EV Digest 6184
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Direct Drive
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: cvt's, power transmission, I love this stuff!
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Clutchless gearbox CVT Warning
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: Some newbie questions
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: I will never complain about a pothole again! OT
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Some newbie questions
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments, MORE
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: [EV] RE: Some newbie questions
by Eduardo Kaftanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Some newbie questions
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: RAV4 conversion?
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: I will never complain about a pothole again! OT
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Tesla "Mole" anyone ??
by Steven Lough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Direct Drive
by Jordan Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Got my EV LICKS IN - GM Anouncement
by Steven Lough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Direct Drive
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: CVT Warning
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17) Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Grease and even more LRR tire testing
by Mike Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Direct Drive-Let me scare you!
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Grease and even more LRR tire testing
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: [EV] RE: Some newbie questions
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) RE: Clutchless gearbox CVT Warning
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
>
> Peter VanDerWal kirjoitti 2.12.2006 kello 3.10:
>
>>
>> A fixed reduction setup requires either a very high reving motor and
>> usually a high voltage pack connected to a high reduction, say
>> 10:1. This
>> usually means an AC or brushless DC motor so that it can handle the
>> high
>> RPMs.
>
> Not necessarily. Peugeot Partner Electric has 7,2:1 (if I remember
> correctly) fixed reduction and max motor rpm about 8000 rpm. The
> motor is brushed DC, although shunt wound. The battery pack is 162 V.
<sigh> Which is why I said "USUALLY"
> freewheeling gears in oil bath inside. I don't know exact figures but
> just to throw in a case, let's say fixed reduction efficiency is 0.9
> and transmission on 3rd is 0.8. Difference would be about 10%. If
> your range is, say 50 miles, that is 5 miles diffference.
Exact figures vary, but the ENTIRE drive train losses for a manual
transmission system are about 10%. Switching to a fixed reduction ratio
will save maybe 2% in drive train losses.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> always in search of a better way, (for small vehicle enthusiasts) like
> myself. found on howstuffworks.com- hydrostatic transmissions, click other
> types,
> lists hydrostatic transmissions as being a type of cvt? also,
As I recall, their efficiency sucks.
> a simple chain drive seems the best to me, but
> all the mess that comes with it is a pain- anyway,
If you don't like the mess of a chain, then try a toothed belt.
If you want high efficiency in a simple setup, then use an enclosed chain
with a continous lubrication system,
The best would be a single reduction spur gear setup, but that can get
expensive for small, single use, projects.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'VE SEEN THE CAR that has one, and talked to the owner, who said its
the CVT that allows his 1500-lb car to work with just a little E-tek
motor. There are different springs available to adjust the rates, I
didn't ask the owner about that, but given the most efficient rpm of an
electric motor is not at 0 rpm, having it spin up before engaging might
well be an advantage.
Jack
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
CVT on ICE's have a disengage ranging from 800 to 1500
rpm. This is to allows the ICE engine to idle.
This is true of all CVT's. I am not sure if you can
adjust the idle out of a CVT. As to AC Drives, they do
not require a transmission per say. But use a fixed
ratio single speed gearbox. See Electro Automotive for
a description. Imagine a CVT engaged while trying to
pull start that Polaris. Honda Scooters (Elite,
Silverwings [2000 era]) have CVT transmissions. Some
of the Toyota and Honda cars had CVT transmission.
I am not saying using a CVT is impossible, I am just
saying to be aware of the CVT limitation.
--- Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is an EV ('48 Anglia) that uses a
transmission-less setup with a
Polaris CVT that gave it a 1:4 to 1:1 gearing range.
I've tried to track down more info on this CVT, but
haven't found much.
The ATV's its used in have up to 200hp. I talked to
a Polaris dealer,
he said the CVT is more like a clutch and they have
a separate
transmission, told me the two pulleys and belt would
be roughly $800.
That isn't too expensive really, it would weigh A
LOT LESS than a
regular car transmission. Note a car transmission
gives you reverse
without needing to use reversing contactors for a
serial DC motor.
