EV Digest 6325
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by "BadFishRacing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EV digest 6324
by Rachael Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Converting a 1974 Plymouth to Electric for 1/4 mile competition
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds for an
electric vehicle?
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Conversion costs never change?
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Conversion costs never change?
by "Dale Ulan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds for
an electric vehicle?
by "Dmitri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds
for an electric vehicle?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) GM's Electric Auto Will Need a Leap of Science
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Full size Chevy truck has 150 mile range
by "Ryan Stotts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) FS: pedal/electric hybrid recumbent project bike (long!)
by ANDREW LETTON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: AC propulsion
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Realize that with a thin tire, the pounds per square inch of the contact
patch is greater on a thin tire. Mud can only be so thick. Eventually
you'll hit something solid. A wide tire would float on top of the slop and
spin. A thin tire would cut down to solid ground. Military trucks often
use thin tall tires. Works in mud as well as snow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
Amazing those cars with the thin tires could go over huge embankments and
deep muddy roads without getting stuck or the wheels spinning in. I don't
know how they did it?
Anyone know?
Today a car would bog down and sink into those same muddy roads.
Were the cars just lighter or 4 wheel drive ?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 9:36 am, Lee Hart wrote:
From: Peter VanDerWal
Thin, super hard, tires have less rolling resistance... as long as you
only
drive on flat roads with no rocks, gravel, potholes, etc. In the real
world
you want the tires to give a little when going over small bumps so that
you don't have to waste energy moving the whole suspension (or worse,
whole vehicle) up.
All early 1900's cars used thin, super hard tires... for example, Ford
model T's used 60 psi tires. And roads were terrible! Most were unpaved.
Rocks, gravel, potholes etc. were everywhere. But suspensions had lots
more travel (to make up for the lack of "give" in the tire), and shock
absorbers were weak or nonexistent (no losses there!). People had a lot
of flats, though.
--
Lee Hart
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming and
the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date: 1/20/2007
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you watch old films from the 20s and 30s you will see thoise skinny
tires take on 2 foot high unpaved curbs and go over them with ease -
something a modern cat would struggle to do.
And I'm sorry but tire choices and traction ARE relevent to ev design as
the tradeoff between traction and efficiency is an important one.
If soemone isthinking ev's are just about batteries then they probably
aren't thinking about ev's the rest of the world would want to drive.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:21 am, David Roden wrote:
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Who Killed the Electric Car will be showing here in Fresno at the
Javawava Coffee House on Monday, 1-22 at 7pm. Free show and popcorn
but donations are welcome. Javawava (1940 N. Echo) is across the
street from Fresno High School. Don't forget to bring coffee money.
Bruce Williford
68 Karmann Ghia conversion in progress.
Dear Bruce and Everyone else,
It is so cool to see interest taking off.
College Community Congretational Church just showed the movie
on January 12th and we had a wonderful turn-out
there. Also I could not find one so I will let you
all know that I've created an EV group on yahoo for
the Fresno Area, ANYONE interested in EV is welcome
to join.
Take Care
Rachael
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I agree with FT about not using contactor control above 200 volts. Way
before we had Zillas I tried 240 direct to a single nine inch Advanced DC.
It launched great and at about where the sixty foot mark would be it
fireballed and blew a molten hole through the aluminum end bell. Controllers
have been a godsend for holding motors together.
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: Converting a 1974 Plymouth to Electric for 1/4 mile competition
Hi, Chuck,
The first thing you should probably do is go to the website www.nedra.com
and check the rules and category descriptions to help determine what class
you will want to be racing in, and also get a copy of the 2007 NHRA drag
racing rules. I don't know how heavy your car is. In the past I
converted
a Datsun 280Z for the SC/D class. That car is in the record listing under
the name "The Silver Bullet". This information might give you a weight
comparison with your car. I would like to see someone build another
electric drag car retaining the automatic transmission. Rod Wilde did so
a
few years ago with success. Although it adds a little bit of weight, it
gives you the advantage of being able to change gear ratios under way and
also provides a reversing function, which is now a requirement of NEDRA
and
NHRA.
