EV Digest 4541
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) G'day ... thinking about Electric Motorcycles
by "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: G'day ... thinking about Electric Motorcycles
by "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Finding Parts
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Freewheel rethought - connecting motor and ICE, sharks
by "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Wayland Has a New Email Address
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Newby: that EV grin
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Wt-hr/mile for Mini, 140+ mile range on Ni cads, Re: What're they
worth?
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Finding Parts
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: EVcort battery upgrade
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Calrify Peukert effect
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN Truck
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: 1959 BMW Isetta WHATTADRAG
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Deka dominator gel batteries
by "Ralph Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: 1959 BMW Isetta WHATTADRAG
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Segway?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
18) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: tilting, Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: 1965 Datsun Truck - Future Electric Vehicle
by "Pestka, Dennis J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Newby: that EV grin, Contacter Comments
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
G'day all,
I just stumbled onto this list a couple of days ago, and I'm still
reading back through the archives. Some of the things in the photo
album look fantastic! Since the questions about the Z550 have
lured me out of hiding I figure I should introduce myself.
I'm a 33yo software hacker from Melbourne, Australia, with a bit of
an EE background and an obsession with motorcycles of all kinds.
At the moment my main bike is a BMW R100GS, but it's a bit of a
handful around town. I'm interested in seeing if an electric
motorcycle would be feasible for me to build and use day-to-day.
So far I'm thinking:
* Electric motor with 10-20hp peak and maybe 1-2hp continuous.
* Simple chain drive to rear wheel.
* About 80kg of sealed batteries in case it falls over -- maybe
Optima Yellow Top? Either a 48V or a 60V system.
* Some kind of twistgrip controller. Are regenerative ones
available in this power range?
* Some kind of onboard charger, so the bike can just be plugged
in to the 240V mains and left overnight / at work / etc.
* All shoehorned into a rolling chassis from a streamlined
250-400cc commuter would be about right ... kerb weight
about 160kg before, less than 200kg after I hope.
Does this sound reasonable?
I've gone through the bikes in the photo album and going by the stated
ranges and battery configs, the efficiency seems to vary enormously ...
between 50 Wh/km and 400 Wh/km! Anyone know a good rule of thumb for
a two-wheeled electric beastie?
I'd need to get a 'regular' range of maybe 40km (25mi) and a 'regular'
speed of 60km/h (38mi/h) out of it to make it a practical bike, and
maybe occasionally a 60km (38 mi) range or a 80km/h (50 mi/h) top speed.
Is this practical with the available tech, or will I just have to wait
for fuel cells or unobtainium batteries or something?
Thanks!
-----Nick 'sharks' Moore
--
"Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding" -- TMBG
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2005-08-01, Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
>
> I've gone through the bikes in the photo album and going by the stated
> ranges and battery configs, the efficiency seems to vary enormously ...
> between 50 Wh/km and 400 Wh/km! Anyone know a good rule of thumb for
> a two-wheeled electric beastie?
Oh, to clarify: those numbers are stated total capacity / stated range.
Since range could mean anything from 50% to 100% DoD, and battery
manufacturers may be exaggerating capacity to varying degrees, there's
obviously a lot of variation. According to the back of this envelope,
optimal[*] DoD for Optima Yellow Tops would be 40-50%, so I guess that's
my design target for 'regular' range of 40km (25mi).
thanks again,
-----sharks
[*] Optimising N_Cycles * DoD, that is. Carrying around extra weight
presumably comes into it as well, though ...
--
"A man whose mind has gone astray should study mathematics." -- Francis Bacon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John G. Lussmyer wrote:
> I'm using 4ga, not 6ga.
Sorry. But the same question applies; #4 is still pretty light for a
cell that can deliver 1000+amps.
> I AM using busbars between cells. I need to use cable between cell
> blocks, and to connect to the rest of the car. I'm looking for the
> solid copper closed end lugs so that I can have them nickel plated.
Ok; I see.
>> Another possibility is to buy nickel ring terminals. They make
>> them for high-temperature applications, like for connections to
>> heating elements.
> Haven't been able to find those, and they sound expensive.
They cost more than plain old copper or steel, but not that much more.
You see them used in all sorts of consumer electronics when they need to
connect a wire to a heating element, for example. May be cheaper than
having to plate them yourself.
