EV Digest 5006
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Circuit Breaker for 370 volts
by "Don Cameron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) float charging GC batteries?
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Fw: Schwinn Stingray possible dud. (((Deafscooter read it )))
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Fw: Here's a cute one...though probably not that useful.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: PFC Charger - will it work for a NICAD Mini Cooper EV?
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) VW body reinforcement
by Ken Albright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Failure Modes (was Re: Motor control for direct drive setup)More Stuff.
by "Bob Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9) Brush Angle and optimum motor direction
by "Mark Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: MG,
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
12) Re: Current Eliminator news
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13) Newbie Question - Batteries
by "Joe Bowen1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Schwinn Stingray possible dud. (((Deafscooter read it )))
by "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Viper Torque Correction
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: float charging GC batteries?
by Bob Bath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
19) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
20) Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
by "BadFishRacing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
In the New Beetle I am using a 3 phase 600A AC circuit breaker to act as a
safety device as well as a switch to disconnect the pack. This darn thing
is too big and heavy, and I was wondering if there are other alternatives
for switching off the 370V pack. I have 4 fuses as well, so this is really
used as a large switch.
Any suggestions?
thanks
Don
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I was wondering what is the typical current to float charge 6v golf
cart batteries. My father wants to store his golf cart over the summer,
around 7 months between the time my parents leave AZ to the time they
return. Is float charging a GC battery at 6.6 to 6.7 volts a really bad
idea? It seems like a better idea than letting them sit unattended over
an AZ summer.
Paul "neon" G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well here it comes from the smartest guy with small EVs I know. 16 to one.
Anybody have suggestions on how to do this? I can only think I need a
custom sprocket of 112 teeth & weld it on. Anybody making custom sprockets
that bolt on to a standard wheel? I'm using a 7 tooth on the motor side.
Lawrence Rhodes........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Uyeda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Schwinn Stingray possible dud. (((Deafscooter read it )))
Helllo Laweence,
Craig ( deafscooter ) read the picture of your nice
blue chopper
your motor is excellect but one is Sprocket Ratio is
Wrong
You need correcton gear ratio ( not like scooter's
Ratio )
20 Inches wheel is big diffrent than scooter tire
here is good sugust is 14:01 to 16.0:1 Ratio
craig
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This bike seems to be built well but might be under powered. Anybody have
one or tested one?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Auto-Foldable-Electric-bicycle-Scooter-Mountain-Bike-NR_W0QQitemZ7202230924QQcategoryZ64676QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Madman isn't that mad. He won't do aircraft NiCad(at least not for me). He
sites major battery launching(explosion) & the possibility of a Superfund
site being created when delving into these batteries. Lawrence
Rhodes.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Borges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: PFC Charger - will it work for a NICAD Mini Cooper EV?
Yes it will work...with good brain to control it, see Madman for this but
may i advise you on batteries choice:
Aircraft starting nicad is not better energy density than best one lead
acid
(GEL) which is arround 38 kwh/kg at 25°C because this nicad type are power
inclined battery (engine starting) not energy ones as you "prefer" for EV
use.
On cold temp nicad keep major part of this energy so here BB600 is way
better than lead acid, you don't live in siberia ? :^)
If you want to obtain nicad 55-60kwh/kg, you need EV purpose batteries
like
STM5 or switch to another technologie for even better kwh/kg.
Yes you can parallel BB600 or others small capacity nicad cells, all is
possible, but don't !
it will be problematic at discharge and catastrophic at charge without
complexe BMS.
Seems to me using optima or Exide in your car, waiting for EV usable
lithium
technologie would be interesting waiting choice, once your pack will go to
recycling yard, just switch to li-ion :^)
Car maker will not make it happen soon but fortunately we have Jukka,
Victor
and probably others, who are developing such EV purpose lithium packs,
it's
just a question of months.
cordialement,
Philippe
Happy nicad user but testing li-ion with interest :^)
Citroën Saxo 32000km now so still have 2/3 life batteries left...
Modified Italvel Day scooter "EVolution" 50km range at 80km/h (50Ah
aircraft
starting nicad) 2500km and counting
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: "Monty McGraw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:54 AM
Subject: PFC Charger - will it work for a NICAD Mini Cooper EV?
I did some web searching and looked at the EV archives today for NICAD
chargers for EV conversions.
