EV Digest 7093
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2) Aircraft Generator w/Modern Controller Method, Was: Trying again
by Michael Barkley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Aircraft Generator w/Modern Controller Method, Was: Trying again
by Michael Barkley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Trying again
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Insurance
by Chip Gribben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Aircraft Generator w/Modern Controller Method, Was: Trying again
by "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) CVT results update
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Insurance
by dale henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Define EV ! Was:Re: Electric car vies for speed record (500 kph)
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
by "Roderick Wilde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Insurance
by "Adrian DeLeon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
by "john labrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Electric Yaris
by Dan Frederiksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: CVT results update
by Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Battery question
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: CVT results update
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Prestolite Timing, low frequency Curtis Start
by "Evan Tuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Tweety went swimming!!
by "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks Rod,
As I mentioned, nothing in the controller compartment got wet at all. It is
quite well sealed. The air entrance for the controller compartment is inside
the trunk. Dry as a bone in there!
Ken
In a message dated 7/31/2007 8:30:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ken,
When I installed a Zilla in a Sparrow several years
ago I took the liberty of taking apart the Zilla and
took several pictures (sorry Dan, they are for my
personal design interest). The Zilla 1K I took apart
did not have any seals against water intrusion.
Hopefully water did not get into the access door and
flood the Zilla, but if it did I would be concerned
about problems down the road. If you think water
flooded the controller I would contact Otmar and get
some suggestions on how to prevent future problems.
Good luck, hopefully you won't have any problems down
the road!
Rod
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks Jim. No problem pulling the motor except
> time!!
>
> My commute has a five mile stretch that is a 50 MPH
> zone that I usually
> cruise along between 65 and 70... oops, never mind
> that - well except that it
> spins near 5600 RPM for about half my commute. The
> last few days have been in the
> mid to upper 90's so I suspect it is probably dry by
> now??
>
> Anyway, as soon as I get some time I will pull the
> motor and check it out. I
> have already checked everything else - pulled all
> the batteries and checked
> all the wiring and connections. Tweety's battery
> compartments have good
> drainage! Nothing in the controller compartment got
> wet at all.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I tried a SEPEX controller with my aircraft generator,
it would not run. The two small terminals were not
the field wiring, only one terminal was. The other
who knows. The other terminal of the field wiring was
terminated at the field's negative terminal.
Therefore, I put a 24vdc battery pack in that wiring
loop. Then I used an ALLTRAX 7245 to power the
armature of the motor. It's working great for me this
way.
When I tried to use the controller to operate the
field and armature at the same time, I didn't have
enough dead stop torque to overcome a pebble in the
road.
I've got some drawings on this on: www.texomaev.com ,
within the link of "Mitsubishi Eclipse Conversion
Project" They may clear up some confusion of how to
use the aircraft generator with a modern controller.
--- Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, standard motor controllers will
> not work very
> well with a shunt or sepex motor (like an aircraft
> generator
> essentially is), unless you use a separate power
> supply for the field.
> I'm not sure exactly what yours is like, but it
> should have four
> terminals on it, not just two like a typical series
> motor. My big GE
> sepex motor has four -- two for the field and two
> for the armature.
>
> The options as I understand them are --
>
> 1) use a controller made for a sepex motor
> http://www.electrofit-zapi.com/hfcontsepex.htm the
> Sem3 for 96 volts
> 400 amps might be useful for you.... These apply
> full field voltage,
> while chopping the armature voltage, then when
> armature voltage
> reaches 100%, they start chopping the field voltage
> to increase the
> RPM's that way. I have been unable to find any
> controllers rated at
> higher than 96 volts 400amps though. And I want
> about 120 to 144
> volts and around 600 amps for mine.
>
> 2) Use a fixed field voltage of much lower than the
> armature voltage,
> and use a conventional chopper controller on the
> armature -- sounds
> like that's working out pretty well for Michael's.
>
> 3) Apply full armature voltage, and full field
> voltage to start with
> (and use a clutch, probably), and then slowly reduce
> field voltage to
> increase motor RPMs. This is what I think I'll do
> with mine to begin
> with -- the previous owner of the motor said it
> worked well for him.
> If it doesn't work out, I'll switch to 2).
>
> Z
>
>
>
> On 7/31/07, Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Upp sent this to the wrong address last time..
