EV Digest 4927
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Test email
by "rwwies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: EVLN(I would like to see plug-in hybrid model as an option)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Question for Otmar re breaker position (electrically)
by Otmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Question for Otmar re breaker position (electrically)
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) ADRs and disconnects, was: Re: Question for Otmar
by James Massey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Toshiba's New Lithium-Ion Battery Recharges in Only One Minute
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by jerry dycus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) B381s and RE92s
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Lithium nanothingies (was Toshiba's New Lithium...)
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: EV production! Who's interested in figuring out how to make $
at this!
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You might have to change the wheels. For instance, my car has 13 inch
wheels. The Bridgestone B381 (which had the lowest RR in the Green Seal
test at 0.062) is not available in the 13 inch size. The RE92 is
available in 13 inch, but the load range of that tire is too low for the
load my car puts on the tire. So I would have to move up to 14 inch
wheels and tires.
Let's say I go with the B381s in 14 inch. They're $72 each. The
cheapest wheels I can find are $47 each. That's $119 for each position.
Add mounting and balancing and I'm up around $140 per position. $140 X
4 = $560 for the car.
TireRack sells OEM-style steel wheels for most cars. They also often have
"takeoff" wheels. These are almost-new OEM wheels, from dealers who sell
upgraded wheels as options on new cars.
If you buy the wheels and tires together from TireRack, they will mount and
balance them for you free of charge.
If we assume a 20% decrease in energy required to move the car, and 500
Whr/mile consumption with the conventional tires, I would save 100
Whr/mile by changing to the LRR tire. Where I live electricity costs 10
cents per kW. So I am saving 1 cent per mile by changing tires. Let's
call it 2 cents by the time I pay for power losses in the charger,
wires, etc. So $560/2cents = 28,000 miles I have to drive on the LRR
tires just to break even. After that I'm ahead of the game. Each
subsequent set of LRR tires would save me more because the wheels are
already paid for. If my EV is more efficient than this example, it will
take longer to payback for the tires.
You're not looking at the main source of savings. Periodic battery
replacement generally costs far more per mile than the electricity used.
If you use 20% less energy per mile, your batteries will last 25% more miles
- or more- unless you have to replace them anyway because of calendar age.
So, you may end up with a break-even point at, say, 10,000 miles instead of
28,000.
There are other benefits ( more difficult to quantify): for example, your
motor and controller will run cooler and probably last longer.
Also, even more important ( to me) is that you have a vehicle with more
range. Not considering Peukert, 20% less energy/mile would result in a
range increase of 25%. The real increase (because of the Peukert effect)
will be even higher.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> The big question in my mind, and I have a Honda Insight, is whether
> Hybrids
> are worth the extra expense and complexity over the long run. Mine is 4
> 1/2
> years old and 80K miles and so far I am still happy I bought it. I think
> it
> is a much nicer car to have than a Metro.
>
>From purely a money point of view, probably not. Consider, if you had a
choice of a new Insight, or standard econo box that was $6,000 cheaper.
With todays gass prices you wouldn't break even for 9 years, and that
isn't taking into account the loss of ROI from the extra money.
I'm considering buying a used hybrid though. The cost difference isn't
quite so bad. Besides, I don't mind paying a little extra to help out the
planet.
--
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 ---
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:35:12 +0200, Osmo Sarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I´d have thought they are made of harder material than ordinary tires!
>Would you explain this a bit more, how come softer rolls with lower
>resistance? (Or is this discussed already, I haven´t followed this
>thread very closely.)
Peter's description is incorrect. (disclaimer: I'm not a tire expert
and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn but I have attended several
racing tire schools put on by Goodyear). The hardness or softness
(durometer value) has little to do with rolling resistance. Think of
the logical extremes - a steel wheel, very hard, has almost no rolling
resistance while a gummy rubber tire would have a lot. An example of
a very hard, very low rolling resistance tire is a railroad wheel. I
know from experience that a single person can move with little effort
an empty boxcar that weighs in the range of 7 tons.
To greatly simplify matters, rolling resistance is the product of the
deflection and the internal hysteresis in the compound. Were it not
for economy considerations, tire rubber would be compounded of very
high hysteresis rubber. Indeed, motocross tires are. The high
hysteresis (high internal friction and damping) tends to cut down on
tread rebound that causes both noise and loss of traction. One can
whack the lugs of a high hysteresis tire and feel very little rebound.
The energy of the whack is dissipated as heat by the internal
friction.
The problem is, since the tire has to flex where it contacts and then
comes away from the road, this flexure dissipates energy that comes
from the fuel, thus poor economy.
