EV Digest 4217
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Headlight Questions
by Eric Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1--let's go to the next step
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit replacement
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit replacement
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Interesting 49kw, 100-330vDC motor controller
by "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Intellectual property
by Steve Gaarder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Interesting 49kw, 100-330vDC motor controller
by Evan Tuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Let's cut each other some slack, OK?
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Battery Desulfator.
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: American business model
by Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) E-10 pick up for sale.
by "Don Buckshot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) RE: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit replacement
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Headlight Questions
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: American business model
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) EV Challenge April 1st & 2nd News Release
by "Ralph Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) RE: American business model
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: Selectris Sunrise...
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) RE: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) RE: Solectria Sunrise as a replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit replacement
by "Ivo Jara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
When purchasing headlights, if it says it "Meets DOT requirements," does
that mean that it's road legal?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Weathers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mar 21, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Rush wrote:
George Clooney has ordered a Tango T600, or at least wants one
quickly....
<snip>
Anybody care to contact him to let him know that there is a group of EV
experts that want to start producing a new, viable, EV
Commuter Cars has already beat us to this market. Let them have this
sale - they worked for it, and they've got a product already.
I think most of the people here ( old timers ) feel this way , This is a
good brake for a Hard working guy , I'm glad to see it and if there was any
contacting , it should be to tell him thanks for doing somithing , to help
Commuter Cars .
The
project we're discussing here is in a different price bracket anyway,
right? We're looking at mass-market (means affordable) EVs, not a
top-of-the-line-no-compromises-leather-interior-$4000-dashboard-vehicle
such as the Tango.
and 2 9" motors , Lee hart BSM 2 k zilla , ect .
IMO, making a suggestion like this to George Clooney would be a "perfect
example of fragmentation" of the EV market. I think before we try to get
money from anyone, we'll need a convincing business plan. We could do the
design first (might make the business plan stronger), but without a
business plan we get no money and can't build anything anyway.
yep , now lets get back to work .
steve clunn
Rush
--
Doug Weathers
Bend, OR, USA
http://learn-something.blogsite.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Doug Weathers wrote:
>>> IANAL, but both of these proposals sound like theft of intellectual
>>> property.
Lee Hart wrote:
>> But engineers and scientists would call it business as usual. :-)
> Probably not if those engineers and scientists work for a
> (for-profit) business. Or more specifically, if the products
> they are copying belong to a competing business. We can't go
> around making exact copies of someone else's product and
> trying to sell the copies.
Look at the market. It's done *all* the time. All companies watch their
competitors closely. When a competitor has a successful product, you get
one and reverse engineer it, and copy it. It is standard practice.
Virtually no one is ever prosecuted.
You are correct that competitors rarely make an *exact* copy. That would
indeed be an open-and-shut case of theft. But the nature of engineering
is such that it is never best to make an exact copy. No design is
perfect; it always has mistakes, omissions, and compromises. New parts
and technologies have been developed since the original was made; might
as well use them. So, the "copy" is always a little bit better than the
original. It's called progress.
What do you think the term "PC clone" means? IBM's competitors literally
reverse-engineered the PC, then built their own. But the copycats all
added their own little twists and improvements to the design. The clones
were functionally the same, but not enough different so IBM couldn't
sue.
> The point is that the design of the EV1 belongs to GM, and if we
> copy it by taking a mold of the body or duplicating its circuits
> or copying the code out of the ROMs on the computers, then we are
> stealing GM's intellectual property.
Kit car companies pull molds off car bodies all the time. Car bodies
aren't patented or trademarked.
As for the circuits, I *have* an EV1 inverter, and can assure you that
no engineer in their right mind would literally copy it. It is a
10-year-old design. Technology has moved far ahead since then.
> Learning from others is good, but stealing from others is bad.
"Stealing" means taking something away from others. "Learning" is using
the knowledge and experience of others, in a way that help you but
doesn't hurt them.
We aren't hurting GM if we build an EV1, as they have loudly proclaimed
that they have no interest in ever producing it.
I don't know about Solectria and the Sunrise; they may still entertain
some hope of producing it. So the obvious route is to offer to buy their
expertise. They might say "yes"! They used to want millions for the
design; but today it is obviously worth much less.
> That doesn't give you the right to steal the TV out of my house,
> or even out of my garbage can.
