# EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, Part 7



## Darell (Aug 16, 2005)

And so Part seven begins. Continued from Part 6. 

I hope you guys all saw the wacky bicycles I posted in the last thread!


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 16, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]

_Darell said:_
Yeah. Not pretty. I know the owners of both these companies... and I probably don't know much more than you do about where they stand today! I have begged them both to increase their exposure and PR... but it falls on deaf ears. They don't want to "waste" the time or money on that. But jeez - they NEED the support of the EV community, and if we're kept in the dark, I'm not sure what they hope to gain. This has frustrated me for several years now. I wish I had better news! I keep hearing "There's nothing to say until we have product." But that just isn't true. If we're expected to purchase these things, we need to start saving, or but off a second vehicle purchase to afford it... or whatever. It is a purchase that needs to be planed for, not a spur-of-the-moment thing, ya know? OK. Preaching to the choir here, I'm sure.

[...]

Well, the company is real, the guys behind it are real, the prototypes (many of them!) are real... and now we finally have one *real* delivered "production" vehicle. What has to happen before the rest of it becomes real is a large infusion of money - or at least promises of purchase from people who put deposits down. No money, no car. Simple as that. I'm considering putting a deposit down on a second one, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that Commuter Cars or the Tango are real - there are too many photos and movies out there. What bothers me is that there's not a steady stream of information, news pieces, and press releases like most startups keep pushing through...

I'm interested enough in the T100 that I'd quite likely put down that deposit ... if I could afford it. But I'm not feeling confident about Commuter Cars, Inc since the only news I can find about them is a big "aged."

I get the impression that AC Propulsion makes some money on the two kit products they sell and a bit more doing concept vehicles/demonstrators for automakers/etc.

[ QUOTE ]

_Darell said:_
[ QUOTE ]

_idleprocess said:_
I need to drive ~50 miles/day currently, so I need more than ~500 cycles from my battery pack


[/ QUOTE ]

This really isn't a problem with current high-density pba packs. No point in arguing about any sort of batteries until the vehicle is even available. These *can* be VERY practical cars for a 50-mile commute. We'd be buying one for a 40-mile RT commute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Per commutercars.com:
*Battery replacement is the largest portion of the cost-per-mile for an electric car. To demonstrate how this works, we use Optima's cycle life vs. depth of discharge graph. This graph applies to laboratory-controlled charge and discharge cycles, yet is quite indicative of the effects of driver habits. If the Tango were driven to 80% DOD (depth of discharge) or more (approximately 64 to 80 miles regularly between charges), the pack will only yield 250 cycles. This works out to approximately 16 cents per mile with current Optima Yellow Top prices of $100. However, if discharged to 25% DOD (20 to 24 miles between charges), the chart shows 4,000 cycles can be achieved yielding 80,000 miles with a cost of only 3.1 cents per mile.*

Exide Deep-cycle batteries & Optima Yellow Top "dual purpose starting and deep cycle" batteries

Right now, recharging at work is not an option and probably never will be, so I'm looking at replacing a ~$2500 battery pack roughly ONCE A YEAR if I push 60 miles/day. I don't want to know what happens to the range once you get near the end of cycle life. True, this is all theory, but it's what Commuter Cars has published, and it's very troubling.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the EV groups are email reflectors. I don't know of any reasonable ones that are CPF-like, at least. ... Many Yahoo groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

General - I'm seeking more information about EVs in general, preferably from people that have owned or driven them. I guess I'll email you about it or look around myself.


----------



## dukeleto (Aug 16, 2005)

Oh yeah Darell, I saw your wacky bikes, and boy I want one!
Something I noticed: all of the bikes have some type of fancypancy drive system to transfer power to the back wheel,
except for the last one, the "racing" bike. Does that mean their new system is less efficient /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
Olivier

*edit* 
just found this link unfortunately. Pity!


----------



## Darell (Aug 16, 2005)

Ah, good catch, Oliver. I looked around briefly, and couldn't find anything. I figured something had to be up since 100% of them were "rendered."


----------



## Darell (Aug 16, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*idleprocess said:*
What bothers me is that there's not a steady stream of information, news pieces, and press releases like most startups keep pushing through...

[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed. Sounds like it bugs you as much as it bugs me! It is frustrating to say the least, but nobody asked for my opinion. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif These guys seem to feel that PR is only something that is done when you have lots of extra money sitting around. I have offered my services for FREE to help spread info... but have not been taken up on it. One thing that you can do is contact Rick Woodbury (Tango), or Tom Gage (ACP) directly and ask any questions you wish. Rick will likely get back to you with LOTS of detailed info. Tom... maybe not. I assume their email address are available on the respective sites. If not, I can get them for you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested enough in the T100 that I'd quite likely put down that deposit ... if I could afford it. But I'm not feeling confident about Commuter Cars, Inc since the only news I can find about them is a big "aged."

[/ QUOTE ]
Remember that you aren't paying anybody a deposit for a Tango. It is deposited in an escrow account in YOUR name. You are the only one who can touch it, and it can be withdrawn at any time. Yes, you have to make do without the $500, and you lose the interest on it, but you haven't just sent it off never to see it again. If fresh info is what you crave, please do send Rick an email to ask any questions you may have.

[ QUOTE ]
I get the impression that AC Propulsion makes some money on the two kit products they sell and a bit more doing concept vehicles/demonstrators for automakers/etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
If by "make some money" you mean make profit, I can say with some certainty that that is not the case! Yes, they have a bit of income from various ventures, but certainly not enough to pay the bills! They need to get some product out the door that we can purchase!

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to know what happens to the range once you get near the end of cycle life. True, this is all theory, but it's what Commuter Cars has published, and it's very troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, what happens to range at the end of cycle life is pretty much the definition of "end of cycle life." No surprise. The range gradually begins to drop off as the battery will accept less and less charge.

All good points on the batteries and what has been published. The fact still remains that we don't know WHAT batteries will be used if/when these cars finally see the light of day. The high-density advanced pba Panasonics in the EV1 were rated at about 500 cycles, and many folks managed 70k+ miles before any degredation of range showed up. And that battery tech is now 10 years old!


----------



## AilSnail (Aug 16, 2005)

I'm looking fore a faster and cheaper way to commute to work than paying $5 for sitting one and a half hours on a bus traveling about 25km. (and repeat after work)
So I was thinking it might be possible to use an electric scooter or assisted bicycle or something.
something going about 50 kmh (in a bit slopes too, and there are lots of uphills here) would be sufficient. How much power is needed for that? any pointer to good products would be appreciated. any of them incorporate electrical braking, where you charge the batteries when you brake? how much good is that idea? lots of rain here too.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 16, 2005)

To hold 50km/hr on a bike/scooter you need about 1 HP. I can maintain those kinds of speeds for a few minutes when I ride but not longer(a human can only put out ~0.3 to 0.5 HP on a continual basis). If you add a 5% grade to the mix then you'll need maybe another HP or so to hold the speed on the grade. That's 2HP total, and on the level you'll probably max out at around 40 mph.

I never looked into it because powered scooters (gas or electric) are illegal in NYC but I believe plenty of vehicles exist which meet those criteria.


----------



## Darell (Aug 16, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*AilSnail said:*
So I was thinking it might be possible to use an electric scooter or assisted bicycle or something.

[/ QUOTE ]
What distance do you need to go. My first response is "look into a good bicycle." That way you get exercise during the otherwise wasted commute time. Really, the main thing holding me back from buying an electric scoot is because I know I'll use it instead of my bike, and will end up getting out of shape again!

If you want something serious, then get on the list for this one: http://www.vectrixusa.com/index3.html


----------



## AilSnail (Aug 17, 2005)

Like I said, Darell, about 25km each way and I can charge at work. Uh, did you think I had not thought of a bicycle?

edit: That scooter/mc looks neat, but probably very expensive and also unavailable. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


----------



## AilSnail (Aug 17, 2005)

any of you have a clue on the various hub motors on the market? As always, once I get interested in a topic I want to make something myself.

edit: clarification: looking for a pneumo tire dia of perhaps 12" or so.


----------



## Darell (Aug 17, 2005)

Oops. I screwed up a couple of things, I see. For some reason, I read "25km" as 25km/hr. Thought you were complaining of the slow bus speed, not distance. OK, so knowing 25km is the distance, I can't really tell if you've considered a bicycle. I ride at least 25km each day (yes, that's only your one-way trip) and I have commuted more than twice that distance by bike for past jobs.

Next up is the scooter. Most of the better ones DO employ regenerative braking, and it can add 10% or so to your range, while saving your brakes. I think that is significant enough to look for. Yes, the one I pointed to will be expensive - it will also be one of the best available. There are MANY cheaper and lower quality ones on the market today. Just google electric scooter and you'll have lots of hits. If I'm going to be out in traffic on one of these things, I want something that's gonna be able to keep up!

As for hub motors, I know next to nothing. I do think that we'll see more of them as EVs begin again to make some inroads. I know of another quality scooter (can't find it right now) that has about a 12" rear wheel with a hub motor in it.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 17, 2005)

Here is a neat item:

Diesel/electric hybrid that goes 0-60 in 4 seconds and gets 50 mpg and uses biodiesel.

The hybrid "Attack"


----------



## Darell (Aug 18, 2005)

Oooh. Sexy car. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I love it when high-schoolers show how relatively simple this could be.

Biodiesel/BEV hybrid. That's about my ideal second vehicle at this point.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 18, 2005)

I like the fact that they are doing this kind of work too, but I would never look at something like this and assume that the end result is viable without more information. I could not get any of their links to work, so I could not read any of the specs or stories about it. There was no mention of how they charge the batteries.

It's easy to add an electric boost assist to just about any car, but the trick is to do it so that the car remains safe and drivable. Throwing 300 horses at the front wheels sounds simple, but I imagine it could play havock with the handling if you punch it in a corner. It can be done properly, but I'm not sure I'd do it that way.

High school projects tend to be like a talking dog. You are so amazed that the dog talks that you don't even notice the bad grammar. Likewise, the 0-60 time is so neat that no one asks how long it can sustain the electric boost, or if it's introduced problems that have yet to be addresses. They don't ask if the car is set up to run on electric only. They don't ask a lot of things.

Don't get me wrong. The project is neat and they have reason to be proud. If properly adressed, the concept might work well. 50MPG and quick is pretty cool.

Daniel


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Aug 19, 2005)

I heard today that FedEx is going to start using some diesel hybrid vehicles for their fleet. I think this is a great move on their part.

Question: can you use biodiesel in an ordinary diesel vehicle?


----------



## ikendu (Aug 19, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*IlluminatingBikr said:*
I heard today that FedEx is going to start using some diesel hybrid vehicles for their fleet. I think this is a great move on their part.

Question: can you use biodiesel in an ordinary diesel vehicle? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Daimler/Chrysler has built something like 40 of these diesel/electric plug-in hybrids. This is very interesting technology that I hope finds its way into the mainstream quickly!

Yes! Biodiesel can be run in any diesel vehicle with no modifications what-so-ever. Although, older diesels (pre-1995) used rubber for the fuel lines and seals so those would need to be replaced. I've been running 100% biodiesel in my off-the-lot, stock, 2003 VW Golf TDI (diesel) since March, 2003. I've got over 50,000 miles now and really love using this renewable fuel! I get 44 mpg on B100 (100% biodiesel).

My diesel runs quieter, cleaner and smoother on biodiesel. There is a club in my area that makes their own biodiesel from discarded restaurant fryer oil for about 80 cents a gallon.

Visit my web site for the full low down on biodiesel!


----------



## BB (Aug 19, 2005)

This will send shivers down your spine:

China Gas Crisis (with pictures): 

China Oil Shortage:

[ QUOTE ]
_SHANGHAI (AFP) -_ The Chinese government and its state-owned oil companies are locked in battle over artificially low gasoline prices at the pump that has caused a massive shortage in the southern manufacturing province of Guangdong.

For weeks skyrocketing global oil prices and rising demand has led to a fuel-supply crunch as domestic refineries have been caught short in Guangdong.

Some fear it is only a matter of time before gas-guzzling cities such as Shanghai are hit too.

*The government has blamed recent stormy weather for the shortfall, which is feasible but not enough to result in the kilometre long queues at filling stations that drivers in Guangdong have endured for nearly a month.*

As oil prices climbed, a standoff erupted between China's National Development Reform Commission (NDRC) -- a key economic policy planning body -- and the country's two largest state oil groups PetroChina and Sinopec, analysts said Wednesday.

The crisis highlights the persistent problems Beijing faces as the economy is transformed to a more market-based system but that is often retarded by authorities who fear loosing political control in the face of full-fledged capitalist rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Aug 19, 2005)

Here is the growth in oil consumption from 2004:







I'm thinking that we are heading for a collision with China over who gets what's left of the world's oil.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Aug 19, 2005)

OUCH!

Get them Biodiesel guys to start selling it more places!


----------



## ikendu (Aug 19, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*PlayboyJoeShmoe said:*Get them Biodiesel guys to start selling it more places! 

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. If things continue they way they have in the last year, there will be many Americans wondering... "Why haven't we been cranking up our biofuels industry? _Somebody_ should have been able to see that we would be running short on oil!" .

We've had the technology for quite a while now to seriously start getting off of imported oil. We've just been sleeping along into the future.


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 19, 2005)

Funny, if you pay, oh, 400% more for domesticly-produced energy but use, fudge, 25% as much as you did foreign energy ... sounds like a wash to me in pure economic terms - neverminding the geopolitical bonuses.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 20, 2005)

Here's an interesting notion:

If we buy locally produced fuels the money stays in the U.S. and stimulates our economy. As the economy is stimulated, it produces more tax revenue (money that leaves the U.S. for imported oil...doesn't stimulate the economy much).

So... to what extent could our gov't sudsidize locally produced fuels and get the money back thru increased stimulus of the economy and resultingly higher tax revenues. There could be some point where the subsidies would actually increase tax revenues (displacing foreign fuel with local fuel also decreases our trade imbalance).


----------



## BentHeadTX (Aug 20, 2005)

When my wife found out we were going to Turkey, she asked around amongst her friends concerning cars, driving etc. She told me she did not want to bring a car since everything is within a few kilometers and the driving here is a bit exciting. 

Fast forward 10 weeks later and for the most part, my family gets around on recumbent bicycles. My morning commute is 1.5 KM so it is not a problem. The problem was getting groceries 2 KM away. I picked up a Schwinn S600 electric scooter and have some thoughts.

The S600 is a Currie design that cruises at 26 KPH (15 MPH) with a 36V electric motor. They advertise it as "750 watts of power" but the brushed motor says "450 watt output" The scooter itself uses 12.5 inch wheels with 2.125 inch wide (54mm) tires. Front suspension is 50mm and rear monoshock is 90mm. Uses a front linear pull (V-brake) and rear disc brake and that strong stopping power. It is rated to pull 117 KG (260 pounds) 

My problem is if I get all dressed up, hook the kid carrier to the back and haul butt down the road. I weigh 165 pounds (75 KG) add clothes, helmet and lights for 174 pounds (80.5 KG) throw the kid carrier on the back 20 pounds (9 KG) and I am within 60 pounds (27 KG) of max limit. 

I ordered a new 36 volt motor with 35 amp controller to boost performance. Spec'ed it with lower gearing since I want it to pull heavier weights. The new brushless motor is more effecient and produces .99 HP (738 watts) at max speed and can produce 1.345 HP (1003 watts) at max torque. My max speed moves from 26 KPH to around 32 KPH but with much more torque and towing power. This is going to kill my range down to around 10--15KM but it is not ridden that far. Quick 4 KM round trips and back on the charger it goes. 

Although the scooters are useful and a lot of fun for local use, 50KM a day would demand a different tact. You need an electric moped type scooter and a company makes one with a 2,000 watt (2.7 HP) hub motor. Electric Vehicle Technology Z-20 scooter costs $2,000 and has dual headlights, disc brakes, seating for two and all that jazz. Top speed is 60 KPH with a 80 KM range. You would probably have to get at least a moped type license though. 

Meanwhile, I am waiting for scooter upgrade parts and ride my bicycle. Good luck!


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 20, 2005)

I am not an economist, so I may be totally off base here. I'm responding to ikendu's assertion that locally produced fuels will keep money at home where it belongs....

Of the big 3 US oil companies, one is owned by the dutch and one is owned by the british. Well, mostly, since they are publicly traded companies so I own a little of each, but that's another story. I figure if we move to biofuels the big 3 will jump into that field and will still get thier share.

AS for where the money goes.... The gas stattion owners are local (sort of anyway) and so are the gas station employees. Same for the truck drivers and the refinery workers. The pipeline workers in the US are probably from the USA too. They probably buy their supplies here in the US too.

That leaves the profits to go over-seas somewhere. I'd be the last to say that the profits are not obscene.

I guess it's like my dad saying that the money spent on the space shuttle is being thrown away. He forgets that virtually all of it goes to pay people here in the US to do high tech jobs. None of it is really wasted any more than the money spent on the state senators is wasted.

Ooops. Bad analogy.

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 20, 2005)

I wonder why they rate the motor for a certain weight considering that once up to running speed most of the drag is aerodynamic, with well under 10% coming from tire drag? If it isn't hilly where you are then you can probably pull 500 pounds or more, assuming that you have a trailer which can deal with the weight. It would just take a bit longer to get up to speed. Of course, if it is hilly, then the motor upgrade was a good move.

It's a shame and really quite puzzling to me that a place like NYC, which would be ideal for these small electric scooters, has made them and their gas-powered counterparts illegal. The Vectra linked to by Darell earlier would be a great all-around city vehicle, with enough speed to even go on expressways, but alas something like that is forbidden in the five boroughs. Maybe someone here can clue me in as to why. Anyone else who lives in a locality that doesn't allow these things?

[ QUOTE ]

Top speed is 60 KPH with a 80 KM range. You would probably have to get at least a moped type license though. 


[/ QUOTE ]
Strange you would need a moped license when a regular bicycle can go faster, in some cases a _good deal faster_. I've broken 60 kph (37 mph) by a good 28 mph on one occasion. All I need is a mild hill to break 60 kph, albeit not by much.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 20, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
I guess it's like my dad saying that the money spent on the space shuttle is being thrown away. He forgets that virtually all of it goes to pay people here in the US to do high tech jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that the space program pays for itself by selling off the patents it produces to private industry. The chips in the PCs everyone uses nowadays are but one such spinoff.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Aug 20, 2005)

jtr,
The "reason" for the motor upgrade was so my wife could haul two 3 year olds in a kiddie trailer (total weight of kids 95 pounds or 43.5 KG) This goes past the stated max load of the scooter and gives me an edge to get what I want.
I have ridden the scooter up a 15+% grade and it performs well so it should pull the kids on normal roads. My thing is the stock motor is brushed and the controller is not waterproof. The new parts give more speed, more acceleration and much better performance. All this and the brushless motor design is a workhorse so I need not worry about parts failure. The new controller is potted and very water resistant. 
Do I actually "need" the high performance motor/controller? Does one "need" a $150 Mag mod? If one can talk their wife into making it a "need" you really need it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif The stock stuff is OK but I like more industrial grade in quality and extra power is always good. 
OK, OK... you got me... I don't need the new motor/controller but a price can't be put on "coolness". Oh yeah, it uses a full LED lighting system and some different tires are in the mail.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 20, 2005)

I'm not knocking you for getting the upgrade. I was just wondering why it was needed unless you lived in a hilly area. If you really do have 15% grades, then you probably needed it so no need trying to justify it, especially to me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif So long as the wife approved... (I don't have that "problem" since I'm single and intend to remain that way)

Yes, it does sound like a cool upgrade, and well worth it if you're getting a brushless motor. One less thing to worry about for maintainance. I probably would have gotten the upgrade with the highest available gearing for a nice speed and range boost, but then I never pull loads or even carry them. Still, sounds like a lot of fun, and a top end of 32 kph is decently fast for short trips. I only cruise about 5 kph faster than that on my Raleigh. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif You _would_ blow me away on the hills though with the extra power you have.


----------



## Darell (Aug 20, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*BentHeadTX said:*
They advertise it as "750 watts of power" but the brushed motor says "450 watt output" 


[/ QUOTE ]
Hey BentBud. How ya been? Not in TX anymore, eh?

The difference in specs is likely due to the difference in "sustainable" and "peak" power. The motor in my Rav, for example, is 50kW peak, 30kW sustainable. In the ICE world, ALL you hear is max HP and max torque. Try sustaining that max HP for too long though... and well, then you'll realize that everything has a lower "sustainable" power as well.

Sounds like a need scoot you've got. Pictures?


----------



## ikendu (Aug 20, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
I figure if we move to biofuels the big 3 will jump into that field and will still get thier share.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I don't mind that companies make money selling fuel. One person I've talked to doesn't like BioDiesel 'cause they think ADM will control the market and ADM is a "Big Company". Doesn't bother me.

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*AS for where the money goes...gas stattion owners,...employees...truck drivers...refinery workers...pipeline workers in the US are probably from the USA too. They probably buy their supplies here in the US too.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of that will still happen with BioFuels. The difference will be the $66/barrel that we pay right into the Saudi treasury (and other outside countries). At the 2005 consumption rate that is $318 *Billion* of that part that doesn't stay here (+ the profits of BP, etc.). That is enough to fund 3.18 million new, high paying jobs in the U.S. Money that would go to my farmer neighbor instead of some Saudi prince. My farmer neighbor will spend his money in local stores, restaurants, pay taxes... on and on, all here. When you consider that multiplier, it is really more than 3.18 million jobs.

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*I guess it's like my dad saying that the money spent on the space shuttle is being thrown away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Some small part of that Saudi money comes back, I'm sure. But I suppose they are also spending it in plenty of non-U.S. ways too (their TVs come from China also, I suppose). And...let's not forget the Saudi's generous funding of Islamic fundamentalist schools throughout the Islamic world... and the impact that has on our world.


----------



## Darell (Aug 20, 2005)

Many folks ask me (well, most TELL me) that EVs just won't work for them since they live where it is cold. Here's some proof the other way:

[ QUOTE ]
Almost every day from November 1981 through March 1982, I drove an electric car to work. Living in upstate New York, my daily route included heavy snowfalls and winter temperatures that reached 40 below zero. The car performed great under such stark conditions and my final report to the Department of Energy stated that it "never failed to start on the first try."

[/ QUOTE ]

A friend of mine, Don Francis is quoted in this op-ed piece.

From here.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Aug 21, 2005)

Darell,
Yes, I have moved from Texas to TX (Turkey Xpress) This country is quite different from N. TX and I find it quite interesting. Everything I need is within 2 miles (3KM) so a car is not really needed. Picked up a child trailer to mount to my wife's recumbent and the 98F (37C) temps started getting to her. 
Purchased a Charger electrically assisted mountain bike. It uses a 7-speed internally geared hub with a 400 watt brushless motor supplying 50--400% assist. Max legal speed with assist is 20MPH (35 KPH) Great bike but the masterlink broke and it is down for parts. I spotted the Schwinn S600 electric scooter for $300 and picked it up. My wife really, really likes the scooter and she is always riding around somewere.
Soon the parts to get the electrically assisted bike rolling will be here. My wife prefers the scooter so the Charger is now "mine". I can do a simple mod to fool the controller on speed and it will assist to 28MPH (46 KPH) 
I like electrics for the torque, the mods to my wife's scooter will give a little more top speed but much, much more torque. The increased acceleration is needed for the "cut and thrust" riding style dictated here in Turkey. I can regear it when I get back to the states so it will cruise at 25MPH (40KPH) 
The good thing about my two-year "car free" experiment is it changes my family's way of thinking. It is becoming normal to ride their recumbent bikes and scooters around. Once we get back "across the pond" they will naturally not use the car unless some serious travel is needed. The higher quality brushless motor will ensure it remains reliable these next two years. 
I have been riding my recumbent bike to work for the last 4.5 years, this will continue for the next two. My total mileage driven from April 2004 to May 2005 on my car was 87 miles. The recumbent rolled over 2,600 miles under it's kevlar belted tires (no flats) My fully suspended recumbent is a very comfortable steed to ride across the city or state (rode across Oklahoma last summer) 
My wife just took the scooter to the weekly market, melons are in season. The stock motor is OK to pull food, for people it will perform much better with the 1HP (1.35 HP peak) motor. 
I am seriously looking at the EVT S-20 3HP electric scooter/motorcycle for commuting when I get back to the states. The website states it will do 45MPH (75 KPH) with a 30 to 50 mile (50 to 80 KM) range. There is something addicting about the torque, silence, clean running nature and simplicity of electrics. 
I think my wife will be interested in that I estimate gas prices to be around $3.50 a gallon in June 2007. At least there will be less SUVs around taking up the roadways. 
BTW, jtr... I have no problems beating my wife anywere on my recumbent. The 15% grade is only 100 meters long.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 21, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*BentHeadTX said:*
BTW, jtr... I have no problems beating my wife anywere on my recumbent. The 15% grade is only 100 meters long. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I imagine having put 2600 miles on your recumbent in the last few years you could probably give me a good run for my money as well. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif If fact, in a race between a recumbent and a regular bike, the recumbent usually wins, all other things being equal. I love being carfree as well although it's not that unusual in NYC.

I love all this electric vehicle stuff myself. For me it's a natural extension since I love trains, and most of the trains I like best are straight electrics (diesels are just big, slow noise-makers to me). Using the same technology in scooters and cars seems like something that should have been done long ago. I'm hoping one day the entire country becomes as addicted to electric vehicles as people like yourself, Darell, and me are.

BTW, I'd love to upgrade my old Raleigh to a faired recumbent along the lines of those speed record breaking human-powered vehicles but alas I've yet to see one commercially produced, much less at the sub-$1000 price where I would consider it. I've little doubt that I could readily cruise for hours at 45 mph and up in such a vehicle, making it eminently practical for just about all my travel needs. Such a vehicle would literally revolutionize the medium distance (up to 30 miles) commuter market which such a vehicle would open up to human-powered travel. I'm amazed no enterprising person has made one yet since this seems like a huge market niche just waiting to be filled. Put an electric motor and batteries on one and you'll have a potentially very fast (1 HP should be good for 60+ mph), very efficient one-person EV.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Aug 21, 2005)

jtr,
I think there is a company that puts 600 watt hub motors on a Easy Racers EZ-1 recumbent. Fairings are available for the EZ-1 and a company called Radical makes aero rear fabric luggage cone type things to attach to the seat. All you need is to make fabric "doors" and attach them to the frame. 
I think the electrified recumbent costs around $1,500 or so, the fairing $250 and the rear luggage aero bag runs around $190. 
My preference would to build my own. Take a $600 Actionbent short-wheel base bent, throw on a $100 RST 40mm suspension fork and $250 fairing on it. Add the $190 Radical rear fairing type bag and make my own nylon/tent pole type sides. You are at $1,200 at this point so choose your motor/controller/battery pack carefully! 
If you want a pre-built fully enclosed recumbent (except your head and feet) Lightning makes one called the F-84. Costs a bit though.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sick2.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/aaa.gif


----------



## cy (Aug 21, 2005)

hey benthead, what time is it in Turkey? it's 4:13 in tulsa. can't believe I'm up...

2 years ago I rode my Richey mountain bike w/skinnies from Boulder colo to Tulsa. made the trip with my brother, We went self-contained on central trans-america route. 

my brother was riding a Rans V-rex, a short wheelbase recumbent. I estimated that he was working 10 to 20% less effort than me depending upon wind conditions and terrain. 

We made the 850 mile trip in 10 days. depending upon wind conditions, some days we only went 50 miles. coming in we did 4 days of 120+ miles.

been keeping an eye out for a Lightning P-38...


----------



## BentHeadTX (Aug 21, 2005)

cy,
Turkey time is CST +8 hours so it would of been 12:13 PM on my side of the pond. Just pulled 155 pounds (70 KG) plus a 14 pound bowling ball (6.3 KG) to overload the scooter by around 75 pounds (34 KG) The scooter did OK pulling all that water and groceries... the motor was rather hot but it did not overheat. This will be easier with a more powerful motor but it can be done.

So cy, you plan on crossing over to the dark side (recumbent side)? The Lightning P-38 is very fast but I would not do a loaded tour on it. Recumbents are 95% as effecient as road bikes, the reason they can easily keep and and roll serious mileage is the rider is very comfortable. Not sure what the effeciency is when your groin is numb but I bet is is much less than 95% /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif 

I would like to modify my fully suspended recumbent to electrics when it is time to buy another bent (mine is a late 1998 model) I like the Tidal Force 1000 watt hub motor with front hub battery pack and rear rack mount additional battery. 
I would mount the additional battery under the frame and be ready to go. Maybe a front fairing/Radical bag on the back and I could cruise at 35 MPH for around 15 miles (25 KM) The problem is cost. The Tidal Force 1000W hub motor, controller, spare battery pack, front hub battery, labor to have the wheels made, fairing and rear bag is $3750. 
That EVT S-20 looks like a better deal at $2K.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 21, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
JTR said...
I wonder why they rate the motor for a certain weight considering that once up to running speed most of the drag is aerodynamic, with well under 10% coming from tire drag? If it isn't hilly where you are then you can probably pull 500 pounds or more, assuming that you have a trailer which can deal with the weight. It would just take a bit longer to get up to speed. Of course, if it is hilly, then the motor upgrade was a good move.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed that many of the two wheel 'Razor' style motorized skateboards/scooters are rated by maximum weight too. I always assumed it was primarily because that was the max the frame, bearings and tires could manage. 

Maximum tow ratings on cars are based on the physical attributes of the car, not just the engine. Pulling a large weight behind a lightweight vehicle is asking for trouble in the handling and control department.

I could, of course, be all wet.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Aug 21, 2005)

Darell my good old buddy old pal. Still going bring your evs over here and petal charge them if i win the lottery? 

I was looking at the evparts website and was rather disappointed. THe kits with batteries were around ten grand and they were limited to 70 or so mph and range was about the same as the top speed. YOu had three kits to choose from, vw rabbit, chevy s 10 and geo metro/sprint/swift. 

I thought you could get a few hundred miles from your evs? Are they using something other than lead acid?


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 21, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*BentHeadTX said:*
jtr,
I think there is a company that puts 600 watt hub motors on a Easy Racers EZ-1 recumbent. Fairings are available for the EZ-1 and a company called Radical makes aero rear fabric luggage cone type things to attach to the seat. All you need is to make fabric "doors" and attach them to the frame. 
I think the electrified recumbent costs around $1,500 or so, the fairing $250 and the rear luggage aero bag runs around $190. 
My preference would to build my own. Take a $600 Actionbent short-wheel base bent, throw on a $100 RST 40mm suspension fork and $250 fairing on it. Add the $190 Radical rear fairing type bag and make my own nylon/tent pole type sides. You are at $1,200 at this point so choose your motor/controller/battery pack carefully! 
If you want a pre-built fully enclosed recumbent (except your head and feet) Lightning makes one called the F-84. Costs a bit though.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sick2.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/aaa.gif 

[/ QUOTE ]
I did a little googling for those bikes you mentioned. Interesting to say the least, although well out of my current budget. I'm really after something like the Varna Diablo although I think I would use a Rohloff 14-speed hub to get a wide gear range without the awful complexity of the drive train they use. For those who don't keep up with human-powered speed records this bike did an official 80.55 mph. For a strong rider like myself continuous cruising at 50 to 60 mph would probably be well within the realm of possibility. Some experts in the HPV field believe once we find out how to reliably get laminer air flow (as opposed to turbulent flow) speeds will be well into the triple-digit territory.

Although it'll probably never happen I look forward to the day our Interstates have a parallel HPV bikeway, and HPVs exist which let a decent rider cruise at 100+ mph for hours on end. That would be a transporation revolution almost as big as the invention of the automobile or the railroad.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 21, 2005)

Oh, I also want to add that if you put the 600 watt motor you mentioned in the Varna Diablo it would make for a really wild ride. IIRC, the rider outputted about 300 watts for most of the record run. If you looked at the time versus speed plot the curve was asymptotic to ~75 mph, meaning that the vehicle only needed about 300 watts (0.4 HP) to maintain 75 mph. The rider broke the record by outputting 500 watts for as long as they could, and the bike was _still_ accelerating at the end of the speed trap (just the rider couldn't maintain the 500 watt power level for much longer). Now put that 600 watt motor in the Diablo, and you're looking at 100+ mph speeds easily, as well as fantastic range at lesser speeds because of the aerodynamic efficiency. I'll grant that such vehicles are not for everyone, but for someone like me who never carries passengers or much in the way of cargo, they're ideal. Cheaper than an auto, no licensing or insurance requirements (without the motor anyway), relatively cheap repairs, and much greater safety than a regular bike (or a car for that matter if ridden on exclusive bikeways).


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 21, 2005)

That (varna diablo) is a seriously cool toy. We'll ignore the fact that it looks to be hugely uncomfortable, appears to have little or no turning capability and needs a ground crew to get you in and out. As a single purpose demonstrator of a how to get the maximum speed out of a human it's quite impressive.

You'll never see HPV's doing 50 MPH alongside the freeway. As soon as you correct the Varna's ergonomic problems it's efficiency drops immensely. As soon as you make it crash worthy, the weight goes up and so do the power requirements. As long as it's that light and that long with such thin tires, sidewinds become a problem.

If you really want to, you can imitate the general design around an existing recumbant using lightweight carbon fiber poles (think tent poles) and the lightwieght plastic skin material used in model airplanes. It will be fragile, but you need outriggers or something to help you balance within a shell like that anyway. That way at least you could test your ideas to see if they translate to real life.

Just a thought.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Aug 21, 2005)

I was talking to my dad today about startinga company that made kick powerful evs, if i won the lottery. We saw someone on a crotch rocket do wheelies as we went to the hospital to visit my mom. YOu know it would take little to nothing to make a hot electric bike. We can use lithium ion batteries in the frame and some heavty duty motors. Although most electric motors can pull 400% more power than they are rated at, they can burn up at that at over 2 minutes or so. YOu could destroy a motor in a car on the highway, but a bike it would be rather hard unless the motor was too small for it or the bike was riden with the brakes on towing a semi truck.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 21, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
That (varna diablo) is a seriously cool toy. We'll ignore the fact that it looks to be hugely uncomfortable, appears to have little or no turning capability and needs a ground crew to get you in and out. As a single purpose demonstrator of a how to get the maximum speed out of a human it's quite impressive.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. it's a prototype. If I were to mass produce it I would get rid of the cumbersome drive train and either use a 14-speed internal hub plus a single front chainring, or go with a generator-motor set (if one could be made with >95% overall efficiency). Next I would have the top on some sort of hinge system so you don't need a ground crew to get you in or out. About the turning capability, I've heard it's not as bad as it looks. It can probably manage any turn a car can. If not, that's easily solvable. And I would definitely have a cover over the tires inside the vehicle. Right now it looks like if the rider moves his elbow the wrong way it will be in direct contact with tires potentially going over a mile a minute. That's not a good situation.

Compared to a regular bike, even in it's present form it looks very comfortable. I usually ride upright (which reduces my cruising speeds from 26-28 mph down to 21-23 mph) because the aerodynamic tuck position on a regular bike is horribly uncomfortable long term. From that perspective, the Varna looks like a Rolls Royce. The only real problem I see is ventilation on warm days. I'd probably incorporate vents for that reason. Sure, it would reduce speed, but it's better than baking to death.

[ QUOTE ]

You'll never see HPV's doing 50 MPH alongside the freeway. As soon as you correct the Varna's ergonomic problems it's efficiency drops immensely. As soon as you make it crash worthy, the weight goes up and so do the power requirements. As long as it's that light and that long with such thin tires, sidewinds become a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure efficiency would suffer as much as you say. To me once you get rid of the cumbersome drive train there's a lot more room in there already for crash protection foam and a roll cage. No need to increase frontal area or otherwise do anything which impacts efficiency by much. A few pounds additional weight means maybe a hundredth of a pound more rolling resistance. This translates into 0.002 HP at 80 mph, entirely negligible unless you're concerned about absolute speed records which I'm not. All told I'd be willing to bet that all the changes needed to make this vehicle into something road worthy would drop the top speed by less than 5 mph. It'll still be a good 2.5 times as fast as my Raleigh for any given power input. Until and unless we perfect laminar flow that's plenty adequate since it means 50 or so mph sustained cruising with short bursts to over 75 mph. I can certainly live with that, especially on the mostly shorter trips I would likely use such a vehicle for.

I just don't know about the crosswinds. They didn't mention it being a big problem, probably because the vehicle has a very low center of gravity. Also the gyroscopic effect of the wheels at speed makes it difficult to knock it off course. Again, I'm sure it's solveable if the problem even exists.

Don't overexaggerate the safety requirements, either. Look at it this way-a regular bicycle has absolutely zero crash protection and can reach near Varna Diablo speeds under the right conditions (I personally hit 65 mph on my Raleigh once, and at least 58 mph another time I accidentally got onto an expressway and was fortunate enough to catch the draft from a large van until the next exit). To me a little crash foam and a roll cage is enough safety equipement to keep me and just about anyone else who might want one of these happy. I don't expect or care that a crash into wall at 80 mph will be surviveable. It's unrealistic for starters, and highly unlikely to occur. The best road to safety for these (and for conventional bicycles I might add) is to _simply separate them from cars_. Most of my close calls have been with cars (potholes are a distant second, pedestrians a very distant third). Statistically nearly all fatal cycling accidents occur in a bike-motor vehicle collision. Given that, an exclusive pathway is enough to guarantee virtually 100% safety with these at any speed even with no safety equipment. Also, since the pathway would not be subject to the wear and tear of cars/trucks/buses, it would be much smoother and less likely to develop cracks/potholes. The safety equipment I mentioned would be adequate to guarantee my survival in just about any real-world accident I might have on a bikeway. As I said once in another thread when discussing this topic, I'd love to see these adopted in large numbers, but I don't want to see draconian safety/licensing or other requirements which would hamper their potential. Anyway way you look at it, these are already much safer than a regular bike even without the added safety features.

[ QUOTE ]

If you really want to, you can imitate the general design around an existing recumbant using lightweight carbon fiber poles (think tent poles) and the lightwieght plastic skin material used in model airplanes. It will be fragile, but you need outriggers or something to help you balance within a shell like that anyway. That way at least you could test your ideas to see if they translate to real life.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd probably want something a little more durable than model airplane skin (which would flap in the breeze, absorbing energy). Maybe something along the lines of a carbon-fiber honeycomb composite offering greater rigidity would do well here. I really don't care if the vehicle ends up 5 pounds heavier as a result. It'll just take a bit longer to get up to speed and be a bit more of a slug on hills. Let's face it, whatever form a vehicle like this takes, it's not going to be an acceleration king. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Even with proper gearing, I'm guessing it would take a good minute to reach 60 mph from a dead stop. Who cares if it takes 65 seconds instead due to added weight? Oh, and three wheels instead of two solves a lot of the balance/crosswind issues without much impact on speed. The first HPV to break 60 mph actually was a tricycle design.

For now I'll put this project on the back burner for when I have more time/money to pursue it. In the meantime I'll hope someone mass-produces a Varna Diablo-like vehicle for a reasonable price. I'd say for <$1,000 I'd buy one, for less than $2,500 I'd seriously consider it.


----------



## Brock (Aug 21, 2005)

Ok, my route to work is all 35mph about 12 miles one way, although everyone goes 40-45mph. So what kind of bikes are we talking about. Benthead I am interested in the electric ones your talking about, any links? My two big problems are rain and winter. I somehow doubt these are made to go through a foot of snow and it might be a cold ride at -10F /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif But for 6 months or so might be doable.

Links I need links /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 21, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
JTR said....
I just don't know about the crosswinds. They didn't mention it being a big problem, probably because the vehicle has a very low center of gravity. Also the gyroscopic effect of the wheels at speed makes it difficult to knock it off course. Again, I'm sure it's solveable if the problem even exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably did not mention it simply because it's a single purpose vehicle that would not be used when there were cross winds.

As a long time mortorcyclist, I can assure you that a heavy usty side wind can make high speed two wheel driving quite challenging. The gryo effect will help keep you upright but the wind will move you around. It will push you sideways in a matter of moments. I once changed 2 lanes in less than a hundredd feet when caught by a gust of wind. 

Hitting anything at 60 MPH is just plain painful. Much, much worse than a 30 MPH crash. The race cars have been quoted as an example of survivability in a high speed crash, but those guys are strapped in 5 ways from sunday and have almost no freedom of movement.

The varna does not look comfortable at all. It's so narrow that the rider has to scrunch his shoulders to fit. You can make it wider, but increase the width by 6 to 12 inches for a standard person's shoulders and add a few more inches for that crash foam and some more for that roll bar and you've just about doubled the frontal area.

But don't give up on the model plane skin yet. I've seen it stretched taut and shrink-fitted intro place. Not a bit of sag or flap in that skin. So go ahead and prove your concept. I doubt that you'll be able to establish a sustained laminar flow with a bicycle. They have enough problems with that on fighter jets. But it's worth a try anyway.

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 21, 2005)

General Information on Recumbent Bicycles

Comments on the Lightning R-84

Lightning P-38

Lightning R-84

I imagine a recumbent with a fully enclosed fairing would do well protecting you from rain. As for traction in rain or snow, skinny bike tires cut right in and give you great traction so no worries there. I ride in the winter all the time, even in slushy conditions. The only time I have traction problems is on glare ice (kind of fun spinning the rear wheel, though /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

BTW, how fast do you ride a regular bike? A recumbent should give you anywhere from 10% to 75% more speed, depending upon how much of a fairing it has. If you get a fully faired recumbent and are a decent rider, you might be able to keep up with the 40 to 45 mph traffic.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 21, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
The varna does not look comfortable at all. It's so narrow that the rider has to scrunch his shoulders to fit. You can make it wider, but increase the width by 6 to 12 inches for a standard person's shoulders and add a few more inches for that crash foam and some more for that roll bar and you've just about doubled the frontal area.

But don't give up on the model plane skin yet. I've seen it stretched taut and shrink-fitted intro place. Not a bit of sag or flap in that skin. So go ahead and prove your concept. I doubt that you'll be able to establish a sustained laminar flow with a bicycle. They have enough problems with that on fighter jets. But it's worth a try anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think laminar flow is the key here to both problems. Once you get sustained laminar flow then your drag increases with velocity instead of velocity squared. That means you can increase the frontal area without so great a speed penalty, solving the comfort issue at the same time you increase your speed.

I don't have enough theoretical or practical ability to even think about researching into laminar flow. I merely mentioned it as the direction we need to go if we are to build more efficient vehicles. Think of the possible energy savings if we can make a four-passenger car which only needs 2 HP to cruise at highway speeds instead of 20 or 30. Suddenly ultra-long range BEVs and/or 300 mpg ICEs are possible. High-speed bikes will be merely a side result of such research.


----------



## Brock (Aug 22, 2005)

I have ridden my bike to work a couple of times again this summer, I would say I average about 15mph time wise, but that is on a stock bike and not pushing it since I had to go to meetings and such when I got there. I would prefer something with electric motor, but that I could still pedal. I thought I remember seeing a boost electric motor you could add to a regular bike? But it was about $600 at the time. I don’t ride as much as I used to (before kids) but used to make the run averaging 30mph easy.

I am thinking something more like the Z-20 or something similar. I like the 45mph top speed, maybe something more like an electric motorcycle? I am sure I could charge this from my solar panels /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif


----------



## 3rd_shift (Aug 22, 2005)

Just a refresher, here's a map of where to get biodiesel.
Biodiesel map


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:*
I have ridden my bike to work a couple of times again this summer, I would say I average about 15mph time wise, but that is on a stock bike and not pushing it since I had to go to meetings and such when I got there.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's actually quite respectable, especially for not pushing yourself. Most of my rides, which are exclusively in NYC, end up averaging around 14 mph to 19 mph due to stops and slowdowns for traffic even though my normal cruising speeds are usually in the 21 to 23 mph area. It's a very rare day that I can average better than 20 mph. In fact, I've only done it a few times when I had excellent traffic conditions. One was a 7.3 mile ride right to city limits that I did in 21 minutes. I actually hit over 50 at one point in the ride. Of course, if I lived in a place with little or no traffic I would probably be averaging over 20 mph every single ride. I did do 10 miles in 25 minutes once when I was in college in NJ riding along the shoulder of Route 1.

[ QUOTE ]

I would prefer something with electric motor, but that I could still pedal. I thought I remember seeing a boost electric motor you could add to a regular bike?


[/ QUOTE ]
I've thought about that as well but most of the ones I've seen are too expensive and too slow. They also add so much weight and frontal area that they basically make the bike not worth pedaling any more because it becomes a struggle. I think you're better off buying a purpose-built electric scooter. As I've said, if they weren't illegal in NYC I might seriously have considered the Vectra for those times I need to go farther or faster than I can by bike.

[ QUOTE ]

I am thinking something more like the Z-20 or something similar. I like the 45mph top speed, maybe something more like an electric motorcycle? I am sure I could charge this from my solar panels /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif 

[/ QUOTE ]
Very nice! Decent speed, and battery replacement should be easy. For solar charging all you need is a step up or step down regulator to give a constant 55V from your panels since it's just 4 batteries in series.


----------



## dukeleto (Aug 22, 2005)

Re. laminar flow around a recumbent, if you want to ride around 50km/h, that's almost 15 meters per second.
If you build the Reynolds number (a rough measure of the degree of turbulence) based on a 2m-long bike, you get
Reynolds = 15 * 2 / 1.5e-5 (air viscosity) = 2 million.
At such a Reynolds number it is quite possible to get a large part of the flow around a streamlined object to a laminar state, but the end region will transition to turbulent. For comparison, so-called "laminar flow airfoils" used for small planes and gliders, are entirely laminar up to around Reynolds = 1 million.
To sum up, your drag to speed relationship will be more than linear and less than squared. 
Olivier


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*dukeleto said:*
To sum up, your drag to speed relationship will be more than linear and less than squared. 


[/ QUOTE ]
Still sounds good to me. As far as I know, the Varna Diablo did not have any laminar flow to speak of yet still reached over 80 mph. This bodes quite well for a bike where the flow is even partially laminar. My own personal feeling is that we'll eventually get to maybe 125 mph under human power alone once such a vehicle is built. Any comments on that based on your knowledge of fluid dynamics?


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 22, 2005)

Some interesting info on different types of fairings

More info on fairings

A great site on the science of getting maximum speed under human power

Note in the first link that one of the fairing designs is about "75% laminar but still has low drag values in a cross wind and with dust or bugs disrupting the laminar flow on the leading edge". I guess that solves the crosswind problem mentioned by gadget_lover. BTW, once when I tried putting a disc wheel cover on my front wheel the bike became horribly dangerous in crosswinds, with the handlebars literally yanked out from me at times. A pity too because the front and rear wheel covers combined gave me a good 5 mph speed boost as opposed to about 1.5 to 2 mph for the rear only. Since staying alive was more important to me than a few more mph, the front wheel cover came off. It seems there's a lot of science getting a vehicle to be stable in crosswinds.


----------



## Brock (Aug 22, 2005)

Jtr1962 the advantage I have is there is only one stop sign and no cross roads as the road follows the bay back towards town. So once I am rolling I rarely even slow down. They also added about 6 feet to either side of the road last summer just for biking and running. It’s nice to stay over there and for the most part not worrying about cars passing.


----------



## dukeleto (Aug 22, 2005)

Mitsubishi wants to produce an electric car to be sold by 2008 for around 18,000 $...
Olivier


----------



## Darell (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*cobb said:*
Darell my good old buddy old pal. Still going bring your evs over here and petal charge them if i win the lottery? 

[/ QUOTE ] I can be bought, yes siree.

[ QUOTE ]
I was looking at the evparts website and was rather disappointed. THe kits with batteries were around ten grand and they were limited to 70 or so mph and range was about the same as the top speed. YOu had three kits to choose from, vw rabbit, chevy s 10 and geo metro/sprint/swift. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh... yeah. That's why we need *production* EVs. 70mph and 70 mile range is pretty damn good for a lead conversion, actually. They usually end up in the 50 mile range category. These cars simply are not meant to be efficient. If you have gasoline pushing them, who really cares? Gas is so dang cheap per unit of energy, you can literally toss 85% of it out the window and still come up smelling like... well... benzine.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you could get a few hundred miles from your evs? Are they using something other than lead acid? 

[/ QUOTE ]
The best that production EVs have done (and PLEASE remember that we are not talking about modern vehicles here - but vehicles designed in the late 80's, and using late 80's battery tehcnology!) is about 175 miles. The Li-Ion Tzero is capable of 300 miles at freeway speeds, PLUS 0-60 in 3.6 seconds. Not a production car, however.

As an aside - I just returned from one of my best trips yesterday. I travelled 65 miles on 48% of my SOC (12,426 Wh). That translates into 136 mile range, 191 Wh per mile, or a whopping 5.25 miles per kWh. Relative to energy in gasoline, that is equivalent to 140-150mpg. And this is in an SUV-shaped vehicle! Driven the same way, the EV1 would achieve over 200mpg.

This trip involved lots of stop-and-go, a 1500' elevation change (stopping at about 500' higher than I started, actually). And the AC was on for the entire trip. While I was driving conservatively, there were still several things I could have done more efficiently if I rally wanted to push it. This is what I do for fun. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif


----------



## Darell (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
You'll never see HPV's doing 50 MPH alongside the freeway. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Oooh! Try to avoid using the "n" word. We just never know what new technology and new efficiency requirements will bring. If we can go to the moon in the 60's....


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 22, 2005)

There are cases where the n word fits. I'll never be healthy and 135 pounds again. I'll never be comforatble in a faired bicycle that's 18 inches wide doing 50 mph while my vantage point is only 20 inches off the ground. 

Never going to happen. I find that in matters of comfort, I'm fairly normal. 

In the post, the criteria was HPV and the unspoken assumtion was that we'd have wide spread use of HPV lanes alongside freeways. It's possible to have a poitive pressure in the HPV lane to give you a tailwind, but that's not really Human Powered anymore. That's power assisted.

It's possible that in the future the average person will have the stamina of Lance Armstrong and the strength of an ox, but the biological imperitives for that kind of evolution aren't there. In our society, pure strength is not a great survival advantage. I can rent big strong guys when I need that kind of strength.

So yeah, we may find a super food supplement or gene therapy that makes us all super human. Then we'd need a use for all that energy, and high speed commuting is as good a use as any.

I wonder if anyone's looked at artificial tailwind generators for the freeways? Around here we already have sound walls (20 foot tall monstrosities at $1,200,000 per mile) that surround the road. Hmmmmm.

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
There are cases where the n word fits. I'll never be healthy and 135 pounds again. I'll never be comforatble in a faired bicycle that's 18 inches wide doing 50 mph while my vantage point is only 20 inches off the ground. 


[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough since you're only talking about yourself here. As for me, I never was 135 as an adult although I'd like to get to 160 again, and I would be quite happy in an 18-inch wide faired HPV (doesn't have to be a two-wheeler if three is more stable). Like that person in one of my links who said that he was cruising at nearly 40 mph in his faired HPV but wanted to go faster, same thing with me. As much as I like cycling, the speed and range are too limiting. If I could multiply both by a factor of 2 or 2.5, as is possible today, suddenly new possibilities are opened. If I could one day multiply them by a factor of 5 or 6, well then I suddenly no longer need mechanized transport of any kind since my HPV would offer faster average speeds than anything except a plane. Since I'm never in enough of a hurry to fly, the HPV would then serve 100% of my transportation needs.

[ QUOTE ]

In the post, the criteria was HPV and the unspoken assumtion was that we'd have wide spread use of HPV lanes alongside freeways.


[/ QUOTE ]
Given that fossil fuels will get scarcer and bikes (trikes) will get faster don't discount the possibility entirely. Auto traffic may get scarce enough one day that we just end up reserving one lane of our Interstates for HPVs, physically separated from the other lanes. If enough people want it to happen, it will happen. I have a feeling the coming generations will be gradually weaned off the automobile and into more sensible alternatives. It won't happen overnight, but the potential for another transportation revolution is there. Also, there would be nothing more satisfying from a personal standpoint than to be able to pedal hundreds of miles at bullet-train speeds. This is complete independence from powered transport of any kind. It's very empowering to say the least.

[ QUOTE ]

It's possible to have a poitive pressure in the HPV lane to give you a tailwind, but that's not really Human Powered anymore. That's power assisted.


[/ QUOTE ]
How about putting solar cells on these with a battery and motor assist? This makes them even more versatile even if not completely human powered. Free "fuel", ability to pedal when the battery runs down, and potential for high speeds under solar power even with today's designs. Take the Varna Diablo again. You could put maybe half a square meter of solar cells on it. In full sunlight at 20% efficiency you would get about 75 watts. That's enough to move you at maybe 40 mph on solar power alone. You'll probably eventually have 50% efficient solar panels one day which would give you ~200 watts in full sunlight, so now you're at 60 or so mph on solar power alone. Even in the first case with today's solar panels you'll get enough energy in one day to charge at least an 0.5 kW-hr battery pack. That would be enough to go 150 miles at 60 mph just on stored energy, and you can always pedal if the battery runs out. A wider vehicle will have proportionately more room for solar panels on top, and probably offer similar performance so comfort will be a non-issue unless you're very obese. Of course, a battery pack of 2 or 3 kW-hr with home or solar charging capability will give all the range that will ever be needed. The battery/motor even solves the merging issue (remember the very long acceleration times I mentioned earlier?). On human power alone, the bikeways would need one continuous lane solely for accelerating to speed, another for cruising, and a third for passing. The motor assist gets rid of that third acceleration lane and replaces it with a regular freeway-style fairly short acceleration lane. A purist can even charge the motor assist battery with their own power while riding to the freeway if they want to stay solely on human power.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 22, 2005)

A solar powered varna is a neat pipe dream. Look at the design and what was done to keep the forntal area down. It's very narrow. 

