EV Digest 7095
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: CVT results update
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: CVT results update
by Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Inspection Woes
by "Mark Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: NEDRA board help on 3 wheeled vehicles
by Bill Dube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
by "Roland Wiench" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) RE: Inspection Woes
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Could higher pack voltage be stepped down for Curtis input?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Other ways to do brush timing
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: John Wayland in Wall Street Journal
by "(-Phil-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) "Electric" Emblem
by Bruce Williford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Inspection Woes
by "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Re: Inspection Woes
by "Mark Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: [ElectricMotorcycles] Inspection Woes
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Mailman Always Rings Twice
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Hydrogen and Fuel Cells on the EVDL
by "David Roden (Akron OH USA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, thanks.
The motor is a ADC 8", I posted the pic earlier that shows the setup
with the planetary, http://www.nimblemotorsports.com/NiMHybridCVT.jpg,
and the rear axle converted to a driven wheel,
http://nimblemotorsports.com/drivenwheel.jpg (this was with the 5:1
chain drive, which worked, but was REALLY LOUD)
Jack
Frank John wrote:
Jack - that is outstanding work. Way to go. What drive setup are you using
i.e. how much power? There's lots of lightweight vehicles that might benefit
from this type of setup.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 12:43:34 AM
Subject: CVT results update
As I reported earlier, I put a CVT belt drive on my Aspire,
a Comet 94C,
http://www.hoffcocomet.com/comet/aftermarket-torque-converters.asp#94c
It has a variable gearing from 3.49:1 to .78:1. When I connected it
directly to the rear wheel in the aspire, it didn't have enough torque
to get the car moving from a stop, the belt just slipped. No surprise
really, it would have been nice if it worked, so I gave it a try.
To fix it, I built a 3.27:1 planetary gear setup for the driven pulley,
http://www.nimblemotorsports.com/planetary.jpg
This weighs only 32lbs.
So now the car starts off with a 12.9:1 gear and a seamless transition
to a 2.55:1 gearing.
I took it for a test drive today, and it works great, no problem at all
from a start.
If my calculations are correct, the motor at 5000 rpm could transition
from 27mph to 140mph through the gear ratio.
I don't have a tach on the motor yet, but the calcs show at 25mph the
motor at 2500rpm with the belt drive at mid-point, and that is about
what it looked like today.
A remaining issue is running the car with ICE power. The electric motor
does still spin, the belt mostly slipping, however a couple times it
would get engaged in the motor and spin up to speed, in which case, it
would create momentum to keep the car moving when lifting the ICE
throttle. Not sure if that is a bug or a feature, but it didn't happen
every time. More testing to do, but I'm quite pleased with the results
so far.
Jack
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would guess the CVT itself is 10-15lbs.
The Aspire weighs about 2000-lbs from the factory, my car still has its
complete ICE drivetrain, its a parallel hybrid prototype.
I don't know what it weighs now, at least 300-500lbs more than stock.
Jack
Greg Owen wrote:
Jack Murray wrote:
As I reported earlier, I put a CVT belt drive on my Aspire,
a Comet 94C,
http://www.hoffcocomet.com/comet/aftermarket-torque-converters.asp#94c
It has a variable gearing from 3.49:1 to .78:1.
Do you recall how much this puppy weighs offhand? And around how much
your Aspire weighs?
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So I take my bike
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/preview.php?vid=1231
down to the local ADOT Level II inspection station to get a VIN number
and title........the first guy looked really concerned and asked how many
cc's. I explained that it was a 13 HP electric motor. He said that
that was not enough for highway use. I explained that it would go
over 65 MPH. He said I don't think we can do this and went to get his
sargent, who came out with a camera and took a bunch of pictures and
said that they could not inspect it and would send the pictures
"upstairs" for review. They would get back to me in 2-3 weeks. Since
this bike was built from scratch and does not have a VIN number what
do you think my chances are for getting a title? me
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Short wheelbase = low polar moment
BAD on the dragstrip.
What is safe on the street with a coefficient of friction of
about 1.0 is not always safe on the dragstrip with a coefficient of
friction of about 3.0
Bill Dube'
At 06:13 PM 7/30/2007, you wrote:
On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:37 AM, keith vansickle wrote:
Shawn and NEDRA,
This was my question a month or so ago. Why do we
(electric vehicle builders) need to follow NHRA rules.
