EV Digest 4142
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE:Dennis Berubes 7000 hp ev ride, part Two.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Does only size matter? (For DC motors?)
by Christopher Zach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: NEDRA rule changes
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Fw: Electrifying Times in Connecticut March 5th
by "David (Battery Boy) Hawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Does only size matter? (For DC motors?)
by "Markus L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Article on Plug in Hybrids...
by Travis Raybold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: 3 phase alternator-why not an induction machine?
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: NEDRA rule changes
by Evan Tuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: GM does issue individual responses to EV-1 comments
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Here's an ev for ya!
by Alan Batie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by Victor Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: Dave Cloud's Rules ideas.
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Question: 3 phase alternator- SiC diode
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
by "Rich Rudman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
7 seconds... 1/8 mile... Ok 1/4 mile???
I am still laughing...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: NEDRA rule changes
> The only rule I want to see changed is including of all zero emissions
> vehicles into the running, or at least the addition of hybrid in the sense
> of electric/and other zero emission fuel, to be eligible for records. You
> will need to save this email for at least two years though, as that
project
> is still awaiting financing. But it is coming, a 7 second daily driver, at
> under 96volts.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:33 AM
Subject: RE:Dennis Berubes 7000 hp ev ride
> 7000HP no kidding!!!! THE POWER,what a ride,it even carries an added
spray
> to increase traction while running down the track.It has the potential to
spin
> its wheels at any point on the track A first class ride!
> I have always
wanted
> a ride on the front side of a train,I got my wish this past sunday.Bob
took me
> from New Haven to New Yorks Penn station and back on 2 different evs.From
the
> older Meatball to the Acella I sure had a great view and learned a little
on
> how the trains work. I will let Bob explain the details. Dennis Berube
>
Hi EVerybody;
Well Dennis beat me to it, the Post, that is. Dennis made a pilgimage to
Snow Country to visit inlaws and folks in CT. Of course I had to suggest a
ride in my OTHER EV's, as the Rannit lies shivering in a snowbank, awaiting
fryer weather. As all you Rust Belt folks know the streets are slathered
with sand and salt at the pico-second a snowflake falls here. I set the
Rabbit aside when this condition exists. Well Havent seen the ground since
X -mass, @#$% SNOW, just got another 7 inches yesterday. Dennis escaped to
AZ just in time<g>!Rabbit needs some remedial rust repairs NOW, like drivers
side rocker panel, but the dreaded door column support column hasnt happened
yetm kike all my other damn Rabbits, I'd owned.
Back to the Story. Dennis stopped over to the house Sun morning, a quick
visit to my rather snowed in EV central, let him have it, from 54 school bus
camper, with observation platform to my ever expanding 78 RPM record
collection, and EV Junque collection. Soon, time, train, that is, we were
off to NH to catch the train to NYC. We used a "Meatball" AEM-& with the 25
year old Sep Ex system intact, they hadnt converted it to AC yet. The silken
response to throttle position is unmatched by the newer AC stuff, the
"Cogging" effect of AC drive, but the sheer WEIGHT smooths things down, what
with a 105to 110 tomn enngine. I explained to Dennis that these are
featherweights as lokies go, Diseasel freight and pass. units start at about
130 tons, Old electrics, such as 230 ton GG-1's and million lb. Virginian
RR " Squarhead" units, as well as the "Little Joes" on the Milwaukee RR were
the 500 and 600 ton serious haulers, for freight trains of the size that
catch you at the grade crossing when yur late for work! We tied on to the 8
car train and on the way. Yes wheelslip is a problem here, to, Dennis is
sort of used to that, but shoreashell wouldn't use sanders in front of his
drive wheels. A bit-o-grit is needed for traction as lokies can't dig their
heels in, like a good old fashioned horse. I KNOW he was envious and
inpressed with the ampmeter readings 1200 on EACH of four motors on takeoff
and coasting along@ 75 at about 100-200, about the same as the Rabbit, but a
bit more voltage!!They don't give you a VOLTS on yur control panel on a
lokie, just amps, so ya guess from there. On Acela there is a ciool readout
on EVerything, volts-amps in, at the catenery, motor volts amps all kinds of
juicy readouts but I CAN'T see it on MY side!!! I would like to have a word
with the guy that designed the cab on THAT one! We got to NYC on time, I
know yur going into a state of shock, you folks Out West are used to Amtrak
trains DAZE late. Coast StarLATE, Late Sure Limited, on and on, but hell to
run 72 miles in one hour and 40 minutes is chuldsplay. They did Hour and a
half in 1895 on the Boston Day express!!!! I have the timetables to prove
it. Now for the price of a nuclear Submarine? Well we could build a Bullet
train line from Portland, ME OUR Portland, to, say Richmond VA Our
corridor, pretty much as it is now, change trains in Boston,Off trak again!