[ I just deleted 5 cool paragraphs about why it's a pipe dream. It wasn'[t ecessary ]

I think what I'm seeing here is a tendancy to use some of the figures from the varna without taking into account the changes that happen as you morph the design into something else. You won't have the same drag if you increase the width by even 10 percent. You won't have the same roling resistance if you add ponds and pounds of batteries. If you add a third wheel for stability then every aspect of the bike changes. You don't have efficient solar cells unless they are oriented properly. 

In short, You can't extrapolate from the figures you have unless you take into account the impact of the changes.


Daniel

If you think an 18 inch wide bike would be fun.... Ok. Try putting an 18 inch box over your head and shoulders and drive your car. Cut a generous slit to see through. You *will* take it off before you get home.


----------



## Darell (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
There are cases where the n word fits. I'll never be healthy and 135 pounds again. I'll never be comforatble in a faired bicycle that's 18 inches wide doing 50 mph while my vantage point is only 20 inches off the ground. 

[/ QUOTE ]
My comment was directed at the technology that would allow a "normal" person to pilot a high-speed human-powered vehicle down the road at a fast pace. Wasn't commenting on your physique! I believe that using the word "never" for future technology is about as productive as shooting oneself in the foot.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
My comment was directed at the technology that would allow a "normal" person to pilot a high-speed human-powered vehicle down the road at a fast pace.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm thinking of as well. The Varna Diablo is merely an example of what is possible right now. It's a mere stepping stone to something much better. What I really would like to see is an HPV that a rider in average shape can fit into comfortably, but with a shape efficient enough that they can go as fast or faster than the Varna Diablo, and on a continual basis as well rather than for a mere few miles. Pipe dream? Maybe, but then again there's a lot we still need to learn in this area. Nature has made use of laminar flow for eons to allow creatures to reach speeds well beyond their apparent capabilities. Birds and fish come to mind. Some fish species can reach 40, 50, even possibly 60 mph in water, a fluid with much higher drag than air. In that context, a bike that allows a person of reasonable fitness to go from New York to Montreal in, say, 4 hours certainly seems like something that may one day be possible, maybe even practical.


----------



## BB (Aug 22, 2005)

I am not sure about fluid having a higher drag than air--It has been too long since my fluid dynamics classes (some 25 years ago)...

However, I read about an interesting test a few years ago... Somebody measure the speed (drag)of a swimer in a pool, first filled with water, then some guar gum (to increase viscosity). The results were the swimer could go just as fast in either fast in either liquid. Ah... Here it is:

Swiming in Surup as Easy as Water: 

[ QUOTE ]
You can swim just as fast in a pool of gloop.

It's a question that has taxed generations of the finest minds in physics: do humans swim slower in syrup than in water? And since you ask, the answer's no. Scientists have filled a swimming pool with a syrupy mixture and proved it.

"What appealed was the bizarreness of the idea," says Edward Cussler of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who led the experiment. It's a question that also fascinated his student Brian Gettelfinger, a competitive swimmer who narrowly missed out on a place at this summer's Olympic Games in Athens.

Cussler and Gettelfinger took more than 300 kilograms of guar gum, an edible thickening agent found in salad dressings, ice cream and shampoo, and dumped it into a 25-metre swimming pool, creating a gloopy liquid twice as thick as water. "It looked like snot," says Cussler.

The pair then asked 16 volunteers, a mix of both competitive and recreational swimmers, to swim in a regular pool and in the guar syrup. Whatever strokes they used, the swimmers' times differed by no more than 4%, with neither water nor syrup producing consistently faster times, the researchers report in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal.
...
The reason, explains Cussler, is that while you experience more "viscous drag" (basically friction from your movement through the fluid) as the water gets thicker, you generate more forwards force from every stroke. The two effects cancel each other out.

That's not always the case. Below a certain threshold of speed and size, viscous drag becomes the dominant force, making gloopy fluids are more difficult to swim through. Had Cussler done his experiment on swimming bacteria instead of humans, he would have recorded much slower times in syrup than in water. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

Russia, from what I have read, may/does have torpedos that can go hundreds of miles per hour under water (uses an air buble curtain around the device to limit drag???).

As Darell says, never say never.

However, we probabaly will never have the biker equivalent of this:

[ QUOTE ]
So the perfect swimmer, whether in water or syrup, has powerful muscles but a narrow frontal profile. "The best swimmer should have the body of a snake and the arms of a gorilla," recommends Cussler. 

[/ QUOTE ] 

When doing comparisons among fluids and models... speed, size of object, ratios of lenth/width/length/etc. all play a part in the actual comparisons. It is much more complex than one may assume from casual observations.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 22, 2005)

JTR, that's a great dream, but are you aware that according to mapquest the trip in a car from NYC to Montreal takes :

Total Est. Time: 6 hours, 20 minutes Total Est. Distance: 376.41 miles

You really have to look at why it takes so long now before dreaming that it can be done better under HPV. 

The Varna Diablo is an example of what you can accomplish if you throw away every feature that is not absolutely required. It's a tour d'force that shows you can excel in one area if you sacrifice in every other area. The Varna Diablo may well be the pinicle of achievment in the area of human powered bicycle speed. Add any feature (vents, width, safety padding, steering, outriggers, etc) and you move away from that efficiency, not closer. The Varna Diablo is definitely not a practical bike as it stands.


Daniel

I just had a vision of spending 4 hours of continuous peddling in a small, cramped shell at 94 MPH. :shudder:


----------



## cobb (Aug 22, 2005)

Wow, thats way better than the conversions Darell, thanks. Naw, I have way better stuff for you to do than to petal power your cars. I rather you help with make a new electric car.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Aug 22, 2005)

And while we contemplate all this, thanks to my very conservative driving last friday my fill up today gave me 596.4 divided by 26.841 or just over 22mpg. In a roughly 8K pound vehicle (that went the first 100 miles or so at 10K) Gotta LOVE the 24v Cummins Common Rail High Pressure Injection Turbo Diesel!!!

And if Bio-Diesel were sold around here, I could have done it using no fosil fuel. Think about that.

And on that note, Good Night people. Austin trip in the AM and 3:30 will be here all too soon!


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
JTR, that's a great dream, but are you aware that according to mapquest the trip in a car from NYC to Montreal takes :

Total Est. Time: 6 hours, 20 minutes Total Est. Distance: 376.41 miles

You really have to look at why it takes so long now before dreaming that it can be done better under HPV. 


[/ QUOTE ]
Two reasons it takes so long now-traffic around NYC and to a lesser extent Albany and Montreal, and the 65 mph speed limit on most of I-95. Exclusive bikeways eliminates the first part for most of the trip (even as great an optimist as myself does not think that these will become popular enough to produce HPV traffic jams). The second part is moot as enforcing any arbitrary speed limit on a bikeway would be in my view both counterproductive, unsafe, pointless, and full of practical difficulties. The only way you can catch a speeding HPV quickly enough to pull it over is by allowing powered vehicles onto the HPV bikeways. This is counter to the very point of having the bikeways in the first place. The bikes and the average strength of the riders would dictate the speeds just as it does now on regular bike paths. I daresay based on my own views of serious cyclists that the majority of HPVers would be far more professional than the average auto driver. That means less need for rules catering to the lowest common denominator as is the case for auto drivers. I doubt HPVs will ever become popular enough to be dumbed down to the point that driving is now. Sorry if this sounds condescending of auto drivers but from where I stand most of them seem like a bunch of immature hotheads who use their 2-ton machines to vent their frustrations to the detriment of all around them (remember the automotive anarchy I mentioned in another thread?). I have _yet_ to see a driver who actually thinks more than a few car lengths ahead while I'm often doing things like pacing myself to hit that red light two blocks ahead just as it turns green, or moving slightly to the left because I see a driver a block ahead getting ready to exit his vehicle.
[ QUOTE ]

The Varna Diablo may well be the pinicle of achievment in the area of human powered bicycle speed.


[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I could be wrong but somehow I doubt 80 so so is all we'll ever reach on human power. I think in time we'll have similar minimal vehicles reaching 125 mph speeds or better, perhaps as high as 150 mph if we reach the holy grail of 100% laminar flow coupled with good resistance to crosswinds. Of course, these will be no more practical than the Varna Diablo is. The practical, slower, and roadworthy versions might _only_ go perhaps 100. The eventual impetus behind such research soon will not be a fringe cult of bikers seeking to break records but rather automakers seeking to make vehicles using a bare minimum of energy as our energy supplies dwindle ($1000 a barrel oil is right around the corner, perhaps in less than a decade). Once that research is in full swing, the HPV stuff will be simply a spinoff. For all the talk of hybrids, EVs, and whatnot, a lot of the energy usage for transport is because the shape of vehicles is appallingly inefficient, especially SUVs which are about a aerodynamic as a brick.

Even if I'm wrong, and 80 is all we can manage with a barebones vehicle, that should mean _practical_ vehicles capable of 50 to 60 mph cruising once you add the bells and whistles. That still opens up a whole new world for human-powered transportation since most daily work commutes of 40 miles or under would now be manageable.

[ QUOTE ]
I just had a vision of spending 4 hours of continuous peddling in a small, cramped shell at 94 MPH. :shudder: 

[/ QUOTE ]
Your nightmare equals someone elses dream. Unless you try it, you can never know the great freedom of moving along at a decent pace under your own power, even on a regular bike. As much as I'm with Darell on EVs, they're a small part of the answer here. Bikes, HPVs, electric scooters, even walking are part of the rest.


----------



## Darell (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*jtr1962 said:*
As much as I'm with Darell on EVs, they're a small part of the answer here. Bikes, HPVs, electric scooters, even walking are part of the rest. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Want the good news? As much as I TALK about EVs, I spend more time on a bicycle saddle than I do in an EV seat. 99% of my week-day transportation is done via foot or bicycle (while my wife commutes in the EV). The long-ish weekend family trips are usually taken in the EV.

So yes, I'm an EV proponent - but don't for a moment think that I assume they're THE ANSWER to any of this. Just one step along the way. The *easy* step for those who simply can't see themselves without an automobile.


----------



## Darell (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*jtr1962 said:*
As much as I'm with Darell on EVs, they're a small part of the answer here. Bikes, HPVs, electric scooters, even walking are part of the rest. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Want the good news? As much as I TALK about EVs, I spend more time on a bicycle saddle than I do in an EV seat. 99% of my week-day transportation is done via foot or bicycle (while my wife commutes in the EV). The long-ish weekend family trips are usually taken in the EV. I'm in such great shape these days that it is hard to tear me away from the mirror! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

So yes, I'm an EV proponent - but don't for a moment think that I assume they're THE ANSWER to any of this. Just one step along the way. The *easy* step for those who simply can't see themselves without an automobile.


----------



## Beamhead (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
I'm in such great shape these days that it is hard to tear me away from the mirror! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I am a newbie to this subject and thanks to Darell's excellent tutelage I am starting to seriously re-think my ways. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I can however vouch for Darell's above quote. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif In fact he spends so much time in front of that mirror his posts are now mirrored. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif


----------



## ikendu (Aug 22, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*PlayboyJoeShmoe said:*...LOVE the 24v Cummins Common Rail High Pressure Injection Turbo Diesel!!!

And if Bio-Diesel were sold around here, I could have done it using no fosil fuel. Think about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I hear, people love those Cummins diesels!

Yup. I bought biodiesel today at my outlet, bought 41 gallons (about 6 weeks worth of commuting for my VW Golf TDI). It is such a remarkable feeling after a whole lifetime of burning petroleum to drive an off-the-lot, stock, unmodified vehicle with no compromises and do it while using absolutely no petroleum at all! It is a real sense of freedom!

If we had our own biofuels produced right here in the good 'ole U.S. of A., we'd be free from the tyranny of needing to keep that imported oil flowing year after year.

I spoke to some peace activists the other day. They were blaming the Iraq war on the "big oil companies". I asked them... "Do you own cars?". They did. "Do you use gasoline in them?". They do.

I told them, it's not the "Big oil companies", it is us! Our politicians and our big companies only follow policies to keep the petroleum flowing because we are so dependent on it. If we each made our own fuel choices to use something other than petroleum, our politicians would stop warping every foreign policy we have around the flow of oil.

I heard Thomas Friedman (Foreign affairs editor for the NY Times) on a recording the other day. He summed up China's foreign policy in one sentence: "Fussing about Taiwan and trying to get all the oil they can". We and China are on an oil collision course unless we start getting serious about reducing our addicted dependence to imported oil.

So...yes! You could be driving around without using ANY petroleum. Just imagine that.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 23, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
I'm in such great shape these days that it is hard to tear me away from the mirror! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
I wish I could say the same. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif Despite the fact that I go for 10 mile or better rides a few times a week and walk a few miles most days I'm having a horrible time dropping the 20 to 25 pounds I'd need to be a more sensible weight. After all, I do want to be able to fit in those nice HPVs if/when they come out without needing three people to force the cover on. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


----------



## Darell (Aug 23, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*ikendu said:*
I spoke to some peace activists the other day. They were blaming the Iraq war on the "big oil companies". I asked them... "Do you own cars?". They did. "Do you use gasoline in them?". They do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ha! Yup, I do the same thing. "Say... how did you get here from home?" I spoke with an activist outside my local food co-op who wanted me to put money in the pot to help keep our water clean. I asked him where he traveled from and what form of transportation he used to get there. This started a big discussion about fixing the problem at the basic level - instead of trying to put a big, fat BandAid on it. I eventually stashed my groceries and kid in the bike trailer and rode the four miles home. Doing much more, I think, than writing a check for $25 to hand over to some committee (who's members likely all show up to work in their gas-burning cars) to save us from ourselves.

[ QUOTE ]
You could be driving around without using ANY petroleum. Just imagine that. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Imagining... imagining... imagining.... got it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

What makes me feel even better though, is imagining not even driving around at all!


----------



## 3rd_shift (Aug 23, 2005)

PlayboyJoeShmoe, let us know whenever you get a tankfull of biodiesel and let us know what kind of mileage you got from it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I have a 7.3 litre V8 powerstroke doing about 17-19mpg on petroleum diesel at this point.
I just found a B100 place in Addison Tx.
I'll let you folks know what mileage I got as soon as I fill up and finally use that up. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 23, 2005)

I heard a rumor that one of the local airports has a small fleet of Ranger EVs. Since I drive a Ranger, owning one of those would be of serious interest for the easy A-B comparison if nothing else, but for lack of a garage/secure covered parking... owning one just wouldn't work for me.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 23, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*3rd_shift said:*
...7.3 litre V8 powerstroke...B100 ...mileage I got as soon as I fill up and finally use that up..

[/ QUOTE ]

It will be less...just be prepared for that.

BioDiesel...............130,000 Btu/gal
Petroleum Diesel.....138,690 Btu/gal

The biodiesel contains something like 11% oxygen by weight, so... you get more complete combustion which helps to make up part of the difference. But... it will be less with B100.


----------



## Darell (Aug 23, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*idleprocess said:*
I heard a rumor that one of the local airports has a small fleet of Ranger EVs. Since I drive a Ranger, owning one of those would be of serious interest for the easy A-B comparison if nothing else, but for lack of a garage/secure covered parking... owning one just wouldn't work for me. 

[/ QUOTE ]
If you had a RangerEV, my educated guess is that your gas Ranger would be parked WAY more than it was driven. If you were seriously interestedin procuring on, I could likely make it happen. We fought Ford to allow past lease-holders to purchase the vehicles that were taken back after lease expiration. I know *many* of those past least holders, and most of them have at least one Rav4EV now (many have two, and one has three!) so they can't fit the Ranger that they will be offered. We buy it and resell it to whomever we want. Something to keep in mind.


----------



## Darell (Aug 23, 2005)

This is the first time I'd seen a picture of the Subaru EV in question.

We just keep hoping! Looks like it would be an awesome commute vehicle! Subaru isn't doing all that well though - and is owne 20% by GM, so who knows...


----------



## Brock (Aug 24, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*3rd_shift said:*
I have a 7.3 litre V8 powerstroke doing about 17-19mpg on petroleum diesel at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the smell of burnt fries. It is no joke. The first time I filled up with B100 (straight Bio Diesel) two summers ago I thought something was burning. It is odd though in the fall when I switch back to a more conventional diesel base blend the smell from the exhaust seems to smell more "toxic", while the fumes from the B100 are definitely more organic /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif I only have about 2 more months of B100 left.

Oh the other advantage is the engine is more quiet.

Hey Ikendu, when do you start to blend over and what is the lowest you get to in winter?

For the record my mileage doesn't change much 52.97 lifetime, but I am switching from winter blend diesel to soy bio diesel. I would think they are closer in total BTU content. Last summer I did getting in the upper 50's on summer diesel when I couldn't get and bio-D.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 24, 2005)

Tonight's newscast (www.NBC11.com) had a segment on the high gas prices. They showed 3.29 for premium in San Francisco.

Then they talked about a place selling biodiesel. $3.60 per gallon and limited availablility, but still, it was available at retail. They are trying to scale up to a 24 hour operation. There might be a copy of that report on the nbc11.com web site.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Aug 24, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*gadget_lover said:*
Tonight's newscast (www.NBC11.com) ...3.29 for premium.

...biodiesel. $3.60 per gallon and limited availablility

Daniel 

[/ QUOTE ]

With $66/barrel petroleum, there will definitely come a time when it is cheaper to buy U.S. biofuels. The problem will be then, the capacities have not been put into place to meet the demand. At that point, we will all be wishing that our government had started a big push for biofuels 10 years ago. We certainly could have, the technology existed. We were all just so focused on "what is the cheapest" that no one wanted to put any attention or money on building capacity for the future when we'd be needing it.

Many politicians derided the notion of a 50 cent/gallon fuel tax that would be funneled into research and support for more biofuels that are produced in the U.S. That was when fuel was like $1-1.50/gallon; the cost would have gone up to like $2/gal with that tax. Politians said "$2/gal gasoline will KILL our U.S. economy". ...or something similar.

I suppose now that gasoline is heading up toward $3/gal that paying $2 in the past in order to build local fuel capacity for now might not seem so bad. Ah well, we reap what we sow.

By The Way... we still haven't started a "big push for biofiuels" even at this point. The recent energy bill has some incentives for ethanol and biodiesel...but nothing near like what we should be doing to ensure no big fuel disruptions in the next 10 years.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 24, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:* ...smell of burnt fries. It is no joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot must depend on the feed stock. The B100 I get from West Central Soy (based on virgin soy oil) has no french fry smell at all. It is pretty "neutral" smelling. Sometimes I notice that it smells a little like model airplane fuel. Must be the methanol from the process.

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:* Hey Ikendu, when do you start to blend over and what is the lowest you get to in winter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I use a pretty conservative mix:

>40F ......B100
20-40F ...B50
0-20F .....B20
<0 ..........Straight, winterized, petroleum diesel (40% kerosene/60% #2 diesel)

Lots of people are having good success with using more B100 than this plus using BioDiesel anti-gels. I hope to get some rape seed based biodiesel for winter or maybe some of the fuel from the Butterball turkey plant in Missouri.


----------



## Brock (Aug 24, 2005)

I think the soy I get is from the same place you get yours. My blend is very similar to yours, but I guess about a month ahead on temps just in case. I am going to run and get another 150 gallons of soy next week. Right now he is selling it for 2.49, cheaper then dino diesel, can't beat that!


----------



## Darell (Aug 24, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*ikendu said:*
Ah well, we reap what we sow. 

[/ QUOTE ]
It would appear that we're being "reaped" quite often these days.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Aug 24, 2005)

I like the idea of BioDiesel, right now my electric scooter pulling a trailor meets my needs but June 2007 is coming. I'll have to look into diesel small cars for my wife and a EVT S-20 scooter for me. Very interesting conversation and the Peak Oil NG is very educational. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif


----------



## cobb (Aug 25, 2005)

Darell, whats you view on the latest info that driving a hybrid isnt cheaper or saving anything unless gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon? 

I will guess you are still saying fuel, but spending more money. Is that right, at least until gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon or you make your prius a plug in car? 

Guessing its cheaper to waste fuel from the articles I have read.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Aug 25, 2005)

I feel ripped off.

I got diesel yesterday and by 150 miles of no trailer with a relaxed trip to Houston I only show 371 left.

I must have had a big air bubble or something because I am on a path to a high 500 mile tank, but it makes me think low 500s are the best I can hope for right now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif


----------



## ledlurker (Aug 25, 2005)

The prices of hybrids will continue to drop. Right now the dealers can sell them at sticker but you can buy a large SUV for up to 11K off of sticker. It all depends what your priorities. A top of the line Prius is around the 26K (base 22k) range but you can by a Mitsubishi Lancer for around 16K. Yes 10K difference can buy a lot of gas but the only thing similar about the two cars is the size. You still get a better ride, handling, reliability, mileage, resale and life out of the Prius.

Ir you can go with the Toyota Echo for 11K which is a sub sub sub sub compact in my opinion.

So it comes down to how you want to spend your money.

Do you want:
1. peace of mind in reliabilty
2. going 500 miles vs 300 miles on $30 of gas.
3. solidly built car
4. Handling
5. saving the environment
6. lowest imediate price available.

My concerns have always been the availabilty of gas not the price of gas. I have vivid memories of waiting in 6 hour lines to get 10 gallons of gas and watching the fist fights break out because of people cutting in line.


----------



## Darell (Aug 25, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*cobb said:*
Darell, whats you view on the latest info that driving a hybrid isnt cheaper or saving anything unless gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon? 

I will guess you are still saying fuel, but spending more money. Is that right, at least until gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon or you make your prius a plug in car? 

Guessing its cheaper to waste fuel from the articles I have read. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Wanted to get to this, but ran out of time. I will respond though! Just returned from a Civic GX (CNG) test-drive. I may be trading in my gasoline Civic for the CNG Civic. We'll see. I'll have to live with half a trunk.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 25, 2005)

Hey Cobb,

You adressed that to Darell, but psoted it instead of PM, so I thought I'd throw out a little info.

The "info that driving a hybrid isnt cheaper or saving anything" can be true in certain instances. *BUT...* driving a hybrid can also be virtually free. How can that be? It's because different hybrids are built with different goals now, and the criteria can be swapped around to show whatever you want.

Example: One news story quotes _Consumer Reports_ as saying the hybrid got only 35 MPG in congested city driving instead of nearly 60 shown by the EPA. They failed to compare that to any other car driven at the same time on the same route. I suspect that a Camry would have gotten much worse milage in the same circumstances. I know that in hot stop and go traffic *my* camry gets terrible milage. It's easy to say that a Prius getting 35 MPG in congested city traffic is no better than a Camry rated at 32 hiway.

But the Camry is rated 24 in the city, and gets much worse in congested driving conditions.

Example: The Corolla is often compared directly against the Prius, with the price difference between the two used to establish that the Prius is $3,000 to $7,000 (depends on the models being compared) more expensive. If you then ignore the fact that you can sell the hybrid for more money, the price difference seems large. If, however, the market for the hybrid lets you sell the hybrid for more, the initial purchase price doe not matter as much.

I bought my Prius in 2002 for 19,900 plus taxes. According to kelly blue book (kbb.com) I should be able to sell it today for about $16,915 as a private party. That's only $3000 loss in 3 years.

A 2002 Toyota Camry Se with 4cyl engine would have cost just a little more than a Prius. The current resale for that model (again, from kbb) is $13,995.

So, *if you compare apples to apples and include resale, the hybrid comes out ahead by $3000 plus gas savings.*

Example: Several of the hybrids are not going for good milage but are instead designed for more power. Honda Accura, Lexus, etc ar going that direction. It's like being able to use a big block engine but only use the gas of a smaller, less powerful one. In these cases they are not meant to be economical. The critics point out the 2 to 10 percent milage gain and declare it a failure. To compare these cars properly, you need to compare them to a car with identical power output. Then you can do your math on price and milage.

I could go on, but I won't unless asked.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Aug 25, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*cobb said:*
...latest info that driving a [high efficiency vehicle] isnt cheaper or saving anything unless gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I've paraphrased this a little 'cause the same question gets asked about diesels from time to time. I once had a person tell me that there was no way that a diesel would pay for itself in the amount of miles he drove.

Here's how it stacks up for my VW Golf TDI:

1. Diesel option: $1200 extra
2. Resale after 1 year: $1400 higher than the gas model

So, it really is a lot about resale. After a year, if I wanted to sell my TDI, I could make $200 on the value compared to the gas car...AND, the whole time I was driving it, I could get 58% higher mileage than the gas Golf.

If you really want to talk about saving money though, my Golf cost me $17,250 and gets an honest 49 mpg on the highway. The best part though? I can run on 100% renewable fuels that add 78% less CO2 to the atmosphere. No tanker spills, no war to keep the fuel flowing, no funding to terrorists, on-and-on...


----------



## cobb (Aug 26, 2005)

Ikendu, diesel use to be a quarter cheaper than gas, so it was a no brainer, not to mention the extra mpg. Now days the diesel is a quarter more and the truck gets the same milage as the gas ones. I have more and more request for gas than diesel trucks lately. My first car was a rabbit dasher diesel 1979 model. I was going to put a golf tdi diesel setup in it til my condition proved I couldnt drive 12 years ago. 

gadget_lover, I ment to post that publically. I know what this thread is titled, but it almost seems to be an "Ask Darell the EV Expert" thread. I wouldnt mind hearing your opinion either or some of the other experts that fly under the radar on other topics. 

The otehr forum I hang out at just doggs the Toyota and Honda Hybrid and they frequently repost those negative hybrid articles and excell spread sheets on how many miles you need to drive it vs price of gas to "save" any money. I see its more efficient and would be good enough to me. You cant control the price of a car, just what one you buy, so its a given for me. I guess if your running a business and being green or not is not part of the plan, than buying non hybrid cars maybe for you. Assuming you can use a hybrid car for your business without voiding the warranty. 

Interesting argudment. I know may business want used trucks with the truck equipment and beds/bodies I sell. THey spend quite a bit for a tool r utility body, than want a cheap truck to mount it to.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 26, 2005)

It's just a guess, but I predict that in a few years the resale of conventional gas powered cars will plumet. The hybrids don't cost that much more to make. The Camry - Prius comparison is an interesting one. Similar size and designed to fit the same purposes. Both about the same price, especially if fully equiped. I find the Camry's V-6 is similar to the Prius in real life use.

Many businesses lease their cars, and they get new ones every year or two. Low depreciation is more important than low price, since that's what their payments will be based upon. The ones you are dealing with who are modifying them have to buy the truck, so they go for cheap.

I have to laugh when people denigrate all hybrids as a group. They are as diverse in design as volkswagon beetles and nascar racers.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Aug 26, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*cobb said:*
Now days the diesel is a quarter more and the truck gets the same mileage as the gas ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
I get this all the time, 
*"I bet your not so happy you bought a diesel now since diesel cost's more then gas, hahahaha"*
Lets look at this. I will compare apples to apples here. My 2003 TDI is rated to get 49 highway (I get 52 average) and the smaller engine gasser version of the vehicle is rated at 31. I am not going to argue whether EPA gets the numbers right or not, but how ever they get them, both were tested the same way. So I get 63% better mileage then the best gasser in the same make and model. Now that would mean I would have to pay 63% more for diesel then gas at the pump. Right now regular unleaded is $2.69 here, so I would have to pay $4.38 a gallon to have it cost me the same per mile as the gasser. At $.10 or $.25 or heck even $1 more per gallon and I am still far better off with diesel. The funny thing is most of the people who tell me diesel costs more are running cars that require premium which is way more expensive then diesel.

Of all the trucks I have looked at the diesels typically get 10% to 20% better mileage then a comparable gasser engine version.

To top it off diesel is cheaper then gas right now.

And we aren’t even mentioning the longevity of diesel engines compared to gassers. Most companies don’t by diesels for their fleet vehicles to save on fuel; it is because they last typically longer.

As Ikendu said I could sell my TDI for more right now then the extra $1200 compared to the gasser. I also have already made up the difference in cost in fuel savings, so from now I am saving money, not just making up for the difference. And I am burning home grown bio diesel with less emissions and I can go 800+ miles on a tank.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 26, 2005)

I heard something interesting recently from my brother and sister. Despite what the media says about the price of gas not hurting, it turns out that it _is_ hurting both of them personally. They both are spending about $60 a week on gas. My sister commutes roughly 35 miles each way to work on Long Island, my brother lives in the Rockaways and commutes about 15 miles, mostly city driving. My brother even said that if an EV were available he would consider using it. The subway really isn't an option for him because there is no direct route from home to work (it would take over two hours each way). Anyway, they both say that with higher gas prices they are putting off other purchases. My sister is even thinking of getting a part-time job!

As a fall-back plan, assuming that biodiesel is available locally, what would be involved converting their cars to take biodiesel, as well as running on regular gas? The EV is probably an even better option for both of them, but of course the big three claim there's no real demand for such a vehicle. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif More like if they made one their spare parts business would go south. Oh, and my sister's car is starting to have engine problems since it has 70,000 miles on it. Ironic since a good EV could probably go half a million with just tire changes.


----------



## Minjin (Aug 26, 2005)

Are you saying that both of them combined spend $60 a week on gas? If so, big deal. $30 a person per week isn't going to break anyone who can afford a car and can afford to drive a distance to work. If you're saying $60 per person, the numbers don't add up unless they drive Dodge Vipers...

If someone is truly that tight on finances that they are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford an extra few bucks (even extra $30) a week, they shouldn't even be owning a car. It comes down to just how poorly the average person manages their personal finances. It has nothing to do with the cost of gas... 

Mark


----------



## James S (Aug 26, 2005)

So... I know how to make bio diesel in small batches. I assume that you could ramp that up to a small production facility without too much more than a small business loan?

Surely there are some folks around here would be up to starting that kind of business? How do you distribute it once you make it? Do you go to a gas station and ask them to setup a pump? Do you have to deal with the parent companies? Guarantee a certain manufacturing capacity? 

If you want it, you might have to do it yourself /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## ikendu (Aug 26, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*jtr1962 said:*
...assuming that biodiesel is available locally, what would be involved converting their cars to take biodiesel, as well as running on regular gas?

[/ QUOTE ]

The short answer: Can't be done on a practical basis.

Gasoline engines run a lower compression ratio and use spark plugs to ignite the fuel.

Diesel engine MUST run very high compression and have no spark plugs (hot, compressed air ignites the fuel).

Sorry...access to renewable biodiesel, a fuel you can make yourself for about 80 cents/gallon, requires a diesel engine as the entry price.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 26, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*James S said:*I assume that you could ramp that up [biodiesel] to a small production facility 

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make 35 gallon batches (several per day) for about $500 worth of parts (electric water heater, pump, etc.).


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 26, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Minjin said:*
Are you saying that both of them combined spend $60 a week on gas? If so, big deal. $30 a person per week isn't going to break anyone who can afford a car and can afford to drive a distance to work. If you're saying $60 per person, the numbers don't add up unless they drive Dodge Vipers...

If someone is truly that tight on finances that they are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford an extra few bucks (even extra $30) a week, they shouldn't even be owning a car. It comes down to just how poorly the average person manages their personal finances. It has nothing to do with the cost of gas... 


[/ QUOTE ]
No, $60 each, and it's not all just to get to work. At today' prices that's only about 20 gallons a week, give or take. My sister drives at least 400 miles a week, a lot of it in stop and go. What doesn't add up here? I'm just going by what they both told me.

As for managing money, my brother just bought a house and his mortgage payments are not much less than his take home pay. It was about the cheapest house he could find and any alternatives (rental, condos) would have cost at least as much. My sister's necessary expenses are close to what she and her husband take home. You may not realize it but a lot of people are paying every cent they make for necessities, never mind luxuries, and in today's economy there always isn't a chance to make more. Most people are just thankful to have a job. I heard of people who are working for $2 an hour and they're happy to get it. As for owning a car when things are that tight, I agree but then my sister made the poor choice to live somewhere that she needs to drive, as did most Americans, and my brother shouldn't have moved so far from where he works. Nevertheless, it's water over the bridge at this point. The rising price of gas also raises the prices of other things so they're both paying more for food, electric, etc. It's not just about the $60 a week for gas here. A year or two ago things weren't this tight. A lot of employers are talking salary cuts now because they're spending more on energy costs. The average person didn't have a clue that energy prices would rise this rapidly. I know I've been warning people for years, but most people just don't think about things like that.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 26, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*ikendu said:*
The short answer: Can't be done on a practical basis.

Gasoline engines run a lower compression ratio and use spark plugs to ignite the fuel.

Diesel engine MUST run very high compression and have no spark plugs (hot, compressed air ignites the fuel).


[/ QUOTE ]
OK then, two questions.

1) Is there any R&D in progress which will make gasoline engine conversions practical soon?

2) Are there any alternative fuels that one can cost-effectively make themselves which would work in a gasoline engine (I heard ethanol mentioned in one of these threads)? My sister does have 3/4 of acre. It would be nice if she could put it to use growing something more useful than grass and a few shrubs.


----------



## Darell (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*jtr1962 said:*
Despite what the media says about the price of gas not hurting, it turns out that it _is_ hurting both of them personally. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, all I seem to hear in the press is that the price of gas is the biggest, baddest thing to befall human kind. Never mind that in today's dollars we were spending more for gas in the 80's than we are today.

[ QUOTE ]
My brother even said that if an EV were available he would consider using it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which, unfortunatley, is one of the reasons that we are where we are today. He would _consider_ using it??? If the price of gas is a significant factor he should be doing more than considering! Of course it is all but moot since they aren't really "available." Yes, the price of gas seems to be the only thing that inspires people to even "consider" an alternative. If gas goes back down, so will that inspiration, and we'll continue on and on and on and on.... just as we have for the past century.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironic since a good EV could probably go half a million with just tire changes. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, there's a few more things. Wiper blads. Light bulbs. Sometimes even brakes. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Seriously though, the motors in the production EVs have had service lives of 1 million miles. The only instance of a motor being replaced that I've heard of is because of a gear seizure or some coolant pump failing. In other words - somthing mechanical outside the actual motor. Right now our retail Rav4EV mileage champ has 75k miles... with just over three years on the road. Yup, 25k miles/year - completely fueled by solar. The owner is the PV contractor who helped me install my system.


----------



## Darell (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*cobb said:*
Darell, whats you view on the latest info that driving a hybrid isnt cheaper or saving anything unless gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon? 

I will guess you are still saying fuel, but spending more money. Is that right, at least until gas gets above 5 bucks a gallon or you make your prius a plug in car? 

Guessing its cheaper to waste fuel from the articles I have read. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Cobb - finally getting around to this! Believe it or not, your question has been haunting me for the days since you posted it. To me this question is much bigger than you may realize. Others have directly answered your question on up-front, obvious costs. I am going to generalize it more, and likely morph it into something you didn't ask, just so I can answer the question that I want to answer. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I won't do my answer justice. I don't have the time!

You probably already noticed, but I’m not the general driving public. My view on these things won’t match what the purchasing masses are thinking… but you asked me, so you get me! My answer is that I don’t give a damn how much extra I have to pay to do the right thing (Ok, within reason – we all have our limits!). If I had a diesel vehicle, and BioD cost me $6/gallon, I’d pay it. If gas were $1 gallon, and a $50k hybrid was my only option to see 50+mpg, I’d find a way to buy it. I do some crazy, expensive stuff to save energy. Most of what I do is not aimed at saving any money – it is aimed at saving energy and pollution – and indirectly saving money for the general public. (Gosh Darell, nice of you to do that with the subsidies on your EV and PV installation!) Yeah, I heard that. I’m not ashamed of getting some help here. This is the kind of stuff we SHOULD be subsidizing. I didn’t buy an EV or my PV panels to save money, however. I did it because I wanted to save as much energy and pollution as I could, regardless of cost – and without cramping my lifestyle. Without the subsidies, I would have been able to afford one or the other, but not both. I don’t discuss it much, but I have spent thousand$ to make my home more energy efficient. I will likely NEVER make back that money (directly) in energy savings – but I am making a big dent in energy consumption and pollutants I toss into the atmosphere. And that is what is most important to me. I’m not at the poverty level, obviously – but I’m also not rolling in the big bucks. As others donate to charities, causes, churches, etc – I donate to the environment. I look at it as an investment in the future – not as an expense today. Folks are willing to spend thousands for leather, DVD player, chrome doo-dads – but ask them to chip in an extra $1500 to save energy and they’ll complain that it’ll take YEARS to make that money back. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif

When we talk about the price of a car, and the price of gas, we are comfortably sitting inside “the box.” The price of gas at the pump is NOT what we, as a society, are paying for that gas! The social and political costs of our gasoline habit are huge. We pay these costs via our other taxes (beyond the tax on gasoline). The health care costs in this country directly due to fossil fuel combustion is some astronomical number that I can’t immediately recall – but ballpark figures can be found easy enough if you’re interested. We don’t pay that at the pump. We pay it in our income taxes and our healthcare premiums. Ever wonder why health care is so damned expensive? It isn’t just a coincidence, and it isn’t all due to bad tort reform. Military protection for our oil supplies is not paid for at the pump… federal taxes pick up that tab. And that is yet another whopper of a tab. We are not being fairly penalized for consuming gasoline at the pump. We’re being penalized on our income, and in our healthcare premiums. Those of us who burn little or not gasoline get to skip out on most the taxes at the pump (though we pay for them in all our other goods, shipping, etc), and we’re paying MORE than our share in the other areas. What price do we put on clean air and water? On being able to eat the fish we catch in our rivers? Who pays for war (even if you don’t think we’ve gone to war for oil yet, do you really think we won’t need to in the future? Seen how fast China and India are increasing consumption WAY the hell faster than the US?)? Who pays that price? We’re all paying it. And one of the reasons we’re willing to do that is because gasoline is so cheap. There is no reason to change if the status quo is so comfortable in the near-term. If we had to pay at the pump what gasoline REALLY costs each one of us, I believe that things would look a lot different. Most folks want gas to be cheaper. I think that’s the worst thing we can do for our country. The cheaper that gas is, the longer we put off doing what we need to do, and the harder and more expensive that change will be. A free energy market we do not have. By a long shot.

So… you see how I have trouble answering the question directly? If you ignore all the hidden costs of gasoline consumption, then what you ask makes sense and there are some simple answers. And if you want to deal only with the direct money out of your pocket at the pump and at the car dealership, it can be somewhat difficult to make a case for alternative fuels or even gasoline hybrids. But if you can step back and take in the larger picture, it may become obvious that the cheapest thing we can all do is seek out and demand (seemingly more expensive) alternatives to what we have today. If we don’t purchase what is available, we’re sending the message that we don’t want it; that we don't give a damn about anything but what it costs us this very moment. If we keep buying the biggest, heaviest vehicles we can afford, they’ll keep being made and marketed.

Crap. I don’t know if I made any sense here. I’ve tossed this around in my head for so long, that I don’t seem to have a cohesive message any longer. Maybe I can sum it up this way: When I DO purchase gasoline, I buy it from the most expensive station I can easily find since that’s the direction I’d like the price to go.

Off my apple crate now, and standing by for all the holes that’ll inevitably be shot in my ramblings.


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
[ QUOTE ]
My brother even said that if an EV were available he would consider using it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which, unfortunatley, is one of the reasons that we are where we are today. He would _consider_ using it??? If the price of gas is a significant factor he should be doing more than considering!

[/ QUOTE ]
Oops, I meant consider _buying_ it. Poor choice of words on my part. Of course if one existed and he owned it he would be using it to get to work! Sad thing is except in places like NYC most Americans have NO alternative at all to a gasoline-burning automobile. Even in NYC, the subways are wonderful but they are designed to get you quickly from the outer boroughs to/from Manhattan, which is where most people work. Traveling in the outer boroughs is still often problematic. My brother would actually have to go from Queens to Manhattan, and then back to Queens to get to work by subway instead of just going from southeast Queens to northwest Queens. Now as for other alternatives he could use, the trip is too long and not suited for bicycle. A nice electric scooter might do, but as I've said for some reason they're illegal in NYC even though they're more ideally suited to urban travel than something like a Hummer or Explorer. Go figure. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif


----------



## Darell (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*jtr1962 said:*
[ QUOTE ]
Oops, I meant consider _buying_ it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, OK. I feel a little better. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif 

[ QUOTE ]
Sad thing is except in places like NYC most Americans have NO alternative at all to a gasoline-burning automobile.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll say it before Ikendu or Brock has a chance... There ARE alternatives. Biodiesel, of course, and in CA there is CNG. I think I mentioned that I was just out test-driving one of these yesterday. Great cars. Will be made into next year's model change as well. They're 50-state legal, but only sold in CA, as far as I know. But it does come down to a sad state of affairs that this stuff is not more obvious, and not more easily available. And that right there is my big push. I don't want to force it on anybody - I want it to be available to everybody.


----------



## Darell (Aug 27, 2005)

A bit more good news on the EV front. Check out the specs on this.

http://www.japanesecarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2050824.001


----------



## Darell (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*jtr1962 said:*
1) Is there any R&D in progress which will make gasoline engine conversions practical soon?


[/ QUOTE ]
From what I know of gasoline and diesel engines, it would be cheaper to start from scratch than to convert one to the other. They're just completely different animals!


----------



## Brock (Aug 27, 2005)

JTR1962 while I understand the cost of fuel has gone up, like 15% in one year, it's still not that much when it comes right down to it.

I mean look at the other costs in a car, the car itself, the insurance, maintenance and finally the gas. I am pretty sure I pay about not much more for fuel as for the insurance. Or another way to look at it, in their case you said they use about 40 gallons between the two of them, lets just say it was back to 50 cents less a gallon like it was last year. That’s a total of $20 more a week now they pay for fuel. I hate to say it but if the $20 out of all the other payments on a car is the killer, they are living to close to the edge. I often hear people complain about the price, I say don't go out just one night a month and you can pay for that extra fuel.

Don't get me wrong, the cost has gone up and the $ has to come from somewhere, but it's not life changing amount like many things can be.


----------



## Brock (Aug 27, 2005)

Ikendu, what is the percentage any vehicle can safely run ethanol? I thought it was 20%? That is a relatively simple thing to change in manufacturing a regular gasoline engine, that is to make it be able to run on ethanol. It is surprising as to how many can be run on straight ethanol in production now. I wonder if they know something we don’t…

Ikendu, wasn't ethanol production the highest yielding crop per acre? Not that I am giving up my TDI.


----------



## Brock (Aug 27, 2005)

I just had another thought.

Why does everyone think it is that Japan is leading the market in hybrid and EV vehicles? Could it be so that when oil prices shoot through the roof it doesn't stop their economy? Think about it, that is the situation we (the US) are in.

Lets just say gasoline continues to go up at 15% a year because of the demand from China. Everyone scrambles for EV's, who has them, not the US...


----------



## Darell (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:*
I just had another thought.

Why does everyone think it is that Japan is leading the market in hybrid and EV vehicles? Could it be so that when oil prices shoot through the roof it doesn't stop their economy? Think about it, that is the situation we (the US) are in.

Lets just say gasoline continues to go up at 15% a year because of the demand from China. Everyone scrambles for EV's, who has them, not the US... 

[/ QUOTE ]
May I look into my crystal ball one more time?

I see it now... some (many) folks will then point fingers at those of us purchasing "foreign" cars and say, "See, it is YOUR fault our economy is screwed up. You need to buy AMERICAN cars you unpatriotic so-and-so."

Just like how some contries bypassed landline phones and went directly to cellular, some countries will *almost* manage to buypass an oil economy.... or at least better than most of the fully developed contries have done. Of course we wouldn't be as developed without oil! Now... how do we STAY developed?


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 27, 2005)

I _think_ the Japanese are leading in the EV arena simply because the US companies decided it was easier to fight against the regulations that required re-tooling and other investments. They got California to back down on teh zero emissions law, and prompty scrapped their EV projects.

There's also the minor fact that a production hybrid or EV needs new technology, and most of the viable new patents (last I looked) are being bought out by foreign firms. If you control the patents that make batteries viable, for instance, you can dictate who profits from the technology.

It's no surprise that the Toyota and Honda are using Panasonic batteries, not Everready. I'm pretty sure Panasonic is owned by Matsushita, a major conglomerate in Japan. The next big advance in batteries will come from Toshiba, but I recall seeing the technology for the nano-textured electrodes developed at a site that was not Japanese.

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 27, 2005)

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:*
I mean look at the other costs in a car, the car itself, the insurance, maintenance and finally the gas. I am pretty sure I pay about not much more for fuel as for the insurance. Or another way to look at it, in their case you said they use about 40 gallons between the two of them, lets just say it was back to 50 cents less a gallon like it was last year. That’s a total of $20 more a week now they pay for fuel. I hate to say it but if the $20 out of all the other payments on a car is the killer, they are living to close to the edge. I often hear people complain about the price, I say don't go out just one night a month and you can pay for that extra fuel.

Don't get me wrong, the cost has gone up and the $ has to come from somewhere, but it's not life changing amount like many things can be. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're missing my point a bit. Yes, if it was just the extra money for the gas then I'd say you're right compared to the other expenses of owning a car (those expenses are a big reason I won't even consider owning a car myself). Almost anyone can afford another $20 a week except maybe people earning minimum wage or not much over it. However, that 15% increase in fuel costs is driving up the price of many other goods and services, including electricity. When all is said and done, you're looking at a lot more than $20 a week. For example, we're now paying $0.02 more per kW-hr for electricity than last year. At an average of maybe 1500 kW-hr per month that's another $7.50 a week. Fuel oil this year will probably cost us at least $500 more, so that's another $10 a week, and so forth. Food has gone up a lot, too. Add all these things up and the average family could be looking at $75 a week or even more.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm actually happy fuel prices are going up even it's hurting us a bit now. If it gets us to alternatives quicker then in the long run we'll be saving big time. The question is will it? I get the impression that a lot of people think gas will be back down to $2 or less next year so they're not making any major changes in their lifestyle. Perhaps when they see it not only doesn't go down, but goes up to $4 and then $5 they'll start thinking about these things.

As for us (meaning my parents and I), solar heat and power is starting to look better all time. We're not that big users of gasoline since combined my parents drive under 5,000 miles a year and I don't drive at all. The biggest fuel use right now is heating oil which can be rectified by a switch to solar heating. After that I'm finding the power bills more and more irksome. Thanks to the ridiculously hot weather the electric bills have been in the $300 to $400 range. Nothing much can really be done to cut usage, either, especially with 3 people home most of the time. We have new windows, efficient air conditioners, fluorescent lights, etc. If we turn the A/C off in short order the house becomes uncomfortably hot. Solar seems like the only sensible long term option although it isn't suited for everyone. Probably for us using a home equity loan to finance the system will be the best bet. Chances are the monthly payments will be much less than our electric bill. Once the loan is paid, we have free power and heat.


----------



## Brock (Aug 27, 2005)

Yes, I see what you’re saying now. It is a lot more then just the $20 a week for gas. I am not sure though that the cost of electricity and natural gas is tied to the cost of oil, although they are following that trend, our gas and electricity went u about 10% last year and are warning us it will go up another 10% this year.

Again I see what you’re saying, that everything energy related is creeping up and in turn pushing up other costs.

Which is why we need to change how and where we get out fuel, it's not going to get better, what are we waiting for?


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 27, 2005)

The price hikes really do kill the poor commuters, especially in urban areas. The stop and go traffic around the SF bay area drops the milage even lower than it would otherwise be. I've eaten more than a gallon of gas in my truck just to cross downtown SF on a Friday afternoon. That's about 2 miles a gallon.

So if you figure a 30 mile commute (60 per day) in a car that should get 20 MPG, you may find yourself using 3 to 6 gallons per day. At $3.25 a gallon you are talking serious cash at the end of the week. The job you took when you thought gas would cost you $40 a week suddenly looks less appealing when you are spending almost $100.

Having a budget is not enough if you can not control the prices you pay nor teh quantities you need. 


Hey! A new EPA milage catagory just occured to me. They should also report gallons per hour at idle for the poor folks stuck in rush hour traffic. Or set up a test loop where they accelerate from 0 to 10 mph and stop again 150 times in one hour. Now THAT would be useful. Hybrids, of course, would look good there too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Daniel


----------



## snakebite (Aug 29, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Hey! A new EPA milage catagory just occured to me. They should also report gallons per hour at idle for the poor folks stuck in rush hour traffic. Or set up a test loop where they accelerate from 0 to 10 mph and stop again 150 times in one hour. Now THAT would be useful. Hybrids, of course, would look good there too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
> 
> Daniel


make sure that gph rating includes worst case like 100f and the a/c running full blast,ect


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 29, 2005)

I can't even begin to count the number of times I've wished I could just shut off the engine and let a motor push the car forward 1-2 car lengths at a time ... with regenerative braking, I'd probably recoup upwards of 60% of what it took to nudge the car forward each time. I'm sure one additional standard battery would cut the current demand/depth of discharge to something a Pb-A could handle...


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 29, 2005)

The Toyota hybrid actually does that. It stops the ICE and does not turn it on again until it senses that you are going to accelerate briskly or goes over a fairly high speed (30MPH +) or senses that the batteries should be charged. It's almost fun to be creeping along in traffic and trying to maximize the distance between ICE usage.

The energy requirements are steeper than Idleprocess suggests. A single Lead-acid (Pb-A) bettery would probably not last more than a very short time in that kind of driving and it would be awfully hard on the battery. Remember, the starter in a car typically runs down within about 2 minutes of cranking. Make it a string of 4 and it runs a lot, lot longer because of the lower current draw.

Interestingly, one of the improvements suggested for conventional designs to achieve 10 to 15% improvement in milage is a simple extra battery and some software. The extra battery makes it practical to stop the engine whenever needed and restart it on cue. The higher voltage allows the motor to be spun faster to avoid the poor combustion caused by starting the engine at low RPMs. It's not a hybrid, but rather an instant start system. This was suggested in late 1990's, I forget the time frame.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 29, 2005)

jtr1962 said:


> [ QUOTE ]
> 2) Are there any alternative fuels that one can cost-effectively make themselves which would work in a gasoline engine (I heard ethanol mentioned in one of these threads)? My sister does have 3/4 of acre. It would be nice if she could put it to use growing something more useful than grass and a few shrubs.



See this thread: 


http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id36.html


----------



## Brock (Aug 29, 2005)

Ikendu, I found a place in town this spring that sells E10, best I can find here and probably safe to run in the Sienna van.

You might have missed it before, but do you know what the highest ethanol mix a "regular" car can run? I thought it was E20 (20% ethanol, 80% regular gasoline), but I am not sure where I got that.

Ahhhhh I see in that article it looks like E25 is the max for a "standard" gasoline rated car.


----------



## ikendu (Aug 29, 2005)

Brock said:


> Ikendu, wasn't ethanol production the highest yielding crop per acre? Not that I am giving up my TDI.



Here is a slide from my renewable fuels presentation:

http://www.itsgood4.us/images/Net yields of biofuels.JPG

You'll note that of the well understood, net yields of energy (taking the energy into account for making the biofuel in the first place) that biodiesel from rape seed (97 gallons net/acre) is very close to ethanol from corn (118 gallons net/acre).


----------



## Darell (Aug 30, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Interestingly, one of the improvements suggested for conventional designs to achieve 10 to 15% improvement in milage is a simple extra battery and some software. The extra battery makes it practical to stop the engine whenever needed and restart it on cue. The higher voltage allows the motor to be spun faster to avoid the poor combustion caused by starting the engine at low RPMs. It's not a hybrid, but rather an instant start system. This was suggested in late 1990's, I forget the time frame.


You're just described the Chevy Silverado "hybrid."


----------



## Darell (Aug 30, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Hey! A new EPA milage catagory just occured to me. They should also report gallons per hour at idle for the poor folks stuck in rush hour traffic. Or set up a test loop where they accelerate from 0 to 10 mph and stop again 150 times in one hour. Now THAT would be useful.


This would make EVs look embarrassingly good, of course. Traffic jams are an EV's best friend. I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVs are the ultimate commute vehicles. Put an ICE in a stop-and-go situation and you can easily cut the miles/gallon in half. Put an EV in the same situation and you can easily DOUBLE the miles/kWh. Everybody wants to know how fast the cars can go... let's talk more about reality instead of the quaint dream of wide-open freeways. What happens when they're stuck in traffic?

A buddy of mine accidentally left his AC running in his Rav while parked in the garage for about eight hours (he'd been working on installing a new stereo in it and wanted to be cool while working - then guests came by and he forgot to turn the car off). All with no engine running. Hell... all with no ENGINE.


----------



## evan9162 (Aug 30, 2005)

Darell said:


> This would make EVs look embarrassingly good, of course. Traffic jams are an EV's best friend. I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVs are the ultimate commute vehicles. Put an ICE in a stop-and-go situation and you can easily cut the miles/gallon in half. Put an EV in the same situation and you can easily DOUBLE the miles/kWh. Everybody wants to know how fast the cars can go... let's talk more about reality instead of the quaint dream of wide-open freeways. What happens when they're stuck in traffic?
> 
> A buddy of mine accidentally left his AC running in his Rav while parked in the garage for about eight hours (he'd been working on installing a new stereo in it and wanted to be cool while working - then guests came by and he forgot to turn the car off). All with no engine running. Hell... all with no ENGINE.