I'm interested in converting my classic Mini Cooper to an EV as my second
conversion. My first EV conversion was my '88 Pontiac Fiero GT
www.austinev.org/evalbum/134.html
I was pretty happy with my Fiero EV conversion, completed in 1995 - range
max around 45 miles good acceleration - 3rd place in the APS EV drag
races
in 1996. I used 8V Trojan deep cycles, just introduced at the time. 9"
ADC
motor, Auburn Scientific controller, Zivan charger and 18 8V batteries
for
a
pack voltage of 144V. I put over 10K miles on this car driving back and
forth to work daily.
Now I have been happily driving my classic Mini Cooper, and the 1.3L
Rover
4
cylinder engine needs repairs - so I'm ready to chuck that gas engine and
convert my mini to an EV. Since the car is well under 1500 pounds, I'm
thinking of a much smaller battery pack - but better energy density than
Lead Acid.
I've followed the information on the military surplus BB600 nicad cells
and
think they may be just the ticket for my next conversion - however, the
charging requirements seems to be substantially different than for PbA.
The
Marathon Nicad battery manual calls out charging using constant current
at
a
rate of C/2, followed by topping off at a rate almost C/4.
As I understand the PFC charger - it is constant voltage. Has anyone
attempted to control one to get constant current?
I saw on this list a posting by Rich Rudman this summer that indicated he
might be producing an updated model that would help in charging Nicad
battery packs.
Any updates on this effort Rich or Joe?
Thanks,
Monty McGraw
'88 Pontiac Fiero GT EV
'70 GE I-5 Elec-Trak Electric Garden Tractor
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
My 86 Scirocco conversion is finally under way. Talking to the local VW guys,
they are recommending crossbars to reinforce the body at the top and bottom of
the front struts and the top of the rear shocks. The upper ones will get in
the way of battery placement.
Anyone do this to your unibody conversion? More important, anyone wish they
had?
Thanks
Ken
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVE CLUNN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Failure Modes (was Re: Motor control for direct drive setup)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick Viera"
> > Steve Clunn wrote:
> >> I can remember thinking one time " my this car has good pick up even
with
> >> me pushing as hard as I can on the brakes ) .
> >
> This was one of those first rides and I didn't have everthing hooked up .
> The car had a clutch but I didn't use it as I didn't want to blow the
motor
> . I had a bad pot box set up and it got hooked full on . I didn't have
> disconect or a way to trun off the contactor inside the car, .
>
> > My Jeep still doesn't have a manual mechanical disconnect in the High
> > Voltage system, but I do have a clutch. Though I don't consider it a
> > desirable "emergency disconnect" as blowing up the motor to stop a
> > controller failure seems a bit drastic.
> >
> Right , you don't want to blow the motor . A nice mechanical disconnect is
> somthing I haven't seen for sale yet . There is the thing that hooks to a
> anderson and pulls the anderson ( probable miss spelled ) plug apart .
>
> Hi All;
John Wayland has the slickist setup on the planet for a quick
disconnect, in the Zombie. And it works! He has had to pull it during a
race. John may chime in here and as to where and how he made it. It looks
like a big fuse puller setup. He has it mounted on the console in Zombie. It
has a handle and pulls out easily. I like a linkage setup that can pull
apart an anderson connecter. It probably zorch it to death in a few uses?
But it would givya peace of mind.
Seeya
Bob
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 12/18/05 10:36:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
Date: 12/18/05 10:36:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Dymaxion)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Assuming the batteries can max out the controllers:
<http://www.cafeelectric.com> says a zilla can do 640 kW. 2 Zillas
would give 1.28 MW (as in MegaWatts!).
Converting 1.28 MW to hp gives 1700 hp. With around 20% motor and 15%
driveline loss, that is still about 1200 rwhp.
Can the batteries do it? 1.28 MW for batteries with 1.5 kW/kg would
give about 1800 lbs of batteries, with 2800 lbs for the
glider+motors+controllers. That's within the realm of possibility.
So I don't know what exactly was done, if the batteries were maxed
out, etc, but theoretically it is fun to dream!
I'd propose we do a fun guess pool like before. Berube says 8's,
Wayland says 13's. I'll do some of my own calculations and tender a
guess, too. May the best bench racer win! :)
--- John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello to All,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >With 2 zillas and the
> >power to feed them from the lithium pack the 4700lb chevy with all
> the good
> >suspension work should run 8.64 seconds in the qt.mi. at 157mph.I
> would not
> >expect this in your 1st run out but after 5-8 passes. These #s
> come from the VERY
> >predicitable Speedworld horsepower calc. on their site, but do not
> include my
> >multipiler. With that multiplier in the equa.you will run 8.48 in
> the qt.mi.
