EV Digest 5899
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Phoenix AZ and Li-Ion
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Distance Formula
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Fw: Dennis Berube segment on Arizona Illustrated
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: New GM electric car
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Strange EV on Ebay
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: New GM electric car
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re:Current Eliminator story ON KUAT-TV!!!!!
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: New GM electric car
by John Norton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Strange EV on Ebay
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: powertrain as a structural component
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) DVD-Who Killed the Electric Car?
by "Chelsea Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: The ultimate Tesla Motors promo video, GOD FORBID!
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Mother Earth News Hybrid
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Dateline EV Episode direct download
by "a.k. howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: New GM electric car
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: EV digest 5896
by DM3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: New GM electric car
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: New GM electric car
by "Death to All Spammers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Current Eliminator story ON KUAT-TV!!!!!
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23) Re: Strange EV on Ebay
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: New GM electric car
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: vacuum reservoir assembly
by "Robyn Lundstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Re: powertrain as a structural component
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
27) RE: EV digest 5896
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
28) RE: New GM electric car
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Water cool the batteries like the X1 does?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Is there a formula that can calculate the distance an EV can travel,
given
> the battery specifications?
>
The simplest one: 600lbs of lead batteries = 1 gallon of gasoline in
the donor car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Whoops update on CE on KUAT
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
Steve Bayless wrote
> Unfortunately the show, Arizona Illustrated, is running long tonight. I have
> been told my piece on Dennis Berube is being moved back to next week, probably
> Monday. It happens.
> Again, it should be posted to the web the day after it airs.
> I'll try and keep you posted.
> Steve Bayless
> Senior Editor, KUAT-TV
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I'm an IT guy. I own 2 Chryslers and a Suzuki Samurai (remember that
> thing about "you have the donor car so you think you are an EV'er" -
> that's me at this point.) I've owned GM cars but I don't carry any
> particular brief for GM - I don't even own any of their stock.
>
> But I am also a car guy, and by nature a futurist (and optimist) on
> technology. There are a lot of EV'ers who hate cars (not all of them,
> but a lot), see them as a burden, and think that forcing other people
> into some penalty box that gives them less for more just serves them
> right. I love cars and always have, and I won't accept the
imposition.
> So we need to innovate and go forward, not backward.
>
> But none of that matters to you - you just want to call me names.
Maybe
> that works for you, but, truthfully, it makes you look like a boob.
>
You may be right, but of all the other "car guys" that post here (and
there are many who have raced ICE vehicles in the past), none sounds
so out of beat to the list. Of course you are entitled to say whatever
you want here, I just labelled the response as typical of the GM rep
in WKtEC using the excuse they "didn't make enough spare parts" as one
of many lame reasons for their actions. If a fuel cell guy and a
European energy comission tell you this is a dead end (see subsequent
posts) will you believe it?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That's a good little ride and price!
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:34 am, Rocky Lear wrote:
I saw one just like it at a state highway auction here in KY a couple
of days ago. The guy who owns it doesn't live too far away. He said
he'd take $4000 for his (it's used). It might be OK for town but the
top speed he claims is somewhere around 30mph with a range of around 30
miles. I think the name is Bombadier.
Rocky
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Strange EV on Ebay
On 20 Sep 2006 at 9:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how does the seller on ebay explain how
they got it imported and licensed?
Note that in the listing photos, the car does not have license tags
(unless
they've been Photoshopped out).
This is a VERY suspicious situation.
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 obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ - the former contact address
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will soon disappear.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I do not want to build another building to house a EV project and spend
> another 5 years in customizing a vehicle to my standards and maybe
another
> $50,000.00. The paint job is in show car condition for car shows
that alone
> cost over $10,000.00.
>
> Anyway, I only drive about 5 miles a day at the most, so I do not
have to
> squeeze every bit of range out of the EV. I just got done testing
out my
> cost per mile, and it is equal to 75.7 mpg.