Personally I think an AC motor with a CVT setup is
the way to go.. :)
Jack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking into this right now Tony, perhaps
there is a manufacturer who 'got clever' in some way
and electrified their autobax, which takes the
hydraulic change aspect out of the equation.
Also under investigation is hte possibility of
modifying one of the several types of CVT fitted in
the past 15 years or so...For fitted one to the
'Fiesta' in the UK over 12 years ago and they're
cheap from scrapyards.
As well as that I'm also looking out for an
overdrive unit fitted to the older sports cars, and
also the newer and older 4x4's
GKN make an electric overdrive with a 28% ratio
reduction, which can be engaged on the run, it could
be helpful, but I'ld sooner look into the CVT idea
first, if anyone has any input on CVT's I'ld love to
hear from you....it seems Toyota and Honda both do
electrically operated CVT's, but you need to buy a
hybrid first to get one....
Cheers
Chris
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:39:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Tony Hwang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Geo Metros
To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Disposition: inline
I think he meant swap the auto with someone else's
manual, but I could be wrong.
:)
With an auto though, you'd get rid of the torque
converter, right? This is a big
source of inefficiency, and is needed just cause
the ICE can't stop at idle, I
believe.
- Tony
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Peter wrote:
>> The advantage of the tail shaft is it's cheaper,
>> and possibly more efficient, disavantage is it
>> only runs when the main motor is spinning, so at
>> long stops you'd need to idle the main motor
>> (really poor efficiency)
>
> You are contradicting yourself.
> The tailshaft is the cheapest AND the most efficient
> way to implement the accessories, exactly the same
> way as the ICE has its accessories powered from a belt.
>
> Since the motor is so much larger, it has a much better
> efficiency - possibly only the belt can cause some losses,
No I am NOT contradicting myself.
I said that IDLING the main drive motor has poor efficiency. With nothing
connected to it, an idling traction motor can draw 500 watts or more.
Your efficiency when just powering the accessories could be 50% or less.
This is pretty poor efficiency.
When driving AND powering the accessories, the effective efficiency for
driving the accessories can be over 90% (i.e. the accessory power required
divided by the extra power pulled by the drive motor).
So it's more efficient WHEN driving, but less efficient when idling.
Which mode has a bigger impact on you depends on your driving
circumstances. If you commute in a large city and spend lots of time
stopped and waiting on traffic, then the tail shaft is probably not the
most efficient way.
> but you can run 2 or 3 accessories from the same one so
> the overall losses will be very limited and likely better
> than running 3 small motors with each it's own controller
Except that, if you do it right, you can directly connect the small motor
to the accessory (no belt) and the only controller you'll need is a
contactor.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Electric Vehicle
Discussion List" <[email protected]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SFEVA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: I will never complain about a pothole again! OT
> http://www.chrisgreaves.com/rusfedhwy/ Some how this got stripped. Lets
> try again. Lawrence Rhodes......
> Got It! Gees! Makes the Connecticut Turnpike look great! Hard to believe
that people would EVen concider driving in that!EVen Hummers would bog down
in that soup! Why don't they take the train? The Russian RR hasta be faster
than that?But how would yo even get a chance to fix that road? Just getting
rid of all the stuck rolling stock, would be the worst logistics!
They must have other highways done by now? Wiill get around to this one
someday<g>!Love that 70 KM speed sign. Yeah! Right!
Seeya
Bob
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.4/563 - Release Date: 12/2/06
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> The accessories, unloaded which everything is up to pressure or has cycle
> off, it takes less than 4 inch lbs of force to turn this accessories. It
> may be lower than that, because my inch lb torque wrench does not go below
> 4
> inch lbs.
The static torque requirements are pretty much useless information. The
torque required at speed will be VERY different, especially with rotary
pumps.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Bob,
Buts it fun to drive a EV, look at all the money you save by not buying a
ICE. I never bought a ICE since 1973 which I only put on 57 miles on it up
to now and sold it for 8 times it cost me back then.