If you choose to remove the transmission, you will need to reverse your
motor(s) electrically or add some sort of mechanical reversing system. It
would be interesting to see how a race-prepared two speed power glide,
with
possibly a 1000 rpm stall converter and 2000 to 2500 rpm lock-up, would
perform. I know I will get argument from other electric drag racers on
this because the highest torque in a series wound DC motor is available at
just over zero rpm. So, by not connecting to the drive until 1000 rpm,
some of the torque curve will be lost; but I believe this can be balanced
by the amount of elapsed time required to spin up the electric motor.
Also, this allows the hydraulic system to function without any
modification.
In a high voltage vehicle, I would not advise using a
contactor-controller.
When I say high voltage, I mean probably something over 200 or 240 volts.
The reason for this controller restriction is that good electronic
controllers (Z2K) are programmable for both battery pack voltage and
amperage draw and for motor voltage and amperage draw.
Contactor-controllers are not programmable in this way. Most series wound
electric motors will not handle more than 170 or 180 volts. Moreover, it
is difficult to stage at the starting line with a contactor-controller and
no clutch. A low-power controller can be used to manoeuver and stage the
vehicle and then launch on a bypass contactor-controller. When bypassing
the controller, and going directly from the battery pack to the motor, for
an instant the motor will see the pack voltage; but that voltage
immediately sags to as little as 50% of its resting voltage. For that
short period of time, the motor probably will not overheat or flash over.
Talking to several different drag racers is a very good idea. There are
almost as many ways to build an electric drag car as there are people
building them. Budget will also have a lot to do with how you proceed on
this project. The large variety of racing classes available to the NEDRA
racer allows a person to race on whichever level works with his/her
budget.
So go to the NEDRA website, become a member, build a car, and have fun!
- Don "Father Time" Crabtree, Vice Pres. of NEDRA
[Original Message]
From: OverRev Racing, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Electric Vehicle Club <[email protected]>
Date: 1/19/2007 12:22:24 PM
Subject: Converting a 1974 Plymouth to Electric for 1/4 mile competition
Hey Fellow EVr's,
I need some help. I've been a drag racing fanatic for
years. I'm looking for direction to build my car, to
convert my bare 74 Plymouth A-Body car to electric
power for 1/4 mile racing purposes.
I have no clue where to start sourcing parts for this,
but my blueprint consists of an assembly that sits in
the engine bay and drives a factory automatic
transmission (GM or Chrysler), using battery power
from two groups of batteries--one set located in the
engine compartment and another set located in the
trunk. My belief is that this will allow for more even
distribution of the weight. The rear interior is also
available for battery space.
The car is a rolling chassis and has been soda/sand
stripped and sealed--car looks like a restoration thus
far. I don't have a target speed but I'm guessing the
higher the voltage the better. the car is manual
brakes and steering, has heavy duty components and is
not yet rear-geared--so I can dial a custom ratio
needed for the RPM's that are produced.
I won't be street driving the car--so no worries
there.
Where do I get a motor?
What type of wiring schematic will be needed?
should I be planning to buy Optima's and how many (I
already get them at Wholesale in bulk)
What type of charging will the car require? I have 220
in my garage.
Any information for such a project would be helpful
Thanks,
Chuck
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date: 1/20/2007
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date: 1/20/2007
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds for
an electric vehicle?
We know lead acid is cheap.
We know nimh retains higher voltage.
I think it would be possible to make an ev with a nimh pack that could
be switched in for high acceleration when needed at higher voltage. When
the lead acids are drooping in performance.
You could run the motor at lower voltage off lead acid and kick in the
nimh for a higher voltage motor switch for better performance.
Total pack cost is lower than all nimh but you could switch in the nimh
for SOME of the performance advantages of a full nimh.
There would be other advantages too.
Might need separate charging swicthes as well but total cost would still
be lower than all nimh.
Sort of a total electric but battery use hybrid.
Plus a home builder could hack together a nimh booster pack from smaller
nimh cells more easily than a whole car.
Thoughts?
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 07:24 AM 20/01/07 -0800, you wrote:
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> I think looking for reduced cost in EV conversions is possible but
> not in the DC EV conversions. Though once the economy way to convert,
> I fear that it doesn't lend itself to that next step of mass
> production for economies of scale.
Then why are almost all golf carts, forklifts, and other
commercially successful EVs using DC systems and lead-acid batteries?
Great point!, I wonder if maybe it is because the requirements for
golfcarts and forklifts are a better match to lead acid/dc combinations.
