EV Digest 4928
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Charger options
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Charger options
by "Roger Stockton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Motor on Ebay
by Ken Albright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Michaela Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) 1981 jet electric electrovan
by William Brinsmead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: EV production! Who's interested in figuring out how to make $
at this!
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: Toshiba's New Lithium-Ion Battery Recharges in Only One Minute
by "Peter Eckhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) HID cost
by Jeff Shanab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: EVLN(I would like to see plug-in hybrid model as an option)
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: EVLN(I would like to see plug-in hybrid model as an option)
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) RE: B381s and RE92s
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: EVLN(I would like to see plug-in hybrid model as an option)
by Nick Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) RE: B381s and RE92s
by Ricky Suiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Low rolling resistance tires
by "Phil Marino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: FWD Hacks?
by "Joe Strubhar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) fiero adapter question
by David Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Rich Rudman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roger..I am not sure Dumb as a Rock... is a lable that I will
> take sitting down. Just because I don't have a Micro and a
> couple of man years of code inside, Doesn't mean We can't
> drill a IE Lead Acid curve dead on.
I understand how you feel Rich, however micro or not, an IE (IU) charge
curve is something any dumb bench power supply can also nail, so it
doesn't really convey any sense of charge intelligence to me.
I will grant you that your charger is somewhat smarter than the average
bench supply since it has a timer built in that allows it to turn itself
off X amount of time after hitting voltage limit, but in terms of
chargers ... well, I have to stand by my comment.
> For the guy that wants grunt charge power and simple charge
> curves... We are doing pretty good.
Absolutely! Which is why I continue to recommend your chargers as
reasonable choices for those with batteries that can get by with simple
charge curves.
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Fortunat Mueller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am using the BB600 surplus NiCads. Today I have 100
> in series, but plan to add another 100 in the next few
> weeks. They seem to charge up ok without a complicated
> charge algorithm, so i don't think that limits
> charging options much.
To a first approximation you are probably right. I expect that you will
find that maintaining a couple hundred cells may become more of a chore
with a very simple/cheap charger, but this seems to be the usual
tradeoff of cost vs personal time.
> are these other models on your web page ? if not,
> where can i find the specs and prices.
I think the web page lists only the standard production models, and I
don't believe it mentions price. You would probably have to inquire
directly to sales regarding what options we have for your particular
charge needs, and sales would be able to either provide costs or refer
you to one of our dealers for cost information (we tend to sell direct
to OEMs and let our dealers handle sales to individuals).
I realise this isn't all that helpful, but I'm in engineering, not sales
;^>
Cheers,
Roger.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This isn't exactly correct. The property of how much energy is returned
upon flexing carries a number of terms, "rebound" is most common. The
common measure of this is "ball rebound", in which a steel ball of a
fixed weight is dropped on it from a given height and the height of its
first bounce is the rebound figure, given as a percentage of the
original drop height.
Rebound is a completely different property than hardness. Two
elastomeric materials can have identical hardness parameters and one
bounces 3x higher than the other. If any generalities can be drawn,
softer materials usually mean less rebound, but that is hardly a rule.
A more rigid substance has less deformation for the same load so you
often find the higher rebound materials are the harder ones. But like I
say there's no rule here. I couldn't predict tire efficiency from its
material hardness at all.
Danny
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.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thought this might be of interest.
ebay # 7565613407
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hmm .. I understand that Solectria used Tigerpaws on their E-10. Is the
Uniroyal Tigerpaw considered to be 'LR' ?
Michaela
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Folks I noticed a 1981 ford ranger glider ,called a jet electrovan on
the GSA auction site http://gsaauctions.gov it is in Santa Fe New
Mexico. Auction closes on the 25th.curently at $580. kinda rough but
looks to be intact, anyone know what kind of motor and controller,
regen? Bill Brinsmead
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That was a Think Neighbor he put them on (sorry should have speficied). They
have the same 4 X 4" bolt pattern as the GEM's. You'd have to do the same thing
I did, get wheel adapter-spacers in order to make normal car size wheels work
(of course unless you can find a wheel with 4 X 4" and 0 offset). Pep Boys has
some decent looking alloy wheels for $200 a set, then on top of that I spent
$140 on the spacer-adapters, then $60 each for the tires mounted, ballanced etc
at Costco. Expensive yes, but I get more comments on having those wheels on the
cart.