> Better late
> >
> > Roland wrote
> > > > > Motors are inductive loads, where the ampere
> will rise with increase
> > > > > voltage
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike resistance loads as a heater, where
> if you have a 240 v heater
> > > > > Element at 8 amps, it will become 4 amps at
> 120 v.
> > > > >
> > > > > A motor that it windings are rated for 240 v
> may use 10 amps where A
> > Motor
> > > > > Has its windings rated for 120 V may use 20
> amps for the same hp. But
> > > > > using
> > > > > Different voltages on the same windings
> rated for some other voltage
> > The
> > > > > Ampere may increase as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is the results of a 180 VDC motor test
> I did using different
> > Voltages
> > > > > At no load:
> > > > >
> > > > > Battery Pack Actual Volts Amperes Rpm
> > > > >
> > > > > 12 12.6 5 634
> > > > > 18 18.9 6 1013
> > > > > 24 25.4 6.2 1390
> > > > > 30 31.8 6.4 1773
> > > > > 36 37.8 6.6 2143
> > > > > 42 44.5 6.8 2521
> > > > > 48 51.2 7.0 2985
> > > > > 54 57.5 7.5 3270
> > > > > 60 63.7 8 3715
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a maximum voltage and ampere rating
> you can go over on a
> > Motor.
> > > > > This is call the Service Factor (SF). If
> 115V motor has a rated SF of
> > 115%
> > > > > And the motor has a ampere rating of 200
> ampere for continuous running
> >
> >
> > > > > then
> > > > >
> > > > > 200A x 1.15 = 230 amps. The 115V motor can
> run on 115V x 1.15 = 132.25
> >
> > V.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the label for the motor, there should be
> a Service Factor which may
> >
> > Say
> > > > > SF 1.25 for a DC motor. I don't why the ADC
> and Warp motors do not
> > Have
> > > > > Motor label that list the specifications of
> the motor.
> > > > >
> > > > > My General Electric motor does. It list the
> DC motor as 165 volts at
> > 175
> > > > > Amps at 32 HP with a SF of 1.25 meaning the
> over voltage can be about
> > 208
> > > > > Volts and the over ampere can be 218 amperes
> continuous.
> > > > >
> > > > > Roland
> >
> > Therefore what I need to know is .
> > If I chooses to go with 72 volts on my 30volt
> rated motor hoping to use less
> >
> > Than half the amps to do the same job .. Will that
> really be what I get??
> > According to the above maybe not..
> >
> > However..
> >
> > Am I missing that some controllers actually
> decrease and control the
> > Actually amps delivered to the motor?
> > As I was told earlier here . They don't change the
> amount of amps .. Just
> > That amount of time that the amps are applied to
> the motor.. Or are some
> > Controllers different in that since.. ..
> > So if I understand what I am herring.. Then also
> if the actually amps are
> > Not changed .. If I open my controller up full to
> achive max speed the
> > Amount of amps will not be decreased and my poor
> motor will die If the amps
> > Raise and double when I raise the volts that I am
> considering to make my car
> >
> > With 72 instead do 30volts..
> >
> > Tanks Mitchell
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Oops, I meant in this sentence:
(The other terminal of the field wiring was terminated
at the field's negative terminal.)
To be:
The other terminal of the field wiring was terminated
at the armature's negative terminal.
Sorry about that.
--- Michael Barkley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried a SEPEX controller with my aircraft
> generator,
> it would not run. The two small terminals were not
> the field wiring, only one terminal was. The other
> who knows. The other terminal of the field wiring
> was
> terminated at the field's negative terminal.
> Therefore, I put a 24vdc battery pack in that wiring
> loop. Then I used an ALLTRAX 7245 to power the
> armature of the motor. It's working great for me
> this
> way.
>
> When I tried to use the controller to operate the
> field and armature at the same time, I didn't have
> enough dead stop torque to overcome a pebble in the
> road.
>
> I've got some drawings on this on: www.texomaev.com
> ,
> within the link of "Mitsubishi Eclipse Conversion
> Project" They may clear up some confusion of how to
> use the aircraft generator with a modern controller.
>
>
M. Barkley
www.texomaev.com
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1135
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what yours is like, but it
> should have four
> terminals on it, not just two like a typical series
> motor. My big GE
> sepex motor has four -- two for the field and two
> for the armature.
