EV Digest 4766
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: ThunderSky Self-Discharge
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Siemens EV Motors
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: World Solar Challenge
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Solar Trailer?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) building from scratch
by brian baumel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Solar Trailer?
by Mark Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Apology, was Re: Which Nedra class?
by "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Mark Dodrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: building from scratch
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Advice on getting motocycle glider for an EV
by "Roy LeMeur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: building from scratch
by "Ray Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Apology, was Re: Which Nedra class?
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) From David Cloud, Please Post this on EVDL for me --- THANKS!
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Composite monocoque was-Unibody (was RE: We got the Sunrise !!!)
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Composite monocoque vs. sand buggy
by "stU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Capacitor Drag Racing Idea
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: World Solar Challenge
by M Bianchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Beware: Do not let them discharge too deeply! They will be permanently
damaged if they go below about 2.5v!
In general, good advise, but the cells has ben known to recover from
near zero volts on them (after deep self-discharge, not
under load).
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
Ah well. We have to take it to a shop and have it rewound for 115vac.
This means using half the turns of twice the wire size. This is a
straightforward operation; motor shops do this sort of thing all the
time, so it won't be all that expensive.
Rewinding isn't expensive. What also makes Siemens motors
expensive is integrating cooling tubes into the stator
windings, make it all leak proof.
Can you find me any industrial 60 hz liquid cooled motor
small enough to be usable in an EV?
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> That said, I'm a bit worried that the solar racers focus too much on
> "racing" and not enough on "solar". Too much competition and focus on
> winning -- no matter what it costs. And too little innovation and
> experimentation. The cars are basically the same; same solar cells, same
> motors, same controllers, same batteries, same tires. Nearly all the
> teams just buy these parts; they didn't design or build them. There
> isn't much innovation going on.
>
Well, I believe this is because the race directors stiffle all the
creativity. THey have an idea of what 'they' think is the perfect solar
race car and if someone comes up with an idea that deviates to far from
that, they outlaw the design for the next race.
For example, a while back some realized that all of that surface area
needed for the solar panels was really a drag (literally) so they made
their array fold up and stored it inside a narrow streamlined car while it
was moving, and unfolded it for charging. Pretty inovative, huh?
Naturally they outlawed that by making a requirement that the solar cells
have to be exposed to sunshine while driving.
So our intreped inovators built a narrow body out of clear plastic. Hey
the cells are exposed to sunshine, they don't generate much power all
folded up, but it was an inovative solution, right?
So they changed the rules again to prevent that.
So solar raycing isn't about inovation any more, it's about building a
vehicle that most closely matches the design the race directors have in
mind. Naturally all of the cars are starting to look the same, it's what
the directors want.
> Or, look for ways to build a *practical* solar-powered vehicle that you
> really can drive to work. Joel Davidson, a PV pioneer, built a
Personally, I think the inovators with the banned ideas were on the right
track. It might be practical to have a solar car, for comuting, that
carries it's own array, if the array folds up and stows inside and deploys
easily. You could even have a sun tracking system.
Of course a fixed solar installation everywhere you park your car would be
an even better idea, but I don't forsee that anytime in the near future.
> solar-powered recumbent trike many years ago, and used it for routine
> commuting. It was a PV/pedal hybrid -- no batteries! Or maybe you could
> build an NEV that was entirely solar powered. Either way, instead of
> something you can drive once in a lifetime, you'd have one you could
> drive every day!
> --
> Ring the bells that you can ring
> Forget your perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in
> -- Leonard Cohen, from "Anthem"
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> I was thinking about solar on my house myself but where I really need
> power is at work. What if I left a little trailer with solar panels and
> some batteries at work and plugged in during the day?
Why would you need batteries? I assume you work during the daytime?
Unless you are going somewhere for lunch, your EV will be hooked up to the
panels during the only useful solar charging periods and, presumably, your
EV already has batteries, so...?