Certianly, if we are racing against infernal
combustion powered vehicles we may use their rules but
if we are racing agains other electrics why not create
our own classes. 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc wheels and motors. we
are developing a completely new sport/activity. why
limit ourselves to coping rules that are designed for
a different animal.
The whole point of NEDRA was to get electric vehicle racing accepted
and into the NHRA rules. When NEDRA started there was no way to race
an EV under NHRA because the rules required an internal combustion
engine. They created NEDRA to provide EV racing rules and to become a
part of the mainstream racing establishment.
Hey, I have my disappointments too. Once upon a time I could have
raced my EV buggy with only a simple roll loop and proper seat belts.
If I wanted to do that now I would have to install a 5 point roll bar
and full harness including arm restraints (some of the requirements
under NHRA for "VW based kit cars".) Yes, VW based kit cars tend to
be dangerous on the track - something about the frame running down
the center = guard rail BAD :-) Still, it hasn't killed me in 15
years (not even once, as Rod would say.)
Paul "neon" Gooch
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ok, now that you have your new tires, what PSI air pressure do you use? Do
you have it air up by the tire installer which was normally set at 35 lbs,
because he says, I air all the tires to this pressure.
Could it be 40, 45, 50, 60 or even 65 PSI?
The first thing you do before you buy any tire, is to weigh the load at each
wheel. For example, my rear load at each wheel is 2340 lbs and my front
load at each wheel is 1090 lbs. So I need to find a tire at the maximum
load rating at least 2340 lbs and then must adjust the psi when using the
this tire on the front with only a load of 1090 lbs.
The new tires with a very low RR will have a very stiff thread face and a
very soft side wall that deflects, but does not deflect the tire face as a
stiff high ply side wall on the tire.
To adjust the PSI per the load rating of the tire, which will give the
minimum tire deflection of the thread face of the tire. Jack up the vehicle
so the tire is off grade. Then air up the tire to the maximum load rating @
PSI that is listed on the side of the tire.
Now measure the height of the sidewall from the face of the tire to the edge
of the wheel for a reference point. Lets say this is 4-inches. Ink the
bottom of the tire and now lower it on to a white poster paper which will
print the foot print contact patch.
Measure the height again from the floor to the edge of the wheel, and lets
say its 3.5 inches on a stiff 4 or 6 ply side wall. This is a 0.50 inch
deflection rate which is too much deflection. It is over 10 percent of the
height of the side wall. You either have the wrong tires at the load rating
or not enough PSI. It is best to keep the deflection between 5 to 7 percent
of the height of the side wall.
Truckers with there 20 inch tires, try to keep the deflection to not more
than 5 percent of the side wall height.
The RR tires that have a very soft 2 ply side walls but has a very stiff
face, the side walls in these tires absorb the deflection and does not
transmit this deflection to the tread as much. The side wall deflection
measurements do not work on these tires because of this design.
This is will the ink foot print comes in. As stated on this list of who I
cannot keep track of what who said what, is to divide the wheel load by the
PSI. Then I think you have to take percentage of the circumference of the
tire to the length of the contact patch to get a deflection percentage. I
have not done this test on my new tires which have a very stiff 6 ply face
and a soft 2 ply side wall which does the deflection.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> Awesome! Good information on tires and rolling resistance! I was unable
> to find information on specific tires in the first link. The second
> link gave exact brands of tires but didn't have any tested in the 13"
> range. I can use a 185/70R14 tire but I would have to change rims. I
> also wish they would have tested the Khumo tires. I am looking at the
> Khumo SR21 tires since they have them in the size I need (155/80R13) and
> they have a 640AA treadwear rating. Plus the fact that they are $34 a
> piece is really hard to beat.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Phil Marino
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:20
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
>
> Jody -
>
> I still think that the single most important thing is to make sure you
> have tires that have documented low values of rolling resistance.
>
> You can find RR values for a lot of different tires here:
>
> www.trb.org/publications/sr/sr286.pdf
>
> Also, take a look at the greenseal tire rolling resistance report here:
>
> http://www.greenseal.org/resources/reports/CGR_tire_rollingresistance.pd
> f
>
>
> Probably the next most important thing is the inflation pressure. If
> you have taken care of these first two, it might be worth it to get a
> wider tire.
