EV Digest 6914
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by Christopher Robison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by Bill Dube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) "Petrol and diesel are dead," says GM
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Solectria Force Contactor?
by Jeff Major <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Google presses for 100 MPG vehicle
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: Google presses for 100 MPG vehicle
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Michael Wendell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: CutOff
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Doers vs talkers, was Otmar is getting rich?
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Google Gets It - It's the Plug, Stupid
by Marc Geller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Wanted: Knife switch for battery disconnect [clarification]
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Google presses for 100 MPG vehicle, comments
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Max motor temperatures and temp sender install
by "Richard Acuti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Max motor temperatures and temp sender install
by "Mark Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Peter Gabrielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
by "Marty Hewes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: EV parts ordered! - ?questions?
by Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 06:47 -0700, John Wayland wrote:
> the other hand, if you don't enjoy driving and don't enjoy the fun that
> comes with a properly set up clutch, flywheel, and manual tranny, and if
> your EV perhaps is already lacking in fun factor, than go ahead and do
> it...it will add to the home brew effect for sure.
I agree completely. Driving an EV should be a fun experience that's
accessible and enjoyable to everyone, without the weird caveats. Having
to "push the stick and wait" not only isn't fun, it creates a moment of
time in which you're not in control. You're coasting in a vehicle that
is essentially without power and there's nothing you can do about it,
until the transmission decides to slip into gear.
I've noticed that my leisurely shifts naturally take about a quarter
second, less if I'm trying to accelerate quickly. Even at a relaxed
pace, a clutchless design would make me take 8-10 times longer than I'm
comfortable with.
But there's one point I haven't heard much discussion on, and it's the
abuse of the transmission. When you're shifting a clutchless setup,
you're asking the synchros to take the place of the clutch -- this is
something they were simply never engineered to do on a regular basis.
They were designed to accelerate or decelerate a lightweight clutch
disk, not the mass of an armature. Some transmissions can take the
abuse, and some can't. The real problem as I see it: how well a
particular transmission will tolerate this mistreatment isn't an
advertised or specified feature, nor can it be easily detected by
analyzing the transmission. Without case studies from others, you don't
necessarily know how long your synchros will last before you'll need to
tear down the transmission and have it rebuilt because you've lost the
ability to change gears.
--
Christopher Robison
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ohmbre.org <-- 1999 Isuzu Hombre + Z2K + Warp13!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The bad thing about removing the clutch from the system is that you
also remove the springs in the center of the clutch. You are also
removing the torque-peak-limiting feature of the clutch. They put
those springs in there for a good reason.
When you go over a pot hole or railroad tracks, HUGE torque spikes
travel backwards through the drive train. The clutch center springs
and the clutch itself greatly reduce and limit these torque peaks.
If you eliminate the clutch (and its springs) you will shorten the
life of the transmission and differential gears significantly. The
torque peaks will fatigue the gear teeth and they will chip and fail.
The bearings won't like it much either.
Bill Dube'
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From The ET LIST.
Posted by: "Remy Chevalier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cleannewworld
Date: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:50 pm ((PDT))
"Petrol and diesel are dead," says GM
11 June 2007
http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/06/16/gm-scorns-internal-combustion-engine/#comment-32078
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/225989
http://www.hugg.com/story/GM-Scorns-Internal-Combustion-Engine
General Motors is determined to "remove the car from the environment and
energy debate" in the next 10 years by doing away with the internal
combustion engine altogether.
The world's second largest car company now views hydrogen fuel cell power as
the "the end game," according to its director of advanced technology vehicle
concepts Dr Christopher Borroni-Bird.
Using internal combustion engines is no longer an option, and that includes
diesels and hybrids.
"Hybrids are not a solution," he said. "They just delay the day of
reckoning. The debate about hybrids being cleaner than diesel is
irrelevant - the diesel is a dead end because it uses fossil fuels."
Dr Borroni-Bird said that hydrogen-powered and electric cars would develop
alongside each other, and that GM would have a "cost-effective" fuel cell
car by 2010. It will trial 100 fuel cell Equinox SUVs across the world in a
market test for the car.