> >What a difference a little NITRO makes!!!! Dennis Berube
> >
> >
>
> Whoa, Dennis' ET predictions for the Monster Garage project Chevy
> sure
> seem 'optimistic'! I respect Dennis, he's a great competitor, a
> friend,
> and quite a character, too! He's still the top dog as far as having
> the
> quickest electric ET, too. However, as excited I am about the rad
> one
> week conversion that friends Rudman and Lawless did, these guys,
> the
> ones that helped build the thing, both feel low to mid 13's are
> more
> realistic, certainly not 12's....it's too heavy and there's just
> not
> enough raw power to get the job done.
>
> To investigate Dennis' predictions, I've done some research of my
> own,
> and offer the findings as balance to what I feel is a wild
> prediction of
> performance I personally, don't think is even close to being
> correct...no offense is intended. I have tried very hard to keep
> past
> predictions of performance as accurate as possible, whether it's my
> own
> car, or someone else's. As an example, when Matt Graham first
> contacted
> me more than a year ago about his proposed twin motor electric
> Nissan
> 240SX, I predicted it would run easy 14's, and that it could get
> into
> the 13s'....he ran a 14.2 first time out. I've been pretty much
> right on
> the mark with my car all along, too.
>
> OK, here we go.....I plugged in a known performance spec list from
> my
> own White Zombie, at three different 1/4 calculator sites. The
> first
> one, Simple Horsepower Calculator, is at:
>
> http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
>
> This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (2) 1/4 Mile ET
> (3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
>
> I entered my accurate data of 12.151 for the ET and 106.25 for the
> mph,
> and my estimated data of 2550 lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb.
>
> driver) weight. Historically, I've been within 50 lbs. on my
> electric
> conversion weights. The calculator came up with this:
>
> (1) Based on the ET, 281 hp
> (2) Based on the mph, 239 hp
>
> Since drag racing EVs typically have a lower top end speed as does
> a
> gasser running the same ET, I tend to lean toward the mph based hp
> levels.
>
> The second site, Horsepower Calculator, is at:
>
> http://www.s-series.org/htm/calc/hpcalc.htm
>
> This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Known 1/4 mile ET
> (2) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (3) 1/4 Mile MPH
> (4) 60 ft. Time
>
> Note that this site adds a box for the 60 ft. time, which I feel
> really
> improves the accuracy.
>
> I entered the same accurate data of 12.151 for the ET, 106.25 for
> the
> mph, and added 1.59 for a 60 ft. time, plus the estimated data of
> 2550
> lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb. driver) weight. The
> calculator
> came up with this:
>
> (1) RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) from entered ET of 280.93 hp
> (2) RWHP from MPH of 238.71 hp
> (4) Break hp from ET of 337.116 hp
> (5) Break hp from MPH of 286.452 hp
>
> The third calculator site, National Driveline, is at:
>
> http://www.nationaldrivetrain.com/calcs/dragcalc.html
>
> This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (2) Vehicle hp
> (3) RPM through the finish line
> (4) Tire diameter
>
> I used the same 2550 lbs. vehicle weight, and since the 239 hp from
> the
> first site and the 238.71 hp that the second site were pretty much
> identical, I rounded it to 240 hp, 6900 rpm from our tach data and
> calculations using the rear end ratio and tire diameter, and 24
> inches
> as the current diameter of the Goodyear Drag Radials (before we
> burned
> them down, these were actually 24.3 inch tires). The third
> performance
> calculator came up with this:
>
> (1) 1/4 Mile ET of 12.23
> (2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 106.52 mph
> (3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 4.63
> (4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7.79 seconds
>
> This data is surprisingly accurate. Compare the results to what the
> car
> actually did:
>
> Predicted ET of 12.23....actual ET of 12.151
> Predicted top end speed of 106.52 mph....actual top end speed of
> 106.25 mph
> Suggested ideal gear ratio of 4.63....actual gear ratio is 4:57
> Predicted 1/8 mile ET of 7.79 seconds....actual ET of 7.602 mph
>
> OK, now that I've demonstrated how accurate the three sites are
> with a
> known vehicle's performance, let's now use the first site, Simple
> Horsepower Calculator, the one that seems to have nailed my car's
> hp
> pretty darn well, and see how Dennis' predictions of 8.48 seconds
> and
> 157 mph come out:
>
> Again, this site has open boxes where you can enter data:
>
> (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> (2) 1/4 Mile ET
> (3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
>
> I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb. estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200
> lb.