We had a lunch, Sorry Dennis it wasn't much of a Diner, NYC Eats are better,
it USED to be better under OLD managment!Shoulda taken you to the Hunan Pan
in the Village! Shameless plug here!I didn't have two bikes at the crew room
to ride off on. Dennis said that he wouldn't have had a problem bike(pedal)
riding in NYC traffic. Most of my friends won't ride in NY. Gees! Best way
to getaround!Short of a Think or EVen a NEV.Gotta bike in Boston for my
looong layovers there, too.Unlike a horse you don't hafta feed them when
they are not used<g>!
It waas sure to chat with Dennis, to get to know this unique guy. He is
not only a Drag Racing icon, but also an accomplished HORSEman, you know,
saddles reigns, clippty -clop type, perfected horsepower. He has a few on
the ranch in AZ, he brought the pix to show me. He goes the gamet from
Fastest dragster to a 100 mile ride on horseback, in a day, over Donner Pass
on CA, I think?What I learned about EV drag racing in his visit, he will
talk for hours answer your silliest questions. "the relentless Persuit of
Perfection" as the gas guys say about SOME gas car. Dennis duz his homework,
EVERY detail in done to extreame on the car. He EVen has a Christmas tree of
starting lights to practice the start reaction time. The start is inportant,
in sailboat or drag racing, although I'll admit drag racing things happen a
hekllova lot faster than sailing. Or Training, "OK to go Train 55" and when
MY reaction time to release the brake and pull amps, Dennis is coasting down
at the other end of the strip, AFTER his run.A few time runs, a light
meatball, no train 0 to 60 in 15 seconds, not bad for a 105 ton "car"!
Acela0-to80 in one minute, yeah a bit of wheelslip on launch, but the 305
folks on board wern't aware of the timetrials, they were strolling the
prominade deck, sitting down to cavier and fine wine in the main dining
room, orchestra playing pop tunes, relapsing in the smoking lounge. OOPS
......wrong movie! Titanic! More like Airline food at their
seats!Unfortunately Dennis didn't have enough time to do the rest of thre
trip to Boston, he downloaded at New Haven to get back to the Folks place so
they could see him a bit before he escaped back to 24/7 sunshine state, the
next day.He missed out on the 150 MPH part of my flight, where there is a
few miles of streight track that Amtrak inherited from the old New York, New
Haven and Hartford RR, sounds like a song title. It IS ,1912 comic song,
many verses. Tried to talk Dennis to coming back to CT when it's too hot for
human habitation in AZ and its just about right HERE<g>!More time, more
trains, Steam, Diseasel and Electric.Well he did get to see a surviving FL-9
EMD antique diesel, the diesel electric electrics, first built in 1954 to be
able to run on 600 volt third rails and shut down the diesel prime mover
indoors, miles of tunnels in NYC to get to Penn and Grand Central stations.
" Were gunna get RID of those old hulks" Metro North sez EVERY year, but
when the weather gets crappy they come out, Typical GM EMD unit, they keep
running, indifferent to cold and heat. General Motors, in all due respect,
as well as the best Electric car on the planet makes the BEST Damn Diseasel
Locomotive out there, too.The only GM product I have "driven" hundreds of
thousands of miles.BTW I would BUY an EV -1 if offered or if I COULD! God
Bless you folks at the EV-1 vigil in Burbank More power to you all, and that
you can give loving homes to the surviving EV-1's!
As for racing it is amazing how many passes Dennis has made down the
strip, WITHOUT breaking anything. It isn't rocket science, just merticulous
attention to detail. He hasn't anything on or in the car that I couldn't
have or do, but racing is an expensive hobby, sailboats, cars, trains,
whatever! He Races , puts the car back in the trailer, takes it out next
week, wipes it down, feeds it, and runs again, and again and again.
Everything just WORKS! Gees! if Discovery Channel " Speed" section would do
" Current Elimninator" Story of 10 years of EV drag racing. Dennis, ya must
have a buncha shots, time slips, vids, etc to put together a great TV story?
