EV Digest 4544
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: G'day ... thinking about Electric Motorcycles
by "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Autocross racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and
CUSHMAN Truck
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) EVing a CUSHMAN Truck
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Segway?
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Racing 3wheels,
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Racing 3wheels,
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Autocross racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and
CUSHMAN Truck
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: CalCars Teach Lead Ron Gremban's ( that's why Li isn't in the
report, yet )
by Lightning Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) My EV trike building article August ESSN is up!
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Modeling the Freedom EV,
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Rubber mount motor and transmission
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Deka dominato. Now: Are they as good as Optima or Exide?
by "David Roden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN
Tr...
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14) Re: Rubber mount motor and transmission
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Calrify Peukert effect
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN Tr...
by Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN
Tr...
by David Dymaxion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Rubber mount motor and transmission
by Reverend Gadget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Battery de-sulfation
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) RE: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and CUSHMAN Tr...
by "Stu or Jan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Tr...
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Tr...
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23) Re: Racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up,
and CUSHMAN Truck
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
On 2005-08-01, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
>
> Your goal might be possible at 36v or 72v. If you keep moped speed no
> problem. The problem is faster speeds. In my opinion 35mph makes a lot of
> drag. 25mph is much better. 30 max. If you have some sort of fairing
> that will help. 38 miles is going to have to be 6 Optimas.
Hi Lawrence. Definitely something full-faired ... I know how much
difference it makes to petrol-powered motorcycles! I'm thinking
of a sports 250 because the narrower tyres and low weight should
keep the rolling resistance down too.
The alternative is to go all the way to something like a SRX250,
which is really just an overgrown bicycle.
I might make up some cardboard batteries and motors just to see
what kind of size we're talking about ...
Thanks for your input!
-----sharks
--
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Cliff and All,
--- ProEV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Everybody,
>
> What an interesting discussion. There is a lot of
> potential for development
> in 3 wheelers. Delta, tadpole, leaning, rear wheel
> steering.
>
> I would think the biggest advantage to 3 wheels is
> the potential for a
> cleaner streamline aero package. This advantage is
That helps especially on the freeway.
> nullified a bit by the
> tremendous downforce that can be produced by the
> underbody of a wider car.
2 things help here. Being an EV the batt weight
helps keep it down and with my Freedom EV's ability to
lower it's body with it's adjustable height suspension
that both lowers CG and cuts air under the car creates
more sideways, downforce ability.
Also I have no polar moment, chassis twist so
transistion in turns is much faster than a 4wh car by
1/2 as much.
>
> < 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. >
>
> Excellent! Racing fun aside, learning what the
> Freedom EV will do under the
> demands of autocross will translate back into an
> improved road vehicle.
I agree. Racing will allow me to prove just how
good it is. Plus loads of fun!! Especialy picking off
ICE's as you have.
>
> I am not sure how whether the autocross organizers
> will be able to allow a 3
> wheeler to run. Maybe if you carry a fourth wheel in
Doesn't the Morgan 3wheeler run autocross? Any
way to check that?
Even if they don't allow me to offically race,
they might let me run against myself so I can compare
times with other racers on the same track, conditions.
> the passenger seat<G>.
> Worse comes to worse, we will find a parking lot and
> some cones and have an
> all EV shoot-out!
You'd be hard to beat with your low EV CG and
much more hp, 4wh drive.
Though I could set up a special higher powered
version with AGM's at much higher voltages, lower
weight to run my 2 E motors.
With your data though it would be interesting to
compare our 2 EV's so could be useful that way.
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
>
> Cliff
>
> www.ProEV.com
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Mark and All,
--- Mark Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I'll put my EV Geo Tracker up for sale in
> EValbum and then start on
> a conversion on this since I don't see any Kewets
> for sale and with a start
Kewets are out there. Tom Gocze? an RE guy in
Maine has several and maybe a guy here has some in NJ
I could track down for you maybe.
> weight of 1370 lbs for the Cushman, that would
> probably make a lightweight
> ev at 250wh per mile. Right now I'm at 560 wh per
> mile measured during
> charge..
While would be a cool EV if you can get a chassis
for well under $1k, I wouldn't pay more than that for
one and wouldn't buy any without a title.
I can think of so many other EV's like a Karman
Ghia, used kitcars, ect that for $8k the one guy
wanted without titles I think you said could be
completed as an EV for that.