> driver) and Dennis' 8.48 ET and the 157 mpg figures. The calculator
> came
> up with these outrageous results:
>
> (1) Based on the ET, 1588 hp!!
> (2) Based on the mph, 1480 hp!!
>
> I'm told the Chevy's incredible battery pack can deliver 3800 amps
> at
> around 170 volts, or a whopping 646 kw!
> Now, though that's a huge amount of delivered power, in the real
> world
> of DC motors at BIG amps, a best case scenario is figuring 75%
> efficiency, so for every hp generated (746 watts) the motors will
> actually suck 1000 watts....this comes in at 646 hp, tops.
>
> OK Dennis, where do you come up with at the least, 1480 hp? Where
> do you
> get 157 mph? Where on earth, do you get 8.48 seconds?
>
> At the National Drivetrain site, I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb.
> estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb. driver) and the more
> realistic 646
> hp figure, plus 5000 rpm and 26 inch tires. The calculator came up
> with
> these results:
>
> (1) 1/4 Mile ET of 10.98
> (2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 119.18 mph
> (3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 3.25
> (4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7 seconds
>
> Note, that if I'm off on the rpm or the tire size, it still doesn't
>
>
=== message truncated ===
>>
I must have had a large buildup of wax in my ears when Rich called me the
week after the build.I thought he said 1471hp for 5 seconds,3 different
times.If
I too had the same horsepower #s as you I would have not predicted the 8
second #s.So my new prediction based on 633hp and 49oo lbs is a 12.24ET.
Dennis
Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
I was curious about a motor I just got on Ebay, 7" x 15", looks similar to an
ADC 7". It has 4 brush holders at 90 degrees with twin brushes in each. The
brush holders are angled as usual and I forget the optumum favored direction
with angled brushes. Should the commutator turn in a direction that pushes up
on the brushes or pulls down?
It has a shaft out each end so could be spline machined to adapt to the drive
shaft in either direction.
BTW, I got my 2001 Cushman back last night from Long Island NY down to Roanoke
VA on my Lowe's 5x8 trailer, boy was that a white knuckled drive through NYC!
It has the beefy 2x10" brakes 4 stiff rear leaf springs and a nameplate for a
battery or gas model so the suspension was ZEV ready.
The GVW shows a 27% weight on the front tire and 73% on the rear axle with a
max of 1000 lbs payload, I guess that's a good stability split for a 3-wheeler
although I'm not sure how to measure the weight of each tire, maybe buy a
shipping scale?
Have a nice day, Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 12/18/05 10:50:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: MG,
Date: 12/18/05 10:50:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Rudman)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
This is ridiculas Dennis...
Low 13 if we get lucky, and don't wind it into a Rusted knot.
These Lion should be in a a much better prepared chassis... as you well know
and dream about.
If the chassis was completely stripped and prepped, and the motors... put
%80 of the electrical to the ground.... maybe 10s.
I like the compliments Dennis, but dropping totally out of sight times on
the list is just about telling lies.
You have no clue to the car's actual wieght and poor state of trim.
Rich Rudman
M >>
Again Rich and list I must have had a pile of wax in my ears when you called
the week after the build I thought you said 1471hp for 5 seconds.If the car
now weighs 4900lbs and has 633hp it Should run 12.24 seconds in the qt.mi.There
must have been a large wax buildup,I also heard nothing but the best
suspension and nearly $250000.spent.
Yesterday was
my last FINAL round of the racing season at Speedworld so I cleaned my ears out
last nite.
Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 12/19/05 3:45:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
Date: 12/19/05 3:45:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
John,
As I said previously, the packs (as they are configured) are only good
for a peak of 1.2kw each x 384 pcs.= 612 Hp.
To put it another way 3200 amps at 144 volts total. I believe the
cells are capable of more but the configuration we used was never
intended to be punished the way we are treating them. When you see the
show you, and others, will immediately see the weak link in the battery
system. I base my performance numbers on the above figures because I
know them to be attainable, (at least for short bursts).
Assuming I can get the cells for my personal use let's try to get to
Dennis' numbers.
Here's what we know.
384 pc battery pack = 612 peak hp and 1000lbs, (including very heavy
interconnects)
We strip the cells from their heavy casings and replace connections
with more efficient design
Revised battery pack = 612 peak hp and 400 lbs
OJ 2 chassis with 12 Lemco's and no battery or driver = 750lbs
Non beer drinking Driver= 100 lbs
Total GVW = 1250 lbs.
