EV Digest 4697
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by georgeshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by georgeshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: AGM battery measured capacity and ordering them for my S10!
by Rush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Make an Aluminium Flywheel
by "Christopher Robison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Make an Aluminum Flywheel
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: electric motorcycle performance series parellel shifting
by Jim Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: Make an Aluminium Flywheel
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Make an Aluminium Flywheel
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by mreish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: What charger to use?
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) BB600 NiCd powered Sparrow moves!
by "John G. Lussmyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) unsubscribe
by "Tim Stephenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: AGM battery measured capacity and ordering them for my S10!
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) EVILbus (was: e-meter type gadget)
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: electric motorcycle performance
by Ken Trough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
thanks for the responses! to be honest, some of the motor details are
lost on me as I'm still feeling my way around the tech a bit, but
everything said so far has been filed in my growing folder of notes.
what I think I've gathered so far is -
it MAY be possible to hit 100mph in a package that would still handle
in the turns.
Li-ion or Li-pol is the way to go for batteries.
motor options seem somewhat varied?
AERO AERO AERO!
as new to ev as I am, I hadn't really considered aerodynamics much
yet. from what I know about current race bikes, there is definitely
some room for improvement. completely redesigning the bodywork of the
bike not only sounds fun to me, but looks like it will be the key to
making this thing perform reasonably well. I think that a custom set
of leathers could provide even more benefit.
is there any benefit to using a mechanical transmission of some sort?
or are the electrical series/parallel pseudo-transmissions better?
from the rider's perspective, a stock-ish transmission (with clutch)
would certainly feel more comfortable and give better control, but
I'm wondering how it would affect overall performance.
"Road racing makes heroin addiction look like a vague wish for
something salty."- Peter Eagan
truer words were never said!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 2:51 AM -0700 9/11/05, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
How many millions do you have to spend?
uh, millions? hmmm. nope.
Some of the answers to this question show a distinct lack of thought.
You can't use a fully faired (i.e. streamliner) because, among other
reasons, they aren't legal in racing.
So you'll need to use something similar to current sport bikes.
it would definitely need to be similar, but I think major
improvements are possible. the main constraints aren't due to racing
rules, but rider comfort and technique (the rider must be able to
move around on the bike quite a bit in order to affect traction and
center of gravity).
Because
of the poor aerodynamic, they require approx 35-40 hp to maintain 100 mph.
However, if your max power was only 40 hp, then it would take you a long
time to get to 100 mph. So you probably want something closer to 70 hp or
more.
I don't thin any of the suggested motors can produce that much power.
would the power figures you're using translate directly to ICE power
figures? 70hp in an ICE bike would be competitive in several classes
and would easily hit 100mph. while the acceleration wouldn't make
your hair stand up, it would be enough to be fun. I used to race a
350lb bike with 62hp.
You are probably looking at a motor that weighs close to 100 lbs.
I'm not sure how much a 144V set of Kokums that can produce 600 amps is,
but that's about what you'd need to produce 70 hp. Perhaps a bit higher
voltage.
I'm not sure you can buld the bike within your weight/size limits. LiPol
battereies are light, but they are fairly bulky.
hmmmm. bulk could be a problem, but could be overcome I think with
some creative bodywork.
<<cautiously encouraged>>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Wow Cor...
I have an old USElectric s-10 and am converting it. I am using T-125's, 30 of
them for 180 vdc as my battery pack.
I have the old alum battery holder that goes between the rails of the frame and
straddles the drive shaft. It is basically 2 compartments that are 14" deep x
13.5" wide and 40" long, that are separated by a 6" wide space that goes over
the drive shaft. Is that what yours +/- measures?
One of the problems was that I can only fit 10 of the T-125's in the existing
alum box and so the other 20 are going in a metal box that I have just finished
constructing that sits above the alum box. I am doing away with the bed of the
truck and redoing one.
The 30 T-125's at 1c rate (136 a), 50% DOD, 300 whr/mile, give a 50 mile trip,
at 75%DOD, give me 74 miles and cost $70 each ($2100).
If I plug your c1 rate, 80 amps into my spreadsheet, at 50%DOD, 300whr/mile,
gives me 50 miles, at 75%DOD, gives me 75 miles and cost $85 each ($2210).
Very, very similar....
I have a Zilla 1kHV so I would basically make them into 2 strings, so my
controller would work and the charger would have been questionable. And sag
would have been much less.
So if I had, could, go with your AGM's, then I wouldn't have to make the
battery box for the 30 T-125's and could have kept the truck bed. I also have
Lee's Battery Balancer system on order so it would have been perfect for the
AGM's. Life would have been easier...