Even my Freedom EV gliders completely ready for EV
drive would cost about that and have lightyrs better
performance, eff, speed, handling and resale. Even a
MG EV would be much better!!
Or buy an NEV, hop it up and retitle it as a
homebuilt car if that can be done in your state as it
can here in Fla would make a much better EV.
But don't put a lot of money in EVing a Cushman!!
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
S wrote:
> Anybody know anything about these things?
Quite a bit of info and some reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000AVB7N/qid=1122946027/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4687862-4948701?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846
What's your opinion?
Too expensive for what it is last time I looked at it. Remember all
the hype for it? "Cities will be built around this." Maybe if it was
~$20, everyone would have one....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a situation where a 3 wheeler could beat
> an "equivalent" 4
> > wheeler: Autocross.
> >
> > If you do the math, you'd be amazed how much time
> it adds to miss the
> > cones by even half a meter. A relatively easy to
> compute case is a
> > slalom, assume a sinusoidal path. With the four
> wheeler, you have to
> > make your turn a bit bigger to make sure the rear
> wheels don't hit a
> > cone. With the tadpole 3 wheeler, you can come
> closer to the cones.
>
> Hmm, maybe, maybe not. The front end is going to be
> the same width, so
> unless you tighten the corner after the fron t
> wheels pass the cone, it
> won't make any difference. And since the equivelent
Yet, because the 3wheeler is a 1' narrower or more
per side in it's rear than a 4wheel car, it can cut
the corner much closer and tighten after allowing
faster speed through the turn. Draw it out and you
will see.
Plus widening the front won't make it need more
room either as it's the inside rear width that
determines the sharpness of the turn.
> 3wh won't be able to
> corner as tightly as the 4wh...
>
> > A second point is that 3 wheelers save more than
> just the weight of a
> > 3rd wheel and suspension. A four wheeler tries to
> fold the car about
> > a diagonal when one wheel is lifted, so the car
> needs to be strong to
> > fight this. Lift a wheel in a three wheeler, and
> it is like picking
> > up the corner of a triangle.
>
> If you lift the wheel on a three wheeler, you are
> milimeters away from
> flipping it. Lift a wheel on a 4wh autocross car
> and you still have a
> long way to go before flipping it.
And this matters how? The 3wheeler designed right
is not going to lift a wheel where it's almost
impossible to design a 4wheeler that won't lift the
inside rear wheel.
>
> Also consider; the 3wh has higher loads on each
> wheel. This means that
That just means more traction on that wheel,
that's a good thing!! And since it has 1/4 less weight
to counter, improves traction overall.
> > You can make the 3 wheeler chassis much
> > lighter than a 4 wheeler.
>
> Lighter, perhaps, but "much" lighter? I doubt it.
Then how come my body/frames weight only 235lbs
with excellent stiffness and crashworthness?
Now compare that to a 4wh's weight for the same
qualities, strength. And I could have built it in
under 100lbs if I didn't want crashworthyness which as
it turned out was a very good thing.
Show me any 4wh car that can come even close to
that?
>
> > Give it 3 wheel drive and it could
> > accelerate faster out of the turns due to lighter
> weight.
> >
A well designed 3wh will slide before flipping.
> This doesn't mean (or
> prove) that it will out perform a well designed 4wh.
> Nor does this mean
> that it won't flip under circumstances where an
> equivelent 4wh would not.
No but it does mean it is stable. And with good
enough tires to hold the road, handles excellently.
> Final thought.
> All else being equal, the 4wh will have a larger
> contact patch (more
> wheels), the 3wh will have more weight per sq inch.
> Traction is dependent on the weight and contact
> area.
But also the weight it need to turn!! With less
weight, turning is easier.
> I don't know the formulas, so I'm just guessing
> here, but I suspect that
> the 4wh will have better traction.
Actually you are guessing much more than I have
been. But I have much more experience at it!
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Peter and All,
--- Peter VanDerWal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Opinions are NOT proof. Plus being the best you can
> buy, is NOT the same
> as being the best possible.
>
> > There is rarely irrefutable proof on anything
> > Peter!!
>
> All right, how about substantial proof? Or even
> substantiated proof?
I think the multiple articles, road/track tests of
the Trihawk Stu put up are real proof. Now where is
yours?
