EV Digest 4219
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit replacement
by "Claudio Natoli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: American business model
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) A LARGE motor
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: American business model
by Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1--let's go to the next step
by Tim Clevenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Rangers not wanted? Hah...
by Marc Geller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Where's the "slack"?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
8) EVLN(Valence & Phoenix Motorcars Achieve CARB EV Cert)
by bruce parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: You have been unsubscribed from the EVChargerNews mailing list
by "Bill Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Glider source
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) RE: You have been unsubscribed from the EVChargerNews mailing list
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: A LARGE motor
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Minimum EV car requirements
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) OT RE: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1 and Re: Rabbit
replacement
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Riker Electric Vehicles Website
by "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Finally...the 200sx 0-60 time and T-shirt winners
by Quin Pendragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Headlight Questions
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Fwd: Glider source
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: A LARGE motor
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: GE Motor specs?
by "M.G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Minimum EV car requirements
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Intellectual property
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Tax Credit
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24) Re: Glider source
by "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25) Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1--let's go to the next
step
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
26) Got my donor truck!
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart writes:
> We aren't hurting GM if we build an EV1, as they have loudly
> proclaimed that they have no interest in ever producing it.
Moreover, they have loudly claimed that there is no *market* for the EV1. Now,
I'm not up to scratch on US law, but I find it hard to imagine that they could
make a good case for any damages.
On the flip side, what a behemoth like GM could easily do is flatten a small EV
start-up with the legal costs needed to defend any ongoing court action. I'd
steer well clear of copying the EV1 in any recognisable way for now.
David Roden writes:
> Someone here said that GM can't afford legal action, but I'm afraid that's
> probably wishful thinking. In spite of recent problems, GM is far from being
> on the ropes. They are one of the largest businesses in the world and have
> huge credit reserves.
They've also got about $300 Billion in debt against about the same amount in
potentially interest-rate sensitive assets, massive health and pension plan
liabilities versus a market cap of circa $16 Billion and their bonds rated just
above junk status iirc. They can still happily sue just about anyone into the
ground. But far off the ropes? Not so sure. I can imagine a future where a
small EV start-up is able to secure the rights to the EV1 at a reasonable
price. But I wouldn't build a business predicated on that possibility.
Cheers,
Claudio
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:47:05 -0800, Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Now, if we could raise enough money, we could *finance* Rick Woodbury so
>he *could* pursue the Foxtrot more actively.
That's a grand idea and certainly makes more sense than trying to
start from scratch. Maybe get some hollywood types to put their money
where their mouths are. If there are 1000 members on this list
(doubtful but let's pretend) and each put up $1000 for stock in the
company, there's a million bux. One can do a LOT with a megabuck if
one is careful and leaves out the non-essentials.
As I've said before, I think the current luxury car business plan is
DOA. I think that is reflected in the lack of investors. I think
that a $15k car would be a hit. A $10-12k car a smashing hit.
The reason I think it would be a hit is because the car offers some
very useful features, useful to many people and not just the True
Believers. Small, maneuverable, park almost anywhere, drive
essentially like a motorcycle. That it is electric would be an
additional feature to some, a negative feature to others but the
overall package would sell, I think.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Panoz car company is
an excellent. They've succeeded where many others have failed
miserably. My experience with the family is that they're highly
approachable and willing to teach others. Who know? Maybe they could
round up some car savvy investors.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I just got back from a long weekend at my cabin in the mountains.
Prime opportunity to create more web content. I was filtering through
my ephoto files for goodies and found something many on this list
would be interested in, I think.
If you look here:
http://www.johngsbbq.com/Neon_John_site/EV/400_HP_motor/400_home.htm
You'll find a photo album from the rebuilding of a 400 hp, 600 volt DC
motor.
I put up a lot of other content too, including a partial dissection of
the Honda GX-31 mini-4 stroke engine, very useful for small DC
generators.
http://www.johngsbbq.com/Neon_John_site/Generator/Honda_GX_31_engine/GX_31_home.htm
There is now a site index which makes finding things much easier.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ah, my understanding was that the Foxtrot was essentially the same car,
but with fewer motors, smaller controllers, no leather, etc. I remember
reading about the point at which the price could be driven down that far,
but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Perhaps I'm wrong on that.
