EV Digest 5503
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Motor sizes
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Kalifornia .... registering conversions
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Regen
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Three-wheel Go-cart
by Juergen Weichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Specs for 3 wheel xebra for sale in china
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: 200 miles highway range on flooded lead acid: Is it possible?
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Aerodynamics
by Mike Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Question about NIMH patent(s)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: 200 miles highway range on flooded lead acid: Is it possible?
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Motor sizes
by Gnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Aerodynamics
by Gnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Things that make you go Hmmm (was Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!)
by Mark Farver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Aerodynamics
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by Chet Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by "Evan Tuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: NiMH working but Unavailable
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Three-wheel Go-cart
by Juergen Weichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Question about NIMH patent(s)
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: $67K for a RAV4 EV?!
by "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
As weight is critical, in this power range i bet on a Perm motor or Lynch
motor.
But i'm having problems understanding how 21 lipoly cell phone batteries can
give 20kW ????
is there monstruous cellular phone using monstruous lipoly batteries i'm not
aware off :^)
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: "Gnat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Motor sizes
> I'm just wondering if someone can suggest what a brand and model
> might be capable of 13kw continuous and 20kw .The 13kw (17.4hp)
> is a brushed DC motor.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how a system was setup in eastern Europe.
> This was a electric motor on a sailplane for self launch. I believe
> the guy used 21 li-poly cell phone batteries for storage. The one
> picture I saw of the motor it looked a lot like some of the hub motors
> with the fins and vents. Unfortunately that's about the extent of the
> information. This is a interesting process as the cost of the battery
> powered self launch is about 20 cents compared to about $40 for a tow
> to about 3000 feet. Makes for a very cheap and green day of flying ;-]
>
> Dave
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I applied last November for Clean Air Stickers on two cars a 1993 Honda
Civic VX & my Jet Electravan. I got the stickers for the Honda under the
then new Hybrid law. I have yet to get the Electravan stickers. Lawrence
Rhodes.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reverend Gadget" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:43 PM
Subject: Kalifornia .... registering conversions
After being shuttled from agency to agency and back I
have found out that the state has made an agreement
with the auto makers, that conversions cannot qualify
for any Clean Air perks. Such as HOV lanes. Has anyone
had any luck with this? Let me know what if any luck
people have had in CA with this stuff. I'm trying to
get the state to certify us a converters so people can
save a trip to the referee station. It's also
interesting trying to get people in these state
agencies to grasp what we are doing. Sheesh!
Gadget
visit my websites at www.reverendgadget.com, gadgetsworld.org,
leftcoastconversions.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bill Dennis wrote:
>
> What's the status of the "Crazy Regen Idea" that was discussed last month,
> about replacing the DC motor's fan with slip rings? Is Jim Husted working
> on that, or has the idea languished?
It's languished with me, but not forgotten. I added "dynamotor or AC
motor with slip rings" to my list of junque to scrounge when the
opportunity arises. I could move the slip ring assembly to a DC motor to
experiment. (A dynamotor is a motor with a commutator at both ends, used
as a DC/DC converter).
--
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 ---
Not Shell, but Chevron Texaco.
ECD chairman Robert Stemple quoted them at $150/kWh in
volume for 20,000 cars per year. This was in the 90s, so
adjust it for inflation accordingly. Team Fate of UC Davis(I
think I said UCLA earlier, but that was a lapse of memory),
has quoted them at $200-300/kWh today in high volume.
I've read on EV World that the size is restricted to about
15 AH.
It is impractical to go much higher than 360V with today's
components(motors, controllers, ect.), and NiMH doesn't like
being parallelled in regard to charging, so that would
effectively keep them out of the pure EV or plug-in hybrid
market.
I do believe Chevron Texaco has the patent until about 2018.
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>Actually it's worse than that, the Universities got
>surplus/used batteries. The patent is owned by an oil
>company (Shell?) and they simply
>refuse to allow ANYONE to build NiMH in EVs size for
>ANY price or regardless of criteria.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Perry wrote:
Thanks, Roger. I didn't know Cloud was moving to FWD. With 2 in back, and
the batts moved back there, most of the weight is stable. In most races I
saw, these 1F2R models slowed the pack, with everyone drafting behind. It
seemed they didn't make the corners quite as quick as I would have expected.
I thought w/ the 2F design, it meant batts (and other weight possible) are
moved forward. I'm not sure which is better... but batts up front puts them
under the driver's legs, from what I saw... and they seemed to have the
ability to corner better on the sharp courses.