Morgan's 60 yr race winning records is also proof.
>
> > 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.
>
> Hmm, as I recall you frequently state that 3wh out
> perform 4wh, period.
I said most any. There are a few racing 4whs that
are as good or maybe better but cost $200k or so vs my
$13k. I'll take that thank you ;-))
There maybe some like the Imp, Porsche 914 EV's
that could too that also can use batts to drasticly
lower CG though a heads up race would be needed to
really find out. As Imp is here in Fla and has a great
data set, I'll most likely race it when I can afford a
high power version.
>
> From: http://www.rqriley.com/3-wheel.htm
> "Designing to the three-wheeler's inherent
> characteristics can produce a
> high-performance machine that will out corner many
> four-wheelers."
> Note it says "many" not "all"
As above, there are a few racing , high $
sportscars 4wheelers that will and some custom ones.
>
> Also read the part about, "Rollover Stability of
> Conventional Non-Tilting
> Three-Wheeler" They talk about widening the track,
> lengthening the
> wheelbase, or lowering the COG to obtain rollover
> stability that "...can
> equal the rollover resistance of a four wheel car"
And I take it even farther by optimizing them with
Batt weight for really excellent handling.
Did you read the part about transistion response
being about 3x's as quick? How much will that save in
a road course?
How about almost no polar moment? Will that help?
Though extreme race cars can match that but with
longer wheelbases, more weight pentalies.
>
> Their idea of modeling handling using a cone is
> excellent. For those who
> haven't read the document;
> "A simple way to model a three-wheeler's margin of
> safety against rollover
> is to construct a base cone using the cg height, its
> location along the
> wheelbase, and the effective half-tread of the
> vehicle. Maximum lateral
> g-loads are determined by the tire's friction
> coefficient. Projecting the
> maximum turn-force resultant toward the ground forms
> the base of the cone.
> A one-g load acting across the vehicle's cg, for
> example, would result in
> a 45 degree projection toward the ground plane. "
>
> Consider, if we have the exact same track and
> wheelbase, then the triangle
> formed by the wheels of a 3wh will fit inside the
> rectangle of the 4wh.
> Simple geometry will prove that you can form a cone
> with a larger base
> inside the rectangle than will fit inside the
> triangle.
> This means that the 4wh design can handle higher
> cornering loads than an
> equivalent 3wh.
It better to handle it's higher weight, polar
moment, slower transistion time it has.
But all these make it handle much slower, worse
than a 3wh EV!! And that doesn't include being able to
take corners sharper from being narrower in the rear.
So what little advantage in apparent track width is
swamped by it's other deficencies. And I have designed
out the track width advantage anyways as the tires are
the cornering limiting factor, not stability, no?
>
> >> 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.
>
> Such as? This is basically what I was referring too
> earlier, your
> propensity to make statements, without backing them
> up.
You have made up a few yourself ;-))
I was refering to sharper turning, faster
transistion time, lower polar moment, lower CG,less
weight so my statements were based on facts.
Yours? Wishful thinking, lack of 3wh knowledge,
assumptions.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Umm, bullsh__ I don't know of ANY 4wh vehicle where
> one wheel, suspension
> and unneeded frame equals 1/4 of the total weight.
> In order to drop that much weight you are changing
> some other design
> criteria.
No I don't. As David said, you can lower
body/frame weight as the forces are so much lower in
frame torsion with 1 rear wheel vs 2. You also forget
extra drivetrain componants like extra driveshaft,
diff, ect.
So all of this easily gives a 1/4 less weight
advantage and better performance with the same power.
>
> It depends on what part of handling you want to
> optimize. I said "approx
> 70%" because most folks prefer to improve cornering
> at the expense of a
> small drop in maximum braking ability.
> In fact if you check out some of the actual 3wh
> designs folks have been
> pointing out, some (like the Trihawk) even go as far
> as 75%.
They may be weighing it without the driver which
when in the seat, brings it to 66-34 ratio probably.
> >
> > 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?
>
> What does "dive" have to do with anything? As for
> proof that it's ever
> happened, I'm assuming you mean endos? There are
First you must dive before you can endo so if you
don't even dive, no chance of endo.
> numerous accounts of
> this happening on pedal powered trikes. I don't
They have high CG's, narrow and nothing like my
3wh EV's in any way as you know, so why bring them up?
