EV Digest 4540
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: What're they worth?
by Evan Tuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Bolt Circle
by Bryan B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Finding Parts
by Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Finding Parts
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Finding Parts
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN Truck
by keith vansickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Auto front suspension donor for trike from RWD
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN Truck
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Auto front suspension donor for trike from RWD
by "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN
Truck
by keith vansickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) tilting, Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: What're they worth?
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Wt-hr/mile for Mini, 140+ mile range on Ni cads, Re: What're they worth?
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) RE: Newby: that EV grin
by Chris & Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Racing 3wheels
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Racing 3wheels
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: CalCars Teach Lead Ron Gremban's ( that's why Li isn't in the
report, yet )
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) EVcort battery upgrade
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: CalCars Teach Lead Ron Gremban's ( that's why Li isn't in the report,
yet )
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) RE: Newby: that EV grin
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On 7/31/05, Ralph Merwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evan Tuer writes:
> >
> > Hi Ralph, what did they die of, out of interest? (My van has
> > STM-100MRE - water cooled)
>
> I think my car was drawing too much current from them. The SAFT spec
> only mentions 200 amps continuous or 500 amps for about 10 seconds,
> but the modules (according to tribal knowledge) "suffer dramatically
> reduced lifetimes" if subjected to currents over 250 amps. During my
> commute the pack would regularly see 300-350 amps when driving uphill
> on the freeway.
Ah. I know the peak is about 180A on mine.
> There is also some speculation that these modules were from a known-bad
> batch.
Yes, I read about a lot of seperator failures on the MRE batteries, as
you say from a particular batch.
> It's also possible that the battery boxes didn't have enough air flow
> to keep the modules cool.
A tricky thing to get right..
Thanks
Evan
--
EVan
http://www.tuer.co.uk/evs2
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That'll work, Thanks!
Otmar wrote:
At 7:35 PM -0700 7/30/05, Bryan B wrote:
Hi,
I've been walking all through internetwonderland, and still
haven't found a drawing, or bolt circle for a VW bellhousing (bug).
Anyone know where I can get it?
Thanks in advance!
Sure,
I have drawings of my adaptor plate on my site. They include the VW
bolt pattern and alignment ridge locations. Aircooled VW's and
Porsches share that.
Go to: http://evcl.com/914/
Click on "adaptor plate"
Drawing 1 shows is all together. Drawing 3 has the dimensions you want.
hth,
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Corrosion is in large part due to dissimilar metals. Since the terminals
are nickel, you'll have the least corrosion with nickel hardware. Why
not use nickel, or nickel-plated buss bars, and dispense with the copper
wire and crimp/solder/heatshrink entirely?
Another possibility is to buy nickel ring terminals. They make them for
high-temperature applications, like for connections to heating elements.
Lee
I'm in the same (or similar) boat John is in. I will be using nickel plated
copper busbars between most cells, but there is still a need to connect cables
to the cells. At a minimum I need to run cables from the pack to the
controller/motor. There will also be some inter pack cable runs.
So the question is how best to connect cables to the cells. We've been
discussing nickel plating copper ends which will then be crimped onto the
cables. The exposed cable end is an opportunity for corrosion. Based on past
threads about the problems with soldering and how well crimping works, I was
not planning on doing any soldering.
Nickel ring terminals sound nice, but how is the pricing? Do they crimp well?
The goal is to prevent exposed copper in the cell area.
Thanks
Dave Cover
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:41 AM 7/31/2005, Lee Hart wrote:
John G. Lussmyer wrote:
> This is for BB600 NiCd cells. I've found that unprotected metal
> corrodes REALLY fast near the tops of these batteries. So I was
> planning on getting the solid copper lugs and having them nickel
> plated. Then I can use shrinkwrap to seal the lug to the cable.
Ah, now I see. #6 wire seems pretty light for these cells. You aren't
planning to ever draw the very high currents they are capable of?
I'm using 4ga, not 6ga.
Corrosion is in large part due to dissimilar metals. Since the terminals
are nickel, you'll have the least corrosion with nickel hardware. Why
not use nickel, or nickel-plated buss bars, and dispense with the copper
wire and crimp/solder/heatshrink entirely?
I AM using busbars between cells. I need to use cable between cell
blocks, and to connect to the rest of the car.
I'm looking for the solid copper closed end lugs so that I can have
them nickel plated. Then use some heatshrink around the cable/lug to
protect all exposed copper.
Another possibility is to buy nickel ring terminals. They make them for
high-temperature applications, like for connections to heating elements.