Next time. But I really appreciate all the experimentation you have done to
show us the numbers and the battery seems to hold to its numbers.
Rush
Tucson AZ
www.ironandwood.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: AGM battery measured capacity and ordering them for my S10!
> Hi list,
>
> I want to update you all on my progress testing AGM batteries,
> in particular two UB121100 (110Ah 12V) under repeated 75A load.
>
> The second battery has just finished its 7th cycle and it took
> 66 minutes with a 0.16 Ohm load to take it down to 10.5V, after
> charging it for 8 hours at max 13A and max 14.1V (lab supply).
> Taking the voltage (and thus current) taper-off into account
> I see that the battery has provided slightly over its rated 80Ah
> at the 1-hour 80A discharge spec.
>
> That is not bad, especially with a guilty conscience as I have,
> because in the previous cycle I forgot I was testing and it ran
> down to 4V (!) after 100 min of 0.16 Ohm load. Ooops. Don't tell
> the guy I borrowed this battery from - I was mightily scared
> that I reversed a cell and destroyed the battery, but it came
> back all by itself to well over 10V by simply removing the load,
> so no cell was permanently reversed and putting the current into
> it resulted in the full capacity.
>
> That takes away most of my scare of using these batteries in my
> new S10 US Electricar (modified to Wave controller) so early
> next week I will be ordering a pack of these batteries plus the
> batteries of someone else who needs a new pack, as I was offered
> the Distributer price for these batteries: $85 including shipping
> (when the order is large enough). With the two of us we should
> have enough clout to get the good pricing and free shipping to
> South Bay Area (Sunnyvale).
>
> Let me know if you are also interested in AGMs for about $1 per
> usable Ah at 12V.
>
> FYI:
> The S10 USE has a double battery box that will fit 2x 7+4 of
> these batteries on their side, the car is setup for 312V = 26
> batteries so I will have 4 more in a box right behind the rear
> axle. I will see if the design my friend is making for this box
> can be shared on this list, in case others also want to equip a
> 312V S-10 with these batteries - I have not found a better type
> of battery that is maintenance free, has so much usable power
> and for this price.
>
> After killing the first battery (well, reducing its capacity by
> 20Ah) when charging it to 14.9V, I was real careful with the
> second battery and took it only up to 14.1V at 25 - 40 deg C
> ambient temp to avoid over-charging it. I know I did not under-
> charge it because it delivered rated amphours and also because
> the charge current became almost independent from the voltage
> at the end phase of charging: going from 14.1V to 14.5V for a
> few moments only raised the current by less than 1 Amp, going
> from 6 to 7A at some point in time.
>
> Anyway - stay charged!
>
> Cor van de Water
> Systems Architect
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
> Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
> Fax: +1 408 731 3673 eFAX: +31-84-717-9972
> Proxim Wireless Networks eFAX: +1-501-641-8576
> Take your network further http://www.proxim.com
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You're right. In reality, you don't want or need a "flywheel" on an EV;
the less rotating mass you have the better. But if you're going to be
using a clutch, you need a rigid disk on which to mount it. This disk
should be as light as possible, specifically because you don't want it
acting as a flywheel any more than necessary. Using the stock flywheel is
convenient because it already mounts to the clutch, but it's a good idea
to trim away as much mass as you can get away with. A super lightweight
aftermarket flywheel would be even better, especially with the ring gear
and excess material removed.
As to whether or not to use a clutch, I disagree with you but that's a
whole other argument. :o)
--chris
Joe Strubhar said:
> I thought a flywheel had to be heavy - why have a flywheel at all? I don't
> have one; I also don't have a clutch, and don't need one!
>
> Joseph H. Strubhar
>
> E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Web: www.gremcoinc.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:36 PM
> Subject: Make an Aluminium Flywheel
>
>
>> Has anyone made an aluminium flywheel for their car? I figure I can
>> lathe
> &
>> mill 6061 T6 or 2024 T3 to the appropriate shape and then install a
> surface
>> ring of 1060 high strength carbon steel for a clutch face. The face
>> would
>> be held on with high shear load aircraft bolts. Not sure what fastener
>> adhesive I would use on the bolts.
>>
>>
>> Thoughts? Comments? (Jerry have you done this before?)
>>
>>
>> Don
>>
>> Victoria, BC, Canada
>>
>> See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
>> www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> You can't use a fully faired (i.e. streamliner) because, among other
>> reasons, they aren't legal in racing.
>
> Did anyone suggest this?? If they did, I missed it. What I said was that
> aero was important. That's all.
