ralph,
> all production EVs and Hybrids use AC motors.
>
> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:24 AM
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: Vectrix
>
>
> I'm new to the list and will plead ignorance ... are the motors in the
> RAV, and Insight AC or DC? I'm curious as to the direction industry is
> leaning with respect to which technology holds the most promise.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ralph.
> (da list newbie)
>
> David Roden wrote:
> > On 16 May 2006 at 2:13, Nick Austin wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I hope we have a Liion upgrade for the RAV4EV ready for when these
packs
> start
> >> getting tired and the warranties are out.
> >>
> >
> > I suspect that at least some of those now buying these RAVs at
> stratospheric
> > prices will abandon them if or when they find that they can no longer
take
>
> > them to the local dealer for service, but (like most of us!) have to fix
> the
> > problems themselves.
> >
> > OTOH, it's possible that someone will figure out how to reverse-engineer
> the
> > RAV's control software, just as some clever folks have doped out how to
> fool
> > the Prius into accepting a larger onboard battery. Something similar
> seems
> > to have happened with the USE conversions using long-unsupported Hughes
> > drive systems. Maybe such a person or group will form an enterprise to
> > continue supporting the RAVs, at least in the regions where they're most
> > concentrated, when Toyota leaves them twisting in the wind.
> >
> > I really hope that happens. If not - well, look at it this way, at
least
> > that will provide a nice field of reasonably-priced gliders for us EV
> > hobbyists to re-convert with open-source components.
> >
> > Keep your fingers crossed for these folks!
> >
> >
> > David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
> > EV List Assistant Administrator
> >
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> > Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
> > or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> > Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
> > To send a private message, please use evadm at drmm period net.
> > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -------------- ALICE HAUT DEBIT : TRIPLE PLAY A 29,95 EUR/MOIS
> --------------
> Découvrez vite ALICEBOX : avec le modem WIFI, profitez de l'ADSL, de la
> TELEPHONIE et en exclusivité de la TELEVISION !
> Bénéficiez aussi de la hotline gratuite 24h/24 ! Soumis à conditions. Pour
> en profiter cliquez ici http://abonnement.aliceadsl.fr
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:37:22AM -0800, Michael Neverdosky wrote:
> The job of my car and truck is transportation, no more, no less.
If your only requirement is transportation, then it is hard to beat a $650
CA car with 150,000 miles on it. Life time cost will likely be much lower then
anything you could build yourself, EV or not.
Clearly transportation is not the only requirement for most EVrs.
> Certainly not to sell people equipment or to allow simple comparison
> as much of the information is "inquire".
I think that his deal with Siemens does not allow him to post his prices
on the web. If you shoot him an email, he will send you the prices.
He has always responded to me quickly.
> So how can I compare the cost of the fancy AC systems you tout so
> loudly when you won't even list the price?
>
> Your web site does not inspire confidence and would not make me put
> you at the top of my list of suppliers of equipment or information.
Wow, your analysis seems too harsh.
Victor has a full conversion example on his site, this would seem to be
a very valuable guide. Also, it shows that he knows what he is selling.
Like most hobbyist EV vendors, he also gives away lots of free advice
and technical support, and contributes to the greater EV community.
I would take another look at his site, and give him a chance.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize the 4wd Subaru sounds out of place, but given our terrain and
unpredictable winters it appealed to an aspect of my practical side.
The other choices because their body styling seems to be somewhat
ageless ... and I'd like to hang on to this project for my life time.
OK ... application time.
I am an old skool Subaru guy (recently sold my RX rallycross car) and
there are pluses and minuses to be considered with the EA82/81 style
cars.
Pluses -
All have pretty good storage room for batts
Stout chassis for weight bearing
Simplicity
Parts are cheap
Minuses -
Awd and ft 4wd are inefficient - higher drag losses in powertrain than
2wd
Transmission is far forward, bell housing is in front of front axle.
Suspect that an 8 inch motor might be too long too fit as the boxer
motor is short - definitely need to measure it.
High weight relative to other cars the same size - due to 4wd and stout
chassis
East coast subies tend to be rusty
That's more minuses than plusses. But I think it would be interesting
to use a Subaru without a transmission, put a rear diff up front, use 2
motors, one driving the front and one the rear. That would require a
lot of ground breaking engineering, though I think the Electric Imp (an
Impreza) has a setup like that, so maybe not as groundbreaking as all
that.