Peak Wheel HP = 460 hp
Now we're getting somewhere.
My calculator shows 8 flat is feasible. If I can keep the brush gear
from melting, the front end on the ground at least once in a while,
etc, etc.....
I think it would take the reactor from the Ronald Reagan Aircraft
Carrier to get this 62 Chevy as it is into the 8's.
Shawn
>>
Shawn and list you should run 8.55 seconds in OJ with the above hp and weight
#s. For the Current Eliminator dragster it took 228 hp of JCI batteries
to run 8.801 seconds in the qt.mile. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Yesterday was the awards cermony for the adre points for 05.Total winings for
my dragster for the year $2300.
There was also a bracket
race yesterday where we went to the final round.My average reaction for the
day.007seconds.I had 11.98 dialed for the final round and I broke out runing
11.979
seconds.
Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Base Info
98 Volkswagen Golf (4 door)
144 DC System
Advanced DC 9 FB1-4001 Motor
Curtis 1231C-8601 Controller
5 speed transmission (clutch-less)
Goal of being a Commuter Car (13 miles each way)
Battery Trojan J-150 (70 min @ 70 amps)
6 batteries back / 6 front
I would like to support a 115v 15 amp circuit for charging (Maybe
charge the front, then the back, i.e. 72 volts per charge)
My Main question refers to the Batteries
The J-150 seems like it easily meet the range requirement
Is there a better battery to go with?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
a jack shaft commes to mind , a 3 to 1 and a 5.x to 1 ,,, 7 to 21 and 7 to
35 or 40 , . You can also do this by welding the two gears together and have
the bearing in the gears , then all you need is a shaft for this to ride on
( I don't think this would work for you as a 7 tooth gear is pretty small.
The 112 gear would be the simplest . What about taking 2 round disks and a
gear off the peddle ( like a 50 tooth ) cutting it up in to small 3 tooth
parts . Then space them around the disk so just the teeth stick up
sandwatched between the disks. could rap the chain around to get the
distance just right.
Steve Clunn
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>; "Zappylist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 8:51 AM
Subject: Fw: Schwinn Stingray possible dud. (((Deafscooter read it )))
Well here it comes from the smartest guy with small EVs I know. 16 to
one. Anybody have suggestions on how to do this? I can only think I need
a custom sprocket of 112 teeth & weld it on. Anybody making custom
sprockets that bolt on to a standard wheel? I'm using a 7 tooth on the
motor side. Lawrence Rhodes........
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Uyeda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Schwinn Stingray possible dud. (((Deafscooter read it )))
Helllo Laweence,
Craig ( deafscooter ) read the picture of your nice
blue chopper
your motor is excellect but one is Sprocket Ratio is
Wrong
You need correcton gear ratio ( not like scooter's
Ratio )
20 Inches wheel is big diffrent than scooter tire
here is good sugust is 14:01 to 16.0:1 Ratio
craig
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
Dennis has weighed in with:
I must have had a large buildup of wax in my ears when Rich called me the
week after the build.I thought he said 1471hp for 5 seconds,3 different times.If
I too had the same horsepower #s as you I would have not predicted the 8
second #s.So my new prediction based on 633hp and 49oo lbs is a 12.24ET. Dennis
Berube
Shawn Lawless says the pack can make 612 hp. 612 hp X .75 (assuming a
best case of 75% motor efficiency) is 459 motor hp. Using the National
Drivetrain calculator and plugging in 459 hp and 4900 lbs. vehicle
weight (vehicle + 200 lb. driver), it predicts 12.25 @ 106.36 mph with a
7.8 second 1/8th mile. This ET is right in step with the new, refreshed,
clean-eared Dennis Berube :-)
This brings up a 'very' interesting comparo:
White Zombie: 12.151 @ 106.25 mph, 7.602 second 1/8th mile
Monster Garage Chevy: 12.25 @ 106.36 mph, 7.8 second 1/8th mile
A 2350 lb., 240 hp econo box vs a 4700 lb., 459 hp muscle car.
Hmmm.....sounds like a possible showdown is brewing for May '06 at the
Route 66 dragstrip in Illinois!
See Ya....John 'Monster Garage Rejectee' Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to All,
While I'm on my 'keeping stats and performance predictions accurate as
possible' kick, I wanted to correct this, from a bit more than a week ago:
Chris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
the 1100+ ft-lbs I'm predicting from this motor at 2000A
-- while impressive versus e.g. a Viper's 700ft-lb V-10 --
The most badass production Viper to date, is the current 510 hp version.