I pulled out my AMP catalog for an example. Their nickel and
nickel-plated copper terminals are trademarked "Strato-Therm". They look
just like normal crimpable ring terminals, and come in both uninsulated
and insulated versions (the insulated ones use Teflon).
--
If you would not be forgotten
When your body's dead and rotten
Then write of great deeds worth the reading
Or do the great deeds worth repeating
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2005-07-31, Stu or Jan wrote:
>
> My hybrid is for a 3 wheeler, not a MC. You might want to consider the
> benefits of a 'Trihawk' type vehicle.
Front-engined tadpole trike? Yeah, I've seen a Moto Guzzi one and a
Honda CX650 powered one. They look like great fun.
Speaking of which, you might want to look at various non-Japanese
manufacturers for donor engines ... the shared oil thing is pretty
much a Japanese thing. BMW airheads have separate gearbox and engine
oil, for example, so you should be able to spin the output shaft
without damaging the gearbox. I think. You'd need to try it
to make sure that there was enough lubrication with the input
shaft not spinning, I guess.
Here's another crazy idea: the BMW airhead motor uses a dry
clutch, so there should be very little friction with the
clutch disengaged. And the clutch spins at engine RPM ... up
to about 8000rpm. If you made a spacer to fit between clutch
and gearbox, and connected your electric motor in there (mount
it off to one side with a belt drive or something?), you
could just pull the clutch in to disengage the engine, and your
motor could drive through the gearbox. And since it's already
a shaftie, you don't need to muck around with final drives for
your taddy, just use the BMW single-sided swingarm and bevel
final drive for your back wheel.
The 'airhead' motors vary in size between R45 (450cc) and R100 (1000cc).
They're aircooled, opposed-twin pushrod engines, although the bigger
ones have oil coolers too. For a hybrid, you could make the motor
a good deal smaller by removing the alternator and starter motor ...
after all, your main motor will do both those jobs.
(I don't know as much about BMW K-series motors, but it's possible
they'd be even better for your purpose, as they're watercooled and
more fuel efficient than the old airheads.)
-----sharks
--
"(I never even thought of using a radio controlled toy on an airplane, but
now that they say I can't, I'm guessing it's way fun.)" -- Penn Jillette
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
A quick note just to let everyone know I'm finally on the fast track
with my new broadband setup...thank you, Mark Farver, for all your help!
Gone is [EMAIL PROTECTED], now replaced with the one that just popped
up on everyone's incoming mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
See Ya...John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A contactor controller has no current limit, except that imposed by the
wiring. That should make the car go fast, as long as you don't mind
jarring, jerky acceleration. <g>
That is, until you finish off your marine batteries from the huge currents.
Tests of a Comuta-Van with a contactor controller 20+ years ago showed peak
currents in excess of 1300 amps.
Unless you have a ready source of cheap surplus contactors, a contactor
controller may not end up being any cheaper than one of those Alltrax 72v
controllers.
Seriously, make sure you know what you're getting into. A contactor
controller is (IMO) uncomfortable for passengers, and often hard on the
driveline. Click-WHAM! Starting resistors help, but not enough, IMO.
The golf car charger is an interesting idea. I hear it's not too hard to
find used 36 volt chargers.
It would probably be easier to split a 72v pack in half and use two
chargers, than to modify one. That way you could also keep the charge
controllers (assuming they have them ;-). Some golf car chargers might be a
tad heavy-handed for 8 volt batteries, if you choose to use those. Finally,
they are WAY too heavy to use onboard; you'd have to leave them in the
garage.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant 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 the "from" address above may not reach me. To
send me a private message, please use evdl at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 31 Jul 2005 at 15:07, jerry dycus wrote:
> Using 3 strings you can get 750 amps ...
I'm not so sure they'd divide the current evenly. You'd probably have to
downrate them, but I have no idea how much.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant 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 the "from" address above may not reach me. To
send me a private message, please use evdl at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:16 PM 7/31/2005, Lee Hart wrote:
Sorry. But the same question applies; #4 is still pretty light for a
cell that can deliver 1000+amps.
Yup, and if I was cruising at 1000 amps, I wouldn't use it.
My Sparrow cruises at 65A, with rare excursions up to 200A, and very
rarely 300A.
> Haven't been able to find those, and they sound expensive.