Hey Zeke
Number of terminals has nothing to do with how many
terminals it has. Two terminaled motors are designed
to run in just one direction while four terminals
allows you to reverse the motor. Series, sep-ex, and
shunt wound reffer to how the fields are wound. In
fact there are several forklift motors with the same
armatures, brushes, housings, pole shoes, etc but is
available in either series or sep-ex field coils.
Anyway I ran across this thread and wanted to offer
some thoughts.
Hope this helps
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I forgot where this thread started.
But when my Ford Escort EV was "totaled" GEICO would only give me
$1200 for it. It's an '86 so obviously a small dent would be worth
more damage then the value of the car.
I told the claims adjuster the car was worth more then $1200 with all
the EV parts. So he asked me to send "for sale" information on
similar conversions. I went to Mike Chancey's site and found a few
electric Ford Escorts for sale. All of them were selling for over
$5000 so I sent them that info and GEICO changed the claim and sent
me a check for $2500.
I thought that was a fair compromise. And with the money I bought a
clean door from the junkyard and had a body shop repair the dent in
the rear quarter panel and repaint the whole car. The rocker panel
was fine so the frame wasn't damaged. It was pretty much the
passenger door and rear quarter panel that was damaged.
So I'm pretty satisfied with GEICO with handling the EV.
Chip
On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
From: "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: July 31, 2007 7:34:05 PM EDT
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Insurance
From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Insurance
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:30:28 -0600
With my EV, I have a advantage. I had it re title and name it
Electro. The
sister car, another EV I have is call Transformer I and even has a
different
VIN number which was a re manufacture GM B body. These were
selling for
$52,000.00 back in 1977, but I got my for a reduce cost because it
was one
of the proto types that road tested for about 1/2 a year before I
received
it.
Ohhh, that car salesman layed a doosy on you Roland. You find me
the people that spent $52K in 1977 for those other electric
cars :-) I hate to be the one to give you the bad news, but the
silver tounged salesman only made it seem like a bargain...
damon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ah, a common negative for the field and armature. Is the common
negative also grounded to the case?
I think it make sense that it didn't have much torque when both the
field and the armature were hooked to the chopper controller --
essentially you were telling the it to rotate slowly via the armature,
and to rotate fast, via the field -- sort of like the electrical
equivalent of trying to drive in slowly in 4th gear by not giving it
any gas -- which would stall an ICE engine, but instead of stalling
the motor, it just tried drawing very high current, which tripped the
overcurrent on the controller.
Z
On 7/31/07, Michael Barkley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oops, I meant in this sentence:
>
> (The other terminal of the field wiring was terminated
> at the field's negative terminal.)
>
> To be:
>
> The other terminal of the field wiring was terminated
> at the armature's negative terminal.
>
> Sorry about that.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I'd certainly listen to Jim before me but I
> don't see a problem
> with a good dunking. The reality of driving an EV in
> the winter in
> the north west can't be much better <g>.
>
> I actually wash my Prestolite motor out every couple
> of years. I use
> clean soapy water and pour it over the brush area
> while I run the
> motor in neutral. Then I run it while I spray the
> garden hose inside
> (the pot box is within reach.) The fan effectively
> removes a large
> percentage of the water (I look like I tried to take
> a bath with my
> clothes on.) After that I take it for a drive in 3rd
> gear to warm up
> the motor. I've done this 4 times over the last 8
> years to keep the
> motor pretty to look at :-)
>
> Of course its entirely possible that Jim is gonna
> spank me now <LMAO>
>
> Paul Gooch
Hey Paul and all 8^)
Many of my forklift accounts mechanics have done this
for decades. Of course they usually have a steady
stream of hydraulic fluid flowing through them (misc
leaks on the truck) keeping the rust at bay!
Although it's not a huge problem and one that takes
years to happen I've seen a fair amount of motors
where the rust eats away the housing metal behind the
coils and they are no longer held tight against the
housing. They flop around until they wear out the
insulation (in two places) and then Blamo, no more
happy camper 8^( unless your a motor guy then it's
Cha-Ching 8^) LMAO!
Now this is one thing on a lift using 36 /48 volt but
as voltages increase so should ones attitude toward
maintaining it's insulation integrity. I also think
of motors as having a resale value if one isn't a
motor bastard to it 8^o
Being one who enjoys reading of Tweetys / Daffys
adventures I know that this vehicle has loving and
pride filled owners and it would suck for it to fade
from it's glory (even cosmetically).