I would think an XT or XT6 (without the air suspension but with electric
power steering pump) would be a pretty cool conversion, so would a
Brat.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Neverdosky wrote:
> So how about the specs on some of the 600cc bikes?
>
> In my experience most 600s are much quicker than 400s.
>
> Also how about 0-100mph times?
> While many of us don't really care because we don't ride that fast,
> most sportbike riders are very interested in higher speeds.
Are you aware that the Vectrix is a *scooter*, not a motorcycle?
The proper comparison is between the Vectrix and other sit-down,
Vespa-esque styled scooters, typically of 250cc or so displacement, not
half-litre sportbikes.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:47, Lee Hart wrote:
jmygann wrote:
Toyota rep explained to me. They do not feel the market is there
and produced the first electric Rav4 at a loss. Their plan is to
convert everything to hybrid.
True, as far as it goes. But...
The first of anything is always a loss. They spent millions developing
the RAV4-EV, and only sold a few hundred. Obviously they lost money.
However, each one was sold for more than the cost of the car itself. So
they made a small profit per car; they just didn't sell enough cars to
get back their original investment.
I doubt that even the ones sold were even incrementally profitable. The
leases all had to be a loss. The battery pack alone was more than the
difference in a gas and electric RAV4, forget about the R&D and tooling
costs involved, spread over a run of 1200 or so vehicles.
The EV would not have existed at all without the CARB mandate,
considering that it was done to ensure access to the California market
which is billions to Toyota, eating the cost on the rav (actually
passing it on to the Camry buyer) was a response to a legal gun to their
head. They were losing money on each one incremementally, and there
never could have been a path to profitability on it, so of course they
didn't want to sell any more than the minimum necessary to meet the
mandate, and why they wouldn't sell you one in Minnesota, because it
didn't help them in California.
And, they learned the technology of motors, inverters, batteries, and
related systems. This knowledge enabled them to build their hybrid
Prius.
I am sure there was some crossover, but the key to the Prius was not
understanding AC electricity, but the computer control systems to manage
both electric and gas systems. Same way the key to the phevs isn't just
stuffing more batteries in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John,
>The battery pack alone was more than the
>difference in a gas and electric RAV4
I am afraid you are confusing the end-user battery
cost with its BOM or purchase price for the manufacturer
as well as the difference in MSRP between two vehicles
versus the profit made on the RAV4-EV.
Example: if they make 10,000 profit on a gas RAV4 and
5,000 profit on a RAV4 EV, then of course they rather
sell gas variants and you could argue that they
"subsidize" 5,000 on each RAV4 EV, but the truth is that
they make profit on either, only less on the RAV4 EV.
It may be instructive to view it from the consumers point
of view: with the RAV4 EV he gets 5,000 more value for his
money.
Hope this clarifies,
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 John Norton
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:11 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:47, Lee Hart wrote:
> jmygann wrote:
>> Toyota rep explained to me. They do not feel the market is there
>> and produced the first electric Rav4 at a loss. Their plan is to
>> convert everything to hybrid.
>
> True, as far as it goes. But...
>
> The first of anything is always a loss. They spent millions developing
> the RAV4-EV, and only sold a few hundred. Obviously they lost money.
> However, each one was sold for more than the cost of the car itself. So
> they made a small profit per car; they just didn't sell enough cars to
> get back their original investment.
>
I doubt that even the ones sold were even incrementally profitable. The
leases all had to be a loss. The battery pack alone was more than the
difference in a gas and electric RAV4, forget about the R&D and tooling
costs involved, spread over a run of 1200 or so vehicles.
The EV would not have existed at all without the CARB mandate,
considering that it was done to ensure access to the California market
which is billions to Toyota, eating the cost on the rav (actually
passing it on to the Camry buyer) was a response to a legal gun to their
head. They were losing money on each one incremementally, and there
never could have been a path to profitability on it, so of course they
didn't want to sell any more than the minimum necessary to meet the
mandate, and why they wouldn't sell you one in Minnesota, because it
didn't help them in California.
> And, they learned the technology of motors, inverters, batteries, and
> related systems. This knowledge enabled them to build their hybrid
> Prius.
>
I am sure there was some crossover, but the key to the Prius was not
understanding AC electricity, but the computer control systems to manage
both electric and gas systems. Same way the key to the phevs isn't just
stuffing more batteries in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Are you aware that I was responding to a post that said that the
Vectrix was quicker than 400-600cc bikes?
I know of NO 600cc scooters so I must assume that he was refering to SPORTBIKES.