A low hysteresis compound dissipates less energy as frictional heat
but other problems arise. As a low hysteresis compound hits the
pavement on each revolution, the tread is compressed and then
rebounds. This rebound causes squirm, loss of traction and noise. The
ride is harsh because the bump energy is returned to the wheel in the
form of rebound instead of being dissipated as heat.
The tire companies play a careful compromise game for each type of
tire to balance noise, traction and wear characteristics.
Lamp black (carbon) makes the rubber tough and increases the
hysteresis. That also causes the internal frictional losses to be
higher. Silica can be used in place of lamp black. It is "slicker"
and so causes less internal friction. Unfortunately, it doesn't
toughen rubber like lamp black does so high silica tires wear fast.
A very stiff sidewall tire such as a multi-ply truck tire, inflated to
high pressure, does indeed present a very low rolling resistance. For
example, my old Ford "camper special" truck with the 10 ply rated
tires can be pushed on level ground literally with one finger. It
also rides like the wheels were solid because there is such a small
amount of sidewall flex.
The low rolling resistance tires try to balance ride quality vs losses
and tend to have the compromise shifted toward low loss while still
maintaining fairly good ride quality.
John
>
>Osmo
>
>22.11.2005 kello 14:47, Peter VanDerWal kirjoitti:
>
> Since they are normally softer than ordinary tires, they tend to wear
>out
>> faster. They are often noisier and some of them don't handle as well
>> in
>> wet conditions.
>
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 12:29 PM +1100 11/22/05, James Massey wrote:
At 07:48 AM 22/11/05 +1100, I wrote:
Sorry, I must not have been clear:
And I realised after that I had not been clear in another way, too.
I am not talking about the *mechanical* position of the breaker, but
about the *electrical* position.
So to re-ask the question, will it upset the Zilla to have the
breaker between the contactor and the Zilla, and does the precharger
have to be across the breaker as well:
Is this OK?
contactor breaker
o--o _/_
--o o------[___]--[Zilla B+]
| |
| |
[pre-]
charger
This is OK. If you try to drive with the breaker off you will get a
1231 error: (Propulsion pack open, No contactor drop, and
controller is not responding) and it will not start up.
or should it (is it OK to) be:
contactor breaker
o--o _/_
--o o------[___]--[Zilla B+]
| |
| |
-[pre-charger]-
This is Not OK. We have found that the inductance in the breaker will
trigger the voltage sense in the precharger and give you a "main
contactor high resistance" error.
btw: I show you have a HB-1 with code version 1.13. The latest most
reliable code is 1.20. Please drop me a private email and I'll send
you the updated code.
For others with Hairballs: If your HB-1 (separate precharger) has
older than V1.20 code, or your HB-2 has older than V2.06c then please
send me a private email with your Hairball serial number and I can
email you a code update.
Code version is displayed on power up. This can also be forced by
going to the special menu and typing a "W"
Thanks!
--
-Otmar-
http://www.CafeElectric.com/ Home of the Zilla.
http://www.evcl.com/914 My electric 914
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Phil,
Thanks for the reply. That's why I'm on this list. Will Tire Rack sell
the takeoff wheels for $47 or less? With regard to battery replacement,
my pack of US 2200s cost about $1000. Assuming 800 cycles to
end-of-life and my 25 mile/day commute, I should get about 20,000 miles
out of the pack. $1,000.00/20,000 miles = 5 cents per mile for pack
replacement. A 20% improvement would save me 1 cent per mile. If I add
the 2 cent/mile cost of the electricity to the 1 cent per mile battery
replacement savings, my total savings would be 3 cents per mile. So
$560/3 cents = 18,667 miles to breakeven. Since I only drive about
5,000 miles per year commuting to work, it would take almost 4 years to
breakeven, assuming I drove the EV to work every day, which is not
likely. So I am approaching economic viability for the LRR tires, but
it would require a definite commitment to driving the EV as much as
possible to make it worthwhile.
Patrick
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/22/05 10:27:53 AM >>>
>From: "Patrick Maston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>You might have to change the wheels. For instance, my car has 13
inch
>wheels. The Bridgestone B381 (which had the lowest RR in the Green
Seal
>test at 0.062) is not available in the 13 inch size. The RE92 is
>available in 13 inch, but the load range of that tire is too low for
the
>load my car puts on the tire. So I would have to move up to 14 inch
>wheels and tires.
>
>Let's say I go with the B381s in 14 inch. They're $72 each. The
>cheapest wheels I can find are $47 each. That's $119 for each
position.
> Add mounting and balancing and I'm up around $140 per position.
$140 X
>4 = $560 for the car.