Is the $80,000 price so that Rick starts recouping his investment
immediately, or is that the actual cost of the parts? I seem to remember
GM estimating the EV-1's price at $50k so they could recoup the
initial investment very quickly; I don't think a small maker could do that.
Tim
-------
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:47:05 -0800
> From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: American business model
>
> No, the Tango is not at all out of the question. Rick Woodbury is
> pursuing it with all possible haste. But, he's still at the stage of low
> production hand-made luxury cars. He has plans to produce a lower-cost
> mass-produced "Foxtrot" version, but the design isn't even off the
> drawing board. The advantage of "cloning" the Sunrise or EV1 is that
> there is already a working design to begin with.
>
> Now, if we could raise enough money, we could *finance* Rick Woodbury so
> he *could* pursue the Foxtrot more actively.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There are many car companies who make a profit while not making a single
"practical" vehicle, such as Ferrari, Lamborghini, Saleen.
The Tango (or Foxtrot) has the opportunity that those don't have--to be both
practical and high-performance. But in order to do that, there needs to be a
lot more exposure: test drives, media events, etc. In short, Rick needs to
haul one of these down to Hollywood, zoom down the 405, park sideways
on Rodeo drive and participate in local SCCA events. Start loaning it out
to car mag editors. Take it out and drag it against the gassers. And stretch
out that investment recouping time--$35k might be feasible for a toy for the
locals, but $80k probably isn't.
California may not be the automotive manufacturing capital of the world, but
I can about guarantee that we're the performance automobile consuming
capital.
Tim
---------
> > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:32:50 -0800
> From: Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Re: Selectria Sunrise as replacement for EV-1--let's go to the next
> step
>
> I respectfully disagree. The Tango was designed from the ground up to be
> an electric car. Thus, it has much higher performance than an equivalent
> ICE conversion would have.
>
> I've driven the Tango, and it does seem to work. The motors, batteries,
> and controller *are* pretty special. It is probably the highest-powered
> EV on the road today, and is optimized for maximum cost-is-no-object
> accelleration.
>
> A two-seater is an improvement over one-seaters like the Sparrow.
> Basically, the Tango is a flashy high-performance sports car. All
> automakers have flashy sports car models. It happens to be the first
> model Commutercars is building, but they have plans for others.
>
> They are calling their planned 2-seat economy version the "Foxtrot".
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Great asking your local Ford rep. Now he knows too.
Put yourself on that list anyway.
On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Christopher Zach wrote:
Just talked to my local Ford rep. He called the person in charge of
the Ranger program, and apparently she has been swamped with requests.
Not much chance to get one, since the lease people are buying them.
And there are now "hundreds" of people on the list.
Hm. You would think that people didn't want electric cars according to
GM. But according to Ford, people do. Go figure.
Maybe someone should bring this up to the local newspaper and get a
story made out of it.
Chris
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
<< 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. >>
Ya know, I've gotten a talkin' to for posting politics a couple times, but I'd
say you're much more consistent in this regard (but yes, some listees react
without fully thinking things out or researching the facts). With regards to
your mum's rules, when you accuse someone of something, the first thing to do
is look in the mirror.
I always hate reading anything on the internet with bad spelling and/or grammer,
but I know some great mechanics also have dyslexia, so they deserve some slack -
they must not try reading their own posts before hitting send!
You offer knowledge other listees don't have, but **please** don't submit the
invective with it.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN(Valence & Phoenix Motorcars Achieve CARB EV Cert)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/Mar/1127373.htm
[March 22, 2005]
Valence and Phoenix Motorcars Join Forces to Achieve CARB
Certification for Electric Vehicles
AUSTIN, Texas --(Business Wire)-- March 22, 2005 -- Only Car on
Market to Receive CARB Type II Certification with Full Zero
Emission Credits
Valence Technology, Inc., a leader in the development and
commercialization of Saphion(R) technology, the only safe large
format Lithium-ion rechargeable battery technology, played a
pivotal role in helping Phoenix Motorcars, Inc. achieve a key
certification as a manufacturer of full zero emission electric
vehicles (EVs). Using vehicles powered by Valence's U-Charge(TM)
Power Systems, Phoenix Motorcars was awarded Type II
certification by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and
now offers the only vehicle on the market with this rating.