Lawrence Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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"
To:
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.
>
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
While I can't say for motorcycle tires, bicycle tires (at least the good
ones) are NOT stiff. In fact the really good ones you can fold up and
stick in a pocket or seat bag.
They might be hard when inflated, but the tire itself is not hard.
> 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
>>
>
>
--
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 ---
> 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
> $company starts offering plugin-hybrids or even EVs? How will any small
> business be able to gain significant market share against the big guys?
Not going to happen. ALL of the major auto makers have built and sold
EVs, because they were forced to by California law. As soon as they got
California to change the law they imediately stopped producing EVs.
They have decided that producing EVs is not in their best interest and I
don't see them changing their minds any time soon.
It's all about the dollars and they don't feel that EVs are as profitable
as gas guzzelers.
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Lawrence,
The article said they would produce them in 2006. It's still 2005.
I think it would have been better if they said 2H or 3Q06 but that's their
call and it buys them some leeway for production problems, competition and
marketing strategies, etc.).
Also remember, the specs below are for a Lithium Ion battery that is 1/2 the
volume of an 18650. While those specs are enticing, what happens when they
scale up to an EV or Hybrid size battery? Why is a major Japanese Automaker
going with a Fuji Heavy Industry battery instead of this one? Did CalCars
have a chance to test this battery? There are question$ to a$k and we may
not like the an$wer$. But then again maybe Toyota or CalCars will
eventually chose this one for a PHEV.
By the way, this is from a Google search on "Lithium Ion batter" The
original link was not working:
www.toshiba.com/taec/press/dmfc_05_270.shtml - second hit) So I hit cached.
This is from the cache hit: " The prototype battery is only 3.8mm thick,
62mm high and 35mm deep and has a capacity of 600mAh". An 18650 is 18mm in
diameter and 65mm long or a volume of 16563 mm cubed (PI*9*9*65) while the
prototype is 8246 mm cubed (3.8*62*35) or 1/2 the volume of an 18650. This
works out to be 1.2Ah for the Toshiba battery scaled up to an 18650 size.
About half the specific energy of current 18650's.
Still a 1.2 Ah battery that has the below performance stats appears to be an
excellent battery. Wonder what would happen if they can get the Ahs up to
2.4? A 300 to 450 mile per charge tZero where the battery pack outlasts the
original owner and the great-grandson or daughter he wills them to?
Assumptions:
1) linear capacity loss to 80% of pack capacity) 1% loss per 1,000 cycles
equates to 20% loss per 20,000
2) 1 million miles driven per lifetime
3) always driven under ideal charge/discharge conditions
4) 0.9 is the average between 100% capacity and 80% capacity (technically
dead pack)
300 miles per charge * 20,000 charges/life of the pack * 0.9/1,000,000
milesof driving per lifetime = 5.4 lifetimes
However, under less than ideal conditions, the original owner wills a dead
pack.
I wonder what's driving your impatience? ;^))
Que sera sera!!
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>; "Zappylist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 16:11 PM
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
> 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 ---
HID bulbs are not to badly priced, they like to ream you for the
"controller" a 12VDC to 90VDC converter in the sub 50W range that
contains a restrike circuit.( an RC timer driven temporary higher voltage)
Our situation goes the other way, step down and should be cheaper. I
investigated before, and found circuits and such I will get back into
this in future.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to Joel and All,
Joel Shellman wrote:
printed on the window sticker. A Prius that has an EPA rating of
close to 60 mpg in city driving typically gets closer to 40 mpg,
Personally I get 48 MPG at the *pump* with my 2002 Prius and I
I have to admit that I find it very funny that this hybrid thing is
supposed to help fuel economy so much...
It 'does' help, tremendously. The only funny part for me, is how you've
missed the obvious HUGE increase in not only the mpg, but also the
bigger picture of a HUGE increase in cleanliness in operation as in
substantially lower harmful emmisions, the real purpose of
hybrids...high mpg is secondary to this.
I got 41 mpg with my 95 geo metro and about the same with my 2000
toyota echo. And all they can do is get to 48 mpg with a prius? What's
the point?
First, a '95 Geo Metro is a tin can compared to the much more
substantial and safer Prius...no contest at all here. That alone, should
leave you impressed. The larger, heavier, and 'quantum leap safer' Prius
has vastly more passenger room and cargo space and yet bests the real
life mpg of the minimalist Metro by a whopping 17%! It would be
impressive to me, if it the larger, safer, roomier, and cleaner running
Prius only 'matched' the Metro's mpg.
