EV Digest 5990
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
by Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: IB9000 batteries
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Community Blogging and Forum site?
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy ( Kokam Cycle life )
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: $25,000 Performance Car?
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10) please remove me fom list
by "John Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: $25,000 Performance Car?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) RE: Lithium-ion batteries & Valence Group buy
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Short Range Medium Performance Conversion of an 85 MR2
by "Kip C Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Bad aux battery affects Voltage Sag?
by Chris & Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
by Mark Freidberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Community Blogging and Forum site?
by "Stefan T. Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Ah, much better, some amps!, but which are the prices that were listed,
for???
That is sounding more reasonable, but I would still need to parallel at
least 2 for reasonable life. and still need 24 if I didn't want to
change my system voltage 48 * 1220 is still 58K but man a 200ah pack so
oviously a refactor say 24 of these still 30K Whats a person to do?
run 24 of the u1's but ah dang back down to 80 amps. Pfft
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Something I just noted on the Valence PDF page that everyone seems to have
missed. Or maybe I am miss understanding Four series connected batteries
( 60 Volt max system voltage)
So they may not work like I have read this list talking about with 300 volt or
I think I read 480 Volts. This may be a PDF mis-print but you may want to
verify before that group purchase.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If anyone is really serious about doing this I thought they would have
looked at the Valence batteries
_http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf_
(http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf)
.
They are a very expensive battery but not as expensive as buying small cheep
6000 single cells that will fail. Many of the other lithium batteries small
or large many have a cycle life that is about the same as an AGM battery.
Using the small cells has so many contact points BMS and charging issues.
I am trying to get these so more people can afford them including myself.
There are several Solectria owners who are using these batteries. Each battery
has its own BMS and as I understand it can work with some existing lead acid
chargers. So yes they are expensive but with no added expense for a BMS and
able to use a lead acid charge algorithm they are ready to use now.
Current prices
U1= $860
U24= $2030
U27 = $2550
Marc's reply if we put together a 1000 battery order?
Hi Don,
U1=$515
U24=$1220
U27= $1530
UEV = $1160
U-BMS = $100
Thanks,
Marc
So if this was posted on all EV sites the 1000 total might be within reach.
Unless someone has a better legitimate battery I am considering buying 52 of
these myself so we only have 950 to go.
Don
In a message dated 10/7/2006 8:18:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, don't keep us in suspense, give us some specifics, like the pack
voltage/amps for a quantity of x would cost y $.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Lithium-ion batteries & Valence Group buy
>
> Hello Mike
>
> I have been talking to Marc at Valence for a long time about their
> batteries. They are all set up for an EV if we could get a serious group
buy going the
> prices would still be high but I believe better than anything else out
there
> for the money.
>
> Don
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small
Business.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.intellect-battery.com/02-news/02-index.htm
is where you find the IB9000 news.
I have the datasheet on the cell, they didn't say I couldn't release it,
so its now on my website,
http://nimblemotorsports.com/IB9000.pdf
Jack
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
Finally found the company heres the link but no spec's listed for a New D cell
they just came out with. Sent an inquire which I will forward to anyone
interested.
//intellect-battery.com/
Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.batterystore.com/Intellect/IntMain.htm I found this on Yahoo.
Lawrence Rhodes
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G. Lussmyer"
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: IB9000 batteries
At 01:13 AM 10/8/2006, Jack Murray wrote:
I think the short-term solution is NiMH batteries, and in particular
the ones I mentioned just recently, Intellect's new 9Ah D-cells.
Compare to a Optima Yellow Top, that is 24Ah C/1, at 50% dod just
12Ah, and weigh 20Kg, price is about $160.
20 cells of IB9000 would be 18Ah, weigh 3.5Kg, and cost $120.
That is 1/5th the weight and even less cost!
And Google can't find a mention of these anywhere except on this list...
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream.... http://www.CasaDelGato.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
> Something I just noted on the Valence PDF page that everyone
> seems to have missed. Or maybe I am miss understanding Four
> series connected batteries
> ( 60 Volt max system voltage)
> So they may not work like I have read this list talking about
> with 300 volt or I think I read 480 Volts. This may be a PDF
> mis-print but you may want to verify before that group purchase.
It is *not* a misprint... you're looking at the wrong datasheet! ;^>
The RT series battery is limited on its charge discharge current and on
the maximum series string voltage due to the electronics in each module.
For EV use, you need to look at the XP-series datasheet. The UEV 18V
modules are especially interesting as they allow one to assemble a
series string with 2/3 the modules that would otherwise be required.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 8 Oct 2006 at 17:29, Mike Sandman wrote:
> we'll also need backups, multiple admins, and an hand-off procedure for
> the person(s) that host and administer the site. if they "take their
> ball and go home" where does that leave the rest of us?