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
greeting all,
a friend and I are starting a electric car project
from the group up. we are planning on designing and
building the chassis and the whole bit. ambitious I
know. I was wondering if anyone had advice to share
and/or possibly sources for parts like the front
suspension (new)....
regards,
Brian
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Oh yeah it does doesn't it. I'm glad I posted this here I hopefully would have
figured that out eventually but it makes the idea much more achievable and
practical with just panels on a trailer or stand alone frame of some kind.
I could position it so that I'm there for the "good" hours of the panels.
Certainly would make it light so I could maybe tow it with the motorcycle after
folding up the panels and bring it home for the weekend or if I'm taking a
vacation for a week or two.
The batteries would really only help on say monday when it had saturday and
sunday to charge up all day if I had the additional capacity in the batteries.
Thanks Again. This MC thing might just happen.
Mark Hastings
Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking about solar on my house myself but where I really need
> power is at work. What if I left a little trailer with solar panels and
> some batteries at work and plugged in during the day?
Why would you need batteries? I assume you work during the daytime?
Unless you are going somewhere for lunch, your EV will be hooked up to the
panels during the only useful solar charging periods and, presumably, your
EV already has batteries, so...?
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You know Rod, I believe I owe you an apology. Rather than going back to the
beginning of time and the computer, etc, I went back to your 09/26 post and
realized that I must have mistakenly attributed this to you because it was
buried in something you were saying. I missed the "On May 16th of 2004 you
posted to the list:" IE: you were quoting something someone else (I assume
Rich) said. And with him being a private individual (Not a NEDRA official) I
have no problem with him saying that.
So here it is: I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding something you said
and letting it fuel a fire that didn't need to be.
I don't blame you for getting upset, calling me names or questioning my
computer skills. I deserved it and stand properly chastized. I do not
however appreciate your questioning my veracity regarding the unanswered
e-mails to you and Bill. Regardless of proof, they happened. As evidenced by
this apology, even the best of us make mistakes, overlook things, leap to
false conclusions. I guess this blew my mistake free year, LOL.
Ok now that that is (hopefully) over, is there any way to address the
original concern. IE: defining the NEDRA classes (especially SC and MC) in
such a way as to give everyone confidence that the car he or she wants to
build or run is within the rules? Or is this even necessary? Maybe the rules
that are posted ARE enough. Or maybe we need to define "Street legal" to
avoid misunderstanding.
I had felt that if I showed up at a NEDRA event with a conversion vehicle
that was had a valid licence plate (by extension street legal) in its state
of origin and that was on DOT legal tires that I would be allowed to run
SC/x. And that if I changed the tires over to a set of dragslicks then I
would run MC/x.
Now, for MP/x. This is actually where I need the most clarification. Is the
only requirement that it be a vehicle produced as an Electric Vehicle? How
much modification is allowed? Does it have to be "street legal"?
David Chapman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: Which Nedra class? Last posting
> I will make the following post as politely as possible so as to not
offend
> some of the more sensitive readers. David, you quote me as saying: "And I
> want it to stay exclusive." in your following statement which I cut and
> paste from your own words: I guess I got the "reclassify cars due to
> opinions" part in good measure from your statement "And I want it to stay
> exclusive."
> Please show me and the viewing public where this appears in my post. I
> will even give you one better. Show me where this appears in any post I
have
> made since I joined this list years ago. In fact, show me where I have
even
> used the word exclusive in a post. Enough said.
> NOTE: David's questions concerning the publicized and available
> classification of "Gone Postal" have been answered off line.
>
> Roderick Wilde
Rod, here is your unedited post just as it appeared in my deleted archive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Rich Rudman said: "And Dennis is trying to make a Street legal truck Both
NEDRA and Madman's100 compliant."
I am assuming Rich that you are referring to your own ethereal 100 mph club.
I really don't believe Dennis's truck would fall into your original intended
rules for your 100 mph club. On May 16th of 2004 you posted to the list:
The point is TO HAVE A daily driver, that is 100 mph capable on the strip.
It's one of the hardest things to do. And I want it to stay exclusive. Light
dragsters, and tube frame Evs, should do it no problem. Doing it with a
commuter and lead powered is Haaarrrd!! The point of any street Rod is drive
to the soda fountain, or for some dinner, then have fun on the way home.