GM's first hydrogen production car
Dr Borroni-Bird is part of a team accelerating development of GM's Chevrolet
Volt concept car in an attempt to get it into production by 2010. Last week
the company announced it has signed contracts to begin development of new
high-performance lithium ion batteries, vital to getting an electric car
with a useable range to market.
But there is no guarantee that these batteries will be ready for use in a
production car in three years. Despite this risk, GM is willing to risk
spending millions on developing a car that may not have a viable propulsion
system by the time its ready to go on sale.
Part of GM's strategy is to complete the "electrification" of the car,
replacing mechanical systems with electrical ones such as by-wire braking
and steering. These save weight and cut fuel use, and are significantly
cheaper and easier to fit if the car itself is electrically driven.
This idea, although not exclusive to GM, was previewed in the Autonomy and
Hywire concepts, and opens up possibilities for car development that just
don't exist in those powered by the combustion engine. Electric brakes and
steering can be easily and quickly retuned to individual customer
requirements, for example. "These vehicles aren't just good for the
environment," said Dr Borroni-Bird. "They help make the car better."
But GM does not want to be drawn into the debate over producing electricity
and hydrogen cleanly. "We will build a car that runs on renewable energy,
but it's not our responsibility to produce the fuels," said a GM spokesman.
Dan Stevens
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Dale Ulan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone out there familiar with the older
> Solectria Force
> (the ones with the BLDC motor)? I'm doing some
> repairs on
> a controller (rebuilding it, actually - it blew up
> very convincingly
<snip>
> As an aside, the controller appears to have
> capacitor-overheated
> problems in addition to blown-up MOSFET's Is that
> common for
> these? I've only seen the blown-up MOSFET's before.
>
> -Dale
>
Hi Dale,
I have never worked with Solectria stuff, but did have
a cap heat problem once with a ACIM drive. Turned out
to be caused by a connection problem in the battery
circuit. Intermittent open on the source side can
cause large ripple in the caps. Just a thought
regarding your problem.
Jeff
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jay Caplan wrote:
This argument goes on and on, but I have never heard from anyone who set
one
up without a flywheel/clutch, didn't like it, and added it all back.
You can add another to the list of folks who would not own an EV without a
clutch.
This is an old argument that comes around about once a year.
If you have ever driven an EV in the mountains you would understand.
John Wayland wrote:
Wonderful...you have to teach someone how not to do the wrong thing for
what is normally one of life's simple pleasures, shift a crisp manual
tranny behind a fun power plant in a car you love. Please everyone,
don't accept the mediocre results of going clutchless. These guys are
giving bad advice if you truly enjoy driving with a manual tranny. On
the other hand, if you don't enjoy driving and don't enjoy the fun that
comes with a properly set up clutch, flywheel, and manual tranny, and if
your EV perhaps is already lacking in fun factor, than go ahead and do
it...it will add to the home brew effect for sure.
It does seem to always come back to the way people see a vehicle. There is
the "fun toy" lobby. And there is the "toaster/appliance" lobby.
If you see your vehicle as an appliance it is not supposed to be fun nor
enjoyable to operate, simply a necessary evil.
(Oh... almost forgot safety. Just try to downshift while climbing a steep
hill with no clutch and traffic close behind)
Roy LeMeur
_________________________________________________________________
Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the im Initiative now.
Its free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_June07
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is outstanding news - I can only hope that local automakers/designers
will take notice...and actually do something.
Chevrolet has already screwed up. Gasoline is $3+ a gallon NOW. Waiting
until 2010 to begin production.... (insane).
If the "Volt" were available at a "reasonable" price, I might be
interested. Instead, I'm converting a vehicle myself (as are many of us).
I won't need the "Volt" - or anything else these folks might come up with,
because my vehicle will be paid for.
Hard to compare a working vehicle thats paid for with one you're making
300+ a month payments on ...