I pulled out my AMP catalog for an example. Their nickel and
nickel-plated copper terminals are trademarked "Strato-Therm". They look
just like normal crimpable ring terminals, and come in both uninsulated
and insulated versions (the insulated ones use Teflon).
They may exist in the AMP catalog, but nobody that I can find seems
to carry them.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 31 Jul 2005 at 17:22, Nick Austin wrote:
> The EVcort is currently powered by 18 Sonnenschein DF6-180 6V Dryfit
> batteries. Does anybody know the ah capacity of these batteries for the 20C
> rate? I have not been able to find much about these batteries.
Try these links:
http://www.mhpower.com.au/Batteries/TractionBlock.html
http://www.mhpower.com.au/Batteries/TechBrochure/TecBroInx.html
The C5 capacity of the battery I ^think^ you have (not sure) is listed in
the first link as 180ah. I don't know the C20, but that is closer to Truth
(C1) for EV applications anyway.
Sonnenscheins are VERY good quality batteries.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant 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 the "from" address above may not reach me. To
send me a private message, please use evdl at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If the meter read out in "Cents of electricity," the operator may grasp the
concept sooner.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Calrify Peukert effect
> Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Of course! But, it *is* possible to convey a good idea how much energy
> remains in the battery, and how much power the car needs to move.
>
> Suppose you have a carton of milk in the refrigerator. You know roughly
> how much your family drinks a day, and you want to know how long it will
> last. But the carton is opaque, so you can't see how much is left. But
> you can pick it up, and guess how much is left by the weight; and you
> can guess about how many glasses it will make. It won't be accurate, but
> you'll have an intuitive feel for it ("about 2 day's worth").
>
> It's the same with a battery. We need an understandable way to present
> how much energy is in it, and how much your vehicle consumes as you
> drive it. Then the driver can make a reasonable prediction as to how far
> he/she can go.
>
> This probably means not presenting them in engineering units; your wife
> has a feeling for what a gallon is, but not a kilowatthour.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There is a situation where a 3 wheeler could beat an "equivalent" 4
wheeler: Autocross.
If you do the math, you'd be amazed how much time it adds to miss the
cones by even half a meter. A relatively easy to compute case is a
slalom, assume a sinusoidal path. With the four wheeler, you have to
make your turn a bit bigger to make sure the rear wheels don't hit a
cone. With the tadpole 3 wheeler, you can come closer to the cones.
This is a great equalizer in autocross, your bigger cars tend to have
more power, but have to turn harder due to more width. BMW's excel at
autocross, partially due to being narrower than average.
A second point is that 3 wheelers save more than just the weight of a
3rd wheel and suspension. A four wheeler tries to fold the car about
a diagonal when one wheel is lifted, so the car needs to be strong to
fight this. Lift a wheel in a three wheeler, and it is like picking
up the corner of a triangle. You can make the 3 wheeler chassis much
lighter than a 4 wheeler. The trend continues: 2 wheelers can carry
even more weight per wheel (or have an even lighter chassis), and the
winner is the unicycle.
3rd: If you allow the rear wheel to turn, also, then you could always
have 2 wheels to the outside, just like a 4 wheel car. The 3 wheeler
chassis would be lighter. Give it 3 wheel drive and it could
accelerate faster out of the turns due to lighter weight.
Final: <http://www.trikke.com>. Of the 30 or so people that I have
had ride mine, no one has fallen yet! I've hit rocks that would have
dumped a 2 wheel scooter, and skidded sideways on wet spots, but
haven't fallen yet.
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you keep all other design constraints the same (except number of
> wheels), then logically speaking a well designed three wheeler can
> NOT
> handle all situations as well as a well designed four wheeler.
>
> Jerry will argue that you can make changes to the three wheeler to
> improve
> these problems (i.e. making the front wheels wider apart), but
> making the
> exact same changes to a four wheeler will improve it too and keep
> it in
> the lead.
> ...
>
> A three wheeler won't corner as well a four wheeler. In fact,
> unless you
> design the vehicle to only handle oval tracks, then it won't corner
> anywhere near as well.
