EV Digest 5496
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Vectrix
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: A123 Systems sponsored KillaCycle
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Donor Car Recommendations for EV Conversion
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: g'bye Porsche
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: AC vs. DC
by "Evan Tuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: AC vs. DC
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: AC vs. DC - Gadget Regen
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: g'bye Porsche
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Regen
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Regen
by Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: White Zombie terrorizes quiet hillbilly community in Idaho
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: Front-Wheel or Rear-Wheel Drive
by Wayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: "It's the Instrumentation, Jim"
by "Jonathan Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Fw: Vectrix
by Mark Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) A123 batteries
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18) RE: Regen
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Fw: Vectrix. Now Lectra.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: Donor Car Recommendations for EV Conversion
by "Dave Roekle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Regen
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) RE: Regen
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) DC: shunt or sepex DC motors for regen
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
So in other words, it's STILL vaporware.
Oh well.
> By the way, I just got word from a senior executive at Vectrix who said in
> no uncertain terms that that guy Roger Layola in Barcelona, Spain does
> *NOT*
> have Vectrix bike. There is no one, not a single customer, who has one
> yet.
> Deliveries will not start until November.
>
> That guy just copied all of the info and photos off of Vectrix's website
> and
> then put them up on the EV Album.
>
> Charles Whalen
>
>
> On Sunday, May 14, 2006 7:52 PM, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
>
>> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/765 Seems it is no longer vaporware.
>> Lawrence Rhodes
>> Bassoon/Contrabassoon
>> Reedmaker
>> Book 4/5 doubler
>> Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
>> Vegetable Oil Car.
>> 415-821-3519
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The bike uses less than one kW-hr for each trip down the strip.
A car would likely use twice as much, maybe more, because it has more
aero drag.
Bill Dube'
At 02:18 PM 5/17/2006, you wrote:
How many kWh do you need per 1/4 mile pass on the
Killacycle?
Just interested, as it will give me an idea of what a high
performance electric street car that pulls 10s or 11s might
look like when it comes to energy consumption per race.
Bill Dube wrote:
>These cells have a specific energy of about 150
>W-hrs/kg. Thus, a 750 lb pack would have about 50 kW-hrs
>of energy. My Wabbit (a brick with wheels) uses about
>215 W-hrs per mile. It would go about 230 miles on
>such a huge pack.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Unless you're willing to sacrifice seating 4 adults and
instead compromise for 2 or 3 adults, meeting your range
goal on a $12,000 budget will be difficult.
But $12,000 is a lot to work with for a conversion. Most
conversions cost $6,000-8,000.
For the type of car you describe, I'd recommend looking for
something that is:
a) lightweight, under 2,000 pounds
b) seats 4
c) is aerodynamic
d) has a reasonable amount of room for batteries
Not many cars will meet this criteria. In fact, none
available in the U.S. might meet it at all. Finding the
right donor won't be easy.
But do some research.
Look into a Datsun 1200. Stock, they are 1,600 pounds and
have decent aerodynamics. John Wayland has a Datsun 1200
conversion named Blue Meanie. It will get about 35-40 miles
range at 60 mph with a battery pack of 17 Exide Orbitals.
This is a 697 pound battery pack, with an EV weighing 2,400
pounds, much of that being stereo equipment. It has an
Advanced DC 9 motor, Zilla 1k controller, does 0-60 mph
in under 6 seconds, and tops out at around 125 mph. It seats
4 adults.
However, you want more range than that.
The only way to get it is to add more batteries. You might
be able to do 80-100 miles range under gentle driving, *IF*
you can fit a 348V pack of Exide Orbital AGM batteries,
weighing in at 1,189 pounds or perhaps a 144V pack of Trojan
T105 flooded lead acid batteries weighing in at 1,464 pounds
if you're less concerned about performance and don't care
about acceleration. Both setups would handily exceed your
performance goals. $12,000 can get you acceleration like a
Ferrari or Porsche in an EV, use it wisely! Go with wet
cells, and the price will drop along with the acceleration.
There are no guarantees on range, as driving style is a big
factor. But in theory, it is possible, but difficult, to
meet your goals.