Your TV analogy is a good one. Of course I can't steal it from your
house, but once you sell it, or even give it away to the trashman, you
no longer have any say in what happens to it. I can get it from the
trashman for 1 cent, fix it, and use it all I like.
> the evidence suggests that GM doesn't want any EV1s on the road...
> That probably means suing the pants off of anyone who tries to
> resurrect it without their permission.
They can try. Luckily, they have no legal basis to proceed.
> The point is, THEY own the designs, WE do not. We will be STEALING
> if we copy their designs without permission, or without making
> enough changes...
I agree. But, it is *inevitable* that we would make so many changes that
no jury could be convinced it is the same car. Yes; it looks the same
and does the same job. But not one single part is likely to be the same
one GM used.
> Taking a mold of a car and selling exact duplicates is not going
> to get past a jury.
Sure it does. Look at the thriving kit car industry. Many of them are
knock-offs of real cars. Look at the huge market in aftermarket repair
parts; steel fenders that are exactly the same as the factory original.
The auto companies would like to shut these guys down, but can't!
> If there's a reasonable chance that someone could
> mistake our copy for the original, we're infringing.
No; that's not how the law works.
--
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd be careful on this one. The "exact copy" kit cars are of rather
old cars, like the Porsche Speedster, Shelby Cobra, etc. Ferrari sued
some kit makers for their cars being too close to the real thing --
so kit makers changed the names and designs. I suspect kit makers
that sell exact copies of recent cars are flying under the radar.
Also, don't forget, you can be 100% right but caused lots of
expensive legal grief proving you are right.
--- Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kit car companies pull molds off car bodies all the time. Car
> bodies
> aren't patented or trademarked.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On ebay, in UK:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1498&item=5761107765
&rd=1
Copley Controls 265P, 100-330vDC input, +/-300v, +/-312a output.
This could make an interesting motor test drive unit for someone's lab in
the UK...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
All this discussion of the rights to the EV-1 design leaves me with a
question. As I understand it, there are two ways to protect intellectual
property: patent and copyright. Patents protect an idea regarless of
expression, i.e. if you patent a particular aspect of an inverter design,
no-one can sell an inverter incorporating that design trick without your
OK. A copyright, OTOH, protects the *expression* of an idea, such as the
text of a book on how to design inverters. So where do the "rights to a
design" fit in? If GM has some patents on various aspects of the EV-1,
then we need their consent to sell any EV that uses these bits of
technology. I'm sure all the design drawings etc are copyrighted, so we
would need their OK to get copies of those. But otherwise I see nothing
in either patent or copyright law that makes it illegal to look at a
product, figure out how it's made, and make one like it. Or am I missing
something?
thanks,
Steve Gaarder
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
"This item is a Copley Controls 265P high power amplifier, designed
for servo systems, NMR and audio. The amplifier bandwidth is D.C -
5KHz, and peak output power an almost unbelievable 49,000 Watts"
Blimey. Now where would I find a bass speaker to go with that?
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:22:05 -0800, Myles Twete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On ebay, in UK:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1498&item=5761107765
> &rd=1
> Copley Controls 265P, 100-330vDC input, +/-300v, +/-312a output.
> This could make an interesting motor test drive unit for someone's lab in
> the UK...
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 18:22:57 -0800, Doug Weathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I am disturbed by threads like the recent Ken Trough vs. Neon John
>exchange.
Let's clear this up right now. There is no trough vs me exchange.
I've had trough filtered ever since I joined this list. I'd have
never seen his post had someone not quoted it. Even if I had seen it,
I'd not have responded. Arguing with a person of his caliber is
pitching pearls before swine.
Going farther, I don't engage in internet flaming. I got that out of
my system decades ago. I know some people don't like my posting
style. That's OK. I promise not to care if they don't.
>In response to a very long series of off-topic posts calling
>for political action to save the remaining EV1s, Neon John said (in a
>post containing other, more useful comments):
>
>> You're being mocked all over the country. It's really a pretty sad
>> joke to the rest of us.
>
>and
>
>> Only because I am involved with
>> EVs did I know what kind of fruitcake cause the demonstration was
>> about.
>
>and
>
>> Similarly, the image of an EV driver is that of a fruity left
>> coast granola eating tree hugging nutcake.