This is what I'm concerned about. A lot of what you're discussing sounds
good, and addresses some longstanding user complaints, but it seems awfully
labor intensive. No doubt you can gain some worthwhile features with your
proposed system, but at what cost?
I mean no offense, so please don't take this as such - but I'd hate to see
this started with a flourish, only to have the sysops be unable to keep
things going, a year or two out. I certainly don't want some privacy
invader and popup ad maven like Yahoo or Google running it, but in a way I'd
be more comfortable if this were being proposed by an institution of SJSU's
caliber, one that we could reasonably expect to be around for the long haul.
The good old mailing list format we use isn't fancy, and it has some
inconveniences. But it's worked (mostly ;-) dependably for 15 years. It's
likely to still be here in 2021, too. The good folks at SJSU generously
provide long-term committment to infrastructure and support at no charge -
and with virtually no effort on any members' part.
If you are really itching to develop this resource, and it's as transparent
as you say, then I don't see any impediment other than the one mentioned
above. If you find you can't maintain it, or you lose your server space, or
whatever, the SJSU mailing list will go right on as before - except, of
course, for those who've come in through your gold inlaid front door ; -)
and don't know about the servants' entrance that we old-timers use. ;-)
I encourage other thoughts from other list oldtimers.
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/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The only problem with this graph is that it is not specific to any battery,
they make many different sizes and kinds. The spec sheet for the 100Ah
battery says >800 cycles.
http://www.kokam.com/product/product_pdf/high_power/PL-302_SLPB80460330H_100
Ah_Grade.pdf
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dmitri
Sent: October 8, 2006 7:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy ( Kokam Cycle life )
Guys, you all need to look at the graphs here:
http://www.kokam.com/english/product/kokam_Lipo_01.html
'nuff said.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
>
> Another way to think of the Kokam Verses Valence is miles.
>
> If you have 500 charges with 75 miles your good for 37,500 miles
> 2,000 charges with 75 miles 150,000 miles.
>
> Even if the Kokam was 300 dollars for a 100 Ah battery you would spend 68
> cents for every mile you traveled just for the cost of the batteries.
>
> The Valance at 1220 per 100 Ah battery your cost is .21 cents per mile.
> This
> is three times less cost if you could buy the 100 Ah Kokam at the 70 Ah
> price.
>
> This still does not take into consideration you have a BMS and easy
> charging. It is not so easy to create a BMS and charging system it would
> be an
> expensive experiment to find out and you still don't beat the price
> anyway.
>
> Don
>
>
> In a message dated 10/8/2006 4:19:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> At 03:40 PM 10/8/2006, Don Cameron wrote:
>>Anyone thought of doing a group purchase on Kokam? Even at the single
>>cell
>>list cost (70Ah 3.7V is $300) a 312V pack would still be $10K **cheaper**
>>than Valence.
>
> Where are you getting those prices?
> I talked to Kokam just a couple weeks ago. Low quantity pricing (say
> under 1000 units) was:
> 70AH $470
> 100AH $671
>
> --
> John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
> http://www.CasaDelGato.com
>
>
>
>
> Compare the real price
>
> A Kokam 70ah pack at 314.5 volts is 85 X 300 is 25,500
> A Valence 100 Ah pack of 312 volts is 26 X 1220 = 31,720
>
> For the above the Valence is 22,204 or really 3296 dollars less. Yes
> maybe
> Kokam will give a discount for a large order as well but also consider
> this.
>
> Kokam life cycles 500
> Valence life cycles 2000
>
> So the Kokam is really 4 times the above cost. The Kokam at 102,000
> thousand
> and the Valence is still 22,204 thousand.
>
> Then factor what is a BMS worth on each battery? Being able to use
> charging
> for lead acid?
>
> Even if the Kokam was 25% of the cost it is not as good a value. The
> price
> sounds great but really consider apples to apples. I looked at the Kokam
> batteries and it was disappointing when I figured out their real cost.
>
> Don
>
> In a message dated 10/8/2006 3:44:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Anyone thought of doing a group purchase on Kokam? Even at the single
> cell
> list cost (70Ah 3.7V is $300) a 312V pack would still be $10K
> **cheaper**
> than Valence.
>
> - purchasing in bulk might reduce this to being $15-20k cheaper than
> Valance
> - they have 30% greater energy density than Valance
> - with the money saved a BMS unit can be purchased from Victor or Jukka
> - Kokam safety tests show just as good of a safety record as Valence
> - Cliff has been putting these batteries through actual racing tests
> with
> great results
>
> Don Cameron
>
>
>
> If anyone is really serious about doing this I thought they would have
> looked at the Valence batteries
> _http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf_
> (http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf)
> .