I used this configuration last year in my first ever Electrathon entry
and came in third overall. I used a Crystalyte hub motor in the front
wheel and it handled great. A weak battery pack (my fault) kept us from
winning speeds unfortunately. This year it will be different! ;-)
J
p.s. we had lots of juice left at the end of the run but not quite
enough voltage during the run for top speeds due to two sagging
batteries in the string - again my fault - didn't leave enough time for
testing prior to the event.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.chinapuxinbiz.com/eProduct.asp?BigClassName=Passenger%20Car&SmallClassName=&page=2
Got to this first. Lioncel car?
http://www.chinapuxinbiz.com/eproduct.asp?BigClassName=Electric%20vehicle
Looks slightly different from the Xebra. LR........
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:56 PM
Subject: Specs for 3 wheel xebra for sale in china
I saw what looks like the 3 wheel Zap Xebra on a wholesalers website from
China. Its at www.chinapuxinbiz.com and then click on electric vehicles.
Mike Young -Solectria Force Lover
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you had a dc truck that got 300 WH/mile at 60 mph, you would need a
60kwh pack to go 200 miles, while draining the pack to 0% SOC. So a
120kwh pack would be needed to go 200 miles down to a reasonable 50% SOC.
120kwh??? Do you know how big that is?? Physically and electrically??
Is there a dc truck with a 120kwh pack that can go 60mph at 300
WH/mile? Not a chance.
It would absolutely take an advanced battery to get a useable 60kwh
into a vehicle.
I'd like to go 200 miles on a charge too!
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Most here are familiar with Dick Finley's "Red Beastie", a
> converted Toyota XTraCab that is loaded with 40 Trojan T105
> golf cart batteries and gets 120 miles highway range(At
> roughly 60 mph).
>
> But I think it is time to expand upon this concept. I don't
> feel the long range 'lead sled' concept has seen its full
> potential.
>
> Why? Aerodynamics, aerodynamics, and again, aerodynamics.
>
> Trucks have horrible aerodynamics. But it is possible to
> change that.
>
> In another topic I linked and mentioned an article
> describing how Phil Knox improved his highway fuel economy
> nearly 30% by building aerodynamic modifications to his
> truck. I'll link it again:
>
> http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=870
>
> Of all the long range 'lead sled' trucks built, none of them
> have made such extensive use of aerodynamic modifications.
> These conversions could benefit greatly from these
> modifications insofar as range and top speed are concerned.
> If it can result in a 30% fuel economy increase for a gas
> truck, it can result in at least the same increase in range
> for an electric truck. In the case of "Red Beastie", this is
> an additional 40 miles range or more.
>
> Many think advanced batteries are needed for an EV to
> achieve range and performance comparable to the minimum
> gasoline-powered car.
>
> I say hogwash.
>
> It is theoretically possible to get range comparable to an
> IC passenger vehicle on lead acid batteries, given proper
> attention to efficiency.
>
> What would be interesting is if someone could build a lead
> acid powered EV that could meet ALL of the following
> constraints:
>
> a) 0-60 mph in 18 seconds or less
> b) Top speed 90 mph or greater
> c) 200 miles range or greater at 60 mph
> d) Capability to seat 4 or more adults
> e) Under $20,000 total cost, including donor chassis and
> shipping for components
>
> The performance parameters above are basically what an IC
> economy car could achieve in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It
> may not be fast at all, even could be described as anemic,
> but it is acceptable performance for keeping up with
> traffic. Even the cruising range is there.
>
> Is it possible to achieve these parameters using flooded
> lead acid golf cart batteries? Without any advanced
> batteries needed? I'm about to explore this possibility.
>
> Demonstrating this sort of performance would make an
> electric vehicle conversion practical and palatable to a
> much larger percentage of the population.
>
> The following setup will be simulated, with costs and weight
> tallied and donor vehicle cost not included. Shipping is
> assumed to cost 10% of all components marked with *.
>
> -WarP 9'' series DC motor x1 160 pounds $1,575 (EV Source)*
> -Trojan T145 flooded lead acid Golf Cart battery x40 2,840
> pounds $5,140 (Trojan Battery)*
> -Godzilla Controller(72-300V DC, 1,000 amp max, HEPI) x1 16
> pounds $2,555 (EV Source)*
> -PFC 20 Charger x1 20 pounds $1,525 (EV Source)*
> -Vicor DC-DC converter (300Vmax, 12Vout, 200W) x1 8 pounds
> $700 (Vicor)*
> -E-Meter x1 $229 (Xantrex)*
> -Solid-State Ceramic Heater Core x1 $75 (Grassroots EV)*
> -Adaptor Plate x1 15 pounds $800*
> -Miscallaneous components(Heat shrink tubing, fuses, steel
> for battery racks, ect.) 150 pounds $1,500*
> -Donor Vehicle 1980s Mazda B2000 pickup truck w/extended cab
> 2,600 pounds $1,000
> -Sheet metal, plastic, fiberglass, and other components for
> aerodynamic modifications 30 pounds $100
> -Nokian 205/70R15 LRR tires x4 $268 (Nokian)*
> -Leaf Springs x4 $300 (Renegade Hybrids)*
> -Redline MTL synthetic transmission oil $15
> -alignment correction to 0 camber, 0 toe is free with tire
> replacement
>
> Roughly 600 pounds of IC related components can be removed
> from the donor. The donor has an estimated drag coefficient
> of .45 and an estimated frontal area of 22 square feet. With
> aerodynamic modifications, the drag coefficient is expected
> to be reduced to .25. The donor vehicle cost was an
> estimate. It is assumed normally 2 passengers will occupy
> the vehicle, so 350 pounds will be added to account for 2
> passengers and any other onboard items.