Dennis Berube wrote:
If a person had a pro street truck(NHRA)tube frame, fiber body fitted in
such a way as to be totaly street legal and driven on the street with a lic.
and insurance which class would it belong to in nedra?
A vehicle built like this has been discussed at NEDRA board meetings before.
The idea I had was for a class called Xtreme Street which would have the
designation XS. So if you were a high voltage car you would be XS/A When I
went to the Wayland Invitational Saturday Night Street Legal Drags at PIR I
was parked next to a fully gutted chevy that was tubbed and had 14" wide
wrinkle walls with grooves to make them street legal. It ran wheelie bars
and turned 9 second ETs. This may be the NHRA version of a street legal car
but I believe NEDRA might look at it differently. We made the modified
conversion category to handle cars that were beyond daily drivers. At that
time no one had put the money and time to build a vehicle such as Dennis
describes except for "The Ghia Monster" www.ghiamonster.com which is
currently still under construction. I personally would love to see Dennis or
anyone else build a car like this to push the EV envelope and the EV
movement. I am sure that a category for these vehicles will be established
by NEDRA at some point. It is great to see the interest in EV drag racing
growing.
Roderick wilde
NEDRA President
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 9/27/05, David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Use a PFC charger to charge a supercapacitor to as high a voltage as
> possible, and power the field with it. Power the armature with a
> Godzilla controller. This would only work for a single gear vehicle.
>
> The capacitor gives the field more than series current at first,
> giving the motor more than series torque. Since current
> multiplication would not be needed now, the motor would run more
> efficiently. It would automatically field weaken as the car went down
> the track, keeping the motor near its sweet spot the whole run.
I'm not an expert in field weakening, but I have done some computations
on ultracapacitors. There seem to be three main problems with using them as
the sole power source, even for a drag racer:
1. Very small amount of energy that can be stored per ultracap
2. Relatively high cost per ultracap
3. Difficulty of keeping the indivdual ultracaps balanced when you have a
bunch in series
I just checked Maxwell's web page, and they have a neat calculator Excel
spreadsheet (http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/support/worksheet.xls)
which can give you an idea about this in more detail. I plugged in 120v
start voltage, 12v finish voltage, 800 amps for 12 seconds. This totals to
176 watt/hours worth of energy storage, in 672 ultracaps (BCAP0350). Even if
you believe that this is enough energy to get a drag racer down the line
(which I don't), the cost is going to be astronomical. There was a surplus
sale of a different set of Maxwell's Ultracaps a couple of years ago, which
were going for $20 each (they were smaller capacity also). So, in the most
optimistic case, it would be $12,000+ US. Yikes! Well, maybe this would be a
possible solution for the 300 mph in the 1/4 mile drag racer, with unlimited
funds...
If you put a more "Wayland" like estimate of starting voltage and discharge
rate, it gets much worse, into the 1,000s of ultracaps required.
I think if the cost of these ultracaps dropped by 10 fold, then they would
be much more feasible for this specific purpose and many others as well.
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Brian, a few things:
- check out the kit car forums, they often have scratch builders there.
(kitcar.com etc.)
- check out the "locost" forums - builders of the Lotus 7 take-off
- get the books:
Race Car Engineering - Milliken and Milliken
Chassis Engineering - Adams
How to make your car hadle - Phun
and others...
- There are a few builders web sites on the net:
http://www.diysportscar.com/
http://www.grabercars.com/Mambosite/index.php
http://www.lambolounge.com/
http://www.desicodesign.com/meerkat/
http://dpcars.aprsworld.com/dp1/index.htm
and others...
- Get some good CAD software which can feed CNC and preferably has FEA, it
is worth the expense
- Get some good suspension engineering software, there are three or four
packages out there - check eng-tips.com for a review
We are developing suspension uprights based upon the popular VW Golf
bearing, hub and CV joint. These are for double A Arm suspension and are
engineered to fit 1800-2500 lb cars. They will fit wheels of 15-17"
diameter, 185-245 width. Full adjustability for camber, caster, toe, trail,
etc. If you are interested in more details, send me a note.
