EV Digest 4851
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: The 'range issue'
by "Chuck Hays" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: EV digest 4850
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: The 'range issue' (long)
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: wallmart heater cores
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Daddy Says Don't
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Orbital dimensions?
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) More about tires
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) RE: More about tires
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: More about tires
by Jimmy Argon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) RE: More about tires
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Don't drive away with your cord dragging: was Daddy says don't
by Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Lift-off at 6:00 Tonight at PIR!
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: More about tires
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: The 'range issue' (long)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Don't drive away with your cord dragging: was Daddy says don't
by Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: The 'range issue' Drag/street S10
by "Doug Hartley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: More about tires
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: More about tires
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: White Zombie Returns to attempt 11's at PIR Tonight!
by Mike Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Lift-off at 6:00 Tonight at PIR!
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here, the problem is that people believe (and have been loudly encouraged
to believe) that they *must*
have a car with infinite range.
A good point, Lee, but I'm gonna take issue with it in
any event. Sorry. :)
As has been pointed out here, any ICE car has an
effective "infinite" range by the mere fact that
"recharging" it takes ten minutes max, with a cup
of coffee and a stop in the washroom. Matter of
infrastructure. My old pickup could go right at
1,000 miles between fillups -- but then carrying
75 gallons of diesel will give you that kind of
range at 15 mpg. I only used that range about
once a year, on trips where I only filled up at
the end of each day's 1,000 miles of driving.
When I look at my current situation, 40km/25 mi.
from work, in a part of the continent where it
gets a little cool in the winter and where I have
a lot of hills to drive up -- I see that according to
the best wisdom I've been able to glean from this
list that I should convert an S-10 or a Ranger and
expect to charge while I'm parked at work. Well
and good, but there's no infrastructure for it.
I came in here wanting an electric motorcycle --
and quickly discovered that I couldn't get any-
where with it. There isn't a place to charge it
closer than the halfway point of any journey it
might make for me.
Based on what I'm seeing, what makes the most
sense for me is a plug-in hybrid -- I will need that
gas/ethanol/biodiesel engine, but not all the time.
I just can't get anywhere without it at the current
state of the technology. We already have a Civic
Hybrid, which is a darn good car although not a
true parallel hybrid. Still, I'm turning in 60 mpg on
my daily 50-mile roundtrip home-work-home.
I don't need "infinite" range. I want to be able
to access energy technology infrastructures that
allow me to increase the efficiency of my own
situation. Again currently, the state of the art
points toward a plug-in hybrid -- which can also
charge itself or be cord dependent -- that will
allow me to move around town and for short
trips on the electric while preserving the flexibility
of the gas engine.
The name of the game as far as I'm concerned
is energy diversity and flexibility -- use the right
tool for the job as my Dad would say.
My Cdn$0.02, anyway.
Chuck
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ah, but the Orbitals have two square holes in the top
that make a great hold down. I just put 15 orbitals in
my current GT6 conversion that way. They are really
solid. I used a pair of long 5/16 bolts with fender
washers to a set of weld nuts attached to the bottom
of the battery boxes. The holes are 3 1/8 inches apart
down the center of the battery. I just did a time
lapse of the conversion that I will post to my site
once I have cut down the frame size.(I shot it in high
def). I will put up pictures of the details as well.
Gadget
> > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:35:56 -0000
> From: "acid_lead" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Chris Tromley" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Orbital dimensions?
>
> It depends what part of the case. The very edges of
> the Orbital lid
> are 7.29" high (one that I measured).
>
>
http://public.tylinski.fastmail.us//EV/ORBYT/index.html
>
> The Orbitals violate the BCI Group 34 height
> dimension. The
> proximity of the terminals to the edges make it
> harder to clamp
> down. The top has all manner of spurious thingys
> embossed or stuck
> in, ensuring that you will not find a useable solid
> patch of flat
> lid to clamp to. You can clamp to it, but allow
> space for a soft
> rubber pad to spread the load and conform to the
> thingys. Spread the
> load because the lid does not feel very "solid" to
> begin with. The
> bottom is not smooth, and the sides are finned over,
> so efficiently
> getting heat into the Pb would be a challenge.
>
> But you gotta love the built-in recessed handles!
>
> Let me know if you need CAD files. It's native
> SolidWorks, but I can
> convert to whatever.
>
> -GT
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Chris
> Tromley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Still working on the solid models for my EM. I
> finally got a
> chance to go
> > to the local Auto Zone to measure an Optima.
> Surprisingly, the
> height to
> > the case top (where angle steel would want to lay
> as a hold-down)
> is 6.75".