>
> The Nokian NRT2 LRR 205/70R15 tires chosen have a .0085
> rolling resistance coefficient. The specific model was
> chosen for its ability to handle a 1,480 pound payload per
> tire. This allows room for a gross vehicle weight of 5,920
> pounds, or 681 pounds of passengers and luggage. These tires
> are also rated to 118 mph. The tires are assumed to have no
> weight change over stock tires. This is incorrect, but the
> weight of the stock tires is unknown.
>
> Total Cost: $17,249
> Total Weight with two occupants and lugage: 5,589 pounds
> Max Weight: 5,920 pounds
>
> In order to maximize range, the following aerodynamic
> modifications could be done with sheetmetal, plastic, and
> fiberglass:
>
> -aeroshell, a tapered bed cover made of fiberglass
> -underbelly, made of corrugated plastic
> -grille block, made of corrugated plastic
> -rear wheel skirts, made of sheet metal
> -front air dam, made of sheet metal
> -side skirts, made of sheet metal
> -rear diffuser, made of sheet metal
> -wheel covers, made of corrugated plastic
> -build shaved door handles from parts found in junkyard,
> weld a sheetmetal backing plate to where the door handles
> were
>
> This would get the drag coefficient down to an estimated
> 25, similar to Phil Knox's pickup truck.
>
> Further, the brakes can be adjusted so that they don't drag.
>
> So the following truck will be modeled:
>
> Weight: 5,589 pounds
> Drag Coefficient: .25 (from aero mods)
> Frontal Area: 22 square feet
> Drivetrain efficiency: 93% (slight boost from synthetic oil)
> Tires: 205/70R15, which means a tire diameter of 25.34
> inches.
>
> The Mazda B2000 pickup has the following gear ratios:
>
> 1- 3.622
> 2- 2.186
> 3- 1.419
> 4- 1
> 5- .858
> F- 3.909
>
> The batteries would be arranged in a single 240V string. The
> Zilla would be configured to limit maximum current draw to
> 450 amps, maximum motor current to 1,000 amps, and maximum
> motor potential to 170V. At 450 amps, the Trojan T105
> batteries would sag to roughly 4.5V, allowing a maximum of
> 122 horsepower from the batteries. The 500A limit is imposed
> to prevent battery damage.
>
> Thus modeling the 9" motor, we get the following torque
> versus speed curve and power versus speed curve under
> maximum acceleration:
>
> 0 RPM 220 lb-ft 0 HP
> 1000 RPM 220 lb-ft 42 HP
> 1500 RPM 220 lb-ft 63 HP
> 1750 RPM 220 lb-ft 73 HP
> 2000 RPM 195 lb-ft 74 HP
> 2500 RPM 178 lb-ft 85 HP
> 3000 RPM 164 lb-ft 94 HP *peak motor horsepower, limited by
> battery pack*
> 3500 RPM 132 lb-ft 88 HP
> 4000 RPM 105 lb-ft 80 HP
> 4500 RPM 83 lb-ft 71 HP
> 5000 RPM 69 lb-ft 66 HP
> 5500 RPM 55 lb-ft 58 HP
> 6000 RPM 44 lb-ft 50 HP
>
> A motor redline of 6,000 RPM was chosen to prevent motor
> damage. The batteries are the limiting factor in
> acceleration and power that the motor can deliver. Stiffer
> AGMs would extend the torque curve out more dramatically
> improving acceleration but add greatly to the cost.