>
>and
>
>> Something for you True Believers to think about as you munch on your
>> granola bars....
Umm, seems like a case of trying to shoot the messenger because one
doesn't like the message. My comments DO reflect the facts. I can
assure you that people all over the country ARE mocking the EV1 types.
It's a silly campaign for a silly cause and done in a silly way. I
cut out that article in the paper about the BoobWatch gal, blew it up
on the copy machine and used it to stimulate several conversations
among customers. (Not unique to this. I enjoy feeding silly stuff
from the papers or the internet to my customers to debate. They like
it and I like it.) My comments are probably the nicest. "Shoot 'em
where they sit" and "run 'em over" weren't uncommon comments.
The general political tone of this list complete with conspiracy
theories galore more than confirm my next to last comment above. That
some people consider EVs a "movement" is even more confirmation.
Every time I hear the term "movement" what pops immediately to mind is
"bowel". I bet I'm not the only one.
Point being, just because you or someone else doesn't like certain
facts neither makes them wrong nor inappropriate. Probably it would
do EV fans a LOT of good to look in the mirror and try to imagine how
"outsiders" react to your zealotry. Again, not much different than my
restaurant. I've learned that I can sell a LOT more BBQ by offering
friendly invites to come to my place and try some of my free samples
rather than berating them because they eat chain restaurant slop.
>We've all got something to contribute. We're a teeny-tiny minority in
>a gas-guzzling world, and we need all the help we can get. If the EV
>List drives off people like Neon John, we all lose.
Don't worry, the antics of the likes of trough can't do that. If I
ever leave this list it will be because I got bored with all the
repetitious and silly political crap. This IS one of the worst lists
I'm on, both in terms of off-charter rants and the frequency of the
pure clueless. I feel lucky if I can get one bit of useful
information a week. Frankly, if I filtered everyone but Ot, Lee and
John Wayland I think I'd be better off. There are a couple of others
that I believe I could learn from if only they'd buy a few carriage
returns and a spell checker :-)
>I think NJ and the list can learn to get along with each other. And
>frankly, I think we need him more than he needs us.
Sad but true, and I honestly don't want that to sound arrogant. I've
worked around, designed, etc motors, controllers and batteries most of
my career so I know that pretty well. There are things I don't know
about EVs, particularly the higher powered ones, that I'd hoped to
learn here. And of course, share my knowledge. Trying to find the
kernels of good info in the daily volume of pap is like looking for a
needle in the haystack.
>
>So let's all cut each other some slack, OK?
The real solution is, I think, to keep the political crap off the
list. That's what the charter says. Why is that so hard? We could
all work together on EV matters if we kept the politics out. That's
the way it is in real life so why not here? I've worked on many a
project, both on the net and in real life, where I KNEW some of the
other participants were kinda fruity but common courtesy dictates that
we ignore such things and stick with the project at hand.
My mom taught me that there are two things one never discusses in
polite company. Politics and religion. EV and enviro-zealotry
contain elements of both. Why don't we all be polite and just not
discuss things that involve either or both? Simple as that.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:09:16 -0700, "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello Lawrence,
>
>Was just over at Wal Mart, and they got a new line of battery chargers in made
>by Schauer. These are solid state with a digital readout. They have ranges
>from 2 to 100 amps and another range for maintaining, standard battery,
>deepcell battery and fast charge.
The largest charger is "40 amp". I put that in quotes because the
charger does not actually produce 40 amps continuously. It generates
40 amps for about 30 seconds, then drops back to 20 amps for a couple
of minutes, then repeats. Another major problem with this charger is
that it does not display the charging current. One doesn't really
know what's going on with that charger.
I wrote up a fairly technical review of this charger and posted it to
the rec.outdoors.rv-travel group last summer.
A far better charger, also available at many Wal Marts, is the Vector
40 amp charger. It produces a full 40 amps continuously and does an
almost perfect 3 stage smart charge. I also posted a review of this
charger to RORT. There is a strip chart of a charge cycle on my OLD
website under the RV section. I'm not online now so I can't provide
an exact URL.
>
>There is also a Desulfator cycle. I have been using a Schauer 6-12-24 battery
>charger that is over 40 years old which I used at times for balancing, which I
>have to calculated the time and monitor the voltage.