> recall any on 3wh
> motorcycles, probably because the designers took
> this into account.
Many rear engined, high CG 3wheelers have rolled
and I have campained against them on this and other
lists. There is no reason for a bad handling 3wheeler
as it takes the same amount of materials, work to
build a good or bad one.
But the same can be said for SUV's too.
> There have been several instances of sideways
> rollovers in 3wh posted on
> this list, usually Sparrows.
That's why I teach so much on this as while a
3wheeler can handle great, if designed wrong like 90%
of the 3wheelers out there, they are dangerous.
I warned about the Sparrow on this list when it
came out but few listened including Corbin. Though
it's only about as bad as some SUVs that like to roll.
You, just as all vehicles, drive them within their
envelopes.
The Trihawk and the Doran are 2 of the best
3wheelers out there as they have their motors or batts
up front, low where they should be like the Morgan
racecar has.
The Doran can be ICE or EV, an excellent design I
was inspired by. Now if Corbin had built the Sparrow
like the Doran ;-)) But he didn't;-((
>
> It is possible to build a commuter vehicle where the
> maximum g force
> available from the tires limits the COG cone to the
> point where it sits
> entirely inside the triangle formed by the wheels.
Yes and exactly what I have done.
=== message truncated ===
Your long windedness has maxed out my e mail limit
and little new was said that has not already been
answered so I guess we will just have to disagree.
I base my facts on experience, long study and
actually designing, building, driving 3wh EV's of many
types along with 35yrs of 4wh experience.
So we should just let my new EV when finished
speak for itself in testing. Please bring whatever you
like to road race against it and I'll be happy to beat
you.
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jerry, I am interested to model the performance of the Freedom EV, if can
you supply me with the specs, I will run it against a variety of cars and
report back on its relative performance.
- weight
- weight distribution
- is front or rear wheel drive?
- motor torque curve
- gear ratios and final gear ratio
- Cd
- height and width
- tire size
Don
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jerry dycus
Sent: August 1, 2005 4:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Autocross racing 3wheels, Re: 3 wheel EV's trike pick up, and
CUSHMAN Truck
Hi Cliff and All,
--- ProEV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Everybody,
>
> What an interesting discussion. There is a lot of potential for
> development in 3 wheelers. Delta, tadpole, leaning, rear wheel
> steering.
>
> I would think the biggest advantage to 3 wheels is the potential for a
> cleaner streamline aero package. This advantage is
That helps especially on the freeway.
> nullified a bit by the
> tremendous downforce that can be produced by the underbody of a wider
> car.
2 things help here. Being an EV the batt weight helps keep it down and
with my Freedom EV's ability to lower it's body with it's adjustable height
suspension that both lowers CG and cuts air under the car creates more
sideways, downforce ability.
Also I have no polar moment, chassis twist so transistion in turns is
much faster than a 4wh car by
1/2 as much.
>
> < 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. >
>
> Excellent! Racing fun aside, learning what the Freedom EV will do
> under the demands of autocross will translate back into an improved
> road vehicle.
I agree. Racing will allow me to prove just how good it is. Plus loads
of fun!! Especialy picking off ICE's as you have.
>
> I am not sure how whether the autocross organizers will be able to
> allow a 3 wheeler to run. Maybe if you carry a fourth wheel in
Doesn't the Morgan 3wheeler run autocross? Any way to check that?
Even if they don't allow me to offically race, they might let me run
against myself so I can compare times with other racers on the same track,
conditions.
> the passenger seat<G>.
> Worse comes to worse, we will find a parking lot and some cones and
> have an all EV shoot-out!
You'd be hard to beat with your low EV CG and much more hp, 4wh drive.
Though I could set up a special higher powered version with AGM's at
much higher voltages, lower weight to run my 2 E motors.
With your data though it would be interesting to compare our 2 EV's so
could be useful that way.
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
>
> Cliff
>
> www.ProEV.com
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
These Toshiba cells are 0.6Ah * 3.7v = 2.22 Wh each.
I would like 100 of them, or 222Wh worth. So if they
cost 4* the $500/kWh other Li costs I'de be willing
to spend $500 on a 60 second rechargable scooter pack.
How would a $1000 ~200 cells pack do on a drag bike?
192 cells ( 12 parallel * 16 series )
- 30A * 12 = 360 Amps.