Maybe if a few sponsors step up to the plate $$?Lithiun Batteries, Maybe?
Guess catenery down the strip, and trolley poles is out??Leave the damn
batteries at the end of the strip, on the 18 wheeler trailer!
We had a nice fun weekend, well, day,covering racing and trains. Thanks
, Dennis , for dropping by!
Seeya
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ken,
I think idea makes good sense, except only the cost of components
should be accounted for, not the labor. And, this is how much your
vehicle worth for (just for classification), but you wouldn't *have*
to sell it at the end of the day.
This will make competition more fair in the sense Otmar mentioned:
it would not be posible to buy a win with Lithium Metal pack installed
in otherwise identical vehicle but full of lead - such a situation
will virtually guarantee winning of far lighter vehicle just because
its creator happened to be rich.
Components (or just battery) cost classification would prevent
such unfair advantage.
No one prohibits to compete with Lithoum, but find someone to compete
with using Lithoum too, not lead.
I think this was Dave's point.
Ken Trough wrote:
What makes a vehicle go faster is more money, not more voltage.
Dragster class might have something like 6 divisions: $5K, $10K,
$20K, $50, $100K, Unclaimable. For example, it you entered your
vehicle in the $10K category, you would have to sell it at the end of
the event for that price.
No offense to Dave Cloud, but this has got to be the most ill conceived
idea for classes I have ever heard! So if I sink $5K into an electric
motorcycle and race it at a NEDRA event, I have to sell it for $5K at
the end of the day?!? Ridiculous! I've probably got far MORE than $5K
worth of labor into the unit, not to mention the fact that I just MIGHT
like to race it more than one day.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've thought about the 6.7 myself but the problem for me is that the ADC
motor is typically wired series, not shunt. The shunt motor in the
Elec-trak is great mainly because it can keep the tractor at a constant
speed while going level, up hills, and (more important) down hills.
Kind of like a normal lawn tractor where the engine has a governor on
the butterfly valve of the carb and the throttle changes the bias of the
governor. Keeps speed constant up and down hills.
Is it really just a 1hp motor?
Chris
Markus L wrote:
Hi Guys,
am looking for some advice here.
I'd like to beef up my elec-trak E20. It has a fully enclosed 36V DC
motor, rated continuous at 1.2 HP (power curve see
My motor there has some vibration issues, I have already replaced
the bearings and the brushes on it but now am faced with having
the armature balanced which is a higher-dollar item. So I was
thinking if I should rather try to get an ADV 6.7" rated at 4HP
continuous.
The GE motor is fully enclosed, which is good as the motor is
mounted underneath the tractor where all the grass clippings and
dirt fly around. The ADC is open, air cooled and also a bit shorter.
So I am thinking is the GE actually a more powerful motor because
it seems to be heavier, longer and just slightly less in diameter.
The rating may be very conservative. What I want is a beefy motor
down there that can deliver lots of torque for small periods of time.
(I would like to take it to a garden tractor pull at some time)
What do you guys suggest? Should I get the existing motor fixed and
invest another $100 or so into it or should I go with a new motor
(prob. $400 or more) which may also give me more torque.
Thanks for any advice
Markus
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
1/4 mile extension cord?...
Evan Tuer wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 07:25:42 -0500, Raymond Knight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It will be a zero
emissions vehicle, just not all electric.
Hmm. Compressed air, hydraulic accumulators or a big steel spring?
Can't be much else :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> 1/4 mile extension cord?...
Just like a TOW missile...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmmm...I think it would be an interesting event, building a vehicle that use
a cable instead of a battery pack. Lighter vehicle, with the quick
disconnect acting as the shut down at the end of the 1/8 or 1/4 mile...Do
the rules explicitly state that the vehicle must be self contained?
David C. Wilker Jr. USAF (RET)
Children need love, especially when they do not deserve it.
- Harold S.
Hulbert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:05 AM
Subject: RE: NEDRA rule changes
1/4 mile extension cord?...
Just like a TOW missile...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "RemyC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Bruce Meland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >> Dear Electrifying Times friends and supporters,
> >>
> >> As you probably know, our webmaster and editor-at-large Remy Chevalier,
> >> who
> >> lives and works in Connecticut, has been organizing a Better Motors -
> >> Better
> >> Batteries symposium at the Pequot Museum, next to the Foxwoods casino
> >> resort, to be held on Saturday March 5th, 2005 at 1PM.