Okay, maybe the prius is a bigger or fancier car than those--but it
just seems pretty funny that there wasn't any significant improvement
No significant improvement???? Let's keep examining this. The above
would be enough for most anyone else, but for Joel it seems it has to be
even more impressive, so here goes. How about emissions? The '95 Geo
Metro is downright filthy when it comes to emmisions. Clean it's
emmisions up to match the Prius (without using that unimpressive hybrid
technology), and the Metro's mpg would plummet closer to maybe 35 mpg.
Now, we've got a tiny and cramped Metro getting just 35 mpg vs the roomy
and comfy Prius still doing 48 mpg....starting to get it yet? No? Let's
keep going.....the Metro would probably score the lowest possible impact
protection, at a 1 star rating, compared to the Prius which I believe is
at 4 stars. Let's now add in the mandatory structural reinforcements to
the weak Metro to beef up the body structure, add the side impact beams,
and add in the air bags. This extra weight would probably add 300 lbs.
to the Metro and knock the mpg down to about 33 mpg....now it's 33 mpg
vs 48 for the cars having the same crash worthiness and clean
emissions....got it yet? No? OK, here's more to consider. The Prius can
accelerate from 0-60 in 10 seconds, not blistering by today's
standards, but very reasonable and very impressive for a vehicle that
pulls 48 mpg! How 'bout that Metro? It took nearly 3 more seconds with a
0-60 of 12.7 seconds....argghhh!
Hop up the Metro wheezer engine, or put in a bigger one to match the
Prius (you 'could' simply add a torquey electric motor,...nah, that
technology doesn't work) to get the 0-60 down to 10 seconds to match the
Prius...keep in mind, the engine still has to get high mph and run
clean....and I bet the mpg would drop to 31 mpg....now it's 31 vs 48 mpg!
(~17% improvement from a "revolutionary" new technology is nothing).
Using all the above, which is very realistic, the difference between the
two cars is a staggering 35% better mpg while still offering more
interior space for everyone....that to me, is indeed, revolutionary!
The thing you need to consider with hybrids, is that they get better mpg
than smaller less substantial cars, run way cleaner, and if this wasn't
enough, do so while being roomier and offering far better acceleration
and hill climbing performance. You can't just take a minimalist tiny car
that runs dirty and accelerates like a slug and then ignore all these
detractions as you compare its mpg to the new hybrids, because
considering the sum qualities of the entire car, there simply is no
comparison!
Along with Joel's attitude towards hybrids, I've also heard this
one.....you could get the same mileage without the electric stuff,
because it's only the gas engine that achieves the high mpg...rubbish!
Without the help of the collected free energy from regen braking and the
use of the energy being applied to an efficient electric motor with boat
loads of bottom end torque, the hybrids platforms as gas only cars would
not be accepted by the buying public, for they would have horrible
acceleration, hill climbing, and top speed performance. The Prius can
use a less torquey but cleaner burning Atkinson cycle gasoline engine,
only because the missing torque is replaced with the electric motor's
low end muscle....thus, you can have higher mpg and lower emmisions
while still preserving acceleration. Same goes for the Insight...it can
utilize a lean burn gasoline engine to get stratospheric mph in the
80-90's, 'because' it has an electric motor to replace missing torque.
I have to totally disagree with Joel's laughing at the hybrids, while at
the same time, it's hard for me to not laugh at him for apparently, not
getting it. By the way Joel, my Insight was rated at 70 mph highway, 61
city....it regularly gets 66 mpg city and 75-80 highway without doing
anything special. Drive it more conservatively, and it gets 70+ in the
city and 85-90+ on the highway! Friends of mine with the newest model
Prius easily get 55-65 mpg, nowhere near 48 mpg.
See Ya........John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello to Joel and All,
Joel Shellman wrote:
printed on the window sticker. A Prius that has an EPA rating of
close to 60 mpg in city driving typically gets closer to 40 mpg,
Personally I get 48 MPG at the *pump* with my 2002 Prius and I
I have to admit that I find it very funny that this hybrid thing is
supposed to help fuel economy so much...
