EV Digest 6328
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Conversion costs never change?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by "Adrian DeLeon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: BBS?
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) LRR Tires (was RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: wind resistance ( was where to start )
by Tom Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: wind resistance .. optimum speed for each model of EV
by "peekay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: GM's Electric Auto Will Need a Leap of Science
by "Kaido Kert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: EEstor
by "Greg Watson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by Mark Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: DC-DC for Link-10
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: EEstor
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by MARK DUTKO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Fw: HOV Lane Access for Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles Bill in CT
Legislature
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before, More Comments.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Using GPS for measure performance (was Re: wind resistance ( was
where to start )
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before, More Comments.
by "FRED JEANETTE MERTENS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
There is data of light truck tires readily available.
For example the Tigerpaw used on S10 EVs, I know by US ELectricar,
I am not sure if other manufacturers/converters used it, though
it is often found on Ranger EV as well, is listed on a list of
LRR tires (though not the 15" version while many tires on the
list are even 16"), measured by Ecos Consulting, see last page of:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/SR286Rolling_Resistance_Data.pdf
Note: all RR are between 0.00615 and 0.01328 in this list of LRR tires.
I most certainly would want mfgs to list RR as one of the standard
tire properties. That would make comparing tires much easier
than today's hit-and-miss by gleaning data from a type of tire
that has a different size than you actually need, then have a set
ordered and mounted and hope they too are LRR.
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 Danny Miller
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
But they do make truck tires with widely varying inflation
recommendations. There are bound to be some much better than others.
Unfortunately, nobody's advertising the RR one way or another.
You know what? I really do think the government should require tire
mfgs to include rolling resistance just like a car mfg is required to
state mfg. Anybody see a problem with this concept?
Danny
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>>So, lets see what needs to change to make this useable.
>>
>>I tried using LRR tires (.0015 rr).
>>That makes a HUGE difference.
>>Max speed: 76mph. Range @ 50mph - 55.4 miles, Range @ 10mph - 665.6
>>miles.
>>
>>
>
>Except, as far as I've been able to determine, NOBODY makes a LRR Light
>Truck tire.
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jerry Dycus wrote:
The reason conversions have a hard time getting good
range is that they are too heavy! And for long range,
80-100 miles, you need 50% battery weight along with drag
reduction. And in a conversion, that's just not going to be
easy.
The only reason to do a conversion is to avoid building
the glider part of the EV; a large consideration. But you
[will be] saddled with at least 1,000 lbs of excess weight
vs a built-as-an-EV design.
Yes; exactly! My thinking goes something like this:
1. To make an economical EV, you need to use common, mass produced
parts. You can't depend on unobtainable batteries, exotic motors
or controllers, or complex one-off high-tech designs. KISS!
2. To get reasonable range and performance with such common parts,
you need an exceptionally high percentage of the vehicle's total
weight in batteries (like 50%).
3. Normal automotive construction techniques can't achieve this
level of strength-to-weight. It requires the construction methods
used in high performance race cars and aircraft.
4. But most race car and aircraft construction methods are too
complex and expensive; they violate the KISS principle in #1.
5. One technique *does* provide high strength-to-weight, yet can be
built with simple tools by relatively unskilled labor -- composite
construction.
So, that's what we're aiming for with the Sunrise! Build a lightweight
"glider" that can carry its own weight in batteries, plus four
passengers. For example, a 1000 lbs car with 1000 lbs of batteries plus
1000 lbs of passengers and luggage, for a total 3000 lbs GVWR.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I recently had a chance to compare 2 EVs in real world driving conditions
and am a bit confused. The performance of both vehicles is very similar,
but one uses a LOT more juice.
Vehicle #1
==========
108V Trojan T-105
Curtis 1221C (150A max due to heatsink)
9" ADC
4 speed manual (VW Scirroco)
2nd - 7.55:1 (final)
3rd - 5.02:1 (final)
~3000 lb curb weight
Vehicle #2
==========
114V Trojan T-105
Zilla 1K (350A battery limit)
9" Impulse (Warp 9" w/ 8" length)
5 speed manual (VW Cabriolet)
2nd - 8.25:1 (final)
3rd - 5.60:1 (final)
~3300 lb curb weight
In particular: accelerating uphill from a stoplight, both vehicles reach
40MPH at the same distance. Both start in 2nd and shift to 3rd. But #1
only uses 150A from the batteries and #2 requires 300A! #1 also seems to
be snappier off the line (as good as #2 in 1st gear and 250A+).