Speed,mileage,weight, etc. Or as I think Lee has pointed out before,
Tradition and "thats the way it has been done" often are the biggest
reasons.
Not a good point as many manufacturers' of forklifts have gone over to AC
systems (the ones I've experiences [Japanese] with 120V battery packs).
Lead-acid cells are a good match for forklifts as the mass is usually of
benefit as counterweight, and where that is less so the cost/life probably
wins out.
I'd like to get hold of a 120V battery system AC drive from a fork to play
with... can't see that happening any time soon!
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>Converting an existing ICE vehicle into an EV is an effort to find a "good"
>solution. Something that is relatively cheap, easy, and good enough to work as
>a daily driver. It is often based on expediency -- one happens to have a car
>with a dead engine, finds a used fork lift motor, uses golf cart batteries
>because they are easy to get, etc. DC systems fit this perfectly.
>Building an EV from scratch is often a major project in search of
>"perfection". Cost, availability, or difficulty are not as important as
>performance.
>If you want to produce EVs to sell, then you have decide which of these two
>routes to pursue. The golf cart and forklift manufacturers have gone after the
>"good" solution; cheap easy EVs that they can sell a lot of.
>The auto companies' California EVs, the Tzero, Tesla, Tango, Venturi Fetish,
>etc. have pursued the "perfect" solution. For this reason, I don't think any
>of them can achieve anything close to mass production. They will sell perhaps
>a few hundred cars for collectors and afficionados; but this does nothing for
>the mass of drivers who want a "good" daily driver EV.
The flip side of this is that there are many considerations that an DIY EV does
not have to deal with, that a series production EV does. One is vehicle weight.
Lead-acid batteries aren't the best for vehicle weight. Forklifts do not have a
significant problem with vehicle weight. Forklifts have to ADD weight so they
don't tip over. To put this in perspective, try to take an existing vehicle,
and convert it to DC + lead acid, 60 to 100 miles of range, WITHOUT raising the
weight of the vehicle over the original ICE. That is somewhat challenging. You
might think this is not practical, but the real automobile designer needs to
deal with it. Most smaller cars these days have a GVWR - curb weight of 300kg
(660 lbs). From this, you need to add 70 kg per passenger, and some weight for
luggage, etc. Not a lot of space. Adding weight in the form of batteries makes
everything else heavier and more expensive.
The age-old debate of AC vs DC drives.... Industrial AC drives have come down
in price... a lot. You can buy a 1 hp AC variable frequency drive for $100. The
control logic remains practically identical regardless of motor power. The
incremental 'cost' of a 50kW power module is under $500!!! The AC motor can be
made for less than $1000 - but you need large production quantities to make it
that cheap - comparable to the quantities that industrial motors are made. An
AC induction motor is significantly simpler in construction than a DC motor. By
the way, the reason for 300-400 volt bus voltages really stems from the fact
that IGBT's and motors are sized for a 208V AC rectified line from industrial
VFD's - 310 to 360V. Piggyback on that technology and the price comes down.
The various current AC EV drive system manufacturers have a few things that
make their systems expensive. First, the motors are custom-wound and produced
in low quantities. Price out a 10 to 15 HP 3-phase induction motor, and that is
where the price should be for a vehicle 50kW motor. Next, they are all going to
very high power levels. If the power levels are constrained to the levels of
150 amperes and 360 volts (50 kW), then the inverter and motor package, in mass
production, would be somewhere around $2000. The cost hit to go to a 150 kW
drive is somewhere around $1500 when compared with a 50 kW drive.
-Dale
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Not in my opinion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds
for an electric vehicle?
Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds for an
electric vehicle?
We know lead acid is cheap.
We know nimh retains higher voltage.
I think it would be possible to make an ev with a nimh pack that could be
switched in for high acceleration when needed at higher voltage. When the
lead acids are drooping in performance.
You could run the motor at lower voltage off lead acid and kick in the
nimh for a higher voltage motor switch for better performance.
Total pack cost is lower than all nimh but you could switch in the nimh
for SOME of the performance advantages of a full nimh.
There would be other advantages too.
Might need separate charging swicthes as well but total cost would still
be lower than all nimh.
Sort of a total electric but battery use hybrid.
Plus a home builder could hack together a nimh booster pack from smaller
nimh cells more easily than a whole car.
Thoughts?