Perhaps not stated as such, but the implication was there.
A normal sport bike (which /looks/ aerodynamic) has a Cd between 0.5 and
0.6 (similar to a bus). The most aerodynamic production bike I've ever
read about had a Cd of 0.42
To get much better than that is going to require fairings, etc. that are
not legal and not particularly safe at high speeds.
>
>> So you probably want something closer to 70 hp or more. I don't thin
>> any of the suggested motors can produce that much power.
>
> Dual Lemco motors can. Dual ETEKs can too, though it is pushing them
> quite hard. I've already cited an example.
The bike you cited is pushing them WAY past their rated voltage/power.
While this obviously works for 1/4 mile, I doubt they would survive 20
miles of this kind of treatment.
At any rate this is just more worthless speculation since nobody is
actually going to build a bike like this right now anyway.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
oops brain freeze, Moment of inertia is right, I knew that, thats what I
get for sending messages at 3am.
Flywheels were created to maintain the momentum between cylinder strokes
of piston engines and to store up some energy for when you let out the
clutch to avoid stalling ICE's which have no torque at zero RPM.
So Absolutly no flywheel needed in an EV that doesn't idle.
The clutch is however another, quite debateable, matter. It can serve as
a safety disconnect in traffic and give you the time to throw the main
breaker. In an AC system, where single phaseing and not moving are the
default failure mode, I wouldn't bother with a clutch or flywheel at
all. On a DC system where the default failure is full on, I want it. I
would rather blow up the motor than run over a kid.
I shave 12 lbs off of my flywheel in my mitsubish PU when I was racing
it and it really helped the engine spool up faster, the downside was
easier to stall. more RPM's needed at launch.
I don't however see the worry about making your own flywheel, The alum
you buy comes heat-treated already and doesn't loose it's heat treat
during machineing. I hollowed out the back of my steel one leaving ribs
radiating out from the center(removed pie wedges of material from back)
It maintained it's balance and it is on it's 130,000 th test mile.
Gotta finish the EV, the car got hit while parked in front of the house
and the truck uses 2 quarts of oil per tank of gas. (strange, no cloud
or leak)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'm not sure what you mean by messing up the fields? Nor am I sure that this
would work for you over-volters either, as I am new to this. I in fact have
talked to Father Time about this and he said that he tried it on a bike once
and also had no detectable differences. All I do know is that I have built
many 2 speed Prestolite motors (2 armature terminals and 4 field coil
terminals) The Prestolite manual lists the spec's at around a 25 to 30 %
increase in both amp and RPM's. Lets just say it is (this is from memory but
I'm sure very close to book) 30 amps at 3000-RPM series (high torque) and then
40 amps at 4000 RPM (low torque). Which I can vouch as working as they say it
does. As to whether this is still working the same at the 3 to 4 times the OEM
voltage is something I have yet to test let alone build, It just seems to me
that it might offer those who have complained about either no low end torque or
no high end torque on EM's an electrical shift that could be used t!
o climb
hills, take off faster, or rev higher on the top end. I am not claiming to
offer you all any "magical" solution's, but instead what I feel might be used
to enhance these industrial designed motors for a more practical EV use. This
will be done through hard work, proper communication (racers), and the drive to
say I think it can be done, and then see. As someone new here I see a lot of
nay-sayers preaching that things can't be done, and thats cool. Maybe they
are right! I respond to them that a few hundred years ago most thought the
world was flat, just 50 years ago most said we would never soar to space let
alone the moon. My first VCR was $600.00 for just a 2 head (my last one bought
was $ 38.00,lol and was a 4 head)
I choose to dream, to wonder, and to say hey thats a good idea how can we make
that work!
The modifications for the Siamese 8 motor I did for John Wayland was an example
of this dream born from necessity. John, Rich, Rod, as well as countless
others have had dreams like this too, and in fact for many years. What they
have lacked was someone who had the ability, the vision, and the money to make
what they know as a better motor to drive them. Although I lack the last one,
I feel like the song 2 out of 3 aint bad just might help them in their quest.