TireRack sells OEM-style steel wheels for most cars. They also often
have
"takeoff" wheels. These are almost-new OEM wheels, from dealers who
sell
upgraded wheels as options on new cars.
If you buy the wheels and tires together from TireRack, they will mount
and
balance them for you free of charge.
>
>If we assume a 20% decrease in energy required to move the car, and
500
>Whr/mile consumption with the conventional tires, I would save 100
>Whr/mile by changing to the LRR tire. Where I live electricity costs
10
>cents per kW. So I am saving 1 cent per mile by changing tires.
Let's
>call it 2 cents by the time I pay for power losses in the charger,
>wires, etc. So $560/2cents = 28,000 miles I have to drive on the LRR
>tires just to break even. After that I'm ahead of the game. Each
>subsequent set of LRR tires would save me more because the wheels are
>already paid for. If my EV is more efficient than this example, it
will
>take longer to payback for the tires.
You're not looking at the main source of savings. Periodic battery
replacement generally costs far more per mile than the electricity
used.
If you use 20% less energy per mile, your batteries will last 25% more
miles
- or more- unless you have to replace them anyway because of calendar
age.
So, you may end up with a break-even point at, say, 10,000 miles
instead of
28,000.
There are other benefits ( more difficult to quantify): for example,
your
motor and controller will run cooler and probably last longer.
Also, even more important ( to me) is that you have a vehicle with more
range. Not considering Peukert, 20% less energy/mile would result in a
range increase of 25%. The real increase (because of the Peukert
effect)
will be even higher.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 10:49 AM 22/11/05 -0800, Otmar wrote:
Is this OK?
contactor breaker
o--o _/_
--o o------[___]--[Zilla B+]
| |
| |
[pre-]
charger
This is OK. If you try to drive with the breaker off you will get a 1231
error: (Propulsion pack open, No contactor drop, and controller is not
responding) and it will not start up.
Good, I couldn't see for the life of me how that could be a problem.
contactor breaker
o--o _/_
--o o------[___]--[Zilla B+]
| |
| |
-[pre-charger]-
This is Not OK. We have found that the inductance in the breaker will
trigger the voltage sense in the precharger and give you a "main contactor
high resistance" error.
OK, that could have been a trap!
btw: I show you have a HB-1 with code version 1.13. The latest most
reliable code is 1.20. Please drop me a private email and I'll send you
the updated code.
Will do.
Thanks and regards
James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
At 08:39 AM 22/11/05 -0700, Rush wrote:
I'm confused James, do you mean that you have to ways of intrupting the
elec path? You talk of the 'breaker' and then you talk of the ADR
requirement of a manual disconnect. Are they 2 different things?
The ADR requirement is for a manual disconnect, for mechanical interruption
of the current path. The ADR guidelines has a definition of red
mushroom-head pushbutton to operate. The physical method of executing this
is open to suitable methods. So the disconnect can be just a disconnect, or
it can be a breaker with manual trip action.
What most of us use here is the HEINEMANN #GJ1-B3-DU0250-01C(...Single
section w/toggle handle...compact...160 VDC max...For controller systems
up to 800 Amps), it has a mechanical toggle handle that is hooked up to a
wire that goes into the passenger compartment. So it can be manually
pulled and also is a resettable fuse.
That is what I was planning on, but after acquiring these two Terasaki
3-pole breakers (up to 250VDC) and deciding one of them cut down to single
pole would be useable I then had the reality of this red-button requirement
and how to implement it. I don't know how much force it takes to trip off
the Heinemann breaker (I only have smaller Heinemann breakers), but it may
be too much for the button-operator. The layout of my vehicle lends itself
to putting the breaker in the motor-bay (under the drivers' seat), which is
the shortest distance for the pushbutton tripping device. In the motor bay
is also out of the weather and road spray, yet readily accessible for
resetting (which I may put on a toggle-handle sticking through the firewall
anyway).
Regards
James
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Are we going to get this or is this just more baloney. Lawrence Rhodes....
From:
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/topstory/000881
Toshiba's New Lithium-Ion Battery Recharges in Only One Minute
March 31, 2005 -- Toshiba Corp has announced a breakthrough in lithium-ion
batteries that makes long recharge times a thing of the past. The company's
new battery can recharge 80% of a battery's energy capacity in only one
minute, approximately 60 times faster than the typical lithium-ion batteries
in wide use today. Initial applications will be in the automotive and
industrial sectors.
In addition to the conventional capabilities of the lithium-ion secondary
battery, this battery has also achieved charge-discharge behavior that is
equivalent to that of the electric double layer capacitor. A test cell for
high-power output realized the volumetric energy density of 150- 250Wh/L and
the volumetric output density of 10kW/L.