- 3.7v * 16 = 59.2 Volts.
- 19.1 grams * 192 = 3.66kg ( 8 Lbs )
In order to max out a 2K Zilla you would need a 40Ah cell
as they do 50C that get's you your 2000 Amps, Stack-em to
whatever voltage you like. Maybe someone can talk Toshiba
into building us some 40Ah versions instead of the 0.6ah ones.
.oO( 40Ah * 3.7v = 148Wh per cell @ $2K/kWh = $296 per )
.oO( Not bad for a 2000A, 3.7v, 20k cycle Lithium cell )
L8r
Ryan
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
> Any battery on the market place is about only as expensive as
> badly people want it. A $10 cell (prod.cost) *will*
> sell for $1000 if enough buyers will be willing to go for it.
>
> Ryan Stotts wrote:
>
>> 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 All,
Here is the EV article on how to build the
GC transaxle based trike below. It's just part 1 of 2.
It's my first published work ;-)
We had 21,000 downloads last month and only
7 months old.
HTH's,
> Jerry Dycus
>
> >
> > The August issue of Energy Self Sufficiency
> > Newsletter is online at
> > http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
> >
> > Hopefully, we have something for everybody this
> time
> > around.
> >
> > Laren Corie writes on Insulating Old Houses, Mike
> > Nixon discusses
> > ethanol production, Jerry Dycus writes about
> > electric vehicles, Tom
> > Ogren presents an article on allergies and organic
> > gardening. Also,
> > another piece in the series on small wind by Dan
> > Fink, Suzanne Ubick
> > turned her vacation into an article on "partial
> > off-grid living," we
> > present another methane production article by Al
> > Rutan through the
> > courtesy of HomePower Magazine, and I report on
> the
> > use of PWM
> > controllers for LED lighting.
> >
> > Thanks for your interest and support. Enjoy.
> >
> > Peace,
> > ldb
> >
> > --
> > Larry D. Barr
> > Editor/Publisher, Energy Self Sufficiency
> Newsletter
> > http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
> > Owner, Rebel Wolf Energy Systems
> > http://www.rebelwolf.com/
> > Founder/Moderator, 12VDC Power group
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12VDC_Power
> >
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Don and All,
--- Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerry, I am interested to model the performance of
> the Freedom EV, if can
> you supply me with the specs, I will run it against
> a variety of cars and
> report back on its relative performance.
Don't you need more info than the below? What type
of performance sim are you going to do?
What about CG- 12" high as most cars are 16-24"
high, Tire type, brand, ect make hugh differences? Can
it do 3wh vs 4?
Tire RR .008 for econo,range, stock - .012 for
race
Would really like power required at various speeds
with the low drag tires.
While I can see you doing power required well,
handling isn't going to be easy, accurate without much
more data.
>
> - weight
Reg 1400lbs Race 1000lbs
12 T105s 6 Orbitals or more with bigger
controller
> - weight distribution
66-34
> - is front or rear wheel drive?
Rear
> - motor torque curve
D+D, the former ADC owners, 2- ES22's
series/parallel equal to 2- 6.7 A89 type type wound
for 72vdc, 5,000rpm at 125 amps
Altrax 7245 controller Race, bypass contactor
> - gear ratios and final gear ratio
4.3-1
> - Cd
.23
> - height and width
4'x 4.5" average max width, upper 4' wide and
lower 5' wide max so 18sq' frontal area.
> - tire size
23" dia, 14" rims
>
>
> Don
>
Thanks,
Jerry Dycus
-
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Since electric motors do not produce any vibration, is it really required to
rubber mount a motor and transmission?
thanks
Don
Victoria, BC, Canada
See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 1 Aug 2005 at 13:28, Lawrence Rhodes wrote:
> I'm looking for a battery with more weight(for more range, About a 60 to
> 70pound battery) for a 156v pack. How would the Deka batteries stack up?
You could use the 8G27s, but you'd need to keep current under 300 amps for a
single string. If you could find a used Brusa AC drive (GT20 motor and AMC
325 controller, 156-180v, 250a max), that would work nicely in a light EV (<
2500 lb).
Or, use the 8GGC2 - 6 volt golf car batteries. C20 = 180ah, RC75 = 92 min.