Ive never claimed to be a smart man but I believe that if enough of us stupid
guys all pull together maybe, just maybe, we can teach a smart guy a trick or
two. Im not sure by how much yet but I do know I will make these motors
better in both distance and speed. All I need is lab rats, and well I seem
to have run into at least a few who share that same vision. One last thing, I
tend to not like to be told something cant be done. For all the believers,
know that Im chomping my teeth down as best I know ho!
w. To
those that dont, please know that squirming just makes me want to bite
harder. No animosity, no war, and nothing but love to all. Just an old motor
dogs point of view. Im the first to admit Im new and have much to learn
which will (I hope) open more avenues for me to explore. I seek neither fame
nor riches and this stems from sheer curiosity at to what these motors (that
Ive worked on for 24 years) can actually do
Jim Husted
Hi-Torque Electric
Jack Knopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim, are you sure that changing the fields within a motor from series to
parallel will work without messing up the magnetic fields? My motor in my 64
Chevelle has dual fields(S1,S2, S3,S4) and I experimented with this a
little when I was bench testing the motor and found that when I went to
parallel the current increased a lot with no rpm change with no load. I do
have field weakening set up from S1 to S4 at the same resistance as S1 to S4
through a contactor and that is awesome. I am just in the test driving
stages of my conversion and am looking for some tricks to try and experiment
with.
Jack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Husted"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: electric motorcycle performance
>
> I've been thinking about a motorcycle motor for some time. My
> brother-in-law was, just tonight, asking what it would take to build him
> one. Not sure I'd call it a dream motor but I feel an MNE series
> Prestolite or Advance's version of it would make a good donor motor. This
> motor I believe is a 9 inch diameter motor but is only ½ + the length of
> what you all know as an ADC 9". The drawback to this motor is it has only
> a single brush set up, instead of the dual brush the larger ones have.
> This single brush is a little larger than the A89-012 brush the dual style
> uses, but not by much. If one wanted to beef the comm. up you could wind
> the armature with a longer comm. and install the dual brush set up to this
> motor. A larger C.E. plate and shaft would need to be fitted to complete
> the upgrade. The dual comm. would increase the brush shunt capacity and
> commutation two fold while maintaining a stout but short 10 to 12 inch
> length.
>
>
>
> The motor was originally rated as a 36-volt drive motor with a one-hour
> duty cycle. So if you were to say run it the 3 to 4 times the original
> rating that seems to be a norm here, I believe these motors would sing.
> Now let's break the field coils apart so that they can be run both in
> series or series parallel for a possible electric shift like John Wayland,
> but with only one motor. Now you set it up with a variable timed brush
> ring so that you can time it to optimize the motors to the batteries,
> load, RPM's of what you want. If the type of track you are planning for
> has a lot of turns then the jump you get on low end might just make up for
> in loses on the top. Someone posted a need for 8000 Rpm's, but if out of
> the corners you were faster than them just as Wayland is then maybe 6700
> might keep pace, or as in the story of the turtle and the hare might win.
>
>
>
> Father Time is running a pair of these stock ADC's at the tongue-in-cheek
> Lazy-Boy race coming up soon. I'll be curious as to how the motors
> perform and will be picking his brain as to their output. These motors
> have a good amount of copper mass with a nice amount of turns. If you had
> the room for a pair of these and batteries to push them I think you would
> come close to where I think, you are wishing for. For an average cycle
> builder these would be ideal. I think they are around 80 to 90 lbs., not
> to heavy but real stout.
>
>
>
> Wish I could add more details but I haven't built one yet, hehehe. As to
> the other areas of your post I'd do what these guy say : )
>
>
>
> Jim Husted
>
> Hi-Torque Electric
>
>
> Ken Trough wrote:> what type of
> batteries/motor/controller/etc would be the "dream"
>> setup?
>
> The Kokam Li-Po for your pack or try to get a hold of Compact Power's
> cells (out of colorado). Compact Power also has excellent BMS.
>
> A Zilla controller will give you high power control lots of race
> parameters to tune and series parallel switching stock, not to mention a
> full data set to analyze.
>
> As for motor, I think that a dual ETEK or Lemco setup would give the
> best power to weight ratio. Trying to go 100mph on one ETEK is
> definitely pushing it. Two is much better and a drag bike named ReVolt
> with two ETEKs and a Zilla controller holds a couple of world records
> using that setup at 144V (13.634 sec 1/4 mile at 93.81mph) and at 192V
> (12.958 sec 1/4 mile at 98.06mph). The ETEK and Lemco motors provide an
> outstanding power to weight ratio.
>
> If you want to push around 100mph of course aero is critical as well.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> -Ken Trough
> Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
> http://visforvoltage.com
> AIM - ktrough
> FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>>So you'll need to use something similar to current sport bikes.
>
>
> it would definitely need to be similar, but I think major
> improvements are possible. the main constraints aren't due to racing
> rules, but rider comfort and technique (the rider must be able to
> move around on the bike quite a bit in order to affect traction and
> center of gravity).