> With only three wheels your center of gravity is closer to the
> outside
> edge formed by rear wheel and the outside front wheel. It HAS to
> be, the
> only way to get the same distance is to either
> a) move the COG until it's 100% between the two front wheels
> (now you
> have zero braking ability) or
> b) widen the front wheel track (see argument above about doing
> the same
> to a four wheeler)
>
> If all you do is turn left, then you can move the single wheel to
> be
> inline with the right wheel, but you'd still have to move it
> forward some
> which would cause comparatively more understeer.
>
> Finally, accelerating out of a corner is reduced on a three
> wheeler.
> Accelerating causes your COG to move back onto the single rear
> wheel and
> give less stability and reduces cornering ability.
>
> About the only physical advantages to a three-wheeler are,
> possibly, less
> rolling resistance -from one less wheel- and lower weight -one less
> wheel
> and suspension.
> ...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It would be more fitting to do that to a Sparrow
http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/corbin-sparrow.html
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Cc: "Zappylist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:57 AM
Subject: 1959 BMW Isetta WHATTADRAG
> http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/whattadrag.html How about an electric
> version?
> Lawrence Rhodes
> Bassoon/Contrabassoon
> Reedmaker
> Book 4/5 doubler
> Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 415-821-3519
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
What is the shelf life of Deka 8G47 batteries? Assuming they are stored in
a air conditioned building, without being charged, how long can they sit
without losing significant capacity.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Roden (Akron OH USA)
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 7:51 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Deka dominator gel batteries
On 25 Jul 2005 at 18:54, David wrote:
> Has anyone had good luck with Deka dominator gel batteries
> in ev's?
>
They have rather high internal resistance. I wouldn't recommend them for an
application requiring more 3-4C or so.
However, as long as that limit is respected, they can yield decent to
excellent cycle life. That makes them better suited to high voltage / low
current applications - typical of, but not exclusive to, AC drives.
Solectria
used 8G27s in Forces, and 8G24s in S10 conversions.
I will say that these batteries don't have especially high capacity for
their size
and weight. I've read that one reason they deliver good life is that they
are
severely acid-starved. You might say that this enforces an 80% DOD limit.
<g>
> They claim that the battery will recharge to full capacity even if left
> discharged for months.
I don't know about that, but they do have some intriguing and unusual
characteristics.
For instance, extraordinarily low self-discharge. I've kept some of these
batteries in my garage for over 5 years. At first I checked them monthly,
planning to recharge them as necessary. I found that their self-discharge
is
so low, even in summer, that checking them about twice a year is plenty.
Another is unusual unit to unit consistency. Many people use these without
equalizers of any kind. They seem to need only a bit of equalization to
stay
fairly well balanced in packs.
FWIW, they are based on a design licensed from Sonnenschein of Germany.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I wasn't thinking. An electric version could be called Wattadrag.
LR........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Cc: "Zappylist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:57 AM
Subject: 1959 BMW Isetta WHATTADRAG
http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/whattadrag.html How about an electric
version?
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
415-821-3519
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> The 1983 / 84 Car Driver Yearbook when writing
>> about going around corners
>> said of the Trihawk It's the Best Handling vehicle
>> you can buy ....Period.
Opinions are NOT proof. Plus being the best you can buy, is NOT the same
as being the best possible.
> There is rarely irrefutable proof on anything
> Peter!!
All right, how about substantial proof? Or even substantiated proof?
> And it depends as I've always said on just what
> you are comparing to. Unlike many others, I try to
> describe exactly what I am comparing too.
Hmm, as I recall you frequently state that 3wh out perform 4wh, period.
> Some of the best design data is the SAE papers on
> lightweight and 3wh car design on the Robert Q Riley
> website under downloads.
From: http://www.rqriley.com/3-wheel.htm
"Designing to the three-wheeler's inherent characteristics can produce a
high-performance machine that will out corner many four-wheelers."
Note it says "many" not "all"
Also read the part about, "Rollover Stability of Conventional Non-Tilting
Three-Wheeler" They talk about widening the track, lengthening the
wheelbase, or lowering the COG to obtain rollover stability that "...can
equal the rollover resistance of a four wheel car"
Their idea of modeling handling using a cone is excellent. For those who
haven't read the document;
"A simple way to model a three-wheeler's margin of safety against rollover
is to construct a base cone using the cg height, its location along the
wheelbase, and the effective half-tread of the vehicle. Maximum lateral
g-loads are determined by the tire's friction coefficient. Projecting the
maximum turn-force resultant toward the ground forms the base of the cone.