> > Yet the measurements of an Exide Orbital as posted
> here describe
> the case
> > top height as 7.5".
> >
> > Is the case of an Orbital *really* 3/4" taller
> than an Optima?
> The Orbital
> > overall height is 1/4" higher, and an Optima has
> the posts on a
> 1/4"
> > pedestal above the case top, but that still leaves
> 1/4"
> unaccounted for.
> [snip]
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks David, I put that in my memory bank. Its seems in my very short many
trips of town driving, I'm been biberonage my batteries since I install them by
charging them every day which never went below 80%. I than change the charging
times by charging them only for 5 to 10 minutes a day and than once a week or
until they go to 50% and than charge to 100%.
They are still balance in with 0.01 volts of each other.
Talking about range comparison between a ICE and a EV. I told one guy that
only drives around town in his classic muscle car, that I have the same range
as he does.
I said, you drive about 5 to 10 miles a day and so do I. He gets only 5 to 10
miles per gallon and may have to fuel up in 100 miles.
I also said, after you drive your car for 29 days, your range is down to 10
miles because you only have one gallon left. At that time, I may have more
range than you do.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: David Roden (Akron OH USA)<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: The 'range issue' (long)
On 24 Oct 2005 at 12:55, Roland Wiench wrote:
> I tried to search for the bi- something on the net, but did not find it.
The term I remember reading about 25 years ago is "biberonage."
A web search on that word turned up 112 hits, most in French and a few in
Spanish.
The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't list it, but Cassell's French
Dictionary
translates biberon (v) as tippling, and biberon (n) as feeding-bottle, which
sort of fits the
concept.
I'm not much of an expert, but I'll take a swing at pronounciation as
"bee-breh-nazh,"
the last syllable rhyming with the last syllable of "garage."
> You could at times be charging the batteries above 80% capacity
> so they will be top off all the time.
My understanding of biberonage was a little different from that. I seem to
recall that the
idea was to hold the battery ^below^ 80% SOC, perhaps between 30-50% and 80%
SOC, and only top it off once in a while.
This is the SOC range in which the battery is close to 100% efficient.
I could be remembering this incorrectly, though. It's been a while.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:33:30 +0000, Jeff Shanab
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I need to get the heater core done soon. I have seen the ceramic heater
>cores on the EV web sites and wondered just how do those ones differ
>from the ones in the 1500 watt ceramic heater that can be found at
>wallmart for $17. Anyone taken one apart and used it? (or 2 of them)
>
yes. Pretty much the same element, I think. I have "tested" one on
my 72 volt Citi by disconnecting the AC fan, jumpering the 72 volts to
the plug on the cord and holding a muffin fan up to the back of the
heater. It put out considerable heat, even on that low voltage. The
miracle of PTC ceramic resistors. Since this was a "drive by" test
:-), I didn't take time to measure the current draw. I'll have to
follow up on this.
There was enough heat that I'm going to buy a couple more (the test
one was out of my MH), strip out the heat stacks and mount them
permanently in my Citi so that hot air is blown on the windshield for
defrosting/deicing. I think that I may include a switch so that I can
run the heaters on 120vac when the shore power is plugged in for
charging.
The element should work great on a 144 volt system, or anything in the
vicinity. The temperature dependent resistance will compensate for a
wide range of voltage. I'd give it a shot - you on will waste $20 or
so if it doesn't work.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
He's right that the plug will be splashed and will eventually leak. I
doubt that it will be a problem. I use high quality Hubbell plugs and
outlets on my HD extension cords and for twist-lock plugs on my
concession stand cords. I've had both types either laying in water
during a rain storm or submerged in puddles. No negative effects
observed. On the occasion when I had to open a plug for some reason,
I could seem some green corrosion from electrolysis but this was
purely surface corrosion.
When I know a plug is going to spend a lot of time wet, I pack the
interior with RTV before I assemble it, allowing RTV to squirt out of
all openings. It's messy - I wear disposable vinyl gloves - but it
makes a truly waterproof connector.
Since your plug won't simultaneously be subject to spray and voltage,
any potential problem will be much less than if it were to be hot and
wet at the same time. As a matter of good practice and an abundance
of caution, I'd try to baffle away as much spray as I could. Otherwise
I'd not worry about it too much.
John
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:49:54 -0600, "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>My father, a retired electrician, was visiting last week, and I was showing
>him around my conversion. Finally I opened the gas tank and told him,
>"Here's where the plug for the charger will go."
>
>"Oh, no," he replied, "don't do that. You'll never keep it dry."
>
>"But, Dad, I'll use an outdoor-rated UL plug."
