EV Digest 6329
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Chevy VOLT
by Tim Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: LRR Tires (was RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: LRR Tires (was RE: Lower price (and available)
configurations
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Chevy VOLT
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "Rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: I Need You to Blitz GM Like Never Before, More Comments.
by "James F. Jarrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Fw: HOV Lane Access for Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicles Bill in
CT Legislature
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8) Series/Parallel question....
by "Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Lower price (and available) configurations
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by Tim Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: LRR Tires (was RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Controller problem
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Using GPS for measure performance (was Re: wind resistance ( was
where to start )
by Sam Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) EVs in Edmonton
by Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs =?UTF-8?B?QURDKT8=?=
by EVSource <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: Series/Parallel question....
by "Joe Plumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: [EV] Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by Eduardo Kaftanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Xantrex Choice Model Redux
by Richard Bebbington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Performance lag (Zilla vs Curtis, Warp vs ADC)?
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hmmmm.... what's the big deal about the Volt.
GM showcased their series-hybrid EV1 in 1999, it even seated 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GMEV1serieshybrid.jpg
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
0.0015 would make a huge difference -- that's a factor of 10 too small. 0.015
is much more believable.
0.0015 * 3000 lbs = 4.5 lbs
0.015 * 3000 lbs = 45 lbs
The top number means you could push a 3000 lbs car with just 4.5 pounds of
force. The 0.015 number means it takes 45 lbs, which matches my real life
experience pushing cars much better.
I did coast downs with 2 of my cars. Both had LT tires. Here are the numbers
for rr:
0.013 Dodge Durango
0.019 Chevy Camaro with LT winter tires (seems a little high, might have bad
alignment or brake dragging)
Another interesting side note, the Durango measured three times the wind
resistance of the Camaro!
As long as I'm on a roll here... My autocross club does some events at the
Wendover airport, and I pass through the Salt Flats on the way. After one event
I did coastdowns on pavement and on the Salt Flats. The Salt Flats had about
10% more rr than pavement.
----- Original Message ----
>>>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.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:55 AM 1/22/2007, David Dymaxion wrote:
0.0015 would make a huge difference -- that's a factor of 10 too
small. 0.015 is much more believable.
0.0015 * 3000 lbs = 4.5 lbs
0.015 * 3000 lbs = 45 lbs
The top number means you could push a 3000 lbs car with just 4.5
pounds of force. The 0.015 number means it takes 45 lbs, which
matches my real life experience pushing cars much better.
I did coast downs with 2 of my cars. Both had LT tires. Here are the
numbers for rr:
0.013 Dodge Durango
0.019 Chevy Camaro with LT winter tires (seems a little high, might
have bad alignment or brake dragging)
In other words, NON LRR tires are acting exactly as UVE's calculator suggests.
Any data on the same vehicles with LRR tires?
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for sharing. I was not aware of this an I am sure that Chris Paine of
WKTEC wasn't either or he wouldn't have bought into Lutz's words so easily.
There would have been a , "Well, what about this?" type of question.
Roderick Wilde
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Humphrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Chevy VOLT
Hmmmm.... what's the big deal about the Volt.
GM showcased their series-hybrid EV1 in 1999, it even seated 4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GMEV1serieshybrid.jpg
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.4/644 - Release Date: 1/22/2007
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.4/644 - Release Date: 1/22/2007
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John wrote -
> 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.
> With crappy tires (.015 rr)
> Max speed: 69mph. Range @ 50mph - 25.8 miles, Range @ 10mph - 72 miles.
> With good tires (.0015 rr)
> Max speed: 76mph. Range @ 50mph - 52.8 miles, Range @ 10mph - 329.8 miles.
> So, I tried knocking 1000 lbs off the truck (somehow)
> Only makes a slight difference (adds 3 miles to the GC, LRR 55 mile range)
> In all cases the Rolling Resistance is what controls the range.
> From the calc, it would seem that weight and truck-aero improvements
> aren't likely to make much difference.
> If you can get LRR tires, that seems to make a HUGE difference.
> And of course, finding the Rolling Resistance for different tires is
> nearly impossible.
John,
Where did you get your 'good tire' number of 0.0015 rr, I looked in several
places and the lowest I found was the Michelin Artic Apline 235/75R15 with a
rating of 0.0081 rr (Green Seals Low Rolling Resistance Tires report of 2003).