CARB certification, viewed as a "must have" by California
consumers, clears the way for Phoenix Motorcars, an early leader
in mass production of full-function electric automobiles, to
deploy 20 electric taxicabs in Sacramento, California. The cabs
will be powered by Valence's U-Charge Power Systems.
"Until recently, lead-acid and nickel metal hydride were the only
battery chemistry options for the electric vehicle industry,"
said Stephan Godevais, president and CEO of Valence Technology.
"However, the advantages of the U-Charge system -- longer range,
fast recharge and greater longevity -- make it an ideal option
for electric vehicle use. And, since our technology contains no
toxic heavy metals, it is safer for the environment."
Phoenix Motorcars chose Valence's U-Charge Power System to
replace its nickel-zinc batteries due to increased range and
longevity. Vehicles powered by the U-Charge system have a range
of up to 120 miles on a single charge, and have four to five
times the life cycle of their nickel-zinc counterparts. In
addition, Valence's technology is superior to nickel-zinc and
lead-acid batteries in other key areas including: faster recharge
time, less weight and higher energy density.
According to Dana Muscato, CEO of Phoenix Motorcars, "No other
car or battery on the market has attained this level of CARB
certification. That's why the partnership with Valence is so
important. Valence's U-Charge battery is critical to meeting our
system requirements and achieving maximum vehicle performance."
He continued, "With the growing concern over the environment, we
have found that consumers want to make a change if there is a
viable alternative. We believe our cars can make a difference."
Vehicles with CARB type II certification have no exhaust
emissions and have a range of more than 100 miles on a single
charge. The CARB rating allows owners to qualify for full zero
emission vehicle credits. California owners are eligible for
one-time rebates of up to $5,000 from their local air quality
management districts, enjoy free parking in some of the most
heavily trafficked areas of the state, drive in carpool lanes
with a lone occupant, and are exempt from some excise and luxury
taxes. In addition, owners may also qualify for a one-time
federal tax credit of 10% of the purchase price up to $4,000.
About the U-Charge Power System
The U-Charge Power System is a family of Lithium-ion energy
storage systems that offers superior run-time, requires little to
no maintenance, and delivers greater energy density, reliability,
long life and intrinsic safety. The U-Charge system powers a
variety of motive applications including hybrid and electric
vehicles, scooters and wheelchairs. Built on a phosphate cathode
core, the U-Charge system's Saphion technology is intrinsically
safe and environmentally friendly. It combines the power and
performance of Lithium-ion with Saphion technology's safety
characteristics to challenge the dominance of lead acid
batteries.
About Phoenix Motorcars, Inc.
Phoenix Motorcars, based in Ojai, California, is developing a
line of environmentally sound, zero-emission vehicles that are
safe, have excellent performance, and are fun to drive. Phoenix
Motorcars is currently the only California Air Resources Board
certified freeway speed electric vehicle manufacturer in
production. At the present time, PMI is in limited production and
has entered negotiations with a Tier I automobile assembly
subcontractor to address the fleet market. The company believes
that the fleet sales market for zero emission vehicles is massive
and immediate. Phoenix Motorcars is working to make Freeway
Capable Zero Emission vehicles affordable and widely available.
About Valence Technology, Inc.
Valence Technology is a leader in the development and
commercialization of Saphion(R) technology, the only safe large
format Lithium-ion rechargeable battery technology. Valence holds
an extensive, worldwide portfolio of issued and pending patents
relating to its Saphion technology and Lithium-ion rechargeable
batteries. The company has facilities in Austin, Texas,
Henderson, Nevada and Suzhou and Shanghai, China. Valence is
traded on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market under the symbol VLNC and
can be found on the Internet at www.valence.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
The information contained herein includes "forward-looking
statements." [...]