>
> Phil
>
>
> >From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> >To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> >Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:58:08 -0400
> >
> >Phil,
> >
> >Good explanation! It makes me think that I might want to go from
> >155/80R13 tires on my Geo to 185/70R13 tires. If wider tires at the
> >same PSI offer lower rolling resistance I might actually gain a mpg out
>
> >of em. I will have to research the exact size required to get the same
>
> >revs per mile though. Luckily tirerack.com has a great specs page for
> >tires that tells all the particulars of different brands of tires.
> >
> >Jody
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
> >Behalf Of Phil Marino
> >Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 23:09
> >To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> >Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> >
> >Hi, Brian
> > >
> >
> >Phil Marino here. I'll put my comments within your post:
> >
> >
> > >From: Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> > >To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> > >CC: Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> > >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 0:42:29 -0700
> > >
> > >Well, if decreasing the width of the tire causes it to deflect more,
> > >then yes, the contact patch may >remain constant. Then again, it
> > >could
> >decrease.
> > >It could increase as well. Whether the contact patch >are decreases,
> > >increases, or stays the same depends on tire pressure, vehicle weight
>
> > >(or mass for all of >you metric wing nuts out there :-D ), side wall
> >stiffness.
> > >Oh heck, while we're at it, lets throw in tire >air temperature. I
> > >don't think that a tire's contact patch is as directly proportional
> > >to tire pressure and >vehicle weight as you claim. I could be wrong
> >though.
> >
> >The contact patch size does not directly affect rolling resistance.
> >I've read that it does several times on this list, but I haven't yet
> >heard a logical explanation for that link.
> >
> >But, to answer the contact patch vs tire width question anyway, here is
>
> >a quote from a technical paper by Boeing Aircraft ( search for Boeing,
> >and "calculating tire area")
> >
> >" The tire contact area for any aircraft tire is calculated by dividing
>
> >the single wheel load by the tire inflation pressure. If the load is
> >expressed in pounds, and the tire pressure in pounds per square inch,
> >then the area is in inches squared. "
> >
> >They are referring to aircraft tires. But, the same principle applies
> >to car tires. To demonstrate this for yourself, see how much load a
> >mounted tire with no air pressure will support. That will show how
> >little the sidewall stiffness contributes to supporting the load on the
>
> >tire. Almost all of the load is supported by the tire pressure.
> >
> > >
> > >However, if I am wrong, why do road riders (bicyclists) use such
> > >narrow
> >
> > >tires? Why do so many small >EVs and cars like GM's Sun Racer use
> > >such narrow tires? Is it only for the sake of keeping rotating
> >weight down?
> >
> > >I don't think that's the only reason.
> >
> >
> >Good questions. I answered them a couple of posts ago, but here is a
> >better explanation. This is from the Schwalbe tire company -
> >http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance
> >
> >First, here is their explanation of why wider tires have lower rolling
> >resistance ( at the same pressure):
> >
> >
> >
> >"Which factors affect rolling resistance?
> >
> >Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other
> >factors all have an effect on rolling resistance.
> >
> >The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus the
>
> >rolling resistance.
> >
> >Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same tire
> >pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important, in
>
> >other words the tire is "less round".
> >
> >Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
> >generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow
> >tire deflects more and so deforms more."
> >
> >
> >And, in more detail: ( still from Schwalbe):
> >
> >"Why do wide tires roll better than narrow ones?
> >
> >The answer to this question lies in tire deflection. Each tire is
> >flattened a little under load. This creates a flat contact area.
> >
> >At the same tire pressure, a wide and a narrow tire have the same
> >contact area. A wide tire is flattened over its width whereas a narrow
> >tire has a slimmer but longer contact area.
> >
> >The flattened area can be considered as a counterweight to tire
> >rotation.
> >Because of the longer flattened area of the narrow tire, the wheel
> >loses
> >
> >more of its "roundness" and produces more deformation during rotation.
> >However, in the wide tire, the radial length of the flattened area is
> >shorter, making the tire "rounder" and so it rolls better."
> >
> >And here is why bicycle racers use narrow tires ( again, from Schwalbe)
> >
> >"Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide tires roll better?
> >
> >Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure, but narrow
> >tires can be inflated to higher pressures than wide tires. However,
> >they then obviously give a less comfortable ride.