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml has some numbers that might be interesting
for LRR, Aero Drag and Driveline losses.
It states "For passenger cars, a 5-7% reduction in rolling resistance increases
fuel efficiency by 1%. However, these improvements must be balanced against
traction, durabillity, and noise." So according to these numbers only a 1% is
usually achieved, which is in direct conflict with the above numbers from John.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/SR286Rolling_Resistance_Data.pdf states
on page 41, "Rolling resistance, therefore, directly consumes a small portion
(4 to 7 percent) of the total energy expended by the vehicle." 4% is for Urban
driving and 7% is for highway driving. This is a study about LLR tires on a gas
car but I think that we could also directly apply it to our EV's.
A 4% to 7% loss savings does not equal a 72 to 392 mile range difference.That
is an increase of 540%...
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
www.Airphibian.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
While I think a lot of people might object to making 48 months of
payments and not getting their new car until month 48 (could happen) I
kind of like this idea. If someone wants to do something like this I
would be interested.
James
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 10:44 -0600, FRED JEANETTE MERTENS wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
James F. Jarrett
Information Systems Associate
Charlotte Country Day School
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
We pay $8 for a sticker for EV HOV single-person access. I bought the sticker
although I never intend to use it. I'm just advertising my EV.
John in Sylmar, CA
> ----- 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is there a recommended way to connect a Series/Parallel pack?
Should you connect them in Parallel and then connect them in Series,
or connect in Series and then Parallel.
I know that mathematically it's the same, but in actual practice
is there a difference?
Thanks.
Joe
_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo buy and sell with people
you know
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:04 AM 1/22/2007, Rush wrote:
John wrote -
> I tried using LRR tires (.0015 rr).
> That makes a HUGE difference.
Optima YT pack numbers
> With crappy tires (.015 rr)
> Max speed: 69mph. Range @ 50mph - 25.8 miles, Range @ 10mph - 72 miles.
> With good tires (.0015 rr)
> Max speed: 76mph. Range @ 50mph - 52.8 miles, Range @ 10mph - 329.8 miles.
John,
Where did you get your 'good tire' number of 0.0015 rr, I looked in
several places and the lowest I found was the Michelin Artic Apline
235/75R15 with a rating of 0.0081 rr (Green Seals Low Rolling
Resistance Tires report of 2003).
UVE's calculator. Those are the 2 numbers he gives right on the
calculator page.
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml has some numbers that might be
interesting for LRR, Aero Drag and Driveline losses.
It states "For passenger cars, a 5-7% reduction in rolling
resistance increases fuel efficiency by 1%. However, these
improvements must be balanced against traction, durabillity, and
noise." So according to these numbers only a 1% is usually achieved,
which is in direct conflict with the above numbers from John.
Weight is also involved in the calculation, so a 6000 lb truck makes
a difference vs a 2000 lb car.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/SR286Rolling_Resistance_Data.pdf
states on page 41, "Rolling resistance, therefore, directly
consumes a small portion (4 to 7 percent) of the total energy
expended by the vehicle." 4% is for Urban driving and 7% is for
highway driving. This is a study about LLR tires on a gas car but I
think that we could also directly apply it to our EV's.
A 4% to 7% loss savings does not equal a 72 to 392 mile range
difference.That is an increase of 540%...
That's at 10mph. In which case most of your losses are driveline and
rr. No aero losses to speak of.
Once you go up to 50mph, it's a 26 to 52 comparison.
At higher speed, it would probably be even less difference. Notice
the 2nd studies difference between Urban and Highway is almost a
factor of 2. What is the definition of Highway?
Also remember that a gas car has a big chunk of constant energy
wastage just running the engine.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Are you talking series/parallel batteries? Why would you want to
switch? That would take a lot of contactors and I don't see any real
gain other than a huge jump in voltage when they are in series. Why not
just make one big pack and not bother with the trouble?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joe Plumer
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:07
To: [email protected]
Subject: Series/Parallel question....
Is there a recommended way to connect a Series/Parallel pack?
Should you connect them in Parallel and then connect them in Series, or
connect in Series and then Parallel.
I know that mathematically it's the same, but in actual practice is
there a difference?
Thanks.