A one-g load acting across the vehicle's cg, for example, would result in
a 45 degree projection toward the ground plane. "
Consider, if we have the exact same track and wheelbase, then the triangle
formed by the wheels of a 3wh will fit inside the rectangle of the 4wh.
Simple geometry will prove that you can form a cone with a larger base
inside the rectangle than will fit inside the triangle.
This means that the 4wh design can handle higher cornering loads than an
equivalent 3wh.
>> If you keep all other design constraints the same
>> (except number of
>> wheels), then logically speaking a well designed
>> three wheeler can NOT
>> handle all situations as well as a well designed
>> four wheeler.
>
> But just the opposite is sometimes true that 4wh
> cannot handle some things as well as a 3wh can.
Such as? This is basically what I was referring too earlier, your
propensity to make statements, without backing them up.
>
>>
>> Jerry will argue that you can make changes to the
>> three wheeler to improve
>> these problems (i.e. making the front wheels wider
>> apart), but making the
>> exact same changes to a four wheeler will improve it
>> too and keep it in
>> the lead.
>
> I never said that, just shift the CG so it fits
> the design. If you keep the correct CG of a 3wh on a
> 4wh, it too will handle horribly.
That is NOT what I meant. I was talking about designs optimized for the
number of wheels, without making design changes that would equally benefit
both vehicles. I.e. switching to a lighter engine/frame/etc., leaning,
etc.
> I am saying for the correctly designed on both, the
> 3wh with it's lighter weight of about 1/4 total, will
> outperform a 4wh car in most cases. Please argue it
> won't!! Then prove it if you can.
Umm, bullsh__ I don't know of ANY 4wh vehicle where one wheel, suspension
and unneeded frame equals 1/4 of the total weight.
In order to drop that much weight you are changing some other design
criteria.
>> In order to get the best cornering, you have to move
>> the center of gravity
>> (COG) forward to where approx 70% of it's weight is
>> on the two front
>> wheels (or back for two rear wheels). When you do
>
> No you don't, you use 66%front/34% rear about with
> driver onboard for best handling.
It depends on what part of handling you want to optimize. I said "approx
70%" because most folks prefer to improve cornering at the expense of a
small drop in maximum braking ability.
In fact if you check out some of the actual 3wh designs folks have been
pointing out, some (like the Trihawk) even go as far as 75%.
>
>
>> this braking capability
>
> My biggest problem with braking is to keep from
> going thru the windsheild!! And that's with front
> brakes only.
This started out talking about racing vehicles. Most people driving
racecars wear seatbelts to prevent this problem.
>> is reduced. Even if your weight doesn't shift so far
>> forward during hard
>> braking that you endo, it still lightens up the rear
>
> Any where do you have any proof that ever
> happened? With it's low CG, my E woody has no brake
> dive at all. So lets see your proof on that?
What does "dive" have to do with anything? As for proof that it's ever
happened, I'm assuming you mean endos? There are numerous accounts of
this happening on pedal powered trikes. I don't recall any on 3wh
motorcycles, probably because the designers took this into account.
There have been several instances of sideways rollovers in 3wh posted on
this list, usually Sparrows.
If you are talking lightening up the rear during hard braking, that's
simple physics.
Again we were talking about racecars here.
It is possible to build a commuter vehicle where the maximum g force
available from the tires limits the COG cone to the point where it sits
entirely inside the triangle formed by the wheels.
Racecars can pull higher Gs. Again it's possible to build a vehicle that
would handle those Gs, however, I'm pretty sure it would end up wider, or
longer that the current 4wh race cars.
You also have to consider the terrain. Commuter vehicle frequently
encounter potholes. 3wh designs have three ground tracks vs two for 4wh.
Straddling potholes (unless they are really small) isn't usually an option
with 3wh designs.
> I had a car rearend and submarine me at 25mph
> closing speed from behind with my front brakes full on
> and the E woody was completely stable, never feeling
> like it would endo so if wasn't happening then, I
> doubt braking would ever come close!! Again thanks to
> it's low EV CG.
I somehow doubt that your E woody can pull the same kind of braking Gs
that a race car can.
Again, I'm not saying that you can't make an acceptable 3wh vehicle, just
that they are not inherently superior to 4wh vehicles like you frequently
advocate.