Those should be good for 550 amp loads. A 156v pack would be pretty massive
though - almost 1900 lb.
David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EV List Assistant Administrator
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Want to unsubscribe, stop the EV list mail while you're on vacation,
or switch to digest mode? See how: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to the "from" address above may not reach me. To
send me a private message, please use evdl at drmm period net.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 8/1/2005 2:33:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Here's an example: Assume a 90 degree turn with a sharp corner. The
four wheel car has to do a shorter radius turn to keep the rear
wheels from hitting the corner. The 3 wheeler can come closer to the
inside of the corner without hitting the rear wheel. So if both are
tire limited and make the same lateral g's, the 3 wheeler can go
through the corner faster, even if the front track is identical.
>>
Are we assuming that both use the same tire? If we are then the 3 wheeler has
25%
less rubber on the road, which in my opinion would far outweigh any gains
from the narrow rear track.
Ben
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Don Cameron wrote:
> Since electric motors do not produce any vibration, is it really required to
> rubber mount a motor and transmission?
This is something I think about quite a bit since having the option to
do either.
The plus side to not having the motor/trans mounted to rubber is
simply not having them. 3 less parts and less expense/maintenance.
A couple of negatives I see to not having them are: The shock load
produced from the clutch when shifting gears(could be substantial).
Road vibrations/shocks potentially being transmitted to the motor.
In a conversion vehicle where they already exist and the transmission
is already mounted to one, and the motor mounts offer an existing
attachment point; I'd have to use them in that situation.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You know, one thing we're forgetting is that temp has a very significant
effect on a lead acid battery. I know it affects the unloaded voltage
of the battery and the usable capacity. It seems like it's going to
affect the Peukert's coefficients but I'm not sure of that.
Danny
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
It will be in units everyone (supposedly) understands - percentage.
Simply, 30% "juice" is left = 30% range is left. Not kWh.
All the math complexity for coming up with this number is hidden
from the user.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ben wrote:
> Are we assuming that both use the same tire? If we are then the 3 wheeler has
> 25% less rubber on the road, which in my opinion would far outweigh any gains
> from the narrow rear track.
Not to mention(maybe already been said or is a given), all the vehicle
weight on and spread out over only 3 contact points instead of 4.
Take a 2,000 lb 4 wheel vehicle and put a scale under each wheel.
Now take a 2,000 lb 3 wheel vehicle and put a scale under each wheel.
Potentially: the front wheels on both vehicles will each have the
same weights, but the back wheel on the 3 wheeler could have twice as
much weight on it?
----
Who has that link to that website that has a whole fleet of econo cars
that have been converted to 3 wheels? Do all of those cars now weigh
less(how much less?), get better mileage from less rolling resistance,
and out handle the 4 wheel version of the same car?
I've always wondered why Honda or Toyota or someone doesn't offer a 3
wheel vehicle for better fuel economy. Not to mention less
maintenance expense. Only 1 back tire, one set of back brakes and
bearing, 1 shock, etc.
The Honda Insight would be a perfect candidate to have 3 wheels from
the factory.. Or the EV1 since it's rear track was 9" narrower* than
the front..
But how about if a 300 lb passenger rides in the back seat? Or heavy
luggage shifts into one corner with the wheel being under the rear
center of the car and all? If that back tire goes flat, how easy to
use the sub par factory jack to get the rear up and get that tire off
and changed? Will only having one rear tire reduce the 60-0 braking
times? Is there a low cost and elegant way to suspend the rear tire
on a 3 wheeler?
* http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/new/new_body_top.htm
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
For this example, I was assuming whatever it would take to make the
two vehicles corner with the same lateral g's. In practice having the
same wheels and the same weight per wheel would probably make this
true.
The point about a lower polar moment of inertia for 3 wheelers is
another good point -- that could make the three wheeler quicker
through a slalom, too.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 8/1/2005 2:33:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Here's an example: Assume a 90 degree turn with a sharp corner.
> The
> four wheel car has to do a shorter radius turn to keep the rear
> wheels from hitting the corner. The 3 wheeler can come closer to
> the
> inside of the corner without hitting the rear wheel. So if both
> are
> tire limited and make the same lateral g's, the 3 wheeler can go
> through the corner faster, even if the front track is identical.
> >>
> Are we assuming that both use the same tire? If we are then the 3
> wheeler has
> 25%
> less rubber on the road, which in my opinion would far outweigh any
> gains
> from the narrow rear track.