The new battery fuses Toshiba's latest advances in nano-material technology
for the electric devices sector with cumulative know-how in manufacturing
lithium-ion battery cells. A breakthrough technology applied to the negative
electrode uses new nano-particles to prevent organic liquid electrolytes
from reducing during battery recharging. The nano-particles quickly absorb
and store vast amount of lithium ions, without causing any deterioration in
the electrode.
Besides its performance advantages, the new battery has a long life cycle,
losing only 1% of capacity after 1,000 cycles of discharging and recharging,
and can operate at very low temperatures. Toshiba's use of a metallic
material for the negative electrode, instead of the conventional carbon
material, means that by evenly fixing the particles of the metallic material
having the diameter of several hundred nm to the electrode, the new battery
enables 10cXC charging (charge completes in 6 minutes), as well as 40-50cXC
discharging (discharge completes in 72-90 seconds). An LiCoO2-type (lithium
cobalt oxide) material is used as the positive electrode for the prototype.
This electrode also includes fine particles. At -40cXC, the battery can
discharge 80% of its capacity, against 100% in an ambient temperature of
25cXC.
Toshiba plans to commercialize the new rechargeable battery in 2006. Initial
applications will be in the automotive and industrial sectors, where the
slim, small-sized battery will deliver large amounts of energy while
requiring only a minute to recharge. For example, the battery's advantages
in size, weight and safety highly suit it for a role as an alternative power
source for hybrid electric vehicles.
The company expects that the high energy density and excellent recharge
performance of the new battery will assure its successful application as a
new energy solution in many areas of society.
(NE Asia Online)
Lawrence Rhodes
Bassoon/Contrabassoon
Reedmaker
Book 4/5 doubler
Electric Vehicle & Solar Power Advocate
415-821-3519
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Patrick and All,
Patrick Maston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You might have to change the
wheels. For instance, my car has 13 inch
wheels. The Bridgestone B381 (which had the lowest RR in the Green Seal
test at 0.062) is not available in the 13 inch size. The RE92 is
available in 13 inch, but the load range of that tire is too low for the
load my car puts on the tire. So I would have to move up to 14 inch
wheels and tires.
Let's say I go with the B381s in 14 inch. They're $72 each. The
cheapest wheels I can find are $47 each. That's $119 for each position.
Add mounting and balancing and I'm up around $140 per position. $140 X
4 = $560 for the car.
The Insight's Bridgestone RE92's are about $67 at Costco and nice
rims are $10 or less a the junk yard so that brings the cost down to $77 per
wheel, low enough to be easily worthwhile, especially if you need to replace
your tires anyway. And really better if you have to strain to reach you needed
range, especially in winter with lead's lowered capacity or you have to do
unexpectedly long distance one day..
And one might find a Insight, Prius at a junk yd with tire and
rims about $15-25 set, lowering the cost even more.
BTW older tires with their hardened rubber get lower drag than new
ones.
For me needing both new tires and rims, LRR tires are a no brainer
and with a 15-20% range increase they bring, gives me 15-20 more miles range
and 15-20+% longer battery life, definately worth it. Now add a smaller motor,
controller or fewer batteries for the same range, performance, again a no
brainer.
Also, at least the RE92's weigh 10 lbs less per tire than normal
ones, again increasing range, lowering costs, power needed.
So in general, LRR tires are about the best bang for the buck you
will get, especially if you are a smart shopper.
HTH's,
Jerry Dycus
If we assume a 20% decrease in energy required to move the car, and 500
Whr/mile consumption with the conventional tires, I would save 100
Whr/mile by changing to the LRR tire. Where I live electricity costs 10
cents per kW. So I am saving 1 cent per mile by changing tires. Let's
call it 2 cents by the time I pay for power losses in the charger,
wires, etc. So $560/2cents = 28,000 miles I have to drive on the LRR
tires just to break even. After that I'm ahead of the game. Each
subsequent set of LRR tires would save me more because the wheels are
already paid for. If my EV is more efficient than this example, it will
take longer to payback for the tires. I.E. if my EV only uses 250
Whr/mile I would have to drive it twice as far to breakeven: 28,000 X 2
= 56,000 miles. Since I don't drive my EV all that much, changing to
the LRR tires is probably not a good idea for me. If I lived in an area
where power cost less, it would make even less sense to change.
But, if I needed to increase the range of my vehicle without spending a
lot of money, it could make sense to change over to LRR tires. Maybe I
can get takeoffs from an Insight or Prius and some used wheels at the
salvage yard. Hmmmmmm . . . .