Technology Marketing Corporation, One Technology Plaza, Norwalk,
CT 06854 USA Ph: 800-243-6002, 203-852-6800; Fx: 203-853-2845
General comments: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comments about this site:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Technology Marketing Corp. 1997-2005
Copyright.
Bruce {EVangel} Parmenter
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor, RE & AFV newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
===== Undo Petroleum Everywhere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Not a lot of detail on their web site, but they claim they accomplish the
fast charging by alternating charging and discharging, reducing resistance
by reversing current.
Bill Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of EV Chargernews
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:20 PM
To: 'EVList'
Subject: FW: You have been unsubscribed from the EVChargerNews mailing list
Just in case there is interest. I'm not intending to reply to Debby
myself.
Tom Dowling
-----Original Message-----
From: Debby Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: You have been unsubscribed from the EVChargerNews mailing
list
My original intent in joining the mailing list was to identify
opportunities to introduce AccelRate's battery charging technology to
the newsgroup. The posts, however, are primarily focused on new
charging stations and/or issues related to those.
FYI, following is a list of just a few of the benefits to using
AccelRate's battery charging technology:
o Charges batteries 5 TIMES FASTER than conventional chargers.
o The ONLY charger to return a discharged battery to a FULL STATE
OF
CHARGE in less than 2 HOURS.
o Perfectly suited to "Top Up Anytime" opportunity charging, as
well
as "full state of charge" recharging.
o Requires no modifications to the battery.
o Generates no more heat in the battery than a conventional
charger.
o Does the work of FIVE conventional chargers in 10 PERCENT of
the
space.
If you have another format for introducing our technology, I would be
most pleased to hear your recommendations.
Sincerely,
Debby Harris
Vice President - Corporate and Market Development AccelRate Power
Systems Inc.
1370 -1140 West Pender St.
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6E 4G1
Tel: (604) 688-8656
Cell: (778) 386-4333
Fax: (604) 688-8654
Toll Free: 888-866-9395
http://www.AccelRate.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: You have been unsubscribed from the EVChargerNews mailing list
If you wish to explain your reasons for leaving the EVChargerNews
mailing list, please send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think we have left out a good source for gliders. If we are becoming
manufactures we shouldn't consider paying bluebook, even low bluebook is
a retail price.
Used car trade-ins
Most the bigger car dealers have more than they can handle, there are
auctions that an assoiciate I know of goes to a couple of times a year
and buys 3 or 4 high end cars, details and resells. It is how he and his
wife make extra money. Buyers can be private, but most the time it is
used car dealers on the better ones and the wrecking yards buy the rest.
I know dealers in Fresno that have called wrecking yards to pick up cars
that they gave "$1,000" trade in for, they got about $200 for the car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Bill and All,
Isn't this just spam?
jerry dycus
--- Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Not a lot of detail on their web site, but they
> claim they accomplish the
> fast charging by alternating charging and
> discharging, reducing resistance
> by reversing current.
>
> Bill Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of EV Chargernews
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 2:20 PM
> To: 'EVList'
> Subject: FW: You have been unsubscribed from the
> EVChargerNews mailing list
>
> Just in case there is interest. I'm not intending
> to reply to Debby
> myself.
>
> Tom Dowling
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debby Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: You have been unsubscribed from the
> EVChargerNews mailing
> list
>
> My original intent in joining the mailing list was
> to identify
> opportunities to introduce AccelRate's battery
> charging technology to
> the newsgroup. The posts, however, are primarily
> focused on new
> charging stations and/or issues related to those.
>
> FYI, following is a list of just a few of the
> benefits to using
> AccelRate's battery charging technology:
>
> o Charges batteries 5 TIMES FASTER than conventional
> chargers.
>
> o The ONLY charger to return a discharged battery to
> a FULL STATE
> OF
> CHARGE in less than 2 HOURS.
>
> o Perfectly suited to "Top Up Anytime" opportunity
> charging, as
> well
> as "full state of charge" recharging.