I'll admit I'm disappointed as vehicle #2 is mine :) But how can a rusty
EV with a 1221C get by using 1/2 the amps? At 150A my car can barely crawl
up that hill... If I had anything near the same performance/amp I could
easily double my driving range!!!
I'm waiting on some suspension parts before getting LRR tires + alignment,
but the car doesn't pull to either side. I do have a bit of brake drag,
but so does #1.
Any suggestions?
Adrian
.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am not trying to get anyone to change to suit my preferences. I was
commenting like everyone else and I don't mean to offend anyone.
-To review the EVDL by thread, look at:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive -
Thanks Don, I will check that out.
Tehben
On Jan 21, 2007, at 5:06 PM, James Massey wrote:
At 02:26 PM 21/01/07 -0900, Tehben wrote:
I don't mean to start this discussion again but I wanted to
answer : )
I would prefer a web forum for several reasons. <snip> I think
that a forums advantages outweigh a lists.
But then again I am just a kid (19) ; )
Then you need an email program that makes your email work in a way
that suits you. Don't try and make 1000 other people change to suit
you. Don't ask me what Email program - I'm happy with Eudora Light.
I'm sure others can chime in and say what will do this for you.
Someone asked about how new listees have found this list I can't
remember but it was not very easy as I recall.
I seem to recall doing a search for EVs and getting a bunch of
archive hits referring to the EVDL, so I then searched for EVDL and
found it. Wasn't hard, but that was about 5 years ago.
Just my 0.02
Regards
[Technik] James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm, I'm starting to wonder how accurate this spreadsheet is. It has a
few obvious errors. For example, I was looking to see if it listed any
17" tires and came across the "Rugged Trail"
The document lists it as a passenger tire made by Michelin. Only thing is,
it's a LT tire made by BFGoodrich.
Pity, but with the number of errors in this document, I don't trust any of
it. There is no way to tell what else they got wrong.
P.S. I tentatively retrack my previous remark about this list not showing
LT tires, it appears that it does, but has them labled wrong.
> There is data of light truck tires readily available.
> For example the Tigerpaw used on S10 EVs, I know by US ELectricar,
> I am not sure if other manufacturers/converters used it, though
> it is often found on Ranger EV as well, is listed on a list of
> LRR tires (though not the 15" version while many tires on the
> list are even 16"), measured by Ecos Consulting, see last page of:
> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/SR286Rolling_Resistance_Data.pdf
> Note: all RR are between 0.00615 and 0.01328 in this list of LRR tires.
>
> I most certainly would want mfgs to list RR as one of the standard
> tire properties. That would make comparing tires much easier
> than today's hit-and-miss by gleaning data from a type of tire
> that has a different size than you actually need, then have a set
> ordered and mounted and hope they too are LRR.
>
> 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 Danny Miller
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
>
>
> But they do make truck tires with widely varying inflation
> recommendations. There are bound to be some much better than others.
> Unfortunately, nobody's advertising the RR one way or another.
>
> You know what? I really do think the government should require tire
> mfgs to include rolling resistance just like a car mfg is required to
> state mfg. Anybody see a problem with this concept?
>
> Danny
>
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
>>>So, lets see what needs to change to make this useable.
>>>
>>>I tried using LRR tires (.0015 rr).
>>>That makes a HUGE difference.
>>>Max speed: 76mph. Range @ 50mph - 55.4 miles, Range @ 10mph - 665.6
>>>miles.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Except, as far as I've been able to determine, NOBODY makes a LRR Light
>>Truck tire.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 ---
Too much toe in/out. Bad bearings (anywhere in the drive train), etc.
The Crr of the tires.
Try jacking up the vehicle so the drive wheels are off the ground and see
how many amps it pulls to just spin the wheels.
Maybe something is dragging.
> I recently had a chance to compare 2 EVs in real world driving conditions
> and am a bit confused. The performance of both vehicles is very similar,
> but one uses a LOT more juice.
>
> Vehicle #1
> ==========
> 108V Trojan T-105
> Curtis 1221C (150A max due to heatsink)
> 9" ADC
> 4 speed manual (VW Scirroco)
> 2nd - 7.55:1 (final)
> 3rd - 5.02:1 (final)
> ~3000 lb curb weight
>
> Vehicle #2
> ==========
> 114V Trojan T-105
> Zilla 1K (350A battery limit)
> 9" Impulse (Warp 9" w/ 8" length)
> 5 speed manual (VW Cabriolet)
> 2nd - 8.25:1 (final)
> 3rd - 5.60:1 (final)
> ~3300 lb curb weight
>
> In particular: accelerating uphill from a stoplight, both vehicles reach
> 40MPH at the same distance. Both start in 2nd and shift to 3rd. But #1
> only uses 150A from the batteries and #2 requires 300A! #1 also seems to
> be snappier off the line (as good as #2 in 1st gear and 250A+).