Darell,

I've been meaning to ask - have you ever driven through a full charge at 25mph? It seems like, from your Rav4 data on current draw, that you'd be able to get like 250 miles from a charge at those speeds.


----------



## Darell (Aug 30, 2005)

evan9162 said:


> Darell,
> 
> I've been meaning to ask - have you ever driven through a full charge at 25mph? It seems like, from your Rav4 data on current draw, that you'd be able to get like 250 miles from a charge at those speeds.


Uh, no. I don't have a spare 10 hours to try! I have little doubt that I could go 250 miles at a steady 25mph... but I'm also not going to test it!


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 30, 2005)

Darell said:


> This would make EVs look embarrassingly good, of course. Traffic jams are an EV's best friend. I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVs are the ultimate commute vehicles. Put an ICE in a stop-and-go situation and you can easily cut the miles/gallon in half. Put an EV in the same situation and you can easily DOUBLE the miles/kWh. Everybody wants to know how fast the cars can go... let's talk more about reality instead of the quaint dream of wide-open freeways. What happens when they're stuck in traffic?



I may be wrong here, but I recall that the most efficient mode for an EV is constant speed on level ground. Speeding up takes power and the best regenerative braking can only recapture part of that energy. Add to that the rolling losses and drag from the air and it becomes apparent that your milage should not double in stop and go. It becomes less efficient for the EV for the same reasons as an ICE; acceleration of mass requires an energy expenditure.

But I do agree with Darell that when compared to an ICE, an electric car can do much better in stop and go driving. As do hybrids 

Daniel


----------



## Playboyjoeshmoe2 (Aug 30, 2005)

I'm still waiting for an email about how to get back on as PBJS...

I know for a fact my beloved 24V Common Rail Turbo Diesel Cummins HOOVERS in stop and go! Steady 50mph on flat road is about as good as it gets.

I'm on another 600 mile tank (or 20+ MPG) if nothing comes up to screw me too bad!


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 30, 2005)

I have the same feeling as Joe.

It's been hot here (100 degrees today) and my wife has waited for me in the car several times this week with the AC running. My milage has dropped to 42.8 MPG over the last 327 miles. 

DARN!

BTW Joe, the new software uses the display name as the login. You should be able to log in as playboyjoeshmoe, not the original username. I used my initials before for loging in, now I have to use gadget_lover.


Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Aug 31, 2005)

In a perfect scenario, an EV would lose next to nothing in stop & go traffic. The speeds and durations involved are so low/short that air and rolling resistance are negligible. Put _X_ units of energy into acceleration and regenerative braking recovers a respectable percentage of _X_.

Of course that doesn't happen because rolling resistance and driveshaft losses are very real and regenerative braking is well under 100% efficient at recovering energy.

So maybe your regen can recover 60% the instant you brake... assume low rolling resistance and negligible air resistance and you might play the stop'n'go game for _half_ what it "costs" ICE drivers in terms of pure kinetic energy. You're probably not moving long enough to have to add energy to maintain a given speed. Also, there's negligible energy consumption when you're stopped.

Nothing's free, but at least you don't give away so much with regenerative braking.


----------



## Darell (Aug 31, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Of course that doesn't happen because rolling resistance and driveshaft losses are very real and regenerative braking is well under 100% efficient at recovering energy.


All real losses, yes. Yet in an EV the air friction does the lion's share of energy robbing. The others really are tiny at freeway speeds. At slow speeds, the others become more important. Driveshaft losses, BTW, are almost always insignificant. We're direct drive, with fixed gearing, and those small losses are buried in the other bigger ones.



> So maybe your regen can recover 60% the instant you brake... assume low rolling resistance and negligible air resistance and you might play the stop'n'go game for _half_ what it "costs" ICE drivers in terms of pure kinetic energy.


Regen on the Rav is good for about 50% recovery, generally speaking. Drivetrain and rolling resistances are constant (as compared to air resistance at least) and in general, you will have more drag on a standard car with standard tires just because of the drive-train losses. But let's just bunch that all into a 50% difference in kinetic energy as you've put here. Good a guess as any. But. BUT. It doesn't tell the whole story. You don't pay the same for your kinetic energy in an ICE as you do in an EV. In an ice you don't just need proportionally more fuel to accelerate. You need to burn rich, and use exponentially more fuel to get back up to speed. Cars with carbs used an "accelerator pump" to dump more fuel in each time the accelerator is blipped. Now it is done electronically, and is much more precisely controlled - but it still equals a rich mixture to scoot. And you idle when you aren't doing anything with your kinetic energy. In an EV, your acceleration does only use proportionally more energy, and you use close to nothing when you're just sitting there waiting for the next chance to scoot ahead. 

So yes, 50% difference in kinetic energy, but then the other savings add up to about that again. I'm not exaggerating when I say that being caught in stop-and-go traffic can double my range - while it can cut an ICE range in half.

Oooh. Wish I had time to write this better! Gotta run.


----------



## flashlight (Aug 31, 2005)

With oil & gasoline prices skyrocketing due to Hurricane Katrina affecting refinery production, this is really the time to look at EV & Alt. Fuel vehicles even more seriously.


----------



## evan9162 (Aug 31, 2005)

flashlight said:


> With oil & gasoline prices skyrocketing due to Hurricane Katrina affecting refinery production, this is really the time to look at EV & Alt. Fuel vehicles even more seriously.




In all honesty, we're way late looking at EV/Alt fuels. 10 years ago was the time to look into it, so we'd have 200+ mile, quick charging EVsl or 20mile battery-only hybrids out now - so the price hike/blip in prices that we have today wouldn't be hurting so many people.


----------



## flashlight (Aug 31, 2005)

evan9162 said:


> In all honesty, we're way late looking at EV/Alt fuels. 10 years ago was the time to look into it, so we'd have 200+ mile, quick charging EVsl or 20mile battery-only hybrids out now - so the price hike/blip in prices that we have today wouldn't be hurting so many people.



Actually I think we're about a millenia too late...


----------



## ikendu (Aug 31, 2005)

We coulda been there with electric vehicles and biofuels.

We were warned in 1973 (Arab Oil Embargo) and again in 1979 (Iranian revolution).

California tried with the zero emissions mandate, but the forces of "drag your feet, resist change" won out again.

Now...with $3/gal gasoline, and... shortages?

We will be just a bit late to the party. I'm sure each political party will figure out a way to blame the other one for the problem. Meanwhile, our economy and our populace will suffer the consequences and mostly we will re-elect the encumbents.


----------



## Darell (Aug 31, 2005)

It is sad, indeed, that it takes increased gas prices to shine a light on alternatives. Great while prices are high! But if/when they drop a bit, once again, nobody will give a damn.

Being reactive to these issues has been, is now, and will be painful in the future. Doing something proactively would reap large rewards in jobs, security and environmental protection. Yet it would seem that nobody cares about those things - only the price at the pump. :sigh:


----------



## Brock (Aug 31, 2005)

On the side of the bio diesel produces, those that jumped in foreseeing the increase in fuel cost are finally making their $ back. From what I have heard BD plants are running at 100% for about a month now and likely to continue at that rate for a while to come.

For those that don't know Minnesota just passed a bill to make all diesel sold B2 or 2% bio diesel. Of course this will push up the cost of BD because of the demand from the state, but in the long run it will become more common and keep at least 2% more money here in the good old US of A!


----------



## Darell (Aug 31, 2005)

Brock said:


> in the long run it will become more common and keep at least 2% more money here in the good old US of A!


So... you think it is a good idea to help your country help itself? What are you? some kind of Commie?


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 31, 2005)

flashlight said:


> Actually I think we're about a millenia too late...



I disagree for a very simple reason. The current successes in electric cars (EVs) are based upon advancements in many areas, including electronics and batteries.

When I looked into EV conversions in the 1970's the problems were nearly insurmountable. Let me list a few from way back then;

The best batteries avaiable had about a 3 year life span, and would need to be replaced periodically. I was making $93 a week and the battery pack for a Chevy Vega conversion would cost nearly $1,000.

The electronics were fairly inefficient and crude. The power controls burned up a huge percentage of the power as heat.

The batteries required maintenance; Topping off the fluid and equalizing charges were necessary on a regular basis.

The batteries were heavy, since lead acid was the only viable choice.

The chargers were primative and inefficient. I recall a dismally small percentage of the energy pulled from the wall would make it to the battery pack.

The motor controls were not sophisticated. Many cars suffered from 'cogging', the effect of the motor pulsating at low speeds as the power was transfered from one coil to the next. 

Many of these problems have been overcome in only the last 10 to 15 years. The addition of computer control has allowed babying the batteries so they last longer. The power controls are much, much more efficient and provide a smoother ride too. The battreries are sealed and expected to last for the life of the car.

We are late, but not that late.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Aug 31, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Many of these problems have been overcome in only the last 10 to 15 years.
> Daniel



So...if we had made getting off of oil a priority in the 80s, you don't think we would have solved a lot of those issues a lot sooner? Progress is made when you work on it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Aug 31, 2005)

ikendu said:


> So...if we had made getting off of oil a priority in the 80s, you don't think we would have solved a lot of those issues a lot sooner? Progress is made when you work on it.



No, I don't think it would have made a difference. There are too many interconnecting parts.

Just as an example, the chemistry behind today's batteries is not viable without smart chargers. The smart chargers were an outgrowth of embedded microcontrollers.

The old SCR based power controllers were state of the art in 1970. They were very inefficient. In the late 1980s the insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) improved at the rate of 20 times each 5 years. In the 1990's it was 6 times every 5 years. WIthout these advances, the modern BEV would not be anywhere near as usable.

There are other interconnected technologies, I'm sure.

Daniel


----------



## Bright Scouter (Sep 1, 2005)

I have to say it is quite frustrating to listen to Rush talk at lunch today about the gas problem. He said that the people talking about hybrids being a solution are crazy. He said he talked to an executive from one of the major auto companies who told him that even if all vehicles on the road today were changed to hybrids, it would only help for 6 years. Then we would be back where we are today. 

Number one, what do you expect them to say? Yes, we screwed up and let the foreign car companies get way ahead of us on this technology. 

Number two, So it would help us get out of the shortage for 6 years. Great! Six years to have time to come up with other solutions! 

You have to use many different alternatives to fix the problem. Not one solution will do it all. But why knock hybrids?!?!?

Hybrids, EVs, Ethanol blends, Biodiesel and blends of that, higher mileage vehicles, more drilling (like Rush wanted), learning to drive less. All will help, none by itself will fix it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 1, 2005)

I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I imagine he was quite passionate about that position.

The problem with such blanket statements is that they are too general. They speak as if there is a single solution to a problem, when in fact a combination of solutions shoudl be brought to bear. For Limbaugh to make that statement he also has to lump all of the hybrid technologies together despite the fact that there are extremely different designs. The hybrid designs we have are NOT the most efficient possible. They are the most efficient that will compete directly with conventional designs. Higher efficiency designs with lower performance are possible but would not have allowed the widespread acceptance that hybrids are achieving.

As I type this message I hear yet another business jet flying over. The jets carry a few (7 or less) people and burn huge amounts of fuel. A Lear 35A uses around 180 gallons per hour, and only flys at 530 MPH. That makes it less than 3 miles per gallon. I live near Livermore National Labs, and about 1/2 of these jets have US Government designations.

I don't know what would be sucessful, but I'd love to see some small hybrids built that are barely freeway legal. I'd also like to see some 18 wheel trucks designed around the Toyota hybrid design. It might make enough difference to encourage widespread changeover.

Oh Well.


----------



## Playboyjoeshmoe2 (Sep 1, 2005)

I try to do my part. I can get slightly better than two more MPG by doing 65 instead of 70. It goes almost 3.5 better at 60 over 70...

So I go 60-63 a lot. And people just keep on FLYING by me. Don't they get it? Do you?


----------



## Darell (Sep 1, 2005)

Atta boy, Playboy. I actually spend quite a bit of time at 55-60. (gasp!). Yes, it is true. That's one of the ways I get 40mph out of my 32mph Civic.

In another popular thread, we just heard that there is NOTHING that some folks can do to save gas - that many folks have to drive 75mph just to be safe.  

Aya. I have driven right around half a million miles in my life. I have driven in 22 states and ten countries. Not once did I have to drive 75mph to feel safe. But... and this is a big BUT...I used to use that same argument. I used to drive 80mph on HWY 80... had a catchy ring to it. The argument was (and still is with most folks) if you aren't going 80 then you risk being rear-ended. Well, I now call BS on that one. It takes some self-discipline, and not much more, to drive the speed limit. And every study you'll find on the subject will show that slower is safer. (up to a point - come on... a 15mph tractor on the freeway isn't what we're talking about!) You are more relaxed, you have more reaction time, you can stop quicker, swerve safer, etc. Everything else equal, you are safer at 60mph than at 75mph. And you save gas. You could stand to save lots of gas.

So we have folks complaining about the price of gas, of course. And many of these same folks seem to miss how they can EASILY save money on gas by simply not using so dang much. Eww. I'm sounding all preachy, but WTF?


----------



## ikendu (Sep 1, 2005)

I've been reading up on RV's (like a Winnebago) for about a year 'cause I've been thinking maybe my wife and I should see the U.S. before we die. -I'm turning 55 this month ...you start thinking thoughts like that at that age. 

Anyway, as I'm reading all of these RV magazines about people that are retired or simply living full time on the road, the story is that people who are not on a schedule actually look for side roads where the speed limit is 55 because of the huge difference in miles per gallon. If you aren't on a "vacation" time schedule, who cares how long it takes to get from one place to the next!

BTW, lots of these RVs have diesel engines so I could run biodiesel. I'm interested in ones that are based the Dodge Sprinter ...gets 22 mpg.

There are a variety of these on the market.

http://www.gulfstreamcoach.com/bvans/index.htm


----------



## Brock (Sep 1, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> As I type this message I hear yet another business jet flying over. The jets carry a few (7 or less) people and burn huge amounts of fuel. A Lear 35A uses around 180 gallons per hour, and only flys at 530 MPH. That makes it less than 3 miles per gallon.



Look on the bright side, that is better per person mileage (21 mpg) then 99% of the single passenger SUV's and trucks out there 

Ikendu, I was thinking Sprinter while I was reading that, then saw you already knew that. One more child and I might need a sprinter myself


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 2, 2005)

I started driving at 60MPH _(imagine that - the *speed limit*)_instead of 65-70 and saw my fuel economy go from ~20 MPG to ~24 MPG. I'll take a 20% jump in efficiency when driving a truck with aerodynamics rivaling those of a brick.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 2, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> As I type this message I hear yet another business jet flying over. The jets carry a few (7 or less) people and burn huge amounts of fuel. A Lear 35A uses around 180 gallons per hour, and only flys at 530 MPH. That makes it less than 3 miles per gallon. I live near Livermore National Labs, and about 1/2 of these jets have US Government designations.


Regular passenger jets probably aren't a whole lot better, and even if they are in terms of pmpg they still use huge amounts of fuel because of the huge distances they go. To me it's hardly justifiably to expend a swimming pool of fuel just to get a few hundred people across the country in a few hours, especially when many very long distance trips are purely optional in nature. I read somewhere that after 9/11 a lot of businesses actually realized that even the majority of business trips are wholly unnecessary, to say nothing of the ones taken purely for pleasure. Moral of the story-if a person must travel on vacation, try traveling closer to home. They might be surprised what they find in their own backyard once they change their mindset a bit.


----------



## evan9162 (Sep 2, 2005)

Actually, commercial airliners are pretty good with fuel economy.

Let's take a Boeing 777, for example: 

Fuel capacity: 45,220 ga
Range: 5,955 nm
2-class capacity: 451

That's 59.4 nm/ga, or over 68 miles/gallon/passenger.

The new 737 is even better:
fuel: 6,875 ga
range: 3,159 miles
2-class cap: 177

that's 81 miles/gallon/passenger

Source of info: 
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/technical.html


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 3, 2005)

Every once in a while you see real irony. I'd like to share one.

First the backstory;

The California law now allows cerain hybrids to drive in the carpool (or HOV) lane with only one person just like they allow electric cars and cars that run on compressed natural gas. All it takes is a sticker from the DMV. There are fewer stickers available than there are Hybrids in California today (IIRC). 

In short, the state is promoting the use of hybrids as a way to save gas and reduce polution.

BUT, if you live in silicon valley or any county touching San Francisco bay, you have to get an electronic RFID based tracking device called FasTrak before you can apply for the sticker. It's used for collecting tolls at the bay area bridges. This is mandatory even if you do not use the toll brdiges.


End of backstory;

In the 3 weeks since I applied for my fastrak, the credit card expired. The fastrak folks could not tell me what happened to my application. They suggested that I drive to the only customer service center that they have to submit a fresh application and open an account. There is no online application process available if you have a hybrid. Their only office in SF.

So I drove the 40 miles to SF, negotiated the labor day traffic and eventually ended up at the service center with 48.2 MPG showing on the display. The parking lot wanted $15 for all day parking, but we were lucky and caught a parking space that only charged 10 cents a minute. A hybrid had just pulled out of that space.

It took only 5 minutes to get my tracking device. In that few minutes 4 other hybrid owners came in to get thiers too. So there we stood, 5 hybrid owners, swapping stories as we waited our turns. Only one of us occasionally used a toll bridge where the tracker would be used. We had driven an average of 35 miles one way.

In the name of conservation, the 5 of us drove 350 miles and burned about 8 gallons of gas.

Now I get to work with the DMV to finish the process. I should have my sticker by New Years Eve.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 3, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> In the name of conservation, the 5 of us drove 350 miles and burned about 8 gallons of gas.


Yikes. Too bad you guys couldn't have carpooled.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 4, 2005)

Darell said:


> Yikes. Too bad you guys couldn't have carpooled.



Yeah, that would have been nice.

I find some of the decisions of governmental agencies puzzling. The only FasTrak service center is near fisherman's wharf in SF. There is very little parking in that area other that 'all day' lots. The majority of the customers will NOT be San Franciscans, they'll be from outlying areas. Bad choice all around.

A little math tells me that, if my time there was representative, the hybrid owners were coming in at a rate of 1 a minute. Maybe we should have set up a rally in San Jose and rented a bus or three to get us to SF at the same time. 

I know at least one person with a hybrid that won't get the HOV sticker simply because they object to the requirement that they have a unique tracking device implanted in their car. They also object to have to provide a $50 deposit indefinitely for a service (bridge tolls) that they will not use.

OK, Back on track.....

A simple law that would make small citi-car type BEV and hybrids practical for everyone. An ordinance that requires freelocal home delivery of large items (greater than a certain size) to owners of citi-cars would remove the only objection that many people have to micro-cars.

Just a thought.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 9, 2005)

A bit of good news from Subaru and Japan:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8995780/ Neat little car. Hope it becomes reality.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 10, 2005)

That press release is rather inconsistent. First it's 15 minutes to recharge , then overnight, then 5 minutes to 90% charge.



> President Kyoji Takenaka said “electric vehicles could establish a certain presence if we developed technology to charge batteries overnight.”



I hope that's as mis-translated as the rest of the article sounds - overnight recharging is neither exciting or high-tech; it's already here on the few production EVs out there.


----------



## Darell (Sep 10, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> That press release is rather inconsistent. First it's 15 minutes to recharge , then overnight, then 5 minutes to 90% charge.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that's as mis-translated as the rest of the article sounds - overnight recharging is neither exciting or high-tech; it's already here on the few production EVs out there.


Yeah, no kidding! I'm just happy to hear of *any* BEV development. Pretty crappy research by AP for that article though!

I'm gonna be out of touch for a short bit guys... don't miss me too much.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 10, 2005)

We'll miss you Darell. Hope it's nothing serious. Going to be gone long? If so, do you have a series of articles you'd like me to leak to the tread every few days on your behalf?


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 12, 2005)

Well, since Darell's not around, I thought I'd do some googling.

I found this car (the REVA) being made in India. The range is 80km. with a 7 hour chrage or 65 km with a 2.5 hour charge (220V, 15 amp. Top speed is only 50 km/hour, so it falls in the citi-car category.

Well, how'd I do, Darell?

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 13, 2005)

I found an interesting report at http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/toshibarsquos_f.html about the new LiIon battery from Toshiba. The charts show a super fast charge time and only 1% capacity loss after 1000 cycles.

I suspect this is the breakthrough that will make BEV the darlings of the next 10 years (and beyond).

There's no info about the lifetime in years. Normal Li-Ion have a limited life once they are assembled. That life is fairly short, less than 5 years IIRC. 

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 13, 2005)

On a related note: The president of Toyota said that they will eventually make nothing but hybrids. They expect to sell 1,000,000 hybrids per year by 2010.

WOW!


----------



## ikendu (Sep 13, 2005)

"The president of Toyota Motor says he has told his engineering chief to find a way to cut in half the price difference between fuel-efficient gas-electric hybrids and similar gasoline models."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-09-12-toyota-hybrid-premium_x.htm


----------



## dukeleto (Sep 14, 2005)

Hey Ikendu,
on the radio this morning (in France) a reporter said that for one liter of biodiesel,
approximately 2/3 liter of diesel was consumed in its production (plowing, 
harvesting, transport etc I suppose). He did not give a figure for fossil diesel.
Is this figure realistic? Do you have a number for fossil fuel (which, what with refining etc must not be low!) ?
Thanks,
Olivier


----------



## Minjin (Sep 14, 2005)

Alternative fuel:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/14/germany.catfuel.reut/index.html

Mark


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 14, 2005)

Minjin said:


> Alternative fuel:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/09/14/germany.catfuel.reut/index.html
> 
> Mark


In a word.

YUCK!


It did sound feasible, using waste products to produce biodiesel.

I'd imagine the 30 cents per liter quoted in the article paid for the energy required to process the garbage and road kill.


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Well, since Darell's not around, I thought I'd do some googling.
> 
> I found this car (the REVA) being made in India. The range is 80km. with a 7 hour chrage or 65 km with a 2.5 hour charge (220V, 15 amp. Top speed is only 50 km/hour, so it falls in the citi-car category.
> 
> Well, how'd I do, Darell?


Pretty good for a newbie. Better with links though! We've been trying to facilitate the sales of Revas in the US for about two years now. It is just one snag after another. I think the purple and yellow one has your name on it. 
http://www.revaindia.com/design/index.htm


And there's some exciting (if totally lacking) info from miles: http://www.milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html

The ZX40 actually exists, BTW. I know some guys who got to ride in one recently.


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2005)

Here's a quote that makes riding a bicycle sound even more attractive:

"Despite 119 years of refinement, the modern car remains astonishingly inefficient. Only 13 percent of its fuel energy even reaches the wheels-the other 87 percent is either dissipated as heat and noise in the engine and drivetrain or lost to idling and accessories such as air conditioners. Of the energy delivered to the wheels, more than half heats the tires, road and air. Just 6 percent of the fuel energy actually accelerates the car (and all the energy converts to brake heating when you stop). And, because 95 percent of the accelerated mass is the car itself, less than 1 percent of the fuel ends up moving the driver." - Amory B. Lovins from "More Profit with Less Carbon"

As much as I champion EVs, I'm still a firm believer that most of our vehicles need not outweigh the pilot!


----------



## ikendu (Sep 14, 2005)

dukeleto said:


> Hey Ikendu,
> on the radio this morning (in France) a reporter said that for one liter of biodiesel,
> approximately 2/3 liter of diesel was consumed in its production (plowing,
> harvesting, transport etc I suppose). He did not give a figure for fossil diesel.
> ...



See this link about ethanol production and petroleum:

http://www.itsgood4.us/images/Ethanol and Petroleum energy balance.JPG


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 14, 2005)

Darell said:


> As much as I champion EVs, I'm still a firm believer that most of our vehicles need not outweigh the pilot!


Indeed. I can cover a mile in less than two minutes under my own power, albeit not forever, but _can_ do 2:40 to 3:00 miles continuously while perhaps outputting 250 watts or so at the pedals. Put me in a recumbent with a state-of-the-art aero shell and I could probably run 50 mph all day long. 250 watts will get you to about 5 mph if you're lucky even in a sub-compact car. With the exception of large ships and freight trains, a bicycle and especially HPV are the most efficient vehicles in terms of energy per ton-mile that we have.


----------



## ikendu (Sep 14, 2005)

jtr1962 said:


> Indeed. I can cover a mile in less than two minutes under my own power, albeit not forever, but _can_ do 2:40 to 3:00 miles continuously while perhaps outputting 250 watts or so at the pedals. Put me in a recumbent with a state-of-the-art aero shell and I could probably run 50 mph all day long.



So... I commute 19 miles one way on a state 2-lane highway where the posted limit is 55 mph. Everyone goes 60 mph. Could there be safe commuting with an electric assisted bike that I can pedal and keep up with the traffic safely. I'm thinking not... but if I could, that would be great!


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 14, 2005)

ikendu said:


> So... I commute 19 miles one way on a state 2-lane highway where the posted limit is 55 mph. Everyone goes 60 mph. Could there be safe commuting with an electric assisted bike that I can pedal and keep up with the traffic safely. I'm thinking not... but if I could, that would be great!


Assuming aero HPVs ever caught on big time, I'd personally want them to be separated from auto traffic for a variety of reasons, maybe on their own two or three lane "bikeway". Figure if you have lanes about 4 feet wide, you just have to widen the road by the equivalent of one lane in each direction, or have the bikeway elevated above the highway (easy and cheap to do since we're not dealing with much weight here).

Oh, and I was actually on a limited access highway once on a regular bicycle!  I was riding along the service road, and didn't realize that at the bottom of a curved hill the service road ended and merged with the expressway. Anyway, I was behind a large van which helped cut my drag. The funny thing is I didn't even realize how fast I was going for a while. Once I realized that I was on the expressway, I said the usual "Oh, sh*t!", but then thought that it was good that at least traffic seemed to be a little backed up, and hence slower moving than usual. I figured I was maybe going a little over 30 mph. I then realized that I seemed to be pedaling awfully fast plus my tires were making a strange whine (which I attributed to the concrete pavement rather than the speed), and thought that in the excitement of the moment I probably forgot to upshift so I decided to do so.  However, my shift levers were already in top gear! I took a quick glance at my speedo and it was on 58 mph thanks to the van a few feet in front of me breaking the wind. Apparently the van had accelerated gradually enough for me to keep up with it just by sheer luck. I believe I may have even accelerated a little past 60 later on but didn't want to take my eyes off the road to check the speedo since I was looking for an exit. Soon I saw "NEXT EXIT 1/2 MILE" and breathed a sigh of relief. I was on top of it in all of 30 or so seconds. Once I left the road and the van was no longer breaking my wind I decelerated like I had hit a sand pit. I was down to 40 by the time the exit merged with the service road. BTW, this wasn't the fastest I had ever gone on my bike. I did hit 65 mph once but this was on a normal city street, not a limited access road, and I actually felt safer than I did on the expressway since the road was absolutely clear.

Based just on this one experience I can tell you that I would not want to ride with traffic on an expressway in a human-powered vehicle. Just hitting a pothole could mean getting run over by cars behind you.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 15, 2005)

When you suggest lanes 4 foot wide you are presuming that driving at 30 to 50 mph in a streamlined hpv will be similar to the 15 to 20 mph that you currently travel in a full lane. I suggest, based on years of motor cycling, that you'll need much wider lanes. The prime reason is simply the human tendancy to occasionally drift out of position. 

When motorcycles are traveling together the experts suggest that you ride in a staggered formation to maximize the view of the road and so there is more time to react should one biker lose it. That same would apply to your HPV. They will have limited braking capability and limited visibility, so riding side by side in 4 foot wide lanes would not be advised.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 15, 2005)

Something about that chart seems fishy ... I realize that both processes depend on stored solar energy, but have trouble believing that it's a net loss with oil production & extraction - unless it's the likes of coal-fired energy that's making up for most of the loss with petrolium.


----------



## dukeleto (Sep 15, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Something about that chart seems fishy ... I realize that both processes depend on stored solar energy, but have trouble believing that it's a net loss with oil production & extraction - unless it's the likes of coal-fired energy that's making up for most of the loss with petrolium.




maybe I haven't understood the graph properly either (btw, thanks, Ikendu!)
but it looks like the energy used for refining, which yields gas but also other stuff like diesel, kerosene etc, is 
all counted for the gas instead of being averaged out over all the products issued from the refining?
If that's the case, it makes gas look unfairly inefficient.
I'll have to look at the ncga.com website I suppose.
Olivier


----------



## ikendu (Sep 15, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> ... I realize that both processes depend on stored solar energy, but have trouble believing that it's a net loss with oil production & extraction.



Actually, only one of the processes uses any solar energy; the ethanol one.

I suppose you could count the solar energy that made the oil millions of year ago.

I have trouble believing that you have trouble believing that it takes energy to find, mine, refine and transport petroleum fuel. You don't think all of those processes consume energy? ...please excuse the play on words! 

The usual number I see quoted is that if you find a gallon; only .88 gallons is actually delivered for use. It makes solar and wind electricity seem pretty good!


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 15, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> I suggest, based on years of motor cycling, that you'll need much wider lanes. The prime reason is simply the human tendancy to occasionally drift out of position.


Fair enough. I was thinking narrower lanes to make the idea more economically palatable to politicians who are looking to do things at the least possible cost. 8 foot lanes are even better as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, just for fun sometimes when I'm in a bike lane I try riding right on one of the white demarcation lines on either side. These lines are maybe all of 3" wide, yet I can usually keep the tires right on them for blocks at a time at 20+ mph. Of course, I also have over 55,000 miles of riding under my belt. No way a novice could hold a line that precisely.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 15, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Actually, only one of the processes uses any solar energy; the ethanol one.
> 
> I suppose you could count the solar energy that made the oil millions of year ago.


That's the idea. Solar power made eons-dead plant life just as possible as the recently-dead plants that go into ethanol.



ikendu said:


> I have trouble believing that you have trouble believing that it takes energy to find, mine, refine and transport petroleum fuel. You don't think all of those processes consume energy? ...please excuse the play on words!



Of course extraction, refining, and transportation take energy, but I'm really puzzled how it's a net loss on petrolium (a fairly energy-dense medium) as opposed to the raw crops for ethanol (not as energy-dense as petrolium) - especially given the NG-based fertilizer inputs for ethanol crops. Unless there are massive amounts of energy in the refining process for petrolium - supplied by coal or some other energy source.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 15, 2005)

There are several ways to look at everything, and graphics without supporting text leads to many, many interpretations. In a past job we called it Powerpoint Charades. A graphic is displayed and all the experts argue over what it really means. When a consensus is reached the consultants wrote it up and presented it as their work.

In this case, the graphics hav zero supporting text, so you have to guess.

Since gasoline is only 50% of the usable product from a barrel of crude oil, it's quite possible to use 1.23 mil BTU to create 1.0 mil btu of gasoline. Plus, of course .5 mil BTU of diesel and .5 mil BTU of jet fuel and .5 mil BTU of natual gas and feedstock for X dollars worth of plastics and.....


I made up all those figures because I'm too lazy to find the source that shows the percentages of products that come from crude oil. As I recall, you get kerosine, propane, gasoline, diesel, heating oil and tar plus some more.

I'm more than willing to accept the assertion that corn to ethanol production has a 25% net gain in energy. That's still a gain, and some of the byproducts are recycled as cattle feed. It would be nice if it was more efficient, but that's a good start.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Sep 15, 2005)

Since we are talking about energy balance... Here is a letter I sent to Popular Science.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

I was highly disappointed in Popular Science (I've been a reader for 45 years) when I saw the energy stats on page 40 of the October, 2005 issue. The small section is entitled "Is Renewable Fuel a Waste of Energy?" and goes on to state "30% more energy ethanol burns than creates". I'm sure the study that is referenced from Cornell University is the one by Dr. David Pimentel. A summary of such studies at http://www.cleanfuelsdc.org/issues/04CFDC-003_IssueBrief.pdf shows that of 8 different studies from 6 different reseachers, only the Pimentel study shows a negative energy balance. The other 7 studies show a generous, positive energy balance from the solar energy collection in ethanol. In an audio recorded debate on this issue (listenable at http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/debunking/index.htm), Dr. Pimentel asserts that the energy to create farm machinery should be included in the calculation. In his printed study, he also includes the energy for the workers at the ethanol plant to commute back and forth to their homes as part of his energy balance. In the audio recording, Dr. Pimental proposes making 1 BTU of diesel fuel from 2 BTUs of coal (a 50% loss of energy). In so doing, he chooses to ignore the energy cost of mining the coal, making the mining machinery, the cost of transporting the coal and the finished fuel; all types of costs that he does assert should be included in any ethanol study. Dr. Pimentel's real issue seems to be the damage that intensive farming does to our crop land and has chosen ethanol as his choice of issues to promote his position. I expect more thorough research from Popular Science. There are no serious energy researchers of which I am aware that do not completely reject Dr. Pimentel's study. Although, poorly researched popular media channels routinely report his work as "new" or "the latest study". I like to think that Popular Science is a little more than mere "Popular Media".


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 24, 2005)

Yeah, Popuar Science has been going downhill. I wrote the editor when I saw 3 factual mistakes in a single issue. The mistakes were the kind where the author did not understand the subject well enough to write the article. I got a great reply from the editor explaining what the authors thought they'd said. In two of the cases it was a matter of having edited to fit the space and leaving out important parts that would have made the statements, in context, correct.

Write a rebuttal and send it in. Ask that they print it. Maybe you can fix teh misrepresentation.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Sep 25, 2005)

So, Darell? Any advice for my idea that fizzled out to make an electric geometro on another thread? Any used rav 4s electric out there? Any new electric cars out there? 

I am going to attempt to get my license later this year and looks like my job is secure after my performance at the field day of the past show two weeks ago in Goochland, so want to start it off right with an EV. One that can go at least 67 miles up to 65mph.


----------



## Darell (Sep 25, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Yeah, Popuar Science has been going downhill. I wrote the editor when I saw 3 factual mistakes in a single issue.


I've often found three factual mistakes in a single paragraph!

Great letter, ikendu! I hope it meets a better fate than most of my letters to the editors...


----------



## Darell (Sep 25, 2005)

cobb said:


> So, Darell? Any advice for my idea that fizzled out to make an electric geometro on another thread? Any used rav 4s electric out there? Any new electric cars out there?


Sorry...been pretty preoccupied on this end, as you know. I can't offere any valuable advice on conversions... I can tell you that Rav4's are coming up for sale every so often, and they're selling used for far more than they cost new... but if you're serious, and have $45k burning a hole in your pocket, I can likely make it happen for you.



> so want to start it off right with an EV. One that can go at least 67 miles up to 65mph.


Well, I just drove the fully loaded Rav just over 80 miles home from SF at 75mph average. I don't usually drive that fast, but we had to hustle today. I swear that my range is getting BETTER as the batteries age.


----------



## cobb (Sep 25, 2005)

Sorry, no problem. Just seems little is out there for conversion kits as far as info is concerned and the step further to make it a serial hybrid. 

Sorry, not that interested in a rav 4. Maybe 16 grand or the price of a prius. One of the kits to make a metro electric was 12 grand. I read somewhere that some company in Ca was selling electric suzukis but they spoke very little english.



Darell said:


> Well, I just drove the fully loaded Rav just over 80 miles home from SF at 75mph average. I don't usually drive that fast, but we had to hustle today. I swear that my range is getting BETTER as the batteries age.



Boooo!!!!! Boooo!!!! UNFAIR!!!! You are compareing apples to oranges.  Darell, dont you know us without access to nickle metal batteries can only get 12kilowatts out of 12 group 24 batteries. You got twice and a quarter that in half the size bank of batteries and what, 1/4 the weight? 

I am thinking the serial thing may work, I just need to find a generator to fit somewhere, right size for the load and efficient. My experience at generators in the northerntool catalog showed that one model with the honda ohc engine was the most efficient at 1200 watts. Second place was the diesel model and third was the 1000 watt honda model that is red and enclosed. THe generator would only be used for highway trips, batteries mainly for city. 

Thanks Darell. I thought you were the guru and we could compare notes. Maybe this is something monster garage could do?


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 25, 2005)

There actually is a source of NiMH cell packs. I hesitate to mention them.


The Prius pack is rated for 150,000 miles. You can buy them from wrecking yards from Priuses that have been totaled in accidents. I hear you can get them for a few hundreds, certainly less than $1,000. I've considered picking up a second one to do the "piggyback" mod on my Prius. Double the battery and you double a lot of the parameters. Add a charger for the second pack and it gets real interesting.

Imagine adding the Prius drive train to a car the size and weight of a Geo Metro. Hmmmmm.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Sep 25, 2005)

cobb said:


> Thanks Darell. I thought you were the guru and we could compare notes.


Most of my knowledge is stuck to PRODUCTION EVs and their non-availability. My effort is in making production EVs at least available to anybody who'd like to help save the planet.  I know very little about conversions... sorry!


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 25, 2005)

cobb - you might look at AC Propulsion's AC-150 power system and BattOpt battery management system. They could probably help you with sourcing all other components they don't provide.

The Prius battery pack doesn't seem economical for EVs... I seem to recall that you're looking at < 5KWh in the Prius pack, and the individual modules look like they're composed of standard small cells - between subC & F. I could be way off - feel free to correct me.

...But if you can assemble 6-10 of them for $200-$500 each and manage the charging/discharging somehow, then you might be onto something.


----------



## evan9162 (Sep 25, 2005)

The Prius battery pack is actually a pack made of custom hybrid specific cells made by Panasonic.

http://www.peve.panasonic.co.jp/catalog/e_kaku.html

This document goes into detail about the prius battery pack:

http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/pdfs/2a_2002_01_1962.pdf


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 25, 2005)

Perhaps it uses some custom prismatic cells inside the pack, but at ~46 WH/unit, you'l need a heck of a lot of them for an EV... probably by design if the NiMH patent license rumors are true.


----------



## cobb (Sep 25, 2005)

This months homepower has an article on the prius plus. Basically they use an off board charger and a second battery pack to double the range. ALso they use it in a different mode so it uses the battery power, but doesnt use the ICE to recharge it. You do that at home or when ever you plug it in. 

I dont recall the exact details, but the amperage was like 7.5 amp hours. The prius uses in my opinion a very very small battery. Sure its a few hundred volts, but most EVs use tens if not hundreds of amps in the final configuration in addition to a hundred volts or abouts. Darells car has 2.25 the capacity cause of the batteries they use. Sure 27 kilowatts can take you a lot further than 12 would. I would need to tow a trailer or convert an s10 pickup to haul around 24 50 pound group 24 batteries and a 25 kilowatt generator. My idea got very impraticle very quickly. 

I wonder if one of the vendors here would give me a break on 300 or 3000 or so lith-ion recharagable batteries? 

Never seen under the hood of a prius, but the metro is small. I maybe only able to fit 4 batteries under the hood, at least group 24s using the stock tranny as if it was still an ICE. Just seems sill to use a generator thats larger than the stock 3 cylinder 1 liter engine when sizing up a generator for the car. 

I rather have 2 of those 3 phase AC brushless 220 hp motors myself and a lithion ion battery pack, but I havent won the lottery, yet.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 25, 2005)

Yes, it would take more than one battery pack. Each 2002 prius battrey pack weighs about 110 lbs and holds 1778 watt-hours. (273 volts * 6.5 ah) The pack delivers several hundred amps on demand to drive a 33KW electric motor.

These are essentially the same cells used in Darell's Rav 4, just configured differently. Darrel has a lot more, too. 

If you get them cheap enough, there's nothing wrong with using a lot.

Cobb, you mention little room under the hood of the GEO. The Prius has a rather small engine, and the electric motor is integrated into the space where the transmission would go, so it's no bigger than a standard motor plus transmission. Oh. And some electronics.

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 26, 2005)

The first spec sheet I've been able to find states 24 12V x 95A-H modules for 27.36KWh. Possibly the same prismatic cells, just a different pack configuration with massive parallelism.

If it used the same pack, it would require around 585 of them... with no small amount of additional mass to secure and interconnect so many pieces.

Again I have to wonder why higher-cap NiMH cells aren't available. There's nothing like buying in bulk to save money on anything, and that logic applies to manufacturing - less "packaging" is usually more efficient since you get more of what you want with less surface area containing it all. Some limitation on NiMH chemistry?

I do have to wonder if the W-H capacity of the Prius batteries was kept low to discourage "recycling," but I suspect the total storage did not need to be so great and the high voltage was a necessity. ~273V DC is _not_ something I'd want to short.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 26, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Again I have to wonder why higher-cap NiMH cells aren't available. There's nothing like buying in bulk to save money on anything, and that logic applies to manufacturing - less "packaging" is usually more efficient since you get more of what you want with less surface area containing it all. Some limitation on NiMH chemistry?


No limitations that I'm aware of. You can probably make a NiMH cell the size of a house if need be. The problem is the economics of manufacturing. It is not cost effective to make limited numbers of something. The cost would be more than just buying a bunch of off-the-shelf cells and connecting them, even though as you observed this is a less than optimal solution. The battery manufacturers can easily make a bigger cell for hybrids/BEVs but since they were already burned once with the EV1 fiasco and California's wimping out on the 10% ZEV requirement they won't do so until they have some minimum sales guarantee. And obviously they won't sell enough batteries unless automakers commit to building BEVs in large numbers. Sort of a chicken and egg problem. It's a shame because if all the parts for a BEV were mass produced they would cost way less than comparable ICE vehicles. That alone would make them much more popular.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 26, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> The first spec sheet I've been able to find states 24 12V x 95A-H modules for 27.36KWh. Possibly the same prismatic cells, just a different pack configuration with massive parallelism.
> 
> If it used the same pack, it would require around 585 of them... with no small amount of additional mass to secure and interconnect so many pieces.
> 
> ...




It is my understanding that the W-H capacity of the Prius batteries was kept low because that was all that was needed to reach the design goal. The Prius is, after all, designed around low pollution and not resource conservation. With the 1.7kwh battery pack the car can drive for a few miles without dropping below a pre-determined charge level, even though under normal circumstances it is only used for moving from a dead stop, backing up and urgent acceleration.

If you think about it, the RAV4 pack has 10 1.2 volt 95ah cells per module. Only two RAV4 modules would be enough AH to provide the needs of the Prius. But that would be 24 volts, so the current would have to be 10 times higher than with the existing packs. We all know the impact of very, vey high current draw on rechargables. Quick death.

The rav4EV battery packs are also bigger, and literally cover the bottom of the car. The Prius battery pack hides behind the rear seat. The Prius was trying to NOT be an electric car.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Sep 26, 2005)

Ive never seen under the hood of a prius. Its been awhile since I looked under the hood of my possible metro. I saw it this weekend covered in green dust and other debree. Its been sitting there for at least 4 years in the corner of my folks yard. All tires were flat and the front of the car was up against some brush.

If I hit the million lotto ticket I would look into quanity buying of batteries or a custom made one. Which ever would be cheaper. I would try to get the lithion flavor, but would settle for nickle metal.


----------



## gadget_lover (Sep 30, 2005)

Has anyone subscribed to the _Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Progress_ newsletter that is shown at http://www.altfuels.com/evp.php ?


I'm wondering if it's worth signing up.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Oct 1, 2005)

I joined a few forums, its my experience and opinion no one really did it themselves (make an EV)or know what they are doing. They are just wannabes who have rememered the text from the initial websites that shows a kit or that someone elses EV he or she built. Kind of like those who keep bringing up Nikola Tesla or the car that got 500mpg on water and other feats. 

Ive been using the good ole boys network at work for making an electric metro. Met quite a few interesting people. One guy who knows how to rebuild and make transformers and do it right. He had a real interest, however with a direct drive setup, he cant help me unless its a charger I need or converter. ALthough its an interesting experience, no one with anything on electric anythings, or efficienys of generators have I come across. Lots of folks use generators but they buy them based on need for kilowatts or price. One brand folks like cause they are quiet. 

Guess I could always built a serial hybrid go cart to test and go from there. I am sure I could find someone to buy it after I made it and tested it.


----------



## BB (Oct 1, 2005)

Cobb,

The only vehicle that I ever saw that a local person had converted into a BEV was done with an old VW dune buggy conversion back in during the 1970's oil embargo...

Here is a quick article about someone who did one about 10 years ago. Not much technical information. He had a 12 battery setup, and a friend of his had 24 batteries. A 24 battery system would give you upwards of 16-20 kWhrs of storage.

If, you can still find an old bug or dune buggy in your area for cheap--it may be a good way to go. VW bugs were great for conversions 20-30 years ago because there were lots of after market parts and junk yards around with cheap wrecks. And they are very easy to work on.

I don't know now if cheap sources of beetle parts are still around but it would probably be a much easier conversion that working on some later model car with all of the electronics/airbags/etc. of today.


-Bill


----------



## cobb (Oct 2, 2005)

Agree BB, looks like from what i researched the bug is the idea car, the old one at that. Just wondering how you get 16-20kwhrs out of 2 batteries. 

Volts x Amps = Watts. So one group 24 wet cell battery deep cycle flavor is 12 volts 85 amp hours or 1020 watts or 1kw. Those weigh 50 pounds each, so you would need 27 to equal what Darrel has in his rav 4. 1350 pounds of batteries. 

Just isnt practible unless you have a light weight car, nickle metal or lithion batteries or a serial hybrid for anything than city use 35mph. I just wont purchase a generator that is larger than the 1 liter 3 cylinder motor the car came with.


----------



## BB (Oct 2, 2005)

Cobb,

The article referenced two different conversion dune buggies, the pictures where of one with 12 batteries, the other friend had 24 batteries. (1kWhrx24x80%)=19.2 kWhrs.

Comparing with the Rav4e--without spending lots of time and money (for things like LI batteries with the electronics needed to support them), it is going to be difficult to get the range and performance that Darell has.

Regarding using a gen-set to get additional range--I am not sure that it would be worth the hassle and the conversion losses to even do it... Lets try a back of the envelope calculation on how a home converted vehicle with limited range would perform.

Say, 100 mile trip. Assume that 0.4kWhrs/mile. 60 mile range (24 kWhr battery pack). Driving at 60 miles per hour and a 2kW (1.8 kW continuous) Honda genset (quiet and efficient). Assume 60 mph on battery (these numbers are really rough estimates--they are used just to approximate performances calculated below--your mileage may vary).

First 60 miles @ 60 mph = 1 hour of driving. With 2kW generator, 1 hour of charging = 1.8 kWhrs, which gives you another 1.8/.4=4.5 miles... Or, roughly 64.5 miles at 60 mph.

Then your speed under generator power would be 1.8/.4-4.5 mph. So total time would be:

T=1hr + 4.5/60mphr + (100-64.5)/4.5 mph = about 8.96 hrs to drive 100 miles with 2kW genset. Or, drive the first hour, take a ~7.5 hour break, then continue the drive. Fuel consumed--(1.8 kW rate is 4 hours per 1.1 gals of gasoline) would be 2.464 gallons or 40.6 mpg. Not really great mileage if you are only averaging 11 mph.

At 60 mph, you would need a 24 kW gen-set to maintain speed. No matter how you slice it, a 2kW generator would take you a long time to go any distance outside of your normal range, and to use a generator for long trips--it would have to be a pretty large generator (12-24kW) to keep the speed up...

For longer trips, you may be better on a bus, at rent-a-wreck, or just get a cheap car and use the savings for gasoline. Around town, you could experiment with BEVs (car, motorcycle, trike) where the range is not as important and you have an outlet for charging.

Please check my numbers and assumptions... I am not sure my results are 100% correct as they seem so bad... But, the results logically match the engineering assumptions I have made based on numbers/ratings for BEVs and gensets I have seen.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 2, 2005)

Bill, I'm pretty sure your numbers are good. I figured that he would need a 10KW genset to stretch the range of a 24kwh pack to 100 miles.

The addition of a genset SHOULD allow you to get more AH from the batteries, since the draw would be reduced by whatever the gen puts out. In general, a lower draw taxes the battery less. 

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Oct 2, 2005)

400 watts a mile? Darrel is around 191 watts a mile. 

Ok, 60mph, 60 minutes an hour, 60 minutes x 400 watts a mile = 24,000 watts or 24 kilowatts. Man.... Darrel can only hold 27kilowatts in his car and it uses 191 watts a mile. 

So a 2 kilowatt generator an hour, would make 33.33 watts a minute?Man, wished I had my ti83 handy. I would make two linear equations and see where they intersect and their values. 

Or 2000watts an hour generator- 400 watts a minute motor time 60 mph would be 5 minutes or 5 miles. 3.2 hours of generator time with a gallon of gas would be 16 miles a gallon. Man....

Just doesnt look practible.


----------



## ikendu (Oct 2, 2005)

cobb said:


> [Darrell's car] uses 191 watts a mile.



So... would a 200 watt solar panel on the roof keep the RAV4EV going down the road with no extra energy other than the solar panel on a sunny day?


----------



## BB (Oct 2, 2005)

Cobb,

Feel free to use 200 watts per mile... You may get enough storage to get your trip without the generator... My numbers were middle to slightly worst case. Obviously, if you drive a boxy car at 60 vs an low CoD vehicle at 45 you results will vary.

But, the general principles still apply.

Ikendu,

One hour of a 200 watt panel would push a 200 Whr / mile vehicle one mile. At 60 mph, you would need (60mph*0.200 kWhrpm=) 12kW rate of panels to supply enough energy to maintain speed.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 2, 2005)

cobb said:


> 400 watts a mile? Darrel is around 191 watts a mile.
> 
> Ok, 60mph, 60 minutes an hour, 60 minutes x 400 watts a mile = 24,000 watts or 24 kilowatts. Man.... Darrel can only hold 27kilowatts in his car and it uses 191 watts a mile.
> 
> ...




Hi Cobb. You are mixing up your measurements. Watts are a unit of energy used at a particualr moment. Watt-hours is the watts used over time. Put another way, a light bulb may use 100 watts, but if it burns for an hour it's 100 watt-hours. Run it for 10 hours and it's 1kwh.

A 2kw generator will put out 2KW continuously. If it runs at full blast with it's maximum load for 1 hour, it will have created 2kwh of electricity. Watts multiplied by time equals watt-hours. 

Watt-hours are important because you need to know how long the power is being used as well as how much.

Putting this back in perspective, a car that requires a continuous 191 watts to travel at 60 mph will use 191 watt hours in 60 minutes. That's as much as two light bulbs, and not very realistic. 

Darell's car uses "250 Wh/mile" per his site (http://darelldd.com/ev/rav_data.htm) . That's consideralbly more than 191 watts. Multiply 250 by 60 (wh per minute at 60 mph times minutes in an hour) and you see he is actually consuming around 15,000 watt hours to drive for 1 hour. 

So when you figure out the generator needed for a serial hybrid, it has to put out a touch more power (in watts) than the motor uses to keep the car moving. That lets you drive witout depleting the battery. The battery then supplements the generator for the starts, stops and climbs that require more power. With the right electronics, the generator can be turned off when it's not needed.

Alternatively, you can size the genset so that it provides 1/2 the power needed by the motor, in which case the battery is constantly draining, but at a slower rate. You double the range of the battery and the battery will be depleted at the end of the range. 

The parallel hybrid uses the gas motor and the electric motors at the same time. The clever linkage of the two allows the car to travel on just the ICE, just the electric motor or both. The ICE is sized just large enough to move the car AND charge the battery at the same time. The electric motor is also sized big enough to move the car by itself. The computerized control allows the ICE to be turned off except when there is an extra power demand or when the batteries need charging. It's quite a clever design. The ICE is turned off whenever it is not needed; stop lights, steady traffic, etc.

A mild hybrid usually has an ICE that is big enough to drive the car without the electric motor. It uses the electric motor as a bit of a supercharger, making an anemic engine acceptable or (in the case of the Accura) making an acceptable engine more powerful and faster.

Both mild and parallel hybrids use the electric motor to quickly start the engine when needed. Both (as far as I know) use the electric motor to accelerate from a dead stop.

It's almost always more efficient to connect an ICE directly to the wheels if you can keep it in the power band. There are losses when you convert motion to electricity. There are losses when you store electricity (the rav 4 looses 10% in charging) and losses when you convert that electrcity to motion again.

Personally, I see the serial hybrid as a way to extend the range of a city car to allow occasional long trips and such. The best use is grid charge the batteries and don't fire up the generator unless you know you will need the range. For that matter, don't drag around the generator unless you know you'll be needing it.


Boy did I ramble on that one!

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Oct 2, 2005)

I want to "size the genset so that it provides 1/2 the power needed by the motor, in which case the battery is constantly draining, but at a slower rate." Daniel. Likewise in the city just plug it in. 

Looks like going to need to find one who did it, find the load rating vs speed and distant traveled. Short of buying and trying it myself. I wouldnt mind sucking the batteries dry, a 12 pack would run 600-800 bucks. I would just suck them dry every weekend or two.


----------



## ikendu (Oct 2, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Darell's car uses "250 Wh/mile" per his site (http://darelldd.com/ev/rav_data.htm).



So... a 250 watt solar panel, sitting parked for an hour in bright sun, would charge up the RAV4EV enough to travel 1 mile at 60 mph?


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 2, 2005)

ikendu said:


> So... a 250 watt solar panel, sitting parked for an hour in bright sun, would charge up the RAV4EV enough to travel 1 mile at 60 mph?




More or less. You have to take into account losses. 