>
> They are a very expensive battery but not as expensive as buying small
> cheep
> 6000 single cells that will fail. Many of the other lithium batteries
> small
> or large many have a cycle life that is about the same as an AGM
> battery.
> Using the small cells has so many contact points BMS and charging
> issues.
>
> I am trying to get these so more people can afford them including myself.
> There are several Solectria owners who are using these batteries. Each
> battery
> has its own BMS and as I understand it can work with some existing lead
> acid
>
> chargers. So yes they are expensive but with no added expense for a BMS
> and
> able to use a lead acid charge algorithm they are ready to use now.
>
> Current prices
> U1= $860
> U24= $2030
> U27 = $2550
>
> Marc's reply if we put together a 1000 battery order?
>
>
> Hi Don,
> U1=$515
> U24=$1220
> U27= $1530
> UEV = $1160
> U-BMS = $100
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
> So if this was posted on all EV sites the 1000 total might be within
> reach.
> Unless someone has a better legitimate battery I am considering buying 52
> of
> these myself so we only have 950 to go.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 10/7/2006 8:18:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Well, don't keep us in suspense, give us some specifics, like the pack
> voltage/amps for a quantity of x would cost y $.
>
> Rush
> Tucson AZ
> www.ironandwood.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Lithium-ion batteries & Valence Group buy
>
>
>>
>> Hello Mike
>>
>> I have been talking to Marc at Valence for a long time about their
>> batteries. They are all set up for an EV if we could get a serious
>> group
> buy going the
>> prices would still be high but I believe better than anything else out
> there
>> for the money.
>>
>> Don
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There seems to be some confusion. Are these prices for the RT or the XP
battery?
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 8, 2006 2:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
If anyone is really serious about doing this I thought they would have
looked at the Valence batteries
_http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf_
(http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf)
.
They are a very expensive battery but not as expensive as buying small
cheep 6000 single cells that will fail. Many of the other lithium batteries
small or large many have a cycle life that is about the same as an AGM
battery.
Using the small cells has so many contact points BMS and charging issues.
I am trying to get these so more people can afford them including myself.
There are several Solectria owners who are using these batteries. Each
battery has its own BMS and as I understand it can work with some existing
lead acid chargers. So yes they are expensive but with no added expense for
a BMS and able to use a lead acid charge algorithm they are ready to use
now.
Current prices
U1= $860
U24= $2030
U27 = $2550
Marc's reply if we put together a 1000 battery order?
Hi Don,
U1=$515
U24=$1220
U27= $1530
UEV = $1160
U-BMS = $100
Thanks,
Marc
So if this was posted on all EV sites the 1000 total might be within reach.
Unless someone has a better legitimate battery I am considering buying 52
of these myself so we only have 950 to go.
Don
In a message dated 10/7/2006 8:18:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, don't keep us in suspense, give us some specifics, like the pack
voltage/amps for a quantity of x would cost y $.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Lithium-ion batteries & Valence Group buy
>
> Hello Mike
>
> I have been talking to Marc at Valence for a long time about their
> batteries. They are all set up for an EV if we could get a serious group
buy going the
> prices would still be high but I believe better than anything else out
there
> for the money.
>
> Don
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don, 20% regen is quite good. Is this what you are getting today? I think
Victor with his variable regen gets around 8-10% and I get around 5-7%. Now
Cliff gets great regen while racing because he rarely uses his friction
brakes... but that is another story.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 8, 2006 7:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: $25,000 Performance Car?
Hello John
What do you advise in this situation?
A 1300 pound glider into a performance car?
Range not as much an issue as regeneration. I get back about 20 percent
overall on the hills and stopping at intersections. With this in mind.
I considered a TransWarP 11 because it would be an easy install to replace
the transmission and to add an AC motor to it.
It would be about 150 pounds over the weight of having a single motor and
transmission with two motors and no transmission.
Don
In a message dated 10/8/2006 6:24:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello to Jack and All,
Sorry if this is a repeat, I've tried to send it two other times and it
never hits the EVDL. I sent a correction on my math about this post, and
two of them showed up, but for some reason, this original post has not been
getting to the list. This then, is the third try. I've corrected the math
to reflect the 138 hp figure:
Jack Murray wrote:
> $25,000 Performance Car...Being the entrepeneur that I am, I'm always
> interesting in creating solutions to problems and limitations, find
> faster, easier, cheaper ways.
After reading through Jack's post, it seems his idea of what constitutes a
'performance car' and mine are quite a bit different.