He posted a comparason to a 400cc bike that I doubt is a 'scooter' and
still has not addressed the inclusion of 600cc in the original post of
just how quick the Vectrix is.
I looked at the pictures and the Vectrix looks like a motorcycle. It
does not have a step through frame and has full size wheels and tires.
Where is the part that makes it a scooter?
Now people have their own ideas of two wheel fun and that is fine but
when you tell me that a bike is quicker than 400-600cc bikes I want to
see it compared to the range of bikes not just the low end.
I am sure that they will sell lots of them if they ever get fully into
production, for the 'gee whizz' factor if nothing else.
I used a Honda Elite 125 for a few years (a real scooter) and it was a
great tool. It was cheap to purchase and maintain, and very easy on
fuel. It did not look like a sportbike.
The Vectrix LOOKS like a sportbike.
Where is it identified as a scooter?
michael
On 5/17/06, Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Neverdosky wrote:
> So how about the specs on some of the 600cc bikes?
Are you aware that the Vectrix is a *scooter*, not a motorcycle?
The proper comparison is between the Vectrix and other sit-down,
Vespa-esque styled scooters, typically of 250cc or so displacement, not
half-litre sportbikes.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Just for comparison I was thinking how much gas my wagon has eaten in
its 37+ years on the planet. At an average of say 12 mpg (and that's
optomistic) it's at 177000 miles. 14750 gallons of fuel. At $1/gallon
ave that would still be almost 4 times the price of the car.
I wonder how battery expense would come out after similar mileage.
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> >The battery pack alone was more than the
> >difference in a gas and electric RAV4
>
> I am afraid you are confusing the end-user battery
> cost with its BOM or purchase price for the manufacturer
> as well as the difference in MSRP between two vehicles
> versus the profit made on the RAV4-EV.
>
> Example: if they make 10,000 profit on a gas RAV4 and
> 5,000 profit on a RAV4 EV, then of course they rather
> sell gas variants and you could argue that they
> "subsidize" 5,000 on each RAV4 EV, but the truth is that
> they make profit on either, only less on the RAV4 EV.
>
> It may be instructive to view it from the consumers point
> of view: with the RAV4 EV he gets 5,000 more value for his
> money.
>
> Hope this clarifies,
>
> 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 John Norton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
>
>
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:47, Lee Hart wrote:
> > jmygann wrote:
> >> Toyota rep explained to me. They do not feel the market is there
> >> and produced the first electric Rav4 at a loss. Their plan is to
> >> convert everything to hybrid.
> >
> > True, as far as it goes. But...
> >
> > The first of anything is always a loss. They spent millions developing
> > the RAV4-EV, and only sold a few hundred. Obviously they lost money.
> > However, each one was sold for more than the cost of the car
itself. So
> > they made a small profit per car; they just didn't sell enough cars to
> > get back their original investment.
> >
>
> I doubt that even the ones sold were even incrementally profitable.
The
> leases all had to be a loss. The battery pack alone was more than the
> difference in a gas and electric RAV4, forget about the R&D and tooling
> costs involved, spread over a run of 1200 or so vehicles.
>
> The EV would not have existed at all without the CARB mandate,
> considering that it was done to ensure access to the California market
> which is billions to Toyota, eating the cost on the rav (actually
> passing it on to the Camry buyer) was a response to a legal gun to
their
> head. They were losing money on each one incremementally, and there
> never could have been a path to profitability on it, so of course they
> didn't want to sell any more than the minimum necessary to meet the
> mandate, and why they wouldn't sell you one in Minnesota, because it
> didn't help them in California.
>
> > And, they learned the technology of motors, inverters, batteries, and
> > related systems. This knowledge enabled them to build their hybrid
> > Prius.
> >
>
> I am sure there was some crossover, but the key to the Prius was not
> understanding AC electricity, but the computer control systems to
manage
> both electric and gas systems. Same way the key to the phevs isn't
just
> stuffing more batteries in.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I did go back and reread and it does say "maxi-scooter", what the heck
is a maxi-scooter?
Is that some new catagory to get around some bend in the federal laws?
Kinda like all these SUVs that are built and used as passenger cars
but are regulated as trucks?
I guess I am just old and out of touch.
michael
On 5/17/06, Michael Neverdosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where is it identified as a scooter?
michael
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Neverdosky wrote:
The job of my car and truck is transportation, no more, no less.
OK, then, either system will do that.
What is the job of that page you listed? Can't be to draw people to
your web site as there are no links on it leading to your main site.