Haven't been able to find those, and they sound expensive.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:26 AM 7/31/2005, Lee Hart wrote:
> I'd really prefer the lugs that enclose the entire end of the
> wire. Waytek also has them - but not with a #10 hole.
How about soldering the wire in? That plugs the hole in the end.
I may end up doing that, but I'm not sure if I can get those kinds of
connectors nickel plated.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
peter and all
good logical analysis.
which seems to be supported by the industrial
standard.
what about two wheels?
what about three wheeler that leans like a two
wheeler?
what about tracks?
duellies and other 6 wheelers?
what about the 8 wheeled japaneese electric kaazaa???
have fun discussing?
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If it is a 2f1r 3wh EV designed correctly,
> can
> > > even outhandle the best sportscars!
> >
> >
> > I've always wondered about how 3 wheels would
> > compare to 4 in a racing
> > environment. If we were to take an existing
> Nascar
> > and a Formula 1
> > car and convert each to 3 wheels, and race them
> > against the existing 4
> > wheel cars, would 3 wheels give an advantage?
> >
>
> Jerry makes this statement a lot, but I can't recall
> him ever offering
> irrefutable proof.
>
> I'll assume a two front wheeler (often called a
> tadpole) design. Two rear
> wheel design is similar, but often opposite to
> what's describe below. I.e.
> substitute acceleration for braking, etc.
>
> If you keep all other design constraints the same
> (except number of
> wheels), then logically speaking a well designed
> three wheeler can NOT
> handle all situations as well as a well designed
> four wheeler.
>
> Jerry will argue that you can make changes to the
> three wheeler to improve
> these problems (i.e. making the front wheels wider
> apart), but making the
> exact same changes to a four wheeler will improve it
> too and keep it in
> the lead.
>
> Three wheeler design (like all vehicle designs) is a
> series of compromises.
>
> In order to get the best cornering, you have to move
> the center of gravity
> (COG) forward to where approx 70% of it's weight is
> on the two front
> wheels (or back for two rear wheels). When you do
> this braking capability
> is reduced. Even if your weight doesn't shift so far
> forward during hard
> braking that you endo, it still lightens up the rear
> to the point where
> the rear wheel contributes almost nothing to
> braking.
> Granted a four wheel design gets MOST of it's
> braking from the front
> wheels, but the back wheels still contribute some.
>
> A three wheeler won't corner as well a four wheeler.
> In fact, unless you
> design the vehicle to only handle oval tracks, then
> it won't corner
> anywhere near as well.
> With only three wheels your center of gravity is
> closer to the outside
> edge formed by rear wheel and the outside front
> wheel. It HAS to be, the
> only way to get the same distance is to either
> a) move the COG until it's 100% between the two
> front wheels (now you
> have zero braking ability) or
> b) widen the front wheel track (see argument
> above about doing the same
> to a four wheeler)
>
> If all you do is turn left, then you can move the
> single wheel to be
> inline with the right wheel, but you'd still have to
> move it forward some
> which would cause comparatively more understeer.
>
> Finally, accelerating out of a corner is reduced on
> a three wheeler.
> Accelerating causes your COG to move back onto the
> single rear wheel and
> give less stability and reduces cornering ability.
>
> About the only physical advantages to a
> three-wheeler are, possibly, less
> rolling resistance -from one less wheel- and lower
> weight -one less wheel
> and suspension.
>
> Of course three wheelers have numerous
> 'bureaucratic' advantages over
> four-wheeler, because it most places in the USA,
> they are classified as
> bikes/motorcycles rather than automobiles. I
> believe the same is true in
> several other countries around the world.
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> As the man said, "I want my Kate and Edith too". Disk brakes, and
> enough
> oomph for 600 pounds of batteries. The VW can be converted to disks, but
> 600 pounds?
Sure no problem. The standard bug weighs almost 2000lbs without
cargo/passengers. I'm thinking the front end is rated for at least 1500
lbs.
They used the same basic suspension in the Combi/Bus/SingleCab/DoubleCab.
These weighed over 2000 lbs and most could carry another 2000 lbs. I
remember helping my dad pack a ton of hay (literally) into/onto our VW bus
and driving it home on numerous occasions.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> peter and all
> good logical analysis.
> which seems to be supported by the industrial
> standard.
>
> what about two wheels?
> what about three wheeler that leans like a two
> wheeler?
> what about tracks?
> duellies and other 6 wheelers?
> what about the 8 wheeled japaneese electric kaazaa???
> have fun discussing?
What about a leaning four wheeler?