If you could easily make major improvements, then the manufacturers would
already be doing it. This would be a simple and cheap way to make their
bikes go faster, which means they'd sell more.
Most of the things necessary to make a big improvement are NOT legal.
Things like enclosing the front wheel in the fairing is illegal - at least
in racing, except boniville salt flats, etc.
Closing the shape up properly behind you is another area of improvement.
But doing this aerodynamically would make the bike 8-9 feet long, this
would make the bike to long to race in any road race I've ever heard of.
>>time to get to 100 mph. So you probably want something closer to 70 hp
>> or
>>more.
>>I don't thin any of the suggested motors can produce that much power.
>
> would the power figures you're using translate directly to ICE power
> figures?
Yes. 70 hp is 70 hp.
WIth electric motors you can often get by using one that has a lower rated
output than a similar ICE, because you can often push electric motors past
their ratings (within limits). However, *actual* output power is the same
regardless.
> 70hp in an ICE bike would be competitive in several classes
> and would easily hit 100mph. while the acceleration wouldn't make
> your hair stand up, it would be enough to be fun. I used to race a
> 350lb bike with 62hp.
That's why I picked that figure. It's about as low as you can go and
still get to 100 mph in a reasonable amount of time.
>>You are probably looking at a motor that weighs close to 100 lbs.
>>
>>I'm not sure how much a 144V set of Kokums that can produce 600 amps is,
>>but that's about what you'd need to produce 70 hp. Perhaps a bit higher
>>voltage.
>>
>>I'm not sure you can buld the bike within your weight/size limits. LiPol
>>battereies are light, but they are fairly bulky.
>>
>
> hmmmm. bulk could be a problem, but could be overcome I think with
> some creative bodywork.
Ok, I got curious and checked. It looks like 42 of the 70Ah Kokams might
have enough power to get you to 100 mph.
They would weigh about 185 lbs and only take up a little over 1.5 cubic
feet. However, they only store enough energy to last about 4 minutes at
this kind of power level. So multiply this by 5 to get your 20 minute
range.
925 lbs and 7.5 cubic feet.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
for the clutch.
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 Joe Strubhar
Sent: September 11, 2005 7:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Make an Aluminium Flywheel
I thought a flywheel had to be heavy - why have a flywheel at all? I don't
have one; I also don't have a clutch, and don't need one!
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: Make an Aluminium Flywheel
> Has anyone made an aluminium flywheel for their car? I figure I can lathe
&
> mill 6061 T6 or 2024 T3 to the appropriate shape and then install a
surface
> ring of 1060 high strength carbon steel for a clutch face. The face would
> be held on with high shear load aircraft bolts. Not sure what fastener
> adhesive I would use on the bolts.
>
>
> Thoughts? Comments? (Jerry have you done this before?)
>
>
> Don
>
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
> www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Umm, why? The whole point of a flywheel is mass.
If you use a lightweight metal you just have to use more of it to get the
same effect.
If you are looking to replace a flywheel for a conversion, just use a
steel one and machine off everything you don't need, i.e. most of the mass
since EVs don't need a flywheel to smooth out engine pulses.
Just lighten the flywheel like you would for a racing engine.
> Has anyone made an aluminium flywheel for their car? I figure I can lathe
> &
> mill 6061 T6 or 2024 T3 to the appropriate shape and then install a
> surface
> ring of 1060 high strength carbon steel for a clutch face. The face would
> be held on with high shear load aircraft bolts. Not sure what fastener
> adhesive I would use on the bolts.
>
>
> Thoughts? Comments? (Jerry have you done this before?)
>
>
> Don
>
> Victoria, BC, Canada
>
> See the New Beetle EV Conversion Web Site at
> www.cameronsoftware.com/ev/
>
>
>
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> it would definitely need to be similar, but I think major
improvements are possible. the main constraints aren't due to racing
rules, but rider comfort and technique (the rider must be able to
move around on the bike quite a bit in order to affect traction and
center of gravity).
If you could easily make major improvements, then the manufacturers would
already be doing it. This would be a simple and cheap way to make their
bikes go faster, which means they'd sell more.
Not entirely true. The big three (Suzuki, Honda & Kawasaki) all have
machines capable of 190mph now straight out of the shipping
container. They can go faster but they have speed governors.
Closing the shape up properly behind you is another area of improvement.
But doing this aerodynamically would make the bike 8-9 feet long, this
would make the bike to long to race in any road race I've ever heard of.
Another big problem there is that every race organization that I know
off doesn't allow body work to wrap around or interfere with the
rider. So there's often a void 'tween the rider and rear
cowl/fairing.