No way, does it's V10 engine make 700 ft. lbs. of torque. It makes a max
of 535 ft. lbs. @ 4200 rpm.
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2.17 volts per cell is about right.
--- "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering what is the typical current to float
> charge 6v golf
> cart batteries. My father wants to store his golf
> cart over the summer,
> around 7 months between the time my parents leave AZ
> to the time they
> return. Is float charging a GC battery at 6.6 to 6.7
> volts a really bad
> idea? It seems like a better idea than letting them
> sit unattended over
> an AZ summer.
>
> Paul "neon" G.
>
>
'92 Honda Civic sedan, 144V (video or DVD available)!
www.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
____
__/__|__\ __
=D-------/ - - \
'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
Are you saving any gas for your kids?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 12/19/05 3:45:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
Date: 12/19/05 3:45:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
John,
As I said previously, the packs (as they are configured) are only good
for a peak of 1.2kw each x 384 pcs.= 612 Hp.
To put it another way 3200 amps at 144 volts total. I believe the
cells are capable of more but the configuration we used was never
intended to be punished the way we are treating them. When you see the
show you, and others, will immediately see the weak link in the battery
system. I base my performance numbers on the above figures because I
know them to be attainable, (at least for short bursts).
Assuming I can get the cells for my personal use let's try to get to
Dennis' numbers.
Here's what we know.
384 pc battery pack = 612 peak hp and 1000lbs, (including very heavy
interconnects)
We strip the cells from their heavy casings and replace connections
with more efficient design
Revised battery pack = 612 peak hp and 400 lbs
OJ 2 chassis with 12 Lemco's and no battery or driver = 750lbs
Non beer drinking Driver= 100 lbs
Total GVW = 1250 lbs.
Peak Wheel HP = 460 hp
Now we're getting somewhere.
My calculator shows 8 flat is feasible. If I can keep the brush gear
from melting, the front end on the ground at least once in a while,
etc,
***
Put 460hp in my ce dragster and run 7.73 seconds
Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
8.55 sounds real good.
Now I just have to put $62K on my Christmas list for the pack.
Gee, I hope my wife reads this.
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:57:56 EST
Subject: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
In a message dated 12/19/05 3:45:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
Date: 12/19/05 3:45:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
John,
As I said previously, the packs (as they are configured) are only good
for a peak of 1.2kw each x 384 pcs.= 612 Hp.
To put it another way 3200 amps at 144 volts total. I believe the
cells are capable of more but the configuration we used was never
intended to be punished the way we are treating them. When you see
the
show you, and others, will immediately see the weak link in the
battery
system. I base my performance numbers on the above figures because I
know them to be attainable, (at least for short bursts).
Assuming I can get the cells for my personal use let's try to get to
Dennis' numbers.
Here's what we know.
384 pc battery pack = 612 peak hp and 1000lbs, (including very heavy
interconnects)
We strip the cells from their heavy casings and replace connections
with more efficient design
Revised battery pack = 612 peak hp and 400 lbs
OJ 2 chassis with 12 Lemco's and no battery or driver = 750lbs
Non beer drinking Driver= 100 lbs
Total GVW = 1250 lbs.
Peak Wheel HP = 460 hp
Now we're getting somewhere.
My calculator shows 8 flat is feasible. If I can keep the brush gear
from melting, the front end on the ground at least once in a while,
etc, etc.....
I think it would take the reactor from the Ronald Reagan Aircraft
Carrier to get this 62 Chevy as it is into the 8's.
Shawn
>>
Shawn and list you should run 8.55 seconds in OJ with the above hp and
weight
#s. For the Current Eliminator dragster it took 228 hp of JCI
batteries
to run 8.801 seconds in the qt.mile. Dennis Berube
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On second thought, 50 amps @ 24 volts sounds better.
BadFishRacing
----- Original Message -----
From: "BadFishRacing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
> I've tried to calculate the ability of ONE pack, but I guess I'll ask.
>
> If each pack is good for 1200 watts, is that 100amps @12V (sagged down
from
> 28V)?
>
>
> BadFishRacing
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 6:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
>
>
> > John,
> >
> > As I said previously, the packs (as they are configured) are only good
> > for a peak of 1.2kw each x 384 pcs.= 612 Hp.