> >>
> >> This networking brain storming session is aimed at bringing about funding
> >> for solid state battery storage and polymer-wound motors research and
> >> assembly. Remy has enlisted the participation of Native American
> >> environmental leader Ed McGaa, who will kick off the event with his
> >> keynote
> >> address.
> >>
> >> The interactive afternoon will them be monitored by Remy and the
> >> membership
> >> chairman of the CT Technology Council, which has for mission the
> >> development
> >> and preservation of high tech industries in the state of Connecticut.
> >>
> >> Cart-Rite, a CT-based electric car company, will be in attendance with a
> >> ride & drive. Many owners and employee of CT based battery and motor
> >> companies have been invited to participate. The event has been getting
> >> good
> >> coverage by local media outlets, including a feature article in Atlantis
> >> Rising magazine.
> >>
> >> One can never do enough pre-publicity, so I am asking you, as a long term
> >> friend of our publication, to assist us in notifying as many industry
> >> professionals as you can who live and work in New England, urging them to
> >> take a drive down to the Pequot Museum on March 5th.
> >>
> >> The alliance of Native American casino earnings with our needs in the
> >> electric car community for better parts and components could make this
> >> event
> >> a landmark in the long term evolution of our industry.
> >>
> >> Please go to the dedicated website for more detailed information:
> >> http://www.bmbb.biz
> >>
> >> The event is free and open to all.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Bruce Meland
> >> Editor & Publisher
> >> Electrifying Times magazine
> >> http://www.electrifyingtimes.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Chris,
> I've thought about the 6.7 myself but the problem for me is
> that the ADC
> motor is typically wired series, not shunt. The shunt motor in the
> Elec-trak is great mainly because it can keep the tractor at
> a constant
> speed while going level, up hills, and (more important) down hills.
>
> Kind of like a normal lawn tractor where the engine has a governor on
> the butterfly valve of the carb and the throttle changes the
> bias of the
> governor. Keeps speed constant up and down hills.
Yep, I am aware of that. OTOH I could use a standard
controller (not a more expensive sep-ex) and continue to use the
existing H bridge of four relays for fw/rev switching.
>
> Is it really just a 1hp motor?
Thats what it says on the power curve: 1.2 HP - 2250 RPM - 36V
See power curve with different field currents at
http://markus.lorch.net/et/drive-motor-power-curve-e20.jpg
Markus
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
this was one of the most positive articles i've seen in major press
about plug-in hybrids. even in this i think he underestimates the
benefits, as he states the plug in hybrid will jump the mpg of a hybrid
from 50 to 75. certainly with the way i drive, even a 20 mile range on
electric only would cover 95% of my driving, giving me 1000 miles before
i need to replace 1 gallon of gas. obviously not everyone would have
quite this much benefit, but even if the electric only covers just half
of your average driving, it would be 100mpg. obviously this is not
measuring energy efficiency, just how much actual gasoline is needed.
i really can't wait til an affordable plug in hybrid with at least 20
mile electric only range comes out, i'd get (almost) all the benefits of
my electric spyder and still be able to take it a road trip when i need to.
--travis
Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon
There have been many calls for programs to fund research. Beneath the
din lies a little-noticed reality—the solution is already with us
By Fareed Zakaria
The most important statement made last week came not from Vladimir Putin
or George W. Bush but from Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia's shrewd oil
minister. Naimi predicted that crude prices would stay between $40 and
$50 throughout 2005. For the last two years OPEC's official target price
has been $25. Naimi's statement signals that Saudi Arabia now believes
that current high prices are not a momentary thing. An Asian
oil-industry executive told me that he expects oil to hit $75 this decade.
We are actually very close to a solution to the petroleum problem.
Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following speech: "We are all
concerned that the industrialized world, and increasingly the developing
world, draw too much of their energy from one product, petroleum, which
comes disproportionately from one volatile region, the Middle East. This
dependence has significant political and environmental dangers for all
of us. But there is now a solution, one that the United States will
pursue actively.
"It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of
electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element
among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of
policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American
car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in
this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per
gallon. This revolution in energy use will reduce dramatically our
dependence on foreign oil and achieve pathbreaking reductions in
carbon-dioxide emissions, far below the targets mentioned in the Kyoto
accords."