> Ben
>
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Some would say no, but if your transmission is rubber
mounted and your motor is solid then all of the torque
would be transmitted through the motor housing
including any torque multiplication provided by the
trans. If everything is solid mounted then
theoretically the torque would be shared by all
mountings. I solid mounted everything in my EM but
used the rubber mounts in my car. I didn't want any of
the frame twist to be transferred through the
engine/tranny combo putting undo stress on the unit.
If your frame is stiff enough you could go solid
mounts, but would not do it on a twisty frame.
my two watts
Gadget
--- Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since electric motors do not produce any vibration,
> is it really required to
> rubber mount a motor and transmission?
>
>
> thanks
> Don
>
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
> www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
>
>
visit my website at www.reverendgadget.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm building a pulser and have several batteries with different stories
in mind. A common 17AH 12v SLA that has been worn out and only has like
20% of its capacity left. A starting battery that was fairly new but
then left in a car that didn't run for years. A lawn tractor starting
battery that used to perform like crap and then taken out and left in
the garage for years.
Maybe I can find another battery too. I have not only a EE degree but
plenty of bench and project experience, and plenty of equipment. So I
can probably do any reasonable quantitative measurements you might
suggest. Any suggestions on what test figures you would find most useful?
The pulser is going to be set up to charge an inductor then reverse it
so the current flows back into the battery. The efficiency of the flow
should be around 90-95% per cycle. The circuit can probably do 100KHz
and 10-20 amps, but of course the battery will need to be capable of
supplying that much current before the pulser will work which is a bit
of a quandry. I can supply a trickle charge on top of that and can
adjust the pulser current to something less. Another thought is I can
separate the inductor charging source from the battery. Now it may be a
bit difficult to get ahold of a power supply that can supply a lot of
amps to charge the inductor so I might employ a "donor battery" until
the patient battery is strong enough to source the power itself. I
suspect the action of the patient battery providing a strong discharge
into the inductor right before the inductor feeding the power back would
provide better desulf than simply providing charging pulses. We'll see
how well it does though I admit there will be a lack of double blind data.
This circuit should fix one of the major issues I have with the
schematics out there- they don't really regulate the inductor current
and the driver runs a risk of saturating the inductor. This one is a
much simpler circuit and should be quite powerful.
Danny
Lee Hart wrote:
This is what is missing in most casual testing. A person tests exactly
one battery, and makes few or no quantitative measurements. There is no
way to know if the device worked, or if the test process itselfs was
responsible for the improvement (just cycling a battery increases its
capacity, even with no special device). You can't tell what different
devices would have done, because you've altered the only test sample you
have by making the tests.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
But how about if a 300 lb passenger rides in the back seat? Or heavy
luggage shifts into one corner with the wheel being under the rear
center of the car and all? If that back tire goes flat, how easy to
use the sub par factory jack to get the rear up and get that tire off
and changed? Will only having one rear tire reduce the 60-0 braking
times? Is there a low cost and elegant way to suspend the rear tire
on a 3 wheeler?
* http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/new/new_body_top.htm
The Dymaxion (2F1R) held 11 passengers. I do not now how many sat in the
rear seat, but I am sure that they weighed more than 300 pounds.
With 65:35 weight ratio, the jack should be OK.
See the 3 Road and Track, etc. articles for braking tests.
A motorcycle swing axle is what I plan on using.
BoyntonStu
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Ben wrote:
>
>> Are we assuming that both use the same tire? If we are then the 3
>> wheeler has
>> 25% less rubber on the road, which in my opinion would far outweigh any
>> gains
>> from the narrow rear track.
>
> Not to mention(maybe already been said or is a given), all the vehicle
> weight on and spread out over only 3 contact points instead of 4.
>
> Take a 2,000 lb 4 wheel vehicle and put a scale under each wheel.
>
> Now take a 2,000 lb 3 wheel vehicle and put a scale under each wheel.
>
> Potentially: the front wheels on both vehicles will each have the
> same weights, but the back wheel on the 3 wheeler could have twice as
> much weight on it?
Not unless you want a really poorly handling 3wh. Normally 3wh will have
almost the same weight on each wheel or perhaps slightly more on the front
wheels than on the rear wheel.