>
> Roland
Oh no, if it works for you, there is no need to do that! The car is a
bit of an obsession with you, so for your piece of mind, best to leave
things as they are. Personally, I just want the thing to work -
plug-and-play, no fiddling with acid or scanning meters except to know
how much range I have left.
Is your wt-hrs/mi based on energy from the mains or actual energy from
the pack? Better to just stick with wt-hrs/mi based on the electricity
*into* the charger, don't you think? That will be affected by both
battery chemistry (e.g.- NiMH or NiFe waste more energy than
lead-acid) and charger efficiency (not only the unit itself, but
whether conductive or inductive connection).
Your way of figuring mpg equivalence will vary with market prices, not
just EV efficiency - based on the kwh from the Avcon (no energy
metering on-board), PG&E rates at $0.12/kwh, and gas at $2.69, my
Ranger's 350wt-hrs/mi would equal 64mpg, but when gas was as high as
$3.29, it would have been over 77mpg.
Of course, driving more than 3/4ths of the time on the freeway makes a
difference vs staying at surface street speed - if I cruised along at
45mph, I'd use less than 250wt-hrs/mi (nearing 90mpg-equivalent), and
lower average speeds would be even lower energy use. Don't know how
Mike can get a basis for comparison on the EV Album.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What do you mean it isn't intended as electric? It is electric! It has
litium ion batteries, the fuel cell pumps out electricity, and there's
this:
"In contrast to other electric-powered vehicles, the Sequel uses two 25kW
wheel-hub motors to drive its rear wheels, while a 3-phase asynchronous
65kW axle motor drives the front two wheels. Putting its motors in the
wheels makes for instant torque ...
Wow - instant torque! I really hate it when the torque from a
conventionally mounted motor takes so long to propogate through the
transmission and axels..... That's because torque only travels at the speed
of sound in steel, so that delay can be as long as 0.0002 seconds ( 1 m /
5000 m/s). It might even take as long as 0.0004 seconds for a rear wheel
drive car because of the longer drive shaft!!!
Phil
and lowers the
car's center of gravity. Together, the three motors generate a total of
2,920 lb-ft of torque--enough to propel the car from 0 to 60mph in less
than 10 seconds."
IOW it is not realistic, won't get built and is merely a smoke screen to
keep consumers on the hook for their addiction to oil: blatently
inauthentic.
-Ralph
_________________________________________________________________
Search—Your way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Death to All Spammers wrote:
I'm an IT guy. I own 2 Chryslers and a Suzuki Samurai (remember that
thing about "you have the donor car so you think you are an EV'er" -
that's me at this point.) I've owned GM cars but I don't carry any
particular brief for GM - I don't even own any of their stock.
But I am also a car guy, and by nature a futurist (and optimist) on
technology. There are a lot of EV'ers who hate cars (not all of them,
but a lot), see them as a burden, and think that forcing other people
into some penalty box that gives them less for more just serves them
right. I love cars and always have, and I won't accept the
imposition.
So we need to innovate and go forward, not backward.
But none of that matters to you - you just want to call me names.
Maybe
that works for you, but, truthfully, it makes you look like a boob.
You may be right, but of all the other "car guys" that post here (and
there are many who have raced ICE vehicles in the past), none sounds
so out of beat to the list. Of course you are entitled to say whatever
you want here, I just labelled the response as typical of the GM rep
in WKtEC using the excuse they "didn't make enough spare parts" as one
of many lame reasons for their actions. If a fuel cell guy and a
European energy comission tell you this is a dead end (see subsequent
posts) will you believe it?
So the problem is that I am out of beat? Good points make you
uncomfortable, so the name calling is just to be expected, right?
I am reminded of this Charlie Brown cartoon from a long time ago. CB in
the first frame is telling one of the girls - Freda, or Violet - See,
I'm right! I'm right. I told you so.
In the second frame, the girl says to CB, "You have a homely face."
Third frame, CB is standing alone, looking nonplussed.
Yeah, good argument there, though, and looks like Nick Austin judged you
too charitably.