Really, you are 100% corect. The solar racers in the other thread manage to do well by having lots and lots of surface covered with solar cells combined with ultra light construction and super streamlining. They look like sheets of plywood balanced on inline skates.

If you think about it, the 60 MPH is a bad speed for traveling due to wind resistance. It is a good speed for doing simple math so it's commonly used. If you get 5 hours of quality sun your 250 watt panel will charge a RAV4 enough for 8 to 10 miles around town. The RAV4 is not the most efficent EV ever made, although it does a good job.

Since I drive my car an average of 15 miles every 3 or 4 days, that would work fairly well for me.

Hmmmmm.


Daniel


----------



## BB (Oct 2, 2005)

ikendu,

Basically, yep. You could allow 10-20% losses for charging, losses for not being summer, losses for the panel not tracking the sun, losses for the panel getting hot, losses for a dirty panel, etc... You can see where I am going here. The mileage is not going to get any better.

For my home just south of San Francisco, I am currently averaging 15-16 kW (relatively sunny weather) hours per day with 20x 175 watt panels on a 30 degree slope, mostly south facing roof (3kW peak rated system). Or 60 mile of range per day. (3 miles per 175 watt panel per day... twice that if it tracks the sun).

Or, with E7 PG&E rate, dollar wise I can do a bit better. Summer peak $0.29/kWhr, off-peak $0.0866/kWhr. Assume that half my power is generated during peak and I charge off peak (use PG&E as battery, giving me lowest rates)... 15kWhr(0.29/.0866)/2 + 15/2= 32 kWhr or roughly 120 miles of RV4e range per day (summer rates with autumn sun). Assuming all of my power goes to the car and none to my house.


I believe that Darell uses another rate (E9????) and if he charges at night, he can even get a fraction more effective range because those rates are only $0.05-$0.06 (instead of my $0.0866) / kWhr. There are baseline charges involved here—so it may get more complicated if you use more kWhrs than baseline.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 2, 2005)

cobb said:


> I want to "size the genset so that it provides 1/2 the power needed by the motor, in which case the battery is constantly draining, but at a slower rate." Daniel. Likewise in the city just plug it in.
> 
> Looks like going to need to find one who did it, find the load rating vs speed and distant traveled. Short of buying and trying it myself. I wouldnt mind sucking the batteries dry, a 12 pack would run 600-800 bucks. I would just suck them dry every weekend or two.




The information is available with every EV kit. The electric motor is rated in KW, so you can use that to calculate everything else. The battery pack is rated in AH (hours at which you can draw a known number of amps times that number, I. E 30 ah at 5 amp is 30 / 5 = 6 hours) or watthours (volts * amps times hours, I.E 30 AH battery at 12 volts = 360 wh).

You use substitution to convert back and forth between instantaneous demand (watts) to usage over time (wh).

In the other thread, the kit you pointed by e-volks has the following description;


> This Geo Metro EV has been clocked at just over 70mph at 96 vdc, with good cooling. The motor consumes approx. 120-150 amps on flat ground at cruising speed. Therefore one should get about 1 hour driving at 45-55 mph with a standard t-105(or similar 220AH-6V) battery pack of 96vdc(16 batteries). There are many variables that effect this performance, such as tire rolling resistance and pressure, areo-dynamics of the vehicle, head-wind, inclines, cargo weight, etc.



96 volts * 150 amps is 14,400 watts. That matches what they said in anotehr spot on the web site. The 220AH-6V is a single battery, and they used 16 in this example, for a total of 96 volts. 96v * 220AH is 21120 watt hours AT THE SPECIFIED DISCHARGE RATE. Obviously, 150 amps is above the specified discharge rate for this battery since they are only able to pull 14,400 watt hours out of it.

To extend the milage from 60 to 140 miles, add a genset that supplies 7500 watts. That will drop the amps drained from the battery and supply 1/2 of the motor's energy requirements.

Did that help?

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Oct 2, 2005)

Darell said:


> I know very little about conversions... sorry!



I keep thinking of a PHEV conversion where you buy a used Chevy S10 Flex Fuel (E85) vehicle, leave the motor, etc. intact.

Then you put an electric motor/generator in the driveshaft. You add batteries under the bed (saw a nice S10 conversion with the batteries under the bed at the Wisconsin MREA fair one year) and you've got a Flex Fuel PHEV!

If I was more of a mechanic, I might think seriously about building such a thing. You could run all-electric until your batteries were discharged, then kick on the engine and drive around with your Flex Fuel, liquid fueled vehicle. You could rig up the regenerative braking off of the drive shaft too.


----------



## cobb (Oct 2, 2005)

ikendu, think I saw that in an episode of homepower. 

I think Ford is supposed to make something caled hydrolic launch assist. Its a hydrolic motor/pump on the drive shaft that in braking mode pumps fluid into a pressurized nitrogen reserve and when you take off the nitrogen forces the fluid through the motor/pump thing and it moves you to 25-35mph and the gas motor takes over from there.

Thanks Daniel. That would do it. Since i only need to go 60 some odd miles that may just do it and with a smaller generator. 

Ok, last question. HOw do you tell an efficient generator? I would use the half load figure and multiple that by the run time ona tank of fuel, then divide it by the gallons the tank holds.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 3, 2005)

cobb said:


> Thanks Daniel. That would do it. Since i only need to go 60 some odd miles that may just do it and with a smaller generator.
> 
> Ok, last question. How do you tell an efficient generator? I would use the half load figure and multiple that by the run time ona tank of fuel, then divide it by the gallons the tank holds.




I am not an expert, but logic sould say that you use the listed gallons per hour (GPH) at the rated load and the Wattage at the rated load. The efficiency would be watts/gph and would be measured in watt hours per gallon. That's almost the same as what you said. The difference is that the generator will be running flat-out and that's the efficiency you want to measure.

A 8,000 watt gen using 1.2gph would give you 6666 wh per gallon.

You have to start with the generator that supplies enough power for your system and work backwards from there. To double the milage of your GEO with the e-volks system you need 7500 watts, so any genset that is under that will not do the job; you can eleminate them right from the start.

There are other efficencies to deal with. There is weight, noise, life of engine, initial cost, etc.

The more efficient the motor the less energy is needed. The motor is actually a variable load, so if you drive slower (all else being equal) the energy demand is lessened.

I could, of course, be wrong. 

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Oct 3, 2005)

Cobb the other neat thing about the 1/2 power genset is that if you ever did run low on battery you could do one of two things. Stop, and let the genset recharge the bank for 20 minutes while you eat and then drive another 10 minutes. Or drive at about 38 mph instead of 60 and drive continuously. It is amazing how much more power it takes to go just one MPH faster, especially as you get higher in speed and wind drag really takes effect.


----------



## cobb (Oct 3, 2005)

Thanks guys. 7500 is way less than the 24000 someon said earlier. Just got to look those up and figure out the mounting of the gen to the car and feeding it. I plan on electric use for the most part and the gen maybe used for emergency power or charging at the apartment from extended use on weekends for a second job or visiting folks. Then plug in when can. I can plug in at work, have not bothers with asking the complex where I live. 

I think the trip 67 miles is full of areas where the speed drops to 35, the total length is 67 from my apartment to highway to streets, back roads or secondary roads. Its not really 65 mph for 67 miles.


----------



## BB (Oct 3, 2005)

Just to be fair, it was me that suggested 24kW for 100% generator supported transportation. And 12kW for a partial theoretical drive of 100 miles at 60 mph.

In any case, these numbers were pulled from the air and may or may not reflect your mythical vehicle's performance specifications. Speed, terrain, whether, driving habits, temperature, type of batteries, etc. are all going to play into the equation.

You still would need to check the genset name plate--usually the smaller ones are 20% over rated (peak power), and you need to allow for 20% loss in charging your batteries, and you have to somehow have a charging station that provides rated output that tracks the capacity of your genset so that you take the right max power enough--not too little or too much (not a common function that I have seen on any battery charger system).

Usually, a non-solar based battery charger's output is limited by the branch circuit current rating and the battery charge condition... Two values that will not map well into a standard genset's performance curves... especially when you put an active load (the motor) into the equation. 

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 3, 2005)

Brock said:


> Cobb the other neat thing about the 1/2 power genset is that if you ever did run low on battery you could do one of two things. Stop, and let the genset recharge the bank for 20 minutes while you eat and then drive another 10 minutes. Or drive at about 38 mph instead of 60 and drive continuously. It is amazing how much more power it takes to go just one MPH faster, especially as you get higher in speed and wind drag really takes effect.



That's a good point, Brock.

It may be even better than brock said. Just speaking off the top of my head, the 20 minute charge will give you 10 minutes of run time PLUS the contribution of the genset, so you may get 15 minutes of run. 

And since Brock did not expound on it, if the motor is one that only consumes 7 to 8 kw at lower speeds (38 MPH sounds right) the genset will be able to power it without dipping into the battery reserves.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 9, 2005)

I've ofetn thought a hybrid steam / electric car would be a perfect combination. 

Steam drawbacks; slow to start up. Scale buildup unless purified water is used. Can be heavy.
Steam advantages; lots of torque. external combustion = multi fuel. Can be very efficient. Long range with quick fuel/water fill.

Electric would take care of the first few minutes of driving while you build a head of steam. Exiting steam can turn a generator to recharge the batteries.

There is a boiler type that builds steam in seconds called a flash boiler, but it clogs quickly if you don't use very pure water.

Anyone hear of one of these?


Daniel


----------



## mattheww50 (Oct 9, 2005)

Flash steam is very unattractive for energy delivery. It turns back into water too easily. You get much better efficiency, and less trouble if you use much hotter steam. The closer the steam temperature is to the heat source temperature the more efficient the system, so for power generation, steam is almost always superheated.

As for the capability of steam powered vehicles, read up on the Stanley Steamer. Expansion engines are capable of providing immense tractive effort. It wasn't until the 1970's that a diesel electric locamotive could match the tractive effort of 'Big Boy' steam engines first used in the 1940's. Even today, no single Diesel Electric can match the nearly 7000 horsepower a Big Boy could deliver. 

Steam turbines don't provide nearly the low end torque, but generally have substantially better thermoydynamic efficiency.


----------



## cobb (Oct 10, 2005)

What would make steam great is to make it from solar energy or a nuclear reactor. I think they make safe sealed nuclear devices that make heat for deep space probes that could be used to make steam and last a long time. Wonder which is more efficient, solar cells or steam to turn a generator from solar energy.

To make power you would need the same steam setup, but instead of turning the wheels, turn a generator. I thought nuclear energy was like zero point energy, turns out its just another way to boil water. 

Sorry guys, I looked at the geo this weekend. Its about the size of the bmw mini. I have no idea where the batteries would go unless you remove the back seats and put them in that area. I think this case an engine replacement is in order as it got pretty good fuel usage. If I could find a used s10 with manual tranny I would feel safe about making it a serial ev and put the batteries under the bed between the frame rails and the generator in the bed area, much like contractors do or on top of a tool box. This way I would have tons of room for extra batteries too and could always add a leaf to the spring to support the extra weight.


----------



## Darell (Oct 11, 2005)

cobb said:


> 400 watts a mile? Darrel is around 191 watts a mile.


Will depend on the shape of the vehicle and speed, of course!

The Rav is averaging about 250 watt/mile across all drivers. The EV1 did WAY the hell better than that. If you assume 300 W/mile, you'll probably have a good safety margin.


----------



## Darell (Oct 11, 2005)

A quick catch-up on what's happening in the EV product world.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/11/63745/864


----------



## rodfran (Oct 12, 2005)

Recharge in 15 minutes-that takes care of that problem! Thanks for posting, Darell!


----------



## Darell (Oct 12, 2005)

rodfran said:


> Recharge in 15 minutes-that takes care of that problem!


Yes... one of two things needs to change to get us over the BEV range hump. You either need to stuff more energy into the car (more batteries, more expensive chemistry) OR you need the ability for fast and convenient recharge. With both, nobody would have anything else to complain about, so we wouldn't want to go there!


----------



## Darell (Oct 12, 2005)

While I still don't consider hybrids to be alt fuel vehicles, they are certainly considered that by the consumer! And they are the closest vehicles that we have to BEVs... in that vain, Dan Neil of the LA Times has an article in the LA times that is worth reading, regarding the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid. In the article, he takes on the nay-saying bloggers who complain that hybrids don't make financial sense, and they they are only a tool for tree-huggers to feel good about themselves.

I think registration is required to read the whole thing. But maybe not??

http://www.latimes.com/classified/a...2,0,917822.story?coll=la-class-autos-highway1

"The reason hybrid cars are flying off dealers' lots is not because they make such a galvanizing financial brief. It's because people of goodwill, conservative and liberal, are growing weary of the moral calculus of gasoline. What people are learning is that private choices have public consequences. Sure, I'll make my money back, but the more important thing is the 643 gallons of liquid crack I will save. Now that's conservative."

and this:

"Under the stubby hood — and also spread out under the rear seats — is the car's powertrain. The engine is a 1.3-liter four-cylinder with variable-valve timing; the electric motor is one of Honda's Integrated Motor Assist units, a 20-hp magnet sandwiched between the engine and the continuously variable transmission. New for this edition is full-cylinder deactivation: Under light-load cruising, the gas engine can shut down entirely so that the car is being propelled only by the electric motor."


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 12, 2005)

I found this thought by the author regarding the push for a hydrogen economy as opposed to BEVs very interesting in that article you linked to a few posts back:



> With EVs, big oil companies get left completely out of the loop. Bye-bye to the GOP's best buddies. Maybe that's not such a crazy theory after all.


I've had that exact same thought many, many times. Try as I might, I can find zero technical reasons to favor fuel cells over BEVs, and a lot of reasons why the idea is just plain stupid. 5 minute recharge times for BEVs using new batteries pretty much get rid of the last tenuous justification for fuel cells over BEVs.


----------



## Darell (Oct 12, 2005)

jtr1962 said:


> Try as I might, I can find zero technical reasons to favor fuel cells over BEVs, and a lot of reasons why the idea is just plain stupid. 5 minute recharge times for BEVs using new batteries pretty much get rid of the last tenuous justification for fuel cells over BEVs.


Agreed. The FC folks are trying to sell the vehicles on extended range and quick refill. The problem, of course, is that none of this exists on any kind of reasonable scale. Sure it *could* exist... but at what cost, and at what energy consumption? A "real" FCV with over 200 miles range has not yet been put on the road. The ones that have almost 200 mile range still cost about $1 million to produce - we don't even need to talk about the cost to fuel or maintain! Along comes ACP, and for about $230k, they build a 300-mile range Li-Ion car that has acceleration good enough to beat the fastest street-legal ICE vehicles from zero-60. While it can't charge in 15 minutes, it can charge to about 80% in about an hour. And with 300-mile range... well, you get the idea.

The reason Hydrogen is being pushed over batteries is quite simple (in my simple mind, at least!). The easiest way to get hydrogen is to strip it from fossil fuels. Who maintains control of our country's energy? The consumer? Ha. And even if the H2 comes from non-fossil sources, oil companies can still brand the fuel as their own. A car that requires only electricity to run?! Well, that fuel can be made just about anywhere by anybody. There are no "additive" packages to make it special. There are no grades of electricity to market. No "my electricity burns cleaner than yours."

As long as our electric cars require some sort of "fuel," then the oil and auto industry seem to be all for them. Take that fuel component away, and they don't seem quite as happy. :thinking:

You just have to laugh when people complain that BEVs are just too expensive for "prime time," and in the next breath extol the virtues of FCVs. VERY few consumers realize that FC's are basically just very expensive and inefficient batteries! The expense and inefficiency is the price you pay for the convenience of using an external source of H2.


----------



## ikendu (Oct 12, 2005)

Darell, is anybody working on a full BEV version of the Prius? (hackers I mean)

It seems like it has all of the basic ingrediants except for enough battery power and the system logic to run all-electric at any speed.

Heck, I keep thinking about converting an S10 truck.

Shouldn't it be a LOT easier to convert a Prius to full BEV?
(and...if you left the engine alone, you'd have your liquid fuel back up too)

It's got the powerful electric motor, regen braking, electric accessories, etc.


----------



## Darell (Oct 12, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Darell, is anybody working on a full BEV version of the Prius?
> ....
> Shouldn't it be a LOT easier to convert a Prius to full BEV?
> (and...if you left the engine alone, you'd have your liquid fuel back up too)
> ...


I don't know of anybody attempting a full BEV of the Prius, no. And there are some pretty good reasons against doing it. Now, a ground-up BEV Prius has some astonishing potential of course. It is a relatively roomy, slippery design. Well, hell. ANY car can make a pretty good BEV if it is designed for it! The problem with conversions is that you have to pay for all the expensive goodies it comes with, and toss a good portion of those, and add MORE expensive goodies. It gets unrealistic in a hurry.

One example of why it doesn't make economic sense to convert the Prius is illustrated by a conversation I had with Tom Gage of AC Propulsion. I'd asked what would be involved in taking my already-built BEV (the Rav) and converting it to their superior "reductive" charging system. Now, my BEV has ALL the components to be a compentent BEV, and all I'm asking for is a controller swap, right? Well, nothing doing. He said it would be easier and cheaper to begin with a gas RAV and convert it from the ground up to be an AC P vehicle. It turns out that "reprogramming" or swapping out the controller is not the easy step that it seems. Like in the Prius (well, and ALL modern cars) the Rav has several (14 I think is the official count) computers sprinkled throughout the vehicle. They are all entertwined, and like replacing the brain in a human, would be tough to reconnect all the important bits so that they can still talk to each other correctly.

This is the same reason that the Prius+ project is still limited in speed while on battery. The controller remains the same, with the same limitations. You change the controller, and you might as well start from scratch.
And then there's always the question of where you put all those extra batteries to make a full BEV. If you leave the engine, transmission and gas tank in the Prius, you're severely cramped for space and gross weight.

BEVs would be (relatively) simple to design and build from the beginning. Making a nicely-integrated *conversion* with all the bells and whistles just isn't practical. The Toyota guys did a hell of a job making the Prius what it is. They could make a hell of a BEV version. But converting one to the other just doesn't make sense, unfortunately.

If there were a Prius BEV for $50k at the showroom tomorrow, I'd find a way to buy it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 12, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Darell, is anybody working on a full BEV version of the Prius? (hackers I mean)
> 
> It seems like it has all of the basic ingrediants except for enough battery power and the system logic to run all-electric at any speed.
> 
> ...



I have not heard of it being done. The electronics and mechanics are designed to integrate the ICE and the motor. The ICE is actually an integral part of the CVT (transmission). The battery pack is very small and would not last under hard use. 

The car is well designed with very little space that is not used. Adding a full sized battery pack would mean that you'd lose a trunk and mess with the weight distribution.

The plug-in hybrid groups are making a short range BEV with ICE backup. That is probably as close as we'll come for a while.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 12, 2005)

Darell said:


> If there were a Prius BEV for $50k at the showroom tomorrow, I'd find a way to buy it.




I'd wait till next year. Better batteries and you avoid the "first model year" bugs.







Daniel


----------



## cobb (Oct 14, 2005)

I got a question for you guys. Its my understanding the great thing about an electric motor is the fact it can make full torque at the slowest of speeds, where as an ICE needs to rev up to a certain rpm. 

Well, it seems from Darells webpage, his Rav4 and ev1 has around a 10 to 1 final drive gear reduction. The ac systems kit also requires around a 10 to 1 reduction and mentions to use second gear in your car with manual tranny. Then the other kits that use your existing tranny and shift like its an ICE.

If the motor can make max torque at a low speed, why do these examples have gear reduction? I thought gear reduction can rob 10-15% of your power. Thats 10-15 hp from an 100 hp motor. 

I know in wheelchairs, they use a combinations of 4 pole motors which give more torque at lower rpms and less gear reduction 10-20 to 1 and 2 pole motors that have plenty of rpms and less torque that use worm reduction of 100 or so to 1. Therefore most wheelchairs have a speed of 5-7mph. 

Now, one manufacture (Invacare Aarow GB) maked a brushless gearless wheelchair with hub motors. It was great, more power, battery life, quieter, more control. The down side was it was prone to bearing damage, over heating and triggering faults that caused one to be left out in the street or sidewalk from time to time. 

Ive often dreamed of making a hybrid manual wheelchair with those in hub motors, but never had the money and now no longer require a wheelchair. 

Back to the point, why dont they make direct drive brushless motors for EVs? I know the ac systems is a 3 phase brushless system, but I think the rav 4 and a few of those kits are brushed motors or traction motors. While we are on the subject, whats a traction motor? I mainly hear of those used in trains.

Is all this really pointing to the fact no one has designed an EV from the ground up and in order to make a great EV, you need a special motor engineered for the rpms and torque for driving said car?


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 14, 2005)

I'll answer the easy question: Traction motor. It's esentially any motor designed to turn the wheels of a vehicle. There. That was easy. Other motors may be used to move things (tape decks) or pull things (linear actuator).

I can't tell you why the gearing is needed / not needed with these motors. I do know some motors develop maximum horsepower at higher speeds. I also believe the Prius uses an AC brushless design. I could be wrong. Darell's said the RAV has the same motor, but I tend to think it's different since the Prius motor is built into the power transfer device (AKA the CVT).

One advantage of gearing is that it will mask the pulsing of the motor at low speeds. If the motor is turning over real slow you can feel it as each winding is energized. This is called cogging. Use 10 to 1 gearing and you should be able to keep the motor above the speeds where it's noticable.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Oct 17, 2005)

Daniel beat me to it, as usual. But then he's been home safe and sound all weekend. 

Yes, our battery pack is called the traction pack. The main motor is the traction motor. The stuff that makes you move!

Every EV that I've ever heard of has had reduction gearing. While torque is excellent at low RPM, there is still a limit, and you really WANT to limit how much torque the motor has to put out to move the vehicle. Torque is what'll require current. If you can move the vehicle by using LESS torque from the motor, you're wasting less power.

That said, I'm pretty sure the new hub motors are direct drive by default, so I'm not sure what they're doing to get around that problem.

Daniel- If I said the motors in our two cars was the same, then I misspoke. They are definitely NOT the same motor. They do share almost identical OUTPUT, however, and I hope that's what I said before!


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2005)

Hey. Where is everybody?

A new magazine called green*light is being launched to help folks make green purchasing decisions. If you're interested in a free one year subscription, see below. I don't know much about it, but I just signed up. You don't have to supply much info - not even a postal address or phone number. How's that for modern?

-------------

Get your very own FREE charter subscription to green*light magazine Let's face it there's a lot of information out there and a lot of products to choose from. The good news is there's a brand new resource to help you sort it all out and make better purchase (and living) decisions. green*light magazine is a new digital quarterly magazine that is currently offering you the opportunity to get a no-cost one year subscription in an earth-friendly format. Get yours at:
www.greenlightmag.com/subscribe.html


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 21, 2005)

We haven't gone anywhere, we're just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.



Daniel


----------



## cobb (Oct 21, 2005)

Not much going on here guys. 

I talked to the corporate chaplin about getting my license and the ethics involved if i decide to cheat to get it. Not the written part, but visual part. Then about vision in general. See, I dont see stuff like you guys do, or anyone for that matter. TO me a B and 8 look very similar. If I see the word 8all, I know its ball. if I see B3, I know thats 83. Now if i saw B8, I can see the difference. 

He said if i cheated, it could come back in liability. If I see what I saw, like the 8B and its right, well I pass the test and can tell the two things apart. Just got to get around to taking the test. 

If I pass, I wouldnt mind looking into buying an EV if they make one. Looks like a good 12-14 grand minus labor and a 1600 or so for batteries to make an electric s10 hybrid. Not counting the genny from the aove conversation. 

The geometro needs some more work than i thought. Turns out a seat is broken and some stuff inside needs work. Got to get engine replaced and those fixed. 

Looked at my budget, it maybe a tight squeeze owning a car with insurance, gas to deal with. Never mind buying a car. I hope with wheels, I can work a second job to over come that. Better get out there before the bird flu hits and folks relaise they cant spend much this xmas cause of fuel prices. 

Something was on my mind. Think there maybe a new fuel crisis if bio diesel catches on? I mean, there is only so much waste oil in a county and its not long before these grease kitchens decide to charge for it. I imagine a semi truck with 2 250 gallon tanks can easily wipe out a good batch of biodiesel as is. Of all, the trucks really ned a cheaper source of fuel, not to mention cleaner and better smelling.


----------



## ikendu (Oct 22, 2005)

Cobb wrote:

"Think there maybe a new fuel crisis if bio diesel catches on? I mean, there is only so much waste oil in a county..."

+++++++++++++++++++++

Three BILLION gallons of waste fryer oil are discarded every year in the U.S.

That is enough for 5% of all of the diesel fuel we use every year. Can you imagine the celebration if we suddenly found a new oil strike in the continental U.S. that would be equal to 5% of the annual diesel fuel?

Having said that, "Yes", there will continue to be a fuel crisis. Why? Because world demand for liquid fuel is growing every year but every year we are finding less petroleum to mine out of the earth. Last year our demand in the U.S. went up 3.4%. At the same time, China's demand went up over 15%. China is now the #2 petroleum importing nation on the earth (used to be Japan).

We really need to be looking for higher yielding biofuels. In our country, we have vast resources for harvesting the sun and growing biofuels. But... soy biodiesel and corn ethanol are only places to start. They will not get us to energy independence. We need a good program for converting cellulose to ethanol and waste streams to algal biodiesel. There is still plenty of research to do to get us off of oil. 

Spend some energy and write your congress persons. Tell them you want more funding for high yield biofuels research.


----------



## cobb (Oct 22, 2005)

ikendu, high yield bio fuels? High yield bio fuels? I bet any congressman would know what that means. I should also tell him the benefits of time travel and dark matter while I am at it.  Dont forgot our fossel fuels are renewable, we would just have to wait millions of years and problem solved. 

I rather tell the congressman how he could use grains, the ones he is paying the farmers not to grow that could be used to supplement our fuel supply, crisis and cost. 

Think on the history channel I saw how in south america they are using sugar cane to some how off set their fuel demand.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 22, 2005)

cobb said:


> ikendu, high yield bio fuels? High yield bio fuels? I bet any congressman would know what that means. I should also tell him the benefits of time travel and dark matter while I am at it.



While I agree with you that your congressman may be ignorant about biofuels, how will he learn if people like you don't educate him? My locals (state) congresswoman did not realize that her district had more hybrid cars than any other district in the state of California.... Till I mentioned it.

If you don't educate them, the lobbyists will.




> Think on the history channel I saw how in south america they are using sugar cane to some how off set their fuel demand.



In Brazil, I understand a lot of their cars run on straight alchohol. That makes sense.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Oct 23, 2005)

ikendu, gadget_lover, you got a pamplet we can resend to our reps? Maybe a cover sheet in plain english then details on the following sheets?


----------



## ikendu (Oct 23, 2005)

I actually have not developed such a thing... but I will work on it.


----------



## ikendu (Oct 23, 2005)

Cobb wrote:

ikendu, ...got a pamplet we can resend to our reps? Maybe a cover sheet in plain english then details on the following sheets?

++++++++++++++++

How's this for a start?

++++++++++++++++

Dear Member of Congress, 

We can see that the “age of cheap oil” is now at the beginning of the end. In order to continue to support our need for transportation in the U.S., we will need to actively look for and support the development of petroleum alternatives. Recently, the Congress supported incentives for corn ethanol and soy biodiesel.

This is a great place to start, but we must do more if we are to prepare for energy independence. When you look at the energy balance for corn ethanol, for each unit of “energy in” for planting, harvesting and processing, you get 1.65 units out (USDA study). By comparison, for each unit of oil that is found, only .88 units reaches us as energy when you subtract all of the energy to find, obtain and transport oil.

If we had to rely on corn ethanol for energy with no oil input, the gross yield of 300 gallons/acre becomes 118 gallons of net energy gain. If we used every acre of the 74 million acres/year of corn for ethanol, we only get about 8.5 billion new energy gallons. That is only about 7% of the 120 billion gallons of gasoline we use in the U.S. every year. That is not very good for a liquid fuel transportation future.

If we used every acre of soy beans for soy biodiesel, we’d get about 2.38 billion new energy gallons or about 4% of the diesel fuel we use every year. If we grew higher oil yielding rape seed instead of soy, those same acres would get us about 5.2% of the diesel fuel instead.

It is clear that we must have better, more productive renewable fuel alternatives as our access to oil dwindles away. Corn ethanol and soy biodiesel are only a good place to start. The Department Of Transportation shows that half of the trips made in the U.S. are 20 miles or less. If we were to add just 20 miles of battery range to the newest hybrid/electric vehicles that have become so popular, we could shift 50% of our liquid fueled transportation to grid electricity. After that first 20 miles of battery is exhausted, the gas/diesel engine kicks in to provide unlimited quick-refuel range. The municipal electric utility of Austin, Texas estimates that electricity is like 56 cent/gal gasoline!

Just imagine, if we begin to see such vehicles in 2 years, within 8 more years we could have enough of these new vehicles on the road to replace most of the oil we presently import. Our out-of-country payments for the imported oil that would be displaced is about $128 Billion/year (@ $60/barrel). That is $128 Billion that can not find its way into the hands of terrorists or fund the proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. It is a $128 Billion improvement in our balance of payments.

Can you think of any other program we could support with such an incredible improvement in our balance of payments, plus increase our economic and national security? This is not new technology. Such hybrid electric vehicles are already being tinkered together by back yard engineers from presently available hybrids like the Toyota Prius or Ford Escape.

Please initiate and support legislation to promote Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs).


----------



## cobb (Oct 23, 2005)

I wouldnt mind printing off a few hundred and sending them to the senators, congressmans, etc. 

You page would make a great page 2. I was thinking of something rather dumbed down for the front page, except with a bit better grammar and spelling.

---------------------------------------------

Dear Senator or Congressman,(I rather use their actual name)

I am Cobb of Richmond,VA and discovered we can do something about the cost of gas. With your help we can stop paying sudsudititys (SP?) to farmers to not grow grains we do not need and use these grains products to make fuel. Not only will this reduce the price of gas, but reduce our dependency on foruin(SP?) oil and help our the American farmers. This is a win, win situation.

In many shops, garages and backyard folks are turning used waste vegetable oil from truck stops into diesel fuel. This costs around 70 cents a gallon to make with off the shelf chemicals and parts. Not only is it cleaner, clearer, but smells like french fries. Barzil(SP?) uses sugar cane to produce alcohol to reduce their gas needs.(insert another example) 

I know you have heard a lot about hydrogen, electric cars and hybrids. Although the hybrids are a working step, the hydrogen and electric car are far from being perfected and used over night. With uses of grains to make fuel, we can use our existing cars to cut emmissions and the price of gas right now. With making a demand for grains, we help to support the farmers, fill our tanks and save the environment.

(action paragraph) ??? Now what do we want them to do? Maybe this is where your page comes in?


----------



## ikendu (Oct 23, 2005)

I'll keep working on it.


----------



## cobb (Oct 25, 2005)

Thanks. No offense to your first draft or mines. Ive never met a senator or congressman, but written them once. They wrote a letter on my behalf to the person it was about and a reply was sent to me. 

I thought the least I or we could do is to send a letter in plain english anyone can understand of what can be done now for are fuel problems. 37 cents a letter for postal is rather cheap. when you think about it. 

Imagine if we can get a few hundred folks to do this?

Where I lost steam is what can a senator or congressman do now? After talking to my dad, he poop pooped the idea. He said using grain and soy beans to make fuel would likely use more energy than they make. He said the same about using sugar cane for alcohol. I told him the same is true for making hydrogen and fossel fuels. Told him the best we could do right now was to use fossel fuel that has a higher btu.


----------



## Darell (Oct 28, 2005)

Here. Send your congressperson this picture that I took yesterday at an EV lunch. For size comparison, that's a white Ford Explorer on the right.







His vote counts as much as mine.


----------



## idleprocess (Oct 28, 2005)

At least the driver has some connection to reality... they know what makes their ride go.

:shrugs:


----------



## Darell (Oct 28, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> At least the driver has some connection to reality... they know what makes their ride go.


And unless he adds a drag chute to the thing, he's managed to do just about everything he can to consume as MUCH of that go-juice as humanly possible.


----------



## cobb (Oct 28, 2005)

I dont get it Darell. Is that an EV SUV or gas guzzler excursion? It looks like a ford product, but I cant tell much beyond that. The ford escape hybrid looks identical to the regular model except for a vent on the rear window on one side.

You are in California right? I bet you see some hopped up hummers too. Ive seen a few of those monsters in custom car and truck catalogs.


----------



## Darell (Oct 28, 2005)

That there is a bonified, gasoline-burning, jacked-up, 4WD Ford Excretion.


----------



## Darell (Nov 3, 2005)

Welll, if this news (regarding a Toyota plug-in hybrid) is verified, then it is a great day, indeed.

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/plug-in_hybrid.htm


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 8, 2005)

Well, I think they've gone back to the "winter fuel" formula in California again. I just filled my Prius tank and got only 40.2 MPG on this tank after driving 301 miles. Due to strange circumstances, almost all of those miles were trips of less than 5 minutes. To the store. To the doctor. To physical therapy. Repeat. Alot.

I mention this because this type of driving is perfet for a plug in hybrid. It's the very essence of the situation where a hybrid is least efficient. It's where a small battery pack that can withstand deep discharge would handle almost all of the driving needs for two months. Heck, a pure BEV with 30 mile range would have easily handled our needs this month.

On the positive side, I was able to buy gas for only $2.55 today. The last time I bought it was before Katrina, so the $3.20 prices didn't hit us.


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 8, 2005)

It sounds like Toyota isn't (publicly) going to develop plug-in hybrids after all. Yet.

Too bad, because a PHEV with a ~40 mile range would be an ideal commuting vehicle: >90% of my daily commuting would be on battery power alone without recharge midday. Even 20 miles' EV range would nearly halve my gasoline consumption... but 40-50 would be better. If they can get the same endurance from NiMH cells in PHEVs that the RAV4EV seems to be enjoying (100k-150k+ miles), I think I could handle battery replacement every few years. Long-lasting, deep-cycle lithium-ion would be better - and are seemingly within reach.

I would hope that onboard charging from 110V AC is the standard ... maybe even with the option for 240V AC. You're not going to get much more than 1.5KW from a 110V / 15A circuit - that's 10 hrs to charge a 15kW pack; perhaps a bit large for a PHEV since I'm sure the EV range will be kept fairly low - just enough for at least one leg of most commutes.


----------



## Wolfen (Nov 8, 2005)

Yup, the Explorer is one undersized vehicle.


----------



## James S (Nov 8, 2005)

from that article daryl linked to said:


> Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are enjoying new life as the poster child of security conscious neo-conservatives, because of their ability to substantially reduce oil demand.



wait.. but.. OK, so now it's the "neo-conservatives" who are interested in plugin hybrids? But... OK, thinking back isn't it the conservatives who are all for giving lots of money to big business like the oil companies? Shouldn't any neo-conservtives be embracing their party line and reducing oil taxes, regular taxes and union busting and ignoring global warming research? I'm so confused 

While my conservatism politically is certainly newer than my liberalism politically (which WAY overshadows my neo-conservatism), none of my political views have any impact on my wanting to own a plugin hybrid or electric car in any way. 

How can you even say something so amazingly stupid? Oh, well, I guess they took a page from the book of every other magazine and newspaper lately. i've read some amazingly stupid things over the last few years, or heck, even my whole life 

Daryl, did you know you're a neo-conservative? How about you Ikendu?  Na na you're all neo-conservatives!


----------



## Darell (Nov 8, 2005)

James S said:


> Daryl, did you know you're a neo-conservative? How about you Ikendu?  Na na you're all neo-conservatives!


From my college course in logic, I learned that if A likes B, liking B does not make you A.

Though I have been accused of being an A before!


----------



## James S (Nov 8, 2005)

> From my college course in logic, I learned that if A likes B, liking B does not make you A.



you're not in college anymore battery boy 

As I've learned since college, in matters of computer operating system choice, political affiliation, love and electric cars, logic is not even an operand in the equation. It's all about perception.

Those concerned about the environment will not take kindly to being branded a neo-conservative by the car that they drive. I'm afraid that this PR snafu here has just set back the cause of the electric car by another 30 years.

There are some things that are just so out there that they aren't even wrong  This is one of those things...

:laughing:


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 8, 2005)

James S said:


> Those concerned about the environment will not take kindly to being branded a neo-conservative by the car that they drive. I'm afraid that this PR snafu here has just set back the cause of the electric car by another 30 years.



Wow - here I thought it was just an example of a coalition, or that "bipartisanship" that never seems to materialize...


----------



## cobb (Nov 8, 2005)

Thanks for clearing that Darell. If i hit the mega millions of lotto south, I am going to make EVs. Going to get some of you guys to consult, some engineers, some prototypes and spend a week with Darell to look at his EVs and Daniels Prius. 

Reminds me, got a few tickets to check. Guessing I havent won as no one has yet in VA. Someone wins in Richmond, Hanover or Waverly it maybe me.


----------



## Darell (Nov 8, 2005)

Well, it turns out that just about everything was wrong with that article anyway, so the neocon thing doesn't really stand out!

I will admit that when I first read it, I figured I just didn't know the new definition of neocon.


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2005)

Here's a page that I just now stubled across. Was created many moons ago by a guy I know from the EV1 days. I like his sense of humor here.

http://people.qualcomm.com/karn/ev/joke_hybrid.html

My favorite line is this one: "Doesn't add to pollution from those nasty electric power plants."


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 12, 2005)

Very practical.


----------



## Darell (Nov 15, 2005)

In another Cafe thread "oil and the lies..." it was suggested that EVs could only survive with huge incentives - subsidies, if you will. Here's a bit of info to counter that claim.

A 3-year-old vehicle with scratches and 37k miles on it. No overall warranty in effect, only a handful of areas to get service... and on the "open market" of eBay, it just sold for $53,100.

Brand new this car was just over $42k. After incentives, it cost the average consumer about $37k. Three years later, with very little support it is worth $53,100. And the buyer will get ZERO subsidy on this used vehicle.

Rav4EV on Ebay


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 15, 2005)

Darell said:


> In another Cafe thread "oil and the lies..." it was suggested that EVs could only survive with huge incentives - subsidies, if you will. Here's a bit of info to counter that claim.
> 
> A 3-year-old vehicle with scratches and 37k miles on it. No overall warranty in effect, only a handful of areas to get service... and on the "open market" of eBay, it just sold for $53,100.
> 
> ...




First, let me say that I agree with Darell. BEVs can exist without subsidies. I've seen people with home-mades that were not subsidized. I've seen people on Vespa sized electric scooters.

But the current situation is abnormal so the instance Darrell quotes is not really significant. It's a single instance. If there were 1,000 of them for sale on E-bay all the time and they sold for $50k it would indicate a strong demand. The car is, in effect, a 'collector' car.

This is really a case of projecting future based on current circumstances. Unless BEVs are equally rare in the future the price will fall, not increase. As long as there are marginally more buyers than there are available cars, the price will remain high.

Case in point; My Prius. At 3 years old and 36,000 miles I can sell it for 80% of it's purchase price. As hybrids become mainstream and common the depreciation on new hybrids will match other similar cars, especially if the promised battery enhancements are available. The same will happen if BEV ever become common.

The real test of demand is to build them and sell them. If there are no BEVs being produced despite the avid fans I tend to think that the technology or the market is not ready. It's possible that the avid fans are just terrible business people but if the Chia Pet can be commercially successful then anything can be.

So what if it costs 20 million to get started. Prove that it can work and present a business plan to investors and it's amazing what happens. Some companies like http://www.zapworld.com/ have set up a viable business for electric transport. It should be possible for an electric car.


----------



## Darell (Nov 15, 2005)

Yeah, don't read *too* much into it! Even better, but less glamorous information would be the many thousands of conversion vehicles that are out there. People are not getting incentives to build those beyond the "natural incentives" to do the right thing! There have always been more EV conversions on the road than production EVs, that's for certain.

Added: I would like to point out that while the rarity of these vehicles obviously increases their "value," these cars are not being "collected" by anybody that I know! People are valuing these used vehicles above $50k just so they can drive them instead of driving a gasoline car. When a new gasoline version of this vehicle would cost under $20k, it really is significant that people would be lining up to pay $40-$50 for a used EV. Since most of the three-year leases on many of these vehicles came due over the past few months, many of these vehicles have changed hands. Even with quite high mileage, they consistently sell for above $40k, and they're usually snapped up the same day the sale is mentioned. No, there won't bill millions of people in line to buy these. Not even thousands - not while gas is this cheap, and the disinformation flows freely. To determine the market for these vehicles, they will definitely need to be "marketed." That has not happened since the early 1900's.


----------



## Darell (Nov 15, 2005)

The latest from ACP on the Hyrdrogen Hype.
http://www.evworld.com/library/abrooks_carb_nov2_05.pdf

My favorite lines:



> Making hydrogen is the last thing you want to do with renewable
> electricity



and



> Terry Tamminen, Schwarzenegger's leading environmental
> adviser, said Californians need only look upward for one huge,
> renewable source of hydrogen: water, a key component of the
> fuel. "That's just fuel falling from the sky," he said.
> San Diego Union Tribune, Nov 22, 2004


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 15, 2005)

Darell said:


> Added: I would like to point out that while the rarity of these vehicles obviously increases their "value," these cars are not being "collected" by anybody that I know! People are valuing these used vehicles above $50k just so they can drive them instead of driving a gasoline car.




Ah HA! You slipped that in. I was concerned that you might take my post negatively, though it was not meant to be. I'm glad it was taken as it was meant to be.

I don't think we can say how many people are buying them due to their intrinsic value VS the many other possible reasons. My neighbor's daughter leased the Honda EV because she was an environmentalist. It made a statement. She did like the car and would have bought it if given the chance. If she was not into the envirment I doubt she would have given it a chance.

I bought a hybrid because I needed a commute car and it's a great gadget. I've been very happy. If I were not a notorious gadget freak I would not have risked it. I would not have justified paying $50,000 for it. For that I could have picked up that Jaguar that I lust after.

My point is that (initially) there has to be a hook to get people to take a chance on new technologies. Because of those ulterior motives the true market potential is impossible t o determine.

It's liek posting a feeler thread for a $300 flashlight. Out of 500 "interested" people only a handful will actually buy it. Ok. Bad analogy.


----------



## Darell (Nov 15, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> My point is that (initially) there has to be a hook to get people to take a chance on new technologies.


Yeah, one painful hook would be to make people pay the actual costs for driving with gasoline.

I was thinking about this value thing more today... There are now several hundred of us Rav4EV owners - we could sell our cars today and make enough *profit* on the sale after three years of driving the cars to buy a brand new compact gasoline car - or maybe six used gasoline Ravs of the same late-90's vintage. But we don't. Sure we're crazy, but so what! 

(The ones that HAVE been for sale, BTW, are almost all from lease terminations where the folks simply cannot afford the balloon payment, and couldn't afford to buy in the first place. They're doing OK!)


----------



## NewBie (Nov 15, 2005)

dukeleto said:


> maybe I haven't understood the graph properly either (btw, thanks, Ikendu!)
> but it looks like the energy used for refining, which yields gas but also other stuff like diesel, kerosene etc, is
> all counted for the gas instead of being averaged out over all the products issued from the refining?
> If that's the case, it makes gas look unfairly inefficient.
> ...




What comes from one barrel of oil (42 gallons), that is rarely counted:
0.3 gallons of Other
0.2 gallons of Kerosene
0.5 gallons of Lubricants
1.2 gallons of Plastic feedstock
1.3 gallons of asphalt/road oil
1.8 gallons of petroleum coke (used in Steel processing)
1.9 gallons of still gas
1.9 gallons of liquified gases
2.3 gallons of residual Fuel oil (Heavy oils used as fuels in industry, marine
transportation, and for electric power generation)
4.1 gallons of Jet fuel
9.2 gallons of distillate Fuel oil (Includes both home heating oil and diesel fuel)
19.5 gallons of Gasoline
(adds up to a little bit more than 44 gallons due to a little bit of stuff added during processing)

Paraffin Wax also comes out of the process, but I'm not sure from which step, maybe it is part of the other category.

There is also alot of Sulphur that is refined out, that is used for a variety of things.

Nickel is also one of the byproducts of crude oil refining, and is mainly used for high strength steel alloys

Another odd byproduct is Vanadium, and it is also used for making high strength steel alloys.

Even water bottles, soft drink bottles, synthetic fabrics used in clothing, and many other plastic items are produced from the feedstock that is produced when crude is processed.

I found a nice graphic that has the same information on the California EnergyQuest site:
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html


Additional items are made from Crude Oil:

House Paint
Foam used in Seat Cushions
Vitamin Capsules
Shaving Cream
Ink
Aspirin
Food Preservatives
Insecticides
Deodorant
Antihistamines
Fertilizers
Photographic Film
Shampoo
and many, many other things


*Nine percent* of the energy in the crude oil is used to operate the refineries. 
http://www.noia.org/info/petroleum.asp


Chevron has improved their refining efforts, improvements which include:
A 37 percent decrease in Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) emissions since 1988; 
An 81 percent reduction in carcinogenic emissions since 1988, due in large part to the recovery and recycling of nickel byproducts; 
A 47 percent decrease in the generation of hazardous waste since 1991; 
The recycling of 800,000 barrels of oil recovered from process water; 
The recycling of 150 billion gallons of cooling water; 
The treatment of 250 million gallons of sour process water, which netted 15,000 tons of ammonia and 341,000 tons of sulfur for sale to fertilizer manufacturers; and 
The recycling of 6,000 tons of spent catalyst through metallurgical smelters; recovered metals were forwarded to the steel and copper industries.


An amazing part of the industry recycling effort involves power co-generation, or using excess energy generated in normal operations to create additional power. One project, a 102-megawatt, $100-million co-generation power plant is being added to the Valero refinery in Benecia, California. The new Valero facility will feature two combustion turbine generators capable of producing enough electricity to run the refinery. Gas byproduct will fuel the turbines, and they also produce steam for use in refinery processes.

The end result? The refinery powers itself. Similar stories abound in the industry.


----------



## Zelandeth (Nov 16, 2005)

Okay, I'm pitching in here late, and randomly.

Aberdeen City Council over here in Scotland I recently discovered run a small group of electric Peugeot Vehicles. Two 2002 106 EV's and four (I think) Peugeot Partner van EV's. I've been using one of the 106's as my runaround for the last couple of weeks.

Have to admit, I am so, completely hooked!

Only drawback (aside from the limited range - but I'm sure some modern battery tech could solve that, this thing's three years old and has 20K on the clock), is that pedestrians incessently walk in front of it due to the lack of noise! Driving around areas high in pedestrians with one finger on the horn becomes second nature after a while.

If I didn't live 30 miles out of town, didn't have no money, and knew where to get one. I'd have one.

Really disconcerting the total lack of sound and totally smooth acceleration though to start with - In a nice way though!


----------



## Darell (Nov 16, 2005)

Zelandeth said:


> Have to admit, I am so, completely hooked!


Warms the cockles of my heart.  Odd how the press makes these out to be so horrible, huh?



> If I didn't live 30 miles out of town, didn't have no money, and knew where to get one. I'd have one.


Ah yes. These are some pretty stiff drawbacks! Thanks for popping in.


----------



## cobb (Nov 18, 2005)

Darell, I noticed your shortly used EV1 and Rav4 have a 10 to 1 final drive. Do you know if this is done with a ring and pinion gear in the differential, a second set of step down gears of a combination of the two? Sounds like a ring and worm differential would be the only way to get 10 to 1 reduction in the final drive. 

Just wondering.....

Hey, did that guy get the letter together for the congressman? Want to know if i need to stop by a store to get them printed and buy a couple hundred stamps.


----------



## Darell (Nov 19, 2005)

Well, I put 26k miles on that "shortly-used" EV1 in just under two years. Not bad for a two-seater with limited range, eh?

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend that I know what's inside the gearboxes on these things. I'll I know for sure is that they're drop-dead simple. The EV1 had gear whine, while the Rav does not, so I'm guessing that the gearing method is different. Also please note that while the gearing was roughly 10:1 on both vehicles, the FINAL ratio is much different due to tire size. The Rav4EV motor spins quite a bit slower than the EV1's did.


----------



## cobb (Nov 19, 2005)

Darell, I was just basing that on your tech part of your website. i think the rav 4 is a bit less than 10 and the ev a bit more. Both are rather high, most cars have a 3 to 1. Folks who want performance upgrade to a 4.11 to 1. Any higher you have less surface area as you have more teeth and its likely to strip or sheer. Some use 3 to 1 or less for more surface area and grip. Larger trucks use a screw or worm gear and a ring gear on their differentials. Of course that is in conjunction to a tranny and in some cases a second tranny or 2 speed diff. 

The ac propulsion kit recommends you stick your manual tranny in 2nd gear for an over all reduction of 10 to 1 and drive. I talked to quite a few mechanics, mechanists and none of them think you can go down the road at 60 or more in 2nd gear without any bearing failure in the main shaft in the long term. Sure you can do it, some cars can achieve 60 in 2nd gear, but it will blow the engine. I did it with my gas 81 rabbit and broke the end off the distribtor cap. Uncle did it with his 4cylinder tacoma and hit the rev limiter.

Seems like a simple solution, but if you got to machine a gear case for one or every car, that will make them costly to convert and resell, not to mention the wait in getting a machine shop to make the case, shafts and getting it fitted, broken in and on the road. Lets not forget a demo to test to make sure the design holds up.


----------



## Darell (Nov 19, 2005)

cobb said:


> some cars can achieve 60 in 2nd gear, but it will blow the engine.


:snicker: Well, I regularly drive 80mph in first gear with no problems.  That's the part that always amazed me about the EV1. From a stand-still, with no clutch, I could smoke the tires. In that same gear, I can cruise at 80mph. Try doing a throttle-only tire spin in the same gear that you can cruise at 80mph in an ICE. But I digress...

Note: I'm gonna be on the road for the next week, so don't expect my typical instant responses for a while! Happy Thanksgiving everybody.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 20, 2005)

Happy Thanksgiving Darell!!! Be SAFE, as I would miss your posts most of all!


----------



## cobb (Nov 20, 2005)

Darell, you can only do 80 in first geat? I thought top speed was 110? Man, those evs are really limited. 

I was just brainstorming about building evs, at least if I got to talk to someone with some capital til i hit all 6 numbers. The ac propulsions kit seems nice, just a big concern from anyone mechanical about driving a car with a manual tranny in 2nd gear for city and highway use. If a rear wheel car was used that had a differential you could swap out the pinion and ring gear to give you the needed reduction and skip the tranny altogether. For those with the tranny and differential built in together, your are rather stuck to leaving that in tact. The main concern was spinning the main shaft of the tranny up to ten thousand rpms on an extended bases for an EV that gets 300miles per charge. I am sure if it was 30 miles or so, that would not be a concern, but I aint making no 30mpc ev. 

Have a safe trip, want to have more talk about EVs when you get back. 

Anyone else interested?


----------



## NewBie (Nov 21, 2005)

Hey Darrel, here is an additional potential for 51,000,000 Watts of power generation ability that the state of California is hampering, that would power quite a few EVs:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/valero/compliance/2005-07-22_PETITION_TO AMEND.PDF
(courtesy of BB)

Additional benefits, including lowering industrial waste and pollution, as well as recovering valuable energy/materials at the same time, plus adding additional self-sufficient power generation abilities for the refinery from the whole thing, just seem like a triple win-win-win situation.

It is crazy.




NewBie said:


> What comes from one barrel of oil (42 gallons), that is rarely counted:
> 0.3 gallons of Other
> 0.2 gallons of Kerosene
> 0.5 gallons of Lubricants
> ...


----------



## BB (Nov 21, 2005)

NewBie said:


> Hey Darrel, here is an additional potential for 51,000,000 Watts of power generation ability that the state of California is hampering, that would power quite a few EVs:
> 
> http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/valero/compliance/2005-07-22_PETITION_TO%20AMEND.PDF
> (courtesy of BB)



Why even address this to Darell? I it is a quote by me and from a different thread.

Even I can give you an answer that "channels Darell"... 



BB pretending to channel Darell said:


> Energy for transportation takes somewhere between 40% and 70% of our total energy demands (or total oil demands--the numbers don't really matter here). Simply doing something that reduces energy consumed by transportation by increasing efficiencies and/or using a renewable substitute resources like solar and/or wind will reduce the number of refineries that need to operate--thereby reducing the demand for oil, the demand for electricity, and toxic releases (include CO2 or not--I don't care in this discussion thread).



*11/21/05 10:43PM CPF time: Fix the following... Mixed percentage vs raw numbers *(_old) _vs *fixed**...*

In our overall state energy usage--even during the winter months (lower peak electrical load... Assume 102 MW / 32,000 MW (today’s peak demand) = _(bad number 0.003%)_ *0.3%* of California's total load (actually 32 GW is 75% of CA total load)... (_bad number 0.003%_) *0.3%* of $25,000,000,000 of CA bond debt due to State Laws forcing miss-management of our electrical power = $75,000,000... That would almost double the cost of the original $100,000,000 price tag for this plant... (this is my guess at how CA may choose to charge Valero for "leaving" the energy grid--how the state really does it, I could not find out yet--but I would guess that $75 MegaBuck$ is probably the minimum--knowing this state).

In any case, it would take 10-20 times more of these plants to significantly affect the state's overall energy availability (10% or less supply over demand starts them to worry, 3%-5% they start emergency notifications and shutdowns).