>
> Now it is time to simulate acceleration and top speed. The
> following acceleration calculator was chosen for its ease of
> use and accessability:
>
> http://www.nightrider.com/biketech/accel_sim.htm
>
> The proper gear ratios, torque versus RPM, weight, drag
> coefficient, and tire rolling resistance parameters were
> input. A drivetrain loss was estimated at 7%, which would
> account for a slight efficiency boost from synthetic
> transmission oil. It is estimated the front/rear weight
> distribution will entail 70% rear, 30% front due to the bed
> being loaded with batteries, and wheelbase was estimated at
> 110 inches. In order to prevent the program from committing
> an error, a launch RPM of 100 was chosen.
>
> The optimum shift points for maximum acceleration were 3,920
> rpm for 1st to 2nd gear, 3,810 rpm for 2nd to 3rd gear,
> 3,650 rpm for 3rd to 4th gear, and 3,300 rpm for 4th to 5th
> gear. A shift duration of ½ second was assumed.
>
> We get the following estimations:
>
> 0-30 mph acceleration: 4.6 seconds
> 0-50 mph: 12.7 seconds
> 0-60 mph: 17.7 seconds
> Top speed: 111 mph
> 1/8 mile drag race: 12.7 seconds @ 50 mph
> ¼ mile drag race: 20.5 seconds @ 64 mph
>
> This meets the specified performance parameters. It's about
> as fast as a typical gasoline powered car from 0-30 mph, and
> from 0-60 mph, about as fast as an 80s model pickup truck
> with an anemic 4 cylinder engine. It wouldn't be fast, but
> it would be able to safely merge with traffic. An added perk
> from the Zilla is that it would easily smoke its tires and
> pull tree stumps.
>
> For range, a simulation is going to be performed with Uve's
> Calculator. The above parameters will be entered, along with
> a brake/steering drag coefficient of .002 to account for
> corrected alignment and machined brakes. A relative wind
> factor of 1.2 was chosen to represent an aerodynamic
> vehicle, and a wind speed of 7 mph was chosen to represent
> outside wind conditions in average weather.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/hempev/EVCalculator.html
>
> The following results were obtained:
>
> Range at 50 mph was 377 miles in 3rd gear.
> Range at 60 mph was 216 miles in 3rd gear.
> Range at 70 mph was 162 miles in 4rd gear.
>
> And just for curiosity's sake, range at 90 mph was
> calculated at 102 miles in 4th gear.
>
> This is within the constraints outlined above.
>
>
> In theory, such a vehicle is possible. In practice, no one
> has tried it. The closest to it are John Wayland's "Red
> Beastie" and Brian Methany's "Polar Bear", two trucks
> that have achieved 120 miles highway range on similarly
> large battery packs. Neither truck has extended cab, so they
> could only seat 2 or 3 adults.
>
> This truck I outlined would be a passenger vehicle capable
> of seating 4 adults, accelerating from 0-60 mph in under
> 17.8 seconds, topping out at 111 mph, and doing 200 miles
> per charge at 60 mph. This would require the proper
> efficiency modifications to achieve this range and top
> speed. Without the efficiency modifications, range and top
> speed would be comparable to the two conversions referenced
> above.
>
> Such a vehicle as I outlined would not only be beneficial in
> demonstrating that advanced batteries are not needed for a
> conversion to compete with gasoline powered cars in range
> and top speed, but it would also serve as a viable platform
> for a conversion business to harvest ideas from.
>
> If the $17,000 component price is too high, performance
> could be sacrificed for a significant cost reduction. A
> lower voltage setup with two battery strings in parallel, a
> cheaper charger and controller, and less luxuries such as
> heating could result in a conversion with similar range and
> a price tag around $8,000. But 0-60 acceleration would
> increase to around 40 seconds with a 120V, 400A Curtis
> controller and the batteries split in 2 parallel strings.
>
> For a few thousand dollars greater than the projected $17k
> concept, AGMs and regs could be put in place of the flooded
> batteries, allowing performance comparable to the new cars
> of today. But this would bring costs near $20,000. A Zilla
> 2k would add even greater costs, but allow rapid
> acceleration.
>
> A custom built midsize or luxury car based on a pickup truck
> chassis would have similar carrying capacity, increased
> passenger and cargo room, but also significantly less weight
> and frontal area compared with the fully outlined conversion
> concept of the Mazda B2000. Purpose built as an EV, the same
> battery pack could be fit into the car concept. This reduced
> weight and frontal area would result in dramatically
> increased acceleration and increased range provided the same
> attention is paid to efficiency. Perhaps in a purpose built
> car with this setup, a 0-60 acceleration time of 14
> seconds(comparable to a 1st generation Toyota Prius) a range
> of 250 miles at 60 mph, 200 miles at 70 mph, and top speed
> in excess of 120 mph could be achieved. No advanced
> batteries needed.
>
>
> So, what do you think of this idea? Criticisms? Suggestions?
>
> If I had the cash, I'd attempt this truck!