Based on Jack's formula of using a heavy '84 - '91 Corvette which in glider
form will weigh a porky 2700 lbs., when it's stuffed with 743 lbs. of NiMH
batteries and another 250 lbs. of AC motor, transaxle & inverter, the
Corvette EV will weigh at a minimum, 3682 lbs. Jack figured his battery pack
at "480v and 360 amps = 172Kw" which is 230 'battery' hp, but he left out
the sagged voltage of the pack under that 360 amp load. In addition, the AC
power train isn't 100% efficient - it's more like 90% at full throttle
power. At 90% efficiency 'if' the pack delivered that promised 172 kw of
power (it can't), the inverter/motor combo would turn it into 207 hp. The
small D cell type NiMH batteries are very impressive, and I am a fan of them
(my Insight runs on 120 D cell NiMH), but they do sag at high currents. At
90 amps per small D cell their nominal 1.2V will sag to about .8V. Now, the
12V based NiMH blocks Jack talks about are falling to just 8 volts. Jack's
480 volt pack just fell to 320 volts under load. Now redoing the math,
Jack's NiMH pack at 360 amps X 320 volts now makes a realistic 115 kw, a far
cry from his 172 kw. 115 kw pushed through the 90% efficient power train is
just 138 hp.
Stock Corvettes of this vintage weighed about 3300 lbs. and during the
period of '84 - '91 Vettes came with a 245 hp V8 and a torque multiplying
transmission that gave it mid 6's in the 0-60 and mid 14's for the 1/4
mile, with only the '91 model able to crack into the 13's - barely, with a
13.9. Yes, these specs qualify as a performance car, though they're
certainly not at the high end of this category...if anything, they are at
the low end. Today's hot import four cylinder cars, quick BMW's, V8 muscle
cars like the Mustang, and Matt Graham's impressive electric 240SX run 0-60
in the low 5 second range and 1/4 mile ETs of mid to low 13's...all of which
would cream any '84 thru '91 Vette!
Here's the reality... Jack's heavy 3700 lb. electric Vette with just 138 hp
and no transmission to help multiply torque, would be a sad, slow car, and
it would be nothing close to a performance car. As a comparison, let's look
at a bland econocar '93 Ford Escort wagon. It weighed 1200 pounds less than
Jack's proposed electric Vette, at just
2451 lbs. and with 88 hp it ran 0-60 in a tepid 12.8 seconds and did a
s-l-o-w 19.1 second 1/4 mile ET. With just 50 extra ponies over a mediocre
Escort, no transmission, and a whopping 1200 extra lbs. to lug around,
Jack's proposed 'performance car' would struggle to run 0-60 in
14 seconds and the 1/4 mile would take an agonizing 19 seconds :-(
Does anyone think 0-60 in 14 seconds and a 19 second 1/4 mile ET equates to
a performance car? These figures aren't even in yesterday's let alone
today's economy car s' range! More importantly, with all that weight and no
tranny to help, pretty much all of those 138 horses would be used just to
move the thing around, let alone to accelerate hard, so the wear and tear
on those little D cells would be very high, and cycle life would be very
low.
>
> I'm taking orders for all of you that say you'd buy it if you could,
> and I'm not kidding one bit.
Let's see....performance far worse than an early 90's automatic econocar
wagon, from a car who's sporty swoopy shape 'promises' performance, a
gazillion NiMH cells being maxed out most of the time and not liking being
paralleled one bit, a BMS nightmare, and all this for 'just' $25,000?
Try this...reconfigure that NiMH pack to a 240V, 72 ahr pack with 720 amps
discharge capability (still 115 kw), put it in a small sedan that as a
glider might weigh 1500 lbs., save thousands of dollars and use a high
torque DC motor, tranny, and a Z1K Zilla, and you'd have a fun sedan
capable of kicking butt on unsuspecting 'sporty looking' cars!
You'd get 0-60 in 7 seconds, a high 14 second 1/4 mile, and about 75 miles
per charge for about $15,000....ten grand less, with real performance! You'd
still have a BMS nightmare to deal with, but the 0-60 blasts would be the
only time where 90 amps would be pulled from the D cells, and it would only
be for 7 seconds or so. Cruise speeds would be in the 5 amp per D cell
range, and even hill pulling would only be in the 30 amp per D cell range,
so those D cells would be in a low stress area most of the time. With NiMH
the range per charge is about 2.5 times that of lead acid, so 75 miles per
charge is very realistic.
For many of us, it's a lot more fun to have an electric sedan that goes
like stink and surprises the unsuspecting, over a sporty-looking car that's
lethargic and embarrassingly s-l-o-w. Jack, considering your proposed
performance car and the battery pack you've outlined, with the voltage sag
under load, the power from the pack is just not high enough to give any
semblance of performance for a car this heavy.
See Ya....John Wayland
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
They are on the XP.
Don
In a message dated 10/8/2006 9:41:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There seems to be some confusion. Are these prices for the RT or the XP
battery?
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 8, 2006 2:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pricing Lithium-ion Valence Group buy
If anyone is really serious about doing this I thought they would have
looked at the Valence batteries
_http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf_
(http://www.valence.com/pdffiles/U-Charge%20RT%20DS%20Jan06.pdf)
.