>
> o Requires no modifications to the battery.
>
> o Generates no more heat in the battery than a
> conventional
> charger.
>
> o Does the work of FIVE conventional chargers in 10
> PERCENT of
> the
> space.
>
> If you have another format for introducing our
> technology, I would be
> most pleased to hear your recommendations.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Debby Harris
> Vice President - Corporate and Market Development
> AccelRate Power
> Systems Inc.
> 1370 -1140 West Pender St.
> Vancouver, BC, Canada V6E 4G1
> Tel: (604) 688-8656
> Cell: (778) 386-4333
> Fax: (604) 688-8654
> Toll Free: 888-866-9395
> http://www.AccelRate.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: You have been unsubscribed from the
> EVChargerNews mailing list
>
> If you wish to explain your reasons for leaving the
> EVChargerNews
> mailing list, please send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Neon John wrote:
> found something many on this list
> would be interested in, I think.
>
> http://www.johngsbbq.com/Neon_John_site/EV/400_HP_motor/400_home.htm
> You'll find a photo album from the rebuilding of a 400 hp, 600 volt DC motor.
Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it and seeing those pics.
What's a guess as to what it weighed? What type of torque could it put out?
Why don't the manufactures boast about how much torque their motors
put out since it's so much higher then the horsepower levels?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think we are gonna have to have multiple models for multiple target
audiences. Which one we do first is open to discussion.
What are are target audiences ?
College Students : Rarely leave town, can use parents car for longer
trips. But may have charging issues at apartments
Single workaholics : get me to work and back, 2 seater is fine.
Family car : 2 door 2+2 . Please forget the 4 door, they have really
short doors and it turns out to be easier to get the baby in and out of
the 2 door than the sharp 90 degree reach into the abrivieated back
seat. Compareing my nissan 1600 to my grand am, man I miss that 1600.
New driver : Mom and Pa get Juniour an EV, he can't cruise all night. :-)
Muscle car : what we all want to build.
Which is the best group to start with, which is most likely to spend the
money?
each group has it's own minimum requirements
College students : point A to point B, cheap to operate and buy
40mile range, 110V chargeing, air
Single workoholics : reliable, peer level performance, more space for
stuff, side trips 60mile range, DC, air, AGM
Family car : Range, range, safety, quiet, descrite
100mile range, AC drive, Air/PS/PB/locks/windows, may have to wait for
Lithium-ion
New driver : wants power, but cheap to operate, safety
40mile rnge, DC, AGM(low
maintanence)
Muscle car : no explination necessary?, upgradeable, powerful
30mile range, DC, AGM, z1k min
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Claudio and All,
--- Claudio Natoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Lee Hart writes:
> > We aren't hurting GM if we build an EV1, as they
> have loudly
> > proclaimed that they have no interest in ever
> producing it.
>
> Moreover, they have loudly claimed that there is no
> *market* for the EV1. Now, I'm not up to scratch on
> US law, but I find it hard to imagine that they
> could make a good case for any damages.
Jusy another reason GM wouldn't have a legal leg to
stand on.
>
> On the flip side, what a behemoth like GM could
> easily do is flatten a small EV start-up with the
> legal costs needed to defend any ongoing court
> action. I'd steer well clear of copying the EV1 in
> any recognisable way for now.
>
Depends on how you set up your company. If you
incorporate and have no assets, what are they going to
do? And how it should be done to keep all kinds of
vultures at bay. No one will sue something that has no
assets.
You just change your name and incorporate again if
nessasary. As they say, 2 can play that game ;-0
That's actually the main reason to incorporate.
But again, who would want to copy the EV-1?
Both Lee and I have experience in industries where
this kind of stuff is done and well known and the
legal details to keep it legal is common knowledge.
There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.
What's immoral is GM, Ford and Crysler took
$300,000,000 each of taxpayers money to build an EV
program and what did we get? Crushed!!!
Now they are taking the same amount for a Fuel
Cell program and I'd bet we will get the same thing!