As members of a small and growing community of misfits
trying to change the world I see it as important to
represent and fly our colors to the best of our
abilities. I think EVeryone here has an anti-EV story
or two so we do need to be at our best all the time
IMO. Bad press or impressions for one are sometimes
applied to all.
Then again maybe I'm anal compulsive 8^P
As an FYI I've been finding that ADC's been painting a
lot of the inside housings which should offer decent
protection against rust. Knowing od Tweetys driving
habits there is a chance that the water just sizzled
right off like water on a duck.
Anyway being Tweety's still a young bird I would like
to see it live a long and fruitful life of adventures
8^)
If the rain don't stop there he is gonna have to paint
it black and rename it Daffy, LMAO In general the
dryer the motor remains the happier it'll be.
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
As I reported earlier, I put a CVT belt drive on my Aspire,
a Comet 94C,
http://www.hoffcocomet.com/comet/aftermarket-torque-converters.asp#94c
It has a variable gearing from 3.49:1 to .78:1. When I connected it
directly to the rear wheel in the aspire, it didn't have enough torque
to get the car moving from a stop, the belt just slipped. No surprise
really, it would have been nice if it worked, so I gave it a try.
To fix it, I built a 3.27:1 planetary gear setup for the driven pulley,
http://www.nimblemotorsports.com/planetary.jpg
This weighs only 32lbs.
So now the car starts off with a 12.9:1 gear and a seamless transition
to a 2.55:1 gearing.
I took it for a test drive today, and it works great, no problem at all
from a start.
If my calculations are correct, the motor at 5000 rpm could transition
from 27mph to 140mph through the gear ratio.
I don't have a tach on the motor yet, but the calcs show at 25mph the
motor at 2500rpm with the belt drive at mid-point, and that is about
what it looked like today.
A remaining issue is running the car with ICE power. The electric motor
does still spin, the belt mostly slipping, however a couple times it
would get engaged in the motor and spin up to speed, in which case, it
would create momentum to keep the car moving when lifting the ICE
throttle. Not sure if that is a bug or a feature, but it didn't happen
every time. More testing to do, but I'm quite pleased with the results
so far.
Jack
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
that's good new for geico, i have them for my
motorcycle. there was no choice for electric, but i
did choose: new motor, modified frame, extra parts
[controller, batteries, contractor, etc..]
however progressive is a whole new animal, i started
with progressive over 20 years ago in ohio and even
with a professional drivers license [ambulance, school
bus] and a several safety driving classes [military
and civilian] plus a perfect driving record they would
not insure my bike. i asked why they said it is not
their policy i asked again i got no reply.
--- Chip Gribben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I forgot where this thread started.
>
> But when my Ford Escort EV was "totaled" GEICO would
> only give me
> $1200 for it. It's an '86 so obviously a small dent
> would be worth
> more damage then the value of the car.
>
> I told the claims adjuster the car was worth more
> then $1200 with all
> the EV parts. So he asked me to send "for sale"
> information on
> similar conversions. I went to Mike Chancey's site
> and found a few
> electric Ford Escorts for sale. All of them were
> selling for over
> $5000 so I sent them that info and GEICO changed the
> claim and sent
> me a check for $2500.
>
> I thought that was a fair compromise. And with the
> money I bought a
> clean door from the junkyard and had a body shop
> repair the dent in
> the rear quarter panel and repaint the whole car.
> The rocker panel
> was fine so the frame wasn't damaged. It was pretty
> much the
> passenger door and rear quarter panel that was
> damaged.
>
> So I'm pretty satisfied with GEICO with handling the
> EV.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Electric Vehicle
> Discussion List wrote:
>
> > From: "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: July 31, 2007 7:34:05 PM EDT
> > To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> > Subject: Re: Insurance
> >
> >
> >> From: "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> >> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> >> Subject: Re: Insurance
> >> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:30:28 -0600
> >>
> >> With my EV, I have a advantage. I had it re
> title and name it
> >> Electro. The
> >> sister car, another EV I have is call Transformer
> I and even has a
> >> different
> >> VIN number which was a re manufacture GM B body.
> These were
> >> selling for
> >> $52,000.00 back in 1977, but I got my for a
> reduce cost because it
> >> was one
> >> of the proto types that road tested for about 1/2
> a year before I
> >> received
> >> it.
> >
> > Ohhh, that car salesman layed a doosy on you
> Roland. You find me
> > the people that spent $52K in 1977 for those other
> electric
> > cars :-) I hate to be the one to give you the bad
> news, but the
> > silver tounged salesman only made it seem like a
> bargain...