Ever since September 11, 2001, there have been many calls for Manhattan
Projects and Marshall Plans for research on energy efficiency and
alternate fuels. Beneath the din lies a little-noticed reality‹the
solution is already with us. Over the last five years, technology has
matured in various fields, most importantly in semiconductors, to make
possible cars that are as convenient and cheap as current ones, except
that they run on a combination of electricity and fuel. Hybrid
technology is the answer to the petroleum problem.
You can already buy a hybrid car that runs on a battery and petroleum.
The next step is "plug-in" hybrids, with powerful batteries that are
recharged at night like laptops, cell phones and iPods. Ford, Honda and
Toyota already make simple hybrids. Daimler Chrysler is introducing a
plug-in version soon. In many states in the American Middle West you can
buy a car that can use any petroleum, or ethanol, or methanol‹in any
combination. Ford, for example, makes a number of its models with
"flexible-fuel tanks." (Forty percent of Brazil's new cars have
flexible-fuel tanks.) Put all this technology together and you get the
car of the future, a plug-in hybrid with a flexible-fuel tank.
Here's the math (thanks to Gal Luft, a tireless‹and independent‹advocate
of energy security). The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles
per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the
conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a
combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol,
and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. (You don't
get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the crucial task is to lessen the
use of petroleum. And ethanol and methanol are much cheaper than
gasoline, so fuel costs would drop dramatically.)
If things are already moving, why does the government need to do
anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large companies—in the
oil and automotive industry—have vested interests in not changing much.
There are transition costs‹gas stations will need to be fitted to pump
methanol and ethanol (at a cost of $20,000 to $60,000 per station). New
technologies will empower new industries, few of which have lobbies in
Washington.
Besides, the idea that the government should have nothing to do with
this problem is bizarre. It was military funding and spending that
produced much of the technology that makes hybrids possible. (The
military is actually leading the hybrid trend. All new naval surface
ships are now electric-powered, as are big diesel locomotives and mining
trucks.) And the West's reliance on foreign oil is not cost-free. Luft
estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the move to a
hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what we
spend in Iraq in about three months.
Smart government intervention would include a combination of targeted
mandates, incentives and spending. And it does not have to all happen at
the federal level. New York City, for example, could require that all
its new taxis be hybrids with flexible-fuel tanks. Now that's a
Manhattan Project for the 21st century.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>> Do you really think the Prius engine is so much more efficient
>> at the higher power level that it makes up for double conversion
>> losses AND NiMH charge efficiency?
>
> I *have* a Prius, and it *does* work like this.
I don't doubt that it does cycle the motor on and off, what I'm saying is
that I don't think it's more efficient than if they were to use the exact
same motor and exact same car MINUS all of the hybrid parts at a steady
cruise speed, even 20-30 mph.
If you look at the mileage specs for the Prius it gets far better mileage
in stop and go city traffic than it does at steady highway cruising.
Besides, MAIN POINT HERE!!!
While I hadn't considered cycling the ICE on and off, you could STILL beat
a straight series hybrid with a straight ICE /even/ if you picked the one
speed where the ICE was less than 50% as efficient as it's peak efficiency
point.
If you need less than 50% of the power, simply turn off some of the
cylinders. I believe Cadilac used to build a car that did that, had
something like 5 cyclinders and could turn off two of them.
Better still, build an ICE that is actually two separate ICEs linked
together and shut down 1/2 of it entirely when not used, this way you
don't even have the friction losses of moving unused pistons.
>
>> Besides, the Prius isn't a series hybrid, it's a series/parallel
>> hybrid.
>
> True, but I don't think that's important for this discussion.
It's the central issue of this discussion. I stated that a SERIES hybrid
will never be more efficient than a straight ICE at steady cruising speed
and you gave an example of a series/parallel hybrid that /might/ be.
You can't really prove that it is without removing all of the hybrid parts
and checking the mileage, at your hypothetical speed, without them.
>
>> If you went double conversion *always* plus charge efficiency for
>> when the motor is off, you'd have to be about three times more
>> efficient at the high power level compared to the lower power
>> level ICE only setup
>
> I think you are correct that a pure series hybrid will have a harder
> time delivering higher fuel economy than if the same engine drives the
> wheels via a transmission. But, it is still possible.
Can you build a series hybrid that gets better cruising fuel economy than
some ICEs? Absolutely. Can you build one that gets better mileage than a
highly optimized ICE designed to maximize fuel economy? I don't think so,
in fact I'm sure you can't.
All high mileage records have been set straight ICE setups.
Now if your driving is primarily in stop and go situations or very hilly
terrain, then you could probably beat a straight ICE with a pure series
hybrid, especially if you can do regen breaking.