>> Granted a four wheel design gets MOST of it's
>> braking from the front
>> wheels, but the back wheels still contribute some.
>
> But less than the 1/4 less weight the 3wh has to
> stop.
Again BS, simply eliminating one wheel won't drop your weight by 1/4.
> And you have said nothing about chassis stiffness,
> have you? In that important handling quality, the 3wh
> beats the stuufing out of a 4wh car.
Hmm, you might have a point.
However, 3wh designs carry more weight and exert lateral force per wheel
than 4wh designs. This might offset the advantage.
> In fact a 4wh car has a big problem keeping all 4
> wheels on the road in hard cornering, screwing up
> handling, No?
If you are cornering hard enough to lift a wheel on the 4wh, then the
equivalent 3wh has already flipped over. Do the math, the physics and
geometry involved are pretty simple.
>>
>> A three wheeler won't corner as well a four wheeler.
>
> Prove it!
I believe I have.
>> In fact, unless you
>> design the vehicle to only handle oval tracks, then
>> it won't corner
>> anywhere near as well.
>> With only three wheels your center of gravity is
>> closer to the outside
>> edge formed by rear wheel and the outside front
>> wheel. It HAS to be, the
>> only way to get the same distance is to either
>
> While true, it doesn't seem to matter in real life
> as much as you think. And the ability of 3wh EV
> batteries to really lower the CG easily makes up for
> it along with it's lighter weight. The whole car makes
> the handling, not just 1 point.
Hmm, do you think your E woody handles better than a Tango? Heck, you
even have the advantage of a wider track.
Again, we are talking about when pushed to the extremes, and we are
talking about your assertion that 3wh handle better than 4wh.
>>
>> Finally, accelerating out of a corner is reduced on
>> a three wheeler.
>> Accelerating causes your COG to move back onto the
>> single rear wheel and
>> give less stability and reduces cornering ability.
>
> If you are accelerating, then you no longer need
> max cornering, No? But who said you would only power
> the rear wheel? Not me.
What the ..???
Which wheel you power has nothing to do with the COG shifting back and
destabilizing the vehicle.
Again quoting from the RQ Riley website that YOU mentioned, "Three Wheel
Cars: The Factors That Determine Handling and Rollover Characteristics";
"A braking turn tends to destabilize a single front wheel vehicle, whereas
an accelerating turn tends to destabilize a single rear wheel vehicle."
>
>>
>> About the only physical advantages to a
>> three-wheeler are, possibly, less
>> rolling resistance -from one less wheel- and lower
>> weight -one less wheel
>> and suspension.
>
> Of course 1/4 lower weight won't help performance
> at all ;-)) No more than 1/4 weight would help the 4wh.
> Have you ever driven a well designed 3wheeler?
Yes.
> I have and also the best sportscars in the world,
> Porsche Carrera's,Lotus, Lambo's, Ferrari's, ect so I
> can confindently say, well designed 3wh cars handle as
> well or better than them!
Your 'opinion' doesn't sway me Jerry.
Austin mini's seem like they handle superbly, Geo metros seem roomy inside.
This is NOT a slam on either vehicle. Minis handle pretty well, but seem
like they handle even better because your butt is so close to the ground.
Metro's seem roomier than they are because they look so small from the
outside.
Your opinion on how well three-wheelers handle is likewise colored by your
expectations and desires.
Give us some skid pad test results, max braking results (60-0), etc.
Your opinion isn't proof.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most
>> promissing.
>
> tadpole or delta?
Yes. Tilting illiminates most of the advantages of one over the other.
Personally I like Delta because of the advantages it offers for laminar
flow body designs.
>> My current three wheeler design uses a partial
>> leaning scheme, i.e. the
>> front wheel and most of the body leans, but the rear
>> wheels don't.
>
> like the honda ???
More or less.
> I'm currently trying to work out the geometry so that
>> when it leans to the
>> left, the front wheel moves over to the right.
>
> which way are you turning?
Left turn in the above case. This moves the COG towards the inside of the
curve and the front wheel towards the outside of the curve.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Met a guy last night that is supposedly the largest Segway dealer in the US
(met him in Thailand of all places).
Anybody know anything about these things? What's your opinion?
S.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> There is a situation where a 3 wheeler could beat an "equivalent" 4
> wheeler: Autocross.