> >
> >In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over wide ones at
> >higher speeds, as they provide less air resistance.
> >
> >Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to accelerate
> >because the rotating mass of the wheels is lower and the bicycle is
> >much more agile."
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Oh here's another example, though one that people are probably not as
>
> > >familiar with. Why did my street luge go so much faster with 4 roller
> >blade
> > >wheels on it than it did with 4 skate board wheels on it? It also had
> >less
> > >traction with the roller blade wheels. Man, that was a scary ride! :)
>
> > >Roller blade and skate board wheels don't really flex at all, but
> > >man,
> >what
> > >a difference in top speed!
> > >
> > >Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I have been successfully operating with
> > >the
> >
> > >understanding that a narrower tire will give a smaller contact patch
> >and
> > >therefore decrease rolling resistance for so long that I have a hard
> >time
> > >believing that contact patch is dependent only on tire pressure and
> >vehicle
> > >mass.
> >
> >Well, Schwabe said that the fact that wide tires have lower RR
> >generates skepticism, so you're certainly not alone.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_mig
> >r
> >ation_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr
> ation_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Man that bike looks cool! Looks a lot like a Dodge Tommohawk! Could
you possibly get it inspected as an NEV?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Eidson
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 13:40
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Inspection Woes
So I take my bike
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/preview.php?vid=1231
down to the local ADOT Level II inspection station to get a VIN number
and title........the first guy looked really concerned and asked how
many cc's. I explained that it was a 13 HP electric motor. He said
that that was not enough for highway use. I explained that it would go
over 65 MPH. He said I don't think we can do this and went to get his
sargent, who came out with a camera and took a bunch of pictures and
said that they could not inspect it and would send the pictures
"upstairs" for review. They would get back to me in 2-3 weeks. Since
this bike was built from scratch and does not have a VIN number what do
you think my chances are for getting a title? me
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Andre' Blanchard wrote:
Would adding a diode in parallel with S1 (D2) make it possible to
switch the 36V pack in and out without having the controller fully off?
Then there is still a current path for both Q1 and D1 even with both S1
and S2 open, and at the moment I am not seeing how it would short
anything out. Or you could replace S1 with the diode and just accept
the extra voltage drop?
_____________________________________
| | | _|_
__|__ + | _|_ / \ armature
___ 36v / S1 /_\ D2 \___/
| - | | _________ | series
|____/_____|_______|____|_____ | |_ motor
S2 | B+| _|_ | _|
| | D1 /_\ | _| field
__|__ + | |___|_____|
___ 144v | |_| |M-
| - | -||_ Q1 |
| | | | |
|____________|_____| | Controller
B-|_________|
Adding D2 looks like a good move. It should work if you get the details
right. You could indeed eliminate S1 in this case, if you didn't mind D2
carrying the full motor current at all times.
You still don't want to have the controller going at full power when you
close S2. When S2 closes, motor current may not ramp down during the
controller's off time; it will continue to flow through the 36v pack,
the motor, D1, and S2. Nothing limits this current, so it could rise to
ruinous levels. If the motor is at low RPM, the current would be high
enough to exceed the controller diode's ratings. If the controller turns
back on, the MOSFETs could also die from this excessive current.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeff Shanab wrote:
What if you could put the fields on the center rotating piece and the
com bars around the inside of the case.
All these mechanical marvels are interesting. And, they certainly work!
There are lots of examples (many old, a few modern) where people have
done this.
But this is really the "old school" way to do it. Given that we now have
hall effect magnetic field sensors, computers, and powerful simulation
software, perhaps it would be worthwhile to approach the problem in ways
that Tom Edison could only dream of.
The fundamental problem with brush timing on a series motor is that the
rotor (armature) and stator (field) coils each distort the magnetic
fields of the other. The amount of distortion varies with current, shape
saturation, shape of the magnetics, and many other factors.
Compensating windings like interpoles and pole face windings were
attempts to solve these problems. They worked very well, but added cost
to the motor and were tedious to design. In the days of experimental
design, they had to make a guess, build a motor, see how it worked,
change something and try again until it was good enough to ship.
What if you outfitted a motor with a circle of hall effect sensors in
the air gap between rotor and stator? Use a computer to capture the
field strength data as the motor is operated. Then you'll know exactly
where and how the field changes.