>
> Obviously, you need a very efficient motor and generator. With 90%
> efficient units, you could have about 81% efficiency from engine to
> wheels. If you compare this to a conventional car's 90% efficient
> automatic transmission, you're about 10% behind.
You forgot about battery efficiency.
PbA batteries are probably the best when it comes to charge efficiency,
especially if you keep them between 50% and 80% SOC. At the realatively
high chrage/discharge levels needed when cycling the ICE on and off, PbA
is at best 75% efficient (when kept between 50-80% SOC). With NiMH or
other advanced batteries I believe it's even lower, possibly far lower.
So now you're about 30% behind.
> However, I can well imagine using a much smaller engine that is
> operating at peak efficiency at cruise, and so has more than 10% better
> fuel economy. The power for accellerating, hill-climbing, passing, etc.
> will come from the batteries.
>
> Efficiency calculations get complicated when you start accellerating and
> decelerating. In theory you can do better than the ICE alone, but
> details are important. Many people have tried and if the details are
> wrong, you wind up worse off.
Which brings us back to my initial point in this whole adventure.
Building a series hybrid that gets over 100 mpg is certainly possible.
For an individual to expect cobble one together in his garage, is perhaps
overly optimistic.
My future plans include a series/parallel desiel hybrid with 40-50 mile EV
range. If it gets better than 50 mpg on the highway I'll be very pleased.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> What makes a vehicle go faster is more money, not more voltage.
>> Dragster class might have something like 6 divisions: $5K, $10K, $20K,
>> $50, $100K, Unclaimable. For example, it you entered your vehicle in
>> the $10K category, you would have to sell it at the end of the event
>> for that price.
>
> No offense to Dave Cloud, but this has got to be the most ill conceived
> idea for classes I have ever heard! So if I sink $5K into an electric
> motorcycle and race it at a NEDRA event, I have to sell it for $5K at
> the end of the day?!? Ridiculous! I've probably got far MORE than $5K
> worth of labor into the unit, not to mention the fact that I just MIGHT
> like to race it more than one day.
>
I think you folks are missing the point. The price backets are not how
much the vehicle costs to build, but rather how much you'd be willing to
sell it for IF it wins.
For example if it costs you $5K to build then you'd probably want to race
it in the $10K bracket.
You /could/ spend $25K and race in the $5K bracket and wipe up the
compition if you wanted to, but then you have to accept the risk that
someone will buy your vehicle for $5k and then you're screwed. This keeps
people honest and the folks that spend over $20K race in the next higher
bracket.
The simplicity in this scheme is that you don't have to have the racers
prove how much they spent on a vehicle, simple economics will keep them in
the proper price bracket.
If you love your car and don't ever want to sell it, then race it in an
even HIGER price bracket. If someone is then foolish enough to buy it,
great! Use lessons learned on the first to build another one (for a
similar initial cost) that's even better than the one you just sold and
pocket the extra money.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:12:36 -0800, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm...I think it would be an interesting event, building a vehicle that use
> a cable instead of a battery pack. Lighter vehicle, with the quick
> disconnect acting as the shut down at the end of the 1/8 or 1/4 mile...Do
> the rules explicitly state that the vehicle must be self contained?
How about a large electric winch on a truck at the far end of the
track... Strip everything out of the car except the brakes :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm, looks like a computer generated form letter to me.
> FYI, for those who would like to support the EV-1 vigil remotely, I was
> somewhat surprised by the (somewhat) personalized reply to my comments to
> GM from a 'real' person.
> -Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: FW: 1-58Oxxx
>
>
> Dear Mr. Donnaway,
>
> Thank you for contacting us regarding General Motors' EV1s. We appreciate
> you advising General Motors of your concerns and providing us the
> opportunity for review, as we recognize individuals have many different
> views. Your comments have been documented with the Customer Assistance
> Center under file number 1-31691xxxx.
>
> Your feedback is very helpful to us. We have documented your concerns and
> will forward your comments to the appropriate department for their
> consideration. Thank you again for taking the time to let us know how you
> feel.
>
> If you should need to contact us in the future, simply reply to this
> message or call our General Motors Customer Assistance Center at
> 1-800-222-1020. Customer Relationship Managers are available Monday
> through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael Goonan
> Customer Relationship Manager
> General Motors Customer Assistance Center
>
>
> Originating Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> #Subject=GMability
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 3/1/05 9:59:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: GMability
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name : ay
> Address :
>
> :
>
> Daytime Phone Number :
> ex.