The Vector desulfator works quite well. Because I cannot manually
trigger the desulfator, I have not been able to observe the other one.
I have a suspicion that what they're calling desulfation is really
equalization.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, Daewoo is probably out, since they're owned by GM now. However,
Kia and Hyundai might be options, since they've never experimented with
EV's, and probably don't have the R&D budget that Honda, GM, etc. have
to go to fuel cells as quickly. They might be more amenable to getting
a "clean" message out there--even if only 50 cars are made.
Try them; they might be able to commit to, say, 50 gliders of one of their
sportier cars (Tiburon?) at an "at-cost" price, with credit for turning in the
engine, to be converted and sold. As for logistics, that could be done as
a normal dealer delivery to your closest dealer.
Something I have to ask, though: is the Tango considered so unfeasible
that we're considering dumping money into yet another EV startup?
Maybe you should consider working with Rick to buy shares in
Commuter Cars under the same terms as this new startup. At least Rick
is actually manufacturing cars. Maybe he'd consider a Sunrise-like vehicle
as a second model.
Tim
---------
> > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:13:26 -0600
> From: Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: American business model
>
> David Roden wrote:
> > The question is, would any of the Korean mfgs. be willing to sell gliders?
> > And how much would import duty and transport costs add?
>
> The thought that comes immediately to my mind is logistics in regards
> to gliders.
>
> How do they get cars here from over seas? In a special boat that is
> made for hauling cars? Then they pull up to the dock and open a door
> on the side of the boat and drive them off the boat? Then drive them
> either onto rail cars or onto truck trailers?
>
> Are the dock people going to push/pull these cars off the boat? Or
> will they be shipped in containers?
>
> How did that "Jet Industries" company get it's gliders from Chrysler
> way back when? Did they have to be rolled off the assembly line and
> rolled out into the parking lot? It would be a real bear loading them
> onto the car transporters I've seen:
>
> http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/macneil/2004/jan/black_kw_car_hauler.jpg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
The time has come for us to sell one of our Solectria vehicles and my wife
will not let go of the Force she drives to work every day.
So I am going to put my truck on the EV Tradin’ Post and if it doesn’t sell
right away I’ll have to resort to Ebay.
I’ve put a bunch of pics on my web site and the truck will soon be on the EV
photo album.
Anyone who is interested can see it at www.buckshot.com/ev
<http://www.buckshot.com/ev> or later on the EV photo album -
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum
Don Buckshot
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
913-789-0889
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
C'mon look at windows, does it ring a (mac) bell ?????
Remeber the 1978 Celica (Copied from the 1970 Mustang) ?
The Mitsubishi sapporo (from the 1980 mustang ?
The dodge daytona (Porshce doors, Mitsubishi front end, and pontiac rear) ?
Also let me take you back a little in time for some history, two mechanics
that worked for Ford motor co. (Louis and Arthur Chevrolet) left the company
with a set of plans for the ovehead valve ICE engine, and started producing
it the following year. so that company (GM) is based on...
So don't talk about "their" intelectual property
Ivo
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nombre de Lee Hart
Enviado el: martes, 22 de marzo de 2005 15:31
Para: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit
replacement
Doug Weathers wrote:
>>> IANAL, but both of these proposals sound like theft of intellectual
>>> property.
Lee Hart wrote:
>> But engineers and scientists would call it business as usual. :-)
> Probably not if those engineers and scientists work for a
> (for-profit) business. Or more specifically, if the products
> they are copying belong to a competing business. We can't go
> around making exact copies of someone else's product and
> trying to sell the copies.
Look at the market. It's done *all* the time. All companies watch their
competitors closely. When a competitor has a successful product, you get
one and reverse engineer it, and copy it. It is standard practice.
Virtually no one is ever prosecuted.
You are correct that competitors rarely make an *exact* copy. That would
indeed be an open-and-shut case of theft. But the nature of engineering
is such that it is never best to make an exact copy. No design is
perfect; it always has mistakes, omissions, and compromises. New parts
and technologies have been developed since the original was made; might
as well use them. So, the "copy" is always a little bit better than the
original. It's called progress.
What do you think the term "PC clone" means? IBM's competitors literally
reverse-engineered the PC, then built their own. But the copycats all
added their own little twists and improvements to the design. The clones
were functionally the same, but not enough different so IBM couldn't
sue.