My Transformer I cost Bob Aronson in 1975 $43,500.00 to build, but it was a
test proto type that had 1150 miles on it, so I got it for $25,000.00.
At the time, it weigh 7850 lbs with the cobalt batteries which lasted me
just over 10 years. I did a weight reduction to 6850 lbs which it is at
now.
Bob Aronson wants me to send the Transformer I back to him, so they can
install the new AC drive, smaller cobalt batteries and alkaline 50kw fuel
cell. I told him, I could do the modifications.
I would like to reduce the weight it further, but not this car, because I
want to keep it original. What I would do, is purchase fiber carbon panels
from a company that duplicates this car exactly. The El Camino Store has a
fiber carbon body that sets on a tube frame and the weight with 800 hp
engine is 1800 lbs. So that may be my next project.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments, MORE
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tehben Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 3:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments
>
>
> > lol
> > A little optimistic I think. : )
> >
> > -Tehben
> > Hi EVerybody;
>
> OK I may have gone off the deep end, on Tesla's stuff, yesterday,
> like
> Sheri, I have seen 'way too many EV projects die off, for lack of
> SOMETHING.
> Citi car, Segway, Silver Volt, Henny Kilowatt, all those guys. Only thing
> I
> can see about Tesla, other than a relatively realistic product is these
> guys
> have MONEY! Money to throw at the EV issues, as I believe that the
> Electric
> Car's issues aren't technical, but political! We all have scene the movie
> WKtEC, right? Money talks, RUNS the USA, anyhow. With the Best Govt. Oil
> Money can Buy, in power and isn't too likely to change anytime soon.
>
> Tesla has the bux that EVerybody else didn't/doesen't have. Yeah! I
> know
> Bob Aronson went through piles of money back in the 60's but it was chump
> change, ditto Bob Beaumont,compared to Tesla's bankroll. In that he sold
> 100
> plus Roadsters, GOT deposits, they will be able to attract more volture, I
> mean venture capitalists. Maybe they can do things right, I see a golden
> oportunity here if they keep their shit together? Look at all the
> publicity
> they have gotten? Common folks have heard of Tesla. People have commented
> to
> me around town" Have ya heard of that Tesla roadster, in CA?Bit pricy
> right
> now, but IF they come down?"I would say more Joe Sixchips have heard about
> the Tesla than the EV-1 or Rav-4;'s which DID exist, still do.
>
> So, in my fantesy World, or Perfect World thinking I like to daydream
> into. The cars get built, and go to loving owners. Happy Movers and
> shakers,
> celebs and whatnot, they WILL be on the TV Snooze, Fox, "Fair an'
> Balanced"
> Sometimes, they WILL be talked up. Yes. I think they, the cars will have
> startup problems? But everything ELSE did , long ago, The Wright Bros
> didn't
> come up with the Concorde, Wright away, or even a 707<g>!Concorde may not
> be
> a good example, but ya gotta admit it was an elegent aircraft, dispite
> it's
> lousy miliage, high upkeep costs.It took only about 10 years to perfect
> the
> electric trolley car, in the 1800's And you electric drag racing guyz are
> rediscovering technology from the Nineties, the EIGHTEEN Ninties!As I
> write.
>
> To try to get back on topic;Tesla may be the car, and company, whose
> TIMING is about just right? Gas is going up in 5 and 10 cent incriments,
> AGAIN! We aren't supposed to notice after the elections? Yeah! Right! Back
> in 23 sense a gal daze who CARED about a cheese wedge 25 MPH car, being
> built in Sebring FLA? Bob Aronson never could decide WHAT to build, as to
> a
> production car, Silly(Silver) Volt comes to mind.Of all the EFP years of"
> production"I think Roland Weinch has one example?He is obviously an
> electrical engineer and can keep it going.If more of these were built NOW
> EFP would have full order books?No, a 7000 lb car isn't the answer,out
> Beasties the Red Beastie? but it would find loving homes just from
> Listers.