Joe
_________________________________________________________________
FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo - buy and sell with
people you know
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http:/
/expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think he's asking the difference between buddy-strings and buddy-pairs.
Other than saving money on regulators with buddy-pairs, I don't believe there
is much difference.
--
Stay Charged!
Hump
I-5, Blossvale NY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:11 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Series/Parallel question....
>
> Are you talking series/parallel batteries? Why would you want to
> switch? That would take a lot of contactors and I don't see any real
> gain other than a huge jump in voltage when they are in series. Why not
> just make one big pack and not bother with the trouble?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Joe Plumer
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:07
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Series/Parallel question....
>
> Is there a recommended way to connect a Series/Parallel pack?
>
> Should you connect them in Parallel and then connect them in Series, or
> connect in Series and then Parallel.
>
> I know that mathematically it's the same, but in actual practice is
> there a difference?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo - buy and sell with
> people you know
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http:/
> /expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The best number I have read about is 0.006, I think that was the EV1. This is
about twice as good as a regular street tire.
----- Original Message ----
From: John G. Lussmyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:13:24 AM
Subject: Re: LRR Tires (was RE: Lower price (and available) configurations
At 08:55 AM 1/22/2007, David Dymaxion wrote:
>0.0015 would make a huge difference -- that's a factor of 10 too
>small. 0.015 is much more believable.
>
>0.0015 * 3000 lbs = 4.5 lbs
>0.015 * 3000 lbs = 45 lbs
>
>The top number means you could push a 3000 lbs car with just 4.5
>pounds of force. The 0.015 number means it takes 45 lbs, which
>matches my real life experience pushing cars much better.
>
>I did coast downs with 2 of my cars. Both had LT tires. Here are the
>numbers for rr:
>
>0.013 Dodge Durango
>0.019 Chevy Camaro with LT winter tires (seems a little high, might
>have bad alignment or brake dragging)
In other words, NON LRR tires are acting exactly as UVE's calculator suggests.
Any data on the same vehicles with LRR tires?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I believe he means to connect 2 or more series of
batteries into a parallel pack.
Joe As long as there is no final + to - connection of
the series or parallel pack it should make no
difference as there should be no chassis ground and
the main disconnect should be open. And no Fuse in
place. There by no conduction of power. Just don't
allow any ground or + cable to be laying on the metal
frame of the vehicle to allow a conductive point.
--- "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you talking series/parallel batteries? Why
> would you want to
> switch? That would take a lot of contactors and I
> don't see any real
> gain other than a huge jump in voltage when they are
> in series. Why not
> just make one big pack and not bother with the
> trouble?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Joe Plumer
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:07
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Series/Parallel question....
>
> Is there a recommended way to connect a
> Series/Parallel pack?
>
> Should you connect them in Parallel and then connect
> them in Series, or
> connect in Series and then Parallel.
>
> I know that mathematically it's the same, but in
> actual practice is
> there a difference?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo - buy
> and sell with
> people you know
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http:/
> /expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 21 Jan 2007 at 13:17, Jennifer Herzberg wrote:
> I seem to have a problem with my 93 Brusa Model AC300E 144 volt DC
> to150 volt AC controller. The Acgtx20 motor barely rotates
> backwards. I have 2 in my Solectria Force GT, the other controller
> makes either motor spin well. I pulled it apart and theres nothing
> obvious.
I'm no expert, but I think this is what happens when you reverse two of the
3-phase connections to the motor - it runs backwards. I'd guess that you
might have a failed phase in the inverter. It could also be a problem with
the circuitry that reads the feedback from the motor speed sensor.
Actually, I suspect that there are many possible failures in both low-power
and high-power sections of the inverter that might cause this. Other than
catastropic failure of the power semiconductors where they go boom and
scatter bits everywhere, most probably won't be visible. You would need a
circuit diagram, test equipment, and a fair bit of knowledge to troubleshoot
the problem.
AFAIK neither Solectria nor Brusa still supports these old inverters. You
might be able to find someone who can do component level work on this one.
There are some ex-Solectria employees around, still doing EVs, and some
might remember enough and/or have the documentation necessary work on them.
Regrettably, though, even if you can find someone with the time (and
inclination), it probably won't be cheap.
Maybe Victor of Metric Mind (US distributor of Brusa products) will have
some thoughts on what else you could do.