You can buy both the B381s and RE92s at TireRack: www.tirerack.com
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/21/05 1:46:21 PM >>>
On 11/21/05, Patrick Maston
wrote:
> You are ready the report right, but it is based on ICE cars, which
> waste a lot of energy just sitting there. Electrics are much more
> efficient and overcoming rolling resistance is a larger part of the
> energy consumed by them. So the savings on an EV should be much
greater
> than what is stated in the Green report.
I was hoping it would. However, does anyone have a guess at a number?
And if I had an EV sitting here--how much would it likely cost me to
put low rolling resistance tires on it?
Anyone have a link to where I can buy them?
Does it require new wheels, or just new tires? If only new tires,
could I get even more efficiency out of getting new wheels, too?
Anyway, if I can increase range by 10-20% for a few hundred dollars,
that seems to make pretty good sense to me.
Thanks.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is very true, a high ply side wall tire air up to the maximum load rating
will give the least amount of deflection. I am running a Dunlap 30 inch
diameter 8-ply with a load rating of 2640 lbs @ 65 PSI.
It only takes 90 inch lbs in final gear to move a 6890 lb car. In 1st gear
which is a 19.485:1 gear ratio, its takes 25 inch lbs which is about the same a
2 ft.lbs.
On a standard suspension system, the ride would be harsh, so I remove the
standard springs and shocks and use Air Ride Technologies Shock Wave Systems.
You can soften the ride to like a baby buggy while maintaining the tire
deflection rate.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: Neon John<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:35:12 +0200, Osmo Sarin <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>I´d have thought they are made of harder material than ordinary tires!
>Would you explain this a bit more, how come softer rolls with lower
>resistance? (Or is this discussed already, I haven´t followed this
>thread very closely.)
Peter's description is incorrect. (disclaimer: I'm not a tire expert
and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn but I have attended several
racing tire schools put on by Goodyear). The hardness or softness
(durometer value) has little to do with rolling resistance. Think of
the logical extremes - a steel wheel, very hard, has almost no rolling
resistance while a gummy rubber tire would have a lot. An example of
a very hard, very low rolling resistance tire is a railroad wheel. I
know from experience that a single person can move with little effort
an empty boxcar that weighs in the range of 7 tons.
To greatly simplify matters, rolling resistance is the product of the
deflection and the internal hysteresis in the compound. Were it not
for economy considerations, tire rubber would be compounded of very
high hysteresis rubber. Indeed, motocross tires are. The high
hysteresis (high internal friction and damping) tends to cut down on
tread rebound that causes both noise and loss of traction. One can
whack the lugs of a high hysteresis tire and feel very little rebound.
The energy of the whack is dissipated as heat by the internal
friction.
The problem is, since the tire has to flex where it contacts and then
comes away from the road, this flexure dissipates energy that comes
from the fuel, thus poor economy.
A low hysteresis compound dissipates less energy as frictional heat
but other problems arise. As a low hysteresis compound hits the
pavement on each revolution, the tread is compressed and then
rebounds. This rebound causes squirm, loss of traction and noise. The
ride is harsh because the bump energy is returned to the wheel in the
form of rebound instead of being dissipated as heat.
The tire companies play a careful compromise game for each type of
tire to balance noise, traction and wear characteristics.
Lamp black (carbon) makes the rubber tough and increases the
hysteresis. That also causes the internal frictional losses to be
higher. Silica can be used in place of lamp black. It is "slicker"
and so causes less internal friction. Unfortunately, it doesn't
toughen rubber like lamp black does so high silica tires wear fast.
A very stiff sidewall tire such as a multi-ply truck tire, inflated to
high pressure, does indeed present a very low rolling resistance. For
example, my old Ford "camper special" truck with the 10 ply rated
tires can be pushed on level ground literally with one finger. It
also rides like the wheels were solid because there is such a small
amount of sidewall flex.
The low rolling resistance tires try to balance ride quality vs losses
and tend to have the compromise shifted toward low loss while still
maintaining fairly good ride quality.
John
>
>Osmo
>
>22.11.2005 kello 14:47, Peter VanDerWal kirjoitti:
>
> Since they are normally softer than ordinary tires, they tend to wear
>out
>> faster. They are often noisier and some of them don't handle as well
>> in
>> wet conditions.
>
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.johngsbbq.com<http://www.johngsbbq.com/>
Cleveland, Occupied TN
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Now I'm really confused. What happened to the rail wheel analogy? They
don't flex at all. LR........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
I was just at a cycle shop and my Lectra takes a Dunlop 180 12 inch. I
saw
some Yokahama that had hard and soft compounds. I bet the hard would get
better range. Lawrence Rhodes.......