They are a very expensive battery but not as expensive as buying small
cheep 6000 single cells that will fail. Many of the other lithium batteries
small or large many have a cycle life that is about the same as an AGM
battery.
Using the small cells has so many contact points BMS and charging issues.
I am trying to get these so more people can afford them including myself.
There are several Solectria owners who are using these batteries. Each
battery has its own BMS and as I understand it can work with some existing
lead acid chargers. So yes they are expensive but with no added expense for
a BMS and able to use a lead acid charge algorithm they are ready to use
now.
Current prices
U1= $860
U24= $2030
U27 = $2550
Marc's reply if we put together a 1000 battery order?
Hi Don,
U1=$515
U24=$1220
U27= $1530
UEV = $1160
U-BMS = $100
Thanks,
Marc
So if this was posted on all EV sites the 1000 total might be within reach.
Unless someone has a better legitimate battery I am considering buying 52
of these myself so we only have 950 to go.
Don
In a message dated 10/7/2006 8:18:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, don't keep us in suspense, give us some specifics, like the pack
voltage/amps for a quantity of x would cost y $.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Lithium-ion batteries & Valence Group buy
>
> Hello Mike
>
> I have been talking to Marc at Valence for a long time about their
> batteries. They are all set up for an EV if we could get a serious group
buy going the
> prices would still be high but I believe better than anything else out
there
> for the money.
>
> Don
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dear EV list ,
Please remove me from your list, I need a break.
Thanks for everything
John Todd
_________________________________________________________________
Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Don
It would be better if I did not have to go up so many hills. I was getting
this back on a daily bases with a Solectria. I think in a more normal area you
might get 10% at best. For me regeneration is a big deal. The Solectria I
could get by with hardly ever touching the brake pedel.
I am driving the factory Ford and Chevy trucks and the regen on them is no
where near strong enough. They weigh a lot more than the Solectria and I am not
able to recover as much. The factory vehicles have no adjustment.
Don
In a message dated 10/8/2006 9:44:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don, 20% regen is quite good. Is this what you are getting today? I think
Victor with his variable regen gets around 8-10% and I get around 5-7%. Now
Cliff gets great regen while racing because he rarely uses his friction
brakes... but that is another story.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 8, 2006 7:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: $25,000 Performance Car?
Hello John
What do you advise in this situation?
A 1300 pound glider into a performance car?
Range not as much an issue as regeneration. I get back about 20 percent
overall on the hills and stopping at intersections. With this in mind.
I considered a TransWarP 11 because it would be an easy install to replace
the transmission and to add an AC motor to it.
It would be about 150 pounds over the weight of having a single motor and
transmission with two motors and no transmission.
Don
In a message dated 10/8/2006 6:24:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello to Jack and All,
Sorry if this is a repeat, I've tried to send it two other times and it
never hits the EVDL. I sent a correction on my math about this post, and
two of them showed up, but for some reason, this original post has not been
getting to the list. This then, is the third try. I've corrected the math
to reflect the 138 hp figure:
Jack Murray wrote:
> $25,000 Performance Car...Being the entrepeneur that I am, I'm always
> interesting in creating solutions to problems and limitations, find
> faster, easier, cheaper ways.
After reading through Jack's post, it seems his idea of what constitutes a
'performance car' and mine are quite a bit different.
Based on Jack's formula of using a heavy '84 - '91 Corvette which in glider
form will weigh a porky 2700 lbs., when it's stuffed with 743 lbs. of NiMH
batteries and another 250 lbs. of AC motor, transaxle & inverter, the
Corvette EV will weigh at a minimum, 3682 lbs. Jack figured his battery pack
at "480v and 360 amps = 172Kw" which is 230 'battery' hp, but he left out
the sagged voltage of the pack under that 360 amp load. In addition, the AC
power train isn't 100% efficient - it's more like 90% at full throttle
power. At 90% efficiency 'if' the pack delivered that promised 172 kw of
power (it can't), the inverter/motor combo would turn it into 207 hp. The
small D cell type NiMH batteries are very impressive, and I am a fan of them
(my Insight runs on 120 D cell NiMH), but they do sag at high currents. At
90 amps per small D cell their nominal 1.2V will sag to about .8V. Now, the
12V based NiMH blocks Jack talks about are falling to just 8 volts. Jack's
480 volt pack just fell to 320 volts under load. Now redoing the math,
Jack's NiMH pack at 360 amps X 320 volts now makes a realistic 115 kw, a far
cry from his 172 kw. 115 kw pushed through the 90% efficient power train is
just 138 hp.