> I mean, Gees! people EVen restore/ use Citicars! THEN they, after the
> electric bug has bitten, move up to REAL EV's built by their own hand ,
> well, conversions.Other folks, not as handy , hope and prey for SOMEBODY
> to
> do a afordable EV. Jerry Dycus? Got yur ears on<g>?Roll out at Battery
> Beach
> Burnout, we hope?
>
> Seeya there?
>
> Bob in tropical CT 50 degrees today! No snow yet!
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> So it's more efficient WHEN driving, but less efficient when idling.
> Which mode has a bigger impact on you depends on your driving
> circumstances. If you commute in a large city and spend lots of time
> stopped and waiting on traffic, then the tail shaft is probably not the
> most efficient way.
>
ok. this here is the answer I was kind of expecting... I commute for
20 to 40 minutes and travel 5 miles of very slow stop and go traffic
every day. Once or twice a week I add another 15 minutes of highway
in which I travel 15 miles at a steady 60mph.
So, 4 out 5 days I will be better of with a small 2.5hp treadmill
motor to power all the accesories. Once a week I'd be better off
with a tailshaft, but I think I dont have the space to put one.
I think I'll get the 2.5hp motor. Those are 'self regulating' motors?
ie, the RPM is constant and they draw different amps depending on load?
--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 200 rpm motor speed, which the accessories are turning at about 1000 rpm
in neutral gear, the two motor amp meters are reading between 4 and 6 amps
unload.
Moving in a gear of 13.5:1 at 25 mph holding the motor ampere exactly at 200
amps and battery ampere at 50 amps, I can turn on the inverter power on, and
Its barely reading any difference for some reason. I can flick on the
inverter switch on, off, on, off, on and I cannot see any hardly any
difference on the motor and battery amp meters, but the DC-DC-DC-AC inverter
systems shows 50 amps.
When I was running these accessories with motors directly off the battery
pack, I was pulling as high as 30 amps.
Is it that the motor is pulsing on and off while it drives at a higher
frequency?
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Some newbie questions
> > The accessories, unloaded which everything is up to pressure or has
> > cycle
> > off, it takes less than 4 inch lbs of force to turn this accessories.
> > It
> > may be lower than that, because my inch lb torque wrench does not go
> > below
> > 4
> > inch lbs.
>
> The static torque requirements are pretty much useless information. The
> torque required at speed will be VERY different, especially with rotary
> pumps.
>
> --
> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
> junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
> wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
> legalistic signature is void.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is one currently in progress near me. You will
want him to google "Larry Elliott". He keeps a blog
via EVWorld.
Hope that helps,
--- JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone converted an ICE RAV4 to EV? My son has
> two and wants to
> convert one after I sent him Who Killed the Electric
> Car.
> John in Sylmar, CA 1981 Jet Electrica
>
>
Converting a gen. 5 Honda Civic? My $20 video/DVD
has my '92 sedan, as well as a del Sol and hatch too!
Learn more at:
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Wow!!!!
They could very easily cut down the lodgepole pines on the sides of the road,
put them across the road and build a wooden road... would be bumpy, but no mud.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
Subject: Re: I will never complain about a pothole again! OT
> http://www.chrisgreaves.com/rusfedhwy/ Some how this got stripped. Lets
> try again. Lawrence Rhodes......
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
With all our EV connections, and California being the "Hot Bed" of EV
activity... Don't we have a "mole" inside, or CLOSE to the inside of
the Tesla Motors group..??? Some one who could pass out information
other than Rumor and inuendo... Ian Wright WORKED with and for them
before he went out on his own.. At least that's what he told me when I
spoke with him at the Palo Alto EV Show...
On the other hand... After my 26 years in this "game" I can also have
my skeptical moments.. "SHow ME THE Money... uhh...I mean CAR ! or
BATTERY !!