That's because I posted direct link on EVDL. Normally you get to that
page from the main one. And then you get to the main one by going
back one page in your browser. I can include direct "back to main page"
link too.
What is the job of your main site?
To educate people like you and show that is available for purchase.
Certainly not to sell people equipment or to allow simple comparison
as much of the information is "inquire".
It is only for Siemens hardware. Everything else is clearly listed.
My pricing policy and what I'm allowed or choose to publish
is not something I'm going to discuss here.
The hardware is available whether prices are published or not.
To get the cost info takes simple email or phone call.
So how can I compare the cost of the fancy AC systems you tout so
loudly when you won't even list the price?
See above.
Your web site does not inspire confidence and would not make me put
you at the top of my list of suppliers of equipment or information.
Fine, good luck with your further search then. Have a nice day.
michael
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hm ok if you go to http://images.google.com/images?q=Vectrix+&hl=en
I see where you saying it isn't a scooter but I don't think that is what we
are talking about. There is a Robrady Vectrix Superbike which definatly isn't a
scooter. We are talking about all the other pictures which are a scooter and
comparing them to similar sized scooters. Such as the suzuki burgman is a
scooter that is 450-650cc. and I think the honda silverwing is similar and also
classified as a scooter actually maybe some people call it a Maxi-Scooter but
scooter none the less. They look very much like the vectrix to me.
Michael Neverdosky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you aware that I was responding to a post that said that the
Vectrix was quicker than 400-600cc bikes?
I know of NO 600cc scooters so I must assume that he was refering to SPORTBIKES.
He posted a comparason to a 400cc bike that I doubt is a 'scooter' and
still has not addressed the inclusion of 600cc in the original post of
just how quick the Vectrix is.
I looked at the pictures and the Vectrix looks like a motorcycle. It
does not have a step through frame and has full size wheels and tires.
Where is the part that makes it a scooter?
Now people have their own ideas of two wheel fun and that is fine but
when you tell me that a bike is quicker than 400-600cc bikes I want to
see it compared to the range of bikes not just the low end.
I am sure that they will sell lots of them if they ever get fully into
production, for the 'gee whizz' factor if nothing else.
I used a Honda Elite 125 for a few years (a real scooter) and it was a
great tool. It was cheap to purchase and maintain, and very easy on
fuel. It did not look like a sportbike.
The Vectrix LOOKS like a sportbike.
Where is it identified as a scooter?
michael
On 5/17/06, Roger Stockton wrote:
> Michael Neverdosky wrote:
>
> > So how about the specs on some of the 600cc bikes?
> Are you aware that the Vectrix is a *scooter*, not a motorcycle?
>
> The proper comparison is between the Vectrix and other sit-down,
> Vespa-esque styled scooters, typically of 250cc or so displacement, not
> half-litre sportbikes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Neverdosky wrote:
> Are you aware that I was responding to a post that said that the
> Vectrix was quicker than 400-600cc bikes?
Yes. I expect that the poster is fully aware that the Vectrix is
marketed as a "maxi-scooter", *not* a motorbike, and used the term
"bike" in referring to its ICE counterparts. I do not believe the
intent was ever to suggest that the Vectrix is quicker than a half-litre
sportbike.
> I looked at the pictures and the Vectrix looks like a motorcycle. It
> does not have a step through frame and has full size wheels and tires.
> Where is the part that makes it a scooter?
You clearly did not look very closely. I saw the Vectrix in person at
EVS20, and it is indeed a largish scooter with a step through frame and
floorboards for the driver's feet, etc. Note that Vectrix describes
their product as a "maxi-scooter", never a motorcycle, and look more
closely at the pictures, eg:
<http://www.vectrixeurope.com/default.aspx?id=d8797e99-c564-4e61-833b-7f
a37d746e04>
> The Vectrix LOOKS like a sportbike.
It does indeed have a fairing reminescent of a small sportbike, but if
you take more than a casual glance at the pictures, you will immediately
recognise it for what it is. The step through frame and floorboards are
a definite givaway.
> Where is it identified as a scooter?
Everywhere on the website. It is always described as a "maxi-scooter",
never a motorcycle.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well here is the problem.
Your site comes off as a sales pitch for the AC drivve systems that
you are selling.
Tell me, how much do you trust someone who is giving you a sales pitch
to also give you clear, unbiased information?
Just as there are alternatives in EV construction there are choices in
how you layout and populate a web site.