>
> I'll admit I'm disappointed as vehicle #2 is mine :) But how can a rusty
> EV with a 1221C get by using 1/2 the amps? At 150A my car can barely crawl
> up that hill... If I had anything near the same performance/amp I could
> easily double my driving range!!!
>
> I'm waiting on some suspension parts before getting LRR tires + alignment,
> but the car doesn't pull to either side. I do have a bit of brake drag,
> but so does #1.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Adrian
>
> .
>
>
>
--
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 always forget, so I just google "Uve's EV calculator"
It comes up on the top of the list every time.
> You mention Uve's calculator - where can I find this?
>
--
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 ---
Ahh...the Tigerpaw is a passenger tire, not a LT tire. They might have
gotten away with it on the S10 EV because /that/ truck was light enough.
It's not available in a 17" tire (at least I can't find it).
It does have a version that can support 2,000 lbs, just barely. But that
means that you'd have to change out the suspension to work with 15" tires
and, unless you can get the truck ballance perfectly at 50/50, you'd have
to get the truck's weight significantly down under 8,000 lbs.
Also, from what I've read, if you are running a tire right at it's max
rated load, it's Crr goes way up.
FWIW, the link you posted doesn't list a single LT tire, they are all
passenger tires.
> There is data of light truck tires readily available.
> For example the Tigerpaw used on S10 EVs, I know by US ELectricar,
> I am not sure if other manufacturers/converters used it, though
> it is often found on Ranger EV as well, is listed on a list of
> LRR tires (though not the 15" version while many tires on the
> list are even 16"), measured by Ecos Consulting, see last page of:
> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/SR286Rolling_Resistance_Data.pdf
> Note: all RR are between 0.00615 and 0.01328 in this list of LRR tires.
>
> I most certainly would want mfgs to list RR as one of the standard
> tire properties. That would make comparing tires much easier
> than today's hit-and-miss by gleaning data from a type of tire
> that has a different size than you actually need, then have a set
> ordered and mounted and hope they too are LRR.
>
> 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 Danny Miller
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 8:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
>
>
> But they do make truck tires with widely varying inflation
> recommendations. There are bound to be some much better than others.
> Unfortunately, nobody's advertising the RR one way or another.
>
> You know what? I really do think the government should require tire
> mfgs to include rolling resistance just like a car mfg is required to
> state mfg. Anybody see a problem with this concept?
>
> Danny
>
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
>>>So, lets see what needs to change to make this useable.
>>>
>>>I tried using LRR tires (.0015 rr).
>>>That makes a HUGE difference.
>>>Max speed: 76mph. Range @ 50mph - 55.4 miles, Range @ 10mph - 665.6
>>>miles.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Except, as far as I've been able to determine, NOBODY makes a LRR Light
>>Truck tire.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 ---
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 21:43 +0000, Chris wrote:
> Ah well spotted, I stand corrected.
> OR, Owing to Power = Force x Velocity .....
> where force is wind resistance and therefore v^2 already, and so
> therefore V^2 x v = v^3
> >
> > Chris wrote:
> >
> > >For example I run an old Mini. It's generally accepted that it
> > >requires 12HP to push it along at 50mph. So as a result of the
> > >effects of wind resistance, to push it along at 100mph, double the
> > >speed, requires 2^2, or 4 times as much power, 48HP
I would agree with your corrected figures 12 * 6 = 72HP. I have an old
mini that's been on a dyno with 86HP at the wheels. It didn't accelerate
fast at 100mph. The engine had had about 45,000km since the dyno. I've
recently reconditioned the head and it feels a lot faster now. I'll have
to get it on the track again.
I'm converting my other mini. I've been doing some experiments to
measure the resistance. It should be possible to find the resistance
using only a GPS.
I've been coasting down hills in neutral at the terminal velocity. From
the GPS I know my rate of climb & my velocity. I can calculate the
change in gravitational potential energy, and hence the power used to
overcome the resistance (aero, tyres & driveline in neutral).