The following setup will get you 0-60 mph in 6 seconds, top
speed of 120+ mph, and an estimated range of 80+ miles at 60
mph in a Datsun 1200:
-WarP 9'' series DC motor x1 $1,395
-Exide Orbital battery x29 $2,784
-Godzilla Controller(72-348V DC, 1,000 amp max, hall effect
pedal input) x1 $2,830
-PFC 20 Charger x1 $1,500
-Miscellaneous components(Heat shrink tubing, tools, adaptor
plate, fuses, ect.) $2,000
-Rudman MkIIB Battery Regulators x29 $1,305
-Datsun 1200 in good condition $2,000
Total: $13,814
Doesn't include shipping costs and assumes you do your own
work on the battery racks, adaptor plate, ect.
You could do a conversion with less performance and similar
range(in theory) for much cheaper, if you are willing to
sacrifice performance and sacrifice the zero maintenance
that AGM batteries offer. Using cheaper but dramatically
less powerful flooded batteries would make the car very
cheap to operate and far cheaper to build at around $7,000.
Even with flooded golf cart batteries, it would still be
possible to achieve an 85-90 mph top speed in a Datsun 1200
using a 120-144V pack, so 60 mph is not out of the question
at all!
Further, low rolling resistance tires would be a must for
this range.
In theory, this car would get over 80 miles range, needing
only 25-30 amps to maintain 60 mph if you go with an AGM
setup of 348V. If you go lower speeds, range will improve.
Go faster, it will drop. Accelerate fast, range will suffer
greatly.
You also do not want to fully discharge your batteries, as
it will shorten their life and increase your operating
costs. You want to routinely discharge them 30-50% to
maximize life. So if your daily range is 50-75 miles, you
better have charging in between stops.
At 35 mph, you'd have no problem getting 100 miles range, on
the other hand. What speed do yuo need that range?
With such a conversion, you'd certainly be treading new
ground, and success cannot be guaranteed as it's
theoretical. Be careful.
It is possible to get 100+ miles range in an EV on a $7,000
budget or so. But this EV would be a small pickup, like an
80s model Chevy S10, and such a vehicle can usually only
seat 2 or 3 adults, not 4. Taking a small pickup and loading
it up with 2,500 pounds of batteries is proven and has been
demonstrated on a repeated basis to give 80+ mph top speed,
dreadfully slow acceleration, and range in excess of 100
miles per charge at 60 mph highway speeds. If you're willing
to sacrifice one or two seats, or can find a small pickup
with an extended cab in order to seat 4, this is the way to
go.
Further, if you're willing to alter your vehicle's
appearance by doing aerodynamic modifications, you can
dramatically increase your range.
Figure out what compromises you're willing to make. Are you
willing to drive a truck loaded with batteries, instead of a
small car? If you must have a small car, would you be happy
if it could only seat 2(ie. Sports car)? Or would you be
happy to drive at low speeds of 30-40 mph in order to get
your range?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael,
Hopefully the insurance company will help with the funding of another
one?
It's a sad way for an EV to go, but thankfully no-one was hurt. At
the end of the day it is just a car which can be replaced. I know
that doesn't make up for all the hard work you've put into it but I
guess it's just a case of thanking your lucky stars or whomever you
like to thank in this sort of situation.
Will there be a mark II or is it too early to think about such things???
Regards
Nikki
On May 18, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Cor van de Water wrote:
Michael,
Very sorry to hear about your loss.
But indeed you have been spared a much worse fate...
I seem to recall you were using buddy-paired YTs.
(32 batteries in paralleled pairs, 16 x 12V = 192V series)
Could that have been an issue?
Normally if a car is not driven/charged, no current is
flowing unless one string/buddy pair is shorting out, then
the parallel battery/string suddenly does see a path to
send current!
No fuses of disconnects on >every< battery, so this is
typically an unlimited situation, where you will see
full short-circuit amps, typically around 3000, resulting
in up to 40 kW power production in one battery.
Not to mention the battery cable temp...
Frankly, with all the discussions we have about the twin
strings in the US Electricars getting very short battery
life, this is an additional and very serious reason to
avoid parallel battery configurations if they are not
individually managed/protected.
Sorry you had to find this failure in such a destructive test.
Blessings,
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 michael bearden
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: g'bye Porsche
I tried to post this earlier today..don't know if it went through,
so if
you've already seen/read this...sorry...