> > To put it another way 3200 amps at 144 volts total. I believe the
> > cells are capable of more but the configuration we used was never
> > intended to be punished the way we are treating them. When you see the
> > show you, and others, will immediately see the weak link in the battery
> > system. I base my performance numbers on the above figures because I
> > know them to be attainable, (at least for short bursts).
> >
> > Assuming I can get the cells for my personal use let's try to get to
> > Dennis' numbers.
> > Here's what we know.
> >
> > 384 pc battery pack = 612 peak hp and 1000lbs, (including very heavy
> > interconnects)
> > We strip the cells from their heavy casings and replace connections
> > with more efficient design
> > Revised battery pack = 612 peak hp and 400 lbs
> > OJ 2 chassis with 12 Lemco's and no battery or driver = 750lbs
> > Non beer drinking Driver= 100 lbs
> > Total GVW = 1250 lbs.
> > Peak Wheel HP = 460 hp
> >
> > Now we're getting somewhere.
> >
> > My calculator shows 8 flat is feasible. If I can keep the brush gear
> > from melting, the front end on the ground at least once in a while,
> > etc, etc.....
> >
> > I think it would take the reactor from the Ronald Reagan Aircraft
> > Carrier to get this 62 Chevy as it is into the 8's.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:41:31 -0800
> > Subject: Predictions for the Monster Garage '62 Electric Chevy?
> >
> > Hello to All,
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >With 2 zillas and the >power to feed them from the lithium pack the
> > 4700lb chevy with all the good >suspension work should run 8.64 seconds
> > in the qt.mi. at 157mph.I would not >expect this in your 1st run out
> > but after 5-8 passes. These #s come from the VERY >predicitable
> > Speedworld horsepower calc. on their site, but do not include my
> > >multipiler. With that multiplier in the equa.you will run 8.48 in the
> > qt.mi. >What a difference a little NITRO makes!!!! Dennis Berube
> > > >
> >
> > Whoa, Dennis' ET predictions for the Monster Garage project Chevy sure
> > seem 'optimistic'! I respect Dennis, he's a great competitor, a friend,
> > and quite a character, too! He's still the top dog as far as having the
> > quickest electric ET, too. However, as excited I am about the rad one
> > week conversion that friends Rudman and Lawless did, these guys, the
> > ones that helped build the thing, both feel low to mid 13's are more
> > realistic, certainly not 12's....it's too heavy and there's just not
> > enough raw power to get the job done.
> >
> > To investigate Dennis' predictions, I've done some research of my own,
> > and offer the findings as balance to what I feel is a wild prediction
> > of performance I personally, don't think is even close to being
> > correct...no offense is intended. I have tried very hard to keep past
> > predictions of performance as accurate as possible, whether it's my own
> > car, or someone else's. As an example, when Matt Graham first contacted
> > me more than a year ago about his proposed twin motor electric Nissan
> > 240SX, I predicted it would run easy 14's, and that it could get into
> > the 13s'....he ran a 14.2 first time out. I've been pretty much right
> > on the mark with my car all along, too.
> >
> > OK, here we go.....I plugged in a known performance spec list from my
> > own White Zombie, at three different 1/4 calculator sites. The first
> > one, Simple Horsepower Calculator, is at:
> >
> > http://www.dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm
> >
> > This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
> >
> > (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> > (2) 1/4 Mile ET
> > (3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
> >
> > I entered my accurate data of 12.151 for the ET and 106.25 for the mph,
> > and my estimated data of 2550 lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb.
> > driver) weight. Historically, I've been within 50 lbs. on my electric
> > conversion weights. The calculator came up with this:
> >
> > (1) Based on the ET, 281 hp
> > (2) Based on the mph, 239 hp
> >
> > Since drag racing EVs typically have a lower top end speed as does a
> > gasser running the same ET, I tend to lean toward the mph based hp
> > levels.
> >
> > The second site, Horsepower Calculator, is at:
> >
> > http://www.s-series.org/htm/calc/hpcalc.htm
> >
> > This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
> >
> > (1) Known 1/4 mile ET
> > (2) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> > (3) 1/4 Mile MPH
> > (4) 60 ft. Time
> >
> > Note that this site adds a box for the 60 ft. time, which I feel really
> > improves the accuracy.