>
>"You'll be sorry. There's going to be water splashing up on that all the
>time from the tire. And I've never seen one of those plugs that didn't leak
>eventually."
>
>Anyway, I know that lots of EVers have done this. What have you used for a
>plug in the gas tank? Is my father just wrong about this?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Bill Dennis
>
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to Chris and All,
Chris Tromley wrote:
Can someone with an Orbital take a quick measurement?
OK, I've got about 50 or 60 of them here, so I guess I can find one to
measure :-)
Bottom to case top is
what I'm looking for.
7.25 inches.
From GT:
The top has all manner of spurious thingys embossed or stuck
in, ensuring that you will not find a useable solid patch of flat
lid to clamp to.
Yes, there are some raised embossed letters along the long edges that
make portions of the battery top edge about another 1/32 inch higher. On
the posts edge are '+' and '-' markings near the posts, and in-between
them the words 'non-spillable'. On the non posts opposite edge are
mirror image '+' and '-' markings near the corners. The tiny raised
amount of this plastic lettering is hardly worth being concerned over,
though.
And while you're at it, I need the distance from the post centerline to the
nearest long and short edge of the battery. This is a little tricky, since
different Orbitals have different post arrangements. If
you have the marine Orbitals (probably better suited for my EM), the main
post is nearer the battery corner.
Marine Blue Tops here, no goofy get-in-the-way side posts. Post
centerline to the nearest long edge (battery length) is 1.5 inches.
Post centerline to the nearest short edge (battery width) is 1 inch.
Don't forget about the annoying lower clamp ribs of the battery case,
that when two batteries are placed side to side, push them about by
about 1/4 inch or so. This doesn't sound like much, but stack 5
batteries side by side and you gain another inch of taken-up space! They
saw off nicely on a table saw however, by using a fine tooth plywood blade.
Hope this is what you were looking for.
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
While we're talking about tires...
I've been looking for new tires for my Mazda truck, in hopes of lowering
its rolling resistance (the current tires absolutely suck and are about
to die) and preparing it for its near future hybridization and/or EV
conversion -- either way it will be gaining some weight ;-).
1. Is having too high of a load/pressure rating ever a problem? For
example, one of the tire models I'm looking at for my truck (Kumaho
Venture HT) can be purchased either with a 2335lb. @ 65PSI load rating
or 2680lb. @ 80PSI load rating. Seeing as how the two tires are
otherwise identical and are about the same price, is there any reason
why I shouldn't go ahead and get the 2680lb. @ 80PSI tires? The truck
currently weighs 3700lbs.
2. The former owner put larger-than-stock 255/70/R16 size tires on the
truck. They seem excessively wide to me at about 10.2" wide and 30.1" in
diameter. I'm considering going down to the 225/75/R16 size which would
bring the diameter down some to ~29.4" but notably decrease the width to
8.2". Supposedly the stock sizes for this truck were 225/70/R16 (~8.9"
wide), or 235/60/R16 (~9.6" wide) tires as an option, though I can't
verify this. Is there any reason why decreasing the tire width slightly
below that of stock would be a bad idea (i.e. unforeseen
handling/traction issues)???
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: Nick Viera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: More about tires
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:27:16 -0500
Hi,
While we're talking about tires...
I've been looking for new tires for my Mazda truck, in hopes of lowering
its rolling resistance (the current tires absolutely suck and are about to
die) and preparing it for its near future hybridization and/or EV
conversion -- either way it will be gaining some weight ;-).
1. Is having too high of a load/pressure rating ever a problem? For
example, one of the tire models I'm looking at for my truck (Kumaho Venture
HT) can be purchased either with a 2335lb. @ 65PSI load rating or 2680lb. @
80PSI load rating. Seeing as how the two tires are otherwise identical and
are about the same price, is there any reason why I shouldn't go ahead and
get the 2680lb. @ 80PSI tires? The truck currently weighs 3700lbs.
My guess would be that the higher load-rated ( and pressure-rated) tire has
heavier sidewalls to tolerate the extra pressure. If that's true, it would
probably have higher rolling resistance than the lower-rated version. It
seems like either version would have more than enough load capability for
your truck. If it were me, I would choose the lower load-rated tire.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A fellow EVer purchased some of the "tires used on the
EV1" at our local chevy dealer last year for around
$60 each. Does anyone know if these can still be
purchased from GM? These are high pressure, low
rolling resistance tires.