It 'does' help, tremendously. The only funny part for me, is how you've
missed the obvious HUGE increase in not only the mpg, but also the bigger
picture of a HUGE increase in cleanliness in operation as in substantially
lower harmful emmisions, the real purpose of hybrids...high mpg is
secondary to this.
I got 41 mpg with my 95 geo metro and about the same with my 2000
toyota echo. And all they can do is get to 48 mpg with a prius? What's
the point?
First, a '95 Geo Metro is a tin can compared to the much more substantial
and safer Prius...no contest at all here. That alone, should leave you
impressed. The larger, heavier, and 'quantum leap safer' Prius has vastly
more passenger room and cargo space and yet bests the real life mpg of the
minimalist Metro by a whopping 17%! It would be impressive to me, if it the
larger, safer, roomier, and cleaner running Prius only 'matched' the
Metro's mpg.
Okay, maybe the prius is a bigger or fancier car than those--but it
just seems pretty funny that there wasn't any significant improvement
No significant improvement???? Let's keep examining this. The above would
be enough for most anyone else, but for Joel it seems it has to be even
more impressive, so here goes. How about emissions? The '95 Geo Metro is
downright filthy when it comes to emmisions. Clean it's emmisions up to
match the Prius (without using that unimpressive hybrid technology), and
the Metro's mpg would plummet closer to maybe 35 mpg. Now, we've got a tiny
and cramped Metro getting just 35 mpg vs the roomy and comfy Prius still
doing 48 mpg....starting to get it yet? No? Let's keep going.....the Metro
would probably score the lowest possible impact protection, at a 1 star
rating, compared to the Prius which I believe is at 4 stars. Let's now add
in the mandatory structural reinforcements to the weak Metro to beef up the
body structure, add the side impact beams, and add in the air bags. This
extra weight would probably add 300 lbs. to the Metro and knock the mpg
down to about 33 mpg....now it's 33 mpg vs 48 for the cars having the same
crash worthiness and clean emissions....got it yet? No? OK, here's more to
consider. The Prius can accelerate from 0-60 in 10 seconds, not
blistering by today's standards, but very reasonable and very impressive
for a vehicle that pulls 48 mpg! How 'bout that Metro? It took nearly 3
more seconds with a 0-60 of 12.7 seconds....argghhh!
Hop up the Metro wheezer engine, or put in a bigger one to match the Prius
(you 'could' simply add a torquey electric motor,...nah, that technology
doesn't work) to get the 0-60 down to 10 seconds to match the Prius...keep
in mind, the engine still has to get high mph and run clean....and I bet
the mpg would drop to 31 mpg....now it's 31 vs 48 mpg!
John -
you picked the Metro to prove your point ( after, just with some
hand-waving, arbitrarily reducing its mileage). Joel also mentioned the
Echo, which you ignored. It meets current safety and emissions
requirements and only gets 17% less mileage than the Prius, for about 1/2
the sticker cost.
As far as emissions vs gas mileage, if you are concerned about green-house
gases, the CO2 (the dominant green house gas) that a car produces is exactly
proportional to its fuel usage. There is no magic that hybrids can do to
change that. So, the Prius produces 17% less CO2. Not a HUGE difference.
Also, Echo and the first Prius had essentially the same body - the Prius was
just stretched a bit to fit the extra hardware. And, the new Prius is a bit
roomier than the Echo, but not much. But it's a lot heavier, if you think
that's a good thing.
So, Joel's point - that the benfit of a hybrid - compared to another
modern,well-designed car, is minimal, may be valid. And, you also have to
consider the initial cost (almost 2X) and the potential for expensive
maintenance down the road.
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 ---
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: B381s and RE92s
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:01:22 -0800
Which are better tires?
Even if all the data were available on both tires, you would have to better
define what you mean by "better" before anyone can answer that question.
What's most important to you ( and least important, and so on) ? Price?
Dry cornering? Wet cornering? Noise? Ride smoothness? Life? Rolling
resistance? etc.
>Which have the higher weight carrying
capacity?
That one should be easy. TireRack has the specs for both tires in all
available sizes, including maximum load at maximum pressure. Look up both
tires in the sizes you would use.
Too bad they don't list rolling resistance. Their general info page on
rolling resistance shows some ignorance about the benefits of LRR ( or, is
intentionally misleading)
Which are the lowest rolling resistance tire?
The GreenSeal report ( 2003) lists the RR of the B381 as 0.0062 - the lowest
for any tire they measured, by a good margin.