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for all the clarification. I appreciate all your help, this group
is a really great resource, I've really learned quite alot from reading all
the posts. THANKS!
-J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r e d d i n g k
1668 west boulevard. los angeles, CA 90019
(323) 857 . 5326 http://www.reddingk.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Got my EV Licks in over KUOW FM here in Seattle yesterday. Their daily
call-in show "Weekday" on Fridays they open the phone lines to folks to
comment on the weeks news. Most was on our Snow Storm, and School
District news, but I got through and reminded everyone of the GM
announcement at the LA Auto Show, on a Plug-In hybrid.
Its not streaming audio, but you can down load it and listen to my 2
minutes of FAME at:
http:/home.comcast.net/~stevenslough/KUOWNews1201EVs.mp3
(its a 2.3 meg file....) Enjoy...
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sounds cool! You'll like this web site: <http://www.poormansev.com/>
A couple more things on direct drive vs. a tranny:
Going with the tranny is cheaper (1 motor instead of 2, no reversing
contactors, and you can do a less powerful system)
A clutch provides a safety disconnect. EVs have failed full on, and with
all the torque an electric motor can provide your brakes might not be able to
stop it.
A clutch might also save your drivetrain -- it'll hopefully slip before
breaking something else.
If you have hills to contend with, a tranny would be good. A tranny will
help the motor quickly get to the most efficient rpm on a steep hill. Without a
tranny, the motor may be stuck at low rpm, where it is less efficient and will
run hotter.
----- Original Message ----
From: JORDAN CRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 5:06:30 PM
Subject: Direct Drive
I've got a 63 chevy nova, and I'm working out the details
for the conversion. I've been reading about direct drive, and
everything I've read thus far points to this being the best and
most efficient way to go.
My question is this: Why, if direct drive is so good, aren't more
people doing it? Most conversions that I've read about, people
keep their transmission on in one way or another.
Thank you,
Jordan
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You're quite correct to point it out Bruce, it is definately not a straight
switchover. An automatic box would be nice to use in this application but
they also disengage at low revs and many need a continuous rotational input
form
the engine to keep the hydraulic pump working.
I don't know how simple it would be to take out the 'autoclutsh' feature of
these boxes, if they're outside of themain gearbox mechanism and it's
actuators then removal my be simple, with a couple of adapters no doubt.
I wanted to bring this up as food for thought and also to see if if anyone
has gone down the route of an autobox. I'm almots certain that i'll need to use
a gearbox of some sort to produce the torque/speed ratios I would like, but
if I needed to get something made by a machine shop to help me retain the
clutch mechanism it just seems like the best time to consider what other
gearbox
routes could be taken If I accepted some machining was on the cards anyway
Chris
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 04:21:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) >
Subject: Re: Clutchless gearbox CVT Warning
CVT on ICE's have a disengage ranging from 800 to 1500
rpm. This is to allows the ICE engine to idle.
This is true of all CVT's. I am not sure if you can
adjust the idle out of a CVT. As to AC Drives, they do
not require a transmission per say. But use a fixed
ratio single speed gearbox. See Electro Automotive for
a description. Imagine a CVT engaged while trying to
pull start that Polaris. Honda Scooters (Elite,
Silverwings [2000 era]) have CVT transmissions. Some
of the Toyota and Honda cars had CVT transmission.
I am not saying using a CVT is impossible, I am just
saying to be aware of the CVT limitation.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's not like it has never been done before. http://www.acpropulsion.com made
the Tzero with 6800 Li batteries and put many miles on it. They sell the BMSes
for Li on their web site. Since Tesla is working with AC Propulsion already,
maybe they are just buying or licensing the BMS?
On a related note, ACP says they will be selling Scion conversions soon, for
about $55k over the cost of the donor car. Might be some competition for Tesla.