>
> If you do the math, you'd be amazed how much time it adds to miss the
> cones by even half a meter. A relatively easy to compute case is a
> slalom, assume a sinusoidal path. With the four wheeler, you have to
> make your turn a bit bigger to make sure the rear wheels don't hit a
> cone. With the tadpole 3 wheeler, you can come closer to the cones.
Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The front end is going to be the same width, so
unless you tighten the corner after the fron t wheels pass the cone, it
won't make any difference. And since the equivelent 3wh won't be able to
corner as tightly as the 4wh...
> A second point is that 3 wheelers save more than just the weight of a
> 3rd wheel and suspension. A four wheeler tries to fold the car about
> a diagonal when one wheel is lifted, so the car needs to be strong to
> fight this. Lift a wheel in a three wheeler, and it is like picking
> up the corner of a triangle.
If you lift the wheel on a three wheeler, you are milimeters away from
flipping it. Lift a wheel on a 4wh autocross car and you still have a
long way to go before flipping it.
Also consider; the 3wh has higher loads on each wheel. This means that
the wheels and suspension need to be stronger, all else being equal this
means they must be heavier on an individual basis. The chassis also needs
to be stronger at the attachment points.
Remember that a frame is not just a two dimensional object.
> You can make the 3 wheeler chassis much
> lighter than a 4 wheeler. The trend continues: 2 wheelers can carry
> even more weight per wheel (or have an even lighter chassis), and the
> winner is the unicycle.
Lighter, perhaps, but "much" lighter? I doubt it.
I'll grant you that triangles have structural advantages, but even without
the higher forces on the corners of the frame, it's not going to reduce
the totatl vehicle weight by 1/4.
Take a look at the frame in the book "Build your own sports car". I
particularly like the photo of the author holding up the completed frame.
The complete frame weighs less than 1/10 of the total vehicle weight,
probably less than 1/12.
Even on a pickup with it's overbuilt frame, the total frame is less than
1/8 of the vehicle weight.
> 3rd: If you allow the rear wheel to turn, also, then you could always
> have 2 wheels to the outside, just like a 4 wheel car. The 3 wheeler
> chassis would be lighter.
That's an interesting idea. However, the extra weight and complexity of
the swinging rear wheel structure would probably eliminate any weight
savings. Try to come up with a design that will allow one wheel to swing
from one side of the car to the other, and still not flop over during
cornering. Don't forget about suspension.
> Give it 3 wheel drive and it could
> accelerate faster out of the turns due to lighter weight.
>
I still don't see where you've shown that the weight savings are all that
significant. Yes it can be lighter, but if we are talking about optimized
designs, the weight difference won't be much.
> Final: <http://www.trikke.com>. Of the 30 or so people that I have
> had ride mine, no one has fallen yet! I've hit rocks that would have
> dumped a 2 wheel scooter, and skidded sideways on wet spots, but
> haven't fallen yet.
The forums on IHPVA frequently have stories of people who have flipped
trikes. THere are at least two people on this list who have flipped
Sparrows.
A well designed 3wh will slide before flipping. This doesn't mean (or
prove) that it will out perform a well designed 4wh. Nor does this mean
that it won't flip under circumstances where an equivelent 4wh would not.
For example, the Suzuki Samurai got slammed for being unstable. It
handled perfectly well when cornering. What it didn't do well was rapid
changes from one corner to the next.
Final thought.
All else being equal, the 4wh will have a larger contact patch (more
wheels), the 3wh will have more weight per sq inch.
Traction is dependent on the weight and contact area.
I don't know the formulas, so I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that
the 4wh will have better traction.
This can be solved by using wider wheels on the 3wh. Of course using
wider wheels has it's own set of advantages/disadvantages.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most
>> > promissing.
>
> If you want narrow, then you are correct. Though
> a lot has to be said for just 2 wheels for real eff.
True, but 2wh are not self-stable when stopped. Well not generally, I've
seen a harley with such a wide rear wheel that it didn't need a kick
stand, then again it supposedly didn't corner very well.
>> I'm currently trying to work out the geometry so
>> that
>> > when it leans to the
>> > left, the front wheel moves over to the right.
>
> ?
> I like turning the handlebars directly just like a
> regular MC give perfect lean and control without
> complications.