> >
> > damon
>
>
Albuquerque, NM
http://geocities.com/hendersonmotorcycles/blog.html
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1000
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1179
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1221
http://geocities.com/solarcookingman
____________________________________________________________________________________
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the
Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hey Guys
Not sure how it got here and it's getting off topic
but in Mikes defense I found this sub-note on the
words meaning when I looked it up 8^)
Note: Semantics is commonly used to refer to a trivial
point or distinction that revolves around mere words
rather than significant issues: To argue whether the
medication killed the patient or contributed to her
death is to argue over semantics.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural
Literacy, Third Edition
Although I do feel the word sophistry was better
suited and is one I'll have to add to my vocabulary
8^)
Cya
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
--- Andrew Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike, I agree with the substance of your
> post (below) but I
> had to email you off-list because of your usage of
> the word
> "semantics".
____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is actually very good advice. Gasoline cars routinely spray water all
over their series wound motors and occasionally totally submerge them. In
climates like the Pacific Northwest no one thinks anything about it and they
keep on cranking that gas motor over for years. We used to routinely take
our electric British Land Rover up rivers with the motor totally submerged
and even in mud bogs. Only when the water rose above the level of the
batteries which were mounted well above the motor did we have a problem.
Once I had to reach down to near the floor where the circuit breaker was to
turn off the power. The water level in the cab was up to my elbow when I
reached down to switch it off. The water had entered our non sealed DC to DC
converter mounted above the batteries and blew the caps. In Texas the sun
eventually comes out and it gets warm. In Washington sometimes things never
dry out. There are even people here who have moss growing on them.. Ken, I
would personally recommend checking it out as you have done, lifting boots,
blow drying where you can, but I would personally not consider taking the
motor apart. If you keep driving it once the weather dries out there should
be not much chance of rust. Maybe a little surface rust but not the kind
that would separate the pole shoes from the case. Maybe here in Washington
or in Oregon where Jim lives. Just another of my opinions of course :-)
Roderick
Roderick Wilde, President, EV Parts Inc.
Your Online EV Superstore
www.evparts.com
1-360-385-7082
Phone: 360-582-1270 Fax: 360-582-1272
PO Box 834, Carlsborg, WA 98324
108-B Business Park Loop, Sequim, WA 98382
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tehben Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Tweety went swimming!!
What if you just go for a good cruise with some fast acceleration and
high rpm's to heat the thing up and dry it out?
Mind you, I haven't really got a clue what I'm talking about.
--
Tehben
'90 Toyota 4x4 Pickup
'hElix EV'
evalbum: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1225
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: 7/29/2007
11:14 PM
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I had a sit-down talk with my insurance agent yesterday...
State Farm currently insures my '87 VW Cabriolet under a "standard"
collision + comprehensive policy. I tried getting a stated value policy,
but the underwriters refused. I explained my concern that if I'm in an
accident I'll only get reimbursed for the Kelley Blue Book value of an '87
Cabriolet - which isn't much :(
I was told that my policy covers me for any damage/accidents that *I*
cause. But if someone else is at fault, it will be *their* insurance
company that will try to settle for the Blue Book value. This would be the
case no matter what type of policy I had. I was given an "I'll look into
it further" before leaving the office.
A few hours later I was told that my policy is a "cash value" policy - it
covers any equipment permanently bolted to the car as long as I have proof
of its actual value. If my car is damaged by another driver, State Farm
will write me a check and sue the other driver's insurance company to
recover damages. Sweet!
The only glitch would be if my car is totalled. In that case, the
insurance company generally KEEPS THE CAR, and much paperwork is involved
to recover damages equal to the car's actual value.
The important point here is: KEEP RECEIPTS FOR YOUR EV PARTS!!! Your
insurance agent will be happy to keep copies of them for you. If you don't
have them it will be nearly impossible get a decent insurance settlement
if someone else is at fault.