Hello EV’ers...it’s been a long time since I have been able to be a
part
of this discussion list. I have been overwhelmed with demands on my
time
since I left my career type job at the University in 2003, and have
not
been able to keep up with routine e-mails, much less the traffic on
the
EVDL. I have been having a great EV time though driving the slick 914
conversion that I bought from Brian Hall last year; a real attention
getter and conversation-starter…until last Sunday morning, when it was
the 5 AM wake up call for our rural neighborhood when it went up in
flames very spectacularly. This EV had a really nice custom fiberglass
body, and that stuff burned big time. On the side of “This is Bad, but
it could have been (much) Worse”, I had been having a problem with the
shift linkage and couldn’t get it into reverse, which is the only
reason
it was parked OUTSIDE of the garage. Inside of the garage were two
other
vehicles ( the Gogomobil and our Civic Hybrid) and every tool I own
(which is quite a few…If the Porsche had been inside, no one would
have
known about the fire until the whole garage was totally involved. So,
give thanks where appropriate.
I had driven the EV Saturday, and charged it when I returned, thinking
that I was going to drive it Saturday night and Sunday morning, but
then
plans changed, and I took another car Saturday night. So, it wasn’t
plugged in, and it wasn’t moving.
The arson investigator couldn’t find any cause for the fire, and I was
way puzzled until Brian came over on Monday and said that he had
talked
to Roderick (Wilde) who said he remembers one other time this happened
to an EV with Optimas (which I had). One cell reversed, and turned
into
a very hungry resistor/heat sink which caused the destruction of
the EV.
This makes sense to me, since the origin of the fire that the
investigator pointed out to me was where the weakest two batteries
were
(the next two to be replaced).
I have been working my way through the 32 YT’s that I salvaged out of
the wreck of WATTABMR in 2003, and they have been lasting nicely
thanks
to Rich and Joes’ continued development of the regulator technology.
Anyway, thoughts on this: my garage/shop is separated from the
house by
a pretty good distance…what if it was underneath living quarters (as
many garages are)?
Are AGMs uniquely susceptible to this, or is this a potential problem
for other types of batteries?
Michael B (accomplished Chef of Porsche Flambe’)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
John Norton wrote:
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.
Your're still trying to say that a car (any car) has to be profitable
even if you only sell 1200 of them. That's a ridiculously small number
to amortize your development costs over. That attitude is why American
businesses are losing out to the competition.
I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. This is Econ 101:
the marginal cost of production of each unit has to be less than the
sale price for each unit. The total production run has to sell, in
total, for more than the fixed and variable costs total for that run.
The problem with the American businesses who are losing to the
competition is that they are NOT doing that - that's why they have
quarterly losses in the billions. The problem isn't that they are
sacrificing the long term for short term profitability, it is that they
do not have even short term profitability. (and the losses aren't
investments, they are just losses)
The RAV4 EV was not a program that was an effort to be profitable in
itself because it couldn't be. It was a reaction to regulation. You
could lease for 4 years for a lump sum of $16k. That wouldn't pay the
marginal production cost of a gas RAV. I am saying that even without
trying to amortize the R&D and tooling - the part where I say "forget
about the R&D and tooling costs involved, spread over a run of 1200 or
so vehicles" - that at a price of 42k, I would bet that it didn't cover
the marginal cost of manufacturing it.
The EV would not have existed at all without the CARB mandate
Sure they would. EVs existed before the CARB mandate was ever written,
and they are still being built after the mandate ended. The mandate
certainly encouraged the *auto companies* to produce EVs; but it
provided zero incentive for anyone else!
Of course here I meant the RAV EV, as that is the topic of discussion.
The CARB mandate did not "encourage" anything, it REQUIRED it - that's
why it was a mandate.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mandate
I don't think Toyota considered the RAV4-EV a failure per se; more
likely, they considered it a successful learning experiment. They then
went on to their hybrids, which are even more complex and expensive, but
were likely to be more successful at making money.
Of course Toyota considered the RAV4 a failure. This is what the FAQ
from Toyota says:
*http://tinyurl.com/ewwj5*
Toyota believes that the execution of the retail program launch was very
successful. A comprehensive marketing program, strong dealer support,
and an enticing pricing level were keys to this success. However, sales
levels were very low. As a result, no business case could be made for
continuing sales of the RAV4 EV at these volumes.