No need to continue this conversation, then. Good day.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts wrote:
http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/08/europe-passes-death-sentence-on-hype.html
In the 1930's, scientists were quite sure that rockets wouldn't work in
space.
Thing is, I know people who work on FC projects for the military, and
while there are plenty of boondoggles in military spending, the Army is
all over fuel cells because they see them as genuinely useful. They are
researching, and developing, and, more to the point, using fuel cell
technology, and no number of Europeans saying that it won't work changes
that fact. Are they chasing a dead end? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I would
posit that we do not know. The Europeans may have given up, but the US
has not:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/
Oh sure, maybe its all a big conspiracy, but isn't it always? I mean,
here goes GM spending a billion dollars on a project with the purpose of
failure. Because it isn't like they need money.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Steve Bayless, Senior Editor for KUAT-TV, did the feature on Dennis. It will
air tomorrow evening, Thursday, at 6:30 on KUAT.
Anybody in the area, watch it. I don't have tv copy capability, but somebody in
TEVA2 does so we'll get a copy and get it posted on the web...
Congratulations Dennis...
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Re:Current Eliminator story
> CEs story will air this week in tucson on PBS.Its on the arizona illustrated
> program tues,wens or thurs eve.at 6:30,with a teaser tonight.
>
> Dennis Berube
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Derrick J Brashear wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, John Norton wrote:
And no doubt it cost tens of millions of dollars to put it on the
street. But it is a technology demonstrator, and it demonstrates
quite well that it is possible for a fuel cell powered vehicle to be
every bit as useful as a gas powered one - as well as have the
attendant benefits of being an EV.
And when I can buy one without a fuel cell as a glider, that would be
even better.
Take a look at this slide show:
http://cnet.nytimes.com/4326-10865_7-6546764-1.html
The packaging is pretty neat. And its modular - there is no reason that
this platform HAS to have fuel cells. The batteries and electric drive
train are there - all the fuel cells do is charge the batteries.
The American automotive industry will never make up its lost ground and
market share with ICE vehicles - and they are too late to the party with
hybrids. Can't lead with me-too-ism. Only a dramatic departure from
the current state of things is going to allow some kind of breakout.
This type of architecture could do it. With mass customization, GM
could end up making more money providing the "skateboards" and common
interfaces, and new "coach builders" can do the rest.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I received the same message from the user as the others who have sent ..
>
>
> 72 volt Smart car will work ok, acceleration will be unreasonable in
3rd, ok in 2nd, and fine in 1st (stock fortwo gearbox). However,
unless the motor can rev to 8k+, it can't hit 55 in 2nd. The biggest
problem is that at the weight of 12 V 200 Amp batteries (appx 150
lbs), the car is overweight. Yes, at 55 mph, the range cannot approach
70 miles using lead batteries in the Smart.
>
>
eBay ended the auction - don't know if it's because I pointed out the
'wrong VIN' or pictures set in Beijing, but as they say "that's that".
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Agred.
I am just saying the three heaviest things in an electric car are
The motor,
The frame
The batteries
If both the motor casing and the batteries are make a structural
component of the car it has to be worth losing at least 1/3 total
weight.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 1:44 pm, Lee Hart wrote:
Mark Fowler wrote:
I think that making the battery part of the structure in an EV is a bad
idea. Batteries tend to be full of squishy, sloppy, wet stuff.
True enough, for most batteries. I suppose you could say that's the
standard paradigm.
But it's interesting to fantasize about what a battery might look like
if it was *intended* to be structural.
For instance, nickel-iron batteries use two very strong materials for
their plates. You might be able to fashion very long tubular cells that
essentially work as pipes for a space frame, simultaneously containing
the electrolyte in the process.
Or, you might have a vehicle in which a large volume of relatively weak
material provides the structure. My BEST kids have made cars out of
cardboard and styrafoam. With enough of it, shaped the right ways, it
is surprisingly strong. Batteries certainly can be as strong as
cardboard or styrafoam.
Not practical yet... but you never know!