Stock Corvettes of this vintage weighed about 3300 lbs. and during the
period of '84 - '91 Vettes came with a 245 hp V8 and a torque multiplying
transmission that gave it mid 6's in the 0-60 and mid 14's for the 1/4
mile, with only the '91 model able to crack into the 13's - barely, with a
13.9. Yes, these specs qualify as a performance car, though they're
certainly not at the high end of this category...if anything, they are at
the low end. Today's hot import four cylinder cars, quick BMW's, V8 muscle
cars like the Mustang, and Matt Graham's impressive electric 240SX run 0-60
in the low 5 second range and 1/4 mile ETs of mid to low 13's...all of which
would cream any '84 thru '91 Vette!
Here's the reality... Jack's heavy 3700 lb. electric Vette with just 138 hp
and no transmission to help multiply torque, would be a sad, slow car, and
it would be nothing close to a performance car. As a comparison, let's look
at a bland econocar '93 Ford Escort wagon. It weighed 1200 pounds less than
Jack's proposed electric Vette, at just
2451 lbs. and with 88 hp it ran 0-60 in a tepid 12.8 seconds and did a
s-l-o-w 19.1 second 1/4 mile ET. With just 50 extra ponies over a mediocre
Escort, no transmission, and a whopping 1200 extra lbs. to lug around,
Jack's proposed 'performance car' would struggle to run 0-60 in
14 seconds and the 1/4 mile would take an agonizing 19 seconds :-(
Does anyone think 0-60 in 14 seconds and a 19 second 1/4 mile ET equates to
a performance car? These figures aren't even in yesterday's let alone
today's economy car s' range! More importantly, with all that weight and no
tranny to help, pretty much all of those 138 horses would be used just to
move the thing around, let alone to accelerate hard, so the wear and tear
on those little D cells would be very high, and cycle life would be very
low.
>
> I'm taking orders for all of you that say you'd buy it if you could,
> and I'm not kidding one bit.
Let's see....performance far worse than an early 90's automatic econocar
wagon, from a car who's sporty swoopy shape 'promises' performance, a
gazillion NiMH cells being maxed out most of the time and not liking being
paralleled one bit, a BMS nightmare, and all this for 'just' $25,000?
Try this...reconfigure that NiMH pack to a 240V, 72 ahr pack with 720 amps
discharge capability (still 115 kw), put it in a small sedan that as a
glider might weigh 1500 lbs., save thousands of dollars and use a high
torque DC motor, tranny, and a Z1K Zilla, and you'd have a fun sedan
capable of kicking butt on unsuspecting 'sporty looking' cars!
You'd get 0-60 in 7 seconds, a high 14 second 1/4 mile, and about 75 miles
per charge for about $15,000....ten grand less, with real performance! You'd
still have a BMS nightmare to deal with, but the 0-60 blasts would be the
only time where 90 amps would be pulled from the D cells, and it would only
be for 7 seconds or so. Cruise speeds would be in the 5 amp per D cell
range, and even hill pulling would only be in the 30 amp per D cell range,
so those D cells would be in a low stress area most of the time. With NiMH
the range per charge is about 2.5 times that of lead acid, so 75 miles per
charge is very realistic.
For many of us, it's a lot more fun to have an electric sedan that goes
like stink and surprises the unsuspecting, over a sporty-looking car that's
lethargic and embarrassingly s-l-o-w. Jack, considering your proposed
performance car and the battery pack you've outlined, with the voltage sag
under load, the power from the pack is just not high enough to give any
semblance of performance for a car this heavy.
See Ya....John Wayland
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michael Trefry wrote:
> I'd say that all-in all, I don't want to spend more than
> $20,000 on this, possibly flexible up to $25,000 if I can
> get a lighter, longer living, maintenance free, more
> powerful battery.
> Here's what I want.
>
> I want a reliable, strong motor capable of bringing me from
> 0-60 in under 10 seconds and reach a top speed of at least
> 90 MPH.
> [and then later:] I'm asking for a car with less performance
> and range than a Metro.
> I would like regenerative braking, not only for regeneration,
> but to assist in slowing the car. The manual brakes on this
> thing scare me.
Do not rely on the *possibility* of regen braking as a substitute for
adequate mechanical brakes! Fix the brakes whether you go AC w/regen or
DC without.
> I want to be able to go at least 100 miles on a single charge
> and at a decent speed (say 65mph) without damaging the
> batteries, or reducing their lifetime.
100mi @ 65mph = 1.5hr. A 914 can hold 24 YTs @ ~45lbs each, for 1080lbs
of lead. At the 2-hour rate they are spec'ed to deliver about 52Ah,
which works out to about 15kWh to 100%DOD. Discharging for only 1.5 of
the available 2hrs means 11kWh is comsumed. Discharging at the 2hr rate
(26A) means about 7.5kW (roughly 7.5-10hp depending on drivetrain
efficiency). It *might* be possible to hold a steady 65mph with this
power, if you pay attention to details. Running for 1.5 of an available
2hrs runtime means 80%DOD, which is going to take more of a toll on your
battery life than discharging to 50%DOD or less, but then you've stated
that 100mi trips would be unusual, so the net impact would be less.