Darell (and I) have now chosen to be, at least, "net neutral" with respect to our electrical energy usage (over 1 year, we consume close to net zero dollars from PG&E other than $6.00 a month service/billing charge or so per meter.). Darell, has even gone further and chosen to use his electricity to power his EV and use a bicycle as much as he can.

As near as I can tell, Darell had very little (if anything) to do with Valero's co-generation plants and its political quagmire from the state’s regulatory nightmare.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Nov 21, 2005)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Happy Thanksgiving Darell!!! Be SAFE, as I would miss your posts most of all!


Aw shucks. That's sweet, Playboy. (hmm, never really thought I'd write a sentence like that in my life, but there you go). I've made it to our first (of five!) distinations for this week - and actually have wifi here. Bonus! :touche:


----------



## Darell (Nov 21, 2005)

BB said:


> As near as I can tell, Darell had very little (if anything) to do with Valero's co-generation plants and its political quagmire from the state’s regulatory nightmare.


'Tis true. And as usual, and as Bill has pointed out - there is more here than first meets the eye. Reading one document about any subject will rarely give you everything you need to know.

As for my dealings with Valero - about the only impact I've had on their business is in NOT buying gasoline from them. :shrug:

The one thing that I *have* gotten out of all this is that nobody is still questioning my statements about the astonishing amounts of electricity that the oil industry consumes - regardless of where and how it is generated. At one time there was a big deal being made about how much *extra* electricity that EVs would consume, yes? Can we now at least stipulate that gasoline cars use similar amounts of (if not more!) electricity than EVs would?


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 21, 2005)

Darell said:


> The one thing that I *have* gotten out of all this is that nobody is still questioning my statements about the astonishing amounts of electricity that the oil industry consumes - regardless of where and how it is generated. At one time there was a big deal being made about how much *extra* electricity that EVs would consume, yes? Can we now at least stipulate that gasoline cars use similar amounts of (if not more!) electricity than EVs would?


If it takes ~15KWH to make a gallon of gasoline, and we assume an average fleet efficiency of 25MPG, a gasoline car is consuming 600WH of electricity per mile. I suspect the electrical consumption is a bit higher if you look at the process end-to-end, but I heard 15KWH somewhere and I'll stick to that.


----------



## BB (Nov 21, 2005)

Well, with all of the pieces of information that have been posted in this and the other Oil threads... We can make a SWAG (scientific wild *** guess) at the amount of electricity required to produce a gallon of gas from a mythical refinery using standard mythical crude oil producing a mythical output stream and that each mythical output product uses its exact percentage of electricity...

So, From earlier in this thread, we know that Valero's Benicia refinery can use two 51 MW gas turbines worth of electricity to get off of the PG&E grid.

From earlier in this thread, gasoline is 19.5 gallons per barrel (42 gallons).

From here, we know that:



> Valero entered the West Coast market when it acquired ExxonMobil Corporation’s Benicia, Calif., refinery, located near San Francisco, its 270-store retail distribution chain and 80 company-operated retail sites.
> 
> The Benicia refinery, which has a *throughput capacity of 165,000 BPD*, is considered one of the most complex refineries in the nation and produces 10 percent of the CARB gasoline used in California. This acquisition also marked the company’s entry into the retail business when it debuted the Valero retail brand.



Lets assume that the turbines run at 90% operational efficiency...

kWhr/gal of product = 102,000 kW * 24 hpd * 0.90 / (165,000 BPD * 42 GPB) = 0.318 kWh/gal of product.

Not as much as I thought (please double check the assumptions—I have to leave right now and will be back later this evening)... I would guess that this might be within a factor of two of how much electricity is used to refine a barrel of crude oil (0.150 to 0.636 kWhrs/gallon of product)...

Now, how much energy you wish to assign to 19.5 gallons of gas per 42 gallons of crude--don't know. How much to transport this fuel and dispense it, again... Don't know...

Anyone have a better idea?

-Bill


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 21, 2005)

Valero's fact sheet on the Benicia Refinery.

165,000 BPD is _feedstock_ throughput; ~70% of their production is gasoline.

The operational schematic  does not clarify actual production - I imagine that listed capacities are peak values rather than typical because the numbers don't add up.

Inputs total 157,000 BPD; production possibilities of all the various units sum 403,000 BPD.

It's tough to do a back-of-the-napkin calculation not knowing production variables, yet there's another factor not considered - we don't know how much power is produced onsite in addition to the two 51MW turbines we're discussing _or_ if the 2 51MW usnits would totally eliminate their grid-dependency.


----------



## NewBie (Nov 22, 2005)

Darell said:


> 'Tis true. And as usual, and as Bill has pointed out - there is more here than first meets the eye. Reading one document about any subject will rarely give you everything you need to know.
> 
> As for my dealings with Valero - about the only impact I've had on their business is in NOT buying gasoline from them. :shrug:
> 
> The one thing that I *have* gotten out of all this is that nobody is still questioning my statements about the astonishing amounts of electricity that the oil industry consumes - regardless of where and how it is generated. At one time there was a big deal being made about how much *extra* electricity that EVs would consume, yes? Can we now at least stipulate that gasoline cars use similar amounts of (if not more!) electricity than EVs would?




Well, not really, since the Valero plant, if allowed to recover energy from it's waste products(reducing pollution), and emissions (making them cleaner), they'd power themselves, without using power from the power grid, right? 

So then the electricity consumed by the refineries would go to zero.

Yes there are large amounts electricity consumed by the type of land based oil wells that are found in California, to get the oil out. Of course, there are quite a number of offshore wells that do not draw electrical power from the grid...


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2005)

You must have missed the part where I said, "regardless of where and how it is generated." I do understand your self-generation point, and if we had some plant - ANY plant that was actually doing that, I'd be mighty impressed. Would love to see one with no grid ties, and no influx of NG. But... for whatever reason, such an animal does not exist as far as I'm aware. Fun to talk about, and do the "what-ifs" - but here we are forced to live in our existing world with all of its political, economical and practical constraints.

Even if a refinery generates its own power, that refinery is still using lots of electricity to produce gasoline! there is no sense in arguing that point.... and surprisingly, that IS my point. 

You are excited that a refinery can make it's own electricity to power gasoline cars. Somehow you're thinking that the electricity used to make gasoline can be more easily made in a "clean" way than electricity that is used to charge an EV. Even if that were true... you still have to burn the gas to drive the gas car....

How about if we make all that clean electricity with our oil, and not even bother to burn the gas? I'm assuming here that gasoline NEEDS to be created in order to have all this "waste" that can be used to make all this clean electricity.


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2005)

Hmm. I actually originally came here (during my vacation!) to post this, regarding new MPG testing by the EPA.


----------



## BB (Nov 22, 2005)

Idleprocess,

The block diagram shows that the other major units as all being downstream of the original distillation blocks. So the input is still only ~165,000 BPD.

It is interesting that this refinery produces 70% gasoline output... I read elsewhere that heavy Venezuelan crude would only produce 5% gasoline and Saudi crude would produce 30% gasoline with a simple one pass distillation. They are doing some heavy duty manipulations to get 70%.

It is difficult to know, but from reading their application approval for a co-generation plant, it appeared that these two turbines would be the only "significant" sources of electricity on the plant property. It was also possible that just one 51 MW turbine was capable to supply 100% of the plant's electricity--but the phrase more or less read as two turbines would supply 100% of the plant's electricity and high pressure process steam produced would replace several of their current old steam boilers.

Also, I took the easy way out to calculate the kWhrs per barrel input and assumed that we would get roughly 70% of the input as "gasoline" or California CARB motor fuel...

So, that is why I gave a range of electricity used as 0.150 to 0.636 kWhr/gallon of crude. Even if you assumed that 100% of the electricity was used for gasoline production, it would not change the numbers by that much (~42% more or close to 0.909 kWhrs). Still not close to 15kWhrs...

Another way to look at this... A couple of years ago on CPF I was looking around and it looked like gasoline cost something like ~$1.00 anywhere in the world to produce one gallon when oil was something like $25 per barrel (as I recall—could not get the CPF search to find the old topic)...

So, $25/42 = $0.60 per gallon feed stock price. Assume that we have $0.40 as refinery overhead... (again SWAG—imaginary allocation of raw feedstock to output as 1:1 ratios in volume, costs, and value).

Looking at a large customer rate base from PG&E--it looks like the rates are between $0.06 to $0.14 per kWhr (there is all sorts of other price modifiers--just take a SWAG)--Lets assume that back a few years ago they were paying $0.06 per kWhr on average. So, 15kWhr * $0.06 = $0.90 per gallon of crude at 15 kWhrs--that just does not make sense as the entire refinery overhead was only $0.40 per gallon...

If we look at $0.06 / kWhr * 102,000 kW * 24 h * 0.90 (uptime) / (165,000 BPD * 42 GPB) we get about $0.02 of electricity per gallon of crude... A price that makes much more sense as 10%, or less, of a refinery’s operational overhead (or make it a range of $0.01 to $0.04 per gallon of electricity required).

I am not swearing that I got the exact amount of electricity required. I tried to bias my guesses towards maximizing electricity usage (by assuming two turbines at 90% uptime). Looking at it both by kWhrs and by cost of production from my earlier research, I feel pretty confident about the order of magnitude of electricity required for refining the fuel.

-Bill


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 22, 2005)

Sounds like you were fairly thorough with your back-of-the-napkin calculations. Makes me wonder if that 15kWH figure is way off, or if they're displacing some of that absurd quoted electrical consumption with combustion for the thermal energy required to crack crude or otherwise separate out the lighter fuel hydrocarbons from the heavier stuff.

Perhaps Darell can explain where that 15KWh figure came from - I think I got it from him. When he returns from vavaction, of course...


----------



## BB (Nov 22, 2005)

From this link, it looks like gasoline contains about 33 kWhrs of energy per gallon...

To use 15 kWhrs to produce 33 kWhrs of gasoline via crude oil does not sound quite right...

Several links state that 1 gallon of our mythical standard of crude oil contains 138,000 BTU (1 gallon of gas between 112,000 and 124,000 BTU).

Hmm, not going to go there right now. Looking at the Valero block diagram there are some blocks that cannot be totaled because part of a block's output is also an input to another's... Plus there is, at least, 10 MBPD purchased feedstock in addtion to the crude feedstock. Can't use to determine volume in vs volume out and process losses.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2005)

BB said:


> I am not swearing that I got the exact amount of electricity required. I tried to bias my guesses towards maximizing electricity usage (by assuming two turbines at 90% uptime). Looking at it both by kWhrs and by cost of production from my earlier research, I feel pretty confident about the order of magnitude of electricity required for refining the fuel.


Bill, there are several reasons why your WAGs and mine do not match. The biggie is that my number isn't just for refining. It is how much electricity that one gallon of gas represents from the well to your gas tank. Lots more electricity use than just in the refining process. And my numbers use ALL energy input into the oil industry and convert that into electricity (they use gobs of natural gas - much of it to make electricity on-site, and they use waste product to make electricity, etc). My WAG comes from dividing the total amount of gasoline produced by the total amount of energy input to deliver that gasoline to your car. Think of it more as "energy" in per gallon out. That energy input *could* be used to make electricity, and most often is. Yeah, I do have some numbers, but now isn't the convenient time. They are... and have been... on my site for some time now though.


----------



## BB (Nov 23, 2005)

Darell,

I made a SWAG, not a WAG!

I was responding to the question about how much electricity is used used by a refinery--I assumed that we were talking about grid power. 102 MW to produce 10% of the gasoline sold in the state of California is not a small amount of energy (assuming just $0.06 per kWhr that would be approximatly $48,000,000 per year for electricity for Valero).

If you want to account for all energy required to produce gasoline, in all forms (I assume from well head to gas pump?), then I would buy the 15kWhrs per gallon... That amount of energy could easily be supplied by the energy from the crude oil itself (excluding the <1kWhr of electricity per gallon I SWAG above) (I understand that some of the feedstock/process heat is also natural gas--but just to keep things simple assume heat from crude oil since it is easy to get the price).

If crude is $50 a barrel, then the price of 15kWhr of energy per gallon of gasoline could be estimated as:

($50 PB / 42 GPB) * 15kWhr / ( 138,000 btuhr PB / 3,412 btuhr/kWhr) = $0.44 / gallon worth of energy...

That fits with the last week's spot price for gasoline of $1.45 to $1.55 per gallon (before taxes, at refinery?) based on $50-$55 per barrel price of oil.

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Nov 23, 2005)

BB wrote:

If you want to account for all energy required to produce gasoline, in all forms (I assume from well head to gas pump?), then I would buy the 15kWhrs per gallon... 
-Bill

++++++++++++++++


It is certainly the part I care about.

When we talk about renewable energy, people are quick to say that solar panels NEVER recover the energy used to make them (not true...takes about 3 years to recover the energy) or that ethanol takes more energy to make then you get out (also not true, for every unit "in" ethanol returns 1.67 "out" according to the USDA).

So, yes, I want to compare petroleum for the energy to explore, drill (including dry holes), construct the oil platforms, helicopters flying to and from ocean platforms, well heads, port facilities, tankers, including losses along the way, refineries (both external and internally generated energy of all types; electricity, heat, etc.), transportation, electricity to pump it into your car, etc. And finally...and more importantly, the energy to fight wars in the oil rich regions of the earth to "stabilize" them so we can continue to cut deals with repressive regimes to feed our oil habit.

After all, if you produce electricity for your EV with a solar panel, there is no pumping, distribution, etc. So, yes, let's compare apples to apples.

One last note, energy independence is fundamental to more peace in the world. Addiction to imported oil has warped the foreign policy of "western powers" ever since WWI and the foreign policy of the U.S. since WWII. 

If there were no oil in the middle east, we wouldn't have fought two wars there so far (the British have fought more than that including invading and occupying Iraq another time way before we did in 1991) and... we wouldn't be there now.

I also firmly believe that if there was no oil in the middle east, we would never have done the things and represent the things that caused us to be attacked on 9-11 by international terrorists. So... next time you pull your 4 wheel wonder wagon up to the gas pump and squeeze the pump handle to start that flow of the golden go juice we all love to consume, close your eyes and give thanks to the men and women of our armed forces that make it all possible for that sweet, "cheap" energy to flow into our society.

BTW, Bill... these comments are not directed at you.

It is just that at Thanksgiving, I've been thinking about the honorable service our armed forces render to us and how we squander their sacrifice just so we can drive our wonder wagons to the mall on "cheap" oil.


----------



## BB (Nov 23, 2005)

There have been many wars fought over resources and oil; where it is at and where it is not... However, in the middle east, the international terrorist are only remotely connected to oil as their driving ideology. The terrorists have stated many times that this is a religious war (in which they have killed more of their families and neighbors than westerners) and it has been ongoing for over a thousand years.

Oil revenues have certainly helped fund this war on the west (really, on the world), but even 9/11/01 was done on the cheap--4 people practiced how to fly jets straight and level, 19 airline tickets and some living expenses for awhile.

As a conservative, I too believe in conservation... However, pure conservation is not going to be enough. Solar, bio-fuels, etc. are a good start, but they have their own limitations too. For every choice one person makes to conserve, there is another making the antitheses choice.

Even the Friends of the Earth (UK) have seen that there is more than can be achieved with alternative fuels alone:



> But the environmental campaign group stressed that Transport Secretary Alistair Darling's plans to facilitate growth in road and air travel will more than wipe out savings from the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation by 2015 [1]. Friends of the Earth also welcomed the Government's proposed assurance scheme "to ensure that biofuels are sourced sustainably". But, they warned that without strong safeguards, the proposed Obligation could encourage biofuel producers to damage the countryside by intensifying production at the expense of wildlife, destroy rainforests through imports of palm oil or harm wildlife overseas by using oils derived from GM-crops.



...warnings...:



> "I am glad that Friends of the Earth is finally recognizing the environmental threat of expanding bio-fuels. That may be the first time that I have ever heard the greens give bio-fuels the scrutiny it deserves," said Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues. Avery described his group as being "concerned about feeding as many possible people from as little land as possible in order to save more room for nature.
> 
> "Good farmland is the scarcest resource on this planet and we are already farming 37 percent of Earth's land area to get today's food supply," Avery told Cybercast News Service.



In the end, politics of the middle east are probably beyond the scope of this thread and difficult for the CPF as a whole...

Regards,
-Bill


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 23, 2005)

I pretty much find it impossible to believe that life as we know it will be over if Bio-Fuels are ramped up.

I really wish EV technology would hurry forward too!

But if I could get bio-diesel as easy as Dino-Diesel I'd sure as heck use it!

And last I heard, the bad guys want to either convert us or kill us. I don't think THEY are thinking much about oil...


----------



## BB (Nov 24, 2005)

If you are in San Francisco between now and Sunday (November 27, 2005):

SAN FRANCISCO: Tiny automaker ZAPs visitors at auto show Santa Rosa firm rolls out innovative alternative vehicles



> ZAP is a Santa Rosa firm that markets alternative-fueled cars -- some powered by gas, others by electricity and even some that run on a mixture of gasoline and ethanol. Their most popular product, according to ZAP officials, is the Mercedes-Benz Smart car, a tiny little two-seater that is nearly 4 feet shorter than the Mini Cooper, a true small car in its own right.
> 
> Over on the opposite side of the exhibit at the auto show was a three-wheeled $9,000 electric car made in China. It is called the Xebra and supposedly gets up to 40 miles on a charge, and goes 40 mph. (The firm says it is testing one in China that will get up to 150 miles per charge.) The current version is really nothing to brag about, given the better performance of such cars as Ford's electric Ranger pickup or Toyota's electric version of the RAV4, but then again you'd be hard put to find these two discontinued vehicles.
> 
> ...



-Bill


----------



## NewBie (Nov 24, 2005)

One gallon of gasoline contains 1.3 x 10^8 joules of energy.

If gasoline costs $2.25 per U.S. gallon, what would other energy resources cost at their rates? 

At electricity rates:
(1 gal.)(36 kWH/gal)( *8 cents/kWh*) = $ 2.88 per gal.

At natural gas rates:
(1 gal.)(0.12 x 1000 cu ft/gal)( $12.88/1000 cu ft) = $ 1.5456 per gal.

At coal rates:
(1 gal.)(0.005 tons/gal)( $100/ton) = $0.5 per gal.

At wood rates:
(1 gal.)(0.006 cord/gal)( $140/cord) = $0.84 per gal. 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gaseng.html

Plug in numbers for the cost of stuff in your area


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 25, 2005)

The cost of electricty per KWH is interesting, but if it's more efficient to go direct electric, potentially higher unit cost doesn't matter if you have to use far less of it. The great thing about an electric car is that you don't have to **** away most of the energy burning fuel to produce kinetic energy.

If your car gets 25 MPG, that's 1440 watt-hours per mile (36K WH/25 miles). A more-efficient Prius might only use ~700 WH per mile whenever it's getting ~50 MPG.

RAV4 EV specs:
210 WH per mile @ 45MPH
316 WH per mile @ 65MPH

EV1 specs:
127 WH per mile @ 45MPH
168 WH per mile @ 65MPH


----------



## NewBie (Nov 25, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> The cost of electricty per KWH is interesting, but if it's more efficient to go direct electric, potentially higher unit cost doesn't matter if you have to use far less of it. The great thing about an electric car is that you don't have to **** away most of the energy burning fuel to produce kinetic energy.
> 
> If your car gets 25 MPG, that's 1440 watt-hours per mile (36K WH/25 miles). A more-efficient Prius might only use ~700 WH per mile whenever it's getting ~50 MPG.
> 
> ...




Earlier in the thread, I mentioned some testing they've done..,

RAV4EV CON 3
AC kWh/mi combined City/Highway March 2002- 440 WH per mile
AC kWh/mi combined City/Highway March 2003- 440 WH per mile

The inductive and conductive EVs recorded 0.38 and 0.42 kWh/mile respectively. It is computed by taking the total AC energy recorded for charging after the sample drives and dividing it by the total miles driven. The average AC kWh/mile is 0.40.

--------
Dyno Measured AC WHr/mi Combined City/Highway
440 410 390 400 390 380 490 390 430 430 330 430 430 430

100,000-Mile Evaluation of the Toyota RAV4 EV
-Southern California Edison, Electric Vehicle Technical Center, 
http://www.evchargernews.com/miscfiles/sce-rav4ev-100k.pdf

Average battery plus charger efficiency of the conductive vehicles was 83.3% Average battery plus charger efficiency of inductive EVs achieved 82.5%.

CON 1 has experienced a 7% decrease of range and a 14% decrease of C/3 capacity since previous tests. This is due to one battery module discharging to 10V faster than the other modules. Range is still within 80% of the original number but battery capacity is below 80% of thr rated number quoted by the manufacturer.
* Battery problems*

CON 2 Although the vehicle is running well, drivers have perceived a decrease in acceleration under full power conditions. Range has decreased by 28%, to 53 miles.
* Battery problems*

CON 3 a UR1 range test was completed and yielded 54 miles, a 50% decrease. Toyoda performed a battery recovery protocol and the range was brought back up to 80%

IND 1 and IND3 only had a decrease of 9% and 2%.


It looks like electric vehicles have improved an awful lot over the years. With the vehicles achieving 53 to 100 miles range over the first 100,000 miles. Not too bad. It appears they are even more efficient for city driving, which makes sense.

Although the report touts how the electric vehicles reduced reduced carbon dioxide and pollutants released into the air, it would have been even better if they'd included the emissions produced by the electricity plants used to produce the electricity in the first place. Since about 65% of the electricity produced in California is generated from coal and natural gas, in the greater scheme of things, they still cause considerable amounts of crud in the air.

One solution to this is to do the Darrel thing. But in reality it is at considerable real cost, where you need to count all the subsidies, tax breaks, the feds giving kickbacks, and the electric companies. And to be fair, you really can't count the trick Darrel uses to put electricity back into the grid during the high rate times, and using it during the lowest rate times, which are really special situations using funded incentives for those with EV.

Darrel, if you were not to play the game with the special EV rates, and just look at kWH generated by your solar, and kWH used, without playing the subsidized electric EV rate gains of peak vs. non-peak, how do things break out then?

Darrel, have you ever figured out the full, non-subsidized cost of solar panels and installation?


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 25, 2005)

> Newbie said....
> Although the report touts how the electric vehicles reduced reduced carbon dioxide and pollutants released into the air, it would have been even better if they'd included the emissions produced by the electricity plants used to produce the electricity in the first place. Since about 65% of the electricity produced in California is generated from coal and natural gas, in the greater scheme of things, they still cause considerable amounts of crud in the air.




While I agree with this in general, I don't think it should be applied across the board.

First of all, there are places that have their own generators and who export power to surrounding areas. I think one could easily say that a BEV running in the state of Washington will be fueled with hydro power. A BEV in Sacramento (which has it's own utility district and Nuke plant) will also be fueled from local sources.

Then there are guys like Darell who charge from their own solar, wind, home hydro, etc. 

Now in the AGGREGATE the shift to BEV will be a step in the right direction but will still cause major amounts of pollution. As long as fossil fuels are used to supplement the cleaner power plants the argument can be made that some of that pollution is caused by the BEV sucking up the clean power.

As for Darell's setup... what does it matter? Even if he had to install a battery bank to capture the energy to feed back into his RAV4EV, he's still generating power that (theoretically) is decreasing the load on the grid. 

At the same time as you look at the "unsubsidised costs" you should also look at how much of that is labor that is also driven by the same subsidies. The rebates and subsidies require (IIRC) that a qualified contractor supply the material and installation. If you could do it yourself the cost would probably be near the subsidised price. 

Don't forget, the reason for such subsides is often to jumpstart an industry that has a high barrier to entry. By creating a market they also create a demand for the technicians and designers and businesses. They are the real beneficiaries of the program, not Darell.

Still wish I could talk the wife into adding solar panels. And a whole house UPS. And a hot tub.


----------



## BB (Nov 25, 2005)

NewBie said:


> One solution to this is to do the Darrel thing. But in reality it is at considerable real cost, where you need to count all the subsidies, tax breaks, the feds giving kickbacks, and the electric companies. And to be fair, you really can't count the trick Darrel uses to put electricity back into the grid during the high rate times, and using it during the lowest rate times, which are really special situations using funded incentives for those with EV.
> 
> Darrel, if you were not to play the game with the special EV rates, and just look at kWH generated by your solar, and kWH used, without playing the subsidized electric EV rate gains of peak vs. non-peak, how do things break out then?
> 
> Darrel, have you ever figured out the full, non-subsidized cost of solar panels and installation?



According to PG&E it is not a trick... It is simply the results of using congestion and resource pricing and realizing that off peak transmission lines are lightly loaded and that off-peak power comes from less expensive generators/fuels.

You have already been to the PG&E rate site... But, looking at the E7 rate plan breakdowns, you will see:



> Energy Rates by Component ($ per kWh) PEAK OFF-PEAK
> Generation:
> Summer
> Baseline Usage $0.12615 (R) $0.01097 (R)
> ...



So, you can see during the Summer Peak, the Generation rate is over 10x for peak power than off peak power... Winter rates (where the average system load is about 1/2 of the Summer peak loads) the spread is much less, only about 2x.

Looking at distribution, there is again a huge congestion charge for peak power usage... Much less again for winter.

Regarding how many kWhrs I have used for September through the first two weeks of November--I have generated *580 (corrected amount)* more kWhrs than I have used (right at the meter, no E7 funnies going on).

How much did my September 2005 panel installation cost? It is real easy, the installer gives you a bill for almost $30,000 and then gives you an ~$8,000 credit for having a pre-approved California Rebate Certificate registered for payment in his name (rebate based on the peak kW rating of my panels+inverter). Was not difficult at all.

-Bill


----------



## NewBie (Nov 25, 2005)

BB said:


> According to PG&E it is not a trick... It is simply the results of using congestion and resource pricing and realizing that off peak transmission lines are lightly loaded and that off-peak power comes from less expensive generators/fuels.
> 
> You have already been to the PG&E rate site... But, looking at the E7 rate plan breakdowns, you will see:
> 
> ...




I'd sure like to hear about your experience this upcomming December and January.

Was just the install 30k, or did that price include the panel and electric meter cost?

Wow, 30,000.00 dollars. That would pay for my electricity for the next 25 years! 

I heard the life expectancy for a typical solar installation is 15 years. What sort of warranty do your panels, and the entire rest of the installation come with?

At least you can feel good about not making millions of tons of carbon as compared to when the electricity is produced for the grid.

So, that extra 580kWH you produce (19.3kWH per day) what does that equate to for miles per day in a RAV4EV? As I see from SCE's data, it is and average of about 400WH per mile, so it breaks down to about 47 miles a day.

In 2003, a residential solar system costs about $8,000-$12,000 per kWp installed. Thats the peak output.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm

Some simple examples are that a 1kWp System will produce approximately:

· 1800 kWh/year in Southern California 
· 850 kWh/year in Northern Germany 


Your panels are producing an excess of 6,960 kWH per year (580kWH per month).

An average U.S. household uses 830 kWh of electricity per month.
www.nrel.gov/ncpv.

So your installation should be making about 1,410 kWH per month, or 16,920 kWH per year, or 47kWH per day.

So you have a 10kWP system? I don't see how you could get that for 30,000.00

For a typical solar system, located in the desert of Eastern Oregon during the *peak output in July*, you get 600W per square meter, solar cells convert 10% to electricity, so you get 60W converted, and in 8 hours you would get 8x60 = 480 watt-hours or about .5 KWH per square meter. 
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

Since you produce about 47kWH per day, you have what, roughly 94 square meters (1012 square feet)(an area of about 30 ft by 30 ft) of solar cells up there? 

Still scratching head, seems like I am missing something here...

The State of California currently offers a $4.5/W rebate on installed
PV systems. (Emerging Renewables Buydown Program www.energy.ca.gov).
If your rebate is 8,000.00, then you should have a 1778 watt system, that makes what, 14.224 KWh per day.

Something still isn't adding up here...help me out.

Average solar radiation in San Francisco was 4.72 kWh/m2/day over the 30 year period.
http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/pdfs/SFPV.pdf

Assuming 8 hours of sunlight, average, that works out to 590 Watts per square meter. With a typical solar cell efficiency, thats 5.9 Watts converted, per square meter, so the difference for SF vs Eastern Oregon desert isn't much.

Care to clear things up for me?


----------



## Darell (Nov 25, 2005)

Newbie -

I don't think I'll ever figure out why you choose to assume the worst about BEV/PV, or why you only post "facts" and figures that seem to discredit the same. And because I'll never figure it out, I think I'll stop trying. I'll answer your questions here as if you really wanted the answers, as the answers may benefit some other reader of this thread. :shrug:



NewBie said:


> It looks like electric vehicles have improved an awful lot over the years.


Production EVs were only available for about three years in modern history. They started out pretty good. Imagine how good they could be if we could have a second or third generation by now! If you mean that they've improved since the early 1900's then yes, you are correct.



> With the vehicles achieving 53 to 100 miles range over the first 100,000 miles. Not too bad.


Even better when you consider that most of us do even better than your best numbers. Today I drove my Rav4EV 93 miles on the freeway with heat, (and your favorites...) headlights, wipers and radio. We even used the seat heaters! We visited two relatives, two friends and went shopping. In other words, we drove the car on a trip like we'd have driven any other car. Without charging during the trip, we ended up with over 20% of our charge remaining. Our trip home will be 113 miles, and we'll have a cargo box on top... and it looks like it'll be raining.



> One solution to this is to do the Darrel thing. But in reality it is at considerable real cost, where you need to count all the subsidies, tax breaks, the feds giving kickbacks, and the electric companies.


Remind me again why we need to consider these when you regularly ignore the subsidies that the oil companies enjoy? Do you have any idea what refineries pay for their grid electricity? How about tax credits for exploration? Military protection overseas? Is a level playing field anyting that you're interested in? This reminds me of the FC folks. According to them, FCV's will be powered by 100% green electricity... while all BEVs are powered by coal-fired electricity. You can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you want it to be so.



> And to be fair, you really can't count the trick Darrel uses to put electricity back into the grid during the high rate times, and using it during the lowest rate times, which are really special situations using funded incentives for those with EV.


You've got this quite wrong, again. You are confusing PV and EV rates (and even the reasons, I believe). What I do is not a trick, it is in fact CA law in the case of the EV. A law that typically does not benefit EV drivers, I might add.



> Darrel, if you were not to play the game with the special EV rates


I'd appreciate it if you stopped calling it a game, and I'm certainly not playing anything. To charge an EV at home in CA, one is REQUIRED to have E9 (a or b). The reason for this is NOT to benefit us EV drivers, it is to force us to charge at night when there is extra power available). During the day, when my neighbors are paying 10c/kWh, an EV driver is forced - by law - to pay 32c/kWh. So my neighbors can run their pool pumps, run their AC units (both of which can use as much or more than charging an EV) and pay less than a thrid of what I'd have to pay to do the same thing. Again, this is NOT a subsidy for EV drivers, and it is not a game. It is the law imposed on EV drivers to force them to charge at night - or to pay through the nose to do it during the day. So... still think EV drivers are getting a nice free ride here, while we subsidize the use of our neighbor's AC units?



> and just look at kWH generated by your solar, and kWH used, without playing the subsidized electric EV rate gains of peak vs. non-peak, how do things break out then?


Now for net metering, we're talking about the E7 rate. And this is offered not as a subsidy for those of us who generate. It is intended to pay generators what the power is worth. Power during peak times is quite simply worth more than power during off-peak times. While my neighbors get their day-time power subsidized (by paying a flat rate for their power all the time), I more closely pay for what the power is worth - and I'm paid for what the power is worth when I generate more than I consume.

You have consistenly brought up all these "beneficial rates" that I enjoy - and you've completely ignored the fact that my daytime power costs WAY more than my neighbors'. Yes, I get cheaper power at night when we have extra, and it is cheaper to produce. And yes, I pay lots more for the power I use during the day.

Now, back to your question - without ANY Time of Use billing, I produce ACTUAL power in excess of what my Rav4EV consumes. Quite a bit more - and this is our main vehicle of course. So just in raw kWh production numbers, I can cover more than just my household useage, or I can cover more than just my vehicle usage. With TOU billing, I can cover both as far as the "value" of the power I produce goes. Make more sense now? Or am I still a leech on society?



> Darrel, have you ever figured out the full, non-subsidized cost of solar panels and installation?


Yes. It isn't hard since I had to write a check for the entire amount, just like Bill did. And this is the same thing I had to do to purchase my vehicle. In my case, I wrote a $20k check for the PV installation, and I wrote a $44,500 check for my Rav4EV.

Question back to you: Have you ever figured out the full, non-subsidized cost of a gallon of gasoline? Would be GREAT if you answered some of my questions. We couuld then have some semblance of discussion.


----------



## BB (Nov 25, 2005)

Wow... So many assumptions, so little time...

The entire project cost, from building permits, through panel/inverter, installation, external emergency shutdown, E7 Time of Use meter, and final signoff was just under $30,000.

Panels come with a limited 25 year warranty, 40 year design life (25 years is based on 0.7% per year output loss due to irradiation damage--with the output dropping below 80% at year 26). The inverter has a 5 year basic warranty (additional 5 year available)... But at <$2,500 to replace, I am not too concerned.

Actually, I did not do it to "feel good" about CO2 emissions, I did it because I believe that energy (especially in CA) is going to continue to rise, and to power new appliances (such as A/C, possible electric vehicle) without having to pay $300+ a month in power bills.

You asked how much power was generated or used at the meter net--without E7 gains... 580 kWhrs is my net generated to PG&E over the last ~2.5 months (September 2nd thru November 12th) or approximately 68 days.

I won't bother with the Rav4 EV question... It is obviously much less than you calculated because it is spread out over 2.5 months, not 1 month... And with TOU metering, the numbers change a bunch anyway.

Yep, my system cost about $10k/kWp installed...

My system is estimated to produce about 1,500 kWhrs/year per kWhr (my roof faces somewhat east of south ~157 degrees, ~30-35 degree tilt--and now has some fall/winter shading in the morning due to trees).

Over the last 2.5 months (Sept. 2 through November 12th), I have been averaging about 400 kWhrs per month generated from the panel. Obviously, I have not seen an entire year yet, so I cannot predict for sure how my system will perform... But it should do over 400 kWhrs/month for an entire year (roughly $547 a year generated at the current E1 rate of $0.114 per kWhr).

Now we are going with average home power calculations for the country... May apply to 100 million residences, but not to mine... I average around 200 kWhrs/month +/- 30 kWhrs.

So, since you are asking (in a very round about way), it is a 3kWp system. 20 BP 4175B panels (two strings of 10) with a Xantrex GT 3.0 inverter. It is not a 10kWp system.

That is a ~284 sqft array. Or 16.85' by 16.85' -- if my array were square.

My peak day was about 19kWhrs--so far (around 9/2/05). 26.38 sq meters = 720 watts per sq meter day (on this date).

I am not sure where you got the $4.50/watt CA rebate... It was $2.80/Wp and still is according to California Energy Commission for the average home.

The actual amounts are $8,170.40 for a 2,918 Wp installation.

I think you lost a decimal point or got a conversion number wrong... A flat plate collector tilted to 37.6 degrees will collect about 5.4 kWhrs / sq meter per day average over 1 year... San Francisco around September 1 will average around 6.5 kWhrs/day sq meter. I produced around 720 watts per sq meter, which works out to around 11% conversion efficiency (from panel through inverter)... My numbers seem to work OK using book data--rather than a calibrated solar power sensor...

Does this clear things up? Darell and I have roughly the same system over all--his is rated somewhere around 2.5kW peak, mine a little bit more at 2.9 kWp. And he probably lives in a sunnier area than I do (but his weather is probably also hotter, which cuts down panel efficiencies).

-Bill


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 25, 2005)

NewBie said:


> Earlier in the thread, I mentioned some testing they've done..,


...and now we have dueling stats. Can we average them for sake of comparison or at least agree on some sort of methodology?

Your stats measure efficiency at the wall plug; the DOE specs I found probably measure at the battery pack. Do we need to go all the way back to the oilfield on gasoline for full-system costs (or coal mine/etc with electricity), or can we agree on measuring energy once it reaches the vehicle?

It's far simpler to look at SOC (or gas tank level) and use that for the basis of efficiency since we know there are externalities in everything...



> Although the report touts how the electric vehicles reduced reduced carbon dioxide and pollutants released into the air, it would have been even better if they'd included the emissions produced by the electricity plants used to produce the electricity in the first place. Since about 65% of the electricity produced in California is generated from coal and natural gas, in the greater scheme of things, they still cause considerable amounts of crud in the air.


Agreed. I think everyone needs to realize that expending energy means pollution or some externality or another somewhere. Net pollution with an EV will not be zero, but it will do better than a gasoline car, and the points of pollution are far fewer, which means pollution controls can be implemented far more effectively.



> One solution to this is to do the Darrel thing. But in reality it is at considerable real cost, where you need to count all the subsidies, tax breaks, the feds giving kickbacks, and the electric companies. And to be fair, you really can't count the trick Darrel uses to put electricity back into the grid during the high rate times, and using it during the lowest rate times, which are really special situations using funded incentives for those with EV.



We can keep beating this issue to death if you want, but even without special breaks for EVs or feel-good green power, if the utility will buy back electricity from you, a solar array can almost be free. You borrow the money, then the net refund cover most of the note.

Darell takes advantage of the peak rates that effect every utility customer in his area. Unless the utility company wants to be total curmudgeons about it and not credit local generation at rates proportional to TOU rates, it's fairly straight-up economics. They get valuable peak power without any capital investment.

Darell does get some mileage - in error - for saying that his EV is solar-powered. His PV electrity doesn't go into a battery bank for home charging later... he uses the grid as an economic store of energy rather than literal - trace the electrons and some coal, hydro, nuke, gas, or wind plant is really charging that EV overnight.


----------



## Darell (Nov 25, 2005)

BB said:


> Darell and I have roughly the same system over all--his is rated somewhere around 2.5kW peak, mine a little bit more at 2.9 kWp. And he probably lives in a sunnyer area than I do (but his weather is probably also hotter, which cuts down panel efficiencies).


Correct all the way around.


----------



## Darell (Nov 25, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Darell does get some mileage - in error - for saying that his EV is solar-powered. His PV electrity doesn't go into a battery bank for home charging later... he uses the grid as an economic store of energy rather than literal - trace the electrons and some coal, hydro, nuke, gas, or wind plant is really charging that EV overnight.


Guilty as charged. (pun intended, thankyouverymuch)


----------



## Darell (Nov 25, 2005)

NewBie said:


> I'd sure like to hear about your experience this upcomming December and January.


I've experienced two winters now, and am just starting my third. Since the production is averaged for an entire year, the lean months of winter are augmented during the summer. Everybody ends up happy.



> Wow, 30,000.00 dollars. That would pay for my electricity for the next 25 years!


How could you know? What will electricity cost 25 years from now? Even if it costs the same as today - Great! If everybody was willing to pre-pay for their renewable electricity for the next 25 years we'd be in WAY better shape than we are now. In my case, I put in a $20k system that will produce the fuel for my automobile AND my house electricity for the next 25 years. I only wish this option were available to everybody - instead of the current situation where it is available to nobody.



> I heard the life expectancy for a typical solar installation is 15 years.


 Do you ONLY read anti-renewable articles? We have solar installations that have gone well past 50 years. 25 years is the typical expectancy today. And after that time, they still generate - they just fade with time from day one. Inverters may need repair along the way... but PV installations just keep going and going.



> At least you can feel good about not making millions of tons of carbon as compared to when the electricity is produced for the grid.


And in the case of a BEV - that I'm also not burning carbon-spewing gasoline after not spewing tons of carbon to make my electricity. 

Note to Idle: More accurately, I'm only *displacing* all that carbon-spewing grid electricity, of course. Do you know how much the decals would cost if I were to write all that on my car!? 



> Care to clear things up for me?


Bill did a heck of a job trying! How'd he do?


----------



## idleprocess (Nov 26, 2005)

Darell said:


> Note to Idle: More accurately, I'm only *displacing* all that carbon-spewing grid electricity, of course. Do you know how much the decals would cost if I were to write all that on my car!?



Hahah. Got it. Some improvement in the situation since you're displacing a bit of expensive, not-so-efficient peaker power...


----------



## Darell (Nov 26, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Hahah. Got it. Some improvement in the situation since you're displacing a bit of expensive, not-so-efficient peaker power...


The best part is when people tell me that they don't see any PV panels on the car. At least it gets them talking about it - which is the whole point, of course.


----------



## NewBie (Nov 26, 2005)

Darrel,

Actually, I've seen a number of solar PV array installations where there is considerable delamination on the solar cells, which impacts their efficiency alot. Sandia has seen solar cells completely delaminate and even loose connections.

The delamination issue isn't a really easy nut to crack, unless you take another approach.

There is also the problem of moisture ingress into solar cell arrays, which damage the solar cells, and flux spreading on the solar cells over time, decreasing their efficiency, as well as encapsulant browning over time.

They also talk about long term corrosion issues.

"The failure of solar cells mostly involves cell cracking, interconnect failures (resulting in open circuits or short circuits), and increased contact resistance. Module-level failures include glass breakage, electrical insulation breakdownand various types of encapsulant failures (e.g., delamination)."
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/performance_systems.html

Sandia National Labs is currently conducting long term tests, where they are trying out a number of mechanisms for prolonging the life of solar cell arrays.

I'm still waiting to see those multi-spectrum solar cells that take advantage of alot more of the solar spectrum and are said to yield a 30% efficiency, 3x the typical amount.

Delamination resulting from the loss of adhesion must be addressed in order to achieve 30-year lifetime for photovoltaic (PV) modules. Delamination has occurred to varying degrees in a small percentage of modules from all
manufacturers. 
http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv_prm/pdfs/papers/103.pdf

Results here suggest that for many samples in this study, loss in cell efficiency may at least in part be related to gradual increases in series resistance. The 
relation of moisture ingress to increasing series resistance should be further investigated. The mention losses of up to 61% in their simulations.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/30841.pdf

Individual PV arrays manufactured by Spectrolab Inc., ARCO Solar, and Motorola were installed at NBNM in 1980 and are shown in Figure 1. Technology varied but all modules were monocrystalline silicon and all three module-types were representative of JPL Block III or earlier. Recently, arrays manufactured by Motorola and ARCO were disabled or dismantled due to increased maintenance requirements and/or significantly decreased
power production.

However, one array made by a company seems to have held up extremely well, and they go into alot of detailed discussions
http://www.sandia.gov/pv/docs/PDF/quinking.pdf


Though, the newer multijunction cells introduce a new possible range of failures over their counterparts:
"Characterization of Defects in Advanced Solar Cells
Modern solar cells are far more complicated than their early counterparts, containing many more materials, interconnects, and metallization layers. Defects introduced in the chemical-vapor deposition process are believed to contribute to failure mechanisms in multijunction photovoltaic cells, but no study has attempted to correlate defect centers to cell degradation or to develop a set of failure modes for calculating mean time between failure. 
"
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/fall2005/irnd.html


AMES, Iowa - Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University's Microelectronics Research Center may have solved a mystery that has plagued the research community for more than 20 years: Why do solar cells degrade in sunlight? Finding the answer to that question is essential to the advancement of solar cell research and the ability to produce lower-cost electricity from sunlight.

"The basic problem is that when you put solar cells in sunlight, the efficiency starts to decrease by as much as 15 percent to 20 percent over a period of several days," said Rana Biswas, a physicist at Ames Laboratory and the MRC. "Obviously, that's not good."
http://www.external.ameslab.gov/Final/News/2003rel/solar.html


As I understand it, the new Amorphous arrays haven't been around long enough to prove their durability yet.


Do you have any information on these issues Darrel, panels to avoid, and panels to check out? Do the warranties cover degradation, or give any numbers at which point they will repair them? 





> *Idleprocess said:*
> 
> Your stats measure efficiency at the wall plug; the DOE specs I found probably measure at the battery pack. Do we need to go all the way back to the oilfield on gasoline for full-system costs (or coal mine/etc with electricity), or can we agree on measuring energy once it reaches the vehicle?



Thats already known, you see the price at the pump. Abiet, much higher than the actual cost, since gas is heavily taxed (not as bad as Europe though).


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 26, 2005)

Wow Newbie, you manage to put a lot of seemingly unrelated items in one post. I was not able figure out your point. Would you mind simply explaining what it was that you were trying to point out in thatr post?

I'm usually pretty good at determining the focus of a post but there were too many points that contradicted each other . For instance, there seems to be a concern about delamination, but then there's a reference that indicates that it happens only occasionally


> Delamination has occurred to varying degrees in a small percentage of modules from all manufacturers


. I figure "small percentage" as being in the low single digits.

So what was I supposed to take away from reading that post?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 26, 2005)

'Tis apparent that when many of us read about Darell and Bill and their Solar Arrays we say "WOW".

When Newbie reads it he says "Bulls**t". And proceeds to try and tear it down.

Certainly not for the better but Diesel (Dino) has come down to about $2.30 as of Friday. How will BioD ever become popular at low prices for Dino? I'd be pleased as punch to use Alt Fuel!!!

Oh last note: My 8K# Ram 2500 is averaging about 18.5 over 13,000 miles. Last spot check showed 20.3.  Beats the old F350 at 14.5 lifetime eh?


----------



## NewBie (Nov 26, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Wow Newbie, you manage to put a lot of seemingly unrelated items in one post. I was not able figure out your point. Would you mind simply explaining what it was that you were trying to point out in thatr post?
> 
> I'm usually pretty good at determining the focus of a post but there were too many points that contradicted each other . For instance, there seems to be a concern about delamination, but then there's a reference that indicates that it happens only occasionally . I figure "small percentage" as being in the low single digits.
> 
> So what was I supposed to take away from reading that post?




Well, some arrays have small amounts of delamination, and some large amounts. This was just pulling some info, quickly, from various sources with links provided, on the failure modes. You are free to visit the links, where they are investigating how to get around these problems, and where they discuss various problems. 

What you are supposed to take from this, is that there is degradation from various sources, over time, and not all solar panels, technology, and construction are not equal. This results in a failure mode in the technology, that various National Labs are working very hard to correct, in an attempt to get to 25-35 years of decent performance. Read the references linked yourself.

Then I asked Darrel if he had any inside info on this, to share with us. This would help folks from getting hosed on their solar arrays.

What I take from this, is to buy from a reputable source, a company that has been in the business for a few decades (so they might be around when you need to use your warranty), and that one should *very* carefully read the warranty and understand all the inuendos, possibly even consulting with a lawyer on such a large investment, to understand the legal speak in the warranty.


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 26, 2005)

Thanks Newbie. That makes more sense now. The advise "Buy, be aware" is always good.

I seem to recall from reading (several years back) that mechanical failure of the mounting hardware is one of the more common problems in the 10 to 15 year range. The panel failures did not make an impression on me, so I figure that they were relatively minor.

I find it interesting that different EOL (end-of-life) criteria is used for different products. My toaster is not dead till it stops working all-together. I put up with jiggling the handle on my toilet one in a while. My cars are not obsolete till they stop functioning or start to embarass me.

So we look at Solar arrays and some posts indicate a decision they are at EOL when the performance degrades to 80% ???? That does not make sense to me.

I know that 80% might be valid for batteries, since you can only have so many batteries in your flashlight or car. I don't see it for Solar arrays, since you can often add more panels or buy energy from the grid to make up for the loss. If one panel out of 10 dies early, you can replace it just like any other product. You don't replace the entire array of panels.

To bring it back on subject, I've seen references to EV battery EOL when they reach 80% of original capacity. I wonder if that is valid. If the range when new is 110 miles, but I only drive it 30 miles per day, the 80% is not an impediment.

Just thoughts.....


----------



## Darell (Nov 26, 2005)

NewBie said:


> Darrel,
> 
> Actually, I've seen a number of solar PV array installations where there is considerable delamination on the solar cells


And I've seen a number of gasoline cars that required a complete engine rebuild after fewer than 100k miles. :shrug: Stuff happens. You deal with it. In general, Panels last a very long time. For each instance of a distructive delaminatin you can find, I can find 100's of instances that have survived just fine. Some will die early, I'm sure. Entropy is not our friend here. I'm not going to let it keep me up at night though.



> Do you have any information on these issues Darrel


Only that there is some risk in any venture. I try to avoid being hit by lightning, but it still may happen.



> panels to avoid, and panels to check out?
> 
> 
> > I know of no major panel manufacturer that has a bad reputation or suffers from large warranty losses. In my case, I relied on a friend in the business to choose the best panels for my situation, so I'm not all that qualified to answer this.
> ...


----------



## NewBie (Nov 27, 2005)

So you don't have a recommendation of one brand of solar panel over the other? Are there any major brand manufacturers that offer a more bullet proof warranty than others? 

The only thing I've really found that was unbiased on the subject of how panels last is the Sandia Labs stuff, where they are trying to figure out how to make them last. Some brands faired much better than others.

BTW, the taxes on a typical gallon of gasoline run from 40 cents to 75 cents, depending on what state you are in.


----------



## BB (Nov 27, 2005)

Try this forum... The owner has done some inverter designs/updates for at least one major manufacturer.

http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/

He has some posts on vendors that have, in the past, had massive early failures and one vendor that he recommends that you stay away from.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Nov 28, 2005)

{removed fodder}


----------



## NewBie (Nov 28, 2005)

BB said:


> Try this forum... The owner has done some inverter designs/updates for at least one major manufacturer.
> 
> http://www.solar-guppy.com/forum/
> 
> ...




Outstanding, thanks for being helpful Bill. If you find any more info like this, holler.


----------



## Brock (Nov 28, 2005)

Ok I was away for a while again. I had in my array two panels rated for 53w date stamped 1986. They still put out over 90w in full sun. I did replace them with similar sized panels rated at 125w each. I replaced them because of size limitations not because of panel degradation, and I actually got about 75% of the purchase price when the panels were over 10 years old.

I have seen LOTS of solar panels and actually never seen a delaminated panel. I have seen LOTS of solar hot water panels go bad, but don't know as much about them. I wonder if it has to do with being in a colder climate? Also most of the panels "deaths" I have heard of were due to user installation errors or just something going wrong when it was made, those are usually caught right away.

As far as Brands the big ones are BP, Shell, Kyocera, Sharp, Sayno among others. Notice the big oil in the mix 

I have some info on my small system here
http://www.uwgb.edu/nevermab/solar.htm


----------



## cobb (Nov 30, 2005)

Darrel, what ever happened to your yellow toy you were going to put in lithion batteries and a 16hp motor?


----------



## Darell (Nov 30, 2005)

cobb said:


> Darrel, what ever happened to your yellow toy you were going to put in lithion batteries and a 16hp motor?


Well, it is going to be FLA batteries, and quit a bit more horsies than that... but the answer is: It is sitting right where I left it. Both the owner and I were faced with lots of distractions right when we were to begin. The car is still there in the same shape as the "before" pictures! We'll get to it... but there are always those pesky priorities.


----------



## Darell (Dec 1, 2005)

A fellow EV1 driver has found his vehicle five years after GM took his car back. His actual car - which he just visited last week to verify - is on display at the Smithsonian Museum of American History.

The "car of the future" parked in a museum. See it here:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_1303.html


----------



## ikendu (Dec 1, 2005)

As a former GMer, I'm a little ashamed that the EV1 is in the Smithsonian under these circumstances (as though it was a sort of failed "quirky notion" of the past).

So... if GM had been the one to develop the first generation Prius, would it also be on display and be described as "GM ...determined that the Hybrid Prius was not commercially viable."? 

Instead, the hybrid technology has been a springboard to a profitable future for Toyota while GM is laying off 30,000 and closing 11 plants?


----------



## Darell (Dec 1, 2005)

That prose on the page, BTW, was originally written by "us." It was mildly edited, but you'll notice the lack of bias. It is all quite factual. GM did determine that there was no market - unfortunately that determination was made with no marketing attempt, of course. But it is refreshing that there aren't the tired "we could only sell 800 of these!" messages in there at least. Obviously all parties - including the donor - had to sign off on the text, but it was pretty slick that we got to write it.

Another bit of interest...Ya know the "new" retro SSR pickup that GM can't seem to even give away? Coincidentally,that thing is built in the same plant that the EV1s were built. Interesting that GM isn't claiming there's no market for these... when in fact there IS no market even after spending millions on billboards and magazine ads.


----------



## cobb (Dec 1, 2005)

I thought the ssr was hot, when I learned it was 47 grand with a small wimpy engine in it and car and driver backed my thoughts up, I lost interest.


----------



## Darell (Dec 1, 2005)

cobb said:


> ...when I learned it was 47 grand with a small wimpy engine in it and car and driver backed my thoughts up, I lost interest.


You and the rest of the population!

When I first saw the billboards, I thought it looked pretty sharp too. Was actually surprised to hear that they can't move them off the lots. Pretty soon you'll be able to pick up up a lot cheaper, me thinks!


----------



## Darell (Dec 1, 2005)

I meant to post this a bit ago. Here's a quick pdf of a PP presentation that Tom Gage of ACP did regarding BEVS past, presnt and future - for an EVA meeting last week.

http://www.evchargernews.com/miscfiles/evaosc111905.pdf


----------



## ikendu (Dec 1, 2005)

Great presentation.

I really like the petroleum hierarchy of usage.

I wish someone would engineer up a good PHEV conversion.