I have never seen real data for the RE92. Has anyone seen any real test
data on these?
Without it, you can only guess which of the two has lower RR. Although at
0.0062, you couldn't go far wrong, RR wise, with the B381s.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Michelin LRR tires were named Proxima and price was arround 90$ expensive
but not even close to 350$...or you take 4 :^)
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: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
> > I was hoping it would. However, does anyone have a guess at a number?
> >
>
> 10-20% depending on numerous other factors.
>
> > And if I had an EV sitting here--how much would it likely cost me to
> > put low rolling resistance tires on it?
>
> Anywhere from zero extra cost to $200-$300 more per tire, kinda depends on
> what tire you are looking at and which one you are comparing it too.
> My Potenza RE92s cost me about $65 each. Michalin had a true LRR tire at
> the time that ran something like $350 each.
>
> > 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?
>
> Nope. If you currently have really heaving wheels, then you might see a
> miniscule improvement in efficiency by swapping to lighter wheels.
> FWIW cheap steel wheels are often lighter than expensive Aluminum "mag"
> wheels.
>
> > Anyway, if I can increase range by 10-20% for a few hundred dollars,
> > that seems to make pretty good sense to me.
>
> Yup, that's why a lot of EVers buy LRR tires.
>
> --
> 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, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:34:31PM -0500, Phil Marino wrote:
>
> >From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> John -
>
> Joel also mentioned the Echo, which you ignored.
<..snip..>
> It meets current safety and emissions
> requirements and only gets 17% less mileage than the Prius, for about 1/2
> the sticker cost.
>From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20799.shtml:
2003 Toyota Echo
MPG (city) 33
MPG (highway) 39
MPG (combined) 36
>From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20934.shtml:
2005 Toyota Prius
MPG (city) 60
MPG (highway) 51
MPG (combined) 55
34% better combined,
Or a whopping 45% better in the city!!
** 45% **
> As far as emissions vs gas mileage, if you are concerned about green-house
> gases, the CO2 (the dominant green house gas) that a car produces is
> exactly proportional to its fuel usage. There is no magic that hybrids can
> do to change that. So, the Prius produces 17% less CO2. Not a HUGE
> difference.
Based on the numbers above, it sounds like 30% - 45% better.
Plus, CO2 is only one emission.
Also from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20799.shtml:
EPA Air Pollution Score (CA) 2.0 (Out of 10)
Emission Standard (CA) LEV
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions 5.4 Tons
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20934.shtml:
EPA Air Pollution Score (CA) 9.0!! (Out of 10)
Emission Standard (CA) SULEV II
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.5 Tons
Much cleaner, much better economy, more room.
The Prius wins :)
>
> Also, Echo and the first Prius had essentially the same body - the Prius
> was just stretched a bit to fit the extra hardware.
This is true, I'll leave another poster the 2001 echo vs 2001 Prius
comparison :)
>
> So, Joel's point - that the benfit of a hybrid - compared to another
> modern,well-designed car, is minimal, may be valid.
> And, you also have to
> consider the initial cost (almost 2X) and the potential for expensive
> maintenance down the road.
>From http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/toyota/echo:
MSRP Price Range: $10995 - $12325
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/toyota/prius:
MSRP Price Range: $21,815
Yep, you're at least 2x for the much better Prius. This seems to be the only
point where the Prius does not win hands down.
>
> Phil
>
Thanks!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I've never seen any data reguarding the Potenza's. The fact that the LRR
Potenza's are skinnier should help some as well reguarding energy to rotate
them (in theory less contact area), but a 165 width tire on a 3500lb car
probably won't be very good.
One way you could find out would be to rig up a fixed push, maybe like a
spring loaded mechanism to push the car. Get one set of tires mounted and push
it, see how far it rolls, have the other type mounted and see how far it is
pushed.
I do wish they would publish rolling resistance numbers, or even mold it in
to the side wall.
Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Lawrence Rhodes"
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To:
>Subject: B381s and RE92s
>Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:01:22 -0800
>
>
>Which are better tires?
Even if all the data were available on both tires, you would have to better
define what you mean by "better" before anyone can answer that question.
What's most important to you ( and least important, and so on) ? Price?
Dry cornering? Wet cornering? Noise? Ride smoothness? Life? Rolling
resistance? etc.