FWIW - Adrian
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ---REMAINDER OF MESSAGE TRUNCATED--- *
* This post contains a forbidden message format *
* (such as an attached file, a v-card, HTML formatting) *
* Lists at sjsu.edu only accept PLAIN TEXT *
* If your postings display this message your mail program *
* is not set to send PLAIN TEXT ONLY and needs adjusting *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Mark
regarding the video on your website, it takes several minutes before it
is done and then it doesn't start on its own. you have to click the
image to get it going. many may well mistake that for not working so
perhaps you can put it on youtube or google video. (google has slightly
higher resolution if you have the material still)
Dan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jack - that is outstanding work. Way to go. What drive setup are you using
i.e. how much power? There's lots of lightweight vehicles that might benefit
from this type of setup.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 12:43:34 AM
Subject: CVT results update
As I reported earlier, I put a CVT belt drive on my Aspire,
a Comet 94C,
http://www.hoffcocomet.com/comet/aftermarket-torque-converters.asp#94c
It has a variable gearing from 3.49:1 to .78:1. When I connected it
directly to the rear wheel in the aspire, it didn't have enough torque
to get the car moving from a stop, the belt just slipped. No surprise
really, it would have been nice if it worked, so I gave it a try.
To fix it, I built a 3.27:1 planetary gear setup for the driven pulley,
http://www.nimblemotorsports.com/planetary.jpg
This weighs only 32lbs.
So now the car starts off with a 12.9:1 gear and a seamless transition
to a 2.55:1 gearing.
I took it for a test drive today, and it works great, no problem at all
from a start.
If my calculations are correct, the motor at 5000 rpm could transition
from 27mph to 140mph through the gear ratio.
I don't have a tach on the motor yet, but the calcs show at 25mph the
motor at 2500rpm with the belt drive at mid-point, and that is about
what it looked like today.
A remaining issue is running the car with ICE power. The electric motor
does still spin, the belt mostly slipping, however a couple times it
would get engaged in the motor and spin up to speed, in which case, it
would create momentum to keep the car moving when lifting the ICE
throttle. Not sure if that is a bug or a feature, but it didn't happen
every time. More testing to do, but I'm quite pleased with the results
so far.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
BUT, if the tire is shorter, the circumference is less, which means the
tire patch IS smaller (length). Two 215 tires will have the same width
patch, but with different aspect ratios their contact patch is
different. Granted, it will not be much, but it IS longer on a higher
aspect ratio tire.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger Stockton
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 15:09
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
Phil Marino wrote:
> >From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G"
> >
> >That means for a given tire size, a 65 aspect ratio will have a
> >smaller contact patch that an equal width 80 aspect ratio.
>
> No, it doesn't. The tire patch area equals the load on the
> car ( in lbs) divided by the tire pressure ( in psi).
>
> And, since a 215/65-15 has the same tread width as a 215/70-15, and
> the patch area is the same (assuming both tires have the same load and
> tire pressure) then the patch width AND length will be the same for
> both tires.
Thanks Phil, you saved me the effort of pointing out the same thing.
> Patch size has no particular relevance to tire rolling resistance,
> though.
Size may not, but it has been suggested that shape does (i.e. wide and
short is better than narrow and long), so in Jody's comparison of two
different 215 tires even the patch shape is the same.
One remaining difference is that the 80-series tire is a bit taller and
this might actually result in it having slightly *lower* rolling
resistance than the shorter 65-series tire.
It is also worth noting that while it is important to minimise rolling
resistance, it is only one loss affected by the tire size. Fitting a
315/40 tire ~might~ result in lower rolling resistance when measured at
extremely low speed (e.g. pull/push test), but could represent a greater
total loss in normal driving due to greater aero losses or greater
rolling losses on less than perfectly smooth streets due to having a
stiffer sidewall (necessary since the shorter tire results in less
distance between the wheel and the road) such that the entire wheel is
deflected upwards over small pebbles, etc. instead of the tread/sidewall
deflecting to absorb small obstacles.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
They will work. I am using Hawker Genesis 26Ah in my 240sx conversion
and I have two of them in an electric scooter I built. They work pretty
well.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Freddie Hartsell
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 19:32
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Battery question
I have a chance to get some Panasonic 12v 33AH sealed lead acid
batteries.
I would like to know if these could be used in an EV or if they are too
small. I will probable get them for future projects even if they will
not work in an EV. But I was just curious as to how they would do in an
electric car. Btw, they are free. They are used but in good condition
and will hold a charge.