(unless you just *have to have* that new-upholstery and shiny new
paint-job).
I find the entire term "100mpg plug in hybrid" misleading.
The energy costs of electricity, while less than that of gasoline, isn't
free, but isn't included in this "100mpg" claim.
To say the vehicle gets 100mpg (or whatever) - ignoring the cost of the
electricity, is disingenuous.
This is akin to saying "I've got a free ride" while my car is at the top
of the hill, and I simply push it slightly, to get it started.
"I get great gas mileage (100mpg) going to work, but on the return trip, I
only get 25..."
They need to factor in the costs of electricity.
For example, if a hybrid were designed as follows (and this is a
level-ground example)..
generator+batteries+electric motor -
generator runs at most economical speed, and produces 200 amps of
electricity (at 200 volts).
During parts of the trip (such as acceleration), the vehicle needs 315
amps- during which time it pulls from on-board short-term batteries.
(during up-hill, should the vehicle need more, the gen could go into a
less-efficient, higher output rpm)
During cruising speeds, or slowing down, the generator produces 200 amps
still, but the vehicle, in our scenario, only needs 160 amps, leaving 40
amps for the generator to recharge the batteries if needed.
>From full-tank, to empty tank, from full-batteries, to empty-to-full, the
generator does it all.
Thus, you could say, if this vehicle got 100 mpg, that it was an actual
100mpg.
The way folks with "plug-in hybrids" say "I'm getting great gas milage" -
while it may be true (they're not using gas, or they're "somehow"
stretching it) - the actual fuel-economy is hidden by the "top of the hill
shove" of plugging it in at the house over night.
How can this be accurately calculated?
One way I know how it could accurately be calculated, would be to have the
"plug-in hybrid" be completely recharged by normal driving...(as in, the
generator produces more electricity than needed, and recharges the
batteries to full).
Another way would be to calculate the "fuel costs" of electricy, convert
that to gallons (um, I don't know how to do that) - then say, I'm getting
the *equivalent* of 70mpg (or whatever).
I'd like to see how this "electric conversion to gallons" process would
work out....
Thoughts?
Ed Cooley
"Richard Acuti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
06/19/2007 10:13
Please respond to
ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To
ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
cc
Subject
Google presses for 100 MPG vehicle
It makes for interesting reading.
Some people at Google are also tired of waiting for Big Auto and Big Gov't
to pull their collective heads out.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/19/news/economy/google_plugin/index.htm?cnn=yes
Rich A.
Maryland
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine’s 2007 editors’ choice for best Web mail—award-winning Windows
Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Has anyone running without clutch and flywheel or with direct drive (motor
to driveshaft variety) on the street experienced such failures? Obviously
an electric motor of reasonable size without flywheel or clutch has a whole
lot less rotational mass than an ICE with a 30 pound flywheel, might be a
little less of the "between a rock and a hard place" going on.
Anybody know of a rubber donut or something that could go in the driveshaft?
Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
The bad thing about removing the clutch from the system is that you also
remove the springs in the center of the clutch. You are also removing the
torque-peak-limiting feature of the clutch. They put those springs in
there for a good reason.
When you go over a pot hole or railroad tracks, HUGE torque spikes travel
backwards through the drive train. The clutch center springs and the
clutch itself greatly reduce and limit these torque peaks.
If you eliminate the clutch (and its springs) you will shorten the life of
the transmission and differential gears significantly. The torque peaks
will fatigue the gear teeth and they will chip and fail. The bearings
won't like it much either.
Bill Dube'
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think the best thing about this is the more fuel efficient everything
is the less dependent we are on the terrorists. Boycots and other
schemes just don't work. The only way to win here is to permanently
reduce the demand on oil and other fossil fuels.