> Check out the articles on the GM Lean Machine
> online for more info on this type. I'd like to
> eventually build one of them in EV drive.
IIRC the GM lean machine used hydraulics and a computer to control the
leaning. I'm trying to come up with a design that doesn't use anything
other than your arm strength.
> The secret is have the side to side pivot as low
> as you can or the rear chassis can flip if higher than
> the axle. Honda did a great job on these.
I'm also trying to use just one axis to both lean and steer, rather than
two, like the Gyro.
The main reason is that I'm trying to minimize size and frontal area. My
current idea has the front wheel between the riders legs with the rider in
a recumbent position. I'd like to avoid having to have room for the wheel
to turn.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The truck runs, but I want to go pure electric.
In my opinion the hybrids take away all the advantages that a pure electric
gives you.
Now you have 2 systems to maintain, and with a truck of this vintage and
rarity, that will get harder and harder.
With a new electric system, all I have to worry about is maintenance on the
brakes, transmission, differential, etc.
Still looking at all the battery choices.
Hope to make a decision soon.
Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Lightning Ryan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:57 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: 1965 Datsun Truck - Future Electric Vehicle
Pestka, Dennis J wrote:
> After looking at this for over 5 years, I finally found the truck I
> would like to convert. 1965 Datsun N320 Pickup.
Does it still run? On gas? Or is it already a glider?
How about going primarily for performance, I'm thinking since it's a rear
drive truck, splice the motor into the rear drive shaft.
Install the smallest battery pack that gets you the performance.
Try for a regenning controller and leave the engine installed.
Might be able to fit it all under a re-hinged bed for easy access.
Now you don't have to worry about range and can use gas for that.
But you can shut it down, put it in neutral, and show off some of the EV
performance, or run the engine and motor for some serious tractor pulling
type power levels from the small Datsun package.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts, not sure how practical it would be of if
it's even technically possible. But I'm gonna keep tossing that out there
till someone either proves me wrong or right.
L8r
Ryan
ps. What a nice truck! Shucks, convert the ICE to burn H2 and call it a
Hydrogen Electric Hybrid, maybe get some Gov funding! <Grin>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 12:50 AM
Subject: RE: Newby: that EV grin
> A contactor controller has no current limit, except that imposed by the
> wiring. That should make the car go fast, as long as you don't mind
> jarring, jerky acceleration. <g>
>
> That is, until you finish off your marine batteries from the huge
currents.
>
> Tests of a Comuta-Van with a contactor controller 20+ years ago showed
peak
> currents in excess of 1300 amps.
Hi All;
> Citi Cars were in the same league, Thats why they burned off brush leads,
as well as cables and battery posts!
> Unless you have a ready source of cheap surplus contactors, a contactor
> controller may not end up being any cheaper than one of those Alltrax 72v
> controllers.
They are getting hard to find, nowadaze.
>
> Seriously, make sure you know what you're getting into. A contactor
> controller is (IMO) uncomfortable for passengers, and often hard on the
> driveline. Click-WHAM! Starting resistors help, but not enough, IMO.
>
If you go contacter, don't EVen THINK of not having a clutch!! Clutch will
soften up starts if you clutch and shift like you always did in your gas
rig. Except to remember to UPSHIFT for more power!
When I went Rapter Solid state it was a revelation! That's why I called
it my Rapture controller, after being clicked and banged around for years it
was -Rapture! So smooth, and ya will love that current multiplacation.
Unfortunately Rapters are an orphens thing now, not made anymore. but you
can get the EV grin with a Zilla. As Lee said you can make your own Iron ,
but why bother?
> The golf car charger is an interesting idea. I hear it's not too hard to
> find used 36 volt chargers.
>
> It would probably be easier to split a 72v pack in half and use two
> chargers, than to modify one. That way you could also keep the charge
> controllers (assuming they have them ;-). Some golf car chargers might be
a
> tad heavy-handed for 8 volt batteries, if you choose to use those.
Finally,
> they are WAY too heavy to use onboard; you'd have to leave them in the
> garage.
> For sure! the golf cart chargers are as heavy as one battery, or more!
There IS a lighter one the Electrac guyz use, I think? 36 volts or so. Maybe
someone else that is on the Electrac List will chime in here?
Seeya
Bob
>
--- End Message ---