>
> Is it a feasible concept?
>
> Dick Finley pushed the envelop with his pickup. Were he
> alive today, I'm sure he would keep pushing it more. This
> concept appears to expand upon his final conversion in a big
> way.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> It is impractical to go much higher than 360V with today's
> components(motors, controllers, ect.), and NiMH doesn't like
> being parallelled in regard to charging, so that would
> effectively keep them out of the pure EV or plug-in hybrid
> market.
AC or DC components? In 1994 ACP cars ran at 420v peak in their packs.
The electronics were quite happy. My truck can run up to 405v. Same
1994 vintage. Both are AC systems. DC systems, maybe they are 360v
limited.
>
> I do believe Chevron Texaco has the patent until about 2018.
That just plain sucks. Unless of course you are the Chinese ;) They
just don't care.
>
>
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
> >Actually it's worse than that, the Universities got
> >surplus/used batteries. The patent is owned by an oil
> >company (Shell?) and they simply
> >refuse to allow ANYONE to build NiMH in EVs size for
> >ANY price or regardless of criteria.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ken Trough wrote:
> Toyota and the other automakers don't sell BEVs because they don't want
> to sell BEVs, not because they cannot be made a profitable success.
Well said! Yes, it's an oversimplification; there are lots of other
reasons. But it's amazing how many reasons you can find for not doing
something if you don't want to do it.
--
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 ---
I'm sure every little bit helps. But what I think would tell me just
how much aero resistance is costing, is to put a vehicle on a chassis
dyno and use the onboard Emeter to see what the WH/mile is without wind
as a factor. Then drive it on the road at the same speed. The
difference would be mostly due to aero resistance. Then do the same
thing with aero "improvements". This may generate more facts than lore
;)
Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Aaron NMLUG-EV wrote:
> The main drawback I hear about with NiMH is leakage current.
> Does anybody know why these tend to leak?
> Do you think it is a tractible problem to solve?
Yes, nimh tend to have a high self-discharge rate. However, it's not
high enough to negate their use as a storage battery. It still takes
several months for them to go dead just from sitting.
A side observation. The old nickel-iron cell (invented by Tom Edison
around 1900) is a lot like a nimh cell. Nickel and iron electrodes in a
KOH electrolyte. High capacity, long life, high self discharge... I
wonder if Edison's cell actually *functions* as an nimh?
Edison cells are flooded; they vent all that H2 they produce to the
atmosphere, so they need frequent watering. I wonder what happens if you
sealed an edison cell, and alloy the iron plate with something so it
will adsorb the H2? I suspect you get an nimh cell!
--
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 ---
This is 200 miles range to 100% depth of discharge that I'm
talking about. Most commutes are short, so long trips will
be an occassion, not the norm, helping to preserve battery
life.
The simulation had roughly 250 wh/mile. "Red Beastie" got
about 330 wh/mile without aero mods, 120 miles range to 100%
depth of discharge.
Trojan T145s are 244 AH at the 20 hour rate. When charged,
the batteries are at about 7V. So that's 68,320 wh at the 20
hour rate.
But the number we'll be using is between the 3 and 4 hour
rate. 50,000 wh or so seems reasonable. At 250 wh/mile, that
would give 200 miles range. At 330 wh/mile and adjusted to
40,000 wh for the 2 hour rate, that would give 120 miles
range, in line with "Red Beastie's" real world numbers. Only
"Red Beastie" used the lower capacity T105s, so that
estimate is a little on the low side.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ah now you can see my confusion as well ;-]
Typically it would only run for 5-10 minutes per charge. Then be shut down
and retracted. Supposedly that pulls the batteries down to 50% charge. I've
seen pictures of the battery packs and there are a couple of stacks of those
flat li-poly batteries. Now the page says cell
phone but they seemed much bigger
than that, about the same length and width of a
CD case on edge. I couldn't tell
the depth though as they were wrapped.
The motor itself looked like something about the
size of a stack of 50 cd's, look
very tiny and was covered in vents. This wasn't
built by a big company or anything like
that, just by a guy who was a auto mechanic so everything should be commercial
or off the shelf. Unfortunately I have zero idea
what is commonly available in eastern
Europe so I am hoping someone might know of something close in North America.
Cheers
Dave
As weight is critical, in this power range i bet on a Perm motor or Lynch
motor.
But i'm having problems understanding how 21 lipoly cell phone batteries can
give 20kW ????
is there monstruous cellular phone using monstruous lipoly batteries i'm not
aware off :^)
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: "Gnat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Motor sizes
> I'm just wondering if someone can suggest what a brand and model
> might be capable of 13kw continuous and 20kw .The 13kw (17.4hp)
> is a brushed DC motor.