I think part of the problem GM is facing is making a car that would
sell. We can say all day long that the volt would be great but how many
are going to go right out and buy one when it is available? Or how many
would be willing to put down an advance to get one of the first (like
people are doing with Teslas)? GM is taking a huge chance at going away
from what it has been doing since 1918. Especially since even though
gas prices are high people are STILL buying huge SUVs, Trucks, and
Minivans. Toyota and Honda started hybrids in Japan before trying them
in the US since Japanese are more willing to try something new. In
America we would rather come up with 10 things wrong with something than
to tout the ground breaking or its good qualities. Sure there are
shortcomings to everything but us always pointing them out solves
nothing other than to devalue anything new.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:52
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Google presses for 100 MPG vehicle
This is outstanding news - I can only hope that local
automakers/designers will take notice...and actually do something.
Chevrolet has already screwed up. Gasoline is $3+ a gallon NOW. Waiting
until 2010 to begin production.... (insane).
If the "Volt" were available at a "reasonable" price, I might be
interested. Instead, I'm converting a vehicle myself (as are many of
us).
I won't need the "Volt" - or anything else these folks might come up
with, because my vehicle will be paid for.
Hard to compare a working vehicle thats paid for with one you're making
300+ a month payments on ...
(unless you just *have to have* that new-upholstery and shiny new
paint-job).
I find the entire term "100mpg plug in hybrid" misleading.
The energy costs of electricity, while less than that of gasoline, isn't
free, but isn't included in this "100mpg" claim.
To say the vehicle gets 100mpg (or whatever) - ignoring the cost of the
electricity, is disingenuous.
This is akin to saying "I've got a free ride" while my car is at the top
of the hill, and I simply push it slightly, to get it started.
"I get great gas mileage (100mpg) going to work, but on the return trip,
I
only get 25..."
They need to factor in the costs of electricity.
For example, if a hybrid were designed as follows (and this is a
level-ground example)..
generator+batteries+electric motor -
generator runs at most economical speed, and produces 200 amps of
electricity (at 200 volts).
During parts of the trip (such as acceleration), the vehicle needs 315
amps- during which time it pulls from on-board short-term batteries.
(during up-hill, should the vehicle need more, the gen could go into a
less-efficient, higher output rpm)
During cruising speeds, or slowing down, the generator produces 200 amps
still, but the vehicle, in our scenario, only needs 160 amps, leaving 40
amps for the generator to recharge the batteries if needed.
>From full-tank, to empty tank, from full-batteries, to empty-to-full,
the
generator does it all.
Thus, you could say, if this vehicle got 100 mpg, that it was an actual
100mpg.
The way folks with "plug-in hybrids" say "I'm getting great gas milage"
-
while it may be true (they're not using gas, or they're "somehow"
stretching it) - the actual fuel-economy is hidden by the "top of the
hill
shove" of plugging it in at the house over night.
How can this be accurately calculated?
One way I know how it could accurately be calculated, would be to have
the
"plug-in hybrid" be completely recharged by normal driving...(as in, the
generator produces more electricity than needed, and recharges the
batteries to full).
Another way would be to calculate the "fuel costs" of electricy, convert
that to gallons (um, I don't know how to do that) - then say, I'm
getting
the *equivalent* of 70mpg (or whatever).
I'd like to see how this "electric conversion to gallons" process would
work out....
Thoughts?
Ed Cooley
"Richard Acuti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
06/19/2007 10:13
Please respond to
ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To
ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
cc
Subject
Google presses for 100 MPG vehicle
It makes for interesting reading.
Some people at Google are also tired of waiting for Big Auto and Big
Gov't
to pull their collective heads out.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/19/news/economy/google_plugin/index.htm?cnn
=yes
Rich A.
Maryland
_________________________________________________________________
PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail-award-winning
Windows
Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr
ation_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you are worried about shock absorption with clutchless, use a marine
engine coupler. They are round, filled with rubber, and meant to take
300 horsepower. OMC and Mercruiser use them.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marty Hewes
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 10:51
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
Has anyone running without clutch and flywheel or with direct drive
(motor to driveshaft variety) on the street experienced such failures?
Obviously an electric motor of reasonable size without flywheel or
clutch has a whole lot less rotational mass than an ICE with a 30 pound
flywheel, might be a little less of the "between a rock and a hard
place" going on.