Don
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of brian baumel
Sent: September 27, 2005 12:27 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: building from scratch
greeting all,
a friend and I are starting a electric car project from the group up. we are
planning on designing and building the chassis and the whole bit. ambitious
I know. I was wondering if anyone had advice to share and/or possibly
sources for parts like the front suspension (new)....
regards,
Brian
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I found this right on the side of FT's drag bike-
http://www.bikesalvage.com/
They are in Seattle.
FT says talk to Bob.
HTH!
.
Roy LeMeur
Olympia WA
My Electric Vehicle Pages:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evpage.html
Informative Electric Vehicle Links:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/renewables/evlinks.html
EV Parts/Gone Postal Photo Galleries:
http://www.casadelgato.com/RoyLemeur/page01.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
First you have to decide if you want it to be FWD, front motor - rear wheel
drive, mid-motor or rear motor. Transverse motor or longitudinal ?
Automatic trans, manual trans or no trans ? Once you have the basic layout
designed in your head then you can put pencil to paper and start designing
the frame and the jig to build the frame on. Then you acquire the tranny,
and other running gear.
The best way to assure that all the suspension works as needed is to copy
the dimensions of the donor car. The easiest way is to use the A-arms and
spindle assemblies from the same vehicle that all the rest of the drivetrain
is taken from. Then you just make sure that all the A-arm mounts are in the
same exact location in reference to one another and the ground and you then
know that the geometry will be OK.
I once built a dirt midget from the ground up and there is a lot of thinking
and cogitating that goes on as the car takes shape. You end up with a chair
on each side of the jig so that you can sit and visualize the build process
and work out the design elements as you proceed. You need to write down a
general order of assembly or you may find yourself having to "unbuild"
things because you missed a step.
What sort of body are you thinking of using ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "brian baumel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: building from scratch
> greeting all,
> a friend and I are starting a electric car project
> from the group up. we are planning on designing and
> building the chassis and the whole bit. ambitious I
> know. I was wondering if anyone had advice to share
> and/or possibly sources for parts like the front
> suspension (new)....
>
> regards,
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Yahoo! for Good
> Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Good comments. Something I didn't state was to still power the
armature with batteries, and power just the field with ultracaps.
Then you could get by with many fewer capacitors. The basic idea is
more to provide an cheap/simple/automatic method for field
strengthening and weakening.
--- Mark Dodrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/27/05, David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Use a PFC charger to charge a supercapacitor to as high a voltage
> as
> > possible, and power the field with it. Power the armature with a
> > Godzilla controller. This would only work for a single gear
> vehicle.
> >
> > The capacitor gives the field more than series current at first,
> > giving the motor more than series torque. Since current
> > multiplication would not be needed now, the motor would run more
> > efficiently. It would automatically field weaken as the car went
> down
> > the track, keeping the motor near its sweet spot the whole run.
>
> I'm not an expert in field weakening, but I have done some
> computations
> on ultracapacitors. There seem to be three main problems with using
> them as
> the sole power source, even for a drag racer:
> 1. Very small amount of energy that can be stored per ultracap
> 2. Relatively high cost per ultracap
> 3. Difficulty of keeping the indivdual ultracaps balanced when you
> have a
> bunch in series
> I just checked Maxwell's web page, and they have a neat calculator
> Excel
> spreadsheet
> (http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/support/worksheet.xls)
> which can give you an idea about this in more detail. I plugged in
> 120v
> start voltage, 12v finish voltage, 800 amps for 12 seconds. This
> totals to
> 176 watt/hours worth of energy storage, in 672 ultracaps
> (BCAP0350). Even if
> you believe that this is enough energy to get a drag racer down the
> line
> (which I don't), the cost is going to be astronomical. There was a
> surplus
> sale of a different set of Maxwell's Ultracaps a couple of years
> ago, which
> were going for $20 each (they were smaller capacity also). So, in
> the most
> optimistic case, it would be $12,000+ US. Yikes! Well, maybe this
> would be a
> possible solution for the 300 mph in the 1/4 mile drag racer, with
> unlimited
> funds...