Ok, I got curious and checked. It looks like 42 of the 70Ah Kokams might
have enough power to get you to 100 mph.
They would weigh about 185 lbs and only take up a little over 1.5 cubic
feet. However, they only store enough energy to last about 4 minutes at
this kind of power level. So multiply this by 5 to get your 20 minute
range.
925 lbs and 7.5 cubic feet.
"Mr. Fusion" where are you?
--
The Electric Motorcycle Portal
http://www.electricmotorcycles.net/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>> > it would definitely need to be similar, but I think major
>>> improvements are possible. the main constraints aren't due to racing
>>> rules, but rider comfort and technique (the rider must be able to
>>> move around on the bike quite a bit in order to affect traction and
>>> center of gravity).
>>
>>If you could easily make major improvements, then the manufacturers would
>>already be doing it. This would be a simple and cheap way to make their
>>bikes go faster, which means they'd sell more.
>
> Not entirely true. The big three (Suzuki, Honda & Kawasaki) all have
> machines capable of 190mph now straight out of the shipping
> container. They can go faster but they have speed governors.
Yes but if the changes were simple, then their SMALLER bikes could hit
those speeds. The first company to do that would out-sell it's
competitors.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:25 PM 9/9/2005, Michaela Merz wrote:
>>What system would the list suggest and where to get it?
>
> http://www.manzanitamicro.com
Thank you. From what I understand, the PFC-50 would be able to be run
off a 110 V 'normal' outlet with its throttle (kind of a worst case
scenario) adjusted ?
Yup, So will a PFC-20 or PFC-30 if you don't want to spend as much.
As far as I know, a PFC-20 will charge your car faster than a Zivan,
from the same outlet, without blowing the fuse.
Anybody here able (willing?) to sell me a charger asap (my Zivan just died
I need my car back :)
Ask Rich, I don't think there is a big delay for PFC-20 or 30 models.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Pictures of the (mostly) installed BB600 NiCd's in my Yellow Sparrow:
http://www.casadelgato.com/Gallery/thumbnails.php?album=62
Nominal Pack voltage of 164.4v.
I took it for a short drive to make sure everything worked, and it did!
Things Yet to be Done:
A) Lower the bottom of the under-seat battery box by 1". This will
involve carving out the fiberglass bottom and some of the foam, then
putting in a new fiberglass bottom.
B) Install battery hold-downs.
C) Build a quick-remove tray in the front for the PFC-20
charger. (It has to be easy and quick to remove so I can water the
NiCd cells easily.
D) Install my Battery Monitors to warn me when any cells are low so I
don't reverse them.
--
John G. Lussmyer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dragons soar and Tigers prowl while I dream....
http://www.CasaDelGato.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
unsubscribe
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Cor van de Water wrote:
> I want to update you all on my progress testing AGM batteries,
> in particular two UB121100 (110Ah 12V) under repeated 75A load.
Great data, Cor! Testing is the only way to know what a battery will
actually do. Marketing information and data sheets are notoriously
untrustworthy in EV applications.
> The second battery has just finished its 7th cycle and it took
> 66 minutes with a 0.16 Ohm load to take it down to 10.5V, after
> charging it for 8 hours at max 13A and max 14.1V (lab supply).
> Taking the voltage (and thus current) taper-off into account
> I see that the battery has provided slightly over its rated 80Ah
> at the 1-hour 80A discharge spec.
Very good.
> in the previous cycle I forgot I was testing and it ran down to
> 4V(!) after 100 min of 0.16 Ohm load... I was mightily scared
> that I reversed a cell and destroyed the battery...
There are two reasons the voltage of a battery drops under load. You can
run one cell dead and then reverse it. Or, you can run all the cells so
low that they "run out of acid" and have an internal resistance too high
to supply the load current.
To know which happened, remove the load. If the voltage immediately
springs back to about the rated voltage (12v for a 12v battery, etc.),
then you didn't reverse any cells -- the cells just have too much
internal resistance for that load.
If the voltage only jumps up to some multiple of 2v low, then you have
reversed a cell. 10v on a 12v battery means one reversed cell. 8v means
two reversed cells, etc. Reversing a cell significantly reduces its
amphour capacity and life.
You don't actually reverse a cell until its voltage drops to 0v. If
every cell in the battery was absolutely identical, they would all reach
0v simultaneously, and you wouldn't reverse any cells even if you
discharged right to 0v.
But in the real world, no two cells are exactly alike. The 10.5v limit
for a 12v battery is based on the assumption that one cell in the
battery is noticeably weaker than the rest. When you hit 10.5v, they
assume 5 of the 6 cells are at 2v, and the weak one hits 0.5v.