Different choices often produce different results.
michael
On 5/17/06, Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the job of your main site?
To educate people like you and show that is available for purchase.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Paul G. wrote:
This is the part where I laugh. Both the Z1K-LV and the Z2K-EHV have the
same feature set except for the raw power (peak voltage and amps.)
That alone tells me that you did not bother to read through the features
list.
May be Otmar can comment if his controllers self-tune to the motor
parameters connected to them? Or have integrated DC-DC converters?
Or at least built in software fixed model of the motor attached to it?
I suspect a DC controller doesn't care what motor it is feeding, so
can't optimize efficiency or stay away from dangerous for the motor
values. Not the voltages/currents you can limit, but something
like prevent rotor saturation while maximizing power for given
temp. But what the heck, we got kW, it makes up for lack of
fine details like that, right?
You
keep selling the value of the features and trying to ignore the power
levels. Features cost money. Power costs money. You can't have an honest
price comparison looking at one and not the other.
I'm not ignoring power. Otmar doesn't make less powerful
(~100kW) controllers for comparison, and I can't downgrade
inverter's intelligence to the DC controller level either,
it's already fixed with the associated cost.
Here is a pair that is as close a match as I can come up with.
AC:
one of your drive systems set to 280 battery amps
(312 volt system of X ah, not included in cost.)
Cost: ??
Let's take MES-DEA system, more amps and more volts allowed.
325A RMS, 400V, $3,826 (inverter alone). The motors
of about the same power $3.5k. So, say $7.5k a system.
Yes, more dollars so what? You paid for what you get.
DC:
Zilla Z1K-LV set to 560 battery amps
(156 volt system of 2X ah, not included in cost.)
ADC 8 inch motor
But it's not the same as liquid cooled high speed AC motor.
2, SW-200 contactors
Far from the same as railroad reliability grade Schaltbau contactors
(http://www.schaltbau-gmbh.com/) we use
Curtis pot box
Compared with Bosch throttle sensor? You've got to be kidding.
Iota DLS-55 DC to DC converter
That's not an EV DC-DC converter. It's a part that happen to
take DC in so can function as one. Just like a fish tank
wanter pump. No OEM supplier or OEM customer in their right
mind will use fish tank product.
You offered a soup of components which sure can work together.
I supply systems to OEM customers according to the standards
in their industry. Not the same as conversion hobby.
It is not professional approach, and OK for amateurs
and DIY geeks like most on this list.
No one expect for OEM system cost the same as hobby grade one,
while either one sure will take your EV from A to B.
Cost: $4065 (parts source EVparts and WindSun)
It is very similar (and pointless) argument as the
cost and power of Rich's chargers vs BRUSA's.
Goals and markets are different. For Rich kW/$ ratio
is primary concern, and his chargers are unbeatable
in that respect. BRUSA has different priority set, so
kW/$ is not a major factor.
Mercedes cost more than Echo, but it doesn't make it
worse off car, does it? It just makes it a car not
for you.
Got to do work now. Better stop, since this info doesn't
change anyone's mind anyway.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
If this is the case, you may want to use hydraulic wheel motors at
each rear wheel. They take almost no room and need no gear reducers.
The electric motor drives a hydraulic pump to run the wheel motors.
These are standard fork lift parts. The main drawback is that the
hydraulic pump / motor costs you 10-20% efficiency.
And now for something slightly different, how about hydraulic power
assist...
According to a past article in the Detroit
News<http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/AUTO01/512180348/1148>,
Ford Motor Co. and Eaton Corp. are working to get hydraulic hybrid
technology into the real world as quickly as possible, especially for the
contractors like the U.S. Army and the United Parcel Service. More recently,
there was the announcement of a heavy duty Ford pickup truck that would be
equipped with a Modular Hydraulic Transmission.
Such systems certainly are less efficient than electric drives and hydraulic
fluid is an environmental pollutant. On the other hand, it probably would be
cheaper overall and might achieve relatively equivalent effectiveness for
the application you envision.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 17 May 2006 17:56, Cor van de Water wrote:
John,
The battery pack alone was more than the
difference in a gas and electric RAV4
I am afraid you are confusing the end-user battery
cost with its BOM or purchase price for the manufacturer
as well as the difference in MSRP between two vehicles
versus the profit made on the RAV4-EV.
No, I am discounting the consumer price by more than 50%.