--
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
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey all,
It does indeed look like Plug In America will be offering the upcoming "Who
Killed the Electric Car?" DVD!!! We are currently putting together pricing
information, a variety of packages (which will likely include as an option
Sherry Boschert's upcoming and greatly anticipated book, "Plug In Hybrids,
the Cars That Will Recharge America"), etc. Information will be on our
website soon, but I wanted to give all of you a heads up in case you are so
inclined to place orders with PIA instead of other retailers.
Many people have expressed interest in bulk orders. If you are interested,
please send me an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or reply privately to me
and let me know roughly how many you want so we can get an idea of total
quantity we need and get a bulk price for you.
Thank you!
chelsea
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tesla did do a trip to the top of a local Los Angeles mountain on one
charge.
Forget the name.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 2:10 pm, Bob Rice wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: The ultimate Tesla Motors promo video
Is this the old paris one from the 60's or a new one?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 7:42 am, Mike Ellis wrote:
> While that was an amazing video and an amazing piece of driving. I'm
> surprised they didn't use the film as evidence to convict him of
> what's called here as driving with "intent to kill."
>
> I've never seen something so irresponsible on the road.
>
> -Mike
> I second that! He sure ran alot of red lights! I was waiting for a
train, bus, coal truck or large streetcar to appear, and not caring to
get
out of the way. THAT woulda been the apros rondiview. Fireball, end of
clip!
I certainly wopuld hope Tesla WOULDN'T try a stunt like that.
Howbout a
new Pikes Peek record, Instead?
Still stop for Stoplites
Bob
> On 9/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about we make a advertising video for the Tesla like this:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJF687VS0M ? This short film is
famous
>> amoung
>> sportscar aficionados
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date:
9/21/06
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just came across this article from 1993 in Mother Earth News:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative_Energy/1993_June_July/1993_Update__Dave_Arthur_s_Amazing_Hybrid_Electric_Car.
It was a reprint of Dave Arthur's 1979 article about using a five horsepower
Briggs and Stratten to power a car driven by a surplus starter/generator
with 36 volts of 12 volt batteries with outlandish BS claims of 86.3 mpg.
What got to me so upset was that they had 60,000 requests in one year for
the plans. It just made me so utterly sick. Even worse is that they did the
update in 1993. It is making me seriously think of another career. Fifteen
years of fighting this kind of crap takes it's toll. I do not think I could
feel any lower than I do right now. Maybe there are openings in the
insurance industry or government.
Roderick Wilde
EV Parts, Inc.
www.evparts.com
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.6/453 - Release Date: 9/20/2006
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: Jude Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dateline EV Episode direct download
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:10:25 -0400
You're welcome. Just doing what I can.
80K/sec? Wow, that's faster than I thought. Wish my blog would load up
that fast.
I'm downloading at about 125k/sec here at home. Regards, A.K. Howard, Las
Vegas, NV.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is no reason filling stations couldn't become battery exchange
station for instant battery refills.
After all they have to guess how much gas they will need in their
underground storage tanks too. It would be no different for a battery
exchange station.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 3:55 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realize this has all been said before, but since the topic still
keeps
coming up, it still bears repeating.
300 miles for a car that fills with fuel isn't that impressive.
Compared
to lead-acid batteries, it's an improvement, but my Prius can get over
500
miles on a tank. Show me a clean source of hydrogen (one that involves
burning less oil for that 300 miles than it takes for my Prius to go
500), and show me an attractive price, and maybe I'll be impressed.
Plus,
its not like range matters if your fill-up is fast -- it's the 6-hour
recharge that makes range necessary. And what about carrying around
300
miles' worth of hydrogen? Not that gasoline is inert, but yikes!
I work in the fuel cell industry on sub-kilowatt systems. Judging by
the
cost of materials for our stacks, there's no way anything big enough to
power a car is even remotely affordable, or likely to become so anytime
soon. I also have serious questions about the reliability and life of
the
fuel cell. Also, what's the noise level of an FCV? Considerably more
than a battery EV, I'm sure.