2+2+2+2+2+0.5 = 10.5v. This is a "safe" assumption -- if you don't go
below 10.5v, you can't reverse a cell even if one is very much weaker
than the rest.
> it came back all by itself to well over 10V by simply removing the
> load, so no cell was permanently reversed and putting the current
> into it resulted in the full capacity.
As you go lower (like your 4v!) you just keep increasing the risk of
reversing a cell. The fact that you got to 4v and didn't reverse a cell
(as evidenced by the no-load voltage being well oover 10v and amphour
capacity not decreasing) means that the cells are pretty well balanced
-- they all went dead about the same time. That's normal for a new,
equalized, good quality battery.
> That takes away most of my scare of using these batteries in my
> new S10 US Electricar
Be aware that as the batteries are cycled and age, the cells drift
apart. It therefore gets easier and easier to reverse a cell. You got
away with it today because they are new and well balalnced. You won't
get away with it in a year or two.
> After killing the first battery (well, reducing its capacity by
> 20Ah) when charging it to 14.9V, I was real careful with the
> second battery and took it only up to 14.1V at 25 - 40 deg C
> ambient temp to avoid over-charging it.
14.1v is safer; you can even leave it on for a couple days and not
overcharge. However, it is too low to properly equalize. A new battery
won't need equalizing more than a couple times a month. But as they age,
they will need to be equalized more often. Plan on a way to take them up
to 14.7-15.0v at least once a month.
On your first battery; it may just have lost water. Carefully weigh both
batteries. If the low-capacity one is lighter, add enough water to bring
it back up to the weight of the good one and retest.
--
Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has! -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> [EVILbus] 32 nodes is a bit of a limitation. You say on that web
> page (http://www.aracnet.com/~rmerwin/evilbus/index.html) that it
> can scale to more, but what is the limitation? What goes wrong
> when you add too many nodes?
Basically, the power consumption goes up. I set an (arbitrary) load of
16ma on the 12v battery that powers everything. Each EVILbus node draws
0.5ma, so 32 of them draw 16ma. If you don't mind more power
consumption, you can decrease the resistors to get more nodes.
>From a reliability and practicality standpoint, I'm not sure you really
want a lot more nodes. It means more systems to wire, more failure
points, and it will be harder to troubleshoot if/when something breaks.
It is probably better to have each node measure a multitude of things.
> For hobbyists maybe the RCA connector makes sense because it's easy to
> get, but wouldn't twisted pair be better in general?
Shielded coax has higher noise immunity than twisted pair. The main
shortcoming of coax is that it costs more and is harder to work with. I
got around this with the RCA connectors and audio shielded cable. They
are one of the cheapest and most robust of the coax connectors. EVILbus
is not a terminated bus, so you don't need to match impedances; thus RF
coax and special connectors aren't required.
> One thing I've never quite understood is why the old coax standard
> fell out of use for ethernet.
Cost.
> Anyway IMO twisted pair is easier to work with. Is there any reason
> evil bus can't be used with it?
Sure, you can use it. But if you wrap it around a motor lead, you'll get
noise!
> It also strikes me as really nonstandard that the shield isn't a
> true ground - it's connected to ground via a resistor. But it can
> very easily get inadvertently connected to a real chassis ground
> if something metal happens to touch one of the female connectors
> or a metal-shelled male one.
It's a differential bus, so it doesn't matter if the shield is grounded
or not. You could ground the shield and have a 300 ohm resistor from the
center wire to +12v if you prefer. But your noise immunity will be worse
if the shield ever touches ground somewhere. Two ground points means
noise currents will flow in the shield, and induce noise into the center
wire as well.
I chose not to ground the shield so there is an easy way to tell if you
have an accidental ground somewhere else in the system. Measure the
shield to ground voltage; if zero, you have a short somewhere -- fix it!
Also, when you have EVILbus cables wandering all over the car, it's
possible for one of the connectors to touch ground, or +12v, or even a
propulsion pack wire. With resistors between both shield and +12v, the
worst that happens is that a resistor blows open like a fuse. None of
the EVILbus boards will be harmed. If you grounded the shield and then
had a short, a huge fault current could flow. You could melt the cable,
set fire to something, and destroy EVILbus boards.
So, for safety and noise, I left the shield ungrounded.
> What would be wrong with an optoisolated version of CAN?
Nothing. You could even use EVILbus as the hardware layer for the CAN
protocol.
> Could there be an extension to the CAN standard which permits
> mixing isolated and non-isolated nodes within the same network?