Has anyone done this? Do the results compare well with other
measurements? My initial data suggests 7.5-10kW at 95km/h for my Mini
with 145/60R12 Bridgestone Sneaker tyres at 44psi (you quote 8.9kW at
96km/h). I've got to do some more work before I can bring the margin of
error down, and I have to work out if the vertical component is included
in my velocity.
My goal is to have a webpage where you upload a gps track and it plots
some graphs showing the net power. If you know where in the track you
were coasting then you can read your resistance power at that speed.
Would anyone be interested?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Tom Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 21:43 +0000, Chris wrote:
> > Ah well spotted, I stand corrected.
>
> > OR, Owing to Power = Force x Velocity .....
> > where force is wind resistance and therefore v^2 already, and so
> > therefore V^2 x v = v^3
> > >
> > > Chris wrote:
> > >
> > > >For example I run an old Mini. It's generally accepted that it
> > > >requires 12HP to push it along at 50mph. So as a result of the
> > > >effects of wind resistance, to push it along at 100mph, double the
> > > >speed, requires 2^2, or 4 times as much power, 48HP
...
> Would anyone be interested?
i guess there are many ways to skin the cat ..
i am more inclined to real world direct measurement
for a particular model (same body shape means same
aerodynamic resistance for that brand)
let's say covering 20 km on a straight road :
1. at 30 km/hr .. consumes _ _ _ amount of current
2. at 40 km/hr .. consumes _ _ _ amount of current
3. at 50 km/hr .. consumes _ _ _ amount of current
4. at 60 km/hr .. consumes _ _ _ amount of current
5. at 70 km/hr .. consumes _ _ _ amount of current
6. at 80 km/hr .. consumes _ _ _ amount of current
these would be 'normal' cruise speeds for most people
if less/least energy consumed is a much more important
thing .. and speed is not, i guess i could drive at (say)
40 km/hr instead of 80 .. and use perhaps only 15%
current as compared to current consumed when driving
against the exact same/similar air resistance
it seems that all agree that air resistance goes up much
more than proportionately .. as speeds go up .. so driving
slower will make lot of sense in terms of cost per km
too slow, would not work either .. if air doesn't resist
much between say 3km/hr to 5 km/hr to 10 km/hr or
even 15 km/hr (push your palm out of the window at those
speeds to get an idea of comparative wind resistance ..
and again try doing that at 20 km/hr and at 80 km/hr ..
HUGE difference ..
that's subjective .. now for objective figures .. how to go
about 'documenting' air drag force at different speeds
for a particular model ?
..peekay
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - with free PC-PC calling and photo sharing.
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 1/21/07, Cor van de Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
<looong sniip>
Would be worth pointing people like these to successful commercially
sold EVs all around the world, which clearly indicates that no
technological breakthrough is needed for a 40-mile range EV battery
pack. Not to speak of upcoming lithium-powered vehicles like Tesla
Roadster and Phoenix SUT, last but not least the reported G-Wiz Li-ion
upgrade. Not to speak of lithium-powered plugin-prius kits from
Hymotion etc.
Not to speak of dozens of DIY conversions on roads.
-kert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
More technical data from EEstor:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
Nice bagging by Jim Miller, vice president of advanced transportation
technologies at Maxwell Technologies (who make SuperCaps). Just maybe they
are worried.
Time will tell,
Greg
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It coudl all be mechanical but how much voltage drop
did #1 have compared to #2? Are ones batteries older
or more abused then the other or use different
connectors/wires?
I have had the experience that one bad battery (or
cell even) can make an otherwise pack perform really
sub par. It will especially show in accelleration, on
a hill or say when i'm 0.3 miles from home and die :-(
--- Adrian DeLeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I recently had a chance to compare 2 EVs in real
> world driving conditions
> and am a bit confused. The performance of both
> vehicles is very similar,
> but one uses a LOT more juice.
>
> Vehicle #1
> ==========
> 108V Trojan T-105
> Curtis 1221C (150A max due to heatsink)
> 9" ADC
> 4 speed manual (VW Scirroco)
> 2nd - 7.55:1 (final)
> 3rd - 5.02:1 (final)
> ~3000 lb curb weight
>
> Vehicle #2
> ==========
> 114V Trojan T-105
> Zilla 1K (350A battery limit)
> 9" Impulse (Warp 9" w/ 8" length)
> 5 speed manual (VW Cabriolet)
> 2nd - 8.25:1 (final)
> 3rd - 5.60:1 (final)
> ~3300 lb curb weight
>
> In particular: accelerating uphill from a stoplight,
> both vehicles reach
> 40MPH at the same distance. Both start in 2nd and
> shift to 3rd. But #1
> only uses 150A from the batteries and #2 requires
> 300A! #1 also seems to
> be snappier off the line (as good as #2 in 1st gear
> and 250A+).