> Evening Phone Number : () -
> ex.
>
>
> Comments : I am a avid vehicle enthusiast,
> with cars ranging from 1965 to a
> Y2K model pickup for towing the
> collectibles. However, I am
> appalled by GM's behavior
> surrounding the EV-1, and if the
> rest of these vehicles are indeed
> destroyed, you have my guarantee
> that I will never purchase a GM
> vehicle again. Fuel cell vehicles
> are a smokescreen for the status
> quo, and GM's hybrids are way
> behind Toyota, with no catching up
> in sight. GM led the way with a superb
> Electric vehicle, and now seems
> Determined to erase it from history,
> By dragging these cars from the hands of
> Willing buyers.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Email Address :
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> If you love your car and don't ever want to sell it, then race it in an
> even HIGER price bracket. If someone is then foolish enough to buy it,
> great!
No it's not great! It's not for sale and I don't want to sell it at any price.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.peak.org/~kmr3/M&LKRailroad/viewpics.html
Scroll down about 2/3rds for the "ev" ;-)
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
If you love your car and don't ever want to sell it, then race it in an
even HIGER price bracket. If someone is then foolish enough to buy it,
great! Use lessons learned on the first to build another one (for a
similar initial cost) that's even better than the one you just sold and
pocket the extra money.
Everything correct Peter except little detail: if you spent 5
years tinkering with your $5k car to make it win and sold it for $10k
pocketing the difference, you won't built another one
for $5 AND spend another (now perhaps down to] 3 years tinkering
again. Your 3 years time worth more than that difference.
Imagine I put ACRX on track today. There are no more than
$40k worth of hardware in it (purchase spread over few years).
How much time is invested? Well over $100k.
Do I want to sell it for $40k today? No, but it is the only bracket
to hope to win in.
Do I want to sell it for $100k? No, not at least at this point, since
I don't have another EV and it will take me more than a year or more
to build another ACRX knowing all I know now (I can't do it full time).
But there is no hope to win in $100k bracket with $40k worth of hardware
car.
(I know, people will say participation is what counts, not winning,
but the topic is about sport, not a show rides).
Point is this , IMHO money classification must be *in addition*
to existing rules. Else simple difference "sponsorship - no sponsership"
will make all the difference in outcome, not even going into how much.
Victor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan,
You're missing Peter's point. See it as an appraisal how much people
think it worth, just like a house. No one can force you to sell it,
the only purpose is to put you in fair competition bracket.
Victor
Ryan Stotts wrote:
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
If you love your car and don't ever want to sell it, then race it in an
even HIGER price bracket. If someone is then foolish enough to buy it,
great!
No it's not great! It's not for sale and I don't want to sell it at any price.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ryan Stotts said:
> No it's not great! It's not for sale and I don't want to
> sell it at any price.
That would put you in the priceless class... :^)
No problem.
-MT
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Did we get a cost and availability on that part??
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Hower" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Question: 3 phase alternator- SiC diode
> I checked out their web site.
> Their '20A' diode has forward drop ratings
> at 10 Amp, 1.2 to 1.4V at 25C junction and
> 1.4 to 1.8V at 175C junction.
> Kind of interesting, this diode has a positive
> voltage drop with increased temperature.
> Check this out,
> http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/30eph03.pdf
> This has the following in a TO-247
> Vf = 1.25 at 30A and Tj=25C
> and Vf = 1.0V at 30A and Tj=125C
> I think I'll use the IR part!
> Rod
> --- Seth Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I see Ken is on a tare.
This post is written, by one of the top editors at Newsweek. Fareed
Zakaria., Maybe you should post this to him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At least it looks that way. I read some of his stuff just this week.
This stupid Lackey has one of the best known By lines in the world... and a
good opinion to match.
I would apologize for calling this guy a Lackey on a Open list.
Funny I thought it was a nice Pun on what should be happen, not what is
happening.
EtOH can come from many sources. And yes I wouldn't mind seeing some
transportation Gigabucks get into the hands of our farmers...they could use
it.
500 miles per gallon means you are NOT using much of that gallon for much at
all.
This is nice fiction... It's sad to see the main stream world
actually thinks this can happen. 500 mpg can't Haul my Ass down a road with
3000 lbs of steel wrapped around me. 500 MpG is like Bike pedal power. It's
a low power thing.