Now, add your compensating windings, right where they are needed. I'll
bet they can be much smaller than traditional interpoles, because they
won't need to carry the full motor current -- field power is usually
only 1-2% of the total power anyway, and I'll bet just 10% of that is
all the "warp" power you'll need. The compensating winding could be
driven by a small separate controller, programmed to deliver "just the
right" amount of field warping for the motor's particular operating
conditions at the moment.
Or, take advantage of the fact that the series motor is being driven by
a PWM controller. This means there is AC on the field coil as well as
DC. And this means that the compensating winding can be powered by AC
from the field, transformer-style.
Or, make the compensating windings as shorted turns, like the shading
coils on a single-phase shaded pole AC motor. Shading coils delay or
block the AC magnetic field, in effect creating a second phase.
Or, redesign the shape or materials in the field magnetics, to make the
field shift automatically as a function of field current. For example,
if the armature current is warping the field backward, make the field
poles so the back edge iron saturates first. Then as current goes up,
the field shifts forward because that's where the iron is that is still
out of saturation.
The whole point is to pick up where the "old masters" of series motor
design left off. Use new tools, new materials, and new techniques to
push it forwards. Don't restrict yourself to just copying or
re-inventing what they did before.
There are probably patents lurking in all this. :-)
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Awesome Article! Way to go John!
-Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Gribben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV Discussion List" <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:18 AM
Subject: John Wayland in Wall Street Journal
Check out today's Wall Street Journal. It looks like it made the
front page.
They even drew a "stipled effect" portrait of John. That makes it an
official WJ article. Great mug shot!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118593442187584293.html
Great story John. This one's a keeper.
Chip
NEDRA
http://www.nedra.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Are the "Electric" stick-on emblems still available anywhere? My Ghia
is at the body shop for its paint job and I was hoping to paste on the
emblem for that final touch.
Thanks, Bruce
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
the horsepower you should have told him would be whatever your pack
voltage times maximum controller amps, converted to horsepower with a
decent efficiency factor. I bet that's alot higher than 13HP.
It's probably an ego thing -- he doesn't understand it at all, so
refuses to deal with it. I know a building inspector who
automatically fails every PV system he sees, because he doesn't know
anything about DC wiring.
Z
On 8/1/07, Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man that bike looks cool! Looks a lot like a Dodge Tommohawk! Could
> you possibly get it inspected as an NEV?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Eidson
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 13:40
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Inspection Woes
>
> So I take my bike
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/preview.php?vid=1231
> down to the local ADOT Level II inspection station to get a VIN number
> and title........the first guy looked really concerned and asked how
> many cc's. I explained that it was a 13 HP electric motor. He said
> that that was not enough for highway use. I explained that it would go
> over 65 MPH. He said I don't think we can do this and went to get his
> sargent, who came out with a camera and took a bunch of pictures and
> said that they could not inspect it and would send the pictures
> "upstairs" for review. They would get back to me in 2-3 weeks. Since
> this bike was built from scratch and does not have a VIN number what do
> you think my chances are for getting a title? me
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
An NEV title will not get me to work and back.......me
On 8/1/07, Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man that bike looks cool! Looks a lot like a Dodge Tommohawk! Could
> you possibly get it inspected as an NEV?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Eidson
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 13:40
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: Inspection Woes
>
> So I take my bike
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/preview.php?vid=1231
> down to the local ADOT Level II inspection station to get a VIN number
> and title........the first guy looked really concerned and asked how
> many cc's. I explained that it was a 13 HP electric motor. He said
> that that was not enough for highway use. I explained that it would go
> over 65 MPH. He said I don't think we can do this and went to get his
> sargent, who came out with a camera and took a bunch of pictures and
> said that they could not inspect it and would send the pictures
> "upstairs" for review. They would get back to me in 2-3 weeks. Since
> this bike was built from scratch and does not have a VIN number what do
> you think my chances are for getting a title? me
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Roland,
How did you measure your corner weight? Did you rent/buy the
scales capable or did you do the Archemedes bathroom scale method?
Jody
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roland Wiench
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 13:58
To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
Subject: Re: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
Ok, now that you have your new tires, what PSI air pressure do you use?
Do you have it air up by the tire installer which was normally set at 35
lbs, because he says, I air all the tires to this pressure.