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming and
the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That may explain it. They are often in the ruts up to their rims in the
movies but riding happily along.
Its amazing performance from these old cars.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 1:07 pm, BadFishRacing wrote:
Realize that with a thin tire, the pounds per square inch of the
contact patch is greater on a thin tire. Mud can only be so thick.
Eventually you'll hit something solid. A wide tire would float on top
of the slop and spin. A thin tire would cut down to solid ground.
Military trucks often use thin tall tires. Works in mud as well as
snow.
----- Original Message ----- From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
Amazing those cars with the thin tires could go over huge embankments
and deep muddy roads without getting stuck or the wheels spinning in.
I don't know how they did it?
Anyone know?
Today a car would bog down and sink into those same muddy roads.
Were the cars just lighter or 4 wheel drive ?
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 9:36 am, Lee Hart wrote:
From: Peter VanDerWal
Thin, super hard, tires have less rolling resistance... as long as
you only
drive on flat roads with no rocks, gravel, potholes, etc. In the
real world
you want the tires to give a little when going over small bumps so
that
you don't have to waste energy moving the whole suspension (or worse,
whole vehicle) up.
All early 1900's cars used thin, super hard tires... for example,
Ford model T's used 60 psi tires. And roads were terrible! Most were
unpaved. Rocks, gravel, potholes etc. were everywhere. But
suspensions had lots more travel (to make up for the lack of "give"
in the tire), and shock absorbers were weak or nonexistent (no losses
there!). People had a lot of flats, though.
--
Lee Hart
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.2/641 - Release Date:
1/20/2007
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
NiMH/NiCd voltage does not sag much with high discharge or low charge
states.
However, a high current NiMH/NiCd cannot easily be created from small
cells. Cells cannot be paralleled for hard-to-explain but very real
technical reasons. Worse is trying to balance and avoid overcharge in
these large strings. It requires a relatively complicated system and is
still tricky at best.
In any case, an appropriately sized NiMH/NiCd pack would allow you to
get around some of the voltage sag from drawing high currents from a
lead-acid pack, but not so much when you approach lower charge states.
Danny
GWMobile wrote:
Can mixed batteries nimh and lead acid lead to best of both worlds for
an electric vehicle?
We know lead acid is cheap.
We know nimh retains higher voltage.
I think it would be possible to make an ev with a nimh pack that could
be switched in for high acceleration when needed at higher voltage.
When the lead acids are drooping in performance.
You could run the motor at lower voltage off lead acid and kick in the
nimh for a higher voltage motor switch for better performance.
Total pack cost is lower than all nimh but you could switch in the
nimh for SOME of the performance advantages of a full nimh.
There would be other advantages too.
Might need separate charging swicthes as well but total cost would
still be lower than all nimh.
Sort of a total electric but battery use hybrid.
Plus a home builder could hack together a nimh booster pack from
smaller nimh cells more easily than a whole car.
Thoughts?
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Doron,
Thank you for writing about GM's announcement and showing of a
prototype Volt. It appears to be an amazing development, the
major hurdle is not if it can be made, but only if we can
trust the words from GM to become deeds.
It would be a good think to do a reality-check after getting
the press info from GM, as the real world appears to be
colored different than the GM marketeers paint their reality.
Just a sample of the contrast I see between truth and the
statements in your column:
- "Leap of science" and "Lithium-ion chemistry still has
issues for automotive applications":
Nope, today people are drag-racing with Lithium batteries
which are - oh irony - from the company that GM indirectly
contracted to deliver the Volt batteries.
Besides being produced and available today, these batteries
do not suffer from instability issues, there have been
multiple competing variants of stable Lithium technologies
designed and tested and brought into production over the past
years, so the "Sony recall" case is really a thing of one
particular variant of cheap Lithium batteries only.
They can spin this truth in any way that fits the strategy.
- "GM was able to lease a mere 600 [EV1] ..."
Everyone agrees that it was GM who curtailed the availability
of EV1 for lease. By the end of the program, ridiculous
questionnairs and other hoops had to be jumped through to
qualify for being one of the lucky few.
It is a play on words that GM often released and still does,
they can just as well say that nobody actually bought an EV1
and that has the same reason - GM did not make it available.
- "Though the EV1 was a resounding flop..."
Did you happen to talk to any EV1 driver?