> I've always wondered why Honda or Toyota or someone doesn't offer a 3
> wheel vehicle for better fuel economy. Not to mention less
> maintenance expense. Only 1 back tire, one set of back brakes and
> bearing, 1 shock, etc.
Several reasons. One is public acceptance.
Another is widely differing state laws on three wheelers. The federal
covernement considers threewheeled vehicles to be motorcycles, not cars.
While the laws that apply to cars are fairly standard from state to state,
they can differ widely on motorcycles and especially threewheeled
motorcycles. In most states you need a motorcycle license. Many states
have restrictions on how threewheelers can be built, I.e. must have two
rear wheels, or must have a saddle that the rider straddles. Finally some
states won't even allow you to register threewheelers for driving on the
road.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> For this example, I was assuming whatever it would take to make the
> two vehicles corner with the same lateral g's. In practice having the
> same wheels and the same weight per wheel would probably make this
> true.
>
Maybe, maybe not. Race cars tend to have wide tires, even though this
lowers the lbs per sq inch of down force. So unless the 3wh uses wider
tires to match the total contact surface of the 4wh, I think the 4wh will
have better traction.
However wider tires have more mass, which means more unsprung weight,
which can degrade handling.
Another point you might not be considering. Racecar drivers will often
slide the rear end out in a corner to get even better cornering.
I don't know if you could do this in a slalom though.
> The point about a lower polar moment of inertia for 3 wheelers is
> another good point -- that could make the three wheeler quicker
> through a slalom, too.
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In a message dated 8/1/2005 2:33:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> << Here's an example: Assume a 90 degree turn with a sharp corner.
>> The
>> four wheel car has to do a shorter radius turn to keep the rear
>> wheels from hitting the corner. The 3 wheeler can come closer to
>> the
>> inside of the corner without hitting the rear wheel. So if both
>> are
>> tire limited and make the same lateral g's, the 3 wheeler can go
>> through the corner faster, even if the front track is identical.
>> >>
>> Are we assuming that both use the same tire? If we are then the 3
>> wheeler has
>> 25%
>> less rubber on the road, which in my opinion would far outweigh any
>> gains
>> from the narrow rear track.
>> Ben
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 04:34, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>> > Leaning three wheelers are (IMHO) the most
>> >> promissing.
>> >
>> > tadpole or delta?
>>
>> Yes. Tilting illiminates most of the advantages of one over the other.
>>
>> Personally I like Delta because of the advantages it offers for laminar
>> flow body designs.
>
> I have a tadpole recumbent tricycle. The best recumbent trikes
> are all tadpoles. They corner great.
If the wheels don't tilt, this is true. Once you add tilting wheels, both
tadpole and delta handle pretty much the same. Tadpoles probably still
have an advantage, but it's small.
>
> I would also think that a tadpole could be more aerodynamic.
> It is more natural to have a long, thin tail with a single
> rear wheel.
Not if you are trying to make a laminar flow body. Laminar flow has far
lower friction than turbulent flow.
>
> How does the delta shape make it easier to keep the
> flow laminar?
As long as the surface is expanding, then airpressure tends to keep the
flow laminar. When you start closing in, it's easier to trip the airflow
over to turbulent. The faster you close in the easier it is to trip it.
Even if you close the shape in slowly enough that the airflow wouldn't
normally trip over to turbulent; road vibration, etc. can trip it. Once
it trips over, it basically stays turbulent. There are some tricks you
can do to turbulent flow to lower resistance, but laminar is still better.
The best shape, discovered so far, to maintain laminar flow over a moving
vehicle starts with a small nose and gradually widens until approx 70-75%
back, then closes up quickly to return the air to it's previous position.
Human powered vehicles using this, or similar shapes, have exceeded 80mph
using only the power of the riders legs.
For more information see:
http://www.speed101.com/
> If we are trying to keep things a simple as possible...
> can a fixed wheel, no lean delta corner as well as a tadpole,
> assuming each has done the best they can with the placement
> of the CG?
Nope, not if the tadpole is designed well. Well technically, you can make
a delta corner as well as a tadpole... as long as you don't try braking
while cornering.
Braking destabilizes deltas, and acceleration destabilizes tadpoles.
Since most vehicles can brake harder than they can accelerate, this means
that tadpoles generally have the advantage in handling.
--- End Message ---