HTH's,
jerry dycus
>
> David Roden writes:
> > Someone here said that GM can't afford legal
> action, but I'm afraid that's
> > probably wishful thinking. In spite of recent
> problems, GM is far from being
> > on the ropes. They are one of the largest
> businesses in the world and have
> > huge credit reserves.
>
> They've also got about $300 Billion in debt against
> about the same amount in potentially interest-rate
> sensitive assets, massive health and pension plan
> liabilities versus a market cap of circa $16 Billion
> and their bonds rated just above junk status iirc.
> They can still happily sue just about anyone into
> the ground. But far off the ropes? Not so sure. I
> can imagine a future where a small EV start-up is
> able to secure the rights to the EV1 at a reasonable
> price. But I wouldn't build a business predicated on
> that possibility.
>
> Cheers,
> Claudio
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Michael,
Ivan would have a more definite answer for you.
Check in from time to time on the website and we will also submit news
announcements concerning the Smart EV here.
> Michael Hurley wrote:
> Any indication yet of when to expect delivery of vehicles in quantity?
> Auf wiedersehen!
Chip Gribben
Riker Electric Vehicles
Webmaster
http://www.rikerelectricvehicles.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
*de-lurk*
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:35:24 -0700, Ryan Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way - 12.48 is faster than the turbocharged 4-banger was before
> the conversion!! Fun!
>
Umm... are you sure? 12.48 is an OK 0-60 time for a middle-of-the-road
electric, or econobox petrol, but a turbo 200sx would do it in more
like 6 - 7 seconds. Possibly you're thinking of quarter-mile times? In
that case 12.48 would be half a second quicker than White Zombie...
Congrats on getting the 200sx on the road, though. I wish I had an
electric car, no matter what 0-100 time. :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yes. Road legal. I converted my headlights to halogen & found out that
D.O.T. standards limit brightness not dimness. I have seen as low as 25watt
bulbs available. LR.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Poulsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 9:08 AM
Subject: Headlight Questions
When purchasing headlights, if it says it "Meets DOT requirements," does
that mean that it's road legal?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Glider source
> Used car trade-ins
I'm sure everyone has seen one of those regional auction lot's for "dealers
only." I always
thought that if I was planning on selling cars, I would be enough of a dealer
that I could qualify
to get into one of those places. It could be a good source of fairly priced
gliders.
My plan has always been to build up a small business building conversions. With
expectations for
cars so high, why go through all the trouble of reinventing the wheel. The
biggest reason we are
so concerned with weight and efficiency is because battery technology is so far
behind. But I'm
optomistic that it will improve in the near future. So if batteries get better
and we don't have
to worry about weight and range, conversions will work. Then you have a car
comparable with
anything on the market including antilock brakes, air bags, AC, etc., etc. You
become the expert
on electric drive systems and leave the car designs to others.
I always saw the target audience as commuters living around a major city with
about a 25 mile
daily round trip or less. They would use the car for commuting 5 days a week
and use the mini-van
or SUV for the rest of their driving. The EV should be the second or third car
in the family. Or
convert their favorite car. The one they still love, but now it's puking smoke
and guzzling $3/gal
fuel. And a conversion is a lot cheaper than buying a new car. It won't work on
economics alone,
but at least we can make it as easy and familiar as possible.
How big can you grow? Well, how about a production shop building 1, 5, or 20
cars a week? Take a
map of the nearest major metropolis (I live near Hartford, CT) in your area and
draw a circle
around the center with a 10 mile radius. How many people live in that circle?
An EV would work for
most of those commuters. If you only appealed to a tenth of a percent, you'd
still have a huge
market. Your company can grow as big as you make it or stay as small as you
want. And there can be
a "chain" of these shops in each major city. Everyone on the list can run their
own shop while
supporting each other with help on design and ideas like you are already doing
now.
Don Cameron has what I see as the right prototype with the Beetle conversion. A
new enough design
to appeal to many modern car owners. I don't want to say that EV drivers are
excentric, but I
always thought the Beetle appeals to those a little off the main stream. (I've
owned 4 so far.)
But since you are an expert in electric drive systems, you can convert any car
the customer wants.