>
> I'll admit I'm disappointed as vehicle #2 is mine :)
> But how can a rusty
> EV with a 1221C get by using 1/2 the amps? At 150A
> my car can barely crawl
> up that hill... If I had anything near the same
> performance/amp I could
> easily double my driving range!!!
>
> I'm waiting on some suspension parts before getting
> LRR tires + alignment,
> but the car doesn't pull to either side. I do have a
> bit of brake drag,
> but so does #1.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Adrian
>
> .
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:32:28 -0700 (MST)
Even if you could find 17 LRR tires, they have to be rated to handle the
weight (we're talking about 1 ton per tire)
Personally, I think the standard 0.15 rr figure is optimistic for LT tires
carrying this much weight.
Peter
It's always been my understanding that tire drag force is proportional to
tire load. I've never read or heard anything else (until your post). The
common use of a single drag coefficient ( for example - by the GreenSeal
report) is based on this linear relationship.
If drag were not proportional to load, the tire's drag performance could not
be represented by a single number, and most, if not all, of the EV range and
performance calculators ( including mine) would be invalid.
Here, you are saying that tire drag is not proporional to load. Can you tell
us why you believe this is true?
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Martin:
You are about to fall into GM's public relations trap. I am sure that some
guy in tie and suit is giggling about how his sting got GM some good
headlines. GM will never built the 'Volt' - at least not as long as they
can sell their cheapo gas guzzlers. They are not serious, never have been.
Michaela
> This may be true, but I don't think it hurts to try. We don't have an
> affordable real EV car available so it's not like we're in a position to
> spite GM over their past fallacies.
> --
> Martin K
>
> Doug McKee wrote:
>> I feel many are missing a small point. GM already had one and for
>> reasons of their own, plus the oil guys, unfettered by the fed, etc,.,
>> etc., decided to crush the project. The volt won't be ready for about
>> 3-5 years at the earliest, which is, believe me, the calculated time the
>> American public will remain apathetically inactive and the automakers
>> and oil guys can ignore us with impunity.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you email Excess Solutions in Milpitas CA they may be able to provide you
with a dc/dc for much less. I think I paid 10 dollars for a dc/dc to fix a
Link 10 for a customer of mine. I can buy 25 watt converters which should
do the job up to 72 vdc for 5 dollars. Higher voltages are usually more but
not much. These are all low wattage converters. Lawrence Rhodes.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: DC-DC for Link-10
> From: "Brian M. Sutin"
> >What happens if the pack sags below 85V?
>
> The www.astrodyne.com MSCC-5003 is a 5w converter. When the input voltage
goes below 85v, its power output is gradually reduced. The E-meter only uses
2w, so you can go well below 85v before the MSCC-5003's output sags below
12v. The one I tested worked down to 60v DC.
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"CEO of ZENN, which is also an early investor in EEStor"
Which tells you they are partners in the hype, not paying customers.
When an independent third party confirms their claims, I'll pay
attention, until then, EEstor is on ignore.
Greg Watson wrote:
More technical data from EEstor:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/
Nice bagging by Jim Miller, vice president of advanced transportation
technologies at Maxwell Technologies (who make SuperCaps). Just maybe
they are worried.
Time will tell,
Greg
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Vehicle #2 has a much less efficient motor, a impulse 9 is NOT a warp
9 in a smaller package but a slightly improved version of an ADC 8.
The Warp 9 uses much less Amps to produce more torque than the
impulse 9. Look at the spec sheets for a impulse 9 and warp 9.
On Jan 21, 2007, at 10:48 PM, Adrian DeLeon wrote:
I recently had a chance to compare 2 EVs in real world driving
conditions
and am a bit confused. The performance of both vehicles is very
similar,
but one uses a LOT more juice.