>Which have the higher weight carrying
>capacity?
That one should be easy. TireRack has the specs for both tires in all
available sizes, including maximum load at maximum pressure. Look up both
tires in the sizes you would use.
Too bad they don't list rolling resistance. Their general info page on
rolling resistance shows some ignorance about the benefits of LRR ( or, is
intentionally misleading)
>Which are the lowest rolling resistance tire?
The GreenSeal report ( 2003) lists the RR of the B381 as 0.0062 - the lowest
for any tire they measured, by a good margin.
I have never seen real data for the RE92. Has anyone seen any real test
data on these?
Without it, you can only guess which of the two has lower RR. Although at
0.0062, you couldn't go far wrong, RR wise, with the B381s.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
From: Neon John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Low rolling resistance tires
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:42:37 -0500
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.
Not quite. It's closer to the product of the deflection energy in the
material times the hysteresis. So, you're right about the material damping
being important, but it's not the whole story.
With a softer tire material ( and/or thinner, more flexible sidewalls) more
of the load ( and deflection energy) is taken by the air pressure in the
tire, and less by the tire body itself.
In all tires, the membrane stiffness of the tire body is quite high - and
supplied by the body plies, not the rubber material - so a softer tire
rubber does not significantly affect the stiffness supplied by the pressure
inside the tire. In other words, even with a soft rubber, the tire will not
"balloon" as its loaded.
So, for a given tire pressure, a softer tire material (with the same
damping factor) will absorb less energy and result in a lower RR tire.
The rail wheel analogy doesn't match up well to what happens with pneumatic
tires. The RR of steel (or iron) wheels is very low for two reasons: the
deflection is very low ( so the deflection energy is very low) and the
material damping is very low.
I've done a bit of work with damping. A couple of my patents ( no's
5,079,641 and 5,214,529) involve methods to control damping and energy
dissipation.
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There are those that will attest to the fact that it is NOT OK to tow unless
you have a manual tranny in neutral - even then, some of the new vehicles
cannot even be towed in neutral without damage, as we found out when we
towed my sister's Kia Sportage to CA last summer! It had a manual
transmission, and we had it in neutral, and trashed the transfer case.
Not a good thing, and expensive, also!
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Grasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: FWD Hacks?
> Curious,
> Why is it not ok for the motor to spin if you are flat towing.
>
> I mean othr then the motor spinning at about 5000 rpm and wearig the
> brushes. I would think short distances would be ok.
>
>
> Mark Grasser
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Clevenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:40 PM
> Subject: Re: FWD Hacks?
>
>
> > You also want a shifter in case you need to flat-tow it sometime and
want
> > to get it into neutral.
> >
> > I like the threaded base idea. Make a little cover that goes over it
so
> > it looks like it doesn't need a shifter.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Nov 21, 2005, at 8:53 AM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
> >
> >> From: jerry halstead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: November 21, 2005 8:11:04 AM PST
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: FWD Hacks?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 21, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Don Cameron wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jerry, I considered the same, although I do find it convenient for
> >>> those
> >>> rare times to shift it into 1st or 3rd when I go on the highway.
Just
> >>> for
> >>> those rare occasions I left it in.
> >>>
> >>> Imagine if you batteries were low and trying to make it up the last
> >>> hill.
> >>> You would have to pull over and park, get a tow truck.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's a good point.
> >>
> >> Hmm, maybe I shorten the shifter so there's just a little nub sticking
> >> out of the carpet? Better yet, make the stick shift so it threads
into
> >> the base. Unscrew it and keep hidden in the glove box only for
> >> emergencies! ":^)
> >>
> >> -Jerry
> >
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi guys. I bought a nice cast aluminum adapter from Randy at CANEV for
my V6 Fiero. He said I'd have to buy a flywheel for the 2.5L 4 cyl.
engine for it to work. BUT since the clutches are the same, and Randy
originally said that the adapter will work with any GM 2.5 or 3.8 L
engine, I suspect the flywheels may be the same also, in which case I
would be able to use the one I have.
I can find the V6 data on the web, but I cannot find this info. for the
2.5L, even in my factory service manual (no ilustrations or text
showing any difference). Can any Fiero people out there tell me if the
2.5L 4 cyl. flywheel is the same as the V6 3.8 L one? Do they both
take 6 17mm fine thread grade 10.9 bolts?
Thanks.
David Brandt
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