>
> I'm trying to figure out how a system was setup in eastern Europe.
> This was a electric motor on a sailplane for self launch. I believe
> the guy used 21 li-poly cell phone batteries for storage. The one
> picture I saw of the motor it looked a lot like some of the hub motors
> with the fins and vents. Unfortunately that's about the extent of the
> information. This is a interesting process as the cost of the battery
> powered self launch is about 20 cents compared to about $40 for a tow
> to about 3000 feet. Makes for a very cheap and green day of flying ;-]
>
> Dave
>
Gnat GK-7
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo Messenger Gnat_GK7
Http://members.shaw.ca/gnat - home page
or
Http://flying.to/Gnat
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gnat_GK-7/ - announcements/support
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't even need to do that on a dyno. You can calculate the drag of a
vehicle by doing a simple
coast down test, which you can then figure out the power required. At
that point any change
will show up as a difference in speed or power. ie lower the drag
and you will go faster on the
same power or use less to do the same.
Good reference for this is Sighard Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag. Ch
12 deals with cars
and how changes in the sticky outy bits affect things.
Dave
I'm sure every little bit helps. But what I think would tell me just
how much aero resistance is costing, is to put a vehicle on a chassis
dyno and use the onboard Emeter to see what the WH/mile is without wind
as a factor. Then drive it on the road at the same speed. The
difference would be mostly due to aero resistance. Then do the same
thing with aero "improvements". This may generate more facts than lore
;)
Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
.
The H2 is still in production, last year they sold 1,724 of them. I'm
pretty sure this has it's own production line.
Actually no, the H2 is built on the same line that builds the Tahoe and
the Yukon. One of the reasons SUVs have been quite profitable is that
they are still Body on Frame vehicles. All three vehicles can share the
same powerplants, suspension and undercarriages, but have radically
different styling in the bodies. This means manufacturers can change
styling quicker without changing the major mechanical systems. Cars
typical undergo a major change every 5-7 model years. Trucks have been
getting styling changes every 2-3 years... but the undercarriages are
changing about every 10 years. Body on frame was largely abandoned for
cars during the early 80's because of fuel economy (frames are heavy)
and crash safety reasons (frames are too strong and do not crumple well)
but not for trucks (strong frames are required for offroad/towing)
Most of the major manufacturers are revamping their plants to be more
flexible and consolidating plants. A manufacturing plant has high
overhead costs, even when idle, so it is more cost effective to keep one
plant running around the clock than it is to have two plants each
running a 12 hour shift. To allow the operating plants to run at max
capacity even as demand changes manufacturers are trying to build
several different vehicles on the same line. Toyota had problems
keeping up with demand for the Prius because it was built on the same
line that assembled the Echo and Corrola.... even operating at max
capacity and building as few Corrola/Echos as possible they couldn't fit
enough Prius's into the line. Supply has eased somewhat now because
Toyota has move Prius production to another line (I do not know which one.)
In some cases making a plant more flexible means less automation, in
other cases this means more flexible automation systems. (For example
Dodge found that dashes built as complete units offsite and install into
the car by hand was more flexible that dashes assembled in the car by
robots. Or one manufacturer found that having a dozen robot hammering on
a door to fold the door skin over the innerards could allow the robots
to handle several door types, whereas previously a single press would be
faster, but it would be specific to that one door style.)
Building "conversion" style EV's like the RAV4 and RangerEV probably
wouldn't be too expensive for a manufacturer, since those vehicles could
be built on the same lines as their gas powered versions. (Or worse,
the frames/powerplants could be built on a separate line, but the
chassis could be built on the same line and mated). Building a unique
vehicle like the EV1 is much more expensive... GM built the EV1 at the
(currently idled, probably permanently) Lansing Craft Centre assembly
plant, which was famous for building low volume, low profit models like
the Buick Reatta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing_Craft_Centre
GM's Hywire concept was basically Body on Frame taken to a whole new
level, and would probably have most of the same drawbacks as any other
BOF vehicle (weight, crash issues etc)
Large scale auto manufacturering is a tricky business.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peak is not the same as nominal. ;)
I don't know any ACP cars that are running the monster 600+V
that would be needed for usable capacity. I don't know of
many EV-compatable components that are even usable at that
voltage level.
Mike Phillips wrote:
>AC or DC components? In 1994 ACP cars ran at 420v peak
>in their packs. The electronics were quite happy. My
>truck can run up to 405v. Same
>1994 vintage. Both are AC systems. DC systems, maybe
>they are 360v limited.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In theory, practice and theory are the same. But in practice they are not.