Thanks,
Jimmy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Might be worth a shot, I know I personally have seen a set just a few weeks ago
on a conversion. The owner said he went to a Saturn dealership and was able to
get them a while back. This tire in question is the Michelin Proxima RR in a
175/65/14 (I think). They're rated for 50 psi. I know someone on the Insight
list put a set on his Insight and lost a couple mpg compared to the stock
Bridgestone Potenza RE92 165/65/14 tire. If you want the lowest rolling
resistance and can go for a 165 width tire the Potenza is going to be the
lowest rolling resistance tire you can find. Although I suppose a 165 tire and
a truck is not going to jive together too well.
Jimmy Argon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:A fellow EVer purchased some of the
"tires used on the
EV1" at our local chevy dealer last year for around
$60 each. Does anyone know if these can still be
purchased from GM? These are high pressure, low
rolling resistance tires.
Thanks,
Jimmy
Later,
Ricky
02 Red Insight #559
92 Saturn SC2 EV conversion in progress
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Bill and EVeryone,
The topic of the plug behind the gas-tank door made me think of
something. First off, I haven't had any problem with my plug that is
mounted behind the fuel-door. Sometimes when I plug in and the plug is
wet, I worry about current leaking. But so far, no problems.
One thing I would *highly* suggest. Put some sort of switch on the fuel
door to prevent driving off with your cord attached. I though that
would never be a problem - that I'd see that it was plugged in. But
there have been a few times when I went to start the car - "Why isn't it
starting!?" (it's supposed to flash my check engine light, but what I
didn't realize is that the check-engine light is one of the self-test
lights that is on when the vehicle isn't started). When I think for a
second, I get flash-backs of walking by the charging cord and remember
seeing it plugged in. Had it not been for the disabling switch, I would
have driven off with the cord attached.
I used a hall-effect sensor and a small magnet. I mounted the magnet
discretely on the latching tab on the fuel door. The sensor is in a
custom-brewed assembly mounted in the frame near when the latch is. I
had to design a simple logic-inverter for the Zilla fuel-door input, but
it was all worth the time spent on it.
If anyone has any more detailed questions on how to do this, let me
know. I have lots of pictures. They just aren't organized and linked
on my pathetic conversion site yet!
-Ryan
--
- EV Source <http://www.evsource.com> -
Selling names like Zilla, PFC Chargers, WarP, and PowerCheq
All at the best prices available!
E-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Toll-free: 1-877-215-6781
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Wayland wrote: lots of rear wheel spin, the front end came a full foot
off the ground and the car carried the tires about 50 feet
Sounds like it's got more potential then just high 11's?
Maybe, but we failed to hit that mark Saturday night :-(
What do you
think it might run once you get it too hook?
I'm not sure....it's gotten real interesting these past couple of nights
drag racing. With Fall firmly entrenched, the track just gets too cold
as soon as the sun goes down. That Wednesday night about two weeks ago
was probably our best shot at the 11's for this year. The high power Pro
class cars were blistering their rubber and laying down lots of stick
for us, so even with the cold track, we had great traction....the dual
12.1 runs proved that. This past Friday and Saturday nights, we were
back to street racing, with only a handful of super quick pro type cars,
and lots of the regular 13-14 second drag cars, so the track was really
bad. One launch right after they had cleaned the track, the Zombie
lazily left the line with both rear tires boiling for maybe 60 feet or
so with a so-so 60 ft. time of 2.2 seconds...it ran a 13.3 something.
The very next run though, after a few of the more powerful machines had
spun their tires, we bagged a 12.6 because the car hooked up much better.
Saturday night, we were getting very strong launches and our very best
ever, 60 ft. time with an awesome 1.59!! However, after the car's front
end touched back down it was hard for Tim to keep it straight as both
rear tires scratched and clawed at 40-60 mph. Even so, with the battery
amps raised to 1100 amps (yes, the little 26 ahr Hawker Aerobatteries
lived through it) and with clearly audible tire squealing at the
series-to-parallel upshift, we got down to the 12.2 region on the last
two passes....not too shabby.
To answer your question, I'd have to agree with Tim, that all things
being just right, the car as is. 'might' run an 11.9 or perhaps even an
11.8. However, I think that's about it with the present gear ratio in
back. Now, with slightly taller gears, say a 4:40 instead of the present
4:57, I think we'd be looking seriously at mid 11's being 'possible'.
Talk is cheap, though, so I'll shut up now and try to prove this next
Spring :-)
By the way, once we turned up the battery amps to 1100 late on Saturday
night, White Zombie was pretty violent off the line, clearing the
pavement by at least a foot and staying aloft with the nose up for quite
a ways...this really brought the small late night crowd to their feet!
The car doesn't just pop up the nose anymore...it pulls it up and keeps
it off the ground for a fair distance, then gently settles back down.