Probably the easiest and cheapest solution is to just dump the second
inverter and motor, and run on a single drive. Only a few dual drive Force
GTs were ever made, and single motors work fine for dozens of other Forces -
though I'll admit that they have more leisurely acceleration.
Good luck. Let us know how you make out.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not reach me.
To send a private message, please obtain my email address from
the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Connecting batteries in parallel without a contactor to separate them
when not in use is not a good idea. If the batteries internal
resistance is not the same in each string (next to impossible to do)
then the batteries will constantly fight charging each other and
discharging each other until they are both dead.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bruce Weisenberger
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:29
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Series/Parallel question....
I believe he means to connect 2 or more series of batteries into a
parallel pack.
Joe As long as there is no final + to - connection of the series or
parallel pack it should make no difference as there should be no chassis
ground and the main disconnect should be open. And no Fuse in place.
There by no conduction of power. Just don't allow any ground or + cable
to be laying on the metal frame of the vehicle to allow a conductive
point.
--- "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you talking series/parallel batteries? Why would you want to
> switch? That would take a lot of contactors and I don't see any real
> gain other than a huge jump in voltage when they are in series. Why
> not just make one big pack and not bother with the trouble?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Plumer
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:07
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Series/Parallel question....
>
> Is there a recommended way to connect a Series/Parallel pack?
>
> Should you connect them in Parallel and then connect them in Series,
> or connect in Series and then Parallel.
>
> I know that mathematically it's the same, but in actual practice is
> there a difference?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo - buy and sell with
> people you know
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http:/
> /expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have recorded Throttle position, Amps draw from battery pack, amps
output to motor, battery pack voltage, controller diode temperature,
lat/long, approximated GPS speeed over ground, and altitude, and
plotted them against a common time stamp.
It's a useful tool for evaluating EV performance, while establishing
proof that you travelled a specific route from point A to point B.
You do have to be careful about GPS reception, and the number of strong
satellite signals determines the accuracy of triangulating the
altitude. With good 3D reception, altitude was dead nuts on according
to those mountain pass elevation signs they put on the interstates
(don't forget to compensate for the rising sea level! ;-)
Speed is just distance travelled divided by time, so again this accuracy
will depend on the position data which depends on the signal strength
and # of satellites
You can also expect some lag in the GPS info.
If you have no way of determining the quality of your GPS reception,
then consider your data as only "guidelines".
A useful sight for formatting your GPS data (for integrating with other
measurements) is:
http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/convert?all=1&convert_add_speed=1
Our society may be in a state of disrepair, but at least we have lots of
toys to play with!
-Sam
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Using GPS for measure performance (was Re: wind resistance (
was where to start )
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, January 22, 2007 8:54 am
To: [email protected]
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 ---
Hi all,
Well the Fowler family has relocated from Sydney, Austrlia to Edmonton,
Canada for the year of 2007.
(We had to leave the EV behind, but it's in good hands. I hope :-)
What sort of EV action is there in Edmonton?
(Not an awful lot mentioned in the archives.)
What about other nearby places? (Yes, I know, nearby is a relative
term.)
We'll be doing a bit of travelling during the school breaks.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Adrian and everyone,
>
> 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
One thing that isn't a completely trivial comparison is the weight. 300 lbs
can make a difference.
The other is that motor I sold you! An ImPulse 9 is not a WarP 9. A fair
comparison is an ADC 8 to an ImPulse 9. This could explain the need for more
current to get similar performance.
-Ryan
--
- EV Source <http://www.evsource.com> -
Professional grade electric vehicle parts and resources
E-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toll-free: 1-877-215-6781
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Speaking on rolling resistance...
The newest fad is for tire stores to install a "nitrogen generator"... and
they'll fill your tires with nitrogen instead of air, for about $4 per
tire. The idea being that new car mfgrs will use nitrogen. One of the
"advantages" is said that the molecule is larger so won't leak as easily.
Constant air pressure... better MPG.
Of course, if this is true, only 22% of your tire's air is likely to leak.
(Nitrogen is already 78% of air.) If the hype is true, wouldn't tires be
their own "nitrogen generator"???
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was just talking about how to connect a battery pack.
I guess that one thing I never thought about. Most cars use the chassis a
ground. I never though about keeping the chassis electrically separate
from the battery pack(s).