In the happy talk of corporate PR, this is Toyota saying that the retail
sales program was a failure.
The FAQ continues:
We believe that advances in hybrid technology and other advanced
systems have a much greater potential for the environment and Toyota.
Which is exactly what you are saying - they went on with hybrids
*because they could make money at it* . Which would be a roundabout way
of admitting that they were not making money with the RAV4 EV.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/17/06, Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
btw: How about two forklift AC drives in a car? Isn't some intrepid
adventurer in the UK doing just that? That just may be cheaper than
the frustrating high voltage systems. Maybe not, but at least it's
closer than the price comparison Victor is BS'in about. Let's check
out the numbers on the forklift drive. I can't wait to hear how it
runs.
Hi Otmar, how about just one forklift drive?
Peter Perkins has done this in his little van -
http://www.solarvan.co.uk/ac2.htm
Apparently he has a version of the AC3 Zapi inverter which works on
96V nominal systems, and provides over 30kW which is adequate for a
small vehicle. There is a larger model too.
Nice low battery voltage, it's a robust and cheap solution. A few
things could be improved to make it more suitable for on-road EV use
(car-type accellerator control for example) but these are software
controlled and could well appear in future.
Regards
Evan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> *http://tinyurl.com/ewwj5*
>
> Toyota believes that the execution of the retail program launch was very
> successful. A comprehensive marketing program, strong dealer support,
> and an enticing pricing level were keys to this success. However, sales
> levels were very low. As a result, no business case could be made for
> continuing sales of the RAV4 EV at these volumes.
>
>
> In the happy talk of corporate PR, this is Toyota saying that the retail
> sales program was a failure.
Except that what they are saying is total BS. The problem wasn't low
sales levels, it was the low production levels.
They couldn't build enough 2002 (IIRC might have been 2001) models to meet
demands and told people with outstanding orders that they could either
cancel or wait for a 2003 model. Then CA dropped the mandate and a couple
months after telling customers that they couldn't keep up with demand they
told them the program was canceled due to lack of demand.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michaela Merz wrote:
> I don't like the idea of having everything so closely linked
> together... If any part fails, you have to wait for repairs.
That's assuming that it is *possible* to repair. Present automotive
thinking is to make everything an expensive non-repairable assembly.
> In a dc system, you just get a replacement component and be done
> with.
That too is just a consequence of industrial thinking, and not intrinsic
to DC. The auto companies are perfecty capable of designing expensive,
non-repairable DC systems, too. :-(
> What I miss on dc systems is regen. And it strikes me as odd, that
> nobody came up with a solution for that.
The solutions have existed for 100 years. It's just that they add cost,
and most buyers want minimum cost.
Shunt or sepex DC motors are the way to get regen in a DC system. Series
motors are what you choose for lowest price, when you *don't* want
regen.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is the reason for mounting the DC regen off of the shaft of the motor
simply to avoid additional frictional forces that would be encountered
had the regen been mounted to either side of motor?
Just an observation.
Thanks,
Ralph.
Death to All Spammers wrote:
What I miss on dc systems is regen. And it strikes me as odd, that
nobody
came up with a solution for that. Like a second set of brushes or even a
small(er) generator that could be mounted to either end of an, say,
advanced dc motor to produce a few amps on braking.
Michaela
With this comment, I'm sure you'll get the full details of Roland's
EV, but it's done all the time by the handier mechanics, like whoever
worked on this EVVW...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4640464636
and the Right Honorable Reverend Gadget also bows to the god of regen
- http://reverendgadget.com/triumph2.html
...but no-one sells a pre-made setup like this, they all goldberg it
together in one way or another.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Frankly, with all the discussions we have about the twin
strings in the US Electricars getting very short battery
life, this is an additional and very serious reason to
avoid parallel battery configurations if they are not
individually managed/protected.
*nod* On the US Electricars they have two contactors, one for each
string to prevent this sort of thing. Also if one cell were to reverse
in a 25 battery string, it's one out of 150 cells, if one reverses in a
buddy pair it's one out of 6 cells.