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 9:40:43 PM
Subject: Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments
OK... I'm a total skeptic. Show me a car that works, at any price, and I'll
be impressed. Turn over a single unit, at any price, with any supervision,
and let this car do its job... in the hands of an average ICE driver... a
total novice. I don't care if the car has to have the unit cost of a
helicopter per mile... just show me that it can function, on any basis, in
the real world. (BTW, helicopters in the VN era took hours of maintenance
per hour of operation. Some required 12 hours of maintenance for a single
hour of operation.) I can only assume this car will take similar
maintenance... hours of work to get a few spectacular minutes of
operation... until they prove us wrong.
In the meantime, I can not see a single way that one can overcome all those
connections and batt failure points, to deliver a product that will work.
It'd be much like building your computer from discrete components... all
those thousands of switching circuits (currently on the processor) from
individual units. This car isn't quite that extreme, but it gives a picture.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I finally found the Army report for testing different wheel bearing
greases and their effect on energy consumption on a Solectria Force.
They even talk about how LRR tires get worse in cold temps. My truck is
getting worse efficiency right now in the cold weather.
Here's where I got the link.
www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ard/EV18.doc
Mike
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In starting up my EV, by habit I always press in the clutch pedal, thinking
that when it starts up, it will either jump forward or back if I start it in
gear.
Well one day while I was park between two cars, the minute I turn on the
ignition and just press the accelerator a hair letting out the clutch at the
same time, the EV jump ahead about a foot before I was able to push in the
clutch and kill the power. It made a big explosion sound and a force that it
felt like I was slam from the back with a Semi going 60 mph.
The over current and over speed circuits kick in, but this acceleration
force crack the motor adapter coupler and shear half the key. Was be able
to drive it until I got it repair.
If I did not have the clutch disengage, the car in front of me would have
been smash flat and maybe the one behind me too.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Dymaxion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Direct Drive
> Sounds cool! You'll like this web site: <http://www.poormansev.com/>
>
> A couple more things on direct drive vs. a tranny:
>
> Going with the tranny is cheaper (1 motor instead of 2, no reversing
> contactors, and you can do a less powerful system)
>
> A clutch provides a safety disconnect. EVs have failed full on, and
> with all the torque an electric motor can provide your brakes might not be
> able to stop it.
>
> A clutch might also save your drivetrain -- it'll hopefully slip
> before breaking something else.
>
> If you have hills to contend with, a tranny would be good. A tranny
> will help the motor quickly get to the most efficient rpm on a steep hill.
> Without a tranny, the motor may be stuck at low rpm, where it is less
> efficient and will run hotter.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: JORDAN CRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 5:06:30 PM
> Subject: Direct Drive
>
> I've got a 63 chevy nova, and I'm working out the details
> for the conversion. I've been reading about direct drive, and
> everything I've read thus far points to this being the best and
> most efficient way to go.
>
> My question is this: Why, if direct drive is so good, aren't more
> people doing it? Most conversions that I've read about, people
> keep their transmission on in one way or another.
>
> Thank you,
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Mike,
I did not see any data on the type of tire compounds that was use. A nylon
tire with soft walls, that uses high air pressure to keep the side walls
stiffer has the worst deflection rate in cold weather.
If these tires set in a low temperature, they tend to develop a flat spot
and you get that bump, bump of the tire for about 2 miles of running until
they get rounded out.
This is why I or we in the north country stay away with a tire with any
nylon in it and soft walls. My side walls are heaver and stiffer then the
normal tire. Its has a 8 ply rating of 80 psi at 2800 lbs load rating.
They are air up to 65 psi for a 2350 lb load rating which becomes a very
harsh ride, even with air suspension, when driving on are rough streets.
They do not use smooth roads here, they like to press in rocks into the
surface.
I am running about 90 watts per mile less than my old 8 ply nylon tires that
the thread did not wear out, but the flat spots would not round out because
the nylon became stiffer because of age.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EVDL" <[email protected]>; "US Electricar"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: Grease and even more LRR tire testing
> I finally found the Army report for testing different wheel bearing
> greases and their effect on energy consumption on a Solectria Force.