> The point is that the design of the EV1 belongs to GM, and if we
> copy it by taking a mold of the body or duplicating its circuits
> or copying the code out of the ROMs on the computers, then we are
> stealing GM's intellectual property.
Kit car companies pull molds off car bodies all the time. Car bodies
aren't patented or trademarked.
As for the circuits, I *have* an EV1 inverter, and can assure you that
no engineer in their right mind would literally copy it. It is a
10-year-old design. Technology has moved far ahead since then.
> Learning from others is good, but stealing from others is bad.
"Stealing" means taking something away from others. "Learning" is using
the knowledge and experience of others, in a way that help you but
doesn't hurt them.
We aren't hurting GM if we build an EV1, as they have loudly proclaimed
that they have no interest in ever producing it.
I don't know about Solectria and the Sunrise; they may still entertain
some hope of producing it. So the obvious route is to offer to buy their
expertise. They might say "yes"! They used to want millions for the
design; but today it is obviously worth much less.
> That doesn't give you the right to steal the TV out of my house,
> or even out of my garbage can.
Your TV analogy is a good one. Of course I can't steal it from your
house, but once you sell it, or even give it away to the trashman, you
no longer have any say in what happens to it. I can get it from the
trashman for 1 cent, fix it, and use it all I like.
> the evidence suggests that GM doesn't want any EV1s on the road...
> That probably means suing the pants off of anyone who tries to
> resurrect it without their permission.
They can try. Luckily, they have no legal basis to proceed.
> The point is, THEY own the designs, WE do not. We will be STEALING
> if we copy their designs without permission, or without making
> enough changes...
I agree. But, it is *inevitable* that we would make so many changes that
no jury could be convinced it is the same car. Yes; it looks the same
and does the same job. But not one single part is likely to be the same
one GM used.
> Taking a mold of a car and selling exact duplicates is not going
> to get past a jury.
Sure it does. Look at the thriving kit car industry. Many of them are
knock-offs of real cars. Look at the huge market in aftermarket repair
parts; steel fenders that are exactly the same as the factory original.
The auto companies would like to shut these guys down, but can't!
> If there's a reasonable chance that someone could
> mistake our copy for the original, we're infringing.
No; that's not how the law works.
--
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
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Eric Poulsen wrote:
> When purchasing headlights, if it says it "Meets DOT requirements," does
> that mean that it's road legal?
Of course.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:22:21 -0800 (PST), Tim Clevenger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, Daewoo is probably out, since they're owned by GM now. However,
>Kia and Hyundai might be options, since they've never experimented with
>EV's, and probably don't have the R&D budget that Honda, GM, etc. have
>to go to fuel cells as quickly. They might be more amenable to getting
>a "clean" message out there--even if only 50 cars are made.
>
>Try them; they might be able to commit to, say, 50 gliders of one of their
>sportier cars (Tiburon?) at an "at-cost" price, with credit for turning in the
>engine, to be converted and sold. As for logistics, that could be done as
>a normal dealer delivery to your closest dealer.
Seems to me like the way to start out with two strikes against you (EV
being one) is to start out with a third world brand. Regardless of
how good they are (I've been impressed with the Hyundai one of my
employees has) the public perception is not good.
Seems to me the way to go is to select a brand name car destined to
have a long production run, say, a Honda or Saturn, then negotiate a
fleet deal. Buy the complete cars, then part out the conventional
engine parts and sell them. Given the price of replacement parts,
particularly OEM parts, I just bet this would be the cheaper way.
>
>Something I have to ask, though: is the Tango considered so unfeasible
>that we're considering dumping money into yet another EV startup?
>Maybe you should consider working with Rick to buy shares in
>Commuter Cars under the same terms as this new startup. At least Rick
>is actually manufacturing cars. Maybe he'd consider a Sunrise-like vehicle
>as a second model.
This is just so much talk, after all, so not to worry.
Is Rick making cars? Beyond the two prototypes?
I think the Tango is one of the cuter alternative car designs out
there. Especially prototype #2 that got rid of that ugly fat ring
around the rear end. But I think they're smoking some particularly
good stuff if they think a business plan based on $80k cars is going
to work. Maybe if all they want is a cottage industry making 5 or 10
cars a year to sell to the hollywood types.