Maybe something easy (?) like a Chevy S10 Flex Fuel (E85) where all you add is a motor/generator between the transmission and differential + batteries + controller; then sell this as a kit.


----------



## Brock (Dec 1, 2005)

Ok adding a little humor, some truth and some not...



> Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...
> The Wall Street Journal
> 
> By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
> ...


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 2, 2005)

Personally, I did not think the "letter" contained any humor. It was seldom correct, but if that was really published in the Wall Street Journel, I would wonder why. Maybe someone bitter that their GM stock was falling?


Now if you want to make one that's humerous....

Why did the Prius cross the road.


To get to the protest against crushing the EV1


Sorry.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 2, 2005)

I drive an hour to and an hour from work each day.

I can say that in the past, I might see one EV at most a month on the road.

Now I see about five each way during my commute.

Definitely looks like they are becomming more popular. We have several folks that own them at work now. Talking to them, even though they are new, they have had issues with batteries, and various electronics.

Should be interesting to see how the market evolves, now that they are selling.


----------



## Darell (Dec 2, 2005)

NewBie said:


> I drive an hour to and an hour from work each day.
> 
> I can say that in the past, I might see one EV at most a month on the road.
> 
> ...


I will assume that you you mean "hybrid" where you've said EV here. If you're seeing new EVs driving around, I'd sure like to find out more about them!

Wondering... does any ICE driver ever have "various issues" with the engine or starter battery or electronics or transmission or...? :shrug:


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 2, 2005)

NewBie said:


> I drive an hour to and an hour from work each day.
> 
> I can say that in the past, I might see one EV at most a month on the road.
> 
> ...




Like Darrel said.... EV or Hybrid? I look for unusual cars and almost never see an EV. I think I've
seen a handful.

The "during my commute" measure tends to magnify local anomolies. I used to commute 19 miles each way and always saw the same cars since we were all commuting to the same places at the same time. It is possible that there are 5 BEVs in Newbie's area who commute to work at the same time each day. If there is a local manufacturer there may be many more.

What Make and model are those, Newbie? Are they available locally?

As for issues... Every car has issues. Every new model introduces new ones. That's why they say not to buy the first year of any model. In the last 35 years I've had dozens of problems with conventional designs. Dead batteries, bad starters, burst heaters, burned wiring, broken vacuum hoses, leaky brakes, burned out fans, leaking heater cores (yuck!) and many others.

I would guess that anyone with an EV conversion will be more likely to encounter some engineering error. After all, I'm sure there is a team of engineers at GM who just design glove boxes. A small firm with limited number of engineers is supposed to do better than GM?

Based on my experience with designing small things for myself, I can say that there always things that you either fail to take into account or that you guess wrong about. The second version corrects these shortcoming IF you run into them and recognize them.

We look for perfection in new designs, yet fail to remember that most products have been refined over the years.



Hmmmm. Rambling again. The point is that every car has design flaws or design decisions that you may think are wrong. BEVs will, of course share that problem. So will hybrids. So far MY hybrid has been remarkably reliable and runs extremely well. Of course, I've only had it 3 years, so there is still time for things to break.


----------



## jtr1962 (Dec 2, 2005)

Darell said:


> That prose on the page, BTW, was originally written by "us."


And you wouldn't happen to be the one who wrote this would you? 

_Many drivers liked the quick acceleration and smooth, quiet performance of the EV1._



> GM did determine that there was no market - unfortunately that determination was made with no marketing attempt, of course.


And that brings me to make a point. Why is it that whenever an automaker, especially an American automaker, tries to market an "alternative fuel" vehicle, they call it a flop if the first design iteration isn't entirely successful? Lots of new ICE designs have been flops. Often the automakers would still keep trying to push them year after year until finally getting the message. Occasionally some of these initial flops even turn out to be winners once the public warms up to them. However, with their "alternative" designs they don't even make a half-hearted attempt the first year, and then abandon them as "not economically viable". It's like they're practically setting themselves up for failure. We all know GM was dragged kicking and screaming to produce the EV1, but surely they would have made money had they pushed it, and built enough to realize the economies of mass production.


----------



## Ken_McE (Dec 2, 2005)

*Bizzare WSJ Article - Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...*

I can't tell if this is a joke or something. As rhetoric, it's well done. As a reasoned argument it falls apart if you actually know anything at all about hybrids. Rush Limbaugh seems to like it though.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_120105/content/institute.guest.html

WSJ article

November 30, 2005 


BUSINESS WORLD 
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. 






Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...
November 30, 2005; Page A19

We at the Toyota Motor Corporation are writing to address certain misconceptions that have arisen about your Toyota Prius model, which we are proud to note is driven by many celebrities, including Prince Charles and HBO's Larry David.

Our pioneering gasoline-electric hybrid, introduced in 1999, has become an object of adoration to the world's enlightened car buyers. Our competitors, including America's Big Three, are rushing out hybrid vehicles of their own. Unconfirmed media reports say that we at Toyota intend to double our hybrid output to 500,000 vehicles next year. Along with other members of the auto industry, we will be lobbying for tax breaks and HOV privileges for hybrid vehicles.

However, any romance entering its seventh year tends to go stale. Some purchasers have begun to question the practical value of our Hybrid Synergy Drive technology. You may be aware that a survey by Consumer Reports found that our vehicles achieve considerably less mileage (some 26% less) than the sticker rating implies. This has led to some unflattering media stories.

Let us assure you that the Prius remains one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road. Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year.


And should the price of gasoline rise to $5, after 10 years and/or 130,000 miles of driving, you might even come close to breaking even on your investment in hybrid technology.

We recognize that our customers have an "emotional" relationship with their vehicles. This transcends even the regrettable truth that driving a fuel-efficient car does not yield any substantial benefits for society if it doesn't save the owner money.

Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse pollutants are released. Also, please note that the warranty and owner's manual say nothing about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an oversight. The Prius is an "oil-dependent" vehicle. It runs on gasoline, supplied by the same world market that fuels other vehicles.

The Toyota Corporation regrets any misunderstanding our marketing may inadvertently have caused (or may cause in the future).

We share your belief that the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered. Further research by our economists suggests this will happen when the price of gasoline rises high enough to make alternative technologies cheaper than gasoline-powered cars.

We at Toyota want you to know we recognize this effect and have taken steps to compensate with the rest of our vehicle lineup.

Our 2006 Tundra pickup will be equipped with Toyota's new eight-cylinder engine, making it every bit as much of a gas guzzler as any American pickup. We are also redirecting our efforts to use our Hybrid Synergy Drive to increase power output rather than reduce gasoline consumption.

Take our new hybrid SUV, which produces 38 more horsepower but gets the same mileage as our conventional version. A New York Times reviewer wrote, "One question lingers after driving the 2006 Lexus RX400h: How did it come to this, that Toyota is now selling a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with no tangible fuel economy benefits?"

We hope this corrects any misimpression caused by our latest slogan ("Commute with Nature"). Hybrid technology is not "green" technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers.

You will share our pride in the latest figures from J.D. Power & Associates, which show that the Prius continues to move off a dealer's lot in just eight days, compared to 36 days for a Honda Civic hybrid. Clearly, our customers are willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of showing themselves behind the wheel of so conspicuously virtuous a vehicle.

But we are also a far-seeing corporation. We recognize that the Prius's distinctiveness may be a wasting asset for reasons outlined in this letter. Other motorists may see the Prius operator and think "sucker." Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value. Toyota regrets any inconvenience.

We want you to know that Toyota remains committed to advancing hybrid technology just as long as our customers are willing to make it worth our while. Our esteemed competitor, Nissan's Carlos Ghosn, was recently quoted saying, "There's such a buzz today that no CEO of a car manufacturer dares to say his real opinion of hybrid because he's accused of being retarded."

Another esteemed competitor, GM, has suggested that hybrid technology is best deployed in city buses, where large fuel consumption and stop-and-go driving might actually make it economically sensible.

These are just two examples of the short-sighted, stick-in-the-mud marketing instincts of our fellow automakers that are helping to make Toyota the largest car company in the world.

Yours Truly, the Toyota Corporation.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113332075479109882.html 
(mandatory registration to get in, requires credit card number)


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:[email protected]


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Bizzare WSJ Article - Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...*

I would not say that it's well done. It deliberately mistates many points. For instance....



> Let us assure you that the Prius remains one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road. Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year.
> 
> 
> And should the price of gasoline rise to $5, after 10 years and/or 130,000 miles of driving, you might even come close to breaking even on your investment in hybrid technology.



The real "premium" is less than $3,000 above a *comparable* vehicle. The resale tracks that same premium, so the extra $3000 is recaptured when you sell it.

On the other hand, when gas hits $5.00 a gallon I'll probably be able to sell my hybrid for much more than I paid the dealer.

BTW, this fake letter was also posted in the EV thread.


----------



## Saaby (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Bizzare WSJ Article - Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...*

I think they're just mainly trying to poke fun at Toyota.

In the letter's defense... we were looking at the cross over category recently and ended up at a Toyota dealer to check out a Highlander. One thing led to another and the sales kid would not shut up about how the Prius is the best car on the planet. A battle with your friends is one thing, but when you're trying to sell a car, or any product for that matter, it's best to eventually bite your tounge, shut up, and agree with your customer.

It's worth noting that we were not even in the market for a Prius. Instead of the kid saying "Well enough about the Prius, lets talk about the Highlander you came in to see." he just kept arguing with my (Pro Biodiesel, Pro Electric, Pro Plug-in-hybrid) brother in law.

Eventually we walked off the lot. My sister and I spent a good 10 or 15 minutes sitting on the back of a Highlander and Rav4, but we didn't drive a thing.

Not saying that 1 sales person represents the whole company. Not saying that by a long shot. Just saying...uhh...well the Prius is a fantastic machine, with some clever engineering to it, but it's not nearly the machine Toyota would like you to think it is.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 2, 2005)

Saaby said:


> Not saying that 1 sales person represents the whole company. Not saying that by a long shot. Just saying...uhh...well the Prius is a fantastic machine, with some clever engineering to it, but it's not nearly the machine Toyota would like you to think it is.




Is any car really what the manufacturer wants you to believe? Will driving a Jaguar really make me popular and sexy? Is am Expedition really what I need to transport a family of 4? Will a dodge viper somehow make me sucessful? Not really.

All the Toyota Prius ads I've seen have NOT included any significant hype. They have stressed the benefits to the ecology first and fuel economy second. I have not really seen one in the last few months, so they may have become whacky. 

A lot has changed in 4 years. I had to make an appointment to see the Prius back in 2001. None of the salesmen were allowed to talk about it unless they'd attended special training. By June 2002 when I bought mine, a young kid tried to tell me all about it. I knew more about it than he did. He finally shut up and let me buy the car.

In the future, most of the Toyota line will be hybrid, and others will probably go the same way. It's simply the only technology that gives you cleaner power without losing power or economy AND lets you do everything exactly like you always have.


----------



## Ken_McE (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Bizzare WSJ Article - Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...*



gadget_lover said:


> I would not say that it's well done. It deliberately mistates many points. For instance....



As a study in *rhetoric*, in trying to sway people by appealing to their emotions, I thought it did a good job. Looked at as an excercise in reasoning it fails miserably.


----------



## ikendu (Dec 2, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> ...Toyota line...hybrid...simply the only technology that gives you cleaner power without losing power or economy AND lets you do everything exactly like you always have.



Actually (as Yoda said in Return of the Jedi), "There is another one".

In 2007 diesels have to meet just as strict emissions on all fronts as gasoline cars. They will do this with two technologies, NOx clean up systems and particulate traps. VW is already saying they can meet this standard.

Once that happens, the diesel will be as clean, or cleaner than the Prius (at least, that is what I am reading). If that is so, you will have plenty of power, great towing torque, long range, AND... the ability to run on renewable biodiesel. So far, Toyota has refused to couple the hybrid technology with the ability to run on renewable fuels like biodiesel or ethanol (other than E10).

I really love what Toyota has done with the Prius, but my VW Golf TDI on biodiesel adds hugely less CO2 to our atmosphere than a Prius running on petroleum gasoline.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 3, 2005)

Darell said:


> I will assume that you you mean "hybrid" where you've said EV here. If you're seeing new EVs driving around, I'd sure like to find out more about them!
> 
> Wondering... does any ICE driver ever have "various issues" with the engine or starter battery or electronics or transmission or...? :shrug:




Well, Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Honda Insight, or Pirus, and there is another type, but I'm too busy driving to ID the vehicle (maybe it was a Lexus). I think I see the Insight and the Pirus the most.

IMHO, Hybrid Electric Vehicle, pure Electric Vehicle (for the devoutly uber religious in the EV crowd), ICE with Electric flywheel recovery, Electric with ICE assist, whatever...

Yes, my ICE needed oil, gas, tires, two air filters, and one battery by the time it hit 180,000 miles. And a few lightbulbs. Rebuilt engine for 800 dollars (including clutch plate) and a muffler at 40 dollars, and it is now at 230,000 miles, it needed a blower motor, for the heater since the rebuild, and new brake pads. Of course it needed a few windshield wiper replacements along the way, but any vehicle will need those. For 500 dollars, I can get a used engine from Japan that has 30,000 miles on it, do a minor rebuild on it, and be set for quite some time. The last one I did, in the truck I had before, lasted over 70,000 miles, and I sold it at that point, still running nice.

Anyhow...


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 3, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Actually (as Yoda said in Return of the Jedi), "There is another one".
> 
> In 2007 diesels have to meet just as strict emissions on all fronts as gasoline cars. They will do this with two technologies, NOx clean up systems and particulate traps. VW is already saying they can meet this standard.
> 
> ...




Is there really another one, or is there a possible contender on the horizon? 

I'm not trying to say the Toyota Hybrid system is the be-all. It is available now, and it delivers low pollution + high economy miles without requiring any change of driving or maintenance habits.

The new diesel will be nice, but the reports I've found all seem to point to a catalytic converter that requires a rich cycle intermixed with lean cycles to burn off the particulates. If I recall correctly, this can lead to decreased milage as fuel is added to burn off the soot. I don't know what messing with the fuel mixture will do to drivability and durability.

Now that the TDI has been around a few years, is it proving to be as reliable as a standard diesel?

I'm surprised that the Prius is not dessigned to use flexible fuels too. I imagine that the decision revolved around consistant starting and detection of problems. Remember, the engine may start and stop 30 times in a 10 mile trip, so it's important that the engine not misfire when starting back up or shutting down.

The Prius has one of the most paranoid designs I've seen. It is designed that way to ensure proper pollution control. It throws an error code if it detects a miss in one of the cylinders, for instance. It will complain if you use gas with a high octane.

Hmmmm Midnight rambling again. Sorry.

I will be glad when we have clean diesels that run on renewable fuels that are enviromentally friendly. I figure I'll be around for at least another 50 years. I'll need to drive something.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 3, 2005)

NewBie said:


> Yes, my ICE needed oil, gas, tires, two air filters, and one battery by the time it hit 180,000 miles. And a few lightbulbs. Rebuilt engine for 800 dollars (including clutch plate) and a muffler at 40 dollars, and it is now at 230,000 miles, it needed a blower motor, for the heater since the rebuild, and new brake pads. Of course it needed a few windshield wiper replacements along the way, but any vehicle will need those. For 500 dollars, I can get a used engine from Japan that has 30,000 miles on it, do a minor rebuild on it, and be set for quite some time.



$800 for a rebuilt engine, installed? That's way out of the norm.

No timing belts? Tune ups? Radiator flushes? Starter motor replacements? Alternator or distributor issues? Exhaust system issues? Clutch replacements?

Although, since I sold my last car and started driving a light truck, I've noticed a sharp decline in maintenance spending - no substantive engine problems on this vehicle yet. I would have had something major go wrong with all of my used cars after 2 years.


----------



## James S (Dec 3, 2005)

> and a muffler at 40 dollars



a $40 muffler!!! WOW, I wish your body shop had a branch out here. I had to replace my muffler recently, just the muffler, part of the pipe and a mounting strap and I paid nearly $250 for it and that was the cheapest estimate I could fine.

Course, this is only the cars second muffler in 11 years, so I'm not too upset about it.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 3, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> $800 for a rebuilt engine, installed? That's way out of the norm.
> 
> No timing belts? Tune ups? Radiator flushes? Starter motor replacements? Alternator or distributor issues? Exhaust system issues? Clutch replacements?
> 
> Although, since I sold my last car and started driving a light truck, I've noticed a sharp decline in maintenance spending - no substantive engine problems on this vehicle yet. I would have had something major go wrong with all of my used cars after 2 years.




Exactly what I said. Notice I mentioned clutch replacement at rebuild, that was the only time it was done. No alternator or distributor issues. Notice I mentioned muffler replacement. No starter replacements, but I did need one 9 dollar relay. No spark plugs either. Air filter blown out with compressed air. I have a timing chain, no belt. That was replaced at rebuild.

Rebuilt by yours truely. Even had the block hot tanked, and all. Yup, 800 dollars.

The truck will be approaching 13 years now.

James, it is alot cheaper when you do it yourself. Remember, they make a nice profit, or they'd not be in business....


----------



## Brock (Dec 4, 2005)

NewBie what do you drive and what mileage do you get and how many miles a year? I am thinking the added cost for fuel would far outweigh any extra I might pay in maintenance. 

I have a spread sheet that has every dime I have ever spent on our TDI wagon, from wipers to oil changes to fuel, tires, and of course purchase price. I would be really interested to see many different types of cars in total $/mile.

For the record our TDI is at $.59/mile at 40k and dropping fast. The cheapest car was a used Mazda 323 at $.22/mile at the end of the 135k I owned it, I got rid of it when the $/mile slow started to increase again. But I wouldn't feel safe moving my family in that one. Our Sienna Van, used, is at $1.67/mile at 11k.


----------



## cobb (Dec 4, 2005)

newbie, try the kidney foundation in your area. We have one called the chesterfield and tricities junkyard. 4 cylinder engines 75 bucks, trannys 125. Everything is dirt cheap, but you must remove them. 30 day warranty too. 

I see where the argument is going. Its money vs the environment. This just points out that voluntery conservation doesnt happen. Sure if x number folks exchanged their suvs for cars, cars for compacts, compacts for bikes we would save so much pollution, but all parties involved would rather drive an suv. the cheaper and less efficient the better so they can afford gas for them. 

I am in a similar boat myself. I am looking to get my license and shortly afterwards a car. I first aimed at rebuilding a geometro xfi that got around 60mpg. It has over 200k miles on it. That seemed like a possible money pit starting at 3 grand. Option 2, get a new car, kia rio 8 grand. 29mpg according to my brother. Option 3 if had more money to go towards a car, dodge neon rt, something fun to drive. option 4 if have two jobs, prius or honda hybrid. Sure the diesel smart came up with its 70mpg, bit thats a year or so away unless i can import one. 

Now that I think of it, the 4option makes more sense all around. Thats just me, a well built car with good mpg and an attempt at curbing emmissions to the environment.


----------



## Darell (Dec 6, 2005)

Hmm. For the maintenance cost stuff, we seem to again be mistaking "personal experience" for "general experience." And moving along...

Greg Johanson of Solar Electrical Systems has designed this Prius PV roof, and is currently building 50 of them for sale. Next up will be a solar roof for the Rav.

Bad investment from a money-only standpoint, but I love seeing it being done. It is expected to cost between $2 and 3k. Less than some folks pay for leather or DVD option...


----------



## NewBie (Dec 6, 2005)

Now, these electric scooters make alot of sense, with their long range on a single charge.
Fast – A top speed of 62 mph (100 km/h). 
Rapid Acceleration - 0-50 mph (96 km/h) in 6.8 seconds. 
Extended Range – Up to 68 miles (110 km) on a single charge (average speed of 25 mph (40 km/h). The patented throttle-activated regenerative braking system (DAaRT™) helps to extend range by up to 12% by redirecting energy back into the battery during braking. 

http://www.vectrixusa.com/scooter/benefits.html


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 6, 2005)

Another interesting site. The top story is about a solar assisted hybrid.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/solar-powered_t.php


----------



## ikendu (Dec 6, 2005)

The really funny thing is... once people start buying mass produced electric vehicles, they are probably gonna really like them. Then, it won't matter that the big automakers aren't getting into the market. It will begin to take off. 

I see this with biodiesel. More and more people are choosing biodiesel even though there aren't stations around very many places to buy it. It changes the way people think about transportation. Darrel has made that change. He is happy "fueling" at home while others can not yet imagine a world like that.

Why? They think about dangerous, explosive, messy, stinky fuels that they deal with at the "filling station" and don't want that at home. Once you start "home fueling" with a safe, non-stinky, non-messy fuel you just don't want to go back.

In the summer, that is what it is like for me with biodiesel. I fill up about once every 6 weeks at my biodiesel "connection". I get a full tank and six 5-gallon containers for the trunk. Then, over the course of the next six weeks, I'm doing "home fueling"; safe, non-stinky, non-messy. It is only during the winter when I have to blend biodiesel with retail, winterized petroleum diesel to keep my biofuel from gelling. Believe me, I can not WAIT until spring comes when I can switch back to 100% biodiesel.

Electric vehicles? It is like this only WAY better.

This is just like the telegraph company turning down the telephone or the mimograph company turning down the Xerox. Existing companies that are into an existing business paradyme... just don't get it until it is too late, and their business is gone.


----------



## Brock (Dec 6, 2005)

Darell said:


> Hmm. For the maintenance cost stuff, we seem to again be mistaking "personal experience" for "general experience." And moving along...



Not sure if that was aimed at me. As you know I am a practical person, yet care about the world in general. I just think we can have it both way, practical and environmentally friendly and I do agree with this as well



ikendu said:


> They think about dangerous, explosive, messy, stinky fuels that they deal with at the "filling station" and don't want that at home. Once you start "home fueling" with a safe, non-stinky, non-messy fuel you just don't want to go back.


----------



## Darell (Dec 12, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Why? They think about dangerous, explosive, messy, stinky fuels that they deal with at the "filling station" and don't want that at home. Once you start "home fueling" with a safe, non-stinky, non-messy fuel you just don't want to go back....
> 
> Electric vehicles? It is like this only WAY better.


I haven't ONCE dripped electrons on my shoes, or on the paint of the car.  I used to have a shed full of various gas cans for the mower and edge trimmer and cars. It is SO nice to not have a single bit of excess gasoline sitting around now. On the hot days, the shed just smells like my warm BBQ grill now.

Yes, home refueling is THE bomb.... yet people will always bring up range with regard to EVs. And to that I ask this:

Have you ever gone several days without filling up your liquid-fueled vehicle?
If yes, then you have more range than you need.

Have you ever filled your liquid-fueled vehicle MORE than once in a day?
If yes, then you don't have as much range as you need.

My point is that there is no "perfect" range for a vehicle. Some need lots, some need very little - and our current liquid-fueled vehicles are not perfect for all that we do. If we pretend that a liquid-fueled vehicle has just the right amount of range today, who are we kidding? And then we'll get the "quick fill" argument. Valid, for sure! Yet, we could have some pretty darn fast charges if we put as much money into those as we put into gasoline stations. We just have that dang checken and egg problem.

Oops. I'm rambling. Been a long day.


----------



## Darell (Dec 12, 2005)

Brock said:


> Not sure if that was aimed at me.


Nope. You just kinda tripped into the trap. 

I was asking if ANY gasoline vehicles required expensive maintenance, and the answer I got back was that ONE gas vehicle has proven to be cheap to maintain - provided the owner is handy enough to replace their own engine, etc. :shrug:

Not quite my point, ya know?


----------



## Darell (Dec 12, 2005)

NewBie said:


> Now, these electric scooters make alot of sense, with their long range on a single charge.


1/3 of me wants a Vectrix: http://www.vectrixusa.com/index3.html
1/3 of me wants a GPR: http://www.electricmotorsport.com/EGPR/egprPage.htm
And 1/3 of me wants a blade: http://www.electricmoto.com/electricmoto.php?id=product_blade

Every one of these is featured on my links page, BTW.


----------



## BackBlast (Dec 12, 2005)

Brock said:


> NewBie what do you drive and what mileage do you get and how many miles a year? I am thinking the added cost for fuel would far outweigh any extra I might pay in maintenance.
> 
> I have a spread sheet that has every dime I have ever spent on our TDI wagon, from wipers to oil changes to fuel, tires, and of course purchase price. I would be really interested to see many different types of cars in total $/mile.
> 
> For the record our TDI is at $.59/mile at 40k and dropping fast. The cheapest car was a used Mazda 323 at $.22/mile at the end of the 135k I owned it, I got rid of it when the $/mile slow started to increase again. But I wouldn't feel safe moving my family in that one. Our Sienna Van, used, is at $1.67/mile at 11k.



I've kept similar accounts of my car. I'm at $.16/mile at 22k miles on my honda civic (very used). Probably an average of 17k/year miles. Currently the costs are about 1/4..1/3 fuel, 1/2 sticker/maintenance (mostly sticker), and the rest being insurance and taxes. I've required two CV axel and break repairs to date, which I had a mechanic do. I change the oil myself. I have some new noise appearing, so I think I have more repairs required soon (hopefully not many, *crosses fingers*). Fuel is significant (low grade @ ~40 mpg), and would certainly be more than my actual labor costs in short order if I had to take a large hit in my consumption rate. Of course, maybe not if/when I have some larger repairs. I guess I'll only really know when I get rid of the car. But anyway, in my case, to date, I would agree with your assesment.


----------



## Orion (Dec 12, 2005)

Not sure if this has been discussed. I haven't been following this thread and I don't have time to wade through 18 pages! 

I'm planning on (at sometime in the near future) buying a Hybrid vehicle. I WAS looking strongly at the Prius, but the 2006 Civic Hybrid looks better to me asthetically. Anyone care to comment on which one is "better"? Probably one of those "it's a toss up" kind of questions, I'm sure.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 12, 2005)

Orion said:


> Not sure if this has been discussed. I haven't been following this thread and I don't have time to wade through 18 pages!
> 
> I'm planning on (at sometime in the near future) buying a Hybrid vehicle. I WAS looking strongly at the Prius, but the 2006 Civic Hybrid looks better to me asthetically. Anyone care to comment on which one is "better"? Probably one of those "it's a toss up" kind of questions, I'm sure.




Yes, it difficult choice. The new Civic I saw on the road yesterday looked smaller than the 2006 Prius. According to the honda web site it has about 12 cubic feet less room inside. I can't say if I'd like it better since I look at visibility and utility before I look at form. While the 

I put 1087 miles on my 2002 Prius this weekend. I must say that it was quite enjoyable. We zoomed down I-5 to San Diego with a 70 MPH speed limit most of the way. The 477 mile run to San Diego took just short of 10 gallons.

I don't know what changes Honda has made to the Civic this year. I hear they have changed the drive chain to allow electric only drive. The Prius has been stable for 3 years, so I'd consider it more mature.

Of course, with either car, you will NOT get the EPA milage. The Prius is at it's best when driven more than 5 minutes at a time. As with all cars, it will get better milage at 55 tnan it does at 65 or 70. If you find a 65 mile stretch of level road with a 45 MPH speed limit you will be able to get 65 MPG in the Prius. On average roads under average usage you can expect milage in the 40s and 50s.

Don't pay any attention to the EPA fuel usage estimates. The hybrids are sensitive to how they are driven and the driving patterns themselves. Mine is supoosed to get better city milage, but I get right around 50 mpg at a steady 65 on a level road and somewhere around 45 in city driving. My wife gets worse milage around town. I've not figured out what she does wrong.

If you check locally, you may find all sorts of "hidden" benefits to a hybrid. San Jose offers free parking if you buy one locally. Calif allows you in the car pool lane. Some counties give you other incentives.

Personally, I prefer the technology in the Prius. There is no transmission, it's more of a power splitting device, though they call it a CVT. The transition from gas to electric to both or coasting is difficult to detect. The whole drive train is designed around the CVT and it shows. The Honda, on the other hand, uses a motor added to their standard drive train. It's used more as a super starter motor and electronic turbo charger than as a drive unit.

In closing, my neighbor rented a 2005 Civic for a trip to Oregon from the SF area. She absolutely hated the Civic. The ergonomics for driver and passenger were just wrong for her and her husband. They were miserable after the first few hours. She said the drive train was "ok" but not impressive in any way. The 2005 handled the mountains in Oregon without problems. She travels fast, so did not see the gas milage she expected.

Good luck with whatever you choose.


----------



## Darell (Dec 12, 2005)

Orion said:


> Not sure if this has been discussed. I haven't been following this thread and I don't have time to wade through 18 pages!
> 
> I'm planning on (at sometime in the near future) buying a Hybrid vehicle. I WAS looking strongly at the Prius, but the 2006 Civic Hybrid looks better to me asthetically. Anyone care to comment on which one is "better"? Probably one of those "it's a toss up" kind of questions, I'm sure.


All I can add to what Daniel wrote is that the longer you can wait, the more (and better!) choices you'll have. I too, like the looks of the Civic better. Always have.... and of course I own one (though pure gas, 2001). If I were forced to buy a new car today to replace one of my current two vehicles, it would be the Prius, however. I simply like how they've done the powertrian the best - and the comfort and size of the car are just about perfect for my needs.

As it stands, the company that comes out with the first Prius-or-Civic-sized plug-in hybrid sedan will win my wallet vote. Having a plug-in hybrid here would reduce my number of gasoline trips by more than half. I'd probably use gasoline for less than 1000 miles/year if I had a plug-in hybrid with about 40 miles of EV range. Bonus points for a biofuel plug-in hybrid, of course!


----------



## ikendu (Dec 12, 2005)

Orion wrote: 

I'm planning on...buying a Hybrid vehicle. I WAS looking strongly at the Prius, but the 2006 Civic Hybrid looks better to me asthetically. Anyone care to comment on which one is "better"?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well...since this IS CPF,the routine purchasing advice would be... buy both! 

However, I will depart from the routine and give a slightly different perspective on the decision.

Just as with flashlights, it depends on what you want to accomplish and how you want to use the thing you buy.

In my case, when I was faced with a similar decision, my need was to do something that would help the U.S. break its addiction to imported energy.

The first case for this is a high mileage car. 

There are lots of them, the hybrids seem to get the best mileage of any of the gasoline powered cars, so either the Prius or the Honda probably works for this.

The second case for this is a car technology that will move us toward the future.

In the case, I think the future really needs to depend less on liquid fuels. As the petroleum becomes more scarce (and more expensive), we will need to shift our transportation usage away from petroleum. Are there liquid fuel replacements? Yes; ethanol and biodiesel. Can we make enough to replace petroleum? THAT will be hard. Even if we use every acre of corn for ethanol and every acre of soy beans for biodiesel, we can't replace more than 15% of petroleum fuels with these existing biofuel technologies. There are promising new, higher yielding biofuels on the horizon but it will still be hard to replace all of that petroleum. 

What is left if not bio liquid fuels? Electricity. If our Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) could be plugged in at night so that they have at least 20 miles of all-electric battery range we can displace about half of the petroleum used for liquid fuels today (and use the hybrid liquid fuel engine for the rest). So...if we want to choose between the Prius and the Honda in regard to preparing for a Plug-in Hev (PHEV) future, the Prius is the better choice. It has an electric motor big enough to drive the whole car (the Honda does not) in all electric mode. The Prius doesn't come from the factory set up for Plug-in mode, but there are backyard engineeers adding batteries to their Priuses right now in an attempt to get to this world (Plug-in electricity is about the same as 56 cent/gal gasoline).

The third case for this is using a fuel that REALLY dents our use of imported petroleum. 

That would be 85% Ethanol (E85) or 100% BioDiesel (B100). There are no hybrids made today that can run on these locally produced, not-imported, liquid fuels.

So...high mileage is good. High mileage that supports a future technology (PHEVs = vote Prius) is better but high mileage that DRASTICALLY cuts our use of petroleum is best! (IMHO)

If not the Prius or Honda Hybrid (they both must use petroleum)?

Then a car that can run on 100% biodiesel like my VW Golf TDI (diesel) or one of the many E85 capable cars that are available (Caravan, Taurus, Stratus, etc.). Even though I blend in some regular petroleum diesel in the winter, my overall use of petroleum generally has been cut by 75% while traveling the same miles! In the summer months, I use NO petroleum what-so-ever! All of this in an off-the-lot, no modifications diesel that can run either 100% BioDiesel or regular petroleum diesel in any blend at any time (flex fuel). My Golf is EPA rated at 49 mpg and (unlike other car's ratings) I can routinely achieve that on diesel or even beat it if I really want to. I have gotten 49 mpg several times on highway trips at 70 mph with the air conditioning on and loaded down with people and luggage.

Heck, with BioDiesel, you can even make your own fuel if you want to in a garage for about $1/gal.

So...for me, the decision followed a hierarchy:

1. Get great mileage
2. Support a good future technology
3. Use a locally produced fuel that keeps our fuel dollars here in America!

If you are set on a hybrid (and gasoline)... I vote Prius.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 12, 2005)

Purely from an emissions point of view, E85 is not a good choice for hybrids. Here's the reasoning as I understand it;

Background; Hybrids achieve much of their emissions savings by simply turning off the enginbe when it is not needed. It is restarted on the fly. To keep emissions down the ICE has to restart immediately and consistantly. If the engine turns over several times without catching it pumps raw fuel into the exhaust. That is not good, since it then has to be burned down stream in a catelytic converter. Part of the reason that the Prius runs teh engine constantly for the first 5 minutes (whan cold) is to ensure everything is up to temperature and that it will restart cleanly.


E85 Reality. The ethanol blend has lower vapor pressure when cold, so it is harder to start an engine using E85 in cold weather. The solution is to run the engine more frequently to keep temperatures up. The hybrid would appear to "stumble" when the power demands call for the ICE to fire up. The current designs transition so smoothly that they sell an aftermarker indicator light to let you know when the ICE is running. 

The biggest problem with the "hard start" is the inconsistant throttle lag that would be introduced. When I press the throttle I want to accellerate the same way every time. The Prius does this even if the engine is not running. The engine would appear to bog down if there were times when the engine did not catch. Think of Turbo lag, only unpredictable. YUCK!

E85 also abosrbs water from the air. This is not as much of a problem when the car's gas tank is a flexible bladder. That's what the Prius uses. Think 12 gallon hot water bottle in a steel box. There is very little air in the bladder with the fuel so very little water to absorb. The gas station tanks should be protected also, but I'm unsure of the regulations in that area. The more water in the ethanol, the less efficient the combustion (right???).

And last, E85 has lower energy density than gas. That should not matter except for the fact that it makes it even harder to sell the new technolgy. After all, the comparison is always between the worst case scenario for the new comer and the best case scenario for the existing infrastructure. A Golf TDI measures up quite well against a Prius if the Prius uses E85 and carries 5 people while the Golf carries one and uses low sulfer diesel with the appropriate particulate traps. Just kidding, but they are two different classes of cars and yet are frequently comnpared.

In summary, it's possible to use E85 in a hybrid, but it would exhibit some unwanted quirks that might even be unsafe. Further development would probably overcome that, but I'm not sure if it could be done as cleanly and seamlessly as the current models.


----------



## ikendu (Dec 12, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> ...it's possible to use E85 in a hybrid, but it would exhibit some unwanted quirks that might even be unsafe. Further development would probably overcome that, but I'm not sure if it could be done as cleanly and seamlessly as the current models.



Yup. Further development on biofueled PHEVs would address these issues, I'm sure. At least, I sure hope that is true... 'cause sooner or later the petroleum based fuels will be SO expensive we will be begging for vehicles that use biofuels and electricity.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 12, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Yup. Further development on biofueled PHEVs would address these issues, I'm sure. At least, I sure hope that is true... 'cause sooner or later the petroleum based fuels will be SO expensive we will be begging for vehicles that use biofuels and electricity.



If that comes to pass before the technology is ready, we will probably just live with it. After all, the hybrid was designed to adress a specific problem; Pollution. The big auto makers have convinced the California government to back off on the pollution standards when faced with fairly minor cost increases.

It takes no leap of imagination to see that if E85 (or straight alchohol) were required for some reason we would simply live with the extra unburned fuel and rougher running.

This is just my opinion, and I am tired, so don't take it too seriously.

Daniel


----------



## Orion (Dec 13, 2005)

A few more questions:

1. How do Hybrids handle cold weather. . . . . . . if the ICE is turning off and on, depending upon need, does it ever fully 'warm up'? 

2. Where does the heat (from the heater) come from if your ICE isn't warm enough?

3. Does cold weather effect the efficiency of the batteries?

FWIW, the Civic looks better, but I guess I'd just go with the Prius for it's better technology. Or, I'll just get a regular old ICE Civic and just put up with 30 MPG in the city.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 13, 2005)

Orion said:


> A few more questions:
> 
> 1. How do Hybrids handle cold weather. . . . . . . if the ICE is turning off and on, depending upon need, does it ever fully 'warm up'?
> 
> ...





The Prius hands cold weather just fine. I've taken mine to Tahoe, Reno and Oregon and it did not mind the snow at all. It fully wams up. The whole thing is computer controlled with sensors to help keep everything in range. The cabin warms up faster than my wife's Camry. It has an electric heater element built in to assist when defrosting the windows in the first minute or so.

The heat comes from the engine. The 2004 and newer even has a thermal flask to hold extra 'coolant' at operating temperature. This is used to get the engine block up to temp quicker.

The ICE in a full hybrid runs as needed. In most cases (my experience) that means about 50% of the time. Driving 5 miles to the post office goes like this....

The first mile is a 25 MPH zone with stop signs, and the ICE runs constantly till it reaches temperature. I hit a stop light at 1.2 miles and the engine dies. The light turns green and The electric motor moves the car (briskly, I might add) until it senses that it will need the extra power from the ICE (about 15 MPH). It spins up the ICE (to about 2000-2500 RPM) and then feeds it fuel and spark. 

It's a 45 MPH zone, so the ICE and electric move me up to speed. When I let off the gas at 45, the computer shuts off the ICE and I run on electric for a while. If I increase the throttle or encounter a rise (most roads are not level here) the ICE kicks in. It also starts up if the puny battery pack goes below a certain charge level. I frequently go as much as a mile with the ICE off at 45. 

When I come to a light I take my foot off the gas and the car coasts with the ICE off. When I hit the brakes (even lightly) the wheels turn the generator and recapture part of that energy.

The ICE kicks in to recharge the battery as needed, so for every mile on battery I'll run 1/4 to a mile on ICE. It depends on how level the road is. The Prius can charge the battery while also powering the wheels. It can charge while at a dead stop too.


What was that last question??? Oh, yeah. To the best of my knowledge cold does not impact the batteries. They are in a compartment that is inside the car, so they are not exposed to the cold when in use. They also are used for PEAK POWER, not for main power. Even if the battery capacity decreased 30% while cold you'd never know it. The Prius design uses only a small percentage of the battery capacity to enhance battery life.

So, in summary, the heat comes from the ICE. The ICE runs until it's up to operating temperature and if it's not needed for power it will start up anyway if the ICE temperatures fall too low. The battery is not impacted by cold, but due to the way it's used you'd never know it anyway.

Daniel

P.S. Drove from San Diego to the SF area this last weekend. That included a trip over the grape vine. As close as I can tell, the grape vine is a 42 mile pass through a 4,000 foot tall mountain range. I filled up the tank just before entering the pass. For the first 21 miles, I noticed the trip computer indicating that I was getting 23 MPG. That was all up hill. As I finally left the pass and hit level ground again it said I was at 50.2 mpg for the 51 miles since I filled up. It used virtually no gas for almost 30 miles at 65 MPH.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2005)

Uh-oh. I'm in negotiations to purchase a Ford Ranger EV. 

4700 miles, new lead-acid battery pack. I'm also talking to the guy who did the nice-looking Prius PV installation. I figure a rigid bed-liner covered with that stuff would likely allow me to directly solar-charge well over half of the miles I'd put on the truck (wouldn't be used all that often, and then just for short trips as our electric umbrella, and crud-hauler. In the summer, I'll bet it would charge enough for 100% of my needs, and in the winter I'd have to augment a bit. The only reason this will work is because it'll be parked outside. Don't have any more room in the garage!


----------



## James S (Dec 13, 2005)

Electric cars are for GIRLS Darell







(found this on another board today and though you'd like it  )


----------



## NewBie (Dec 13, 2005)

How well do the EV handle on ice and snow?

Do they make studded versions of the special EV tires?


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2005)

NewBie said:


> Do they make studded versions of the special EV tires?


If you're running studs, you have no need for low rolling resistance tires. All EVs work just fine with standard tires, it just costs you a bit of range.

Seeing as how power application is infinitely smoother in an ev (no clutch or gears) performance on slick surfaces is superior. Cold weather has been no problem for the NiMH cars, beyond (again) a bit of lost range - like with any vehicle.


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

James S said:


> Electric cars are for GIRLS Darell


I knew that. In fact, in one parade I was in, I put a big sign on the side of the EV1 that read, "chicks dig EVs"" - best reaction I've ever gotten in an EV. 

On a slightly more serious note, the women EV1 drivers were by far the most enthusiastic about many of the unique EV qualities. Top on the list was home refueling. The men, of course, listed acceleration as the top benefit.


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

OK, here's the beautiful truck in question.






The rest: http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ranger.htm

Don't you just hate how these EVs look all space-alien like, and crazy? Who'd want one?

The beauty of this vehicle is NOT having to answer to anybody accusing me of taking tax-payer money to buy it, or to charge it. I'll literally be able to run this one off of 100% unsubsidized sunshine, and I'm buying the used vehicle on the used market, at market value. And I'm buying the PV new, with zero subsidy, since nobody in their right mind would want us all driving around on sunshine! Anybody have a problem with that?

That bed is just begging to be covered PV! I just need to swap the fabric lid with a rigid one, and go at it.


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

And speaking of Ford.... when they aren't forced to make great EVs, what do they decide on their own?





> Ford Plans Even Bigger SUV for 2007
> 
> By Dan Lienert, Forbes.com (EXCERPTS)
> (Dec. 13) - Ford Motor will put a stretched version of its Expedition SUV into production next April at the Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, Mich., where it builds the regular Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SUVs. The stretched Expedition will be out next summer as a 2007 model, according to supplier sources familiar with the automaker's plans, and a Lincoln counterpart -- a stretched Navigator -- is likely to follow, perhaps in spring 2007.




:sigh:


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 14, 2005)

I guess that's the 6-door SUV that was rumored before the Excursion came out.

At least it's just the Expedition platorm ... might only be too _long_ to fit in a garage, unlike the _too-tall_ Excursion.


----------



## BB (Dec 14, 2005)

What is it with Ford and electric cars...

Electric Car Maker saved again...



> Workers at the long-troubled "Think Nordic" electric vehicle plant won another reprieve, after its owner agreed to pump more capital into the venture.
> The 42 workers still employed at Think Nordic haven't been paid since October, and another crisis loomed when the company wasn't able to meet its financial obligations.
> 
> A board meeting on Thursday, however, ended with main shareholder Kamkorp Microelectronics agreeing to inject more capital into Think Nordic. That allowed the board to approve a new financing plan that will enable continued operations.
> ...



-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 14, 2005)

Last weekend I was in San Diego and had brunch at the Hotel Del Coranado (Highly recommended) which is on a long spit of land just off shore. The speed limits appeared to max out at 30 MPH. I saw 3 Think EVs in the short drive to the hotel. 

The lower speed limits and relatively narrow streets made the 'city cars' a very nice choice.


----------



## HarryN (Dec 14, 2005)

Daniel - I like your car just fine, but it is a bit of a stretch to call the CA driving we do actually "cold weather". The guys in IA want to know if it will work at 30 - 40 below - not 10 - 30 above. (and I am not talking wind chill here)

I remember well driving around IA when it was really cold, and even with an old slant 6 dodge, I had to put cardboard over 2/3rds of the radiator to get enough heat in the winter.

The alcohol / gas blend back then was only 10/90, but I remember it drove just fine in the winter. I think the Russians and maybe Brazil uses very heavy alcohol content fuels.

Darrell - nice truck buy - great idea for the central valley. I was wondering the same thing about my wife's driving - many of the trips are under 10 miles in the mini van.

"Think Nordic" - those guys really need to hire some Italian designers, or better yet, women. It would be hard to find a more technically interesting and less aesthetically appealing product. People do have to park these in front of our houses you know.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 14, 2005)

HarryN said:


> Daniel - I like your car just fine, but it is a bit of a stretch to call the CA driving we do actually "cold weather". The guys in IA want to know if it will work at 30 - 40 below - not 10 - 30 above. (and I am not talking wind chill here)
> 
> I remember well driving around IA when it was really cold, and even with an old slant 6 dodge, I had to put cardboard over 2/3rds of the radiator to get enough heat in the winter.




Alright, I admit that driving my Prius in 20 degree weather in Tahoe is NOT the same as the frigid north. It's still pretty darned cold to me! 

There are many Prius owners in the northern states. Some have posted on the Yahoo Prius groups about their experiences. None have indicated problems with the extreme cold other than the normal problems you'd have with any car. I understand Engine block heaters are the norm. They did report lower milage during extreme cold, but said it was about the same as they have in their other cars when slogging through slush and snow.


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

HarryN said:


> Darrell - nice truck buy - great idea for the central valley. I was wondering the same thing about my wife's driving - many of the trips are under 10 miles in the mini van.


Will be really handy to have a pickup again! I've missed having one sine I sold my Toyota eight years ago!

Most people are surprised to learn that something like 85% of US family vehicle miles are driven on trips of less than 20 miles. Some people regularly need long range. Most do not.


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

Oh... and here's the rest of the "bigger Ford" bit.



> The longer Expedition had been known internally at Ford as "the Everest,"
> but the company realized that name, in production, would connote monstrous size. At a time when Americans are fleeing from large SUVs due to high gas prices, Ford wants to be more subtle about releasing and naming such an enormous model.
> 
> Suppliers say the new model will have, instead, a name such as Expedition Max, Expedition XL or Expedition EL. You can also expect a low-key media introduction for the vehicle, given that it will be antithetical to Chairman Bill Ford's recent, highly visible series of commercials touting Ford's commitment to gas/electric hybrids and the environment


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

And (on a slightly more modest scale) look what Toyota has done with the RAV4 for 2006: (from www.toyota.com)

"The SUV that created such a buzz all those years ago is at it again - in a big way. In fact, the all-new 2006 RAV4 is 14 inches longer and an astounding 21% bigger on the inside. And not only do passengers have more room, with available third-row seating there's room for more passengers."

"The RAV4's increases aren't limited to physical dimensions alone. An available 269-hp V6 ... makes it the most powerful SUV in its class.
And standard 4-cylinder powertrain is improved, boasting output to 166 horsepower."

We just ALWAYS have bigger and more powerful, or we become subtle and falccid. :sigh:


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2005)

Mitsubishing considering a Plug-in Hybrid... but as usual, it'll be several years, if ever.  

http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_mitsubishi_mulls_minicar/index.htm


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 14, 2005)

Darell said:


> "The RAV4's increases aren't limited to physical dimensions alone. An available 269-hp V6 ... makes it the most powerful SUV in its class.
> And standard 4-cylinder powertrain is improved, boasting output to 166 horsepower."
> 
> We just ALWAYS have bigger and more powerful



Is it just me, or ist there something strange here? The 166 HP is evidently considered sufficient, so why bother with a 269 HP version? The car is too big and akward for racing, too small for towing large objects. I think they do that just to satisfy someone's ego.


Does anyone else find it strange that they are selling SUVs as "do everything - no compromise" vehicles when, in fact, they do a lot of things poorly? They have poor milage, are hard to park, poor visability out the back, can't load with dirt or trash..... Why can they sell so many when it's a terrible pickup, a terrible mini-van and a terrible passenger car?

Oh. Sorry. Ranting again.

On track.... Good luck on that Ranger Darell. A pickup is just right for so many things. Mine has only gone more than 20 miles in a day once in the last 6 years. I could have rented a truck that time.


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Is it just me, or ist there something strange here?



Though I still think you're strange, it isn't just you.  I was just thinking about power and acceleration today while riding my bike (I do a lot of thinking while riding my bike - especially when it is below freezing like it was this morning!) All these 0-60 times we hear advertised. Everybody wants quick 0-60 times to safely merge onto the freeway, right? Well, my Rav has a laughable 16 seconds (or something, I don't really remember). And you know what? I have NEVER needed more. Sure it would be fun to have more, but the car has never been lacking in that regard. My last car before this one had 250HP and gobs of torque. Whoo-ee was that fun. I'd mash the pedal and stuff everybody back in their seats. Well, the "new" wore off of that in a hurry, and for the rest of the time I owned that car, I didn't accelerate onto the freeway any faster than I do now in the Rav slug. Everybody wants that kind of power, but there just aren't all that many times you can (or need to) use it.

I used the EV1's acceleration more than my ICE's because it was fun (duh) and it simply surprised the hell out of the folks I was leaving behind. Best was when they'd first laugh at me next to them as they'd rumble up in a muscle car.... But I digress...

HP and 0-60 times sell cars. Simple as that. Folks don't need it, but they sure think they want it. If I could increase anything on my car by 50%, it would likely be the range. It certainly wouldn't be the acceleration, though by today's standards, it isn't anything to be "impressed" with.

(side note: The Rav orginally accelerated harder than it does now, but the fleet drivers were wearing out the front tires too fast. In the later years, the torque off the line was dialed back, so at full throttle, you're only getting about have the available torque. Once you're rolling, it accelerates smartly. But 0-5mph you need an extra cup of coffee. Sure wasn't like that in the EV1!


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Good luck on that Ranger Darell. A pickup is just right for so many things. Mine has only gone more than 20 miles in a day once in the last 6 years. I could have rented a truck that time.


Uh-oh. I've just been given the go-ahead by my wife.  This definitely won't be a commuter, or the family vehicle, but it'll sure be handy! And it *can* seat three across if needed. I'm going to have to leave the battery charger on the Civic from now on! That thing won't be fired up hardly at all!


----------



## jtr1962 (Dec 15, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Does anyone else find it strange that they are selling SUVs as "do everything - no compromise" vehicles when, in fact, they do a lot of things poorly? They have poor milage, are hard to park, poor visability out the back, can't load with dirt or trash..... Why can they sell so many when it's a terrible pickup, a terrible mini-van and a terrible passenger car?


And they're butt ugly to boot. The whole SUV craze has me completely puzzled as well. My only guess is that many Americans are too fat to fit in a regular car and too out of shape to get in and out of one.


----------



## jtr1962 (Dec 15, 2005)

Darell said:


> I was just thinking about power and acceleration today while riding my bike (I do a lot of thinking while riding my bike - especially when it is below freezing like it was this morning!) All these 0-60 times we hear advertised. Everybody wants quick 0-60 times to safely merge onto the freeway, right? Well, my Rav has a laughable 16 seconds (or something, I don't really remember). And you know what? I have NEVER needed more.


And to add to that, I keep up just fine acceleration-wise with city traffic on my bike. I usually take about 8 seconds to get to 20 mph although I can do it in under 5 if I push myself (I actually leave cars accelrating normally in the dust for 1/2 a block when I do). Of course, my poor aerodynamics means that I can't steadily cruise at much past the low 20s but if I had a bike sufficiently aerodynamic to allow 45 mph cruising I'd be able to keep up just fine with normal auto traffic all the way up to that speed. The cars may have gobs more power per pound than I do, but it seems they seldom use it. A power to weight ratio of about 10 HP/ton is all you need for city driving. For freeways maybe 25 HP/ton will do, and no car needs more than that. Note that these figures are for electric motor characteristics since that's what I'm most familiar with. Figure about twice as much for gas engines. In other words, a 2-ton auto is just fine with 100 HP (or a 50 HP electric motor).


----------



## cobb (Dec 15, 2005)

Yeah, If i had to buy a large vehicle, Id go the truck route. Those suvs have marignal engines in them with basic low end figures for what the engine in them could produce. I would want a cummins diesel with the gale banks kit or a catapillar ford f650 truck with the gale banks upgrade.

16 seconds Darrell? I think my uncles old k1500 chevy had the same figures. Thats with a stock 350 gas engine. The hybrid systems could easily accell here for start and stop driving for agressive city drivers who look at 0-35 or 0-60 figures.


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2005)

cobb said:


> 16 seconds Darrell? I think my uncles old k1500 chevy had the same figures. Thats with a stock 350 gas engine. The hybrid systems could easily accell here for start and stop driving for agressive city drivers who look at 0-35 or 0-60 figures.


Just about any full-featured EV could be made to hustle to 60mph at a VERY minimal upcharge. But except for the EV1, none of these were aimed at performance for very good reason - they were all fleet vehicles! In other words, nobody ever needed to advertise the 0-60 numbers to sell these cars. In fact, that could be a detriment to placing them in service. Nobody wants hot-rods for fleet vehicles. Electric drive is THE way to make a car get off the line fast. A piece of video is being sent to me that I'll eventually post. It'll knock your socks off. Makes the Tzero look like a slug with 3.6s 0-60 times.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 16, 2005)

I think I know what video you're talking about, Darrell. It was downright cruel the way that the EV driver taunted some of those supercars in some of the races.


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2005)

Indeed you DO know... and probably saw it for the short time it was online. I'm getting a DVD copy of it send to be my Ian - who said I could post it as long as I credited the news station that recorded it.

Here's a still from it: http://wrightspeed.com/pages/1/index.htm

These weren't just "normal" supercars, but the fastest street cars on the road.


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2005)

Just in case anybody else is excited... it would appear that I'll be purchasing the Ford Ranger EV this weekend.