On one run when I was in the crowd watching like they were, two guys
were talking about the run about to happen down on the track...the
little White Datsun vs a bad ass Subaru 300 hp STI all wheel drive. The
one guy said, "That little Datsun's gonna get creamed." The other guy
said, "I take it, you haven't seen it run yet?" One guy, "Nope, but that
Sube's the high powered low 13 second version, the STI....he's gonna
blow off that little Datsun." Other guy, "Uhhh, no, I don't think so!
Let's put it this way....the Sube driver has no idea of what's about to
happen to him...by the way, it's an electric car!" About then, the tree
sent the combatants on their way. The Sube launched hard with its 300 hp
and all wheel drive, but Tim powered the Zombie into a wheel lifting
launch that made it look as if the EV had been shot out of a cannon! By
the time the front wheels were back on the ground, White Zombie was
probably 2 car lengths ahead of the hot Sube. At the far end of the
track the reader boards said it all....13.316 for the STI.....12.231 for
the electric car!
See Ya....John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Phil Marino wrote:
My guess would be that the higher load-rated ( and pressure-rated) tire has
heavier sidewalls to tolerate the extra pressure. If that's true, it would
probably have higher rolling resistance than the lower-rated version.
Now I'm curious as to why a heavy side wall tire has greater rolling
resistance. For some reason I was under the impression that tires with
thicker side walls wouldn't sag as much against the road, reducing their
rolling resistance at a given load?
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nick Carter said:
> Luckily we're in a different environment where it's not so rural, plus we
> have enough public
> charging that you can drive way beyond the single-charge range of a vehicle,
> as we've done
> many times. I often balance out the charge time with, "Well, it's free!".
> Also, "If you're in a
> hurry, buy your ga$ and drive your ICE, I'll take my time and go electric for
> free, thanks".
From: Christopher Robison
> This approach may work in California... but it's not very effective in
> general because it
> assumes an unusual operating scenario. To make a compelling argument about
> EVs to
> most people (the majority of the world's population lives outside of urban
> California),
> you can't play the "cheap/free" card.
Actually, you can! I'd guess I have charged my EV in 100 different places,
always from the completely ordinary 120vac outlets. It's been done at friend's
houses, at businesses while I eat or shop, or when I needed a brief "pick me
up" charge to make it home after some unexpectedly long trip. No one has ever
charged me for doing so. In most cases, I offer to pay, and they refuse. When
they do accept payment, it's been $1 or so to buy them a Coke or cup of coffee.
You don't need any special infrastructure to charge an EV!
> EV energy cost seems to be about the same overall, given the concomitant
> expense of regular
> battery pack replacement. High performance EVs with their expensive AGMs tend
> to cost more.
Yes; but conservative EVs with flooded batteries cost less. On average, my EVs
with flooded batteries cost about half as much per mile as the same vehicle
would have cost for gasoline, *including* battery replacement cost. Cost of the
electricity alone is trivial compared to the replacement cost per mile of the
batteries.
> more conservative flooded EVs seem to be less expensive given current gas
> prices,
> but it's uncertain if prices will remain this way, at least in the short term.
EVs have *always* been less expensive per mile than gasoline, at least for the
last 50 years or more. That's why they are so common in industrial
applications; they are cheaper to run. I only see this situation improving as
gas prices continue to climb.
> Most folks do not have access to free power, and at any rate would not
> consider it a fair trade
> for being forced to spend an hour stranded at the grocery store.
If your boss lets you charge at work, you are getting free power. If your
landlord lets you charge at your apartment, you are getting free power. If the
store where you shop lets you plug in while you're there, you're getting free
power. I've done all these. neither boss nor landlord nor store owner would
accept any payment. In fact, here in Minnesota, outside AC outlets right next
to parking places are very common; they are there so people can plug in their
car's block heater in winter so it will start after sitting out at -30 deg.F.
They are always free for use.
I have a KWH meter in my EV, and can demonstrate to anyone that a charge is
only using 50 cents or so worth of electricity -- it's too low to bother to
bill for. My EV doesn't even use 10% of my home's monthly power, and an
insignificant fraction of a company's power. It's so low that it's "lost in the
noise" of all the other big electricity users.
> The problem there is that although the ability to charge an EV in my
> garage is great -- I consider it a huge advantage -- the inability to
> charge anywhere else (remember, we're talking about the US, not just
> California) is more than enough disadvantage to offset it. For John Doe,
> bribing the guy behind the counter at the kwicki-mart and taking 30
> minutes to buy soda and chips (or beer, cigarettes and lotto cards,
> whatever) so he can get back home is not an acceptable day-to-day option.