You'd most likely loose that bet. All the true LRR tires have a large
amount of silica in them (makes them softer).
All tires flex. Hard tires are harder to flex and convert the flex into
heat (wasted energy) soft tires flex easier and don't generate as much
heat.
--
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 ---
All this must be different for motorcycle and bicycle tires. They are very
stiff in comparison to car tires.They must also have tracton at many
different angles for cornering. Hence the bikers maxim soft for handling &
hard for economy. That's right out of the mouth of the owner of the best
cycle repair shop in San Francisco. KC Engineering. Lawrence Rhodes.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
From: Osmo Sarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I´d have thought they are made of harder material than ordinary tires!
Would you explain this a bit more, how come softer rolls with lower
resistance? (Or is this discussed already, I haven´t followed this thread
very closely.)
Osmo
HI, Osmo
Here's a copy of an explanation that I sent in an email on this list a few
months ago:
There are two different effects that provide the tire's stiffness and
support the weight on the tire. One is the sidewall stiffness, and the
other is the air pressure in the tire.
For any tire, by far the most weight is supported by the air pressure. (
Think of what happens to a tire - even one with heavy sidewalls - if you
let out the air). The percentage of the load supported by the sidewalls
depends on the sidewall stiffness and the air pressure in the tire.
Think of the air and the sidewalls as two springs in parallel. When the
tire rolls, you are continually deflecting and releasing these two
springs. The energy loss in a rolling tire is primarily caused by the
damping in these springs. ( there is also some damping and energy loss in
the tread)
Fortunately, the air part of the spring has virtually no damping. But,
the sidewall can have a lot. The energy loss ( that shows up as heat) in
the sidewall depends on the stiffness of the sidewall and the damping in
the sidewall. Higher stiffness means more force to compress the sidewall
"spring", and more damping means a higher percentage of that compressing
energy is lost in each rotation of the tire.
So, more flexible sidewalls mean less energy loss, and lower damping
sidewalls mean less energy loss. LRR tires try to do both of these.
As an example, radial tires have much more flexible sidewalls than the old
bias-ply tires and, in general, have substantially lower rolling
resistance.
So, when you increase the tire pressure, the tire deflects less, and more
of the load is taken by the air pressure ( no loss) and less by the
sidewalls ( higher loss), so the total energy loss is less. This is a
simple way to understand why increasing the tire pressure results in lower
rolling resistance ( and, why almost-flat tires have a lot of drag)
Further, if you change to a wider tire ( of the same construction) at the
same air pressure, the air will support more of the load, and the sidewall
less. This is why - I believe - that wider tires (within reason) should
have lower rolling resistance at the same air pressure. Does anyone know
of any real data on this??? ( Yes - I know that bicycle racers use very
narrow tire, but that's for reduced air drag and weight - like the front
wheels on dragsters)
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I wonder if Think Neighbors would do well with this change? Anybody know
what the bolt pattern is? Lawrence Rhodes......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ricky Suiter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
Just to throw my 2 cents in here. My Honda Insight has the oem LRR tires
on it. In the Bridgestone Potenza RE92 the 165/65/14 and the 175/65/14 are
LRR tires, the rest of the line I don't believe is. These are by far the
most energy efficient tire I've found. I know this is an apples to oranges
comparison, but I've recycled still usable Insight tires to my GEM car. I
went from a little fat 205/35/10 (I think) turf size tire to a 165/65/14,
which is about a 20% increase in diameter, and gained efficiency while
driving about 5mph faster.
I even convinced a Think owner to try these tires. He lives where his
house is on top of a hill so it's a good climb to get there. He had
similar "turf" tires and would eek his way up the hill at 15mph. He
switched to the same Potenza tire and got to the point that he would
accelerate up that hill. Not granted this is a pretty extreme change.
A simple test, push your car. Try it with the tires that are on it now,
then go get a set of lrr tires and push it again. I bet you'll notice a
difference.
Later,
Ricky
02 Insight
92 Saturn SC2 EV 144 Volt
Glendale, AZ USA
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
a Michelin scientist i meet was showing an educative experience on LRR
tires.
Letting fall down to floor 2 different compound made balls and asking at
audience which one where used for their low rolling resistance tires.
3/4 peoples answered: "the one that rebound high"
"i'm sorry, it's the other" he said with a smile.
:^)
cordialement,
Philippe
Et si le pot d'échappement sortait au centre du volant ?
quel carburant choisiriez-vous ?
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr
Forum de discussion sur les véhicules électriques
http://vehiculeselectriques.free.fr/Forum/index.php
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neon John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:35:12 +0200, Osmo Sarin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I´d have thought they are made of harder material than ordinary tires!