Sometimes I really like being me.


----------



## HarryN (Dec 16, 2005)

Darell, I was curious. You confirmed that most trips are short, which is ideal for an EV, but would it make sense to have a small generator in your truck for the slightly longer range trips ? Just thinking out loud - would something as simple as a 5 - 10 hp generator in the back to charge the batteries during a longer trip make it viable for many 200+ mile trips ?

At that point, the whole complex hybrid electronics become a lot simpler. Just turn on the generator when needed, and use your solar / plug in for routine around town stuff. Just curious.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 16, 2005)

The Genset in the pickup bed has merrit. I think we covered it in another thread about Cobb's EV project, but the recap goes something like this....

The genset has to supply enough power to account for rolling losses, wind losses, climbing and acceleration. It also has to supply enough to account for conversion losses associated with matching voltages, charging, etc. The battery pack would provide for peak power requirements.

Assuming the Ford ranger is as efficient as the RAV4ev, we would need about one half of the 275 Wh/mile ( Average Consumption from outlet ) to double the range. Assuming 60 MPH for simplicity, that's only an 8 kilowatt (well, 8250) generator. A 16,500 watt unit should drive it without depleting the battery.

Of course, you also have to factor in the external fuel tank, pump, electrical interconnect, etc but it could be done. I think that in the end you would not have much usable bed left. The Ranger bed is not that deep, wide or long to begin with. That's the problem with add on designs. 

I'd love to see it done.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 16, 2005)

Cobb, I'm not sure why you'd think you need a Gale Banks kit for a Cummins?

My '03 Ram 2500 Cummins Auto weighs #8240 as it is loaded now. I can get 23+ mpg at 60-65 mph. 

Living here, where I must turn on to a major road means that once in a while I got to leg it... a little more grunt would be cool, but unneccesary!!!

Now I do think that opening up the exhaust system a bit would help. But it ain't a bit shabby stock!


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2005)

HarryN said:


> Darell, I was curious. You confirmed that most trips are short, which is ideal for an EV, but would it make sense to have a small generator in your truck for the slightly longer range trips ? Just thinking out loud - would something as simple as a 5 - 10 hp generator in the back to charge the batteries during a longer trip make it viable for many 200+ mile trips ?
> 
> At that point, the whole complex hybrid electronics become a lot simpler. Just turn on the generator when needed, and use your solar / plug in for routine around town stuff. Just curious.


Harry -

Yeah, these thoughts flit through my mind, that's for sure. The pickup is the first EV I've had where this would be at all practical. Literally just strap a generator to the bed, and be on your way. But... and it is a big but... the gas mileage (if using a gasoline generator) would likely be worse than the full-gas version of the truck. And if I need to drive far, I have other vehicles from which to choose. If I need the TRUCK to go far, well, I'd have the bed filled with generator, so it won't be much use as a truck. So I tink I'm going to skip this one - unless somebody has a spare generator. Then I'd be willing to experiment for sure! For now, I think I'll save my pennies to install PV on the bed cover. Won't give me much additional range per day, but it could add up as it sits.


----------



## cobb (Dec 16, 2005)

HarryN, with the generator, mpg will be like 12mpg depending on gen efficiency. I bssaackwardsly did it with a crude formula to find out how many sustained watts was generated based on run time vs fuel capacity. I found that one 5hp honda gas generator at 2k watts was it. The diesel was second and the red honda third. I have no idea how to rate a cars ICE to use to drive the generator. I guess you could setup a small 3-4 cylinder car engine or a motor cycle engine in the bed to drive a generator with maybe better efficieny as those pull start engines have a low compresion rate. I bet with a 4 stroke 8 valve per cylinder crotch rocket engines you have great efficiency.

Playboy, excuse my ignorance. Ive never driven a cummins diesel dodge truck. i did drive a ford f 650 with catapilar engine, but it was a show truck for our dump bodies and I werent going to abuse it. I was just estimating from what Ive seen on TRUCKS on the spike tv channel. I would want to smoke a dualie rear end or all 6 tires at every stop light while retaining towing and fuel economy without blowing the crank out the bottom of the engine case or smoking the tranny, melting the exhaust or turbo. 

Darrel, I am excited. I hope to visit you and Daniel one day to look at your cars, take some photos, maybe take a few for a spin.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 17, 2005)

Oh! Well no, the stock Cummins in my truck will only break the rearend loose when I'm on wet asphalt or mud. None of this smoking tires stuff (though I'd never want to - tires cost too much!) although if that's what you want to do, more power to ya!

I'd venture to say that nothing EV is on the horizon to do what my Ram2500 does. Pity!

But perhaps Biodiesel will hit the "mainstream" sooner...


----------



## HarryN (Dec 18, 2005)

I was toying with the idea not really for efficiency at that point, but just plain getting there. If I put the $s into an EV, it needs to be capable of 97 % of my trips, not 85 %. If 85% of the time I am getting EV benefit, that is not so bad. On the first leg of the trip, it would still have the EV "mileage", the point of the small ICE is to make sure I can "finish" the trip, MPG be ---.

Unlike those with iron bladders, I like to stop every 1 - 1.5 hrs anyway to have some coffee, so that would give the ICE time to keep running and start catching up with the battery charge again. I could deal with telling my wife that the batteries need to "charge a bit" while we rest on a longer trip. It would be much different to explain to her that the batteries are dead, and we have to wait for enough sunshine to show up before we can move again.

If I could work on a mini van version concept, might be interesting someday.


----------



## ikendu (Dec 18, 2005)

I think this is the beauty of the Plug-in Hybrid Electic Vehicle concept. People do not like to think about being "stranded". So... even though 20 miles of battery range would cover some huge portion of most people's trips, what will dominate their thoughts is... "what happens when the batteries run out?".

The PHEV gives you that mental insurance that you'll be "OK".

If the PHEV electric generation engine could be compact and inexpensive, it might be worth it if it wasn't perfectly efficient. Unlike today's hybrids, it doesn't need to be able to "start on a dime" or kick in immediately after sitting at a stop light. It only needs to be able to be started before all battery power is exhausted, run for a while to recharge, then go back to sleep again for a while.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 18, 2005)

ikendu said:


> I think this is the beauty of the Plug-in Hybrid Electic Vehicle concept. People do not like to think about being "stranded". So... even though 20 miles of battery range would cover some huge portion of most people's trips, what will dominate their thoughts is... "what happens when the batteries run out?".



But there's a down side. The ICE and gas tank take up room in the car, forcing it to be bigger than otherwise required.

Then you add about 700 pounds of ICE, transmission, gas tank, etc. SOmeone on her can present the formula for energy expended to accelerate an extra 700 pounds from a stop to 35 MPH. 


Draging around an extra 700 pounds 365 days a year for the one time it's needed is not very energy efficient. Every time you increase speed or climb an incline you have to expend energy to do so. As long as energy is a finite resource, we should not be wasting it on purpose.

Of course, there are other PHEV problems too. As I sit here I realize my poor truck was driven yesterday for the first time in two months. It needs an oil change. It's been 6 months and 45 miles since the last one. I shoudl drive it for 100 miles or so to empty the gas tank so I can put fresh fuel in it.

How do you get Joe Sixpack to remember to keep his ICE in good running shape if it's never used? How do they keep the gas fresh? I know that emergency generators are run monthly (or more) to make sure the parts are lubricated and fuel is not stagnant. That's hard to do automatically when you don't know if the car will be running for 2 minutes or 20.

Don't get me wrong. My driving habits are perfect for a 20 mile PHEV. 30 days of short trips and then a 200 mile trip to visit the kids or 1,000 mile trip to the parents. I hope they make one, but only as a bridge to widespread BEV usage.

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 18, 2005)

All the PHEV concepts I've heard of are of the "strong serial hybrid" type; the electric motor(s) are the sole motive device(s) _(Depending on who you talk to, the Prius is either a strong or weak parallel hybrid; the motor can act as the sole motive device, but not at all speeds)_. The engine in a PHEV would function similar to AC Propulsion's Long Ranger, with the exception of being integrated into the vehicle. The engine in a PHEV serves only to turn a generator, which recharges the battery pack, which drives the motor(s).

Since the engine does not provide mechanical power to the wheels, it can be both compact and light. It also need not be anywhere near as large as a typical car engine since EVs use less than 1/3 of the energy - it will also operate within its most effiicient RPM band.

If the Long Ranger is any example, you're not going to need 700 pounds of ICE; you're probably not even going to need the full 350 pounds of the Long Ranger - I'd guess that about one-third of its weight is the trailer itself (frame, suspension, tires, aero shell). I imagine that a ~20kW genset optimized for your EV will weigh in at around 200 pounds, the mass of fuel tank and fuel included. Given that a PHEV won't have the battery bank of a pure BEV, I think you can make that compromise quite easily if you go the "strong serial hybrid" route. A diesel genset will probably weigh more, but its efficiency will be higher and it should last longer.

It's not difficult to imagine making the genset modular, especially as newer, lighter, more energy-dense battery chemistries come along. Perhaps you could give car buyers an option: long-range BEV, PHEV, or both - swap out part of the battery bank for the genset module.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 18, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> The engine in a PHEV serves only to turn a generator, which recharges the battery pack, which drives the motor(s).



This is only true with a serial HEV. Serial HEVs are not usually the most efficient, since they require that the mechanical energy be transformed to electricity, and that electricity is frequently stored for later use. Both steps waste some energy.

I'd not noticed the long ranger before. That's a cute design. I'm pretty sure that 20KW is not enough for climbing inclines and might not be enough for high speed traveling (like the 70 MPH speed limit on I-5), but I could be wrong. I'm also pretty sure that a Kawasaki 2 cylinder 500 CC engine drinking gas at the rate of 35 mpg is really working hard. I doubt that it would last (without engine work) for 25,000 miles. Again, that's intuition based on years of motorcycle experience. I could be wrong.

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 18, 2005)

A serial HEV skips the mechanical complexity and need for a bigger (less efficient) engine that can handle a vehicle's torque demands. Given that the main selling point of PHEV is the electric-only mode, what other route makes sense? I'm sure that efficiency drops into the range of the average gasoline car, but _that tradeoff is inevitable_ with an engine.

ACP claims that the Long Ranger is sufficient for unlimited range at 75 MPH. I don't know if they tested that purely on the flats of I-5 or if they included runs through the mountains. One factor in favor of their longevity claims is the static load of an alternator and operation within the most efficient RPM band... unlike the average sport bike, which seems to be driven hard with RPM jumps and frequent operation around the redline.

The Long Ranger was not designed to be the everyday power source for a PHEV; ACP is clear on this. It's possible that a more substantial engine would be required, depending on the lifetime duty cycle and peak demands... but I don't think this engine needs to be anywhere near as large as the average car engine nor will it signifigantly impede on vehicle mass, or design if the strong serial hybrid concept is used. If they can power a strong serial hybrid switching locomotive with a mere 268 horsepower engine massing >40,000 pounds, I think a 2000-4000 pound car can manage on a 20HP or less engine.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 19, 2005)

While I respect Idleprocesses opinions and posts, I don't think the analogies in the last post are quite correct.

The switch engine referred to in that post has 700 VDC nominal, 1,200 amp-hour VRLA batteries and a 268 HP / 200 kW Tier 2 or 3 non-road compliant diesel. It's normal duty cycle is to park in front of a line of cars, wait till they are hooked up, then shuttle them a mile or so to where they are disconnected. I would guess (yes a WAG) that it's duty cycle is 10% moving and 90% waiting. The link claims a 2,000 HP rating for a 269 HP genertator, so using it more than that will deplete the batteries.

The diesel electric power train used in most locomotives are basically using the electric motor as a continously variable transmission.




idleprocess said:


> A serial HEV skips the mechanical complexity and need for a bigger (less efficient) engine that can handle a vehicle's torque demands. Given that the main selling point of PHEV is the electric-only mode, what other route makes sense? I'm sure that efficiency drops into the range of the average gasoline car, but that tradeoff is inevitable with an engine.



I think you are missing the very reason that the full parallel hybrid (like the prius) manages to be more effeicent and cleaner than the average gasoline car. It uses a weak gasoline engine directly when that is more efficient, it uses the electric motor when that is best or to supplement torque if the ICE. It combines the power sources as needed. That's it's value.

The main selling point (in my mind) of a PHEV is that it can run on battery when appropriate while also runing on gasoline when appropriate. If I'm commuting 60 miles a day I don't want to spend 20 or 30 of it getting only 35 MPG. If I want to visit my mother, I don't want to get 35 mpg for that 1,000 mile trip.

As I see it, serial hybrids fall into several categories. The ones with engines large enough to handle all power needs are frequently gas guzzlers. The ones with smaller engines have limited range if conditions are a little wrong (incline, headwinds, etc). The ones with big battery packs are very expensive.

Why do I care? Because if they make PHEVs that can't compete with conventional hybrids or conventional cars they will be derided and it may be years before it's tried again.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Dec 19, 2005)

The design I sketched out at GM decades ago when I was an engineer was to use a turbine to generate the electricity.

Turbines haven't been been used much in automobiles for two reasons (near as I can tell).

1. Their torque/rpm characteristics weren't well suited to "off the line" performance

2. They run hot and create a lot of NOx

However, turbines can be very efficient and very reliable (almost no moving parts). If a turbine was being used to create electricity for a serial hybrid, the electric motor would handle the torque needs. As far as the NOx goes, I know that diesels make a lot of NOx and companies are now developing a various clean up strategies for that (both VW and Mercedes expect to meet the 2007 VERY strict NOx standards for diesels).


----------



## Brock (Dec 19, 2005)

Some interesting news from Honda, apparently they are getting in to the solar cell market.

http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20051219/hle_bus-arm918109.html

And back on topic. I the car I would like would be along the line of the Prius, but with a smaller more efficient diesel engine (then I could use bio-D) and a larger battery pack to handle about 40 miles. And have three rows of seats, so I can get all the kids in


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 19, 2005)

ikendu said:


> The design I sketched out at GM decades ago when I was an engineer was to use a turbine to generate the electricity.
> 
> Turbines haven't been been used much in automobiles for two reasons (near as I can tell).
> 
> ...




IIRC, the first hybrid that I heard of was a ford Mustang modified to use an electric motor with a gas turbine in the trunk. They ran the length of Florida on a cool, damp night and got some astounding gas milage, near 100MPG. I wish I could find that article. It was from the mid 70's. I waited 30 years for a commercialy available hybrid.

Of course, that eary prototype was not practical for everyday use. It was noisy, finicky and made too much pollution. The car was designed to do well on the freeway, and it was tuned to maximize that aspect.

Other reasons Turbines haven't been been used much in automobiles:

They don't like to be stopped and started. The ones I've worked around (emergency generators) needed a cool down and warm up period.

When cold (not up to temperature), they are very dirty. When hot, they are very hot.

When they get fouled they tend to break down quickly (or so the army says in defense of the maintence on tanks).

I think (not sure) that they require periodic maintenance to ensure they run properly. Can you get away with neglecting to change the oil for an extra 10,000 miles like my mom does?

Personally, I'd love to have a turbine powered car, complete with afterburner. But then again, look at my screen name. 

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Dec 19, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> Other reasons Turbines haven't been been used much in automobiles:...They don't like to be stopped and started.



Seems like the battery "buffer" on a PHEV would be ideal for that. The turbine stays "off" for a long time then kicks in and stays on for a long time while it recharges the batteries.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 19, 2005)

gadget_lover said:


> The switch engine referred to in that post has 700 VDC nominal, 1,200 amp-hour VRLA batteries and a 268 HP / 200 kW Tier 2 or 3 non-road compliant diesel. It's normal duty cycle is to park in front of a line of cars, wait till they are hooked up, then shuttle them a mile or so to where they are disconnected. I would guess (yes a WAG) that it's duty cycle is 10% moving and 90% waiting. The link claims a 2,000 HP rating for a 269 HP genertator, so using it more than that will deplete the batteries.
> 
> The diesel electric power train used in most locomotives are basically using the electric motor as a continously variable transmission.


Switch engines provide all of the motive power for switching cars. They spend a good deal of time idle, but nothing else moves the cars unless there's a gravity feed in the yard (not so common as far as I know) ... which has switch engines working nonstop to push cars up the incline. I can't find any information about total endurance of the engine, but I expect it's capable of running continuously without "recharge breaks" for quite some distance because not all switchers move freight cars in a yard - many will move entire trains miles between major freight lines. I'd imagine that it's more than capable of moving itself continuously for an entire tank of diesel since they probably don't pack it up and ship it for delivery.



gadget_lover said:


> I think you are missing the very reason that the full parallel hybrid (like the prius) manages to be more effeicent and cleaner than the average gasoline car. It uses a weak gasoline engine directly when that is more efficient, it uses the electric motor when that is best or to supplement torque if the ICE. It combines the power sources as needed. That's it's value.


Am I? The Prius is a very fuel-efficient car. PHEVs will be pitched as overall _energy-efficient_ commuter vehicles - which is what > 90% of the cars in this country do > 90% of the time.



> The main selling point (in my mind) of a PHEV is that it can run on battery when appropriate while also runing on gasoline when appropriate. If I'm commuting 60 miles a day I don't want to spend 20 or 30 of it getting only 35 MPG. If I want to visit my mother, I don't want to get 35 mpg for that 1,000 mile trip.
> 
> As I see it, serial hybrids fall into several categories. The ones with engines large enough to handle all power needs are frequently gas guzzlers. The ones with smaller engines have limited range if conditions are a little wrong (incline, headwinds, etc). The ones with big battery packs are very expensive.
> 
> Why do I care? Because if they make PHEVs that can't compete with conventional hybrids or conventional cars they will be derided and it may be years before it's tried again.



Unless you drive cross-country for a living, you're probably only going to be buying gas every other month for your strong serial PHEV. You might not be happy about 35 MPG, but you aren't going to use it very often. Simple, cheap, efficient - choose 2. I'll bet that with some more engineering, it would be possible to devise an affordable, reliable, economical 20-25kW genset for a serial PHEV that's nearly as efficient as your Prius ... _and it's just the backup power source._

I don't think the PHEV is going to be sold on its strong fuel economy. It's going to be sold as a commuter BEV with built-in backup power that you don't have to think about much more than a regular car engine.

You do have a point about the weak parallel hybrid - it uses both motive sources for torque at their most efficient points. I'll also concede that there might be a psychological block on genset fuel economy whenever someone has to refuel the genset after some period of charging the batteries at home for a fraction of the cost.

The effectiveness of the PHEV as an efficient commuter vehicle will depend on a number of factors - primary being what is determined to be the "average commute." I drive 40 miles everyday, and that seems to be somewhat far for my area, but there are plenty of folks in Dallas willing to pay the price in time and miles to live in a semi-rural area and work in the city. I don't know how much consideration they get. Perhaps you can size the battery pack to fit your needs as a dealer option, but who knows what that will cost, or what cost reductions economy of scale will achieve should the PHEV become reality. Will adequate range for 1-way work if public (or worksite) charging becomes an option? I'd hope that PHEVs don't make the mistake that most production BEVs did - offboard chargers... the electrical grid is everywhere and is cheap to extend, LPI/SPI/Avcon chargers aren't common and are costly to install.

Perhaps I'm just not fond of internal combustion engines. They're so massive, complex, and inherently prone to failure. They need a regular supply of parts. Even if you luck out like NewBie and can get them to run for 170,000 miles and have the skills to do the repairs yourself, there's a signifigant backend investment in time and tools to save the frontend repair expenses.


----------



## jtr1962 (Dec 19, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Perhaps I'm just not fond of internal combustion engines. They're so massive, complex, and inherently prone to failure. They need a regular supply of parts. Even if you luck out like NewBie and can get them to run for 170,000 miles and have the skills to do the repairs yourself, there's a signifigant backend investment in time and tools to save the frontend repair expenses.


Yep, my sentiments exactly. Few people have the knowledge, skills, and physical ability to fix a broken engine. On the other hand, a BEV is fairly simple to understand and probably not much different in principal than the electric trains we all had as children. Granted, regen braking and AC motors adds a bit of complexity, but the mechanical end, which is what usually breaks, is still far simpler than an ICE vehicle.

To add to what you said, I personally find modern vehicles to be needlessly complex for what they need to do, and also far too unreliable. In my mind a $25,000 vehicle should run 400,000 miles between failures same as our latest subway cars, needing nothing more than tires and wiper blades. Even when they don't break, it seems like ICE vehicles require a ridiculous amount of babying in terms of routine maintenance (i.e. air filters, oil changes, transmission fluid changes, etc).



> I can't find any information about total endurance of the engine, but I expect it's capable of running continuously without "recharge breaks" for quite some distance because not all switchers move freight cars in a yard - many will move entire trains miles between major freight lines.


Quite correct. A regular switch engine has a 1000 to 1500 HP diesel engine. However, unlike a road locomotive which may be running at 100% output for hours on end, the switch engine's power plant is only run at full throttle intermittantly, mainly to provide a burst of power to shove a cut of cars. Therefore, a smaller engine providing less power combined with a battery pack for the power bursts works just as well. Since switch engines are geared for low speed anyway (usually 35 to 40 mph is the maximum), the smaller prime mover provides enough power to move the engine plus a few cars at top speed. A regular switch engine would rarely if ever be called on to move a longer string of cars than the 268 HP diesel in the hybrid switcher could handle. Point of fact it only takes 40 to 50 HP to move a 100 ton freight car at 40 mph. The hybrid switcher could easily handle a few cars at that speed, or even 20 cars at 20 mph. I think the rated 60 mph top speed is for the locomotive only. 268 HP is about what it would take to move it down the tracks at that speed.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 19, 2005)

idleprocess said:


> Perhaps you can size the battery pack to fit your needs as a dealer option, but who knows what that will cost, or what cost reductions economy of scale will achieve should the PHEV become reality.




I really like that idea. It did not occur to me that a PHEV might be made with room for extra batteries to allow for those of us that may need longer distance commutes.

Around here, a 40 mile round trip commute is considered local.  Seriously. The SF bay area has spread so much that I've worked in offices where nobody lived in the same town as any other worker.

My last few cars have been quite reliable. The failures come from silly things like power antennas, broken plastic thingies, bad wiring and old batteries. It's been about 8 years since the last time one of the cars died and left me stranded.

I have much more problems with everyday items. The charger for my cordless razor, for instance, has a broken catch as of yesterday. I know it's a just a very small plastic nub that's worn away, rendering a $50 accesory useless. By comparison, my car is one of the most reliable things I own.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2005)

So... did anybody notice I wasn't here? 

Fact is, I WAS here, but I'm not getting notices of new posts! Grr. I thought it was strange that nobody was ever posting in any threads I was interested in! Go figure.

Anyway, here I am. I know you've missed me.  

First let me comment on the Long Ranger. I (along with some friends) considered buying one of the two (Rav4EV-specific) ones that were made You wouldn't believe the brick walls we ran into. They were commissioned by Toyota, and they are sitting around rotting. Toyota will not allow them to be sold. But, I can tell you how well they worked, and I just happen to have a few exclusive pictures of the device in action. A friend of mine just happened to drive from LA to Lake Tahoe without stopping to charge. Yes, it can sustain freeway speeds indefinitely, and yes it can climb hills just fine (the secret is that battery charge is consumed on the way up, and then replaced on the way back down). Mileage isn't so hot, but as others have noted, it is all about "getting there" the few times you need to go long distances. The rest of the time, you just leave the trailer at home. If the trailer could be made for a reasonable price, this would be an awesome solution, in my mind. The cost of these things was about... well the price of a Prius. Didn't make much financial sense. But then again - few things that I do make finanacial sense!

Oops, almost forgot the pictures!
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/rav_longranger.htm


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2005)

So then in other news... we're a two-EV family again. I did purchase the Ranger on Sunday, and it is sitting out in the driveway all wet. I've been using it as my electric umbrella so far. I'm not a huge fan of riding my bike in thuderstorms like we've been having lately! So it has been VERY handy for the past couple of days.

There are a few new pictures now, and I've already added some LED mods (links at the top of the page).
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ranger.htm

Only other stuff I've added are the HOV stickers (white, no transponder - sorry, Daniel!)

I need floor mats, a rigid bed cover (or cab-high shell) and then I start looking seriously into the PV solution unless somebody ships me a biodiesel generator in the meantime.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 20, 2005)

Darell said:


> So then in other news... we're a two-EV family again. I did purchase the Ranger on Sunday, and it is sitting out in the driveway all wet.
> 
> ........
> 
> Only other stuff I've added are the HOV stickers (white, no transponder - sorry, Daniel!)




Grumble Grumble GrumbleGrumble Grumble Grumble Grumble GrumbleGrumble Grumble 



Good for you, Darrel!  That's really neat! And you even get stickers that complement the color scheme of your truck. I do envy you.


Grumble Grumble GrumbleGrumble Grumble Grumble Grumble GrumbleGrumble Grumble


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2005)

Everybody should envy me. Even you, Brock.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 20, 2005)

The overall similarity between my '95 Ranger and your '00 Ranger EV is surprising. Of course, mine burns about 5-6oz of gasoline per mile at no extra charge, has an extended cab, and _(ironicly)_ has some random starting/*idling* issues in the cold weather we've been having.

I've found the hardshell bedcover to be amazingly handy - turns the Ranger into a rolling storage shed and it's handy for moving anything up to small furniture. I've been procrastinating on doing some LED mods for years now. I certainly have the LEDs, just need some sort of constant-current driver and motive to complete the job.


----------



## rodfran (Dec 20, 2005)

Hi Darell and congratulations!

That is one nice looking truck! How many(and what type) batteries does it have? How far will it go on a full charge?


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2005)

Differences? Ford changes the tail-lights every few years... other than that, you can pretty much buy parts for any other years, and you're good to go. At least that's what I'm finding now that I'm looking for some accessories.

I might know a guy who can do automotive LED mods, and/or have the parts.  

I'm currently looking for a cab-high shell for the thing. I'd like to not buy new, of course. The fabric cover that's on it is great for the purpose (cheap way to decrease drag) but it sure sucks for using the bed! Anything slides forward, and you need to send your daughter in there to retrieve it! No way a full-size guy is getting in there without hurting himself! Problem with a shell, is that it'll eclipse my new LED brake light!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 21, 2005)

VEWY VEWY Cool Darell! I too would like to know about batteries and mileage.


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2005)

In the lottery to get these vehicles, there wer NiMH trucks mixed in with the lead-acid trucks. They were all being sold for the same price, though the NiMH packs are worth 3x the lead packs. Go figure.

But anyway, I have a lead pack, and I'm showing a solid 50 miles range (which is *good* for a vehicle like this, btw - especially when you consider the temperatures and how they effect lead-acid. I fully expect to see 60 miles range in the warm weather. All the specs for these vehicles is on my site under the "data" link.
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ranger_data.htm

It is a heavy, un-aerodynamic vehicle. Great for around-town use, but it won't be taking many freeway trips!


----------



## rodfran (Dec 21, 2005)

50 mile range! Not bad considering the weight of the vehicle. Thanks for the information. Let us know your initial impressions.


----------



## ikendu (Dec 21, 2005)

Darell said:


> ...unless somebody ships me a biodiesel generator in the meantime.



Darrel, I see from your page that the charger is 240v/30 amp. This is an onboard charger...yes?

So... as a "quick and dirty" experiment.

Could you borrow two Honda EU2000i generators (there are a lot of them around) and link them together for the 240v operation for a simple trial of:

How long would two Honda generators extend the range and how much fuel would they consume in the process?


----------



## ledlurker (Dec 21, 2005)

I have 2 EU2000's, as far as I know you can only work in Parallel, so 125V at 26 amps. They might be able to to be rigged up for 240 but I think the controlling electronics that make them match sinewave out put would have to be modified. Best to go with a 5000 or 7000 that might already have a 240 V output.


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2005)

rodfran said:


> 50 mile range! Not bad considering the weight of the vehicle. Thanks for the information. Let us know your initial impressions.


And it still has better range around town than it does on the freeway. This things sits up stupid-high, and has all kinds of air resistance. Giant grille openings. Well, it was designed as a gasoline vehicle, so you get the idea.

Yeah, I'm pushing Hummer territory with the GVW on this thing. I have no fear of it blowing away in the winter storms here.


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2005)

ikendu said:


> Darrel, I see from your page that the charger is 240v/30 amp. This is an onboard charger...yes?
> 
> So... as a "quick and dirty" experiment.
> 
> Could you borrow two Honda EU2000i generators (there are a lot of them around)


Might be lots of these where YOU live, but not here. Nobody I know has a generator. Our winters are not severe, and our power is amazingly dependable. In the eight years I've lived in this house, I can recall two power outages. Both lasting for less than a minute. Only folks with generators around here are contracters who are trying to build homes without grid power.



> How long would two Honda generators extend the range and how much fuel would they consume in the process?


If I had the numbers for the generators, I could likely calculate this pretty close to reality.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 22, 2005)

Brock said:


> Some interesting news from Honda, apparently they are getting in to the solar cell market.
> 
> http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20051219/hle_bus-arm918109.html
> 
> And back on topic. I the car I would like would be along the line of the Prius, but with a smaller more efficient diesel engine (then I could use bio-D) and a larger battery pack to handle about 40 miles. And have three rows of seats, so I can get all the kids in




At least Honda recognizes the tremendous amount of power it takes to produce solar cells, and some of the really nasty waste (now if they can just fix that part of the problem).

Honda Motor Co. recently announced plans to begin mass production in 2007 of an independently developed thin-film solar cell composed of non-silicon compound materials, which requires 50% less energy, and thus generates 50% less CO2 during production compared to a conventional solar cell. A 12,000-sq m mass production plant with an annual capacity of 27.5 MW will be established at Honda's existing Kumamoto factory. 
http://powerelectronics.com/news/automaker-solar-cell/


----------



## BVH (Dec 31, 2005)

Darell, I haven't read all the posts in this record long thread but have you seen this electric car? Saw if on the Science Channel - Pretty slick!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/japanese_pm_loo.php


----------



## James S (Jan 1, 2006)

why would you put 2 extra axles on the thing? More wheels means more friction and more stuff to spin and less efficiency.
Probably just couldn't get a linkage to work between the motors and so put one on each axle or something 

The liIon battery pack is the exciting part. Thats what we need to pursue.


----------



## Darell (Jan 1, 2006)

BVH -

Yeah, the thing has been around for several years. The proto had zero safety equipment, and the passengers all had to be short to even fit in the thing! Last I heard, they were going to try building six of them in 2006 and see if they could sell 'em for 1/3 of a million dollars. Somewhere in there.

I guess it is a good study vehicle.... but we already have FCVs that people can't buy....let's build some that people CAN buy!


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 1, 2006)

I'm not even sure what the point of that 8-wheel monstrousity is. Styling is _way_ over-the-top. Perhaps is has the best acceleration of any EV out there, but why does it need 8 wheels? Someone identified a lack vehicles with armored personnel carrier-like handling and ride on the market?


----------



## Darell (Jan 1, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> I'm not even sure what the point of that 8-wheel monstrousity is. Styling is _way_ over-the-top. Perhaps is has the best acceleration of any EV out there...


Not even close! But it may have the best acceleration of EVs with more than two seats. :shrug:


----------



## Darell (Jan 4, 2006)

OK... I've been trying to post this for DAYS now!

Here's the movie of the super-car-beating EV that I was talking about earlier. Professional drivers in all vehicles, nothing staged, no practice runs. Beyond some minimal tire squeal, all the sounds you hear are the ICE vehicles (usually out of the frame )

Here's your electric golf cart.
(warning, 18MB - not dialup-friendly!)

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/movies/wrightspeed.wmv


----------



## winny (Jan 4, 2006)

OWN3D!

God I love EVs...


----------



## ikendu (Jan 4, 2006)

One word:

wow


----------



## Darell (Jan 4, 2006)

I can't remember if it is mentioned.

11.9 seconds for a standing quarter mile with street tires
112mph for same
0-60 in 3.0 seconds.

And when driven sanely, 3x the efficiency of a Prius :ducks from Daniel's response:

The quarter mile times would be better with one gear shift. As it is, top speed is reached *well* before the quarter mile. 

The OTHER nifty part about EV performance driving is how a non-professional can do almost as well as a professional driver in these sort of things. The reason is no shifting and no manual traction control (controlling wheel spin). All that is done for you, and done electronically and elegantly. To drive fast, your only task is to floor the accelerator at the right time and hang on. You can hear the other cars chirping the tires with each shift, and smoking the hell out of them at the start. The EV just launches cleanly each time and never loses momentum with a shift.

Of course this has nothing to do with placing these into the general driving population, but it is lots of fun nonetheless - especially when you consider some of the price differences. $150k to build the EV (hey, no incentives!) and $400k for the Porsche. Of course the Porsche would be a better choice in the rain. 

Man, I just don't get tired of watching that.


----------



## markdi (Jan 4, 2006)

looks like a electric atom - no big deal.

compare the supercharged atom 2 to the electric one

http://www.autocar.co.uk/FirstDrive_Summary.asp?RT=212150


----------



## Darell (Jan 4, 2006)

markdi said:


> looks like a electric atom - no big deal.
> 
> compare the supercharged atom 2 to the electric one
> 
> http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/car-reviews/car-and-driving/ariel-atom-2-1004698.html


It *is* an electric Atom. If that kind of performance is a yawn for you, I'm sorry to have posted so loudly.

This vehicle was funded by an individual. With real money backing, there could easily exist a far more powerful electic Atom than even this one. How much would one prototype ICE Atom 2 cost to build I wonder? Though any of these vehicles would require 4WD to get the 0-60 under 3 seconds - which is where it is pegged now due to traction realities. In theory the current e-atom is capable of under 2.8 seconds... given enough traction.

Under 3 seconds to 60. The mind just boggles. I don't care what is pushing it.


----------



## Darell (Jan 4, 2006)

If any of you guys have money burning a hole in your pocket, Ian is currently looking for VC A round funding to begin the production car design. To this point, the entire operation has been personally funded by Ian Wright.

So far every VC who has ridden in the car wants to buy one NOW... but none have expressed interested in funding the operation so far.


----------



## Darell (Jan 4, 2006)

Ah, and in regard to hitting the rev limiter before the quarter mile... Ian just mentioned that the 0-100 time would be sub seven seconds.

That's pretty much what I need for my commuter.


----------



## markdi (Jan 4, 2006)

the supercharged one also has a sub 7 second 0 to 100.

I bet the supercharged one would kick the electric one's butt.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 4, 2006)

I bet the supercharged one can "kick the electric one's butt" by scant fractions of a second... which, of course, makes it _exponentially_ more exciting to drive, I suppose  I mean, 3 second 0-60 for the electric vs (unspecified) sub- 3 second 0-60 for the supercharged ICE version is a hair-splitting photo-finish. Of course, we're not looking at a variation so small that track conditions or driver skill could account for the difference, either.

Your supercharged engine car is still faster, so you needn't fear loss of supremacy to that electric that seems to be threatening you. Just keep in mind that the margins are awfully thin and this appears to be the first attempt at an elctric supercar based on the ATOM. Successive attempts may prove faster yet.


----------



## markdi (Jan 5, 2006)

some one should make a supercharged t-zero.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 5, 2006)

...because at, oh, 3.6 seconds 0-60, it's just _dragging_?


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 5, 2006)

Darell said:


> 11.9 seconds for a standing quarter mile with street tires
> 112mph for same
> 0-60 in 3.0 seconds.
> 
> And when driven sanely, 3x the efficiency of a Prius :ducks from Daniel's response:




Well, since my name was invoked.... LOL

You must mean 3 times as efficient when traveling with a single person and no luggage.

For bring home a week's worth of groceries, it's about 2/3 the Prius efficiency. I'd have to go back to the store 4 times to pick up the rest of the grocery bags, then one more to pick up my wife.


Just funnin.

That's a seriously neat car.


Daniel


----------



## rodfran (Jan 9, 2006)

I just read an article the other day in our local newspaper about a taxi driver replacing his Dodge mini-van with a 2005 Toyota Prius. Claims 46-47mpg.
Savings in fuel $6,800 per year. 

Nice to think when driving slowly in the downtown traffic it is on electric power!


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Well, since my name was invoked.... LOL
> 
> You must mean 3 times as efficient when traveling with a single person and no luggage.


Hey, it seats two! Luggage would be a bit tight though. Not sure I'd take this one camping. For that, I'd use the Ferrari.

Oh, and for the four trips back for the gorceries... at least you could do all four trips in the same amount of time as one Prius trip.  Or maybe just hook up a utility trailer?

Been talking with Ian (the designer/builder). I'm hoping to meet up with him early next month to take a spin. What do you think? Should I take any video?


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

rodfran said:


> I just read an article the other day in our local newspaper about a taxi driver replacing his Dodge mini-van with a 2005 Toyota Prius. Claims 46-47mpg.
> Savings in fuel $6,800 per year.
> 
> Nice to think when driving slowly in the downtown traffic it is on electric power!


So here's the crazy part that ties in with this comment...

I just purchased a ScanGage for the Gasoline Civic. The thing is great. Shows you instantaneous mpg, tank mpg, daily mpg, average mpg since reset... and water temp, intake air temp, timing, throttle position... you name it. The thing is a seriously neat gadget. Anyway... Cruising at a steady 55-60mph, I see between 39-41 mpg in this car. If I'm inching along at parking lot speeds (or shall we say "rush hour speeds") the car pulls in a sickly 10mpg. That's 10mpg from 1 to about 10 mph in the relatively efficient ICE. When I drive the Rav that slow, my range about triples, making it the ideal choice for urban commuting, of course.

While I already knew that slow speeds in an ICE were terribly wasteful, it is a slap in the face to see it displayed right there for you. Any time you have stop-and-go or slow-and-go traffic, a BEV is dramatically superior. Once again, a plug-in hybrid would just be a stellar all-around performer. And to build them, we don't have to re-invent the wheel, and NOBODY has to change their lifestyle even a tiny little bit. You'd never have to plug it in, but you could. And even if you didn't plug it in, it would be way efficient at slow speeds by using the battery energy that was put there by the ICE at high speeds.

I'm starting to ramble. Must be bed time.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 10, 2006)

Darell said:


> Oh, and for the four trips back for the gorceries... at least you could do all four trips in the same amount of time as one Prius trip.  Or maybe just hook up a utility trailer?



No, no and no! Look. The store is .75 miles away. A round trip is 1.5 miles. It takes me about a minute to get there. and another to get back in my prius.

Now if I'm in the T-Zero, it will take me 10 seconds to get there (got to take decelleration into account) and then 15 minutes showing it off and explaining it to bystanders. Another 5 minutes arguing with some guy about how it really is more efficient than his Golf TDI. Add anothe 45 minutes per trip listening to the cop explaining how speed kills as he slooooowly writes the ticket.

Obviously, the Prius will be a better choice for THIS application.





Darell said:


> Been talking with Ian (the designer/builder). I'm hoping to meet up with him early next month to take a spin. What do you think? Should I take any video?



But of course!


Side note. The Prius has become so commonplace here (SF Bay Area, Calif) that I have not been questioned about it by people walking by in the last month or two. 

Daniel (aka Speedy)


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

Dear Speedy -

Yes, all valid points.

As to the bit about the Prius being "common" I also fully agree. This whole area is just crowded with them. While folks do still ask about my car, since they hadn't previously seen a hybrid Rav4 before  gas is currently too cheap for anybody to really care right now. But the next wave of interest will hit soon, I'm sure.


----------



## Brock (Jan 10, 2006)

Did I tell you to get a scangauge or what 

It is interesting to see what your MPG is in slow traffic. Actually I can't get mine to go below 6 MPG no matter how hard I try. Have you run a whole tank through to adjust it yet? Mine is -13% so far after 4 fills or 2 months or 3400 miles 

Lately I have been trying to figure out how much "pre heating" the engine with a coolant heater helps in the mileage department and it the electric usage offsets the diesel saved. Of course it would if I use solar to do it, but for the average person. It is looking like about a 10% increase in mileage on a 20 mile trip so far.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

Brock -

Did you tell me about these before? Oops, I must have ignored you. I've been yacking at the maker of the thing to make it smaller. Have you looked inside? The thing could be about 1/3 the size, but it was made that big on PURPOSE so it would seem more substantial. Can you believe it!? The maker doesn't think it would be handier to make it smaller, but I disagree! I is a PITA to mount in a small car like the Civic. Takes up WAY too much room for something that could be so much smaller.

Anyway, yes, I have run a tank through it when we went up to the snow over the winter break. I had to adjust it to -12% on that first tank. Be a while before the next tank goes through it though!

I don't see less than 6mpg either. If I'm rolling, I'm getting 6mpg, apparently. If I let the Civic go at "impulse" speed, I wouldn't get nearly as far as the Rav going at "impulse" speed.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

Nice to see Ford at least making some sweet concept cars with the right direction in mind.

PV on the roof to run the ventilation while parked and help charge the Li-ion pack. Now we're talking.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=10635


----------



## Brock (Jan 10, 2006)

Ya a couple of the TDI'ers took them apart and mounted them in the dash. I have no idea why it is so large, if it is going to be that big, make the display twice as large at least!


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

I don't suppose you have any links for me, do you?

Yikes. I think we'd better start a new EV thread here pretty soon - even without the old 200 reply cap!


----------



## evan9162 (Jan 10, 2006)

No mention of the Camry Hybrid that was just introduced?


----------



## Brock (Jan 10, 2006)

Just threads about people pulling the guts and installing them in a blank panel in the dash, nothing special really.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 10, 2006)

Darell said:


> Nice to see Ford at least making some sweet concept cars with the right direction in mind.
> 
> PV on the roof to run the ventilation while parked and help charge the Li-ion pack. Now we're talking.
> 
> http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=10635



Too many buzzwords... but I guess that's what I should expect from something that reads like press release ad copy.



> DETROIT, Jan. 8, 2006 – The Ford Reflex proves that small cars can be bold, American and innovative.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Hm. Bold. Small yet not small. American _and_ innovative. Given the success of imported compact cars, I'd think that the US automakers would _finally_ realize that no small percentage of the market *likes* small cars and could be persuaded to buy a domestic compact if the US automakers would put some effort into them, rather than treating them like K-Cars - grudgingly at that?

It would be nice if this vehicle saw the light of day with the key features intact, but somehow I expect Ford will tout this to the right magazines and trot it out to a few auto shows, then it will go the way of most concept cars - stored in a backlot for years. I'm always amazed at how much attention that concept cars attract verses the effect they have on real designs ... seemingly none.

I remember seeing the TerraDyne at both of the auto shows that pass through Dallas each year and at both shows, there was a huge persistent crowd around the TerraDyne. I thought it looked a bit goofy - as though it were made of, well, polygons _(I kept thinking GM should have dubbed it the official vehicle of Unreal Tournament or Quake 3)_. The GM reps couldn't give away enough posters, brochures, and commemorative belt buckles... yet the survey cards they were handing out made NO mention of the TerraDyne - just asking which of their regular lineup you were interested in.

I realize that the purpose of concept vehicles is to generate buzz, but why bother if less than 10% of any given concept sees the light of day in a production vehicle years later?


----------



## HarryN (Jan 10, 2006)

NewBie said:


> At least Honda recognizes the tremendous amount of power it takes to produce solar cells, and some of the really nasty waste (now if they can just fix that part of the problem).
> 
> Honda Motor Co. recently announced plans to begin mass production in 2007 of an independently developed thin-film solar cell composed of non-silicon compound materials, which requires 50% less energy, and thus generates 50% less CO2 during production compared to a conventional solar cell. A 12,000-sq m mass production plant with an annual capacity of 27.5 MW will be established at Honda's existing Kumamoto factory.
> http://powerelectronics.com/news/automaker-solar-cell/



Kind of reminds me of the technology from "First Solar" near Toledo, OH.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

Brock said:


> Just threads about people pulling the guts and installing them in a blank panel in the dash, nothing special really.


Well, the only hold-up for me is the buttons. Are people using the factory buttons or supplying their own? I'm really tempted to do this, but I might as well borrow from others' experience if possible. If you run into any threads, please let me know!


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

evan9162 said:


> No mention of the Camry Hybrid that was just introduced?


As far as I know, the Camry won't be for sale until about May of this year. Not sure what "introduced" really means. Toyota has been talking about it for years, and it will finally sell this year. Should be a big seller from what I can tell.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2006)

Oh boy. Well, it would appear that Ian (the guy with the X-1 in the video) lives just 30 miles from my in-laws in SF where we visit a couple times per month. Looks like my butt will be in one of those X-1 bucket seats either late this month or early next.

My main goal will be to avoid peeing in my pants if at all possible.

Sometimes I REALLY like being me.


----------



## Darell (Jan 13, 2006)

Some interesting information on EPA mileage testing, and how it relates to hybrids. Also some info on the *first* hybrids... though not as much as I'd like in that area!
http://www.hybridcars.com/epa-hybrid-controversy.html


----------



## Darell (Jan 18, 2006)

Surprise. Nothing here any more.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 18, 2006)

I recently updated my table that shows the two most popular renewable fuels; biodiesel and ethanol.







One thing you'll notice, even if we use every last acre of corn and every last acre of soy beans, current biofuels don't replace more than 5% of our gasoline or 5% of our diesel.

We definitely need to be looking for other ways to get off of oil for transportation. The two I'd like to see are higher yielding biofuels and BEVs.


----------



## Brock (Jan 19, 2006)

Going a bit off topic, but I thought Darell would like this one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060112/tc_nm/energy_utilities_test_dc

An article about "smart" grids where you AC or water heater might shut off to avoid brownouts or blackouts and run longer during low demand times. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Darell (Jan 19, 2006)

That's awesome, Brock. With all the technology we throw at everything else, I really don't understand why we need the water heater running in the middle of the day... or the freezer for that matter. Programmable thermostats are still not in every home... WTF? Conservation can be damn-near painless... if we just cared.

Thanks for the article, Brock.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 20, 2006)

They have had similar technology in place for years. The power was switched totally on or off, as opposed to and "energy saving" mode. the switching was based on a signal from the power company.

A similar technology would be the use of occupancy sensors and predictive algorithyms. A person walking into the bathroom at 6 am would fire up the water heater in preperation for a bath, but it would stay off until there was demand if the bathroom were enetered at 3 PM. If the bath is drawn every day at 3 PM and never at 6 AM, the software would, over time, adjust.

Of course, that requires better occupancy sensors, even something that can track who is in teh room instead of just body heat. Goodness knows that a teenager enetering the kitchen will not need hot water to wash dishes. 

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 20, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> They have had similar technology in place for years



Yup. But not here, and certainly not everywhere.

Say, Daniel... did you get my email by chance? I'm buying a Prius, bud!


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 20, 2006)

Hi Darell.

The email from CPF is still broken. The domain is incorrectly defined in the DNS server. This is a condition usually associated with spammers and viruses that have their own SMTP subsystem, so my system rejects the attempt to connect.

You are buying a PRIUS????? Good for you! Which one, which options and why'd you do it?


Welcome to yet another fine club. 

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 21, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Hi Darell.
> 
> The email from CPF is still broken. The domain is incorrectly defined in the DNS server. This is a condition usually associated with spammers and viruses that have their own SMTP subsystem, so my system rejects the attempt to connect.
> 
> ...


Well, then send me your email address, please: [email protected]

2006, classic silver, option package 6 (just below the nav and leather). The why is a long story. I'm selling the Civic and the Ranger to finance the Prius. We can only have two cars here, and this will be the best way.


----------



## BVH (Jan 21, 2006)

Hey, Darell, just as a note of interest, we lite up our Hydrogen fuel station today. Just waiting for our Hydrogen Hybrid Prius's to come back on Wednesday. We'll be sucking on our tailpipes to get a drink of water pretty soon.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 21, 2006)

BVH said:


> Hey, Darell, just as a note of interest, we lite up our Hydrogen fuel station today.



Does anyone else associate that statement with a smoldering crater in the ground, or am I just being too imaginitive instead of literal?


----------



## Darell (Jan 21, 2006)

I'm still trying to figure out how much of this is serious.. ??? :huh:


----------



## rodfran (Jan 21, 2006)

Wow, I was just getting ready to ask you some questions about the Ranger. Oh Well!

I don't blame you for getting rid of the pure gas car.

The "why being a long story". Hey I've got time and i like reading your posts!

If enough of you guys buy hybrids, maybe they will make more of them.

Thanks for the article, Brock! We have been doing the "low tech" method of turning up the gas heater when we take a shower for many years.


----------



## Darell (Jan 22, 2006)

rodfran said:


> Wow, I was just getting ready to ask you some questions about the Ranger. Oh Well!


Yeh... the truck is still parked out in the driveway... and you can ask me questions any time!



> The "why being a long story". Hey I've got time and i like reading your posts!


OK, one day when I get bored, but selling two cars and buying another seems to be taking quite a bit of my free time right now! 



> If enough of you guys buy hybrids, maybe they will make more of them.


Mostly I just want them to make more batteries... which will create better and cheaper batters... which will get us back to BEVs where we belong! It was a tough decision. Do I vote with my wallet now and tell Toyota that I like exactly what they've got here? OR does a vote now tell them that they're on the right track and should keep making the electric portion bigger and bigger? Or do I wait until they actually market a plug-in hybrid? Tough to tell what message is being sent when I buy a hybrid today. :thinking: But at least it tells them that I'm OK without a Hummer.


----------



## Wolfen (Jan 23, 2006)

http://www.dieselmotorcycles.com/engineering.htm

Looks like it would be perfect for a Long Ranger type generator. 

The engine can run on diesel, bio-diesel and aviation grade kerosene.

The motorcycles also look interesting. But at 20,000 a tad expensive for what I would use it for.


----------



## Darell (Jan 23, 2006)

Well, I got to take my new T-shirt out for a little EV drive this weekend.


----------



## markdi (Jan 23, 2006)

I love the t shirt

I want one


----------



## ikendu (Jan 23, 2006)

Darell said:


> ...do I wait until they actually market a plug-in hybrid? Tough to tell what message is being sent when I buy a hybrid today.



Tough indeed.

I've begun to tell folks in my "where is the future going" lectures to go into dealers and ask for plug-in hybrids. Then, when they say they have none, tell them, "call me when you have some to sell, that is what I really want".

Otherwise, how does the retail chain begin to exert influence over the engineering and marketing decisions?


----------



## Darell (Jan 23, 2006)

When I put my deposit down on the Prius, the Sales manager (same guy who sold the Rav4EV to me) said, "Oh good, you must have finally gotten rid of the EV. What did you do with it."

After a moment of stunned silence, I told him that we're driving it seven days a week, 365 days per year, and that it is the only vehicle we're keeping. Of course he went on to assure me that "hybrid technology" has now rendered battery electrics obsolete.

You should be proud of me. I didn't even hit him.


----------



## rodfran (Jan 23, 2006)

How does the acceleration of the EV Ranger compare to say a stock small v-8 Ranger?

What is that vehicle you are standing in front of that says "solar powered electric vehicle"?


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 23, 2006)

ikendu said:


> Tough indeed.
> 
> I've begun to tell folks in my "where is the future going" lectures to go into dealers and ask for plug-in hybrids. Then, when they say they have none, tell them, "call me when you have some to sell, that is what I really want".
> 
> Otherwise, how does the retail chain begin to exert influence over the engineering and marketing decisions?





Funny you should say that. Shortly after their announcement I hounded my local toyota dealer every other month about getting hybrids. I made sure to let them know that I was a serious customer. I don't know if it helped, but it did not hurt.

I do the same thing at the grocery store if there's a product I like. I give them my business card with the product name written on the back. It's worked a few times.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 23, 2006)

Yes Darell, we are proud of you. I'm not sure I would have put down the deposit at that point. but I have a low tollerance for such things.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 23, 2006)

rodfran said:


> How does the acceleration of the EV Ranger compare to say a stock small v-8 Ranger?


I've never driven a V-8 Ranger, but the Ranger EV is quicker than any 4-cyl small pickup that I've ever driven. It is surprisingly responsive, considering the weight. You won't be burning the rubber off the rear tires, however.



> What is that vehicle you are standing in front of that says "solar powered electric vehicle"?


That's our daily driver. The Rav4EV. The solar power comes from our garage roof, of course. It was the quickest way to convince people that the car is powered by something other than gas... though I STILL get the gas mileage questsion.... just not as often. Now they want to know where the hell the solar panels are.







More pictures of the lettering here:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/rav_lettering.htm


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 23, 2006)

Darell said:


> Of course he went on to assure me that "hybrid technology" has now rendered battery electrics obsolete.


I'd love to see the look on his face in 10 years when he doesn't have a job because of the influx of cheap Chinese BEVs.  What an ignorant jerk!


----------



## Darell (Jan 23, 2006)

jtr1962 said:


> What an ignorant jerk!


It is unfortunate that your description only scratches the surface for this individual. I had to teach him how to drive my Rav4EV from the back of the lot to the front so that he could give me the official run-through. The guy doesn't have a clue... but I guess he can sell cars, and that's all that matters, apparently.


----------



## cobb (Jan 23, 2006)

Diesel motorcycles and diesel engines with no turbo? Whats wrong with shoving a duramax diesel or a catapillar 12 cylinder engine to make one heck of BOSS HOSS bike?

Anyone interested in a hybrid bucket truck? I read an article in the Signs of the times Dec 05 issue page 50. Its by the HTUF group. It was pretty much a fact free article about the hybrid itself other than it cost 100 grand where the stock truck would run 60 grand. Seriously, no mpg figures. It did give some interesting info 

Diesel uses 30& less fuel than gas.
Diesel makes 147,000 btus
Gas makes 125,000 btus
Gas engines get 150k miles per rebuild
Diesel enginers get 300k miles per rebuild
Diesel better for idling and low rpms for pto applications plus towning. 