Tracks have their own set of pro/cons, but speed and handling (except on
soft surfaces) are definitely in the con column.
Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most promissing. However, coming up
with a leaning mechanism that is simple, reliable, and effective is
challenging. Especially if you want it to be self-stabilizing in the
upright position.
My current three wheeler design uses a partial leaning scheme, i.e. the
front wheel and most of the body leans, but the rear wheels don't. I'm
currently trying to work out the geometry so that when it leans to the
left, the front wheel moves over to the right. The tricky part is making
it easy to return to the upright position. Easy in this case refers to
the amount of force required.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter, Stu and All,
--- Stu or Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trihawk - (304 - Two seater -Roadster)
>
> Rating: 10/10
>
> Review by Warren Behler. URL: N/A
>
>
> Manufactured: Jan 1985. Engine: 1,299cc
>
> 102,000 miles and still going.
>
>
> The 1983 / 84 Car Driver Yearbook when writing
> about going around corners
> said of the Trihawk It's the Best Handling vehicle
> you can buy ....Period.
> It is. It handles so well because of its
> front-wheel-drive with 75% of its
> weight up there. The local Porsche drivers around
> here don't wave to me
> anymore. Trihawks run best when they have a Porsche
> or two for breakfast.
> The vehicle is dead reliable. I've been thru
> 17-western states as far east
> as Des Moines, Iowa. My wife and I went 100-mi in a
> snowstorm in Nebraska,
> with the top doors and the heater on we were nice
> and cozy. Its the most fun
> you can have on three-wheels. I think Ill keep it
> around for another
> 102,000-miles......
To that add the Road and Track test of the Lean
Machine, a 1 front wheel trike that hit 1.2g in the
cornering test!! It's online.
Then add to that the 60yr winning racing streak of
the Morgan 3wheeler even at 1/3 the size of other cars
it raced against.
Regretfully, all 3wheelers fell out of favor as it
was considered a poor man's car.
>
> BoyntonStu
> Behalf Of Peter VanDerWal
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:44 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike
> pick up, and CUSHMAN
> Truck
>
> >
> > > If it is a 2f1r 3wh EV designed correctly,
> can
> > > even outhandle the best sportscars!
> >
> >
> > I've always wondered about how 3 wheels would
> > compare to 4 in a racing
> > environment. If we were to take an existing
> Nascar
> > and a Formula 1
> > car and convert each to 3 wheels, and race them
> > against the existing 4
> > wheel cars, would 3 wheels give an advantage?
> >
>
> Jerry makes this statement a lot, but I can't recall
> him ever offering
> irrefutable proof.
There is rarely irrefutable proof on anything
Peter!!
And it depends as I've always said on just what
you are comparing to. Unlike many others, I try to
describe exactly what I am comparing too.
Some of the best design data is the SAE papers on
lightweight and 3wh car design on the Robert Q Riley
website under downloads.
>
> I'll assume a two front wheeler (often called a
> tadpole) design. Two rear
> wheel design is similar, but often opposite to
> what's describe below. I.e.
> substitute acceleration for braking, etc.
>
> If you keep all other design constraints the same
> (except number of
> wheels), then logically speaking a well designed
> three wheeler can NOT
> handle all situations as well as a well designed
> four wheeler.
But just the opposite is sometimes true that 4wh
cannot handle some things as well as a 3wh can.
>
> Jerry will argue that you can make changes to the
> three wheeler to improve
> these problems (i.e. making the front wheels wider
> apart), but making the
> exact same changes to a four wheeler will improve it
> too and keep it in
> the lead.
I never said that, just shift the CG so it fits
the design. If you keep the correct CG of a 3wh on a
4wh, it too will handle horribly.
I am saying for the correctly designed on both, the
3wh with it's lighter weight of about 1/4 total, will
outperform a 4wh car in most cases. Please argue it
won't!! Then prove it if you can.
>
> Three wheeler design (like all vehicle designs) is a
> series of compromises.
So true of all vehicles.
>
> In order to get the best cornering, you have to move
> the center of gravity
> (COG) forward to where approx 70% of it's weight is
> on the two front
> wheels (or back for two rear wheels). When you do
No you don't, you use 66%front/34% rear about with
driver onboard for best handling.
> this braking capability
My biggest problem with braking is to keep from
going thru the windsheild!! And that's with front
brakes only.
> is reduced. Even if your weight doesn't shift so far
> forward during hard
> braking that you endo, it still lightens up the rear
Any where do you have any proof that ever
happened? With it's low CG, my E woody has no brake
dive at all. So lets see your proof on that?