- "presumably to prove to regulators that the public really
didn't want zero-emission..."
Correct - automakers only needed to make as many ZEVs as
they could sell in the market. By pulling all cars out of
lease and crushing them and "upgrading" all their EV trucks
to become slow dogs (reported by actual GM S10 EV driver)
they would send a clear message to the public that this
was not a good technology and since that time you heard
the false statement that the range is not sufficient, even
while there were various EVs at the same time showing the
capability of driving from LA to Las Vegas and other 300+
mile trips on a single charge, using NiMH and Lithium packs.
- "the average motorist ... preferred to drive a big SUV"
Have you ever counted how often truck ads appear on your
TV screen and how often GM advertises a mini-van?
Surely they make better profit on a SUV, but they fail to
mention that many more accidents happen with SUVs and the
accidents are many times more serious than with sedans and
mini-vans, which are designed for passenger transport.
Trucks and SUVs are farm-equipment, which must comply to
safety ratings for hauling cargo and animals and I seem to
recall a statement that they are "allowed, but not intended
for highway use". Clever use of a loophole, but personally
I find it bordering on criminal behavior to mass-market
trucks/SUVs to families and not state the lower safety
requirements nor list the fatality statistics. Apparently
we have to wait for someone to get so disgusted with the
many one-sided crashes (usually flip-over) and unsafe roofs
(an 'unexpected' high number of SUV crashes show fatalities
due to roof collapse, according to recent reports.) that
they will need to go through the legal system to get a law
in place to force automakers to list the consequences of
driving a truck/SUV. Could be the same effect as smoking.
"What! you are still driving that unsafe SUV? You can not
use THAT to pick my kids up from school!" It is about time.
- "a highly compromised science project"
Ever seen anyone drive an EV? Driven one yourself?
- "poor old GM has just one hybrid to its credit"
GM canned its own developments and now, years later, they
try to get hold of the Hybrid claim by beefing up a starter
motor, so they can put the name Hybrid on the car?
Pretty lame attempt and they get the flack they worked so
hard for to earn by thwarding their own engineers.
I understand that GM wants to keep enough slack to change their
strategy and - this is likely the real reason - they are in
desperate need for cash, so what better thing to claim than
that they need a large reseach-grant to develop batteries for
clean EVs (even if these batteries already exist).
If they get the grant, then they can pay some of their debts
and live an easier life, independent of whether they make an
electric car or not.
They probably need a lot of capital to develop the E-flex
platform for their new vehicles and the grant would be a
welcome addition, but I do not think that it will go to any
significant battery development, because GM's supplier will
take care of providing batteries, so I do not understand why
GM is claiming it needs money to develop a battery?
Just for fun, I copied the relevant statements:
"On Jan. 9, GM ... asked the U.S. ... $500 million ... to
subsidize battery research."
"A few days earlier, GM awarded development contracts to
Johnson Controls Inc. and [Cobasys] for lithium-ion
batteries ..."
Nowhere do I see GM claim that they need money to build the
E-flex platform (which is what their part of the job is)
but likely they will invoke the resonse "you received that
a few years ago to develop the EV1, so use what you already
have" or something to that effect.
The battery-development claim is also a safer one, because
all 3 major US automakers jumped on that. I do not think
that GM wants to share their development of E-flex.
Really clever tactics, I must give them that.
BTW - I copied the EVDL - EV Discussion List - on this email.
If you ever have a question about EV technology then I highly
recommend going to the archives and search them, you will
likely find a host of discussion about any imagineable aspect
of EVs from actual drivers, builders and suppliers.
If it's not in the archives, you are free to shoot an email
on the list and expect a lively discussion on any EV topic,
so it may help you to get an unbiased opinion.
There is also many years of history and experience that can
enlighten anyone who wants to hear what was 'forgotten' by
the writers of the press statements.
This reply is intended in that same spirit.
Regards,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
GM's Electric Auto Will Need a Leap of Science: Doron Levin
By Doron Levin
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Could the battery-powered electric car be poised for
a comeback? General Motors Corp. says a Chevy that plugs into a socket might
be three to five years away.
Just about every other automaker says otherwise, noting that major technical
hurdles make a plug-in vehicle a distant dream. They say that lithium-ion
battery technology is too expensive and unstable to be used in a car.