> >Would you explain this a bit more, how come softer rolls with lower
> >resistance? (Or is this discussed already, I haven´t followed this
> >thread very closely.)
>
> Peter's description is incorrect. (disclaimer: I'm not a tire expert
> and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn but I have attended several
> racing tire schools put on by Goodyear). The hardness or softness
> (durometer value) has little to do with rolling resistance. Think of
> the logical extremes - a steel wheel, very hard, has almost no rolling
> resistance while a gummy rubber tire would have a lot. An example of
> a very hard, very low rolling resistance tire is a railroad wheel. I
> know from experience that a single person can move with little effort
> an empty boxcar that weighs in the range of 7 tons.
>
> To greatly simplify matters, rolling resistance is the product of the
> deflection and the internal hysteresis in the compound. Were it not
> for economy considerations, tire rubber would be compounded of very
> high hysteresis rubber. Indeed, motocross tires are. The high
> hysteresis (high internal friction and damping) tends to cut down on
> tread rebound that causes both noise and loss of traction. One can
> whack the lugs of a high hysteresis tire and feel very little rebound.
> The energy of the whack is dissipated as heat by the internal
> friction.
>
> The problem is, since the tire has to flex where it contacts and then
> comes away from the road, this flexure dissipates energy that comes
> from the fuel, thus poor economy.
>
> A low hysteresis compound dissipates less energy as frictional heat
> but other problems arise. As a low hysteresis compound hits the
> pavement on each revolution, the tread is compressed and then
> rebounds. This rebound causes squirm, loss of traction and noise. The
> ride is harsh because the bump energy is returned to the wheel in the
> form of rebound instead of being dissipated as heat.
>
> The tire companies play a careful compromise game for each type of
> tire to balance noise, traction and wear characteristics.
>
> Lamp black (carbon) makes the rubber tough and increases the
> hysteresis. That also causes the internal frictional losses to be
> higher. Silica can be used in place of lamp black. It is "slicker"
> and so causes less internal friction. Unfortunately, it doesn't
> toughen rubber like lamp black does so high silica tires wear fast.
>
> A very stiff sidewall tire such as a multi-ply truck tire, inflated to
> high pressure, does indeed present a very low rolling resistance. For
> example, my old Ford "camper special" truck with the 10 ply rated
> tires can be pushed on level ground literally with one finger. It
> also rides like the wheels were solid because there is such a small
> amount of sidewall flex.
>
> The low rolling resistance tires try to balance ride quality vs losses
> and tend to have the compromise shifted toward low loss while still
> maintaining fairly good ride quality.
>
> John
>
> >
> >Osmo
> >
> >22.11.2005 kello 14:47, Peter VanDerWal kirjoitti:
> >
> > Since they are normally softer than ordinary tires, they tend to wear
> >out
> >> faster. They are often noisier and some of them don't handle as well
> >> in
> >> wet conditions.
> >
> ---
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.johngsbbq.com
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:43:35 -0800
Now I'm really confused. What happened to the rail wheel analogy? They
don't flex at all. LR........
Of course they flex. You can calculate it, and you can measure it - it's
just hard to see by looking because the deflection is so small.
The reason rail wheels are VERY low rolling resistance is:
1. They deflect very little so they absorb very little energy as they
deflect.
2. And, there is almost no damping in the cast iron ( or steel), so the
little energy they absorb is returned. Similarly, if you bounce a steel
ball on a very hard surface, it will rebound almost to it's original height.
They can be very stiff because the rail is so smooth compared to a road -
there is little need to absorb shocks and flex over irregularities.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Which are better tires? Which have the higher weight carrying capacity?
Which are the lowest rolling resistance tire? Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I think we covered this on the list back in March, but hey it's still
good news.
Essentially it means that manufacturers are able to use nanothingies to
improve a lithium battery's current capacity for both charge and
discharge, which is the main drawback of the current crop of lithium
batts from TS and Saphion.
The follow on from this is that it will be technically possible to make
an EV that has the range of an ICE car (thanks to the light weight and
high capacity of lithium) that is able to be 'refuelled' (albeit to
about 80%) in a matter of minutes.
I think that the companies developing these batteries will use them in
things like power tools, laptops and mobile phones to get the high
volumes required to pay off the R&D.
Hopefully, they'll hook up with a big hybrid or EV mfr and start making
EV sized batts before too long.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lawrence Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2005 8:12 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List; Zappylist;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Toshiba's New Lithium-Ion Battery Recharges in Only One Minute
Are we going to get this or is this just more baloney. Lawrence
Rhodes....