I had a car rearend and submarine me at 25mph
closing speed from behind with my front brakes full on
and the E woody was completely stable, never feeling
like it would endo so if wasn't happening then, I
doubt braking would ever come close!! Again thanks to
it's low EV CG.
> to the point where
> the rear wheel contributes almost nothing to
> braking.
That happens on all cars that can brake that
fast, No?
> Granted a four wheel design gets MOST of it's
> braking from the front
> wheels, but the back wheels still contribute some.
But less than the 1/4 less weight the 3wh has to
stop.
And you have said nothing about chassis stiffness,
have you? In that important handling quality, the 3wh
beats the stuufing out of a 4wh car.
In fact a 4wh car has a big problem keeping all 4
wheels on the road in hard cornering, screwing up
handling, No?
>
> A three wheeler won't corner as well a four wheeler.
Prove it!
> In fact, unless you
> design the vehicle to only handle oval tracks, then
> it won't corner
> anywhere near as well.
> With only three wheels your center of gravity is
> closer to the outside
> edge formed by rear wheel and the outside front
> wheel. It HAS to be, the
> only way to get the same distance is to either
While true, it doesn't seem to matter in real life
as much as you think. And the ability of 3wh EV
batteries to really lower the CG easily makes up for
it along with it's lighter weight. The whole car makes
the handling, not just 1 point.
>
> Finally, accelerating out of a corner is reduced on
> a three wheeler.
> Accelerating causes your COG to move back onto the
> single rear wheel and
> give less stability and reduces cornering ability.
If you are accelerating, then you no longer need
max cornering, No? But who said you would only power
the rear wheel? Not me.
>
> About the only physical advantages to a
> three-wheeler are, possibly, less
> rolling resistance -from one less wheel- and lower
> weight -one less wheel
> and suspension.
Of course 1/4 lower weight won't help performance
at all ;-))
Have you ever driven a well designed 3wheeler? I
have and also the best sportscars in the world,
Porsche Carrera's,Lotus, Lambo's, Ferrari's, ect so I
can confindently say, well designed 3wh cars handle as
well or better than them!
As the tooling is about done on the Freedom EV, we
will see fairly soon, won't we?
I hope to join the Imp EV soon on the SCCA courses
here in Fla within a yr.
Jerry Dycus
>
> Of course three wheelers have numerous
> 'bureaucratic' advantages over
> four-wheeler, because it most places in the USA,
> they are classified as
> bikes/motorcycles rather than automobiles. I
> believe the same is true in
> several other countries around the world.
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
When I was in high school, I was friends with a couple guys (brothers) who's
Father had a penchant for VW microbusses and Flat nose Jeep trucks. On more
than one occasion, using a calculator, I added up all the passengers weight
(15 high school kids), and it was more than a ton. So I would say that the
microbus from around 1970 had a good stout front end, as far as weight goes
anyway.
With enough patience,
you can milk a porcupine
David C. Wilker Jr.
USAF (RET)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: Auto front suspension donor for trike from RWD
As the man said, "I want my Kate and Edith too". Disk brakes, and
enough
oomph for 600 pounds of batteries. The VW can be converted to disks, but
600 pounds?
Sure no problem. The standard bug weighs almost 2000lbs without
cargo/passengers. I'm thinking the front end is rated for at least 1500
lbs.
They used the same basic suspension in the Combi/Bus/SingleCab/DoubleCab.
These weighed over 2000 lbs and most could carry another 2000 lbs. I
remember helping my dad pack a ton of hay (literally) into/onto our VW bus
and driving it home on numerous occasions.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most
> promissing.
tadpole or delta?
However, coming up
> with a leaning mechanism that is simple, reliable,
> and effective is
> challenging. Especially if you want it to be
> self-stabilizing in the
> upright position.
> My current three wheeler design uses a partial
> leaning scheme, i.e. the
> front wheel and most of the body leans, but the rear
> wheels don't.
like the honda ??? delta
I'm currently trying to work out the geometry so that
> when it leans to the
> left, the front wheel moves over to the right.
which way are you turning?
> tricky part is making
> it easy to return to the upright position. Easy in
> this case refers to
> the amount of force required.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Keith, Peter and All,
--- keith vansickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most
> > promissing.
If you want narrow, then you are correct. Though
a lot has to be said for just 2 wheels for real eff.
>
> tadpole or delta?
>
>
> However, coming up
> > with a leaning mechanism that is simple, reliable,
> > and effective is
> > challenging. Especially if you want it to be
> > self-stabilizing in the
> > upright position.