Example: if they make 10,000 profit on a gas RAV4 and
5,000 profit on a RAV4 EV, then of course they rather
sell gas variants and you could argue that they
"subsidize" 5,000 on each RAV4 EV, but the truth is that
they make profit on either, only less on the RAV4 EV.
Big assumptions. And the leases were absolute losses as there was no
recaptured residual value. Except for the very few resold, they were
either destroyed or given away.
I don't know it to be a fact, but I would bet money that each rav4 ev
sold at 42k was a loss absolutely against the manufacturing cost,
without even considering r&d and tooling reclamation.
It may be instructive to view it from the consumers point
of view: with the RAV4 EV he gets 5,000 more value for his
money.
It is more instructive to look at it from the manufacturer point of
view. Assume that your numbers were correct, 10k profit on gas v 5k for
ev (again, I would bet those are wrong, not nearly 10k margin on a rav,
and a loss on the ev, probably 20k or more), then you are looking at a
10k return on 15k investment - 66% (at a price of 25k) v 5k return on 40
k investment (at a price of 45k) -12.5%.
Even if the rav4 ev is incrementally profitable - which I highly doubt -
it is a poor investment decision.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Neverdosky wrote:
> what the heck is a maxi-scooter?
I dunno. All I can tell is that it is a sub-category of scooters in
which the largest (physically and displacement-wise) scooters live. The
largest in this class at the moment appears to be the 650cc Suzuki
Burgman, but there are at least a handful of others in the 400-600cc
range.
I would guess that the maxi-scooter designation is to distinguish them
from their more anemic brethren in the 50-125cc (or perhaps even up to
250cc) range, and expect that the maxi-scooters are pushing right up
against the legal maximum for scooters. The X9 Evolution 500 (460cc)
maxi-scotter, for instance, apparently tops out at over 100mph... that
is, in my mind at least, *waay* above what the scooter class was
intended to encompass. The 100kph/62mph top end of the Vectrix strikes
me as more representative of what scooters were intended for.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
RUSSCO now has a new website: http://russcoev.com. I've kicked
out most of the construction debris as things are coming together
and the site is more or less post-able. As the webmaster for
this site, I would appreciate suggestions for how it might be
made better.
Note that the construction of this site does not imply my
endorsement of RUSSCO products. My goals in this undertaking are
to help out a fellow EV'er (one whom I've known for some twelve
to thirteen years), and to have a commercial site under my wing
as I look for a niche to help support myself in one of my
interests - EVs.
Chuck
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
http://www.geocities.com/chursch/bizcard.bmp
russco wrote Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:42 PM:
> Yes, I would like to have a web site set up. I don't have the
> experience to do so, and will probably have one of the EAA NB
members
> set up a site. Problem is, even without a web site and
minimal
> comments on this discussion list, I can't keep up with charger
> production. Ever since the gas prices went up, demand for
chargers has
> increased dramatically.
>
> Russ Kaufmann
>
> Doug Weathers wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 4, 2006, at 1:31 PM, russco wrote:
> >
> >> The RUSSCO charger operation will be relocating to North
Grants Pass,
> >> Oregon in February. Same area at the Damon Controller
Company. Looks
> >> like all the little niche EV component manufactures will be
in the
> >> Pacific North West.
> >
> >
> > Welcome to Oregon!
> >
> > Do you plan to put up a web site?
> >
> >>
> >> Russ Kaufmann
> >>
> >> RUSSCO Engineering
> >>
> >> The Other PFC Charger With GFCI
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Doug Weathers
> > Bend, OR, USA
> > <http://learn-something.blogsite.org/>
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
chemcat9 wrote:
>Are these constraints reasonable?
Your constraints probably aren't reasonable with the donor
vehicles you're choosing unless you wish to spend
$20,000-30,000 for a battery pack.
You CAN do 100+ miles highway range with cheap lead acid
batteries. But it is difficult.
The only 100% surefire way to have your desired range on
lead acid batteries is to take a small pickup and load it up
with as many batteries as you can fit. Say, a Chevy S10 or
Toyota Xtracab, two proven platforms.
Such a vehicle will usually not be very fast. If you were to
have about 2,500 pounds of flooded lead acid batteries in a
5,500 pound vehicle, a 9" motor, and a 1,000 amp controller,
you'd do 0-60 mph in about 20-25 seconds and top out at
around 80 mph. Range would be about 100 miles at 60 mph,
maybe 70 miles at 70 mph. You'd be able to smoke your tires
with a powerful controller, but it would be a very slow rig.