I'm really sorry to hear about this.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Once again a question that may spark debate: Is the amount of energy
re-cooped from braking sufficient to off set the additional weight gain
of the regen itself?
I can readily see for someone that is seeing a need to continuously
break, but have any numbers been compiled?
Thanks,
Ralph.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Once again a question that may spark debate: Is the amount of energy
> re-cooped from braking sufficient to off set the additional weight gain
> of the regen itself?
Ralph,
There has been discussion in the past about regen, and the benefit is
claimed to be about 5% additional range with the right circumstances.
My Geo Prizm used to have a Zapi H2 controller with regen. The additional
weight consisted of a couple of contactors - hardly a penalty.
As for any real benefit, my commute at the time was 26 miles round trip,
with a long uphill climb on the freeway going to work (and the long coast
on the way home). The trip used about 66 amp hours. On a good day with
the traffic moving just right, I could coast all the way down the hill on
the freeway in the evening, and the pack would get about 2 amp hours put
back in. On most days though, traffic prevented me from coasting and I
didn't see much regen. I had no way to measure the regen during the
balance of the trip (stop-n-go traffic, etc).
One problem I had with regen was with a fully charged pack and any downhill
sections of the road. I had to keep my foot lightly on the pedal to keep
the controller out of regen mode or else the pack voltage would go too high.
Ralph
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
And if anyone is wondering why Wayland is so quiet...
Its my fault.
In Joliet John casually asked me to make it possible to send email while
on the road... no problem.. just configure his mail client to use the
authenticated mail server on his hosting provider. It doesn't work...
he can read mail, but sending doesn't recognize his pw.
So I change his password, thinking that would sync the servers and all
will be well. It didn't.
3 days and 4 tech support email's and several phone calls from a
"Wayland in Withdrawel" I think the password is now correct for both
sending and reading email,
We'll see.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don wrote:
"Transverse engines are more efficient, as their final gear does not
have the losses associated with the crown and pinion of a typical
front engine/rear wheel drive car. If you want faster off the line
acceleration, rear wheel drive is superior, because as the car
accelerates the weight shifts to the rear, giving more traction to
the rear wheels."
And then David wrote:
"Don't forget the Mustang's V8 is much heavier than a Celica 4 cylinder,"
Thanks for the thoughts...I won't be blasting off the line (or HOPE
not), just tooling around town, running ROF (Retired Old Fart)
errands and such.
I forgot to mention that the Mustang is equipped with the
4-banger...Still, 300+ pounds is a bit of an additional load.
Sounds like a wash for the most part...Looks like its now down to the
best price...
Thanks everybody...BCNULater
Wayne
If those of us who "can", "do" then those of us who "can't" won't
suffer as much from the high prices of excess.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The Grand Poobah wrote:
Think of it as the melting point. You
don't want to ever go there!
Unless you are John Wayland, of course.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
One big thing with a shaft drive, such as my 83' honda shadow, is that you
can't change the gear ratio very easily if at all. I think I could get a
different year rear and have a worse gear ratio but since I'm going direct
drive I'm stuck with what I have. With a chain or belt you can change the
pulleys within reason and it would make a big difference.
My bike isn't done yet because I haven't had time and I'm missing alot of
parts and some other issues but one thing is that it does have alot of room for
batteries.
Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Shaft drive is quieter. Chain is more efficient. Lawrence Rhodes.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Phillips"
To: "Roger Stockton"
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Vectrix
>I swear the EVDL is PMS this week! Is it a full moon? Debate over
> every little thing.
>
> I like the way that the Vectrix looks. I wonder if we'll ever see one?
> I'm not a scooter guy, I'm a, 800lb touring bike, guy, but I'd buy one
> so I can get off of my fuel dependence.
>
> I wonder if an old shaft drive Honda would be a good conversion? What
> is more efficient, shaft, chain, or belt? Does one come with a weight
> penalty?
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does anyone know how or where to purchase A123 M1 LiIon batteries?
The company didn't return my email inquiring about them. I could "reverse
engineer" some V28s but can't even get one of these shipped from the US to
Australia (where I am). There may be safety issues involved.
Regards, Rod Dilkes
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ralph wrote:
>One problem I had with regen was with a fully charged pack and any downhill
>sections of the road.