Just my hope for the future. We don't have to change the world overnight, but
if we can keep
plugging away, a little at a time ... who knows.
Dave Cover
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:15:36 -0600, Ryan Stotts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Neon John wrote:
>
>> found something many on this list
>> would be interested in, I think.
>>
>> http://www.johngsbbq.com/Neon_John_site/EV/400_HP_motor/400_home.htm
>> You'll find a photo album from the rebuilding of a 400 hp, 600 volt DC motor.
>
>Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it and seeing those pics.
>
>What's a guess as to what it weighed?
I'm thinking about 3 tons but I could be way off. I do recall the
discussion that the truck was probably legally overloaded.
>What type of torque could it put out?
We have what we need to figure it. 400 hp, 1800 rpm. let's see. 400
= 1800x/5252. 2,100,800 = 1800x. x=1167.111 ft-lbs of torque.
That's at the normal operating point and 100% load. It will actually
generate much more torque when overloaded because of the series field.
I wouldn't think 2500 ft-lbs would be out of order.
>
>Why don't the manufactures boast about how much torque their motors
>put out since it's so much higher then the horsepower levels?
No boasting going on with industrial electric motors, except in some
very special cases. In fixed applications there is a known or
estimated amount of work to be done. The designer wants to use the
smallest motor that will deliver that much work because a fully loaded
motor is the most efficient, generally. The only time the power
output is bragged about is when the motor has a high specific output
(power/weight) and the bragging is usually how much power can be
delivered from a given volume or weight.
Motor mfrs supply both power and torque curves so the designer can
pick the motor that best fits his application without a lot of
gearing.
John
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thats a bunch :)
Mike G.
Ryan Stotts wrote:
M.G. wrote:
all right the question has been raised.. How many amps and volts would
you run this motor on?
300 volts(minimum) and 2,000 amps. :)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:17:04 -0800, Jeff Shanab
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think we are gonna have to have multiple models for multiple target
>audiences. Which one we do first is open to discussion.
>What are are target audiences ?
>
>College Students : Rarely leave town, can use parents car for longer
>trips. But may have charging issues at apartments
>
>Single workaholics : get me to work and back, 2 seater is fine.
let's stick another one in this list right about here.
Errand runner, commuter car, around town car or whatever you want to
call it. Decent acceleration. Top speed of 55mph to keep up with
surface road traffic. Range of about 30 miles running in the
stop'n'go in-town traffic. Low enough priced to be a second car
without taking out a mortgage on one's soul.
IMHO, this is the one that will work in the marketplace first and be
the cheapest to build.
>
>Family car : 2 door 2+2 .
>
>New driver : Mom and Pa get Juniour an EV, he can't cruise all night. :-)
>
>Muscle car : what we all want to build.
>
>Which is the best group to start with, which is most likely to spend the
>money?
>
>each group has it's own minimum requirements
>
>College students : point A to point B, cheap to operate and buy
> 40mile range, 110V chargeing, air
>Single workoholics : reliable, peer level performance, more space for
>stuff, side trips 60mile range, DC, air, AGM
>Family car : Range, range, safety, quiet, descrite
>
>100mile range, AC drive, Air/PS/PB/locks/windows, may have to wait for
>Lithium-ion
>New driver : wants power, but cheap to operate, safety
> 40mile rnge, DC, AGM(low
>maintanence)
>Muscle car : no explination necessary?, upgradeable, powerful
> 30mile range, DC, AGM, z1k min
>
>
---
John De Armond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.johngsbbq.com
http://neonjohn.blogspot.com <-- NEW!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- 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,
Not only that, but you can patent almost ANY idea, even ideas that don't
work or violate the known laws of physics. There are literally hundreds of
patents for magnetic motors, i.e. motors powered solely by permanent
pamgnets.
Anyway, my point is that you woul dneed to look at ALL of GMs patents on
the EV-1. It's possible that they patented things like "making the rear
of the vehicle narrower than the front in order to improve aerodynamics"
I don't know if they did or not, but if they did then that limits how
closely you can follow their design without infringing on their patents.