Could it be 40, 45, 50, 60 or even 65 PSI?
The first thing you do before you buy any tire, is to weigh the load at
each wheel. For example, my rear load at each wheel is 2340 lbs and my
front load at each wheel is 1090 lbs. So I need to find a tire at the
maximum load rating at least 2340 lbs and then must adjust the psi when
using the this tire on the front with only a load of 1090 lbs.
The new tires with a very low RR will have a very stiff thread face and
a very soft side wall that deflects, but does not deflect the tire face
as a stiff high ply side wall on the tire.
To adjust the PSI per the load rating of the tire, which will give the
minimum tire deflection of the thread face of the tire. Jack up the
vehicle so the tire is off grade. Then air up the tire to the maximum
load rating @ PSI that is listed on the side of the tire.
Now measure the height of the sidewall from the face of the tire to the
edge of the wheel for a reference point. Lets say this is 4-inches. Ink
the bottom of the tire and now lower it on to a white poster paper which
will print the foot print contact patch.
Measure the height again from the floor to the edge of the wheel, and
lets say its 3.5 inches on a stiff 4 or 6 ply side wall. This is a 0.50
inch deflection rate which is too much deflection. It is over 10
percent of the height of the side wall. You either have the wrong tires
at the load rating or not enough PSI. It is best to keep the deflection
between 5 to 7 percent of the height of the side wall.
Truckers with there 20 inch tires, try to keep the deflection to not
more than 5 percent of the side wall height.
The RR tires that have a very soft 2 ply side walls but has a very stiff
face, the side walls in these tires absorb the deflection and does not
transmit this deflection to the tread as much. The side wall deflection
measurements do not work on these tires because of this design.
This is will the ink foot print comes in. As stated on this list of who
I cannot keep track of what who said what, is to divide the wheel load
by the PSI. Then I think you have to take percentage of the
circumference of the
tire to the length of the contact patch to get a deflection percentage.
I
have not done this test on my new tires which have a very stiff 6 ply
face and a soft 2 ply side wall which does the deflection.
Roland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> Awesome! Good information on tires and rolling resistance! I was
unable
> to find information on specific tires in the first link. The second
> link gave exact brands of tires but didn't have any tested in the 13"
> range. I can use a 185/70R14 tire but I would have to change rims. I
> also wish they would have tested the Khumo tires. I am looking at the
> Khumo SR21 tires since they have them in the size I need (155/80R13)
and
> they have a 640AA treadwear rating. Plus the fact that they are $34 a
> piece is really hard to beat.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Phil Marino
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:20
> To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
>
> Jody -
>
> I still think that the single most important thing is to make sure you
> have tires that have documented low values of rolling resistance.
>
> You can find RR values for a lot of different tires here:
>
> www.trb.org/publications/sr/sr286.pdf
>
> Also, take a look at the greenseal tire rolling resistance report
here:
>
>
http://www.greenseal.org/resources/reports/CGR_tire_rollingresistance.pd
> f
>
>
> Probably the next most important thing is the inflation pressure. If
> you have taken care of these first two, it might be worth it to get a
> wider tire.
>
> Phil
>
>
> >From: "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> >To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
> >Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:58:08 -0400
> >
> >Phil,
> >
> >Good explanation! It makes me think that I might want to go from
> >155/80R13 tires on my Geo to 185/70R13 tires. If wider tires at the
> >same PSI offer lower rolling resistance I might actually gain a mpg
out
>
> >of em. I will have to research the exact size required to get the
same
>
> >revs per mile though. Luckily tirerack.com has a great specs page
for
> >tires that tells all the particulars of different brands of tires.
> >
> >Jody
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
>
> >Behalf Of Phil Marino
> >Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 23:09
> >To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> >Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> >
> >Hi, Brian
> > >
> >
> >Phil Marino here. I'll put my comments within your post:
> >
> >
> > >From: Brian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> > >To: ev@listproc.sjsu.edu
> > >CC: Phil Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: RE: Bridgestone Ecopia EP-03 Tires - tire width vs RR
> > >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 0:42:29 -0700
> > >
> > >Well, if decreasing the width of the tire causes it to deflect
more,
> > >then yes, the contact patch may >remain constant. Then again, it
> > >could
> >decrease.