Vehicle #1
==========
108V Trojan T-105
Curtis 1221C (150A max due to heatsink)
9" ADC
4 speed manual (VW Scirroco)
2nd - 7.55:1 (final)
3rd - 5.02:1 (final)
~3000 lb curb weight
Vehicle #2
==========
114V Trojan T-105
Zilla 1K (350A battery limit)
9" Impulse (Warp 9" w/ 8" length)
5 speed manual (VW Cabriolet)
2nd - 8.25:1 (final)
3rd - 5.60:1 (final)
~3300 lb curb weight
In particular: accelerating uphill from a stoplight, both vehicles
reach
40MPH at the same distance. Both start in 2nd and shift to 3rd. But #1
only uses 150A from the batteries and #2 requires 300A! #1 also
seems to
be snappier off the line (as good as #2 in 1st gear and 250A+).
I'll admit I'm disappointed as vehicle #2 is mine :) But how can a
rusty
EV with a 1221C get by using 1/2 the amps? At 150A my car can
barely crawl
up that hill... If I had anything near the same performance/amp I
could
easily double my driving range!!!
I'm waiting on some suspension parts before getting LRR tires +
alignment,
but the car doesn't pull to either side. I do have a bit of brake
drag,
but so does #1.
Any suggestions?
Adrian
.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi EWVerybody, EEVen in CT:
I thought I'd pass this on, that Dan sent ME.The Corrupticut Legislature,
for what it's worth.Maybe we shjould be DOING something more about
"Deregulation" or why are we paying the highest electrical rates in the USA,
maybe Hawaii excepted?All that extra money is going SOMEWHERE?!
Seeya at BBB,countdown ,two daze For us train travelers!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Attanasio
To: Bob Rice
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: HOV Lane Access for Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles Bill in CT
Legislature
Bob,
Any word on the e-mail list for the NEEAA folks?
This is something that we should get out to at least the CT members. There is
a bill going through the CT House of Representatives right now (H.B. 5281) that
would allow HOV lane access for single occupants in hybrid or alternative fuel
vehicles. Some other states already do this. We should write in to express
our support for this. I recall seeing that this bill going through last year.
But it never made it, and got hung up in committee.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGAbillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB5281
The bill was introduced by Representative Bryan Hulburt of Tolland, CT. I'll
be writing him an e-mail supporting the bill and his efforts. I'll forward you
a copy. We should get as many members as we can to write in to support this.
Thanks,
Dan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.3/642 - Release Date: 1/20/07
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Phil,
I'm trying to find the source, but I vaguely remember reading that the Crr
figure is an approximation and is accurate around the middle of the tires
load rating. When you approach the extreems (to light or too heavy for
the tire) it becomes less accurate.
I think this was in an old email from Bill (something or other) at
Goodyear, but I might also just be remembering wrong.
>>
>>Even if you could find 17 LRR tires, they have to be rated to handle the
>>weight (we're talking about 1 ton per tire)
>>Personally, I think the standard 0.15 rr figure is optimistic for LT
>> tires
>>carrying this much weight.
>
> Peter
>
> It's always been my understanding that tire drag force is proportional to
> tire load. I've never read or heard anything else (until your post). The
> common use of a single drag coefficient ( for example - by the GreenSeal
> report) is based on this linear relationship.
>
> If drag were not proportional to load, the tire's drag performance could
> not
> be represented by a single number, and most, if not all, of the EV range
> and
> performance calculators ( including mine) would be invalid.
>
> Here, you are saying that tire drag is not proporional to load. Can you
> tell
> us why you believe this is true?
>
> Phil
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
> http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
>
>
--
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: "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Martin K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before
>
> Martin:
>
> You are about to fall into GM's public relations trap. I am sure that some
> guy in tie and suit is giggling about how his sting got GM some good
> headlines. GM will never built the 'Volt' - at least not as long as they
> can sell their cheapo gas guzzlers. They are not serious, never have been.
>
> Michaela
>
Right on Michaela!
>
> > This may be true, but I don't think it hurts to try. We don't have an
> > affordable real EV car available so it's not like we're in a position to
> > spite GM over their past fallacies.
> > --
> > Martin K
> > I hope we DO have the beginnings of some production EV's. Lee is
working on the Sunrise , all it takes is a bit of money. Retired, so don't
have as much as I usta! Jerry is about to roll out the Freedom, but they
aren't 'There" quite yet. But a hellova lot closer than last year.I'm not
begging for money here. I hope the cars will speak for themselves, soon,
never TOO soon. Gas WILL go up again, the Oil Co's are just waiting for
something to happen, somewhere, that they can use as an excuse. Hurricane,
somebody farts in the Middle East? They can come up with some pretty
creative excuses. We have to be ready! Maybe if Jerry or Lee sold some
stock? Isn't that how Henry Ford started? Or could get some sort of loan
from the EV community? I would go for an interest free type loan, if it
could come to that? How many guyz, an' gals on the List? Over a thou?