> > My current three wheeler design uses a partial
> > leaning scheme, i.e. the
> > front wheel and most of the body leans, but the
> rear
> > wheels don't.
>
> like the honda ??? delta
The Honda Gyro is an excellent choice to follow
as it's handling, braking is excellent!!
I own one and the brake stability, stopping power
saved me the other day from being hood food!! A driver
turned right in front of me and the bike stopped on a
dime!! I'm glad I got that rear brake cable fixed!!
It's the safest braking, best handling MC I've ever
ridden
Also I have never been able to find it's loss of
traction point though pushed fairly hard. When driving
tight curves, I leave slowing cars way behind even
though I hadn't pushed it, just going thru the curve
easily.
I have manuals on CD too if anyone wants them,
contact me off list.
> I'm currently trying to work out the geometry so
> that
> > when it leans to the
> > left, the front wheel moves over to the right.
?
I like turning the handlebars directly just like a
regular MC give perfect lean and control without
complications.
Check out the articles on the GM Lean Machine
online for more info on this type. I'd like to
eventually build one of them in EV drive.
The secret is have the side to side pivot as low
as you can or the rear chassis can flip if higher than
the axle. Honda did a great job on these.
They are still sold in Europe, far east and
another Called the Aerial I think by BSA was made in
Europe. They were sold in the US only in 84-86 and
wanted as collectables now.
>
> which way are you turning?
>
>
> > tricky part is making
> > it easy to return to the upright position. Easy
> in
> > this case refers to
> > the amount of force required.
With the Gyro you just slightly turn the
handlebars to do that. Very easy, controlable. Not the
complicated mess other tilters have.
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's alleged by many European users that STM5-MR/MRE modules (reduced
maintenance type with closed tops and central watering/venting) built prior to
late 1999 or early 2000 (I think - I'm going from memory on the date, sorry)
have a separator design or material problem. Under certain conditions the
modules are allegedly subject to catastrophic failure. This can include
rupture of the case, loss of electrolyte, and possible hydrogen explosions as
a side effect.
The conditions which are said to cause or contribute to the alleged problem
include operation at internal temperatures in excess of 50 deg C, and current
draws in excess of 2C.
Related reports suggest that later production runs of these modules are not
subject to such problems. As far as I know, the earlier STM5 modules with
individual cell caps ("boilers" ;-) are not affected either.
http://www.danskelbilkomite.dk/report.pdf
I don't know whether Saft has acknowledged the concerns, or what they have
done about them. I do recall reading that some European pilot EV programs
were suspended and/or discontinued as a result of unexpectedly high costs
for (Saft MR/MRE) battery repairs. A separate recollection is that EVs fitted
with Saft modules were excluded from at least one such program over Saft's
unwillingness to provide a battery warranty that was acceptable to the
directors of the program, but I don't know whether that was related.
On the other hand, when last I heard a couple of years ago, Josef Brusa was
still running his mini-Evergreen on the original Saft nicads he used for the
Alp
crossing in 1997 - they had lost some capacity however.
http://www.brusa.biz/applications/e_mini_evergreen.htm
The AMC-325 controller in this car has a 250 amp current limit.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi David and All,
An interesting trip they took. Most
interesting is going up and down the Alps they only
used 170wthrs/mile in an unaerodynamic Mini
convertible 4 seat EV!! And with a range of about
150+ miles.
This I believe shows just what can be done
with present day affordable Ni cads.
With a 16kw, $8,800 ni cad pack in my
Freedom EV or a Karman Ghia conversion would get you a
150 mile range and batteries for 20+ yrs using
$.01/mile electricity for fuel.
This gives the equivilent of 160 mpg gas
mileage energy wise and 230mpg cost wise not including
future gasoline cost rises, will make this set up much
lower cost than a gasoline car in overall costs over
10 or more yrs.
Plus when repairs are needed, they are much
easier than an ICE.
--- "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It's alleged by many European users that STM5-MR/MRE
> modules (reduced
> maintenance type with closed tops and central
> watering/venting) built prior to
> late 1999 or early 2000 (I think - I'm going from
> memory on the date, sorry)
> have a separator design or material problem. Under
> certain conditions the
> modules are allegedly subject to catastrophic
> failure. This can include
> rupture of the case, loss of electrolyte, and
> possible hydrogen explosions as
> a side effect.
>
> The conditions which are said to cause or contribute
> to the alleged problem
> include operation at internal temperatures in excess
> of 50 deg C, and current
> draws in excess of 2C.