> If you put a more "Wayland" like estimate of starting voltage and
> discharge
> rate, it gets much worse, into the 1,000s of ultracaps required.
> I think if the cost of these ultracaps dropped by 10 fold, then
> they would
> be much more feasible for this specific purpose and many others as
> well.
> Mark
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks David and I accept and I apologize to you as well if I missed an
email from you concerning classification questions. I sincerely do not
recall it. As I said, in my earlier post, I agree with you that there needs
to be more meat in the descriptions between class SC and MC and we are
currently discussing these items and will try to get a clearer picture for
all posted on the NEDRA website. Concerning MC and MP. These are both
modified vehicles that are usually not street legal. They could be however.
This is where we really need to work on clarification. "Gone Postal" is a
street legal, licensed and insured vehicle and is in this class due to the
extra rear drive. This was obvious to me so I did not ask Bill for an
opinion. The more we spell out the rules the less work we make for Bill :-)
We have not capped how much modification you can make in the modified
categories as yet. The concern has always been more to do with safety. We
love to see creative new solutions. That is what it is all about.
Roderick Wilde
NEDRA President
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:51 PM
Subject: Apology, was Re: Which Nedra class?
You know Rod, I believe I owe you an apology. Rather than going back to
the
beginning of time and the computer, etc, I went back to your 09/26 post
and
realized that I must have mistakenly attributed this to you because it was
buried in something you were saying. I missed the "On May 16th of 2004 you
posted to the list:" IE: you were quoting something someone else (I assume
Rich) said. And with him being a private individual (Not a NEDRA official)
I
have no problem with him saying that.
So here it is: I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding something you
said
and letting it fuel a fire that didn't need to be.
I don't blame you for getting upset, calling me names or questioning my
computer skills. I deserved it and stand properly chastized. I do not
however appreciate your questioning my veracity regarding the unanswered
e-mails to you and Bill. Regardless of proof, they happened. As evidenced
by
this apology, even the best of us make mistakes, overlook things, leap to
false conclusions. I guess this blew my mistake free year, LOL.
Ok now that that is (hopefully) over, is there any way to address the
original concern. IE: defining the NEDRA classes (especially SC and MC) in
such a way as to give everyone confidence that the car he or she wants to
build or run is within the rules? Or is this even necessary? Maybe the
rules
that are posted ARE enough. Or maybe we need to define "Street legal" to
avoid misunderstanding.
I had felt that if I showed up at a NEDRA event with a conversion vehicle
that was had a valid licence plate (by extension street legal) in its
state
of origin and that was on DOT legal tires that I would be allowed to run
SC/x. And that if I changed the tires over to a set of dragslicks then I
would run MC/x.
Now, for MP/x. This is actually where I need the most clarification. Is
the
only requirement that it be a vehicle produced as an Electric Vehicle? How
much modification is allowed? Does it have to be "street legal"?
David Chapman.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: Which Nedra class? Last posting
I will make the following post as politely as possible so as to not
offend
some of the more sensitive readers. David, you quote me as saying: "And I
want it to stay exclusive." in your following statement which I cut and
paste from your own words: I guess I got the "reclassify cars due to
opinions" part in good measure from your statement "And I want it to stay
exclusive."
Please show me and the viewing public where this appears in my post. I
will even give you one better. Show me where this appears in any post I
have
made since I joined this list years ago. In fact, show me where I have
even
used the word exclusive in a post. Enough said.
NOTE: David's questions concerning the publicized and available
classification of "Gone Postal" have been answered off line.
Roderick Wilde
Rod, here is your unedited post just as it appeared in my deleted archive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Rich Rudman said: "And Dennis is trying to make a Street legal truck Both
NEDRA and Madman's100 compliant."
I am assuming Rich that you are referring to your own ethereal 100 mph
club.