EVerybody kicked in two bux a month? Or; (gasp!) 5 or 10?? Still less than
going to a movie in NYC! Most of us come in between, somewhere: buying a
Tesla, to just getting by from paycheck to paycheck? I mean like we COULD
throw a bit of seed money when it comes time.OK I'll stop, now. No Begathons
yet! Just some brainstorms; bring it on back!
> > Doug McKee wrote:
> >> I feel many are missing a small point. GM already had one and for
> >> reasons of their own, plus the oil guys, unfettered by the fed, etc,.,
> >> etc., decided to crush the project. The volt won't be ready for about
> >> 3-5 years at the earliest, which is, believe me, the calculated time
the
> >> American public will remain apathetically inactive and the automakers
> >> and oil guys can ignore us with impunity.
> >>
> >> Doug
And they will! "Stay the course" as our Dear Leader sez! And how many
Sheeple say; " Geees! I NEVER knew all this actually happened", after seeing
WKtEC, and" I lent out your DVD to the guyz at work" Why I rarely "see" my
copies of WKtEV!
> >>Hi EVerybody;Again
Volt? Yeah Right?Phooey! GM HAD the EV-1 which was better by far than
the Volt. If they HAD to do a @#$%^ Hybrid, use the EV-1, tuck a gas, or
Diseasel engine aboard, EVen a rear bumper clamp-on, taken along as needed.
You pick it up at the Charge Station on the way to Aunt Tilly's in Toledo.
"Charge Station?"Yup! I think they would spring up along the interstates,
like with GM's help, IF they were serious about EV's? EVen our crappy home
made cars , conversions, would be of full usefullness, if we could dump
aboard several hundred amps during coffee or piss breaks?Thought for the
day; How good , convenient, would your GAS car be if there were no gas
stations?IF ya had to buy gas in one liter cans at a drug store??
Well, with GM sitting on the nmh patents it wouldn't take much for them
to use Stan Ovshinski's batteries? Sheesh! GM was sitting on top of the
World, a few years ago, and they threw it away!Shame on them! Gunna need a
real Regime Change at GM to get anything becides the reVOLTing thing. Smoke
and mirrers. Sigh! But I voted early and often as they used to say.
Seeya at BBB
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm, I've been thinking about doing something similar but I've noticed an
odd behavior from my GPS.
FWIW My gps is a USB puck plugged into a laptop.
Anyway, I was setting up one of these cheap weather stations that measure
barometric preassure so I needed to know my altitude. No problem, check
it with the GPS.
The problem is, the altitude reading isn't stable. It cycles through
readings that vary by up to ~70 feet. The swing takes maybe a minute to
go from high to low and then starts up again. Not a big deal for a weather
station, but getting the size of a hill wrong by 70 feet can really throw
off your calculations when figuring EV performance.
Does anyone else notice the same kind of behavior from their GPS, or is
there something wrong with mine? The Lat/Long is spot on, well within a
few feet, and it doesn't vary nearly as much.
>
> I'm converting my other mini. I've been doing some experiments to
> measure the resistance. It should be possible to find the resistance
> using only a GPS.
>
> I've been coasting down hills in neutral at the terminal velocity. From
> the GPS I know my rate of climb & my velocity. I can calculate the
> change in gravitational potential energy, and hence the power used to
> overcome the resistance (aero, tyres & driveline in neutral).
>
> Has anyone done this? Do the results compare well with other
> measurements? My initial data suggests 7.5-10kW at 95km/h for my Mini
> with 145/60R12 Bridgestone Sneaker tyres at 44psi (you quote 8.9kW at
> 96km/h). I've got to do some more work before I can bring the margin of
> error down, and I have to work out if the vertical component is included
> in my velocity.
>
> My goal is to have a webpage where you upload a gps track and it plots
> some graphs showing the net power. If you know where in the track you
> were coasting then you can read your resistance power at that speed.
>
> Would anyone be interested?
>
>
--
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 ---
bob I could and would be willing to send some seed money out .