I'd almost entertain the heretical thought of debt to acquire one at,
say $15k. But $50k or $80k? Fergitaboutit!
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've cut and pasted the news release on the April 1st and 2nd EV Challenge
competition. If you aren't familiar with the EV Challenge I encourage you
to visit our web site at www.evchallenge.org <http://www.evchallenge.org/> .
If you would like to become involved with the program as a volunteer for
this event or in other ways, let me know!
----------------------------------------------------------
Several hundred students representing 20 schools from four southern states
will converge on Wake County, NC, April 1-2 for the annual EV Challenge
competition, the culmination of a year-long program designed to teach
6th-12th graders the importance of alternative fuel development and
application.
The EV Challenge is the country's premier alternative fuel education
program, unique because of its integration of several disciplines, including
math, science, engineering, language arts and more. The EV Challenge is
sponsored by the nonprofit Carolina Electric Vehicles Coalition, Inc.
(CEVC), based in Wake County.
One of the most exciting components of the high school program is the
student design and construction of a street-legal electric vehicle, which
will be entered into several competitions during the Final Event weekend.
Students from North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Florida will enter
their vehicles in a series of range and autocross events. High school
students also compete in community service, web-site design and public
speaking.
Middle school students also apply a multi-disciplinary approach to their
design and construction of model solar race cars for competition. The middle
school program is based on the Junior Solar Sprint (JSS) program, developed
and sponsored by the US Department of Energy.
The NC Solar Center coordinates the JSS program for the EV Challenge and
works with participating schools to provide a curriculum, instructional
assistance and competition support.
Final Event activities will take place on Friday, April 1, at the Harris
Energy and Environmental Center at 3932 New Hill-Holleman Road in New Hill,
which is about 22 miles southwest of Raleigh; and on Saturday, April 2, at
Wakefield High School at 220 Wakefield Pines Drive in Raleigh. The public is
invited to attend either or both days. Vehicle range events on Friday for
high school participants are at Harris from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m.; and autocross
is on Saturday at Wakefield from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Middle school students
compete only on Saturday at Wakefield from 10 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.
About CEVC and the EV Challenge
The CEVC's mission is to provide educational programs related to clean,
alternative fuel technologies, with an emphasis on reaching middle and high
school students. The EV Challenge has several government and corporate
sponsors, including the State Energy Office, a division of the NC Department
of Administration; the US Department of Energy; and Progress Energy. For
more information about the EV Challenge, please visit www.evchallenge.org
<http://www.evchallenge.org/>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I drive a KIa Rio every day (my car), the chepaest and worse tires you could
find are on the car, the dash is plastic (as in toys), the sheetmetal can be
dented just by pushing it, poor braking, worse steering lowsy insulation, I
bought it for 4.950.000 (Chilean peso) -US$ 7.615 (tax included) and it's
the worst purchase I've ever made, the thing is all loose inside, the
fasteners suck.
My previous car was a Daewoo Espero (the luxury Daewoo), it was even worse,
2.000cc automatic, it timed the 1/4 mile in days. It simply did not turn or
stop, it is seriouslt out of balance.
I wouldn't like to crash in my girlfriend's Daewoo racer.
It's true they are cheap, but I would rather have a Soviet Lada than any
korean car, if they are sold in the states, people are going to start
diying.
That ended my car economy craze, i went and got myself a 1989 Volvo 740 for
US$ 3.000, a great car, performs great, and when the engine dies out, it
will make sense to convert it.
Sorry to blow the bubble on this one, but korean cars are no good for
anything.
I lost lot's of money finding out.
BTW I did crash on the Espero, it lost the whole front end, the airbag necer
deployed (it was almost new), and the guy (his fault) spent about 1/2 the
value of the car (used) fixing it.
BUT: Korean headlights, turnlights, seats, wheels, and other (non essential)
parts are dirt cheap, headlight (sealed beams are made of thin plastic). so
they could be sed in an EV.
Ivo
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nombre de David Roden
Enviado el: martes, 22 de marzo de 2005 1:16
Para: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: RE: American business model
On 21 Mar 2005 at 13:24, Ivo Jara wrote:
> I have heard that complete cars in china are about 3.000 US$ brand new,
No offense, but I'd guess that just about anything from Korea will be a
better car than anything from China. They have a lot more years of
experience building vehicles. I won't get into issues of relative wages and
working conditions.