CAN pretty much ignores the hardware transport layer. They have a
suggested hardware implementation, but don't require it and explicitly
allow for others.
> Because it seems to me that opto-isolation is overkill for most
> automotive uses.
Exactly! Normal cars are strictly 12v systems. They don't need
optoisolation.
> On the one hand you say that CAN is a cheapened version of RS-485
> and I've also heard that the parts count is too high and there's
> no cheap way to build a CAN node. What makes it so expensive if
> it's so simple?
Anything is "simple" if you can get a 1-chip solution. But that one chip
may not be cheap!
An RS-485 or CAN bus transceiver chip costs $2 and up. A microcomputer
with CAN support is $5 and up. By the time you put them on a PC board
and add the miscellaneous small parts you're around $10 and up per node.
Now a car manufacturer buying a million a year can bring these costs
down significantly. But I can't. 32 nodes at $10/node is $320.
The EVILbus transceiver parts are under $1. Any inexpensive micro can do
the software support, so that's another $1. Put on a PC board, the total
cost is around $3 per node. That's under $100 for 32 nodes; 1/3 the
cost.
> It would be ideal if high speed and low speed devices could co-exist
> on the same bus. If we build EVs today with the existing version,
> and someday want to upgrade to some device that requires faster
> communication, what's going to happen?
The same thing that happens with everything else. A new standard will
evolve. If the installed base is large enough, the new standard will
support the older one as a subset.
> So far at least they've been able to agree on using XML some of the
> time and in some scenarios, but it's so inefficient that I probably
> wouldn't recommend doing that on a 9600 baud bus. One pet idea of
> mine is to come up with a binary on-the-wire standard for exchanging
> Scheme data types. You can implement very XML-like structures
> (self-describing, tree structured) using S-expressions, but you will
> be using data types that can be loaded as-is into variables on the
> receive end, rather than having to convert everything to ASCII and
> back again. (E.g. an int is sent in network byte order, not as a
> decimal ascii number.) And the standard must encompass a way of
> syncing up a map of symbols between an arbitrary number of nodes, so
> that eventually they are all using the same set of 32-bit numbers to
> represent symbols (what would be tag names in XML) rather than having
> to send even those in ASCII form. So it will lose the
> human-readability of XML but if you have an open standard with an open
> implementation, it will be trivial to translate all this data into
> human-readable form on demand. And you can still send arbitrary data
> structures without having to pre-define them in advance. It's in the
> same spirit as the binary XML standards like WBXML et al., but the
> trouble with those standards is there's already too many of them, and
> it's still only a data exchange language, not a programming language.
You'll like CAN. The standard is 1000+pages of this sort of complexity.
:-)
> Choosing CAN for EV stuff has the advantage of already having wide
> adoption in automotive implementations, and already enforcing the
> protocol. If you agree to use it, you can be compatible with a lot of
> off-the-shelf stuff, right? Or isn't there any off-the-shelf stuff?
CAN is great for its intended purpose. So is RS-232, USB, 802.11, etc.
(The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many different
ones :-) But none of these are intended for use in an EV, with high
voltage, high current, and high noise levels. I only created EVILbus
because none of them worked for me.
Exactly what off-the-shelf stuff do you want to be compatible with? Most
of the CANbus stuff in cars you don't need or want to interface to
anyway (ICE engine controller, power window controller, etc.). The
selection of CAN-compatible EV stuff is extremely limited; mainly
high-priced equipment left over from the EVs designed by the auto
industry for California's ZEV mandate. The mandate is defeated, the cars
are gone, and the products built for them are orphans.
I would use CANbus if I have, or intend to buy something that needs it.
But I also suspect I would have to keep it well away from the propulsion
wiring to make it work reliably.
--
Never doubt that the work of a small group of thoughtful, committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever
has! -- Margaret Mead
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This guy is excited about electrics and is trying to discuss
possibilities. Peter, you seem focused on convincing him that this is
all a waste of time. I thought we encouraged people here. Maybe I am
mistaken.
Is his goal a >practical< one at this point? Probably not. Is
it >possible<? We don't really know because no one has tried it yet and
talked about it, as far as I know. But given the advances in batteries
that are occurring and the accelerated rate of change we are seeing
across the board in materials science, it might not be an impractical
goal for long.
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message. By posting the message you agree
that your long legalistic signature is void.
Nice passive/agressive sig file. Most people just ignore boilerplate
like this.
-Ken Trough
Admin - V is for Voltage Magazine
http://visforvoltage.com
AIM - ktrough
FAX/voice message - 206-339-VOLT (8658)
--- End Message ---