>
> Related reports suggest that later production runs
> of these modules are not
> subject to such problems. As far as I know, the
> earlier STM5 modules with
> individual cell caps ("boilers" ;-) are not affected
> either.
>
> http://www.danskelbilkomite.dk/report.pdf
Thanks, that some info I needed to know.
>
> I don't know whether Saft has acknowledged the
> concerns, or what they have
> done about them. I do recall reading that some
> European pilot EV programs
> were suspended and/or discontinued as a result of
> unexpectedly high costs
> for (Saft MR/MRE) battery repairs. A separate
> recollection is that EVs fitted
> with Saft modules were excluded from at least one
> such program over Saft's
> unwillingness to provide a battery warranty that was
> acceptable to the
> directors of the program, but I don't know whether
> that was related.
>
> On the other hand, when last I heard a couple of
> years ago, Josef Brusa was
> still running his mini-Evergreen on the original
> Saft nicads he used for the Alp
> crossing in 1997 - they had lost some capacity
> however.
>
>
http://www.brusa.biz/applications/e_mini_evergreen.htm
>
> The AMC-325 controller in this car has a 250 amp
> current limit.
Using 3 strings you can get 750 amps which would be
plenty for a 450amp-72vdc controller and almost a 200
mile range or 2 strings for about 130 mile range
while being easy on them..
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thank you David, Jerry, Lee and Tom for your comments and suggestions.
They're saved, filed and will be studied. I'm sure I'll have plenty of
follow-up questions. One right off the bat comes up; is there any reason we
can't upgrade the controller now, and the batteries later? Might as well get
some use out of them until they fade away! I presume a higher voltage
controller would get a bit more performance out of these marine batteries
than the present 48V setup, but what would happen to range?
Jerry had an idea that strikes me as very interesting if it's not too
technically difficult:
> As for controller, I'd go with a contactor
> series/parallel the pack and a starting resistor
> controller for more punch, power at a much lower cost
> than an E controller. At you power levels you basicly
> have 2 speeds, starting/parking lot speed, and full
> power so an e controller is of little benefit and
> costs a lot.
> And at 72vdc you can use an easily modified 36vdc
> nom golf cart Ferro-resonant regulated charger. I
> usually make these for about $20-30 with a dead GC
> charger as the starting point in parts.
As it happens (and as the PO rightly predicted), during most of the driving
we either have the pedal mashed to the ground or are coasting. There's not
much need for truly linear throttle response in our little rollerskate!
What, if any, would be the downside of doing something like this? We really
don't need to achieve highway speeds; we'd be happy (with THIS car) getting
to say, 45 mph without struggling too much, and staying above 30 mph on the
hills in town.
As it also happens, I need to get out there with a wrench and start checking
connections. We've already experienced our first "incident" involving a
runaway throttle followed by very, very weak performance - I'm (or more
accurately, the PO is) guessing a loose battery connection caused the
controller to fault and drop a bank of batteries out of the loop. Got it
home after a brief charge at a neighbors down the hill, and it acted like
nothing had happened... ;-)
Was opening it all up to do a deep cleaning this pm as well, and found 1, 2,
3, 4... FIVE wasp nests, one of which was still active! Youngest Daughter
was no longer interested in helping vacuum and clean.. Nothing to do with
EV's, but I found it interesting the small nests were distributed in a
perfectly symmetrical pattern throughout the rear hatchback hinge area (not
in the cabin, but underneath the lip of the hatchback. The exception was
inside the sideview mirror.
One more quick question for now: Any advice on cleaning the engine
compartment without taking out all the electrics? I don't think it ever got
steam cleaned after the ICE gear was removed, and I'm guessing it would be
unwise to expose the rather exposed electrical apparatus to such a wet
environment.
Anyhow, thanks all for your help.
- Patrick Clarke
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In order to get the best cornering, you have to move the center of
gravity (COG) forward to where approx 70% of it's weight is on the two
front wheels (or back for two rear wheels).
what about three wheeler that leans like a two wheeler?
Yeah. The top analysis seems to be focused on a fixed wheel trike
design. These are not really competitive with four wheelers for many of
the reasons mentioned.
Add the ability to dynamically redistribute the COG in the corners (by
leaning and by adjusting the rear geometry) and you have an entirely
different cornering performance profile. It's all about the design and
the lean.
Until you actually ride something like our prototype, you have no
concept of what these vehicles are capable of. It's much like being in a
very agile aircraft. Totally unlike any two or four wheel vehicles on
the road.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most promising.