The low-end Daewoos, Kias, and Hyundais aren't imported to the states. But
in Korea, they cost in the $5k range (sometimes less). About 3 years ago,
for example, you could still buy a Kia Pride, sold here years ago as the
Ford Festiva, with a 1.3L (I think) carbureted engine for about $4500. (I
think they finally stopped making them a couple years ago, alas.)
The question is, would any of the Korean mfgs. be willing to sell gliders?
And how much would import duty and transport costs add? What about US
FMVSS? (That's a concern with any vehicle not currently imported to the US,
regardless of its place of origin.)
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Nobody has said it, but how about a limmo ? Limousine manufacturers make
money, and the cost of the leather, birch wood, and gold emblems would make
the motor, controller and batteries dissapear in comparison.
Also people that buy limmos can afford to be environmentally consciuos.
the con of weight is counterblanaced with plenty of room for batts, and it
could be made higher to accomodate a full floorboard of batts.
So a Luxury car company, that makes profit, and uses the proit to provide
low cost ev's.
Just a thought.
Ivo
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nombre de Bob Rice
Enviado el: martes, 22 de marzo de 2005 1:34
Para: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: Re: Selectris Sunrise...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Selectris Sunrise...
> I am gonna vote we keep this discussion on the list, It could be the
> biggest thing in EV's yet.
>
> it is on topic!
> Yes! Sure is! I love it when you guyz talk it up as " What can/ will we DO
about producing EV's. That one size doesn't fit all is a good starting
point. Jerry's 3 wheeler sounds like a basic poz cash flow type thing to
advance to a 4 seater, Sunrise if you will, other guyz like or want trucks,
the utility of the things, others bikes. EVen toyota and Ford don't offer
one vehicle. We need to organize, now as Jerry sez.
Seeya
Bob
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
nice, maybe too radical for the average user, but nonetheless nice, BTW,
there are three wheel reliants in england that are four seaters.
Ivo.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nombre de Andrea Bachus Kohler
Enviado el: martes, 22 de marzo de 2005 0:42
Para: David Navas; ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Asunto: Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1
David,
My previous company tried to do exactly what the list is stating they set
out to do. Before I showed a picture of our design, I asked what people
wanted. The list is made up of quite a mixed bunch, so I thought it would
be a good sampling. Some wanted sexy like the EV1, while others wanted
ultra utilitarian 5 passenger do everything SUV. I expected that. My
company had originally gone down the same thought process that is playing
out here, as it's been done before. Since I drive a 3 wheeled Doran, which
is classified as a motorcycle in most states, we first focused on it to
avoid crash testing expenses. But only a 2 seater is a viable option in
that design, and to get the volumes up (easily accomplished with one single
fleet order), we decided it should be a 4 seater for utilitarian purposes.
Besides, if you are going to pay more for an electric (than the equivalent
ICE), it better be useful to as many people as possible. Two seat sports
cars can command a premium because of their performance. However, to make a
performer like the EV1, the power train and batteries all have to be high
performance, adding to the cost. Since we were a small company, we were
trying to at least break even on the first 100 vehicles as we could not
afford millions in investment to be paid back at a later date through
volumes of cars being sold.
Since we were leaning toward a 4 seater, we came across this composite body
through another company that had started it for another purpose, but never
completed it. It had many of the design features of the Sunrise. All
composite, reinforced in critical areas, and light weight. When we first
drove it (with a gas engine), I think it weighed about 1600 pounds! The
front end that held the motor and front suspension was tubular frame and
bolted to the firewall of the main body "tub". In theory, this front end
could be unbolted and replaced with a natural gas engine, diesel engine, or
electric variation, as the car was front wheel drive. The design also lent
itself to be exported as parts and assembled in the country of final origin
(gaining all kinds of benefits). The car sat 4 comfortably in van-like
captain's chairs and had two little fold down jump seats in the rear for
those occasional short distance travelers. The battery pack (or fuel tanks
as the case might be) was housed in a large rectangular space underneath the
front seats.