This in one of my rules. I am a data taking kind of guy. So a coast
down would be useful in some ways, but not directly for my needs.
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gnat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Don't even need to do that on a dyno. You can calculate the drag of a
> vehicle by doing a simple
> coast down test, which you can then figure out the power required. At
> that point any change
> will show up as a difference in speed or power. ie lower the drag
> and you will go faster on the
> same power or use less to do the same.
>
> Good reference for this is Sighard Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag. Ch
> 12 deals with cars
> and how changes in the sticky outy bits affect things.
>
> Dave
>
>
> >I'm sure every little bit helps. But what I think would tell me just
> >how much aero resistance is costing, is to put a vehicle on a chassis
> >dyno and use the onboard Emeter to see what the WH/mile is without wind
> >as a factor. Then drive it on the road at the same speed. The
> >difference would be mostly due to aero resistance. Then do the same
> >thing with aero "improvements". This may generate more facts than lore
> >;)
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So even assuming the higher $300/kWh for those 28kWhs that's $8,400.
Going with the lower cycle life number below that's 3.7 cents / mile.
Even at 250 kWh/mile and 80% DOD thats 108,000 miles for 7.8 cents / mile.
How quickly can these batteries be charged?
If all these numbers are right this paints a very depressing picture. :-(
Sooo, EVs *are* practical with *today's* technology.
Are individuals or small businesses impeded by the patents in creating their
own battery packs from the smaller individual modules?
--- John Westlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> adjust it for inflation accordingly. Team Fate of UC Davis(I
> think I said UCLA earlier, but that was a lapse of memory),
> has quoted them at $200-300/kWh today in high volume.
--- Earlier, John Westlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From what I understand, their shelf life is much higher than
> that of Li Ions, arguably to the point where it isn't a
> factor under repeated use. Team Fate at UCLA, who are
> working on plugin hybrids, claims 1,750 cycles to 100% DoD
> from the Ovonic NiMH. Cobasys is the more conservative
> figure, 1,200 cycles.
>
> Imagine a very aerodynamic sports car equipped with them.
> Say, a 150 wh/mile @ 65 mph car with a 330V pack of them.
> That's 28 kWh on board, or near 190 miles highway range!
>
> Using Cobasy's numbers, that's near 230,000 miles battery
> life. Using Team Fate's numbers, that's 330,000 miles
> battery life. Most internal combustion engined cars don't
> even last that long.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 5/19/06, John Westlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peak is not the same as nominal. ;)
I don't know any ACP cars that are running the monster 600+V
that would be needed for usable capacity. I don't know of
many EV-compatable components that are even usable at that
voltage level.
600VDC is a fairly standard operating voltage for trams, underground
trains and things like that.
Battery powered busses are also up in that range, and there are AC
inverters quite happy to run on this sort of voltage. That's not
surprising - rectified 3-phase 415V power isn't much different.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I assumed you meant peak. But since you meant 360v nominal then I will
still assert that the parts are already here. If ACP used 336v nominal
parts 12 years ago, then going to 360v nom is not a stretch.
I'm not sure what 600v parts have to do with this discussion.
Why is it that NIMH don't like to be paralleled?
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John Westlund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Peak is not the same as nominal. ;)
>
> I don't know any ACP cars that are running the monster 600+V
> that would be needed for usable capacity. I don't know of
> many EV-compatable components that are even usable at that
> voltage level.
>
>
> Mike Phillips wrote:
>
> >AC or DC components? In 1994 ACP cars ran at 420v peak
> >in their packs. The electronics were quite happy. My
> >truck can run up to 405v. Same
> >1994 vintage. Both are AC systems. DC systems, maybe
> >they are 360v limited.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dealers
make a LOT of money on repair and service of the very complex ICE
designs. The designs are getting more and more complex, requiring more
expensive repairs and greater profitability on parts and service for
both the automaker and the dealers, not to mention the sheer complexity
and the sheer number of parts means that there are many more
opportunities to sell upgrade and aftermarket components.
BEVs on the other hand have very few components comparably and require
significantly less service, maintenance and repair. Dealers do not like
this and neither do manufacturers.
-Ken Trough
It's all about how much money they make. Filters & oil alone could keep
some dealers in the black. But it's not a bad bet that they'll make quite a
bit on belts and other service. It's a system that must be broken if we are
to get electric's. I say import from China and let the ICE automobile
manufacturers twist in the wind. (Subaru & Mitsubishi seem to know this)
They're setting up their own demise. Fix an old car to keep another from
being produced. Nothing wrong with 90% of the bodys out there because they
can be fixed by getting rid of the internal combustion engine. The source
of 90% of their problems. Apologies to veggie oil cars, CNG, ethanol and
Propane. The manufacturers hate these too because they prolong the live of
the internal combustion engine. It's all about breaking it so "THEY" can
fix it. Lawrence Rhodes...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Neon John wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:15:45 -0700, "Roger Stockton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neon John wrote:
Peter is correct, as a brief look at any web site selling kart parts
will show. Suggest Northern tool as a good place to look. I'm using
one of their differential axles (they sell a name brand but I can't
recall the name at hte moment), cut down to an appropriate length for
a 3 wheel scooter that I'm working on at the moment.