I'm developing a leaning three wheeler design (1 front, 2 back), where
the rear wheels are on independent swing arms allowing for a very
dramatic lean in the corners. In fact, it leans SO well, than on a test
ride I whipped it around a narrow 90° corner at about 20 mph without
braking. My follow-up rider was on an electric mountain bike and very
nearly crashed as she was unable to follow my line at that speed.
Our trike has no problems coming out of a tilt thanks to the way the
rear independent swing-arms were designed. In fact it leans so easily,
we're going to put in a manual leaning lockout at so that if the rider
is just creeping along, the rear swing arms can be locked, making the
vehicle act like a fixed upright trike while maintaining rear
suspension.
We got this idea from the Ecomobile which is an enclosed two wheel
design that deploys stabilizer wheels at low speeds to increase low
speed stability and ease of balance the rider retracts them when speed
reaches a certain point.
Our trike prototype is currently on display as part of a major museum
exhibit in Bellingham, Washington, representing the electric future of
motorcycles. It is located in the Whatcom Museum Arco Exhibits building
till almost the end of the year.
http://tinyurl.com/7ceje
I know that my opinion is hardly any sort of proof or scientific
documentation, but my expereinces with high performance go-karts, cars,
cycles, and now leaning trikes leads me to believe that a leaning trike
design, properly configured, will be able to out corner ANYTHING else,
and we intend to PROVE that by putting our prototype into production in
several different sizes and letting people decide for themselves.
It's all about optimum weight placement in the corner combined with
three solid contact patches.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I dunno, how does 10kW/L (4.5kW/kg) sound (Toshibas)?
Is that enough power density to get into the 100's with?
The Sony cells are supposed to be in productino now.
The Toshiba cells next year, they demonstrated 0.6Ah cells.
This is why they were not mentioned in the original article.
Cost? 18650's go for less than $500/kWh, so if these are
to replace them in the same levels of production than I
would expect similar prices. These new cells are at their
hearts simply new ways of building the same old cells.
They don't require gold caseings or anything so should
require aproximately the same ammount of materials and
energy to produce them.
$20,000 may be cheap if it delivers 200 times the cycle
life, equivilant power, and far superiour energy density.
So it's real cost may turn out to be similar to the $1000
you'de spend on a PbA pack, withough 200 replacements.
And the $20,000 to $30,000 pack costs so much because
it used to require 50kWh in order to deliver the power
required to make the T-Zero a 0-60 in 4 sec performer.
These new high rate cells would only need 1/10th or less
the capacity to deliver the same levels of power. So
instead of a $20K=300mile pack you could get a $2K=30mile
pack that still get your exotic sports car performance.
I'm running a 24v scooter on a $100 Li-ion pack and it
was well worth the effort of building it by hand as it
outperforms the stock PbA in power, weight, and energy.
It uses 96 (12p*8s) 1.0Ah cells, so that's not far off
from using 96 (6p*16s) 0.6Ah cells (30A each) that would
be capable of running an E-Tek at (180A @ 48v) Motorcycle
instead of a wimpy 400W scooters peak of 50A @ 24v.
L8r
Ryan
Ryan Stotts wrote:
> Lightning Ryan wrote:
>
>
>>these new
>>Toshiba and Sony High Rate Lithium... Until they become available.
>
> And these will be out when, and cost how much, and what will their amp hours
> be?
>
> With current lithium battery packs costing ~$20,000 - $30,000+, that's
> only part of it. What about a general purpose, universal, low cost
> BMS? How much is one of those?
>
> Do lithium's have what it takes to get into the "100 mph club" and beyond?
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
A friend of mine recently purchase an EVcort, and has been disappointed by
its range. So now, he is considering battery upgrade options that could give
him more range. His current real world range is around 30 miles, and it takes
around 8 hours to recharge.
The EVcort is currently powered by 18 Sonnenschein DF6-180 6V Dryfit batteries.
Does anybody know the ah capacity of these batteries for the 20C rate? I have
not been able to find much about these batteries.
I am considering one of 40Ah Valance UCharge 12V Monoblock, 200Ah TS modules
from Victor, or BB600's (from somewhere?).
Does anybody have any idea what kind of range I could expect from
these various options? Also, any ideas for other battery options I should
consider?
On a related note; I'm also planning on building a simple PIC powered BMS
for the current pack, using the PIC to pulse the base of the MOSFET for
current bypass ability. This should be equivalent to a simple shunt regulator
right? Does anybody have any examples of a similar (or superior) design?
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Lightning Ryan wrote:
> I dunno, how does 10kW/L (4.5kW/kg) sound (Toshibas)?
> Is that enough power density to get into the 100's with?