> > >It could increase as well. Whether the contact patch >are
decreases,
> > >increases, or stays the same depends on tire pressure, vehicle
weight
>
> > >(or mass for all of >you metric wing nuts out there :-D ), side
wall
> >stiffness.
> > >Oh heck, while we're at it, lets throw in tire >air temperature. I
> > >don't think that a tire's contact patch is as directly proportional
> > >to tire pressure and >vehicle weight as you claim. I could be wrong
> >though.
> >
> >The contact patch size does not directly affect rolling resistance.
> >I've read that it does several times on this list, but I haven't yet
> >heard a logical explanation for that link.
> >
> >But, to answer the contact patch vs tire width question anyway, here
is
>
> >a quote from a technical paper by Boeing Aircraft ( search for
Boeing,
> >and "calculating tire area")
> >
> >" The tire contact area for any aircraft tire is calculated by
dividing
>
> >the single wheel load by the tire inflation pressure. If the load is
> >expressed in pounds, and the tire pressure in pounds per square inch,
> >then the area is in inches squared. "
> >
> >They are referring to aircraft tires. But, the same principle
applies
> >to car tires. To demonstrate this for yourself, see how much load a
> >mounted tire with no air pressure will support. That will show how
> >little the sidewall stiffness contributes to supporting the load on
the
>
> >tire. Almost all of the load is supported by the tire pressure.
> >
> > >
> > >However, if I am wrong, why do road riders (bicyclists) use such
> > >narrow
> >
> > >tires? Why do so many small >EVs and cars like GM's Sun Racer use
> > >such narrow tires? Is it only for the sake of keeping rotating
> >weight down?
> >
> > >I don't think that's the only reason.
> >
> >
> >Good questions. I answered them a couple of posts ago, but here is a
> >better explanation. This is from the Schwalbe tire company -
> >http://www.schwalbetires.com/tech_info/rolling_resistance
> >
> >First, here is their explanation of why wider tires have lower
rolling
> >resistance ( at the same pressure):
> >
> >
> >
> >"Which factors affect rolling resistance?
> >
> >Tire pressure, tire diameter, tire construction, tire tread and other
> >factors all have an effect on rolling resistance.
> >
> >The higher the tire pressure, the less is tire deformation and thus
the
>
> >rolling resistance.
> >
> >Small diameter tires have a higher rolling resistance at the same
tire
> >pressure, because tire deformation is proportionally more important,
in
>
> >other words the tire is "less round".
> >
> >Wider tires roll better than narrow ones. This assertion generally
> >generates skepticism, nevertheless at the same tire pressure a narrow
> >tire deflects more and so deforms more."
> >
> >
> >And, in more detail: ( still from Schwalbe):
> >
> >"Why do wide tires roll better than narrow ones?
> >
> >The answer to this question lies in tire deflection. Each tire is
> >flattened a little under load. This creates a flat contact area.
> >
> >At the same tire pressure, a wide and a narrow tire have the same
> >contact area. A wide tire is flattened over its width whereas a
narrow
> >tire has a slimmer but longer contact area.
> >
> >The flattened area can be considered as a counterweight to tire
> >rotation.
> >Because of the longer flattened area of the narrow tire, the wheel
> >loses
> >
> >more of its "roundness" and produces more deformation during
rotation.
> >However, in the wide tire, the radial length of the flattened area is
> >shorter, making the tire "rounder" and so it rolls better."
> >
> >And here is why bicycle racers use narrow tires ( again, from
Schwalbe)
> >
> >"Why do Pros ride narrow tires if wide tires roll better?
> >
> >Wide tires only roll better at the same inflation pressure, but
narrow
> >tires can be inflated to higher pressures than wide tires. However,
> >they then obviously give a less comfortable ride.
> >
> >In addition to this, narrow tires have an advantage over wide ones at
> >higher speeds, as they provide less air resistance.
> >
> >Above all, a bicycle with narrow tires is much easier to accelerate
> >because the rotating mass of the wheels is lower and the bicycle is
> >much more agile."
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Oh here's another example, though one that people are probably not
as
>
> > >familiar with. Why did my street luge go so much faster with 4
roller
> >blade
> > >wheels on it than it did with 4 skate board wheels on it? It also
had
> >less
> > >traction with the roller blade wheels. Man, that was a scary ride!