> 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.
It /might/ be illegal to copy if you are copying an "expression" of a
patented idea.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Lookes at this site.
>
> Funny, a motorcycle (or any less than four wheels
> vehicle for that matter) is not a motor vehicle at all
> by IRS definition of "motor vehicle".
>
I believe that is true of all federal definitions of "motor vehicle".
"Motor cycles" have a different definition state to state and I believe
the federal definition is intentionally vague. This allows, among other
things, to have different requirements for "motor cycles" and "motor
vehicles", i.e. "motor vehehicles" are required to have seatbelts, safety
glass, airbags, etc.
> Wonder if Sparrow is legal motorcycle but neither
> is a motor vehicle, what IRS thinks the fuel for
> a non-motor vehicle is for??
>
IRS probably doesn't care. /They/ don't make the laws, congress does.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So true.
I have a '93 Corsica and a '92 T-Bird in my back yard I can't give away.
Either would make a good EV, I think.
Dave
Some call it retirement, some call it a second career... I just call it
adding 5ive days to the weekend!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:00 PM
Subject: Glider source
I think we have left out a good source for gliders. If we are becoming
manufactures we shouldn't consider paying bluebook, even low bluebook is a
retail price.
Used car trade-ins
Most the bigger car dealers have more than they can handle, there are
auctions that an assoiciate I know of goes to a couple of times a year and
buys 3 or 4 high end cars, details and resells. It is how he and his wife
make extra money. Buyers can be private, but most the time it is used car
dealers on the better ones and the wrecking yards buy the rest. I know
dealers in Fresno that have called wrecking yards to pick up cars that
they gave "$1,000" trade in for, they got about $200 for the car.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart wrote:
They are calling their planned 2-seat economy version the "Foxtrot".
That's the one I'll be ordering!
That reminds me, send them my deposit!
I consider it a motorcycle (with climate control
and a stereo), that my Girlfriend can drive, that
doesn't use any gassoline, and other good stuff!
L8r
Ryan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well, I got my donor truck, a 86 Mitsubushi, 152K miles, GVWR is 4045, with
front GAWR 1840 and rear GAWR 2470 (totaling 4310, which is more than the GVWR,
go figure). I think the orig curb weight is 2478. So if I figure that all the
ICE parts should be in the neighborhood of 400 lbs, I have about 2000 lbs that
I can add.
The head was cracked so I got it pretty cheap. It'll need a new seat and new
tires but that is about all. The body is in good condition, no rust thanks to
the AZ sun, I'll probably paint it cause the existing tan color is pretty faded
in places.
I've already taken off the bed and gas tank. I was looking at the space and
thought that maybe behind the cab I could put my batteries, maybe stack them 2
high. I thought about putting the motor behind the axle, rotating the axle 90
deg. I'd have all the electronics up front and maybe some batteries. I'd also
make a new bed/rear that is aerodynamic, basically do away with the bed of the
truck. We'll see.
Then I saw the pictures that Don Buckshot has on his webstite where the S10
motor is in back, the same place I was thinking of putting mine.
Anyway, I'm still in the taking it apart stage, prepping the truck. I still
don't know what the components are going to be... Both the AC and DC systems
are good choices, although the AC system seems more expensive. Maybe I will do
a DC to get to know the system. I will probably do a lead acid battery pack.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Re the Sunrise as replacement thread - I am willing to put down $1000 if a
group gets together to produce a prototype and gets a parts list genereated.
Also it seems that all these emails back and forth make are pretty confusing,
the choices are so varied, and there is no consensous about what can be done,
should be done or how it is to be accomplished. So, as per Lee Hart's
suggestion, I'd be willing to meet somewhere and start to actually hash out a
program. As you know I'm really a newbie to EV, but I do think it is very
viable and will become, some day, a money making enterprise.
Also I found this link about the process behind the chassis of the Sunrise
http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/september99/departments/tech_focus/techfocus2.html,
it now takes them 6 minutes to make one.
Rush
Tucson AZ
--- End Message ---