This downhill dilemma will be my situation when I start using my EV. The
first part of my commute is 5 miles downhill, then the last part is 5 miles
back up at the end of the day.
I've got Li-ion cells, so I want to charge them all the way each night to
equalize them--therefore I won't be able to put any of the downhill energy
back into them.
One thing I had considered (in the future) was keeping some smaller voltage
string in the car for regen, perhaps BB600's. I could charge them
partially, then let the downhill morning commute regen into them. At night
I was thinking that when I got to the uphill part, I could be going at 30mph
or so with the Li-ions just before hitting the hill, then disengaging the
Curtis controller from the motor, and instead switching on a contactor that
connected the BB600's directly to the motor to get me back up the last 5
miles. This would save high-current draw on the Li-ions, too.
Are there any problems with this method?
Thanks.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What does
the Lectra need and how much ya want?
2k as is but I'd take less for just the glider. It needs batteries unless
you can live with the 10 mile range of a 250 pound pack. A new pack of 4
optima would easily double that. at only 166 pounds. The rear tire needs
to be replaced. That's it. As an option you could keep the 6 batteries.
Make them 12v and go to 72v for a very peppy ride indeed. I'd be glad to
customize it for the buyer. I'm doing EV repair now. I need to switch to a
chopper/recumbent style bike for comfort reasons. I've already switched
bicycles to recumbent and am much happier in the saddle. As configured the
Lectra has a top speed of 40 mph and will climb most any San Francisco hill.
At 72v your will be tripling the hp. at 96v quadruple the hp. Lawrence
Rhodes.......
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
>> You're trying to say that a car (any car) has to be profitable even
>> if you only sell 1200 of them. That's a ridiculously small number
>> to amortize your development costs over.
John Norton wrote:
> I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. This is Econ 101:
> the marginal cost of production of each unit has to be less than the
> sale price for each unit. The total production run has to sell, in
> total, for more than the fixed and variable costs total for that run.
Agreed. That's basic economics.
If you know you want to build 1000 of something profitably, you design
it to be economically built in 1000-lot production runs. You wouldn't
pay huge amounts for tooling that would last for a million parts; you'd
use simpler cheaper short-life tools. You wouldn't use custom parts that
require a lot of new engineering and testing; you'd use standard
off-the-shelf parts.
The RAV4-EV looks like it was built like Toyota's other mass produced
vehicles. They paid a fortune for high-volume tooling and
custom-designed parts. If they *had* mass-produced it, the marginal cost
per vehicle would have been far lower. But instead, they terminated
production as soon as they defeated the CA ZEV mandate in court. So they
never reached the economies of scale that they designed for. That's why
they lost money on it.
> The RAV4 EV was not a program that was an effort to be profitable in
> itself because it couldn't be. It was a reaction to regulation.
I agree with you here. Toyota is a good company; if they had tried to
make it profitable at a 1000-piece production level, they probably would
have succeeded, or at least come a lot closer than they did.
So, I would guess there were other motives behind the approach they
took. Maybe they honestly thought it had a chance to sell in large
numbers. Maybe the conspiracy theorists are right and they "designed it
to fail". Maybe they just wanted to do it that way as an experiment. Who
knows?
You may not like the ZEV mandate; but it did cause the auto companies to
take action. They did produce a few thousand EVs, and we did get some
real-world experience with them, and it did advance the state of the
art. One could argue that hybrids may never have existed if the ZEV
mandate hadn't forced R&D into better batteries, motors, and
controllers.
I don't like mandates either. But they seem to be the only way to get
the auto industry to ever take a step forward!
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John--
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
The speed is not important to me as most of my driving is around town, 4-6
mile trips, under 40 mph. Also, I am back home after most trips, so I could
always "top-off" the batteries several times daily. 50-60 mile range would
be great, but the more I think about it, 35-50 would be acceptable.
I will start looking for a Datsun 1200 and see if it fits me or not.
Thanks again for your suggestions.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Westlund
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:29 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Donor Car Recommendations for EV Conversion
Unless you're willing to sacrifice seating 4 adults and
instead compromise for 2 or 3 adults, meeting your range
goal on a $12,000 budget will be difficult.
But $12,000 is a lot to work with for a conversion. Most
conversions cost $6,000-8,000.