I have a friend in Argentina who bought his car in a co-op !!! they got
togather 48 people who were willing and (did) make I payment per month to the
co=op for a car . then the co-op bought 1 car per month . they had a drawing to
see what order each person recived his car in . but when he got his car it
was pd for and there was no interest charge . the cars were cheaper and they
got the same effect as BOTH paying cash up front and fianancing the car over
time !!!! may be there are 48 to 60 people who would ea pay 1/48 coast of a
sunrise or freedom to a "escrow account " for 48 months then each recive his
/her electric sunrise each in turn until all 48 had their car thus the coop
generates a real market and the mfg's start SELLING the product now at low
volume and are then able to ramp up production as the demand increases !! I
already have a bradley gte in the works so I would not co op but I will help by
buying 1 share of stock per mo until
I retire and take my chances on the company making it and the value of that
stock increasing . how about that as a option for u guys who are starting these
companies?? and need seed cash ? I reire in 8 years ? 8 x 12 = 96 shares not
much but multiplied across the ranks of those who are committed and willing to
chance it not only in the ev area but also the enviremental group and the
people who think that our nat security depends on change it might work !!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Rice<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before, More Comments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To: "Martin K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before
>
> Martin:
>
> You are about to fall into GM's public relations trap. I am sure that some
> guy in tie and suit is giggling about how his sting got GM some good
> headlines. GM will never built the 'Volt' - at least not as long as they
> can sell their cheapo gas guzzlers. They are not serious, never have been.
>
> Michaela
>
Right on Michaela!
>
> > This may be true, but I don't think it hurts to try. We don't have an
> > affordable real EV car available so it's not like we're in a position to
> > spite GM over their past fallacies.
> > --
> > Martin K
> > I hope we DO have the beginnings of some production EV's. Lee is
working on the Sunrise , all it takes is a bit of money. Retired, so don't
have as much as I usta! Jerry is about to roll out the Freedom, but they
aren't 'There" quite yet. But a hellova lot closer than last year.I'm not
begging for money here. I hope the cars will speak for themselves, soon,
never TOO soon. Gas WILL go up again, the Oil Co's are just waiting for
something to happen, somewhere, that they can use as an excuse. Hurricane,
somebody farts in the Middle East? They can come up with some pretty
creative excuses. We have to be ready! Maybe if Jerry or Lee sold some
stock? Isn't that how Henry Ford started? Or could get some sort of loan
from the EV community? I would go for an interest free type loan, if it
could come to that? How many guyz, an' gals on the List? Over a thou?
EVerybody kicked in two bux a month? Or; (gasp!) 5 or 10?? Still less than
going to a movie in NYC! Most of us come in between, somewhere: buying a
Tesla, to just getting by from paycheck to paycheck? I mean like we COULD
throw a bit of seed money when it comes time.OK I'll stop, now. No Begathons
yet! Just some brainstorms; bring it on back!
> > Doug McKee wrote:
> >> I feel many are missing a small point. GM already had one and for
> >> reasons of their own, plus the oil guys, unfettered by the fed, etc,.,
> >> etc., decided to crush the project. The volt won't be ready for about
> >> 3-5 years at the earliest, which is, believe me, the calculated time
the
> >> American public will remain apathetically inactive and the automakers
> >> and oil guys can ignore us with impunity.
> >>
> >> Doug
And they will! "Stay the course" as our Dear Leader sez! And how many
Sheeple say; " Geees! I NEVER knew all this actually happened", after seeing
WKtEC, and" I lent out your DVD to the guyz at work" Why I rarely "see" my
copies of WKtEV!
> >>Hi EVerybody;Again
Volt? Yeah Right?Phooey! GM HAD the EV-1 which was better by far than
the Volt. If they HAD to do a @#$%^ Hybrid, use the EV-1, tuck a gas, or
Diseasel engine aboard, EVen a rear bumper clamp-on, taken along as needed.
You pick it up at the Charge Station on the way to Aunt Tilly's in Toledo.
"Charge Station?"Yup! I think they would spring up along the interstates,
like with GM's help, IF they were serious about EV's? EVen our crappy home
made cars , conversions, would be of full usefullness, if we could dump
aboard several hundred amps during coffee or piss breaks?Thought for the
day; How good , convenient, would your GAS car be if there were no gas
stations?IF ya had to buy gas in one liter cans at a drug store??
Well, with GM sitting on the nmh patents it wouldn't take much for them
to use Stan Ovshinski's batteries? Sheesh! GM was sitting on top of the
World, a few years ago, and they threw it away!Shame on them! Gunna need a
real Regime Change at GM to get anything becides the reVOLTing thing. Smoke
and mirrers. Sigh! But I voted early and often as they used to say.
Seeya at BBB
Bob
--- End Message ---