``Lithium-ion chemistry still has issues for automotive applications,'' said
Don Runkle, a former GM engineer and now chairman of EaglePicher Holdings
Inc., which makes small batteries. ``Everyone tries to pooh-pooh thermal
runaway (overheating), but this is nasty stuff. If it screws up, you have a
dead serious fire on your hands.''
The small version lithium-ion already has had its troubles. Sony Corp. in
October said it was recalling 9.6 million lithium- ion batteries used in
laptop computers after reports of sparks, overheating and fires.
Earlier this month GM wowed audiences at the North American International
Auto show with its Chevrolet Volt. GM said the prototype could travel 40
miles when its lithium-ion battery was fully charged, and much farther when
equipped with a three- cylinder gasoline engine that recharges the battery.
If the words ``GM'' and ``electric car'' have a familiar ring, that's
because the world's biggest automaker has a long and bizarre history with
consumers, regulators and conspiracy theorists.
Promising Start
In the late 1980s GM began showing a battery-powered prototype that ran on
lead-acid batteries. The technology's promise actually may have helped
encourage California to mandate strict guidelines forcing carmakers to build
low-emission and zero-emission vehicles within a decade or stop doing
business in the state.
By 1996 GM had created the Impact, later the EV1. The later version of the
car, powered by nickel-hydride batteries, ran about 80 miles on a charge. GM
was able to lease a mere 600 to consumers in California, including several
movie stars, before axing the project in 2000.
Though the EV1 was a resounding flop, many critics of GM accused the company
of deliberately failing to market it properly, presumably to prove to
regulators that the public really didn't want zero-emission technology. Last
year's highly acclaimed documentary film, ``Who Killed the Electric Car?,''
rubbed more salt in the wound by portraying GM, other automakers and oil
companies as villains.
Lust for Power
Mel Gibson, the filmmaker and former EV1 owner, as well as other devotees of
the environmental movement, simply won't face the fact that the average
motorist of the 1990s, able to buy cheap gasoline and partial to power,
preferred to drive a big sport-utility vehicle -- not a highly compromised
science project on wheels.
Fast-forward several years and add a dollar a gallon to the price of
gasoline. The SUV craze is fading. Regulators in California, joined by four
other states, are still trying to mandate zero or near-zero emissions.
Toyota Motor Corp., meantime, has mounted the most successful response so
far with its line of gas-electric hybrid vehicles, exemplified by the Prius
sedan.
Hybrids, though they evoke much fascination, comprised only 1.5 percent or
so of last year's U.S. market of 16.5 million new vehicles. Toyota, Honda
Motor Co. and Ford Motor Co. have been winning acclaim for their hybrids,
while poor old GM has just one hybrid to its credit, and a
less-sophisticated version at that in the form of a Saturn Vue crossover.
Closing the Gap
GM is about to introduce a more extensive series of hybrid models. But
instead of acquiescing to the late-to-the-party label by environmental
activists, the automaker's brain trust has decided to one-up Toyota and
Honda -- while polishing its ``green'' credentials -- by dangling the
plug-in Volt.
The trouble is, cash-strapped GM will have a devilish time actually
manufacturing a Volt that delivers on its promise. On Jan. 9, GM, Ford and
DaimlerChrysler AG asked the U.S. to provide as much as $500 million over
five years to subsidize battery research.
A few days earlier, GM awarded development contracts to Johnson Controls
Inc. and a collaboration between Chevron Corp. and Energy Conversion Devices
Inc. for lithium-ion batteries that could be tested later this year.
GM executives know that many will interpret the Volt prototype as a
public-relations exercise, a means of finally gaining credit for its efforts
in alternative-fuel technology. They insist this isn't the case, that
``exciting breakthroughs'' making plug-ins commercially feasible are close
at hand.
Perhaps. But these same GM executives often accused Toyota and Honda of
engaging in ``marketing ploys'' by selling hybrid- powered cars, supposedly
at a financial loss, to win public regard as good environmental citizens.
Which GM should we believe, the GM that has faith in the Volt -- or the one
that thinks Toyota's hybrids are just clever marketing?
(Doron Levin is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his
own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Doron Levin in Southfield, Michigan at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I knew it was possible. Direct drive and 27 Valance batteries. 160
hp UQM motor, that produces 480 ft-lbs of torque!