So yes, it's a cool concept and a neat toy for GM, but no, you won't be
driving one in the next five-ten years, even if the millionaires of the
country are. You could've driven the EV-1 more than five years ago,
and
you could still do so now if they hadn't destroyed them. With li-ion,
you
might even get that 300 miles of range. So tell me why this "Sequel"
is
any better?
-Ben
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am sure for many veteran EVrs 50 miles is plenty. Many newbies shoot
for 50 miles, if they were to get 100mi do you think they would consider
it a "bad thing"? Personally, my E10 will go around 45mi and keep Road
Rage Richie off my back. Unfortunately, I cant make it to work that is 57
mi round trip (they wont let me plug in, and I have over 30% batt wt, (25)
T125s) so anything over 50mi I would welcome. I dont know when "If you
don't need more range" occurs, if the vehicle will go 70 miles you drive
it like a vehicle that has 70 mile range. Does the Tesla have 200 miles
of wasted range for your purpose or would you just drive it like a car
that has a 250 mile range?
Also, I dont know of a battery pack that most newbies can afford that
weighs around 1000lbs and will get them 50 miles range in a 3000lb car
(normal driving), unless they are NiMh or Li-ion.
If they are lead acid, I suggest to use the "large battery pack" rule of
thumb.
Jimmy
> Subject: Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
> From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]
>
> It's not a "Rule" it's a "Rule of Thumb".
>
> I.e. if you want approx 50 miles range, then approx 1/3 of the vehicles
> total weight should be batteries.
> If 50% of the weight is batteries, then your range gets closer to 100
> miles, if less weight is in batteries, then you get less range.
>
> For most people 50 miles is a good range to shoot for. It's about 50%
> farther than most people drive in a day so you get maximum battery life
> and well as having some reserve range for the occasional extra trip.
>
> If you need more than 50 miles range, then by all means, use more
> batteries. If you don't need more range, then all you are accomplishing
> is spending more money on batteries, that you don't really need, and
> making the vehicle heavier; which means more wear and tear, poorer
> performance, and longer stopping distances. Where is the advantage to
> that?
>
> > From: "Bob Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
> >>1/3 of curb weight. The _total_ should not exceed
> > GVWR.
> >
> > I know I am in for it but here it goes! I have a problem with this
> > "rule". What if you start out with the curb weight and GVW the same
> and
> > you have 30% of the wt in batteries. Next you tactfully reduce the
> weight
> > of the car by 300 lbs(not including the batteries), are you saying you
> now
> > have to jettison 100lbs of batteries? If you test both scenarios
> > described what is your guess as to which car will have the longest
> range?
> >>From my experience if you do not beef up the suspension or other
> >> structure
> > you target the GVW and put in as many batteries as you can up to that
> > weight. The best car I had set up was the voltbuggy at aroud 52%
> power wt
> > ratio (yes 52% batteries).
> > We use to hear this rule back during the races in the 90s and it is
> > correct for and electrothon type racer in a controlled endurance race
> > environment, for an everyday vehicle that gets driven "less than
> > efficient" The more batteries you have the longer the range. Ask the
> > people with 25+ T125s in there vehicles how their car/truck would
> perform
> > with 30% curb wt in batteries. This is where the theoretical analysis
> > does not simulate the human condition (lead foot).
> > I dont think it is right to tell these newbies to put in just enough
> > battery boxes for 30% batt wt and find out later they need to add
> battery
> > boxes.....I Know I would be peeved.
> > Ok ..... now I am ready to get ripped a new one, have at it.
> > Jimmy
> > https://www.dm3electrics.com/
> > --- Joe Plumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've read that the battery weight should be about
> >> 1/3 of the car weight.
> >> However is that 1/3 of Gross weight or Curb Weight?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> So the problem is that I am out of beat? Good points make you
> uncomfortable, so the name calling is just to be expected, right?
>
> I am reminded of this Charlie Brown cartoon from a long time ago.
CB in
> the first frame is telling one of the girls - Freda, or Violet - See,
> I'm right! I'm right. I told you so.