Anybody know of a rubber donut or something that could go in the
driveshaft?
Marty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Clutch, Keepin' it.
> The bad thing about removing the clutch from the system is that you
also
> remove the springs in the center of the clutch. You are also removing
the
> torque-peak-limiting feature of the clutch. They put those springs in
> there for a good reason.
>
> When you go over a pot hole or railroad tracks, HUGE torque spikes
travel
> backwards through the drive train. The clutch center springs and the
> clutch itself greatly reduce and limit these torque peaks.
>
> If you eliminate the clutch (and its springs) you will shorten the
life of
> the transmission and differential gears significantly. The torque
peaks
> will fatigue the gear teeth and they will chip and fail. The bearings
> won't like it much either.
>
> Bill Dube'
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Anybody know of a rubber donut or something that could go in the
driveshaft?
every BMW i've worked on, through about '95, has a rubber donut coupling
somewhere along the driveshaft. it's referred to as a "guibo." later ones
may also have it, but i have no direct experience with them.
i thought this was pretty common.
m.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jay Caplan wrote:
>This argument goes on and on, but I have never heard from anyone who set
>one up without a flywheel/clutch, didn't like it, and added it all back.
Paul Wallace bought an electric S10 (conversion) that did not have a clutch.
After driving it a while he got frustrated with the slow shifting and went
to some trouble to install a clutch. He is a much happier EV driver now...
Ralph
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rob Hogenmiller wrote:
Is there a secret formula for figuring cutoff for a baterry (when you
should stop drawing power from it). I have a normal lead acid battery.
Group 31 with around 1000 CCA. 12Volts.
Sure; that's one's easy. The standard cutoff voltage is 1.75 volts per
cell under load; that's 10.5v for a 12v battery. When the voltage falls
to 10.5v under load, it's dead (at that load current).
--
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 ---
then.. memory refresh cycle to BUCK mode.
How low... How much current...?
Want 400 amps of 4 volts or 50 amps of 50 or 20 amps of 120??
I am not sure this effort is worth my time.
You know buck but you can't look up FET and IGBT Buck circuits???
Humm..
Have fun
Madman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Frederiksen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: Doers vs talkers, was Otmar is getting rich?
> and I know about buck and boost. aim higher.
> things of actual use to me would be thermal experience with specific
> devices. can they actually do as the specs say. what kind of
> heatsink/environment gives what kind of Tc for a given current in a
> given transistor.
> I'm also looking to know what kind of circuitry can efficiently supply a
> low voltage from an unknown 100-400v dc source and that source alone
>
> Rich Rudman wrote:
> > Got yer power supply topology chart handy???
> > Look up Buck mode... That's the controller...
> > Look up Boost mode and Buckboost and Buck, On the fly of the grid's sine
> > wave for my power stage.
> >
> > Digi Krime is a book of many opertunities... you make them as you see
fit.
> >
> > Ot buys direct as so do I from manufactures Reps for the power Sand, The
> > small stuff is Miser and Digikrime....
> >
> > I am not sure if this is fun or torture...
> >
> > Madman
> >
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Tehben Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EV parts ordered! - ?questions?
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:14:07 -0800
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> I have a question or two about the fluid heater. Some others
> commented they are not near as effective or fast as the ceramic
> types and I had vetoed it on my project since I feel our winters in
> STL are cold enough. I do dread removing the heater box on my Saab!
> So I guess I am interested to know who's heater it is, the cost and
> where you are getting it?
The fluid heater is from metricmind.com. As far as efficiency I
really have no idea, it came with the package and it seems like a
really smooth setup being able to hook directly to the stock heating
system.
Victor, do I need to keep the radiator for cooling the motor and
inverter? Should I have the heater on a separate fluid circuit to
keep the motor and inverter cool without wasting heat from the heater?
> Get a couple pics of your rig up on the EV Album to reserve your
> "EV number" http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/# ;-)
I will ;)
TEhben
--- End Message ---