Good pics:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/01/edta-conference-more-details-on-uqm-s-electric-silverado/
From what I have personally seen, the Air Force likes electric
vehicles. They can be charged anywhere on base. No fuel has to be
trucked in and dispensed at select locations. Plus the EV's can be
driven indoors.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Recumbent pedal/electric hybrid bicycle a tinkerers
dream project bike! ;-)
First off, be aware that this is NOT a suitable
project for you unless you are a real hands-on,
make-it-work, fixit kind of person. This bike is
basically solid, but needs a tinkerer to get it
working. The bike never got a decent paint job when I
built it (rattle can) and it now shows. The bike
needs a complete teardown, strip/sand/sandblast, and
paint job.
I built this bike in about 1989 as a study in
adjustability. I didnt know exactly what I wanted in
a recumbent, so I made almost everything adjustable.
The frame, fork, and racks are fillet brazed from
straight gage 4130 Cro-Moly tubing. (The seat frame is
mild steel.)
If you look closely at the photos, you will see that
most everything is simply clamped to the frame.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/letton/sets/72157594490503239/
(Click on a photo, then click on the All sizes icon
over the photo to get to the original high resolution
photos
so you can see the rust better!)
Both the front and rear dropouts adjust in height to
accommodate different wheel sizes and/or to
effectively change the head angle. The front dropouts
are slotted to change the fork rake. The front brake
mount is removable to allow different front wheel
sizes from 305mm BSD through 451mm BSD (I think). The
included front wheel is a Moulton 17 with alloy rim,
28 spoke Campagnolo record hub, and stainless spokes.
There is a bit of a wobble in the rim, but it is
rideable and Im pretty sure it could be trued up.
The rear cantilever brake mount slides on the
chainstays to fit any wheel size from probably 20
through 27. There is also a separate movable
chainstay bridge with tab for fender mounting, that
can be adjusted as needed, depending on tire size.
The included wheel is a low grade mountain bike wheel
with alloy rim and bolt on 5 or 6 speed freewheel hub.
The rear tire is a 1.25 Specialized Fat Boy.
The bike was originally set up for cycle touring
(without the hybrid electric system). The seat and
handlebars were mounted further back (where the
battery rack is now) and the bottom bracket was
flipped around to be above the main frame tube. It
had a single chain with idlers and a pretty
conventional triple crank, two derailleur drivetrain.
I built two custom pannier racks that fit behind the
seat and allowed me to carry 4 panniers, like an
upright touring bike, only the smaller front panniers
were behind the seat, rather than on the fork. It was
a wonderfully stable and comfortable touring bike. For
its maiden voyage, I rode it down the coast from
Northern Oregon to Northern California. On one
descent I hit 57mph! What a thrill.
For my mechanical engineering thesis project, in 1992,
I reconfigured the layout and added the electric drive
system. The motor drives a jackshaft, which in turn
drives a 5 speed cluster on the rear wheel. I did not
have an electronic speed controller, but used a
solenoid to switch the motor and an indexed rear
derailleur to choose between the 5 gears. It worked
surprisingly well! The motor is a 12V permanent
magnet motor that I dyno tested to about 3/4Hp. I
think it was made by American Bosch, but Im not
positive. I added a cooling fan to force air through
the motor when I raced the bike up Pikes Peak
but
thats another story.
The pedal side of the drivetrain is as follows. The
cranks have 3 chainrings and the front chain goes to a
7 speed cluster on a jackshaft under the seat. That
jackshaft runs a chain that goes to a single fixed cog
that I put on the rear hub, behind the cluster. This
means that the rear chain of the pedal system is
always moving when the bike is moving; a flying chain,
if you will. The benefit is that the pedal and
electric systems are completely independent. You can
use either one or both together.
Components:
- Shimano Deore indexed rear derailleur with
thumbshifter (for motor shifting)
- Shimano Sante indexed 7spd rear derailleur with
thumbshifter (for pedal shifting)
- (no front derailleur shifted by hand)
- SR (?) triple crankset, 110/74mm bolt circle
- Phil Wood bottom bracket
- SunTour Superbe Pro front brake
- Deore cantilever rear brake
- DiaCompe brake levers
- Moulton/Campagnolo/Weinman front wheel, 28 spoke,
rusty quick release lever
- no-name 26 rear wheel (Araya rim?), 36 spoke,
bolt-on
- Cateye bike computer, needs new battery
- no pedals included
Other notes:
There is LOTS of surface rust on the frame, but I
dont believe that any of it is structurally
compromising. Some of the clamp-on parts were never
painted, so theyre really rusty. If I remember
correctly, the wheelbase is about 54. I am 63
tall, but since the seat and BB clamp to the frame, it
should adjust to fit most size riders. The main frame
tube is 2 OD, .035 wall, the fork blades are 5/8
OD, .049 wall, and I think the chainstays (all four)
are 5/8OD, .028 wall. There is no battery included.