Thanks. I believe Bruce is a lifesaver. ;)
Connecting batteries in parallel without a contactor to separate them
when not in use is not a good idea. If the batteries internal
resistance is not the same in each string (next to impossible to do)
then the batteries will constantly fight charging each other and
discharging each other until they are both dead.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bruce Weisenberger
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:29
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Series/Parallel question....
I believe he means to connect 2 or more series of batteries into a
parallel pack.
Joe As long as there is no final + to - connection of the series or
parallel pack it should make no difference as there should be no chassis
ground and the main disconnect should be open. And no Fuse in place.
There by no conduction of power. Just don't allow any ground or + cable
to be laying on the metal frame of the vehicle to allow a conductive
point.
--- "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you talking series/parallel batteries? Why would you want to
> switch? That would take a lot of contactors and I don't see any real
> gain other than a huge jump in voltage when they are in series. Why
> not just make one big pack and not bother with the trouble?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Plumer
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 13:07
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Series/Parallel question....
>
> Is there a recommended way to connect a Series/Parallel pack?
>
> Should you connect them in Parallel and then connect them in Series,
> or connect in Series and then Parallel.
>
> I know that mathematically it's the same, but in actual practice is
> there a difference?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> FREE online classifieds from Windows Live Expo - buy and sell with
> people you know
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwex0010000001msn/direct/01/?href=http:/
> /expo.live.com?s_cid=Hotmail_tagline_12/06
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
_________________________________________________________________
Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on your
Live.com page.
http://www.live.com/?addTemplate=ValentinesDay&ocid=T001MSN30A0701
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The reason racers use nitrogen is because it is very dry. Moisture in a tire
evaporates as a tire heats, raising the pressure even higher, which can affect
handling and traction. I've heard you get the same benefit from using very dry
air.
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:13:08 PM
Subject: Re: super skinny/hard tires .. thin tyres in the 69 psi
Speaking on rolling resistance...
The newest fad is for tire stores to install a "nitrogen generator"... and
they'll fill your tires with nitrogen instead of air, for about $4 per
tire. The idea being that new car mfgrs will use nitrogen. One of the
"advantages" is said that the molecule is larger so won't leak as easily.
Constant air pressure... better MPG.
Of course, if this is true, only 22% of your tire's air is likely to leak.
(Nitrogen is already 78% of air.) If the hype is true, wouldn't tires be
their own "nitrogen generator"???
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>
> The other is that motor I sold you! An ImPulse 9 is not a WarP 9. A fair
> comparison is an ADC 8 to an ImPulse 9. This could explain the need for more
> current to get similar performance.
>
Thats interesting....
Smaller motor means less effiency?
A A00 motor would be very bad?
--
Eduardo K. | Roses are #FF0000
http://www.carfun.cl | Violets are #0000FF
http://e.nn.cl | All my base Are belong to you
http://ev.nn.cl |
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Does pure nitrogen has a smaller expansion with heat thus keeping
pressure constant?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:58 pm, Michael wrote:
Speaking on rolling resistance...
The newest fad is for tire stores to install a "nitrogen generator"...
and
they'll fill your tires with nitrogen instead of air, for about $4 per
tire. The idea being that new car mfgrs will use nitrogen. One of the
"advantages" is said that the molecule is larger so won't leak as
easily.
Constant air pressure... better MPG.
Of course, if this is true, only 22% of your tire's air is likely to
leak.
(Nitrogen is already 78% of air.) If the hype is true, wouldn't tires
be
their own "nitrogen generator"???
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 ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Minor point; the actual maximum is 511 amps.
It is just a software change to make it go to 1022 amps.
I wonder if it's practical to reflash a 500A Emeter with the 1000A firmware?
I have 2 Emeters here, both the "choice" model with RS232, etc.
I've got 2 shunts as well, one bigger than the other, but they're both
the same mV output for
a given current ( 50mV @ 500A ). All this was bought from EVParts.com a
while back...
I'm finally plotting to do a monster twin-motored EV, so might need the
1000A capability on
the Emeter ( although, how does anyone keep drawing 1000 amps from their
pack?
Not long, I'll bet ! )
Richard Bebbington
electric Mini pickup
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/electric.mini/
UK dealer for Netgain EV motors!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
How many watts?
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 ---