You could go much faster and as far with a similarly sized
pack of AGM lead acid batteries, but be prepared to pay
$5,000+ for a battery pack. Perhaps 0-60 mph in 10-11
seconds would be possible under that setup with AGM
batteries, a 1,000 amp Zilla controller, and a single 9"
motor. 'Normal' performance, not fast, not slow. About like
a late 90s/early 2000s midsize sedan.
Up it to a 2,000 amp Zilla and use a dual motor setup, and
0-60 mph would drop to the 6 second region on an AGM pack,
but that extra motor and powerful controller would add
thousands of dollars to the cost. But it would be fast!
Dick Finley's last project before he passed away was a
Toyota XtraCab with 120 miles range at 55 mph. It had 2,500
pounds of Trojan flooded lead acid batteries, an Advanced DC
9" motor, and a DCP 1200 amp controller. Topped out at 85
mph, did 0-60 mph in 18-20 seconds. Not very fast, but it
has very good range. At 70 mph, it's range would probably be
around 70-80 miles, but that's just my guess. May be higher
or lower.
View the following trucks with 100 miles range or more if
you're interested:
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/37
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/185
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/26
The range on these trucks would be greatly improved with
aerodynamic modifications and other efficiency
modifications. Probably around a 40% range increase with
heavy modification. As far as I know, no one has tried to
aeromod the hell out of a truck like this yet, but I have
run simulations that show 200 miles range on lead acid as
being possible. But since no one has tried heavily
aero-modding a truck like this and also designing it for
long range, we just don't know. It would be a very
interesting experiment.
See the following article about Phil Knox's Toyota T100
pickup and the effects heavy aerodynamic modification had on
the fuel economy of his pickup truck:
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=870
30% improvement in highway mpg from aeromods alone, and
nothing else. The same will apply to range on your EV with a
given battery pack, and then some due to lower current draws
and Peukert's effect coming into play.
Now, you could do long range with lead acid in a very
aerodynamic sports car if you drive with a light foot. I
don't think an RX7 would do it, but it's a possibility,
while a VW Kharmen Ghia most certainly could. But it would
require half its weight in batteries and a lot of
aerodynamic modifications executed correctly. Finding a
place to put all of those batteries gets difficult. Without
extensive aerodynamic modifcations, low rolling resistance
tires, corrected alignment, synthetic transmission oil, and
other efficiency improvements, you might only get 40 miles
highway range, instead of 80-100 miles highway range that
the mods would allow on a battery pack that's roughly half
your vehicle's weight.
Efficiency is EVERYTHING when it comes to range. Otherwise,
you see diminishing returns and hit a range wall using lead
acid batteries.
To improve the aerodynamic efficiency of your vehicle, you
can do the following to it:
-grill block: seal off the grill of your vehicle from the
inside to reduce turbulence. This could reduce your
aerodynamic drag by 5-8%.
-full underbelly, where you design a smooth underbelly for
the vehicle and attach it. This could reduce your
aerodynamic drag by 7-12%.
-rear wheel skirts: ever see a Honda Insight? Cover your
rear wheels to reduce drag. This could reduce your
aerodynamic drag by 4-8%.
-tapered rear end: for a car this would be a rear spoiler
specifically designed to be flush with the roofline and to
taper back for a 6:1 fineness ratio and prematurely cut off
where needed, for a truck this would be a tapered bed cover
as shown in the article on Phil Knox's pickup truck, again
with a 6:1 fineness ratio. This could reduce your
aerodynamic drag by 15-25% on a pickup, and about 8-15% on a
car. Much harder to execute on a car than a pickup.
-lowered ride height: 2.9-3" is optimal for reduced drag.
Could reduce aerodrag somewhere under 5%.
-wheel spoilers: basically dams that block air from reaching
your front wheels and generating turbulence. Could reduce
aero drag somewhere under 3%.
-front air dam: properly designed, a front air dam reduces
airflow to the underside of the vehicle lowering turbulence
and thus drag, while also having the bonus of generating
downforce through the ground effect principle(usually, low
drag and good downforce are mutually exclusive, but not in
this case). Could reduce aero drag around 5%.
-side skirts: to be used with front air dam, keeps air flow
away from underside of vehicle. Could reduce aero drag
around 5%.
-covered rims: cover your rims up to induce less turbulence.
Marginal benefit, around 3%.