> I want batteries that I don't have to worry about watering,
> or changing every 3-5 years.
AGMs, like YTs satisfy the watering part. How often you need to change
them will depend on how well you maintain them, how deeply you cycle
them (how far you drive), and how far you need to drive (as the
batteries age/wear out the available capacity will decrease, so while
the car may still be perfectly usable for your shorter trips you may
find that after 3-5yrs it isn't up to that occasional 100mi trip any
more).
> I want a heater! (A/C optional)
Heater is 'trivial'. There are two popular options: ceramic heater
elements that directly convert energy from your pack to heat so that as
your original fan blows air over them it is warmed; or, a heater element
that converts energy from the pack into heat that warms a small amount
of water that is circulated through a heater core that your fan blows
air over. Given that your 914's original heat source was the exhaust
heat exchangers, neither of these schemes is a direct bolt-in.
Presumably a gas-fired auxiliary heater was an option on the 914 just as
it was on the air-cooled VWs? If so, this might be the easiest heat
option, though it verges on heresy for many of us dyed-in-the-wool Evers
;^>
> So what would it take to do this with a Porsche 914?
24 Yts (or BTs) @ $160/ea = $3840
24 Rudman Mk2B regs @ $45/ea = $1080 (perhaps 1/2 that if you buy blank
boards and stuff them yourself)
1 PFCxx charger $1550/2000/2500 (20/30/50A)
1 ADC9" or Warp equivalent: $1650
1 Z1KHV $2550
This is $9120 for the major electrical components, not including your
choice of PFCxx charger; with charger its up to $10670-11620.
Figure around $750 for an adapter, a couple hundred for a DC/DC, plus a
few hundred more in traction wiring and terminals, main disconnect,
fuses, etc. Then, whatever you need to spend on the 35yr-old Porsche to
get it up to snuff, plus suspension and brake improvements and battery
boxes. The major components actually only ate up about half of your
budget, and if we deduct the ~$4000 cost of the donor (IIRC), we've got
about $4-5000 to tackle these other items. Surprisingly enough, it
looks like it might just be possible for $20k.
The big question is whether you can get the 914 to hold 65mph on about
8hp or not. With LRR tires, synthetic lube in the transaxle, good
alignment, etc. it might just be possible.
Now, if you had a larger budget, or if you were factoring in the cost of
replacement packs down the road, etc., you could opt for a pack of
Valence UEV modules instead 16 of these 18V modules would get you to the
same 288V nominal, but would set you back in the neighbourhood of $32000
vs the ~$5000 cost for the AGM pack + regs. In favour of the Valence
pack is that the lighter weight would likely sidestep the need (and
cost) to upgrade the suspension, and the lighter weight would help
maintain the acceleration performance despite a lower current limit than
the AGMs would allow.
If you had a larger budget, you might consider going with an AC drive
rather than DC, however, with your stated requirements, AC doesn't buy
you anything other than regen and it is both safer and cheaper to fix
the mechanical brakes.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ok, they are not SAFT, but at least it's a state-side source. Does anybody
have any experience with Moltec?
http://www.moltech.com/products_cells_rech_indPris.htm
-
Kip
Eugene, OR
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd like to follow up on the problem with bad voltage sag (down to 60 going
up a hill at the end of our 11 mile commute) that I'd posted about a few
days ago. My apologies if some of this is redundant or even perhaps already
answered - my receipt of EVDL digests has been problematic, and I never saw
my second post on this topic show up.
I'm thinking our auxiliary battery is bad. If it were, would it be possible
that the DC/DC continuously trying to charge it could be enough of a drain
cause our traction pack to go down so fast?
After the problem (which occurred on the evening of the 3rd), I charged up
the pack and let it sit while I pondered, and dealt with our ICE car which
happened to develop unrelated problems at the same time (I hate when that
happens!).
Four days later, when I came out today to do some troubleshooting, I noticed
that the Emeter was blank, no display. This had happened once before when
I'd had a problem with the DC/DC and the aux. battery had gone dead. When I
checked, the aux. battery was sitting at only 1.5 volts! After turning on
the DC/DC, it read 14.1V.
I left the DC/DC on for 6-7 hrs to charge up the aux, at which point the
aux. battery was at 14.19 and 12.1 (with and w/o the DC/DC on,
respectively). The main pack was sitting at 128.2.
This morning, after topping off the pack charge to just under 133 volts in
preparation for a short test drive, it seemed like the Aux Battery was again
drawing a lot of juice through the DC/DC - enough to drop the voltage in the
main pack by .1V every 12 seconds.