With the Zilla set to 2,000 amps, will the BMS allow for that sort of discharge?
And why are these batteries so expensive? Are the raw materials that
expensive? Consumer AA, AAA, etc sized NiMH and Alkaline batteries
were never this expensive were they?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Patrick and All,
--- Chris & Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thank you David, Jerry, Lee and Tom for your
> comments and suggestions.
> They're saved, filed and will be studied. I'm sure
> I'll have plenty of
> follow-up questions. One right off the bat comes up;
> is there any reason we
> can't upgrade the controller now, and the batteries
That's actually a good idea as you will learn
about batts much faster on a pack like yours trying to
keep it working ;-))
I used a pack like that at first too as I was
cheap then it was so nice to get a new pack that
needed almost no work compared to every couple days
with the used 12vdc cell tower takeout batt pack Vs
the 6vdc GC batt pack I now use. Though with 48vdc, I
went 60mph but not far!!
But as many murder their first pack learning,
better to do it on one like your present one.
> later? Might as well get
> some use out of them until they fade away! I presume
> a higher voltage
> controller would get a bit more performance out of
> these marine batteries
> than the present 48V setup, but what would happen to
> range?
As long as the batts are good, range won't change
unless to drive faster, harder.
>
> Jerry had an idea that strikes me as very
> interesting if it's not too
> technically difficult:
> > As for controller, I'd go with a contactor
> > series/parallel the pack and a starting resistor
> > controller for more punch, power at a much lower
> cost
> > than an E controller. At you power levels you
> basicly
> > have 2 speeds, starting/parking lot speed, and
> full
> > power so an e controller is of little benefit and
> > costs a lot.
> > And at 72vdc you can use an easily modified 36vdc
> > nom golf cart Ferro-resonant regulated charger. I
> > usually make these for about $20-30 with a dead GC
> > charger as the starting point in parts.
>
> As it happens (and as the
PO ?
rightly predicted),
> during most of the driving
> we either have the pedal mashed to the ground or are
Until you get to higher power levels, it works
quite well, better in fact as it has more starting
torque for starting up hills. On my low powered, 36vdc
45mph E woody, I just use a resistor for
starting/parking lot/driveway speeds and full power.
And if you have a clutch, shifting, that gives you
even more speeds to chose from.
It is really simple, either a switch running
contactors to select resistors or/and series/parallel
the batts to get 3 speeds to easy transistion to full
power and for parking lot speed.
Do you understand series/parallel?
> coasting. There's not
> much need for truly linear throttle response in our
> little rollerskate!
> What, if any, would be the downside of doing
> something like this? We really
For your EV, not much. If much higher voltage, the
contactors cost more but still much less than what an
E controller does and can be repaired in a few minutes
if you carry a spare contactor or contacts though if
they are the right size, that's not likely to happen.
A good source would be used forklift contactors
whch is probably where your motor came from
originally.
> don't need to achieve highway speeds; we'd be happy
> (with THIS car) getting
> to say, 45 mph without struggling too much, and
> staying above 30 mph on the
> hills in town.
That should be easy on 72vdc or 96 and go to a
lower gear, say 3rd instead of second depending on
what you have. Downshifting will lower the amps needed
too so your now single string of batts can handle it.
Always use the lowest gear you can for the top speed
you want. It's better to wind EV motors out than lug
them.
If you are satisfied with 50 mph or so, figure on
a 72vdc pack of 6v batts as your best bet for low
cost, long range and life and gather parts for that
voltage.
>
> As it also happens, I need to get out there with a
> wrench and start checking
> connections. We've already experienced our first
> "incident" involving a
> runaway throttle followed by very, very weak
> performance - I'm (or more
> accurately, the PO is) guessing a loose battery
> connection caused the
> controller to fault and drop a bank of batteries out
> of the loop. Got it
> home after a brief charge at a neighbors down the
> hill, and it acted like
> nothing had happened... ;-)
Battery terminals are very important as you will
find out. Make really good connections, and after they
are made up, cover them with vasoline, enamel or other
good terminal coating.
> One more quick question for now: Any advice on
> cleaning the engine
> compartment without taking out all the electrics? I
> don't think it ever got
> steam cleaned after the ICE gear was removed, and
> I'm guessing it would be
> unwise to expose the rather exposed electrical
> apparatus to such a wet
> environment.
Put a plastic bag over any electronics then hose
down!! I wash my batts all the time that way. If still
greasy, use gunk or other degreaser, then rinse.
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
>
> Anyhow, thanks all for your help.
> - Patrick Clarke
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