:)
>
> > >Roller blade and skate board wheels don't really flex at all, but
> > >man,
> >what
> > >a difference in top speed!
> > >
> > >Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I have been successfully operating with
> > >the
> >
> > >understanding that a narrower tire will give a smaller contact
patch
> >and
> > >therefore decrease rolling resistance for so long that I have a
hard
> >time
> > >believing that contact patch is dependent only on tire pressure and
> >vehicle
> > >mass.
> >
> >Well, Schwabe said that the fact that wide tires have lower RR
> >generates skepticism, so you're certainly not alone.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Brian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
>
>http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_mig
> >r
> >ation_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migr
> ation_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I would say you have an excellent chance but you will likely need lots of
persistence. I find that when dealing with paperwork issues it is easiest
to give the answers they want to hear. For instance, when asked how many
CCs say 400, if they question that answer say that your electric motor is
equivalent to a 400cc motorcycle engine.
When I took the skills test for my motorcycle license on my EM they asked me
the cc question which determines parameters for some of the different
obstacles. I answered 250cc, since that is what the bike started out as,
and they went straight to the next step without question. I only offered
one piece of voluntary information. Since you get a heavy deduction for
stalling, I pointed out that my motorcycle was incapable of stalling. I
mentioned that if you don't hear any sound from the motor it is because you
are not supposed to.
damon
From: "Mark Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ElectricMotorcycles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ElectricMotorcycles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ElectricMotorcycles] Inspection Woes
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:17:40 -0700
So I take my bike (
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/preview.php?vid=1231 ) down to the
local ADOT Level II inspection station to get a VIN number and
title........the first guy looked really concerned and asked how many
cc's. I explained that it was a 13 HP electric motor. He said that
that was not enough for highway use. I explained that it would go
over 65 MPH. He said I don't think we can do this and went to get his
sargent, who came out with a camera aand took a bunch of pictures and
said that they could not inspect it and would send th pictures
"upstairs" for review. They would get back to me in 2-3 weeks. Since
this bike was built from scratch and does not have a VIN number what
do you think my chances are for getting a title? me
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2
_________________________________________________________________
http://liveearth.msn.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If all goes as planned, SJSU will be converting the EVDL's listserver software
from Listproc to Mailman this evening.
The following is my idea, not SJSU's, but it seems to me that it might not be
a bad idea to keep list traffic to a minimum from about 4pm PT (7pm ET) or
so. I suggest holding off posts until tomorrow if possible.
Current EVDL subscribers will be transferred seamlessly along with their list
settings (ack, digest, nomail, etc.). You shouldn't need to resubscribe. I
suppose there is some slight chance of error in this process. If you seem to
have been cast aside (it won't be intentional), let me know. Don't reply to
this
message; see below for address info.
Digest subscribers will most likely receive a plain text digest by default.
You
can change this to a fancy MIME digest using the web configuration tool (see
below).
The previously used email commands, including the "subscribe," "signoff,"
and user options commands such as "nomail," will still work with the new
system. However, most people will probably want to use the new web-based
configuration tool.
You'll log in to that page with your email address (the one you used to
subscribe) and a password. Sometime tonight, you should receive an email
with that password. The link below won't be active until the transfer is
complete, but you'll log in here :
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev/
I think you have to have cookies enabled in your browser to use this page.
If you don't receive your password, just enter your subscribing email address
on the above page and Mailman will email you your password.
Comments? Concerns? Complaints?
Unless you think they'll be of common interest, they're probably best
addressed to me privately. You'll find my personal address at the bottom of
this page :
http://www.evdl.org/help/
David Roden
EVDL Administrator
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Fuel cells are indeed included in the EVDL charter. View it here :
http://www.evdl.org/help/
The relevant passage is : "The energy storage device used to drive said motor
can use any technology including, but not limited to, solar electric, electric
battery, fuel cell, internal combustion engine coupled with an electric
generator (hybrids), or any combination of these."
However, some years ago the list membership reached a consensus that we
should minimize discussion of hydrogen and fuel cells.
There is also significant opposition to discussing the quasi-hybrids from the
automakers since they derive all their energy from gasoline. This opposition
doesn't extend to "plug hybrids."
If you'd like to comment on these matters, please contact me privately with
your thoughts. You'll find my personal address at the bottom of the same
page :
http://www.evdl.org/help/
--- End Message ---