Have you ever *asked* anyone if you can charge from one of their outside AC
outlets? I think what you are describing is a "bogeyman" that doesn't actually
happen in practice. My experience has been that as soon as I say "I have an
electric car..." most people say "Cool! Can I see it?" and then I am going to
be there for the next 20-30 minutes anyway giving a show and tell. They are
delighted to let me plug in.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Ryan Bohm wrote:
One thing I would *highly* suggest. Put some sort of switch on the fuel
door to prevent driving off with your cord attached.
I agree with Ryan... and this is especially important if you are using
twist-lock outlets on the vehicle.
I have a reed switch mounted next to the twist-lock outlet on the side
of my Jeep and a magnet inside the fuel filler door that activates the
reed switch anytime the fuel filler door is open (anytime the big cord
is plugged in).
This reed switch opens a Normally Closed relay which cuts the main
ignition power feed to the Zilla's hairball and the main contactor, and
illuminates a bright red LED on the dash to indicate the vehicle is
plugged in.
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Chris,
As we were discussing some months ago, I built a 13KW generator for my mini
pickup using a Honda GX670 V-twin, eCycle BLDC unit and 3-phase bridge. It
weighs only about 150 pounds, fits in a space 21" x 21" x 19" high, in a
former battery box area under the back of the pickup. I turn a key switch
on the dash to start it when needed for longer trips and highway driving.
It is very convenient and I used it several times this year.
Best Regards,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: The 'range issue' Drag/street S10
I will be very interested to see pics/details of your generator when
you're done with it. I'm doing a similar conversion, a '99 S-10 (Isuzu
Hombre badge) with 29 Orbitals in series, in the current plan. I'm
keeping the little 4cyl engine and emissions components with the idea of
mounting it on a custom trailer with a generator head, with a result which
I admit may turn out to be untowable. :o) I'm shooting for around
500-600lbs, minus trailer. If I go with Orbitals my truck will be much
heavier than yours, so I'll need to make the trailer as light as possible.
If I could afford of those 100lb 65HP Aerotwin engines, I imagine I could
have a 20kw generator at under 350lbs.
Beyond just range extension, the idea includes having portable power
generation for when we (AustinEV) do events. This year at the Roundup we
offered ride-and-drive, and the difference that makes can't be overstated.
Between listening to us jabber and actually riding in an EV, the
difference is between "that's ...interesting" and "Wow."
--chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Snip
I will have a 12kw generator/welder with a kabota diesel
Its wt.780lbs without trailer.
Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Nick,
The maximum deflection of a sidewall of a tire should not be more than 10% of
the height of the side wall. Lets say your side wall height is 5 inches with
no load on it while its air up to the maximum PSI rating on the side of the
tire. When the tire has its full load weight on it, the sidewall should not be
less than 4.5 inches in height which is a 0.5 inch deflection.
Its better to try to get a 0.625 to 0.75 inch deflection.
To check for the correct tire deflection:
1. Jack the car up so the tire is off the ground.
2. Air it up to the maximum load rating PSI that is listed on the tire.
3. Lower the car, so that the tire just touches the ground.
4. Measure the height of the sidewall to the ground.
5. Lower the full weight of the car on the ground.
6. Measure the sidewall height again.
Lets say that the height unload is 5 inches with a load rating of 65 PSI
When its loaded and reads 4.75 inches which is a 0.25 inch deflection or 5% of
the height, than the tire size is correct for the weight you have.
This will be a firm ride.
On my EV, I'am running tires with a load rating of 2150 lbs @ 65 PSI which I
have a load of 2100 lbs on the rear wheels and 1400 lbs on the front wheels.
So the tire is the correct size of where I have to air up the rears to the
maximum of 65 PSI which gives me a 0.5 inch deflection.
The front tires pressure would than be:
(1400 x 65)/2100 = 43 PSI for the same deflection.
These tires are 235/75/R15 nylon steel belted type.
The nylon steel belted is not good, they are not the Low Riding Resistance
type. When setting, they developed a flat spot especially during cold weather.
The best tire I ever had was a Goodyear Polyglass 8 ply 2010 lbs @ 40 lbs load
rating. I got a rollout distance of 4 miles starting at 80 mph and coasting
down to a stop. The nylon steel belted type never got half this roll out.
Roland
Its best to go to a
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Viera<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 7:27 PM
Subject: More about tires
Hi,
While we're talking about tires...