> They even talk about how LRR tires get worse in cold temps. My truck is
> getting worse efficiency right now in the cold weather.
>
> Here's where I got the link.
>
> www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ard/EV18.doc
>
> Mike
>
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
> * This post contains a forbidden message format *
> * (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
> * Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
> * If your postings display this message your mail program *
> * is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Eduardo,
40 minutes to go 5 miles?
Wow - you need a bicycle.
That should take you there in 20 to 25 min every day.
Don't know where you live though,
bicycling is not always a good (weather) option
or some locations have no decent bicycle
facilities, for example crossing a freeway
is sometimes only possible miles away from
the shortest >car< route, because many traffic
engineers only think in terms of their own
car and freeway building is then the best
option for a lot of problems.
The same issue as a NEV faces to get around town.
Regards,
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 Eduardo Kaftanski
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 9:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EV] RE: Some newbie questions
>
> So it's more efficient WHEN driving, but less efficient when idling.
> Which mode has a bigger impact on you depends on your driving
> circumstances. If you commute in a large city and spend lots of time
> stopped and waiting on traffic, then the tail shaft is probably not the
> most efficient way.
>
ok. this here is the answer I was kind of expecting... I commute for
20 to 40 minutes and travel 5 miles of very slow stop and go traffic
every day. Once or twice a week I add another 15 minutes of highway
in which I travel 15 miles at a steady 60mph.
So, 4 out 5 days I will be better of with a small 2.5hp treadmill
motor to power all the accesories. Once a week I'd be better off
with a tailshaft, but I think I dont have the space to put one.
I think I'll get the 2.5hp motor. Those are 'self regulating' motors?
ie, the RPM is constant and they draw different amps depending on load?
--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to lose.
|
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don't forget Phoenix Motors David.
I don't get all of you skeptics??? Could you please tell me what you
are so skeptical about; you are EV owners and builders, right?
Surely 'you' could build something similar with hundreds of thousands
of $$$.
Am I missing something?
Tehben
On Dec 2, 2006, at 10:01 AM, David Dymaxion wrote:
It's not like it has never been done before. http://
www.acpropulsion.com made the Tzero with 6800 Li batteries and put
many miles on it. They sell the BMSes for Li on their web site.
Since Tesla is working with AC Propulsion already, maybe they are
just buying or licensing the BMS?
On a related note, ACP says they will be selling Scion conversions
soon, for about $55k over the cost of the donor car. Might be some
competition for Tesla.
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2006 9:40:43 PM
Subject: Re: Tesla Motors battery , comments
OK... I'm a total skeptic. Show me a car that works, at any price,
and I'll
be impressed. Turn over a single unit, at any price, with any
supervision,
and let this car do its job... in the hands of an average ICE
driver... a
total novice. I don't care if the car has to have the unit cost of a
helicopter per mile... just show me that it can function, on any
basis, in
the real world. (BTW, helicopters in the VN era took hours of
maintenance
per hour of operation. Some required 12 hours of maintenance for a
single
hour of operation.) I can only assume this car will take similar
maintenance... hours of work to get a few spectacular minutes of
operation... until they prove us wrong.
In the meantime, I can not see a single way that one can overcome
all those
connections and batt failure points, to deliver a product that will
work.
It'd be much like building your computer from discrete
components... all
those thousands of switching circuits (currently on the processor)
from
individual units. This car isn't quite that extreme, but it gives a
picture.
______________________________________________________________________
______________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The E-tek has very little rotational mass and DC motors
are ususally good in high torque at low RPM, the efficiency
does not have much to do with getting off the line, other
than that it tells you hom much the motor needs and how
hot it gets, not how much it can deliver.
Besides losing that start-up torque, the CVT often has
higher losses at speed, up to 10% is what I heard, so
you have less power available than with manual gears.
Of course you can move such a light EV with an E-tek.
I doubt that he can go on the Freeway, if that is one
of your design inputs then this combination does not work.