I really don't believe Dennis's truck would fall into your original
intended
rules for your 100 mph club. On May 16th of 2004 you posted to the list:
The point is TO HAVE A daily driver, that is 100 mph capable on the strip.
It's one of the hardest things to do. And I want it to stay exclusive.
Light
dragsters, and tube frame Evs, should do it no problem. Doing it with a
commuter and lead powered is Haaarrrd!! The point of any street Rod is
drive
to the soda fountain, or for some dinner, then have fun on the way home.
Dennis Berube wrote:
If a person had a pro street truck(NHRA)tube frame, fiber body fitted in
such a way as to be totaly street legal and driven on the street with a
lic.
and insurance which class would it belong to in nedra?
A vehicle built like this has been discussed at NEDRA board meetings
before.
The idea I had was for a class called Xtreme Street which would have the
designation XS. So if you were a high voltage car you would be XS/A When I
went to the Wayland Invitational Saturday Night Street Legal Drags at PIR
I
was parked next to a fully gutted chevy that was tubbed and had 14" wide
wrinkle walls with grooves to make them street legal. It ran wheelie bars
and turned 9 second ETs. This may be the NHRA version of a street legal
car
but I believe NEDRA might look at it differently. We made the modified
conversion category to handle cars that were beyond daily drivers. At that
time no one had put the money and time to build a vehicle such as Dennis
describes except for "The Ghia Monster" www.ghiamonster.com which is
currently still under construction. I personally would love to see Dennis
or
anyone else build a car like this to push the EV envelope and the EV
movement. I am sure that a category for these vehicles will be established
by NEDRA at some point. It is great to see the interest in EV drag racing
growing.
Roderick wilde
NEDRA President
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 9/23/2005
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark Dodrill wrote:
I plugged in 120v
start voltage, 12v finish voltage, 800 amps for 12 seconds. This totals to
176 watt/hours worth of energy storage, in 672 ultracaps (BCAP0350). Even if
you believe that this is enough energy to get a drag racer down the line
(which I don't), the cost is going to be astronomical.
This year at Woodburn I decided to see how this works (and entertain
spectators), so I tried a burn off on my ACRX which had no battery
at all - only 16.7F 400V bank of ultracaps. I wasn't sure if I could
make it to the end of the 1/4 mile strip so didn't attempt it.
Now, looking back, I perhaps could, and I'm sure I could make it if
not dragging but accelerating normally.
I charged the bank to 370V rolled to the strip using cap's power, burn
tires for perhaps 10 sec or so (I have video I can time) and run back to
park on remaining energy. Turn out I haven't spent even half of it:
The voltage was down to about 270V by the time I was done.
I could keep burning longer but had to stop because the car was too
light on rear (remember, no batteries) so it kept creeping forward with
rear wheels blocked by parking brake and have gone further than usual
area of the track allowed for this.
There was a surplus
sale of a different set of Maxwell's Ultracaps a couple of years ago, which
were going for $20 each (they were smaller capacity also).
Mine were $30 each, 160 of them.
So, in the most
optimistic case, it would be $12,000+ US. Yikes!
$4,800 in my case
Well, maybe this would be a
possible solution for the 300 mph in the 1/4 mile drag racer, with unlimited
funds...
Currently, if bought new, I agree they are out of reach of any
"normal" person.
If you put a more "Wayland" like estimate of starting voltage and discharge
rate, it gets much worse, into the 1,000s of ultracaps required.
I think if the cost of these ultracaps dropped by 10 fold, then they would
be much more feasible for this specific purpose and many others as well.
Mark
It's not that bad, just a specific power is not as high as for
good PbA cells like Boulder TFM ones for instance, so you don't
get quite as much power per weight as for small batteries.
But, there is much more room for improvement of the ul;tracaps
which are in their infancy, than for >100 years old PbA battery
technology, so the equasion will change in future (hopefully
along with the cost).
--
Victor
'91 ACRX - something different
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: * Cloud
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 1:01 PM
Subject: Please Post this on EVDL for me --- THANKS!