For the type of car you describe, I'd recommend looking for
something that is:
a) lightweight, under 2,000 pounds
b) seats 4
c) is aerodynamic
d) has a reasonable amount of room for batteries
Not many cars will meet this criteria. In fact, none
available in the U.S. might meet it at all. Finding the
right donor won't be easy.
But do some research.
Look into a Datsun 1200. Stock, they are 1,600 pounds and
have decent aerodynamics. John Wayland has a Datsun 1200
conversion named Blue Meanie. It will get about 35-40 miles
range at 60 mph with a battery pack of 17 Exide Orbitals.
This is a 697 pound battery pack, with an EV weighing 2,400
pounds, much of that being stereo equipment. It has an
Advanced DC 9" motor, Zilla 1k controller, does 0-60 mph
in under 6 seconds, and tops out at around 125 mph. It seats
4 adults.
However, you want more range than that.
The only way to get it is to add more batteries. You might
be able to do 80-100 miles range under gentle driving, *IF*
you can fit a 348V pack of Exide Orbital AGM batteries,
weighing in at 1,189 pounds or perhaps a 144V pack of Trojan
T105 flooded lead acid batteries weighing in at 1,464 pounds
if you're less concerned about performance and don't care
about acceleration. Both setups would handily exceed your
performance goals. $12,000 can get you acceleration like a
Ferrari or Porsche in an EV, use it wisely! Go with wet
cells, and the price will drop along with the acceleration.
There are no guarantees on range, as driving style is a big
factor. But in theory, it is possible, but difficult, to
meet your goals.
The following setup will get you 0-60 mph in 6 seconds, top
speed of 120+ mph, and an estimated range of 80+ miles at 60
mph in a Datsun 1200:
-WarP 9'' series DC motor x1 $1,395
-Exide Orbital battery x29 $2,784
-Godzilla Controller(72-348V DC, 1,000 amp max, hall effect
pedal input) x1 $2,830
-PFC 20 Charger x1 $1,500
-Miscellaneous components(Heat shrink tubing, tools, adaptor
plate, fuses, ect.) $2,000
-Rudman MkIIB Battery Regulators x29 $1,305
-Datsun 1200 in good condition $2,000
Total: $13,814
Doesn't include shipping costs and assumes you do your own
work on the battery racks, adaptor plate, ect.
You could do a conversion with less performance and similar
range(in theory) for much cheaper, if you are willing to
sacrifice performance and sacrifice the zero maintenance
that AGM batteries offer. Using cheaper but dramatically
less powerful flooded batteries would make the car very
cheap to operate and far cheaper to build at around $7,000.
Even with flooded golf cart batteries, it would still be
possible to achieve an 85-90 mph top speed in a Datsun 1200
using a 120-144V pack, so 60 mph is not out of the question
at all!
Further, low rolling resistance tires would be a must for
this range.
In theory, this car would get over 80 miles range, needing
only 25-30 amps to maintain 60 mph if you go with an AGM
setup of 348V. If you go lower speeds, range will improve.
Go faster, it will drop. Accelerate fast, range will suffer
greatly.
You also do not want to fully discharge your batteries, as
it will shorten their life and increase your operating
costs. You want to routinely discharge them 30-50% to
maximize life. So if your daily range is 50-75 miles, you
better have charging in between stops.
At 35 mph, you'd have no problem getting 100 miles range, on
the other hand. What speed do yuo need that range?
With such a conversion, you'd certainly be treading new
ground, and success cannot be guaranteed as it's
theoretical. Be careful.
It is possible to get 100+ miles range in an EV on a $7,000
budget or so. But this EV would be a small pickup, like an
80s model Chevy S10, and such a vehicle can usually only
seat 2 or 3 adults, not 4. Taking a small pickup and loading
it up with 2,500 pounds of batteries is proven and has been
demonstrated on a repeated basis to give 80+ mph top speed,
dreadfully slow acceleration, and range in excess of 100
miles per charge at 60 mph highway speeds. If you're willing
to sacrifice one or two seats, or can find a small pickup
with an extended cab in order to seat 4, this is the way to
go.
Further, if you're willing to alter your vehicle's
appearance by doing aerodynamic modifications, you can
dramatically increase your range.