>
> In the second frame, the girl says to CB, "You have a homely face."
>
> Third frame, CB is standing alone, looking nonplussed.
>
>
> Yeah, good argument there, though, and looks like Nick Austin judged
you
> too charitably.
>
> No need to continue this conversation, then. Good day.
>
Everyone's free to respond to any discussion, that's why you're here.
And I certainly am not made "uncomfortable" by your party line - an
effective co-opt involves plenty of "good points" mixed in. I just
keep seeing this from industry wonks and didn't expect them to be
echoed here. I only *assume* other listees think as I do but are less
likely to comment... Of course, "no need to comment" for you, too.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I think he was talking about the author of the original article, not
you.
>
> Everybody breathe. :)
>
Sorry Nick, wasn't trying to get a flame war going, just noting
similarities in discussion points I've seen before.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 9/21/2006 6:43:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Subj: Re:Current Eliminator story ON KUAT-TV!!!!!
> Date:9/21/2006 6:43:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-to:[email protected]
> To:[email protected]
> Received from Internet:
>
>
>
> Steve Bayless, Senior Editor for KUAT-TV, did the feature on Dennis. It will
> air tomorrow evening, Thursday, at 6:30 on KUAT.
>
> Anybody in the area, watch it. I don't have tv copy capability, but somebody
> in TEVA2 does so we'll get a copy and get it posted on the web...
>
> Congratulations Dennis...
>
> Rush
> Tucson AZ
> www.ironandwood.org
>
I belive the story has been postponed to monday Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
thank god, I do hope that means all this email on the subject ends!
Death to All Spammers wrote:
I received the same message from the user as the others who have sent ..
72 volt Smart car will work ok, acceleration will be unreasonable in
3rd, ok in 2nd, and fine in 1st (stock fortwo gearbox). However,
unless the motor can rev to 8k+, it can't hit 55 in 2nd. The biggest
problem is that at the weight of 12 V 200 Amp batteries (appx 150
lbs), the car is overweight. Yes, at 55 mph, the range cannot approach
70 miles using lead batteries in the Smart.
eBay ended the auction - don't know if it's because I pointed out the
'wrong VIN' or pictures set in Beijing, but as they say "that's that".
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John Norton wrote:
In the 1930's, scientists were quite sure that rockets wouldn't work
in space.
Thing is, I know people who work on FC projects for the military, and
while there are plenty of boondoggles in military spending, the Army
is all over fuel cells because they see them as genuinely useful.
They are researching, and developing, and, more to the point, using
fuel cell technology, and no number of Europeans saying that it won't
work changes that fact. Are they chasing a dead end? Perhaps.
Perhaps not. I would posit that we do not know. The Europeans may
have given up, but the US has not:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/
Oh sure, maybe its all a big conspiracy, but isn't it always? I mean,
here goes GM spending a billion dollars on a project with the purpose
of failure. Because it isn't like they need money.
Perhaps the way to look at it is this:
FC have a place in certain applications, and non-fuel electrics (can't
think of a better term) have their appropriate uses. I doubt it will end
up being all one thing or the other. Hydrogen infrastructure makes a lot
more sense when it's limited to industrial settings (airports, freight
terminals, shipping yards - railroads even?), and there already is a
handy electric infrastructure everywhere - if it isn't taxed by charging
all the semis, locomotives, and freight ships (imagine that wattage!).
I'd say there is plenty of room for both technologies.
~ Peanut Gallery ~
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Excellent, thanks for the info, Roland!
On 9/21/06, Roland Wiench <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Robyn,
The unit I use was a Square D Class 9016, Type GAW2. Has a Range on
Decreasing Vacuum (ins. of Hg) of 0-25. Adjustable Differential range of
5-20.
[snip]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
current batteries have no structural properties, so there is nothing
there to take advantage of.
I could imagine, however, some kind of capacitor where there are thick
plates of substantial strength, interleaved with other substances that
are not so corrosive/leaky, make it 6-8 inches thick, you wcould have
some solid frame rails and being capacitor it should not need replacing
like current batteries.