From:
http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/topstory/000881
Toshiba's New Lithium-Ion Battery Recharges in Only One Minute
March 31, 2005 -- Toshiba Corp has announced a breakthrough in
lithium-ion
...
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Everybody:
Our company currently designs an EV truck prototype for a client. This
client wants offer a combination of solar/wind charging and fleet vehicles
to big farms/ranches.
While I personally like the idea to start a small car manufacturer and to
start producing EVs, there's one thing that came up during our feasability
studies: What if, say in two or three years, Honda or Toyota or any other
$company starts offering plugin-hybrids or even EVs? How will any small
business be able to gain significant market share against the big guys?
The idea of building an EV and to push it into the market with a
relatively small investment (and I would consider a million or two a
'small' investment) stands or falls with having significant competition.
As long as the traditional car companies are not offering a product that
people want, there's a very good chance to sucessfully penetrate markets
and to earn money.
So - IF somebody would really want to go this way, time to market would be
very important. Be fast or be last sorta thing.
As usual, just my 2 cents.
Michaela
During the feasability studies, we encoutered
> Hi Jeff and All,
>
> Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Batteries from the bottom
> was for safety or perception of safety but
> point is well taken and NONE of this is set in stone.
>
> Cool as it's alway important to have an open mind. The earlier EV
> projects failed like the Sparrow, Tropica from not being
> flexible, willing to learn. If Corbin had listened to those here
> on the list, they would probably still be in production !! I've
> had to change my design several times already as better ways have
> been found.
>
> I will call you about motor construction. (when it isn't midnight
> florida time)
>
> Cool. But there are other things too that seriously reduce
> production costs I can't say here.
>
> I dissagree with you on the computer. But I am a computer person so I
> may be just a little biased. But I think it is really just a matter of
> perspective,
>
> As long as you can build it so the repair or replamement costs
> are low, then it's cool. But I prefer the modular, seperate
> unit approach as it gives me the ability to use stock, readily
> available units that already have high production rates, thus
> lower costs.
>
>
>
> Just like you toute the advantages of using air which
> consolidates the jack into the project, The computer consoladates
> wireing and sensors, and functionality and is itself modular to some
> extend with I/O boards, although the more internal connectors, the
> higher the risk of failure.
>
> But the easier, lower costs of repairs, Gold contacts are worth
> the price to keep failures low.
>
>
> The wireless is essentually free, as is the mp3 player and are really
> all just features of the User Interface Even the radio is a radio card.
> This is also For displaying the additional information an EV will have.
> It makes the dash a matter of software. Once the charger and BMS and
> controller can send info out on the buss the user interface computer
> can display it anyway you like.
>
>
> take a look at some of this!
> http://www.dashwerks.com/pictures/index.php
>
> all the diagnostic, door lock, radio and mp3,gps,telemetry, and a movie
> for the kids to boot. 1/2 done already !
>
> As long as readily available and won't be orphaned in a yr or
> 2.
>
> It will be a 2 computer environment, 1 is the time critical system and
> the other is everything else, but some info is shared accross a common
> bus.
> It makes adding a button or control for new things just a matter of
> software. One problem is touch screens suck to use while you drive, so
> good tactile buttons are needed and I don't know if modal functionality
> would be acceptable. (Like my stereo. 1 up and 1 down button then a mode
> switch from vol to bal to fader to treble and back to volume)
>
>
> HID bulbs was the goal, Since the circutry for HID takes 12V and
> converts it up to about 100V for run and ~5000V for strike, why convert
> down to 12 then back up? Electroluminescent rear is also a high voltage
> thing LED's are such low voltage that series strings are required
> anyway, lotsa options.
>
> Yes that's ok but have you seen the price of HID's? Not
> compatable with low cost. If the price can come down, then
> that's cool.
>
>
> If the same dc-dc also provides 120V ac we sell the 110V outlet feature
> while we also use smaller lighter AC blower motors. :-)
>
> Something I'm planning.
>
>
> Air springs, And I work for a company that makes them. LOL
> Well, I don't know about tuning them, I really don't want to add
> another stressed part, the air compressor and another sensor and seithc
> and 12V? load.
> It can be 120vac too.
>
> Balance that with a jack and it is something to think about.
>
> Mechanical Springs are the epidomy of KISS.
>
> But they can't lower air drag or balance variable loads. And
> the price is about the same using adjustable air shocks, maybe
> less. Mine cost $30/wheel retail !! And adjustable height is
> just cool, high tech, both good selling points at a reasonable
> cost. You have to go Caddy price class to get it now.
> Jerry Dycus
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
--- End Message ---