I hate it when Everybody gets so depressed when 50 to 100 is all we can
do... in the real world. More than that means you are doing Flintstones
drives in modified bike frames.
I don't buy that line about using all that airable land can't make
enough Ethanol... I have read that line from the 70s anti alt energy
propaganda. I don't buy it, we can make EtOH from many sources, and there
are things that can be done to make it a lot more Eff, and the by products
are also saleable. it's called fertilizer.
And When you have mountains of un sellable over production... And it's going
to ferment one way or the other, extracting some fuel value from it is
better than feeding a Billion Rats for a couple of years.
I don't mind Agribusiness sucking ... they need to make a profit one way or
the other....Making EtOH or Bio diesel It doesn't matter to me.
Also Any Alcohol based fuels are easier and cheaper made by the
Petro-chemical world using Waste Nat gas, and water. In fact it's a great
way to turn the methane into something that can be trucked around without
out high pressure. IE liquid Fuel is safer than pressurized Gas.
Limited supply of Natural Gas??? What on earth are you talking about??? We
actually have quite a bit of Nat gas supplies and reserves, AND we can make
recovery sources from Biowaste. It can be done.
They are finding Nat Gas under just about any rock...if you look hard
enough.
There is a whole new source of Nat gas... methane Hydrates in the oceans
just off the continental shelves, and in the deep oceans around Gas and oil
seeps. The quantity of these sources is like 100 times the total petroleum
reserves ever found or will be found. WE got Nat Gas..... getting it to the
user and into the power and transportation sector is not easy or cheap, BUT
we won't be running out of Methane supplies anytime soon. Only if, life as
we know it, leaves this planet. Reforming it to a Alcohol... I think is a
KEY technology. Not doing this requires those huge Oil field flares that we
have seen on every Oil and gas field wells. As well as belching from
refineries. We got Gas... how to use it may take some efforts.
Poppy Cock!! Fuels are here to stay. What and we use for Feed stocks, and
where we get it, will change.
And how we store it and convert it to useful work will change. This is the
part I am working on.
Don't forget this is the US of A , it all is a matter of co$t . When the
cost of the supplies out weighs the price we are wiling to pay, change will
happen and Damn Fast.
$50 bucks a barrel to a Mid east nation State that may or may not have had a
hand in 9-11, is Way too much to pay for my 12 mile per gallon freedom.
As of yesterday... it was $51 a Barrel light sweet crude. But it was leaving
the Persian Gulf at about $25 Bucks a Barrel. Again look to see that the
greedy middle me are the ones screwing thier own
customers for every dime they can. Remember Enron? We have a steady supply
backed by the US military, of cheap oil, But the Thiefs are within, not
outside.
To Heck with them, WE will make our own and use it wisely
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Trough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: EVLN(pih: the solution is already with us)
> Hypothetical Bush said:
> > "It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of
> > electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element
> > among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of
> > policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American
> > car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in
> > this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per
> > gallon."
>
> Stupid lackey writing this article added:
> > Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can
> > run on a combination of 15 per cent petroleum and 85 per cent ethanol
> > or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of
> > gasoline. (You donât get 500 miles per gallon of fuel, but the
> > crucial task is to lessen the use of petroleum.
>
> This argument is TOTAL NONSENSE. If we converted ALL the airable land in
> the US to corn production (where ethanol comes from), you still would
> not have enough ethanol to replace today's foreign oil dependence. Not
> to mention the little fact that if you look at the NET energy equation,
> it takes far more oil to cultivate, seed, grow, harvest, and refine the
> corn than you are saving by reducing gasoline with ethanol.
>
> Ethanol = FOREIGN OIL pure and simple, and is a huge boondoggle that is
> designed to keep the giant corn agribusiness sucking at the teat of
> government waste.
>
> Methanol is not much better, due to the very limited supply of natural
> gas and the already huge demands on that supply. All the known and
> suspected sources of natural gas in the entire world would not allow us
> to replace gasoline with methanol for our current domestic usage
> patterns. We need to be conserving our limited natural gas resources,
> not trying to expand the usage.
>
> That is why this foreign oil problem is so systemic. Fuel based
> solutions are no solution at all. Merely more smoke (cough) and
> mirrors.
>
> -Ken Trough
> Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
> http://visforvoltage.com
> AIM - ktrough
> FAX - 801-749-7807
> message - 866-872-8901
>
--- End Message ---