There may be reasons to have a CVT, the same as why they
are there in other cars. Plus if the donor car came with it
then it is convenient to keep it in.
That does not mean that a CVT is necessary to make a car
work with an E-tek. Only the proper gearing ratio will
determine if a car/motor combination works, whether
manual or automatic transmission.
The losses in the drivetrain and the speed you want to
reach plus weight/drag and the time to accelerate will
tell you what motor power you need.
For an automatic transmission you need slightly more
motor power and/or accept a lower max speed. Plus you
have idling losses unless you re-engineer the transmission.
Regards,
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 Jack Murray
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 8:10 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Clutchless gearbox CVT Warning
I'VE SEEN THE CAR that has one, and talked to the owner, who said its
the CVT that allows his 1500-lb car to work with just a little E-tek
motor. There are different springs available to adjust the rates, I
didn't ask the owner about that, but given the most efficient rpm of an
electric motor is not at 0 rpm, having it spin up before engaging might
well be an advantage.
Jack
Bruce Weisenberger wrote:
> CVT on ICE's have a disengage ranging from 800 to 1500
> rpm. This is to allows the ICE engine to idle.
> This is true of all CVT's. I am not sure if you can
> adjust the idle out of a CVT. As to AC Drives, they do
> not require a transmission per say. But use a fixed
> ratio single speed gearbox. See Electro Automotive for
> a description. Imagine a CVT engaged while trying to
> pull start that Polaris. Honda Scooters (Elite,
> Silverwings [2000 era]) have CVT transmissions. Some
> of the Toyota and Honda cars had CVT transmission.
>
> I am not saying using a CVT is impossible, I am just
> saying to be aware of the CVT limitation.
>
> --- Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>There is an EV ('48 Anglia) that uses a
>>transmission-less setup with a
>>Polaris CVT that gave it a 1:4 to 1:1 gearing range.
>>I've tried to track down more info on this CVT, but
>>haven't found much.
>>The ATV's its used in have up to 200hp. I talked to
>>a Polaris dealer,
>>he said the CVT is more like a clutch and they have
>>a separate
>>transmission, told me the two pulleys and belt would
>>be roughly $800.
>>That isn't too expensive really, it would weigh A
>>LOT LESS than a
>>regular car transmission. Note a car transmission
>>gives you reverse
>>without needing to use reversing contactors for a
>>serial DC motor.
>>
>>Personally I think an AC motor with a CVT setup is
>>the way to go.. :)
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>I'm looking into this right now Tony, perhaps
>>
>>there is a manufacturer who 'got clever' in some way
>>and electrified their autobax, which takes the
>>hydraulic change aspect out of the equation.
>>
>>>Also under investigation is hte possibility of
>>
>>modifying one of the several types of CVT fitted in
>>the past 15 years or so...For fitted one to the
>>'Fiesta' in the UK over 12 years ago and they're
>>cheap from scrapyards.
>>
>>>As well as that I'm also looking out for an
>>
>>overdrive unit fitted to the older sports cars, and
>>also the newer and older 4x4's
>>
>>>GKN make an electric overdrive with a 28% ratio
>>
>>reduction, which can be engaged on the run, it could
>>be helpful, but I'ld sooner look into the CVT idea
>>first, if anyone has any input on CVT's I'ld love to
>>hear from you....it seems Toyota and Honda both do
>>electrically operated CVT's, but you need to buy a
>>hybrid first to get one....
>>
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Chris
>>>
>>> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:39:43 -0800 (PST)
>>>From: Tony Hwang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Subject: Re: Geo Metros
>>>To: [email protected]
>>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>>Message-ID:
>>
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>>
>>>I think he meant swap the auto with someone else's
>>
>>manual, but I could be wrong.
>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>With an auto though, you'd get rid of the torque
>>
>>converter, right? This is a big
>>
>>>source of inefficiency, and is needed just cause
>>
>>the ICE can't stop at idle, I
>>
>>>believe.
>>>
>>> - Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>
>
--- End Message ---