A good example of a Concept Vehicle would be the Tango.
http://www.commutercars.com/
If the vehicle is scratch built, street legal, and not converted
from a car that was originally and ICE, then it would fit into the Concept
Vehicle Class. The goal of the Concept Vehicle Class is to allow prototype
electric vehicles, intended for mass production for the general market, to
compete in NEDRA events.
It is a mystery why Dennis would care, however.
Since Dennis is not a NEDRA member, he can't set a NEDRA record.
It is a mystery why he would care what NEDRA class a car would fit into,
or
why he would care what opinion (especially my opinion) NEDRA has about it.
Dennis resigned his NEDRA membership a few years ago. He also
actively disparages NEDRA quite consistently.
The irony is staggering. :^)
At 04:17 PM 9/22/2005, you wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>
> > If a person had a pro street truck(NHRA)tube frame, fiber body fitted
> in such
> > a way as to be totally street legal and driven on the street with a
lic. and
> > insurance which class would it belong to in nedra?
>
>If this is the extent of the "rules", I'd say Street conversion...
>
>"Street conversion vehicles are licensed and legal for driving on the
>street. "
>
>If not, then the "Concept vehicles" class..
>
>http://www.nedra.com/records-sc.html
>http://www.nedra.com/records-cv.html
>
>Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] to find out for certain.
Bill Dube'
National Technical Director
National Electric Drag Racing Association
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think Dennis's question has been clearly answered.
I am not a NEDRA board member, but in my opinion a one-off ground-up tube frame
vehicle fits best in the dragster class.
There is no stipulation on what our dragsters can look like. The only
requirements are tube frame and a roll cage.
I don't think the tube-frame truck would be a Concept Vehicle since it is not a
prototype for mass production or street use.
The NEDRA modified conversion class is for formerly street-legal full-bodied
vehicles that have been heavily modified, such as Roderick's Mazda and Gone
Postal, Brian Hall's Chevy Sprint, and my Geo Stratus. In these last 2
examples, the drive wheels were changed from one end of the car to the other.
This is in keeping with the National Drag Racing Association rules which NEDRA
has been attempting to use for class distinctions.
Dave Cloud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.7/112 - Release Date: 9/26/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Don and All,
Well said as moncoque/ unibody is not new at all as I've used
in it boats for yrs too prefering to put the weight in the skin rather than
frames/thinner skin saving much labor, interior room with better puncture
resistance, less overall weight.
The only difference in my Freedom EV, the future Sunrise or
Ferrari's is doing it in composites for cars. I expect in 10 yrs, it will be
much more common as a SUV could be built in 2,000 lbs that way.
It's biggest problem and strength is it is an inherently low
production technic. But it's tooling is also many times cheaper than steel uni
body tooling so over the long run, it's just as cost effective as steel. And if
a model doesn't sell 100,000/yr, you can still make money. In fact if done
right, can be profitable on as few as 12 units/yr !! Great for EV start ups !!
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about this:
"The first automotive application of the monocoque technique was 1923's
Lancia Lambda. Citroën built the first mass-produced monocoque vehicle in
1934, the innovative Traction Avant. The popular Volkswagen Beetle also used
a semi-monocoque body (its frame required the body for support) in 1938.
In the post-war period the technique became more widely used. The Ford
Consul introduced an evolution called unit body or unibody. In this system,
separate body panels are still used but are bolted to a monocoque
body-shell. Spot welded unibody construction is now the dominant technique
in automobiles, though some vehicles (particularly trucks) still use the
older body-on-frame technique.
In automobiles, it is common to see true monocoque frames, where the
structural members around the window and door frames are built by folding
the skin material several times. In these situations the main concerns are
spreading the load evenly, having no holes for corrosion to start, and
reducing the overall workload. Compared to older techniques, in which a body
is bolted to a frame, monocoque cars are less expensive and stronger.
Monocoque design is so sophisticated that windshield and rear window glass
now often make an important contribution to the designed structural strength
of automobiles"
BTW - it was used extensively in aircraft before being applied to
automobiles.
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul G.