My job was to come up with the different electric configurations as we
didn't know exactly which market we were going to need to target first, but
needed the body/molds to accommodate anything. I made the space large
enough for 12 LFP Chinese sealed lead acid batteries (all my options were
maintenance free) which were the cheapest I could find. Was going to mate
it to a series DC motor and Curtis 144V controller for the cheapest version
of the car. The space also accommodated Optima's, Panasonic lead acids and
NiMH, Ni-Zn, Zebra, and I had hoped Li-ion depending on the range we needed.
Ni-Zn could have been a good mid price version, offering more range. Li-ion
of course was the ultimate range (and price tag). AC motor selection was
never nailed down, but was considering around a 60kW system from either
Siemens, Enova and one from Italy called Ansaldo Electric Drive. This
should have been adequate for a 2500 pound car. Other innovations were to
remove the rear seats and offer a pick up truck version with a mid-level bed
with storage underneath (like the Honda Ridgeline now offers!). The rear
door (and it was more a door) was going to be hinged on the bottom and on
the side to act as a gate or a ramp (for wheelchairs if the vehicle was to
be used as a taxi). I believe several trucks from GM and again the
Ridgeline have this dual mode tailgate feature.
I saved many of the emails that people sent me offering advice on which
direction to go (as far as styling, component selection, etc), which may be
of value to those resurrecting this type of platform.
As for the Sunrise that was on ebay, it has already been sold. But I like
the lists' drive and enthusiasm and wanted to offer my "story"
For those of you who want to see a picture of the "Verve" click on
http://www.evoftexas.com/concept.jpg
We made a rear canopy for the rear. It had doors, but the side glass had
yet to be added.
It used a NEON windshield and front lights and bumper from a Taurus. Almost
all of the other parts could be purchased at AutoZone or from a number of
Taiwanese aftermarket suppliers.
At one time, I had posed the question as to what people would think about
just buying it as a glider and adding their own guts, kind of like an open
architecture EV platform, but surprisingly didn't get much response.
Marc Kohler
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Navas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1
> Someone [could not recover ill-quoted material] wrote:
>>>The Sunrise is a remarkable EV, in many ways a much more sophisticated
>>>design than the EV-1.
>
>>(finger in mouth, gaggg) Better than an EV-1? I don't think David meant
> it
>>was a better car than an EV1.
>
> I think there are two fundamentally different ways to go, and nothing is
> going to please everyone. You can go for practical -- a truck with
> seating
> for the family, or you can go racy -- plenty of power, but no GVWR left
> for seating for five. Everything is a compromise, and there are
> definitely
> steps in between (a two door, four seater with power would be my halfway
> point).
>
> I think it might be better to throw out a couple of sketched designs and
> see which ones attract attention. BTW -- has anyone figured out where
> UEV (http://www.universalelectricvehicle.com/products.html) is with any
> of their products?
>
> Here is what I'm looking for:
> 1) four seats. Two in the back for kids -- need not seat 6' adults
> 1a) anywhere, for that matter -- I'm only 5'4", and I'm the tallest
> in the family.
> 2) 0-60 < 8s
> 3) At least 100mi range
> 4) <$40k
>
> In some of my crazier moments, I toy with the idea of 13" Warps, and
> unobtainium lithiums, and throwing the whole thing into a Noble. In
> my more sane days, I'd like to grab one of the 3-door Saturn SCs and
> convert them, and wish that Valence was shipping a U-charge system
> with at least 50% higher energy density, and about four times the power.
> Or an affordable Kokam with a BMS attached to it....
> <sigh>
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Make Yahoo! your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You're dreaming, if they are crushing them, and won't sell one for a
million, the patents are going to be put to the shredder.
But they could "dissapear" from the patent office, maybe a 100 grand mean
nothing to GM, but to the guy in charge of the patent office ?
Sorry, please remeber I live in latin america, we bribe our way out of
everything :))
Ivo
-----Mensaje original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nombre de Jeff Shanab
Enviado el: martes, 22 de marzo de 2005 9:45
Para: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Asunto: Re: Solectria Sunrise as a replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit
replacement
Here is a thought, Patents can be licensed or sold. What if the newly
formed "EVlist inc" gathered togather enough funds to buy the rights
from GM for the EV-1?
Even if GM says no, perhaps we could create some great PR, get Jay leno
involved??
headline "Following EV1-vigle, group offers GM 2 million for patent
rights to EV1"
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 18/03/2005
--- End Message ---