Thanks, Freddie
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/899
http://www.southernev.com/dakotaev.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jack,
Do you have pictures of your setup? I would love to see it.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Murray
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 0:44
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: CVT results update
As I reported earlier, I put a CVT belt drive on my Aspire, a Comet 94C,
http://www.hoffcocomet.com/comet/aftermarket-torque-converters.asp#94c
It has a variable gearing from 3.49:1 to .78:1. When I connected it
directly to the rear wheel in the aspire, it didn't have enough torque
to get the car moving from a stop, the belt just slipped. No surprise
really, it would have been nice if it worked, so I gave it a try.
To fix it, I built a 3.27:1 planetary gear setup for the driven pulley,
http://www.nimblemotorsports.com/planetary.jpg
This weighs only 32lbs.
So now the car starts off with a 12.9:1 gear and a seamless transition
to a 2.55:1 gearing.
I took it for a test drive today, and it works great, no problem at all
from a start.
If my calculations are correct, the motor at 5000 rpm could transition
from 27mph to 140mph through the gear ratio.
I don't have a tach on the motor yet, but the calcs show at 25mph the
motor at 2500rpm with the belt drive at mid-point, and that is about
what it looked like today.
A remaining issue is running the car with ICE power. The electric motor
does still spin, the belt mostly slipping, however a couple times it
would get engaged in the motor and spin up to speed, in which case, it
would create momentum to keep the car moving when lifting the ICE
throttle. Not sure if that is a bug or a feature, but it didn't happen
every time. More testing to do, but I'm quite pleased with the results
so far.
Jack
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 7/31/07, Mark Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, has anyone put chokes in series with their 1231 Curtis controls? I
> found that on low frequency controls adding 150uH: twin 1kW uWave oven
> transformers with #2 6 turns (72uH each) doubles the acceleration rate at
> 2kHz due to peak current pulse averaging (extending the T=L/R time
> constant).
I did this with my 1221 when I ran it with a Lynch motor, because I
was concerned about the rise time being too fast for the curtis
current limit. My inductor was made from an old 12V 50W transformer
core with the E and I laminations stacked seperately, and I used 1/2"
by 1/8"th enammeled copper to make the turns, probably about 6 also if
I remember correctly. I think it had a small air gap (well, paper tape
gap) as well.
The curtis didn't explode so I guess it helped, I didn't notice any
difference to the acceleration but this controller doesn't have a low
frequency mode. I don't really understand how it would help to be
honest..
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yeah, I remember seeing pics of your landrover doing landrover type
stuff in the snow and water and mud. My theory is that an occasional
washing is good for everything except bearings and electronics, as
long as you get it warm and dry it out afterwards.
Is it still on the road? Haven't heard about it in the last few years.
Z
On 8/1/07, Roderick Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is actually very good advice. Gasoline cars routinely spray water all
> over their series wound motors and occasionally totally submerge them. In
> climates like the Pacific Northwest no one thinks anything about it and they
> keep on cranking that gas motor over for years. We used to routinely take
> our electric British Land Rover up rivers with the motor totally submerged
> and even in mud bogs. Only when the water rose above the level of the
> batteries which were mounted well above the motor did we have a problem.
> Once I had to reach down to near the floor where the circuit breaker was to
> turn off the power. The water level in the cab was up to my elbow when I
> reached down to switch it off. The water had entered our non sealed DC to DC
> converter mounted above the batteries and blew the caps. In Texas the sun
> eventually comes out and it gets warm. In Washington sometimes things never
> dry out. There are even people here who have moss growing on them.. Ken, I
> would personally recommend checking it out as you have done, lifting boots,
> blow drying where you can, but I would personally not consider taking the
> motor apart. If you keep driving it once the weather dries out there should
> be not much chance of rust. Maybe a little surface rust but not the kind
> that would separate the pole shoes from the case. Maybe here in Washington
> or in Oregon where Jim lives. Just another of my opinions of course :-)
>
> Roderick
>
> Roderick Wilde, President, EV Parts Inc.
> Your Online EV Superstore
> www.evparts.com
> 1-360-385-7082
> Phone: 360-582-1270 Fax: 360-582-1272
> PO Box 834, Carlsborg, WA 98324
> 108-B Business Park Loop, Sequim, WA 98382
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tehben Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Tweety went swimming!!
>
>
> > What if you just go for a good cruise with some fast acceleration and
> > high rpm's to heat the thing up and dry it out?
> >
> > Mind you, I haven't really got a clue what I'm talking about.