> >
> > I entered the same accurate data of 12.151 for the ET, 106.25 for the
> > mph, and added 1.59 for a 60 ft. time, plus the estimated data of 2550
> > lbs. for vehicle (2350 lbs. & 200 lb. driver) weight. The calculator
> > came up with this:
> >
> > (1) RWHP (rear wheel horsepower) from entered ET of 280.93 hp
> > (2) RWHP from MPH of 238.71 hp
> > (4) Break hp from ET of 337.116 hp
> > (5) Break hp from MPH of 286.452 hp
> >
> > The third calculator site, National Driveline, is at:
> >
> > http://www.nationaldrivetrain.com/calcs/dragcalc.html
> >
> > This site has open boxes where you can enter data:
> >
> > (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> > (2) Vehicle hp
> > (3) RPM through the finish line
> > (4) Tire diameter
> >
> > I used the same 2550 lbs. vehicle weight, and since the 239 hp from the
> > first site and the 238.71 hp that the second site were pretty much
> > identical, I rounded it to 240 hp, 6900 rpm from our tach data and
> > calculations using the rear end ratio and tire diameter, and 24 inches
> > as the current diameter of the Goodyear Drag Radials (before we burned
> > them down, these were actually 24.3 inch tires). The third performance
> > calculator came up with this:
> >
> > (1) 1/4 Mile ET of 12.23
> > (2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 106.52 mph
> > (3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 4.63
> > (4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7.79 seconds
> >
> > This data is surprisingly accurate. Compare the results to what the car
> > actually did:
> >
> > Predicted ET of 12.23....actual ET of 12.151
> > Predicted top end speed of 106.52 mph....actual top end speed of 106.25
> > mph
> > Suggested ideal gear ratio of 4.63....actual gear ratio is 4:57
> > Predicted 1/8 mile ET of 7.79 seconds....actual ET of 7.602 mph
> >
> > OK, now that I've demonstrated how accurate the three sites are with a
> > known vehicle's performance, let's now use the first site, Simple
> > Horsepower Calculator, the one that seems to have nailed my car's hp
> > pretty darn well, and see how Dennis' predictions of 8.48 seconds and
> > 157 mph come out:
> >
> > Again, this site has open boxes where you can enter data:
> >
> > (1) Vehicle Weight (including driver weight)
> > (2) 1/4 Mile ET
> > (3) 1/4 Mile Trap Speed
> >
> > I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb. estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb.
> > driver) and Dennis' 8.48 ET and the 157 mpg figures. The calculator
> > came up with these outrageous results:
> >
> > (1) Based on the ET, 1588 hp!!
> > (2) Based on the mph, 1480 hp!!
> >
> > I'm told the Chevy's incredible battery pack can deliver 3800 amps at
> > around 170 volts, or a whopping 646 kw!
> > Now, though that's a huge amount of delivered power, in the real world
> > of DC motors at BIG amps, a best case scenario is figuring 75%
> > efficiency, so for every hp generated (746 watts) the motors will
> > actually suck 1000 watts....this comes in at 646 hp, tops.
> >
> > OK Dennis, where do you come up with at the least, 1480 hp? Where do
> > you get 157 mph? Where on earth, do you get 8.48 seconds?
> >
> > At the National Drivetrain site, I entered the Chevy's 4900 lb.
> > estimated weight (4700 lbs. + 200 lb. driver) and the more realistic
> > 646 hp figure, plus 5000 rpm and 26 inch tires. The calculator came up
> > with these results:
> >
> > (1) 1/4 Mile ET of 10.98
> > (2) 1/4 Mile Top End Speed of 119.18 mph
> > (3) Ideal Gear Ratio of 3.25
> > (4) 1/8 Mile ET of 7 seconds
> >
> > Note, that if I'm off on the rpm or the tire size, it still doesn't
> > change the ET or the MPH figures. Of course, a scorching 10.98 would
> > make us all proud! However, an 11 second ET is a far cry from a
> > predicted 8.48 seconds! Likewise, the 119 mph is a far cry from the
> > predicted 157 mph! If the battery pack can't actually deliver the full
> > 3800 amps, or if at that level the voltage falls below 170, or if both
> > are on the optimistic side of things, then the actual horsepower will
> > be less. With 3600 amps from twin Zilla 1800 amp controllers and
> > keeping the pack sag to 170 volts, it comes in at 612 kw, and the car
> > would run an 11.17 @ 117 mph. Still killer, but approaching 3 seconds
> > slower and a full 40 mph shy of Dennis' predictions.
> >
> > Dennis, care to correct me on any of this? Did you slip up with your
> > figures, or were you merely using Neutrino logic and cold fusion
> > calculations here?
> >
> > See Ya.....John Wayland
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- End Message ---