Figure out what compromises you're willing to make. Are you
willing to drive a truck loaded with batteries, instead of a
small car? If you must have a small car, would you be happy
if it could only seat 2(ie. Sports car)? Or would you be
happy to drive at low speeds of 30-40 mph in order to get
your range?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Once again a question that may spark debate: Is the amount of energy
re-cooped from braking sufficient to off set the additional weight gain
of the regen itself?
I can readily see for someone that is seeing a need to continuously
break, but have any numbers been compiled?
As someone with a full-bore AC system and a tractor with a shunt wound
motor, I'd have to say regen is one of those interesting things. Kind of
like air conditioning to be honest.
On the plus side the car will brake very well. And you will not have to
worry so much about replacing brake pads. However you will still want to
have power brakes because regen doesn't work when the batteries are
fully charged.
The real nice thing about driving regen is that the car "feels" like a
gas car. Lift your foot off the gas and the regen will kick in gently
and provide that "motor drag" feeling. If you put it into "second" and
the regen map will increase and you will slow down quicker. Put it into
"L" at 70mph to catch an off ramp and it's like dropping an anchor as
you get a 20 second 150amp charge into your batteries (at 350 volts,
that's a 50kw charger you're driving). If the wheels were to slip, regen
cuts back.
However when you coast a car, 100% of your momentum is turned into
rolling down the road. When you regen, you're not going to capture more
than 50% of your imputed momentum into the batteries due to basic
inefficiency. So coasting will get you farther, at least till you touch
the brakes at which time you get 50% of your power back with regen and
zilch back without it :-)
Personally I really like regen on the Prizm. It's nice to feel and
contributes to the "this is a pleasure to drive" along with the AC, the
heat, and the power steering. It's not an adventure, it's just plain nice.
On the tractor, I think regen is critical. When you're going down a hill
the motor will hold your speed using regen as a dynamic brake. When
you're mowing, the speed will be rock-solid going anywhere. I can't see
being without that to be honest.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
True,
Regen should be OFF until you are below 80% SOC and/or
configured to respect a max pack voltage and throttle back,
the Prius does it by reducing and eventually disabling
regeneration based on SOC.
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 Ralph Merwin
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:03 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Regen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Once again a question that may spark debate: Is the amount of energy
> re-cooped from braking sufficient to off set the additional weight gain
> of the regen itself?
Ralph,
There has been discussion in the past about regen, and the benefit is
claimed to be about 5% additional range with the right circumstances.
My Geo Prizm used to have a Zapi H2 controller with regen. The additional
weight consisted of a couple of contactors - hardly a penalty.
As for any real benefit, my commute at the time was 26 miles round trip,
with a long uphill climb on the freeway going to work (and the long coast
on the way home). The trip used about 66 amp hours. On a good day with
the traffic moving just right, I could coast all the way down the hill on
the freeway in the evening, and the pack would get about 2 amp hours put
back in. On most days though, traffic prevented me from coasting and I
didn't see much regen. I had no way to measure the regen during the
balance of the trip (stop-n-go traffic, etc).
One problem I had with regen was with a fully charged pack and any downhill
sections of the road. I had to keep my foot lightly on the pedal to keep
the controller out of regen mode or else the pack voltage would go too high.
Ralph
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee,
Do you know of a source for these shunt or sepex DC motors and/or their
limitations/drawbacks? Googling doesn't come up with anything I can
decipher.
Thanks,
Ralph P.
Lee Hart wrote:
Michaela Merz wrote:
I don't like the idea of having everything so closely linked
together... If any part fails, you have to wait for repairs.
That's assuming that it is *possible* to repair. Present automotive
thinking is to make everything an expensive non-repairable assembly.
In a dc system, you just get a replacement component and be done
with.
That too is just a consequence of industrial thinking, and not intrinsic
to DC. The auto companies are perfecty capable of designing expensive,
non-repairable DC systems, too. :-(
What I miss on dc systems is regen. And it strikes me as odd, that
nobody came up with a solution for that.
The solutions have existed for 100 years. It's just that they add cost,
and most buyers want minimum cost.
Shunt or sepex DC motors are the way to get regen in a DC system. Series
motors are what you choose for lowest price, when you *don't* want
regen.
--- End Message ---