Not something one can engineer for today, so not much point in
discussing it, unless it has 3500v, then we can see how to make a Zilla
work with it...
jack
GWMobile wrote:
Agred.
I am just saying the three heaviest things in an electric car are
The motor,
The frame
The batteries
If both the motor casing and the batteries are make a structural
component of the car it has to be worth losing at least 1/3 total weight.
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 1:44 pm, Lee Hart wrote:
Mark Fowler wrote:
I think that making the battery part of the structure in an EV is a bad
idea. Batteries tend to be full of squishy, sloppy, wet stuff.
True enough, for most batteries. I suppose you could say that's the
standard paradigm.
But it's interesting to fantasize about what a battery might look like
if it was *intended* to be structural.
For instance, nickel-iron batteries use two very strong materials for
their plates. You might be able to fashion very long tubular cells
that essentially work as pipes for a space frame, simultaneously
containing the electrolyte in the process.
Or, you might have a vehicle in which a large volume of relatively
weak material provides the structure. My BEST kids have made cars out
of cardboard and styrafoam. With enough of it, shaped the right ways,
it is surprisingly strong. Batteries certainly can be as strong as
cardboard or styrafoam.
Not practical yet... but you never know!
--
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
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily updated facts about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake data.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You may want to do what a number of people on this list have done
when they were not allowed to plug in at work:
See if you can find a friendly neighbor such as a store that you
frequent, a lunch place or just any other business nearby where
you can plug in and ask if they object that you do that, you may
include the suggestion that it means more customer binding as you
will be there every day, or you can work out a financial deal
to pay for the estimated kWh used (or a flat fee), dependent what
you think is appropriate and how your relation to the person is.
After you have an agreement, make a point of putting it in
writing and get his signature, so it is an insurance against
being towed when this person is not around or forgets.
I have a Fry's about half a mile from work.
When I would have to drive further than my range and I had a
paddle charger, I would throw a (folding) bike in the back or
walk the 5 minutes from there to my office.
Success,
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 DM3
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 7:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EV digest 5896
I am sure for many veteran EVrs 50 miles is plenty. Many newbies shoot
for 50 miles, if they were to get 100mi do you think they would consider
it a "bad thing"? Personally, my E10 will go around 45mi and keep Road
Rage Richie off my back. Unfortunately, I cant make it to work that is 57
mi round trip (they wont let me plug in, and I have over 30% batt wt, (25)
T125s) so anything over 50mi I would welcome. I dont know when "If you
don't need more range" occurs, if the vehicle will go 70 miles you drive
it like a vehicle that has 70 mile range. Does the Tesla have 200 miles
of wasted range for your purpose or would you just drive it like a car
that has a 250 mile range?
Also, I dont know of a battery pack that most newbies can afford that
weighs around 1000lbs and will get them 50 miles range in a 3000lb car
(normal driving), unless they are NiMh or Li-ion.
If they are lead acid, I suggest to use the "large battery pack" rule of
thumb.
Jimmy
> Subject: Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
> From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]
>
> It's not a "Rule" it's a "Rule of Thumb".
>
> I.e. if you want approx 50 miles range, then approx 1/3 of the vehicles
> total weight should be batteries.
> If 50% of the weight is batteries, then your range gets closer to 100
> miles, if less weight is in batteries, then you get less range.
>
> For most people 50 miles is a good range to shoot for. It's about 50%
> farther than most people drive in a day so you get maximum battery life
> and well as having some reserve range for the occasional extra trip.
>
> If you need more than 50 miles range, then by all means, use more
> batteries. If you don't need more range, then all you are accomplishing
> is spending more money on batteries, that you don't really need, and
> making the vehicle heavier; which means more wear and tear, poorer
> performance, and longer stopping distances. Where is the advantage to
> that?
>
> > From: "Bob Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: Battery weight / Car weight ratio
> >>1/3 of curb weight. The _total_ should not exceed
> > GVWR.