I've been looking for new tires for my Mazda truck, in hopes of lowering
its rolling resistance (the current tires absolutely suck and are about
to die) and preparing it for its near future hybridization and/or EV
conversion -- either way it will be gaining some weight ;-).
1. Is having too high of a load/pressure rating ever a problem? For
example, one of the tire models I'm looking at for my truck (Kumaho
Venture HT) can be purchased either with a 2335lb. @ 65PSI load rating
or 2680lb. @ 80PSI load rating. Seeing as how the two tires are
otherwise identical and are about the same price, is there any reason
why I shouldn't go ahead and get the 2680lb. @ 80PSI tires? The truck
currently weighs 3700lbs.
2. The former owner put larger-than-stock 255/70/R16 size tires on the
truck. They seem excessively wide to me at about 10.2" wide and 30.1" in
diameter. I'm considering going down to the 225/75/R16 size which would
bring the diameter down some to ~29.4" but notably decrease the width to
8.2". Supposedly the stock sizes for this truck were 225/70/R16 (~8.9"
wide), or 235/60/R16 (~9.6" wide) tires as an option, though I can't
verify this. Is there any reason why decreasing the tire width slightly
below that of stock would be a bad idea (i.e. unforeseen
handling/traction issues)???
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/<http://go.driveev.com/>
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: Roland Wiench<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: More about tires
Hello Nick,
The maximum deflection of a sidewall of a tire should not be more than 10% of
the height of the side wall. Lets say your side wall height is 5 inches with
no load on it while its air up to the maximum PSI rating on the side of the
tire. When the tire has its full load weight on it, the sidewall should not be
less than 4.5 inches in height which is a 0.5 inch deflection.
Its better to try to get a 0.625 to 0.75 inch deflection.
\
CORRECTION: This should be 0.385 to 0.25 inch deflection.
To check for the correct tire deflection:
1. Jack the car up so the tire is off the ground.
2. Air it up to the maximum load rating PSI that is listed on the tire.
3. Lower the car, so that the tire just touches the ground.
4. Measure the height of the sidewall to the ground.
5. Lower the full weight of the car on the ground.
6. Measure the sidewall height again.
Lets say that the height unload is 5 inches with a load rating of 65 PSI
When its loaded and reads 4.75 inches which is a 0.25 inch deflection or 5%
of the height, than the tire size is correct for the weight you have.
This will be a firm ride.
On my EV, I'am running tires with a load rating of 2150 lbs @ 65 PSI which I
have a load of 2100 lbs on the rear wheels and 1400 lbs on the front wheels.
So the tire is the correct size of where I have to air up the rears to the
maximum of 65 PSI which gives me a 0.5 inch deflection.
The front tires pressure would than be:
(1400 x 65)/2100 = 43 PSI for the same deflection.
These tires are 235/75/R15 nylon steel belted type.
The nylon steel belted is not good, they are not the Low Riding Resistance
type. When setting, they developed a flat spot especially during cold weather.
The best tire I ever had was a Goodyear Polyglass 8 ply 2010 lbs @ 40 lbs
load rating. I got a rollout distance of 4 miles starting at 80 mph and
coasting down to a stop. The nylon steel belted type never got half this roll
out.
Roland
Its best to go to a
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Viera<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
To:
ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu<mailto:ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 7:27 PM
Subject: More about tires
Hi,
While we're talking about tires...
I've been looking for new tires for my Mazda truck, in hopes of lowering
its rolling resistance (the current tires absolutely suck and are about
to die) and preparing it for its near future hybridization and/or EV
conversion -- either way it will be gaining some weight ;-).
1. Is having too high of a load/pressure rating ever a problem? For
example, one of the tire models I'm looking at for my truck (Kumaho
Venture HT) can be purchased either with a 2335lb. @ 65PSI load rating
or 2680lb. @ 80PSI load rating. Seeing as how the two tires are
otherwise identical and are about the same price, is there any reason
why I shouldn't go ahead and get the 2680lb. @ 80PSI tires? The truck
currently weighs 3700lbs.
2. The former owner put larger-than-stock 255/70/R16 size tires on the
truck. They seem excessively wide to me at about 10.2" wide and 30.1" in
diameter. I'm considering going down to the 225/75/R16 size which would
bring the diameter down some to ~29.4" but notably decrease the width to
8.2". Supposedly the stock sizes for this truck were 225/70/R16 (~8.9"
wide), or 235/60/R16 (~9.6" wide) tires as an option, though I can't
verify this. Is there any reason why decreasing the tire width slightly
below that of stock would be a bad idea (i.e. unforeseen
handling/traction issues)???