Sent: September 27, 2005 9:07 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: We got the Sunrise !!!
On Sep 27, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Dave wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware it was a uni-body (Pioneered by
> Lincoln Zephyr in 1939, by the way). As I said, it was just a random
> thought.
Unibody construction was used before 1939. The Chrysler Airflow was a
unibody vehicle and was introduced in 1934. I doubt they invented the
concept either.
Paul
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Which would be stronger/safer in an accident, a composite monocoque or a
tubular chassis (sand rail +) with paper-thin skin?
BoyntonStu
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jerry dycus
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:38 PM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Composite monocoque was-Unibody (was RE: We got the Sunrise
!!!)
Hi Don and All,
Well said as moncoque/ unibody is not new at all as I've
used in it boats for yrs too prefering to put the weight in the skin rather
than frames/thinner skin saving much labor, interior room with better
puncture resistance, less overall weight.
The only difference in my Freedom EV, the future Sunrise
or Ferrari's is doing it in composites for cars. I expect in 10 yrs, it will
be much more common as a SUV could be built in 2,000 lbs that way.
It's biggest problem and strength is it is an inherently
low production technic. But it's tooling is also many times cheaper than
steel uni body tooling so over the long run, it's just as cost effective as
steel. And if a model doesn't sell 100,000/yr, you can still make money. In
fact if done right, can be profitable on as few as 12 units/yr !! Great for
EV start ups !!
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about this:
"The first automotive application of the monocoque technique was 1923's
Lancia Lambda. Citroën built the first mass-produced monocoque vehicle in
1934, the innovative Traction Avant. The popular Volkswagen Beetle also used
a semi-monocoque body (its frame required the body for support) in 1938.
In the post-war period the technique became more widely used. The Ford
Consul introduced an evolution called unit body or unibody. In this system,
separate body panels are still used but are bolted to a monocoque
body-shell. Spot welded unibody construction is now the dominant technique
in automobiles, though some vehicles (particularly trucks) still use the
older body-on-frame technique.
In automobiles, it is common to see true monocoque frames, where the
structural members around the window and door frames are built by folding
the skin material several times. In these situations the main concerns are
spreading the load evenly, having no holes for corrosion to start, and
reducing the overall workload. Compared to older techniques, in which a body
is bolted to a frame, monocoque cars are less expensive and stronger.
Monocoque design is so sophisticated that windshield and rear window glass
now often make an important contribution to the designed structural strength
of automobiles"
BTW - it was used extensively in aircraft before being applied to
automobiles.
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul G.
Sent: September 27, 2005 9:07 AM
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: We got the Sunrise !!!
On Sep 27, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Dave wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware it was a uni-body (Pioneered by
> Lincoln Zephyr in 1939, by the way). As I said, it was just a random
> thought.
Unibody construction was used before 1939. The Chrysler Airflow was a
unibody vehicle and was introduced in 1934. I doubt they invented the
concept either.
Paul
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is that video available on the Web somewhere? If not please put it up,
I have some friends I'm sure would get a kick out of knowing it's
running on capacitors.
Danny
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
I charged the bank to 370V rolled to the strip using cap's power, burn
tires for perhaps 10 sec or so (I have video I can time) and run back
to park on remaining energy. Turn out I haven't spent even half of it:
The voltage was down to about 270V by the time I was done.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
> Or, look for ways to build a *practical* solar-powered vehicle that you
> really can drive to work.
Or work at a job where a non-automotive solar vehicle is practical.
Sometimes it requires matching the nature of solar electric drive to the
mission. Former Tour de Sol Entrant Monte Gisbourne is trying to do just that.
http://www.tamarackelectricboats.com/
Tamarack Lake Electric Boat Company
Monte Gisborne, President
207 Bayshore Drive,
R.R.#3, Brechin, Ontario L0K 1B0
(705) 484-1559
(416) 432-7067 (cell phone)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mike Bianchi
Foveal Systems
973 822-2085 call to arrange Fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.AutoAuditorium.com
http://www.FovealMounts.com
--- End Message ---