-shave off all protrusions: If you have chrome trim pieces
that have no use other than aesthetics or rain gutters,
remove them! Radio antenna? Remove it. Passenger side
mirror? Remove it if you are willing. Replace drivers' side
mirror with a more aerodynamic mirror, or use a camera setup
and elimate the driver's side mirror altogether. Very
marginal benefit, around 5% for everything combined.
-seal all seams, reduce all gaps: some individuals have
caulked shut or taped shut any seams and gaps over their
headlights, gas tank lid, doors, windows/windshield, ect.
and then used a razor to make the doors, trunk, ect.
accessable again with a greatly reduced gap. This has a very
marginal reduction in drag. However, it looks like crap. It
is possible to make it look very professional, if you're
willing to put the work in. Very marginal benefit, < 3%.
-shaved door handles: remove your door handles and install a
remote activiated system to open your doors. Hotrodders and
low riders often use this for styling purposes, but it
slightly reduces aerodynamic drag. You basically weld a
backing plate to where your door handle was and inside the
door you install the electronics used to open/close your
doors from the outside with a remote system. Very marginal
benefit, < 1% reduce aero drag.
All of those figures are relative estimates for the
reduction in aerodynamic drag, not a reduction in total
drag! Using all the modifications above, you're looking at a
30-40% highway range increase on a given battery pack.
To improve the rolling efficiency of your vehicle, you can
do the following to it:
-Low Rolling Resistance Tires: By far the most common
efficiency modification for EVs, allows you 15-20% less
energy consumption over using normal tires in an EV. Honda
Insight tires have some of the lowest rolling resistance
available, a coefficient rolling resistance around .006.
They aren't suitable for a heavy truck, however, but a
sports car, yes. There are LRR tires made for trucks, but
you'll have to look around if you're interested.
-Synthetic Transmission oil: Depends on your transmission
whether or not it will yield an efficiency benefit. Uusually
around 1-2% drop in energy consumption, sometimes as high as
10%, sometimes no benefit at all.
-Drag free brakes: Machine your brake disk calipers so the
pistons are perfectly round; then they won't drag.
-Low drag alignment: Zero degrees toe-in, 0-degrees toe-out,
and most importantly, 0 degrees camber
-Low friction wheel bearings: Replace your wheel bearings if
they aren't up to spec.
Doing all the efficiency mods could give you great range.
Alan Cocconi's electric Honda CRX made liberal use of them,
and got 100 miles range at 60 mph, 120 miles range at 50
mph. He had a 100 kW AC drive, no transmission, and a 336V
pack of Optima batteries. Prpbably not a realistic route for
you, and efforts to duplicate this have not resulted in
results that were as satisfactory(ie. Victor Tikhonov got 70
miles range on a similar setup). To get this range, Alan
Cocconi was using 25 amps for acceleration AND cruising at
60 mph, which is very low and unrealistic for normal
driving. Further, his batteries were thermally regulated to
achieve maximum capacity by keeping them over 100 degrees.
This reduces their shelf life but increases range.
John Bryan has an electric VW Kharmen Ghia that gets about
100 wh/mile overall with some hard acceleration, some
highway, mostly around town, probably around 150 wh/mile at
steady highway speeds. It has a small battery pack, only
192V of Optima batteries, which is 720 pounds of batteries,
in a 2,500 pound car. So his range at 60 mph is only 45
miles. But the benefits of efficiency show.
A high school who entered the Tour De Sol built a sports car
EV with 140 miles range. They don't specifiy at what speed,
but my guess is around 45-50 mph. It had a 1,450 pound
battery pack of 20 Trojan T145 batteries, Advanced DC 9"
motor, and practically every efficiency modification I
listed above. It looks nothing like the car it originally
was. You can read more about it in the following links:
http://www.foveal.com/ATdS_Report_2000.html (See Team 43,
#61)
http://www.foveal.com/ATdS_Report_1995.txt
Photos:
http://www.nesea.org/transportation/99atds/photos/mvc-234e.jpg
http://www.automorrow.com/images/events/tds2001/image/61b.jpg
http://dodd.senate.gov/events/00/0518.jpg
http://www.automorrow.com/images/events/tds2001/preview/61a.jpg
Bottom line, doing long range with lead acid batteries is
possible. How much time are you willing to spend on body
modifications and how much are you willing to sacrifice
performance for range? How gentle are you willing to drive?
Are you willing to accept the possibility it may not work
depending on your donor vehicle, even if it has worked in
the past on various types of vehicles?
Or alternatively, how much money are you going to spend on
advanced batteries if you aren't willing to use lead acid?
--- End Message ---