I used a 12V, Group 31 sealed battery, and that is
what the battery rack is sized for, but any deep cycle
12V battery should work, if you modify the mounting
rack. I would recommend a sealed battery, since all
2-wheelers go down eventually! Included are a 90Amp
(?) DC rated circuit breaker, a 100Amp (?) fuse, and
the on/off solenoid. I have no reason to believe that
they do not work, but I havent tested them since I
parked the bike about 12 years ago. The tires still
hold air, but you may want to replace them, since they
are so old. I believe that all of the bearings are in
good condition. I am including the second pannier
rack, an extra chain idler, the front derailleur post
(usable only when BB is flipped to top side of frame),
the plastic seat mesh (not presently installed), and a
nylon rain cover that I made. I can also include a
copy of my senior thesis that describes some details
and analysis of the electric drive system.
The bike is located in Los Gatos, California, and I
wont ship it, but I will arrange to meet most
anywhere in the SF Bay Area for a handoff.
How much am I asking? Im mostly trying to find
someone who is truly interested in fixing the bike up
and getting it on the road again, but at the same
time, I dont want to ask so little that someone will
buy it just for the Phil Wood bottom bracket and toss
the rest. Talk to me, and if youre the right person
for the project, we can probably work out a deal.
If youve made it this far, you must have questions!
Ask away
Cheers,
Andrew, aka Midnight
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee wrote -
> From: Peter VanDerWal
>> Thin, super hard, tires have less rolling resistance... as long as you only
>> drive on flat roads with no rocks, gravel, potholes, etc. In the real world
>> you want the tires to give a little when going over small bumps so that
>> you don't have to waste energy moving the whole suspension (or worse,
>> whole vehicle) up.
>
> All early 1900's cars used thin, super hard tires... for example, Ford model
> T's used 60 psi tires. And roads were terrible! Most were unpaved. Rocks,
> gravel, potholes etc. were everywhere. But suspensions had lots more travel
> (to make up for the lack of "give" in the tire), and shock absorbers were
> weak or nonexistent (no losses there!). People had a lot of flats, though.
> --
> Lee Hart
Mike Philips gave a link (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr286.pdf) to
a great study on LRR tires back in Dec. This is one of the things I found,
Page 47 - "A rubber-modified asphalt overlay (often derived from the ground
rubber of scrap tires) will deform more under load and thus should create more
rolling resistance than harder asphalt pavements."
So driving on some highways may actually negate the advantages of LRR tires. A
future choice may be either for quiet roadways or ones that increase mileage
per gallon/Kw.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
www.Airphibian.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Tim,
AC Propulsion drives are used in several cars, I think it is
even used (or the basis of) the Tesla Roadster and X1, there
are a couple tZero's, they started converting Xb's and there
are a few older car conversions that they did, like Eddie
DaRocha's Saturn.
This drivetrain gives his car slightly more acceleration than
it used to have, even with the increased weight of the
Yellow Tops in the tunnel through the middle of the car.
He recently needed a charge before driving home so I rolled out
the NEMA 10-50 extension cord, plugged in the range outlet and
asked Eddie to crank his controller/charger up to 50A at 240V
so within the hour his batteries gulped down 12kWh and he was
good to go.
He charged his car from anything, ranging from NEMA 5-15
110V 15A (opportunity charging) to 240V 50A.
His charger can go as high as 80A at 240V but he has never
taken it as high as the 50A at my house - I just was curious
if my wiring can deliver the full current without problem.
Does this answer your question?
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
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
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Tim Gamber
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:25 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: AC propulsion
Has anyone on this list ever bought a AC system from AC propulsion. If so
are they good? Do they come with a charger?
_________________________________________________________________
Don't waste time standing in line-try shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN
Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
--- End Message ---