> >
> > --
> > Tehben
> > '90 Toyota 4x4 Pickup
> > 'hElix EV'
> > evalbum: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1225
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.25/926 - Release Date: 7/29/2007
> > 11:14 PM
> >
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Phil,
Good explanation! It makes me think that I might want to go from
155/80R13 tires on my Geo to 185/70R13 tires. If wider tires at the
same PSI offer lower rolling resistance I might actually gain a mpg out
of em. I will have to research the exact size required to get the same
revs per mile though. Luckily tirerack.com has a great specs page for
tires that tells all the particulars of different brands of tires.
Jody
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Phil Marino
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 23:09
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
Hi, Brian
>
Phil Marino here. I'll put my comments within your post:
>From: Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
>CC: Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 0:42:29 -0700
>
>Well, if decreasing the width of the tire causes it to deflect more,
>then yes, the contact patch may >remain constant. Then again, it could
decrease.
>It could increase as well. Whether the contact patch >are decreases,
>increases, or stays the same depends on tire pressure, vehicle weight
>(or mass for all of >you metric wing nuts out there :-D ), side wall
stiffness.
>Oh heck, while we're at it, lets throw in tire >air temperature. I
>don't think that a tire's contact patch is as directly proportional to
>tire pressure and >vehicle weight as you claim. I could be wrong
though.
The contact patch size does not directly affect rolling resistance.
I've read that it does several times on this list, but I haven't yet
heard a logical explanation for that link.
But, to answer the contact patch vs tire width question anyway, here is
a quote from a technical paper by Boeing Aircraft ( search for Boeing,
and "calculating tire area")
" The tire contact area for any aircraft tire is calculated by dividing
the single wheel load by the tire inflation pressure. If the load is
expressed in pounds, and the tire pressure in pounds per square inch,
then the area is in inches squared. "
They are referring to aircraft tires. But, the same principle applies
to car tires. To demonstrate this for yourself, see how much load a
mounted tire with no air pressure will support. That will show how
little the sidewall stiffness contributes to supporting the load on the
tire. Almost all of the load is supported by the tire pressure.
>
>However, if I am wrong, why do road riders (bicyclists) use such narrow
>tires? Why do so many small >EVs and cars like GM's Sun Racer use such
>narrow tires? Is it only for the sake of keeping rotating >weight down?
>I don't think that's the only reason.
Good questions. I answered them a couple of posts ago, but here is a
better explanation. This is from the Schwalbe tire company -
http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance
First, here is their explanation of why wider tires have lower rolling
resistance ( at the same pressure):
"Which factors affect rolling resistance?
Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other
factors all have an effect on rolling resistance.
The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the
rolling resistance.
Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same tire
pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important, in
other words the tire is "less round".
Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
generates
skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow tire
deflects
more and so deforms more."
And, in more detail: ( still from Schwalbe):
"Why do wide tires roll better than narrow ones?
The answer to this question lies in tire deflection. Each tire is
flattened
a little under load. This creates a flat contact area.
At the same tire pressure, a wide and a narrow tire have the same
contact
area. A wide tire is flattened over its width whereas a narrow tire has
a
slimmer but longer contact area.
The flattened area can be considered as a counterweight to tire
rotation.
Because of the longer flattened area of the narrow tire, the wheel loses
more of its "roundness" and produces more deformation during rotation.
However, in the wide tire, the radial length of the flattened area is
shorter, making the tire "rounder" and so it rolls better."
And here is why bicycle racers use narrow tires ( again, from Schwalbe)
"Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide tires roll better?
Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure, but narrow
tires
can be inflated to higher pressures than wide tires. However, they then
obviously give a less comfortable ride.
In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over wide ones at
higher
speeds, as they provide less air resistance.
Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to accelerate
because
the rotating mass of the wheels is lower and the bicycle is much more
agile."
>
>Oh here's another example, though one that people are probably not as
>familiar with. Why did my street luge go so much faster with 4 roller
blade
>wheels on it than it did with 4 skate board wheels on it? It also had
less
>traction with the roller blade wheels. Man, that was a scary ride! :)
>Roller blade and skate board wheels don't really flex at all, but man,
what
>a difference in top speed!
>
>Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I have been successfully operating with the
>understanding that a narrower tire will give a smaller contact patch
and
>therefore decrease rolling resistance for so long that I have a hard
time
>believing that contact patch is dependent only on tire pressure and
vehicle
>mass.
Well, Schwabe said that the fact that wide tires have lower RR
generates
skepticism, so you're certainly not alone.
Phil
>
>Brian
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr
ation_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
--- End Message ---