Thanks,
--
-Nick
http://Go.DriveEV.com/<http://go.driveev.com/<http://go.driveev.com/<http://go.driveev.com/>>
1988 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 EV
---------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I keep checking, but no news. Is all OK?
-Mike
On 10/22/05, John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello to All,
>
> Last minute notice....Tim and I are headed back to PIR today, Saturday.
> It's in the mid 70's, and what the heck, we're going to try for the
> elusive 11's once again! We should be at the track today by 5:00 and be
> the first ones through the gate. Can you say 1100 battery amps?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> See Ya.....John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
> >>
> >> http://www.plasmaboyracing.com
> >>
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
God I love reading your stories John! I especially like blowing the gas boys
minds with the wheelstands. Next season is going to be hot with so many new
cars being built! Heck, I may even get off my butt and build something. You
are doing an incredible job of bringing EV drag racing into mainstream
consciousness. You certainly earned and deserved the Rannberg Cup Award this
year. Keep up the great work! I know there are many of us out here cheering
you and Tim on, not to mention Jim. Way to go!!!
Roderick Wilde
"Suck Amps EV Racing"
www.suckamps.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Wayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: Lift-off at 6:00 Tonight at PIR!
Hello to All,
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Wayland wrote: lots of rear wheel spin, the front end came a full foot
off the ground and the car carried the tires about 50 feet
Sounds like it's got more potential then just high 11's?
Maybe, but we failed to hit that mark Saturday night :-(
What do you
think it might run once you get it too hook?
I'm not sure....it's gotten real interesting these past couple of nights
drag racing. With Fall firmly entrenched, the track just gets too cold as
soon as the sun goes down. That Wednesday night about two weeks ago was
probably our best shot at the 11's for this year. The high power Pro class
cars were blistering their rubber and laying down lots of stick for us, so
even with the cold track, we had great traction....the dual 12.1 runs
proved that. This past Friday and Saturday nights, we were back to street
racing, with only a handful of super quick pro type cars, and lots of the
regular 13-14 second drag cars, so the track was really bad. One launch
right after they had cleaned the track, the Zombie lazily left the line
with both rear tires boiling for maybe 60 feet or so with a so-so 60 ft.
time of 2.2 seconds...it ran a 13.3 something. The very next run though,
after a few of the more powerful machines had spun their tires, we bagged
a 12.6 because the car hooked up much better.
Saturday night, we were getting very strong launches and our very best
ever, 60 ft. time with an awesome 1.59!! However, after the car's front
end touched back down it was hard for Tim to keep it straight as both rear
tires scratched and clawed at 40-60 mph. Even so, with the battery amps
raised to 1100 amps (yes, the little 26 ahr Hawker Aerobatteries lived
through it) and with clearly audible tire squealing at the
series-to-parallel upshift, we got down to the 12.2 region on the last two
passes....not too shabby.
To answer your question, I'd have to agree with Tim, that all things being
just right, the car as is. 'might' run an 11.9 or perhaps even an 11.8.
However, I think that's about it with the present gear ratio in back. Now,
with slightly taller gears, say a 4:40 instead of the present 4:57, I
think we'd be looking seriously at mid 11's being 'possible'. Talk is
cheap, though, so I'll shut up now and try to prove this next Spring :-)
By the way, once we turned up the battery amps to 1100 late on Saturday
night, White Zombie was pretty violent off the line, clearing the pavement
by at least a foot and staying aloft with the nose up for quite a
ways...this really brought the small late night crowd to their feet! The
car doesn't just pop up the nose anymore...it pulls it up and keeps it off
the ground for a fair distance, then gently settles back down.
On one run when I was in the crowd watching like they were, two guys were
talking about the run about to happen down on the track...the little White
Datsun vs a bad ass Subaru 300 hp STI all wheel drive. The one guy said,
"That little Datsun's gonna get creamed." The other guy said, "I take it,
you haven't seen it run yet?" One guy, "Nope, but that Sube's the high
powered low 13 second version, the STI....he's gonna blow off that little
Datsun." Other guy, "Uhhh, no, I don't think so! Let's put it this
way....the Sube driver has no idea of what's about to happen to him...by
the way, it's an electric car!" About then, the tree sent the combatants
on their way. The Sube launched hard with its 300 hp and all wheel drive,
but Tim powered the Zombie into a wheel lifting launch that made it look
as if the EV had been shot out of a cannon! By the time the front wheels
were back on the ground, White Zombie was probably 2 car lengths ahead of
the hot Sube. At the far end of the track the reader boards said it
all....13.316 for the STI.....12.231 for the electric car!
See Ya....John 'Plasma Boy' Wayland
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005
--- End Message ---