> >
> > I know I am in for it but here it goes! I have a problem with this
> > "rule". What if you start out with the curb weight and GVW the same
> and
> > you have 30% of the wt in batteries. Next you tactfully reduce the
> weight
> > of the car by 300 lbs(not including the batteries), are you saying you
> now
> > have to jettison 100lbs of batteries? If you test both scenarios
> > described what is your guess as to which car will have the longest
> range?
> >>From my experience if you do not beef up the suspension or other
> >> structure
> > you target the GVW and put in as many batteries as you can up to that
> > weight. The best car I had set up was the voltbuggy at aroud 52%
> power wt
> > ratio (yes 52% batteries).
> > We use to hear this rule back during the races in the 90s and it is
> > correct for and electrothon type racer in a controlled endurance race
> > environment, for an everyday vehicle that gets driven "less than
> > efficient" The more batteries you have the longer the range. Ask the
> > people with 25+ T125s in there vehicles how their car/truck would
> perform
> > with 30% curb wt in batteries. This is where the theoretical analysis
> > does not simulate the human condition (lead foot).
> > I dont think it is right to tell these newbies to put in just enough
> > battery boxes for 30% batt wt and find out later they need to add
> battery
> > boxes.....I Know I would be peeved.
> > Ok ..... now I am ready to get ripped a new one, have at it.
> > Jimmy
> > https://www.dm3electrics.com/
> > --- Joe Plumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've read that the battery weight should be about
> >> 1/3 of the car weight.
> >> However is that 1/3 of Gross weight or Curb Weight?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John, others,
Please try to focus on the content and enjoy the discussion,
try to build your support with data and reasoning.
Personal attacks and name calling has never convinced anyone
to understand the other's points.
There is so much to learn by trying to understand why the
other has a particular idea - when you get the data that
convinced him/her to this idea, you may have gained valuable
insight.
You may also be able to present data that leads to other
conclusions, which could influence the other to change
his or her mind.
Lastly, respect for each other brings about the best in
our characters and since we try to advance the EV cause here,
we need all the resources we can muster, so avoid putting
people down and hurting the EV cause, we have one goal!
/Soapbox off.
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: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New GM electric car
Death to All Spammers wrote:
>> I'm an IT guy. I own 2 Chryslers and a Suzuki Samurai (remember that
>> thing about "you have the donor car so you think you are an EV'er" -
>> that's me at this point.) I've owned GM cars but I don't carry any
>> particular brief for GM - I don't even own any of their stock.
>>
>> But I am also a car guy, and by nature a futurist (and optimist) on
>> technology. There are a lot of EV'ers who hate cars (not all of them,
>> but a lot), see them as a burden, and think that forcing other people
>> into some penalty box that gives them less for more just serves them
>> right. I love cars and always have, and I won't accept the
>>
> imposition.
>
>> So we need to innovate and go forward, not backward.
>>
>> But none of that matters to you - you just want to call me names.
>>
> Maybe
>
>> that works for you, but, truthfully, it makes you look like a boob.
>>
>>
>
> You may be right, but of all the other "car guys" that post here (and
> there are many who have raced ICE vehicles in the past), none sounds
> so out of beat to the list. Of course you are entitled to say whatever
> you want here, I just labelled the response as typical of the GM rep
> in WKtEC using the excuse they "didn't make enough spare parts" as one
> of many lame reasons for their actions. If a fuel cell guy and a
> European energy comission tell you this is a dead end (see subsequent
> posts) will you believe it?
>
>
>
So the problem is that I am out of beat? Good points make you
uncomfortable, so the name calling is just to be expected, right?
I am reminded of this Charlie Brown cartoon from a long time ago. CB in
the first frame is telling one of the girls - Freda, or Violet - See,
I'm right! I'm right. I told you so.
In the second frame, the girl says to CB, "You have a homely face."
Third frame, CB is standing alone, looking nonplussed.
Yeah, good argument there, though, and looks like Nick Austin judged you
too charitably.
No need to continue this conversation, then. Good day.
--- End Message ---