Nope. Check a kart parts supplier, such as
<http://www.gokartsupply.com/partcat.htm>. Most karts use a solid rear
axle with a full-length keyway that allows one to positively attach the
hubs that the rear wheels mount to, as well as the single driven
sprocket and single brake disc that attach to this solid axle.
Sometimes I just gotta shake my head at you, Roger. One little look
would save you from your normal silly self.
Here's Northern's diff axle:
http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_35768_35768
This is the axle we (I'm a minority partner in the local track) run in
the mini-NASCAR karts. You know, a kart that actually has to go
around a fairly sharp turn. Yeah, I ran a solid axle on my enduro
kart back in the late 60s but that was a track kart (I'd not be
surprised to learn that modern track karts still run solid axles but I
don't presume to know and lack the interest to look it up) and
certainly not something to be used for transportation or recreation -
unless crabbing wheels are your cup o tea.
Come to think of it, I don't think I can recall WHEN I saw a solid
axle on a non-track kart. Recreational karts either drive one wheel
or use a diff. On pavement, one can rarely tell the difference.
For everyone except roger.... That Northern axle is a pretty nice
little unit. It withstands commercial (read: continuous duty on the
weekends and lots o' duty on weekdays) service behind 8 HP Honda
engines at our mini-NASCAR track. My 3 wheeled scooter will be driven
by an ETEK behind a 400 amp, 48 volt AXE. It should hold up just
fine.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain
There really isn't any problem driving just one single rear wheel
either. Especially for light weight vehicles with a narrow track and
long wheelbase. Driving only one rear wheel eliminates weight and
complexity and improves efficiency (no losses in differential).
Juergen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Are there any of Edisons old batterys around? It would be great to
check one out.
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaron NMLUG-EV wrote:
>
> > The main drawback I hear about with NiMH is leakage current.
> > Does anybody know why these tend to leak?
> > Do you think it is a tractible problem to solve?
>
> Yes, nimh tend to have a high self-discharge rate. However, it's not
> high enough to negate their use as a storage battery. It still takes
> several months for them to go dead just from sitting.
>
> A side observation. The old nickel-iron cell (invented by Tom Edison
> around 1900) is a lot like a nimh cell. Nickel and iron electrodes in a
> KOH electrolyte. High capacity, long life, high self discharge... I
> wonder if Edison's cell actually *functions* as an nimh?
>
> Edison cells are flooded; they vent all that H2 they produce to the
> atmosphere, so they need frequent watering. I wonder what happens if you
> sealed an edison cell, and alloy the iron plate with something so it
> will adsorb the H2? I suspect you get an nimh cell!
> --
> 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 ---
I've never believed that EV's were that maintenance free. Maybe no oil
changes required but there are plenty of opportunities for failure and
repair. This is my experience with 3 different people owning
production/professionally converted EV's.
Mike
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dealers
> make a LOT of money on repair and service of the very complex ICE
> designs. The designs are getting more and more complex, requiring more
> expensive repairs and greater profitability on parts and service for
> both the automaker and the dealers, not to mention the sheer complexity
> and the sheer number of parts means that there are many more
> opportunities to sell upgrade and aftermarket components.
>
> BEVs on the other hand have very few components comparably and require
> significantly less service, maintenance and repair. Dealers do not like
> this and neither do manufacturers.
>
> -Ken Trough
>
> It's all about how much money they make. Filters & oil alone could
keep
> some dealers in the black. But it's not a bad bet that they'll make
quite a
> bit on belts and other service. It's a system that must be broken
if we are
> to get electric's. I say import from China and let the ICE automobile
> manufacturers twist in the wind. (Subaru & Mitsubishi seem to know
this)
> They're setting up their own demise. Fix an old car to keep another
from
> being produced. Nothing wrong with 90% of the bodys out there
because they
> can be fixed by getting rid of the internal combustion engine. The
source
> of 90% of their problems. Apologies to veggie oil cars, CNG,
ethanol and
> Propane. The manufacturers hate these too because they prolong the
live of
> the internal combustion engine. It's all about breaking it so
"THEY" can
> fix it. Lawrence Rhodes...
>
--- End Message ---