I'm pretty sure this isn't normal, but is it abnormal enough to account for
my pack to sag as badly as I'd recounted previously (60V uphill at 210 amps,
25-30 mph) at only 11 miles/27Ahrs?
I'm guessing I may have more than one problem - what d'yall think?
This is a 120V Geo Metro, with ten 12V C&D Technologies Dynasty UPS
Batteries. If it helps, the labels on the batteries have the following
information:
134.8 AH (20 hr rate to 1.75 VPC @ 77F)
475 WPC (15 min rate to 1.67 VPC @ 77F)
IEC Rating 120.3 AH (10 hr rate to 1.8 VPC @ 20C)
Float Charge Voltage 13.5 to 13.8 VDL @ 77F
I'd be very appreciative of any observations, thoughts, advice or
suggestions that anyone can offer.
Also, how close should the individual batteries' voltages be to each other,
in general?
Thank you kindly,
- Patrick
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For what its worth, though its the wrong data sheet,
this wrong datasheet does contain at least one error.
The second sentence reads "The U-charge Power Systems
are a family of 12V batteries that offer twice the
run-time and nearly half the weight of similar sized
lead-acid batteries."
Nearly half the weight? No. Both the U24-12RT and
U27-12RT are nearly two-thirds the weight (65% by my
calculation) of same size AGMs by DEKA/MK Battery.
Regards,
Mark Freidberg
--- Roger Stockton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
>
> > Something I just noted on the Valence PDF page
> that everyone
> > seems to have missed. Or maybe I am miss
> understanding Four
> > series connected batteries
> > ( 60 Volt max system voltage)
> > So they may not work like I have read this list
> talking about
> > with 300 volt or I think I read 480 Volts. This
> may be a PDF
> > mis-print but you may want to verify before that
> group purchase.
>
> It is *not* a misprint... you're looking at the
> wrong datasheet! ;^>
>
> The RT series battery is limited on its charge
> discharge current and on
> the maximum series string voltage due to the
> electronics in each module.
>
> For EV use, you need to look at the XP-series
> datasheet. The UEV 18V
> modules are especially interesting as they allow one
> to assemble a
> series string with 2/3 the modules that would
> otherwise be required.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don Cameron wrote:
I am all for this! Support the email list, but allow a web based threaded
interface as well.
Do you want to take the lead? Where can I help? Where can others help?
Don Cameron
This comes up every couple of months, just about like clockwork. Some folks
actually do it. And I'm sorry to say that most of their efforts languish
and eventually disappear.
On the other hand, here's an outstanding idea that just hasn't caught on as
well as many of us hoped :
http://www.evforge.net
EVforge was launched with a fair bit of discussion here, but it doesn't seem
to have really garnered much interest, which is really too bad. This is
more typical of the success of the EVDL alternatives, I'm sorry to say.
It also demonstrates one of the pitfalls of these efforts. One of the sad
constants is the front-page apology that the sysop hasn't had time lately to
do much with them.
It's because these websites and forums are mostly carried out as a spare-
time activity, and most of us have lives, jobs, and families. Heck, most
would rather be out in the garage working on the EV than beating on the
keyboard. From what I've seen around the web, operating a successful forum
- even one which should be user supported - is pretty much a full time job,
and who's going to pay you for it?
I will ask you for only one thing, and that is a long-term commitment.
Please
don't build something that you're going to lose interest in 2 years or 5
years from now, and abandon. The EVDL has been around for 15 years. Given
the history of EVs, I expect there will still be a need for it in another
15.
I'd love
to see you build on its success, but only if you promise us that you're in
it for the long haul - and KEEP that promise.
David Roden
EV List Assistant Administrator
I'll chime in on that:
I *wish* I had a 9-5 job and could commit to this, even on a regular
part-time basis. But sadly, the demand of trying to build up a small
company in a cutthroat industry places unpredictable "liens" against my
time :-(
You got to pay the bills first, eh?
As you say, if someone has the time and a good idea, I'll be cheering
from the sidelines - lol. Performing a seamless integration of a forum
and the list is a noble goal IMHO. As long as such a person is willing
to also provide hosting for the few EV sites that are currently running
on evforge.net (or I could move them to newer machine setup, which I
need to do anyways, and leave the subdomains intact in DNS), I would be
happy to offer use of the domain. It *does* still belong to this list,
after all :-)
The timing would be good over the next two months, since I have to
change the hosting software on that machine (been having some email
problems - beta software is fun, no?). I had some high hopes for that
particular open-source software, but they have since lost steam. So to
keep it running, I need to switch it to something a bit more "basic"
(LAMP setup with Postfix, for example).
--- End Message ---