Most diesel trucks like going 50-75 mph, at 10mph over 75 in a gas truck you use 1.5 more mpg, diesel, 3 more mpg.

Trucksget 6 more mpg with a 3.42 than a 4.10 final drive OD can add 1-5more mpg if working or engaged. 

The contact info for the truck is [email protected] 

I think for a bucket truck, its not such a hot idea. Its basically the same weight regardless of use, 12 thousand pounds for a 35ft model, up too and exceeding cdl limits for taller working heights. The truck is driven to a job site and the engine is left idling while the boom is used. Maybe some hybrid system could be made to recharge under braking to power the hydrolics for the boom when in use and when used up, the engine kicks over to supplement?

Now for dump trucks where the truck is ran half the time empty, a hybrid system I think would work great or delivery trucks where they load up, drive off, unload and return. 

As a side note, Ive seen a few recked prisus lately. Seems they rear end someone and get up under a car and get the nose bent downwards where the front wheel well starts.


----------



## rodfran (Jan 24, 2006)

Hey Darell, thanks for the great pics! Nice logo.

I agree with jtr1962, only a matter of time. I am glad I am familiar with mass transit.

I have great concern over what is happening at GM and Ford with the factories being closed.


----------



## yuandrew (Jan 24, 2006)

I feel sorry for that unused Ford Th!nk Electric Ranger pickup that sits in the fleet yard where our city parks all their service vehicles. Last time I was looking at it, some one told me it's broken down and had been parked there for 3 years. There are a few charging units nearby (One paddle was plugged into the truck but when I pressed the buttons to start the charger; nothing happened.) There is a privately owned Rav 4 EV that gets moved often by it's owner and I see it using the other chargeing station sometimes.

The 1st Generation Pirus our city bought for the fleet recently has been getting more attention. I think we also had a CNG fueled Honda Civic GX but it wasn't in the lot.

Someday, I'll may have to talk them into letting me buy that Ranger and try to restore it.


----------



## Darell (Jan 24, 2006)

yuandrew said:


> Someday, I'll may have to talk them into letting me buy that Ranger and try to restore it.


You can purchase a reconditioned battery pack for about $5k up here in Sacramento. That's likely all that is needed, and you'd be on your way. The lead-acid batteries need to be constantly charged. If left to sit for a few weeks, you can be in serious trouble as they get unblanaced.... and eventually you drag one down to its death.

If the charger is not turning on, then the charger is not energized (likely the breaker is tripped). The "charger" in this case is nothing more than a power source with buttons on it. The charger is in the truck. So if there's no power to the charger all this time, yeah, the batteries are gonna be toast.


----------



## Darell (Jan 24, 2006)

Please surf over to www.PlugInPartners.org and view this mornings webcast of the launch of the National Campaign for Plug-In Hybrids.


----------



## ikendu (Jan 24, 2006)

Wow! Darell! Thanks for posting this!

I wonder if you can get the video on DVD. I'd love to show this around.


----------



## Darell (Jan 24, 2006)

Great, isn't it? I'm glad Dr. Frank was there. He's great! "Been doing this for longer than anybody. Anybody who's still alive, at least. " 

Might want to ask the organizers about duplication. Would be a great learning tool.


----------



## markdi (Jan 25, 2006)

I would love to have this on cd or dvd.


the more people who see it the better


----------



## NewBie (Jan 26, 2006)

I've noticed a flurry of new developments in the hydrogen field as of late.

Intelligent Energy is now selling it's ENV motorcycle, which is based on fuel cells. ENV stands for emissions neutral vehicle. The bike runs on hydrogen stripped from bio fuels. Emissions are water vapor.

A five ounce can can power the bike for 100 miles.

Price for five ounces of hydrogen is 4 dollars, and is expected to come down to 0.25 dollars once California's 100 hydrogen refueling stations come online. 1.25 cents per mile.


I also read today that demand on the Pirus is outstripping supply, and they are hoping to ramp up production another 25% to 400,000 vehicles world wide for 2006 (this year). There has been speculation that Toyoda has been trying very hard to lock up supplies of parts used in their vehicles, so other manufacturers will not be able to use the parts for their vehicles. Ford Motor Company has even talked to the Wall Street Journal, about not being able to get parts because of this.


Design Engineer Alec Brooks was selected as Design Engineer of the year, for his work on the UAV called Global Observer. It flies for more than a week off it's tank of hydrogen, all the while carrying payloads of up to 1,000 pounds. It can do this while even maintaining an altitude of 65,000 ft. He lead the design on the ultra-lightweight hydrogen tank.


And on the ICE frontier:

"In some cases, the fuel mileage was as great as 42% on stock production engines"
Zero Tolerance Industries patented variable venturi, uses a special laminar flow wing to creat two laminar flow steams. The pivoting throttle valves creat a siphon, or Venturi effect. It draws the air into the chamber at high velocity and low pressure and creates more efficient fuel-air mixing.
It even produced a fuel mileage increase of 25-28% on high-performance engines".


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 26, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Intelligent Energy is now selling it's ENV motorcycle, which is based on fuel cells. ENV stands for emissions neutral vehicle. The bike runs on hydrogen stripped from bio fuels. Emissions are water vapor.
> 
> A five ounce can can power the bike for 100 miles.
> 
> Price for five ounces of hydrogen is 4 dollars, and is expected to come down to 0.25 dollars once California's 100 hydrogen refueling stations come online. 1.25 cents per mile.



There is approximately 39KWh of energy per kilogram of hydrogen.

5oz of hydrogen is ~0.141kg or roughly 5.5KWh. Divide by 100 and you get 55Wh per mile. Production EVs seem to use about 6-8x as much per mile, but they're much larger and heavier. 'Not sure how this compares to other electric motorcycles... or if that's even a valid comparison - all production electric 'bikes I know of are designed for high-performance rather than economy.

The economy sounds allright to so far. The fuel cell in that bike is a 1kW unit, so I do wonder what performance is going to be like given that 50kW motors are common in EVs weighing up to, say, 10x as much.

_EDIT: OK, it has a 6kW-capable battery pack. That should make acceleration decent and give the "idle" fuel cell something useful to do to meed peak demand while not completely squandering its idle energy consumption._

But electrolysis is less than 100% efficient, and it takes a good deal of energy just to move hydrogen around, so at a cheap rate of $0.05/kWH, and assuming you have a miraculously efficient process that's 50% efficient _(I hear 25% efficient quoted often describing the hydrogen fuel-cell cycle when counting energy production)_, you're looking at $0.275 worth of electricity just to make, handle, and transport this hydrogen from production site _(refinery? hydrogen reformer in the garage?)_ to the end-user.

So ... how are you going to fill up this thing for a quarter? Where did you get the $4/5oz figure? Is that the subsidised price at a pilot hydrogen station in CA? Or is that the price of a giant tank of hydrogen delivered to a lab, and you've rolled the distributor over a barrel to the point that they're pleading about making the next house payment?



NewBie said:


> I also read today that demand on the Pirus is outstripping supply, and they are hoping to ramp up production another 25% to 400,000 vehicles world wide for 2006 (this year). There has been speculation that Toyoda has been trying very hard to lock up supplies of parts used in their vehicles, so other manufacturers will not be able to use the parts for their vehicles. Ford Motor Company has even talked to the Wall Street Journal, about not being able to get parts because of this.


So Toyota is playing hardball. They have a lead and want to maintain it. If Detroit hadn't been caught flat-footed (as usual), this might not be a problem.

There are always alternate suppliers. Cobasys would probably be quite happy to sell NiMH cells to the automakers again and I'm sure that most of the other components used in hybrids is fairly common - we're talking production cars here, not space probes or missiles.


----------



## NewBie (Jan 27, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> There is approximately 39KWh of energy per kilogram of hydrogen.
> 
> 5oz of hydrogen is ~0.141kg or roughly 5.5KWh. Divide by 100 and you get 55Wh per mile. Production EVs seem to use about 6-8x as much per mile, but they're much larger and heavier. 'Not sure how this compares to other electric motorcycles... or if that's even a valid comparison - all production electric 'bikes I know of are designed for high-performance rather than economy.
> 
> ...




Well, you can read one of the articles discussing the hydrogen price, and other things here:
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6296608.html



Some of the motors, motor controllers, chargers, and other items are rather specialized, and they are not just something anybody can whip together, and a good amount of it is patented. So Toyoda is affecting the availability of parts for hybrids and EV, trying to get a complete lock on all the parts, and not allowing any other manufacturers access. 

IMHO, someone should sue them and lock Toyoda out of the US market, assess monetary damages, and take additional actions- if that is true.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 27, 2006)

> IMHO, someone should sue them and lock Toyoda out of the US market,



Either that or give them the 2006 Business acheivement award.

Our country grants patents. Our country's laws allow any patent holder to sell their rights to anyone. Our system of business encourages blocking other businesses from copying your sucess.

Personally, I don't begrudge the sucess of companies that use our stupidity against us. I do wish there was a way to change the laws so that society was the winner, not the businesses. Extended patent life? Bah! Patents on formulas and algorithyms? Stupidity! Copyright for the "life" of a corporation? You gotta be kidding!

Toyota took a chance on the hybrid, created a market, made a profit and sells a pretty darn good product. GM, Ford and the rest could have done the same. They chose not to.

To say that any company can completely corner a technology ignores the fact that almost everything in the world can be done different ways. Any patent 17 years old or more is free to copy and implemnt, no R&D required.

A few years ago, more than 50% of all US patents granted in that year were bought by pacific rim businesses. Before we blame them for gobbling up the patent rights, we should note that americans willingly sold those rights and American companies were not buying.

We should either change the rules or live with the consequenses. I have not figured out how to change the political structure that blocks fixing the rules since the politicians are in charge of the change process.

This is not meant to disparage any political party nor person. It's the system that allows it.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 27, 2006)

Daniel I couldn't have said it better myself! It's wierd to read what someone else wrote and agree with it that much, glad you wrote it.


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2006)

Yes, well said, Daniel! But I also know that logic and reality won't get you far here! 

GM holds more EV patents than anybody else. And they aren't even building the cars while they prevent others from using the technology! Let's sue them, shall we? Toyota has every right to protect their huge R&D investment. GM had the lead, and handed it right over to anybody who was willing to take the risk.


----------



## rodfran (Jan 28, 2006)

Daniel, Brock, and Darell-Ditto!


----------



## ikendu (Jan 30, 2006)

I talked to a guy from Toyota on Wisconsin Public Radio the other day about hybrids. He says that the whole technology is due for redesign in 2008 and that part of that redesign is to give the vehicles significant "all-electric" range.


----------



## Darell (Jan 30, 2006)

ikendu said:


> I talked to a guy from Toyota on Wisconsin Public Radio the other day about hybrids. He says that the whole technology is due for redesign in 2008 and that part of that redesign is to give the vehicles significant "all-electric" range.


Naughty naughty! We aren't supposed to spready that rumor! 

That's all the scuttle-butt, certainly. You won't get Toyota to admit it publicly though! Their story is REDUCED battery range, and cheaper vehicles. :shrug:

Well, I'm back from the X-1 drive. Oooh-eee. Eventually I'll get some pictures up. Suffice it to say that I've never been in ANYTHING that will do 0-60 in under three seconds. We did 0-60-0 in under five seconds. What a rush.


----------



## HarryN (Feb 2, 2006)

Well, I guess I actually agree with Newbie on this point. If, as seems to be the case, Toyota is in fact preventing others, such as Ford, from entering the market, then that is called a MONOPOLY. Patents are fine, as is time to market, but we all know that patents are commonly cross licensed, either before or after products come to market, at some reasonable price.

Late or not, we need Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, etc, to all be in a position to produce viable quantities of vehicles which both meet our real transportation needs, and the realities of energy / ecology. For me personnally, neither a Prius nor Rav4 are on my list of vehicles to purchase, as they don't meet my vehicle goals.

Darell - glad you like the truck


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2006)

Please don't lose sight of the fact that GM sued the state of CA to avoid building the electric cars that it held patents on. And later, GM was the most vocal car maker to publicly state that they'd never make hybrids because that's not what the public wants. Now, of course, they'd like nothing more than to play catchup on somebody else's dime.

Certainly I want our domestic car companies to catch up. But what would be the result if the tables were turned, and Toyota insisted that GM hand over all the EV patents that it holds?


----------



## HarryN (Feb 2, 2006)

Hi Darell

I don't really disagree with you, but there are a few points about the EV law / project in CA that are worth pointing out. While you are reading this, please don't get the idea I am a big GM / Ford fan, or that I am not in line with practical ideas for oil consumption reduction and pollution reduction. I am largely against subsidizing most ANY product, especially one like Hybrids, which we are doing now by allowing them to use the car pool lanes.

While I really like EV's, and will likely own one someday, the particular CA EV law (among 1400 new laws each year here) was primarily driven by Southern CA Edison, as a way to sell more electricity. CA proposed this to the car companies as a polution control measure, and I believe rejected Ford and GM's offer to instead offer a gas powered car with "negative" pollution. (IIRC , there was a company that came up with a catalyst that worked at radiator temperatures, and it actually reduced the normal tail pipe pollutants as you drove.) CA rejected this offer, so the car firms sued. 

My industrial experience with the way the S. CA Air Quality Management Board works in practice dealing with other hydrocarbon pollution sources, makes me (shudder) agree with Ford and GM in this area.

As far as Toyota, Honda, GM, BMW, Ford, and Chrysler and IP, it would be difficult to find companies that have "borrowed" more IP, patented or not, than Toyota, its parent company and Honda. This includes some designs that have been copied down to the gears and screws. If car "designs" could be copywrited like software, movies, and pictures life would be very different.

The issue with hybrid / EV cars and getting parts is not an IP issue, AFAIK, but restraint of trade. Of course, I have been wrong many times in the past, and this could be true of this thinking as well.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 2, 2006)

Deleted. I thought better of it.


Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 2, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Some of the motors, motor controllers, chargers, and other items are rather specialized, and they are not just something anybody can whip together, and a good amount of it is patented. So Toyoda is affecting the availability of parts for hybrids and EV, trying to get a complete lock on all the parts, and not allowing any other manufacturers access.



I deleted my previous post after thinking about this for a bit. I've looked very closely at the Prius. I've a good understanding of it's design. The "motors, motor controllers, chargers, and other items are rather specialized".... but they are also custom designed and built. The electric motors are built right into the castings of the CVT (contimuously variable transmission) and are not off the shelf. The controllers are custom designed by toyota for this particular car. There are other interesting parts, but I can't think of any that would be "comodity" items where Toyota could corner the market.

Then there's the whole concept that Toyota was blocking other car companies. That's just not true. The Ford Escape uses the Toyota Synergy Drive system under license from Toyota. A CPF poster says the Ford system uses very little of the technology even though they bought the rights. Looking at the decription in the company web site, it uses a lot of the Toyota system.

3 years ago I saw a picture of a hybrid Saturn VUE with the toyota hybrid drivetrain. It was supposed to be in production by 2004, but never materialized. 

It's obvious that Toyota is sharing the technology... for a price. 

I don't think That Toyota is doing anything monopolistic. I do think that they are taking advantage of the marketplace and regulations we have created. 

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Feb 6, 2006)

So... back to the X1 for a moment... did I give a pointer to my Wrightspeed page?
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/wrightspeed.htm

A few videos that just don't do this thing justice. We need a ride-along with the IMAX crew!


----------



## James S (Feb 6, 2006)

Daniel, that hybrid vue is now officially going to be released any second now. The milage is OK, but I just wish they would get over the "mild" hybrid thing and give me a combination where I can go totally electric for a while.

http://www.saturn.com/aboutus2/news/index.jsp?storyID=210

This is one of the top cars I'll be looking at to replace my 11 year old Saturn sometime over the next year.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 6, 2006)

Yes, the new VUE does sound like a mild hybrid. The "restarts the engine as soon as the brake is released" is the giveaway. I wonder why they decided against using the license from Toyota for their hydrid drive? Thanks for that link.

It would sure be nice if GM would revive one of their full size (aerodynamic) station wagons with a PHEV package. That would be THE soccer mom car. The current crop of SUVs are just too tall to be very aerodynamic. 

That said, I'm glad that GM is getting any form of hybrid in the public's hands.

Daniel


----------



## NewBie (Feb 7, 2006)

I was just laughing at your shirt Darell:
http://priuschat.com/darelldd-m11833.html


----------



## HarryN (Mar 4, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Yes, the new VUE does sound like a mild hybrid. The "restarts the engine as soon as the brake is released" is the giveaway. I wonder why they decided against using the license from Toyota for their hydrid drive? Thanks for that link.
> 
> It would sure be nice if GM would revive one of their full size (aerodynamic) station wagons with a PHEV package. That would be THE soccer mom car. The current crop of SUVs are just too tall to be very aerodynamic.
> 
> ...



Maybe I am too tired and shouldn't post this, but I just don't at all accept the idea of a gas engine which constantly starts and stops. I cannot see a way that this will make a car anything but less reliable - once again, maybe I am just not thinking clearly.

As far as station wagons - you can have them. There is a reason that the minivan killed off the market for station wagons - and it has to do with User Experience. If you get a family of 4, a few friends, and some stuff for a trip, the luggage rack on top was full, so the potential gain in aerodynamics was often lost. Even now, if you look at many SUVs and Minivans, they are too small to hold their vacation loads, so there is stuff on top.

Driving to work in the morning around here, aerodynamic effects are not as important due to the relatively low speeds.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 4, 2006)

HarryN said:


> I just don't at all accept the idea of a gas engine which constantly starts and stops. I cannot see a way that this will make a car anything but less reliable...



Sometimes the devil's in the details. Given that current battery technology requires that they be babied, the discharge can not be too deep. Given the car was designed with the idea that it will be started and stopped frequently, it's not too much surprise that taxi services have reported in excess of 150,000 miles in a year with no problems. Given that the engine only runs 50% of the time, the engine wear is decreased. Given that the design parameters called for decreased emissions at start up they carefully spin up the engine to full speed before gas is introduced, ensuring proper lubrication before power is applied.

There are things that can go wrong. There was a bug in the engine control computer's code last year. There were the poorly wearing tires in the 2001 models. There was the electrically assisted steering twitch in the late 2001 models. To the best of my knowledge, the start/stop has not been a culprit.

As for 7 passneger SUVs.... A good point, but quite un-nessesary in my life. Once in 2003 I wanted to take my in-laws and wife to SF. A van would have been nice. We drove 2 cars, though I could have rented an SUV from the car rental place a few blocks from here. I have not wanted to carry more than 5 people since. I know that some folks carry their kid's friends to various functions every week or two. For them it may be worth it to drive a mostly empty van or SUV the rest of the time. The station wagons of old were big, but were not as heavy as a modern SUV and at slow speed stop and go that's what matters.

Of course I have NO room to talk. I have a gas guzzling pickup that I drive once in a blue moon. I could easily sell it and almost never miss it.



Daniel


----------



## HarryN (Mar 4, 2006)

Daniel - how would I find your house if you sell that pickup ?


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 4, 2006)

Heck! How would I find it?

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 4, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Sometimes the devil's in the details.


Agreed! As far as I'm concerned, NO car should idle when stopped. That should be the base line as far as I'm concerned. When people thing of all that starting and stopping, they're thinking about traditional cars with traditional *crappy* starter motors. It is hard to make a motor as unreliable as a standard starter motor - but somehow the auto industry has found just the right recipe for those to need replacing at frequent intervals. A car like the Prius does not have a "starter" motor, and the entire car is designed around getting that engine started instantly, and shutting it off whenever possible. In a month of Prius driving, you probably have a year's worth of starts if done in a traditional car. And it is all good.


----------



## Darell (Mar 4, 2006)

Did I tell you guys (I'm not around much any more!) that I spent some time with a (George Clooney's) Tango?

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/tango.htm


----------



## HarryN (Mar 4, 2006)

Nice Darell.

Any update on your car / truck experiences ?

Also curious - do your pure EV vehicles use the 36 / 42 volt system, or are they higher voltage ?

Thanks

Harry


----------



## Darell (Mar 4, 2006)

HarryN said:


> Nice Darell.
> 
> Any update on your car / truck experiences ?
> 
> Also curious - do your pure EV vehicles use the 36 / 42 volt system, or are they higher voltage ?


Hi Harry - 

Well, the official Darell Vehicle Count is down to two again - finally! The Ranger has been sold, and the stable now consists of the Rav4EV, and the inefficient, polluting 2006 Prius.  (ducks from Daniel)

The Prius is a fabulous car... and in some ways that makes me sad. Reminds of me just how freaking fantastic a modern Toyota EV would be today!

The production EVs all use 12V for the typical powered features (windows, door locks, headlights, etc). Anything that needs more voltage is pulled right off the main traction pack (the heated windshield, for example). Remember that all these cars were designed in the late 80's/early 90's. They were barely talking about higher voltage back then! And with a ~300V pack on board, we don't have much worry about not having enough!


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 5, 2006)

Ya better Duck! I saw your priuschat pages, and you seem to (ahem) gush over your new toy. Un-abashedly!

One of the proposed mild hybrid designs uses a starter/genrator integrated into the flywheel. That's coupled with a 36 pr 48 volt system so the batteries (typically lead acid) aren't damaged by the frequent charge/discharge. The idea behind the mild hybrid is to stop/start the engine on demand so it never idles without a reason. That technique can save a lot of gas all by itself. 

I showed my wife the picture of Clooney's Tango. She asked what ran into it. They may have some aesthetics to work on.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Mar 24, 2006)

HELLO???? 

So, hows the great acetone challenge going guys? 

Darrel, Daniel, did you guys make your prius cars plug in models that get over 100mpg? Solar panel roof tops and rig up some thermal electric generators to make some power from the heat generated at the engine?

Whats the take on the other hybrids from honda, toyota and other fuel efficient cars? Civic, Camery, Insight, etc....


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 25, 2006)

No, I have not modded my Prius. Not going to either.

The PHEV is a neat idea, but you have to carefully balance the entire equation. You can't just increase the storage capacity and expet miracles. Among other things, you have to make a lot of decisions that will affect the battery life cycle, the actual energy use, etc. 

For instance, what happens when you quadruple the battery storage and drive 20 miles, depleteing the traction battery. Under the original design, it would charge the battery till it reaches a fairly high state of charge. That may mean that the gas engine runs for the next 10 to 20 miles even if it's not needed for moving the car. So to prevent this you need to change the algorithms that control the state of charge.

What really surprises me is that no-one is making an econobox version. Remember the VW beetle of the 1950s? It had somthing like 35 HP, was unable to climb a hill unless it was in 1st or 2nd gear and did not have enough power to pass safely at freeway speeds. And it got great milage.

Imagine a cute little 2 +2 commuter car with great aero dynamics and just enough power to handle the 90% of the roads that are realtively flat. Undersize the powerplant so that you have to pause and recharge 1/2 way up the mountain that one time a year that you go to visit grandma. Make it lightweight since it only carries two people and groceries. You could (likely) get 70 to 100 mpg. You could make them cheap. A hybrid Yugo. They would sell like hotcakes if the price of gas rises.

Oh Well.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 25, 2006)

cobb said:


> HELLO????


Howdy.



> Darrel, Daniel, did you guys make your prius cars plug in models that get over 100mpg?


Not me either. I AM working hard toward getting *production* PHEVs on the road, however. The momentum is building, and the thing has awesome bi-partisan support these days, so it sure looks like a green light!

While I haven't modded for extra battery capacity, I've sure as hell modified the car in many other ways!

But mostly I still ride my bike and drive the EV. After five weeks, I've driven the Prius three times for 600 miles total.


----------



## Darell (Mar 25, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Ya better Duck! I saw your priuschat pages, and you seem to (ahem) gush over your new toy. Un-abashedly!


You certainly haven't read anywhere NEAR all my posts then. I'm one of the ugly ducklings over there sine I ***** and moan about how ugly the thing is, and how polluting and inefficient it is compared to my other forms of transportation. Seriously.



> The idea behind the mild hybrid is to stop/start the engine on demand so it never idles without a reason.


As far as I'm concerned, this should be the current baseline. No vehicle should ever "idle."



> I showed my wife the picture of Clooney's Tango. She asked what ran into it. They may have some aesthetics to work on.


I'll respond with what Rick responds to this comment: Feel free to come up with a more attractive design for a stable 4-wheeled vehicle that is narrower than some motorycles and can protect the occupants in a 200mph crash.

Within the constraints of the design goal, there isn't much latitude for style points. Ya want fins? Maybe a bigger good scoop? Not really sure what else can be done. It truly is a marvel of engineering, and serves its purpose well.

And one final note.... this aesthetics comment comes from the owner of a :hahaha:genI Prius?!


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 25, 2006)

One must always address aesthetics when designing a car. It's just a fact of life when selling to the US public. We've been sold for the last 75 years on the idea that style makes a difference. That's the only way that 5 manufacturers of basic 4 wheel, rear drive cars could differentiate their products. 

But don't read much into my comments. I haven't an artistic bone in my body. I take my fashion cues from my wife. SHE's the one that commented that the Tango looks smooshed. She also disliked the looks of the classic Prius for the first 6 months. She's since become quite fond of the car. 

Design is always a trade-off between appearance and function. I've seen many prototypes of high efficiency single person vehicles that had what amounted to a cockpit. Narrow, low and streamlined works well aerodynamically, but the ergonomics suck when you have to park and get out of the car to scratch your nose.

I thought the Tango was cool. I also think the Prius Classic is cool, as is the Prius gen 2.

You do realize, don't you, that the style of the Prius (classic and gen 2) was chosen specifically so that it would stand out, right? You can drive down the freeway at 70 MPH and spot the other Prius 1/2 a mile away. I saw 4 in one parking lot yesterday, 16 total in the 100- mile trip. I only spotted 2 Honda Hybrids and might not have even noticed them if not for the ugly yellow/orange carpool sticker on the bumper. I think I've 'seen' only 1 Accord hybrid. 

The "ugly" design is for product recognition, plain and simple. You can't sell an innovative product to the masses if the masses think that no one else is buying it. Just my opinion.



> this aesthetics comment comes from the owner of a genI Prius?


Hey! Don't dis my ride, man! Isaac is Beautiful with a capital B. 

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Mar 25, 2006)

I am rather disappointed in you guys  , I had hope to read you both were getting 300mpg with a home made plug in option and charger and or towing a trailer with solar panels on it. At least Darrel as he seems pretty creative and handly at modifications to his cars. 

I am rather scared of buying a used inefficient reliable car and wanted to read something about getting hundreds of miles per gallon with the new hybrids, so I could easily justify buying a new one. I hate to buy an insight or diesel smart or some small two seater when I may need more room later on. 

I really dont know how the plug in kits work, but you got a point. Defeats the purpose of using your house power to supplement the battery charging if the car is just going to recharge the batteries anyway. I thought the kit included something to disable the engine or something? I am sure it wouldnt be too hard to rig up something, disable a sensor or something manually to keep the ICE off. 

Sad to see you sold your ev ranger Darrel, I was starting to consider it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 25, 2006)

cobb said:


> I am sure it wouldnt be too hard to rig up something, disable a sensor or something manually to keep the ICE off.



There are many problems with disabling the sensors. You see, the car is designed as an integrated system. As such, it expects things to happen in predictable ways. When a sensor is out of range it may cause all sorts of unforseen complications. That's why modern cars pitch a fit when a sensor goes down.

Here's a low tech example of what I mean. My 1992 ford pickup has an auto tranny with OD. It's actually a pretty smooth unit and has worked well for 60K miles. BUT! One day the speedo stopped working. Just dead. The truck started to shift very roughly and only at the top of it's powerband. Several hundred dollars later I learned that the spedo blew a fuse and that the tranny shift points are dependent on a signal from the speedo. The tranny thought I was going zero MPH so did not want to shift till the engine RPM was close to redline.

Back to the Prius. The ECU flags sensor misreadings a problems. You can force the ICE off but you then run the risk that you will ask the rest of the car to work outside it's design envelope. You also invalidate the internal self checks that keep the car running well.

With sufficient knowledge of the car, you can make changes. It may require re-writing the ECU code. It may require hardware to hide extra extra batteries from the sensors, but it can be done. It's really best done at the factory as part of the integrated design.

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Mar 25, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> One must always address aesthetics when designing a car. It's just a fact of life when selling to the US public. We've been sold for the last 75 years on the idea that style makes a difference. That's the only way that 5 manufacturers of basic 4 wheel, rear drive cars could differentiate their products.
> 
> But don't read much into my comments. I haven't an artistic bone in my body. I take my fashion cues from my wife. SHE's the one that commented that the Tango looks smooshed. She also disliked the looks of the classic Prius for the first 6 months. She's since become quite fond of the car.
> 
> Design is always a trade-off between appearance and function. I've seen many prototypes of high efficiency single person vehicles that had what amounted to a cockpit. Narrow, low and streamlined works well aerodynamically, but the ergonomics suck when you have to park and get out of the car to scratch your nose.



What's that saying oft-quoted in engineering circles? Why, it must be *form follows function.*

Aesthetics are important, no doubt - you have to sell the thing after all... but to put aesthetics at a premium over utlity leads to function compromises.

But people won't have it any other way so we have boxy "utility" vehicles, Ford has the decidedly blunt-nosed new Mustang (brute force seems to be a design theme with the Mustang anyway), and mechanics would complain if there were paneling under cars to reduce that substantial source of drag.

I hate to think what the coefficient of drag is on my truck.

I understand the ergonomics issue. Every time I ride in a friend's 300Z, it's an interesting exercise folding and unfolding my rather tall self when entering and exiting. It was the same with a Celica I used to own - both vehicles look to have slick aerodynamics but they also placed my posterior a mere 9-12" off the ground. Not something every driver wants to deal with.

Ahem - not that aerodynamics are the best place to be looking for efficieincy gains in modern vehicles...


----------



## cobb (Mar 25, 2006)

Daniel, are we talking about the same things? It looks like the battery extender kits for the hybrids hooks in to the stock battery and has 3 times the capacity of the stock one and has a charger. Looks like it feeds the stock battery and if drive slow enough it gives the prius the ability to run on electric alone for up to 100 miles at 38mph. Then the engine kicks on to charge the stock battery only and it operates normally. Kind of like those external batteries for ipods. I guess the second battery pack has a diode or some voltage converter to tie into the system? 

My idea is, why not use some lead acid batteries and give it some real power? Whats 500lbs of batteries in a prius with a single passenger? Just got to match the voltage with quanity or a gizmo to feed into the stock system. Then a charger for the lead acid batteries.

New or newer cars are funny about their sensors? I just cant unplug stuff and stick bbs in hoses? I am sure there is something you can do. I would say ground out the ignition, but we dont want the prius to continue cranking to start an engine that wont go to force it into electric only mode. Wouldnt want it to shut down altogether and make you pull over. 

So, would you guys buy a hybrid now or just wait? Do you serously think they will offer 100-300mpg models or upgrades or is that going to be an aftermarket thing only?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Mar 25, 2006)

I can give an Acetone update of sorts.

I use about 2oz. for every 10 gallons of diesel.

It starts better, doesn't smoke at WOT and seems to have better throttle response.

I see no evidence of better mileage. I know for a fact wind and aero make the most difference in my mileage. In a few cases it seemed that my mileage might not be as good.

I plan to keep using it however!


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 25, 2006)

cobb said:


> New or newer cars are funny about their sensors? I just cant unplug stuff and stick bbs in hoses?



You CAN do all sorts of things. What you can't do is predict with certainty what the impact will be on power, economy and pollution without inside/in-depth knowledge of the overall system. I find many people don't understand the idea a an integrated design, where a change to any subsystem or process affects all the other parts. 

My prediction (and I could be wayyyyyy off here) is that now is as good a time to buy a hybrid as any. In the near future most cars will be hybrid of one sort or another. That means the RESALE of a non-hybrid will be much lower in most cases several years from now. If you hold on to it for 7 - 10 years the gas savings will pay it back. If you sell it in three years you recoup the investment through the higher re-sale and save on teh gas too. Either way you win.

As for throwing 500 lbs in the back of a small sedan.... When driving slow (city), the majority of the power is used in changing the velocity of the car. That's accelerating from 0 to 25 (or whatever the speed limit is). The more weight, the more energy is used to change it's velocity. So adding 500 lbs to a 3000 pound car will require 1/6 more energy. That's a big loss. When moving at higher speeds, the aerodynamics and rolling resistance take the most power.

So no, I would probably not add batteries to a prius unless I had my own solar power generating facility. The electricity in my area is not all that clean, so the well to wheel pollution would not necessarily be significantly better. The possibility of screwing it up is fairly good.

Daniel.


----------



## cobb (Mar 25, 2006)

Playboy, have you considered any chip, computer upgrades to your truck? I know many of the upgrades are designed at making unrelastic power from the engines on those trucks, but a few offer a fuel economy adjustment to the computer.

Man, Daniel, I am rather shocked. If its just a matter of adding 9 extra kilowatts to supplement the stock battery in the prius to get well over 100mpg, wouldnt you do it? I suggested lead acid as the kits use lithion ion. Those I think are a bit much, ten grand for the kit is about half the price of the car. I am sure it can be done cheaper with nickle metals, but you would need to build the pack. I dont think you can get large nickle metal batteries like you can lead acid. Then you got the price too to deal with and avaliability. 

As for resale, I aint selling a car I modify to get well over 100mpg. If I have my way it would get 300mpg. I may buy a second one to modify and sell on ebay. 

If the car seats 4-5 people and has some cargo capacity, it seems a great car to hang on to. Thats another thing going through my mind too. I dont plan on driving multiple cars in my life, one is just fine for me. 

Another idea to get more mpg. What about modifying an automatic tranny to shift at lower rpms. I read in the article I posted that using a higher rear end final drive can give more mpg, what about making the car or truck shift sooner at a lower rpm?


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 26, 2006)

cobb said:


> If its just a matter of adding 9 extra kilowatts to supplement the stock battery in the prius to get well over 100mpg



No need to be shocked (wear rubber gloves  )

First, it's kilowatt hours, not kilowatts. Second, the 100 mpg is a great number, but is it realistic? Only if you stay within 100 miles of home. Once you deplete the aux pack, it becomes a liability, not an asset. Remeber, you have to move that dead weight. Third, a fully depleted Li-ion Li-po or Nimh will have a very limited life. 3 or 4 years or 500 charge/discharge cycles, whichever comes first.

That brings us back to the integration. If Playboy chips his truck, it is certain to add power, economy or pollution. It might increase the engine life or decrease it. His truck is a system where everything is balanced to meet specific paramters, some of which are dictated by law. Other design decisions are based on longevity or drivability. 

An example of integration.
I had a great bike once. A 750CC water cooled two stroke beast that made gobs of horsepower. The bike was made for the power hungry crowd. There were no polution standards to meet. The result? It was very fast, but the power band was narrow and the power was what I call 'twitchy" since you were accelerating or decelerating but holding a stready speed called for a steady throttle hand. It blew a cloud of blue smoke when it was cold. It drank gas (38 MPG IIRC). They could have fixed the pollution, but at the cost of weight and performance. They could have made it less twitchy, but then it would have a flatter power curve and lower peak HP. They could have made it more fuel efficient, but again that would have cut down the all important power.

Back to the EV crowd. Fuel economy is not the most important reason for a hybrid. Reduced pollution is. The Prius was built with that in mind and is one of the cleanest cars on the road despite the fact that it's not the slowest nor the smallest nor even the ugliest. 

The cleanest solution is to buy an EV for around town use, and a hybrid for the times when the EV is insufficient. Darell is doing that.




cobb said:


> What about modifying an automatic tranny to shift at lower rpms


If you shift before you reach the peak of the power band you might not have RPMs high enough to create the power to move you once it shifts.

Example; Car shifts from 1st to 2nd at 3000 RPM (120 hp) and the rpm in second is 1700 (95 hp).
Altered car shifts from 1st to 2nd at 2000 RPM (120 hp) and the rpm in second is 700 (35 hp). The car lugs, and downshifts again.

While you can change the gear ratios, the end result is that the HP applied to the wheels is decreased while the wheel speed is increased. At some point the HP becomes insufficient to maintain the speed. Gear ratios are usually chosen such that the car will be able to reach freeway speeds in a reasonable time (0-60)and yet run the engine as close as possible to the max efficiency (lowest RPM that will deliver sufficient power) at freeway speeds (max MPG). 

Good thinking though.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Mar 26, 2006)

You saying the upgrade is not a good idea driving in the city 22 miles a day round trip? Wouldnt the weigh of the batteries with a single passenger cancel that of carrying 4 passengers and luggage? Didnt someone state earlier they can tell hybrid cars by the hov stickers?

Thanks for the cons. I know we already been around the bush with an EV and to visit my parents at 67 miles one way that made it out of the question and had to own or rent a gas car. I thought maybe with the battery upgrade to the prius I could travel in the city for free for the most part and have the gas engine for longer trips and highway speeds. 

Anything for or against the honda insight?


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 26, 2006)

What I'm probably saying is that if you are only doing 22 miles a day, you don't need to carry around the extra weight of a hybrid's ICE and related components. Even the most elementry EV can do 22 miles. You ask about the impact of 4 passengers + luggage. The extra 500-900 lbs does impact the milage, especially in stop and go driving. Almost no-one routinely spends more than a few minutes with 5 adults and luggage in a car smaller than a van.

If you drive 22 miles a day on city streets, you are burning up only a gallon or less with the average car. That's not a huge amount. A hybrid will minimize the pollution generated in that time.



> I could travel in the city for free for the most part and have the gas engine for longer trips


When it comes to moving things (like cars) there is no such thing as free. Every thing you do is a tradeoff or exchange. Add batteries and you haul more weight. Deplete the battery pack and you shorten it's life. MAke teh engine bigger and it uses more gas. Make it smaller and you may not be able to make it up a mountain. Make the car lighter and you might lose integrity in a crash. 

You can have faster, cleaner or more economical, but seldom can you get all three. It's never free.

I'll repeat the suggestion I made before. A gas hog (they sell cheap in good condition) a few years old for those out of town trips and a fuel efficient low polluting 2 passenger for around town. The drawback is insuring and parking two cars.

Think about it this way. The SUV craze is bassed on the salesman's claims that an SUV can do everything. It can haul kids, take you to the opera, haul lumber and groceries. They don't mention that it only does about 1/2 of that well. It won't hold as much as a pickup, carry as many as a van, handle as well as a sedan nor get the milage of a compact.

If your objective is to create a car with all the benefits of an EV and a Hybrid you'll have to wait for the next generation of batteries, but even then it will be many hundred pounds heavier than it needs to be.

Daniel


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Mar 26, 2006)

Daniel has some REALLY excellent points!!!

As for "chipping" my truck, NO thanks! The tranny in my truck may not like anymore power.

And I plan to pickup some more acetone tomorrow! The smoke reduction and snappier throttle response are reasons enough!


----------



## cobb (Mar 26, 2006)

Thats it  ? Buy an ICE for now for both city and what highway travel, when I can own two cars and park them, drive the EV in the city and save the ICE for the lower trips? If I knew the most I would drive was 22miles round trup a day, I would afree. I may end up driving 60miles round trip to Chesterfield, then if the price of fuel doubles or tripples, it can really hit me.

I wonder if there is a good chance that I can make an ICE car or truck a limited hybrid? Mount an electric motor in the belt pulley system, use a basic speed controller and a few batteries to get 35mph out of it for a few miles in the city. Then turn it off and use the ICE for highway use? I think the saturn hybrid system is very similar to that and back when edision worked with ford, he made a starter that doubled as a generator. I know hooking it to teh drive shaft would be the best idea, but that would be a lot more work and worries than tying into the pulley system. 

I dont know about that, I am guessing since you own a prius its not cracked up to what its ment to be. I know the estimated fuel economy is similar to that of a diesel golf with manual tranny and we know diesels are rather consistant on their fuel economy and nice riding cars. I like the striped down versions of the recaro seat they use in VWs. 

Ive read a few folks who are not happy with the seats in the prius. Being 6,3 322 lbs I may not find the prius or insight that cmfortable to drive or ride for too long, unlike the VW. 

Still after all the bull I blow at work about making hybrid trucks if I win the lottery, I would love to have a prius and do the battery upgrade to prove to them its possible to get hundreds of miles per gallon. I think for the most part they underestimate my intelligence as is and Ive received a lot of grief about being on the highway with them and behind the wheel. 

I still cant believe hauling around 500lbs of batteries would create such a negative impact on the cars performance. Most electric cars have up to a thousand lbs of batteries in them. 

I wonder what 250lbs would do? Its just that you need roughly 500lbs of lead acid to get 10 kilos of storage, which is what the smaller of the two kits for the prius uses, but its kits are lithum, not lead. I guess as long as I have more storage than needed to travel 22miles round trip or what ever my daily travel is on the city streets, I can still get high unrelastic fuel economy as long as I keep the extra batteries charged up and keep the car from using its ICE. 

If it werent for visiting my parents 67 miles a way, Id own a scooter. Maybe an electric one from zap so I could take it inside and charge it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 27, 2006)

This is for Cobb, but others might find it interesting....

I think the point you may be missing is that the Prius is designed as an integrated mechanism. Most cars are, but the Prius is more than most. If you mess with it you change the overall mechansim. Since I don't know what others have heard, I don't know what you think the Prius is supposed to be. I can tell you the economy and pollution are better than or equal to the diesel golf while providing a significantly bigger car. I can tell you I get 4+ times the MPG that my truck gets and twice whay my wife's camry gets.

I can't say which cars you'd be comfortable in. It depends on where your weight is distributed inrelation to your joints. You can answer the question with a 10 minute trip to a toyota dealer. I can tell you I'm 5'9 and 200 lbs and I've been comfortable putting 3000 miles on it in two weeks.

I'd suggest a Prius to you, but you made it clear that it was out of your price range AND that you want an EV. That being the case, the two car solution is the best. A zap acooter could well be your daily transport and a 3 or 4 year old Chevy could be your touring car. When the time comes that you are commuting 60 miles a day, you'd obviously reconfigure to a commuter car that was high MPG and long range, selling one or both of your original vehicles.

I think that's the other point people fail to notice. If you design a car for long distant travel and local use, you have to compromise on both. The gearing has to allow the car to run at 70 as efficiently as it does at 45. The engine has to be sized for going uphill at 65 MPH and passing at freeway speeds. The shape has to be more aerodynamic to minimize drag. 

A car designed for local driving can be more spacious since it does not have to be as aerodynamic. It can have a smaller engine, since passing is not a big concern in city driving. It can have gears closer together or even a CVT to keep the engine nearer it's most efficient RPM for the power requirements of the moment. It can have a smaller fuel tank since it won't be driven as far.

I can travel 20 to 50 miles in all directions without using a freeway. If I had to use a car limited to 55 MPH I could do it without suffering, as long as I had access to a touring car for those once a month trips to visit family.

Sorry if this comes off as testy. I'm tired and can't figure out why people ask for advice/information and then respond with sentences starting with "I still cant believe".

Daniel (over and out)


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

For some reason I'm not getting notifications again, and am behind here! It'll take me a while to catch up, but this just caught my eye...



gadget_lover said:


> No need to be shocked (wear rubber gloves  )
> Second, the 100 mpg is a great number, but is it realistic? Only if you stay within 100 miles of home. Once you deplete the aux pack, it becomes a liability, not an asset.


This sounds suspiciously like getting 100mpg "only" for the first 100 miles is a bad thing. Remember that in my household, the car we use seven days per week only has 100 miles of range. Saying that most cars on most days would not exceed 100 miles is an understatement. For the small "liability" of dragging along the extra weight if you DO happen to exceed 100 miles, the advantages are HUGE for the other 99% of your trips!

I also need to add that the bigger battery most certainly is NOT only a liability after it is "depleted." It does not stay depleted. If you now use the brakes, or coast down a large hill with regen, you actually have a place to put that extra energy! As it is now, I can fill the Prius battery by just going a few hundred feet down a hill. After I've filled the cute little battery, the rest of my kinetic energy is wasted. There's your liability - comes in the form of a small battery - not a big one!

My aquantances who have made plug-in hubrids report nothing but good news about the performance. Yes, the cost is steep, and no I'm not planning on making the modification. That it could be a VERY practical next step for hybrids is undisputed in my mind.

I'm not advocating making the modification - I'm advocating having them built correctly from the factory with substantially more energy capacity - and true EV-ONLY mode. At that point, the ICE is your heavy, stupid liability - not the battery!


----------



## idleprocess (Mar 27, 2006)

I see figures like this time and time again with PHEVs - "500 MPG".

I don't think it's physically possible to move a modern vehicle at any sort of reasonable speed for 500 miles on one gallon of gasoline or the equivalent energy.

For discussion's sake, let's go with a somewhat common figure for gasoline - 36 kilowatt-hours per gallon. *36,000 Wh / 500 miles == 72 Wh/mile*. 72-watt hours is about as much energy as 30 fully-charged 2000mAh NiMH cells or the useful energy in a 7.2 A-H 12V SLA assuming fairly low current draw (C/20 or thereabouts).

It gets better! The best internal combustion engines are around 30% efficient! We're down to around 10 AAs or a 4 A-H 6V SLA.

I think I've made my point.

"500 MPG" only works if you don't count all the energy added from the wall plug, and you almost never have to run the engine for range/energy. It's not a true reflection of vehicle's efficiency because it _ignores the primary energy input!_

I think that PHEVs are a good idea, but if they're pitched on some fantasy "miles per gallon," I think they're going to be called on the carpet...


----------



## ikendu (Mar 27, 2006)

That 500 mpg figure is the mileage in regard to using a gallon of petroleum fuel.

The vehicle gets other energy into its motion from electricity (whatever source might be in use) and biofuels. Ford is developing an Escape hybrid that will run on E85. 

There will be two mileage figures to think about:
...how far on a gallon of fuel
...how far on a gallon of petroleum

Ending our addiction to oil isn't just about stoping the use of liquid fuel.

Last summer, I took a 3-week vacation from Iowa-Ohio-Pennsylvania-Michigan and back to Iowa in my VW Golf TDI (diesel). I didn't have to use a single drop of petroleum for all those miles. When it is warm (above 40F) I can run on 100% soy biodiesel; no petroleum.

EVs don't use any liquid fuel ...so what is their mileage per gallon?

It is important to regard the efficiency of a vehicle for how much energy it needs to move down the road ...we'll probably want a window sticker measured in KW or some such thing that attempts to combine all energies into a single rating (that won't be so easy).

For now, we will struggle with terms like mpg, until we begin to think differently.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 27, 2006)

No offence meant to anyone, but I hate it when people misuse common phrases like MPG. MPG has meant mile per gallon of fuel for the last 100 years or so. To now say that it can mean gallons of petroleum is silly and misleading.

Using such mechanations, I could claim that I consume 1000 calories a day. It's totally true but ignores that the real statement is I consume at least 1000 a day, and most often twice or three times as much.

Then there's the conrtoversy about biodeisel and gasahol. If ethanol takes a significant amount of energy to grow and convert to usable form, shouldn't that be taken into acccount in such specious claims of 500 MPG(*) ?

If you are going to make claims, make them valid. If you use common terms, use them in the common way.

KWh per mile is valid.
MPG of fuel is valid.


The irony of E85 MPG claims; SInce E85 has less energy per volume, your car that will travel 400 miles on a tank of gas will only travel a bit over 300 on E85. 

I'm all for renewable, but it does no one any good if we hide the energy consumption and the chemical waste that goes into transforming it to a usable fuel. It does us a disservice if people make wild claims that are quickly proven to be half truths or innacurate.

For E-85 or Bio-D to be viable it has to scale cleanly. You have to be able to run a plant that makes a million gallons a day without destroying the local environment. Any plan that calls for every arable acre to be planted in the same crop will destroy local ecosystems.

It occurs to me that there is a very simple measure of how much petroleum/external energy really goes into E85 and Bio-D. If the price follows the price fluctuations of oil, then there is a direct tie somewhere. If Bio-D is selling for more than Dino-D then either someone is making a huge profit or someone is having to pay for a lot of energy to cook the product.

OK. Sorry. Soapbox again. 

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 27, 2006)

Darell said:


> This sounds suspiciously like getting 100mpg "only" for the first 100 miles is a bad thing. Remember that in my household, the car we use seven days per week only has 100 miles of range. Saying that most cars on most days would not exceed 100 miles is an understatement. For the small "liability" of dragging along the extra weight if you DO happen to exceed 100 miles, the advantages are HUGE for the other 99% of your trips!



I mention the 100 mpg because it's unrealistic hype that will cause people to turn off when they make their first long run and find that it isn't so. 

To design a car to cover 100% of the possible needs is what got us where we are today. If 99% of your trips are short haul, why carry the extra weight of an ICE? If 99% are long haul, why carry the extra weight of a full sized battery pack?

My hybrid is not asked to deliver dirt. It's not asked to seat 8 people. It's not asked to carry a wide screen TV home from the shop. When I want to haul dirt, I park my car and use a truck. Same for delivering things. I don't tow the truck behind me just in case I see a widescreen TV abandoned alongside the road. But that's what people are doing when picking a car. One out of town trip every 99 days and you haul the long distance equipment with you every day.

I should have a pure EV for the local driving I do, but can't afford an extra car at this time. 



Darell said:


> I also need to add that the bigger battery most certainly is NOT only a liability after it is "depleted." It does not stay depleted. If you now use the brakes, or coast down a large hill with regen, you actually have a place to put that extra energy! As it is now, I can fill the Prius battery by just going a few hundred feet down a hill. After I've filled the cute little battery, the rest of my kinetic energy is wasted. There's your liability - comes in the form of a small battery - not a big one!



First about regen, then the "downhill" recapture. Regen is a wonderful thing. It captures energy that would otherwise be wasted as friction. The problem is that even in the best of all possible worlds, it's not 100% efficient. If you use 10khw climbing a hill at 60 MPH and come down the other side (equal slope and length) you will only recapture a small percentage of that 10khw. The rest will be used to overcome rolling resistance and air resistance. Besides, you want to continue moving as you go down the hill, not come to a stop.

I'm not sure where Darell drives, but I find that my particular Prius battery pack has only maxed out a couple of times in 3 years. Coming down from Reno to sea level is one place, and down the grapevine into the central valley is another. To max out the battery charge requires that you have a long, consistant downhill with no headwind. If there are flat spots on the way the battery is used to overcome the rolling resistance. In short, the stock 7AH battery is pretty darn close to just the right size for the regen that it does. It would be nice if the stock battery could handle a higher charge current to make regen more efficient, but again that would require a lot of changes (generator, wiring, software, battery chemistry, etc).

If the bigger battery in teh PHEV does not stay depleted, then it's being charged by the ICE along with the stock battery. This should make the ICE run longer when it does finally kick in. That sort of defeats the idea of supplementing the power with grid unless you almost never deplete it to the point where it needs to charge. If that's the case you should be using an EV.  If the battery is not depleted when you get home you can't charge it off the grid, so all you are doing is hauling a heavier battery.

If I spent 10K and a lot of time adding an extra battery pack to my car, I'd probably be tempted to paint a rosy picture. Not saying these guys are, just that it's human nature to defend expensive decisions.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

cobb said:


> I still cant believe hauling around 500lbs of batteries would create such a negative impact on the cars performance.


Well. You'll be happy to know that it doesn't. You already know what it is like having two other people in the car. Maybe three? Yes, you can tell a tiny bit, but it isn't anything I'd call significant. And of course if the vehicle is designed for the extra weight (suspension, gearing, etc) then there's little penalty. Yes, you pay more to accelerate the extra mass, and in the grand scheme of things, it is not a huge penalty.


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Then there's the conrtoversy about biodeisel and gasahol. If ethanol takes a significant amount of energy to grow and convert to usable form, shouldn't that be taken into acccount in such specious claims of 500 MPG(*) ?


But what does this miss?

It misses the huge amounts of energy used to make GASOLINE as well. Where does it stop? Where does it make sense? Where does it become a fair comparison.

Many people take gasoline as a "constant." Then when we try to replace it with electricity, they point to all the pollution and energy used to make the electricity (or ethanol or BioD or whatever). But we don't live in a vacuum with our gasoline. That gasoline takes huge amount of energy to make and distribute. But we just forget about that when we compare other sources of energy to replace it?



> If you are going to make claims, make them valid. If you use common terms, use them in the common way.


I agree! And that means counting all the energy/pollution/health issues that it takes to make gasoline... which seems to be ignored more often than not.



> I'm all for renewable, but it does no one any good if we hide the energy consumption and the chemical waste that goes into transforming it to a usable fuel. It does us a disservice if people make wild claims that are quickly proven to be half truths or innacurate.


Which is what I attempt to do about gasoline. Hmm. Maybe I'm wildly off track here. What we need is just ONE energy unit, and then we count all the negatives of a given fuel to produce that one energy unit. And only THEN should we start to talk about efficiency and pollution per mile in a vehicle.



> OK. Sorry. Soapbox again.


got room for two of us?


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> I mention the 100 mpg because it's unrealistic hype that will cause people to turn off when they make their first long run and find that it isn't so.


Makes me wonder if all the Prius drivers are turned off that they aren't seeing 60mpg? As others have pointed out, the only thing that most people understand today is mpg. They will NOT have a freaking clue what kWh/mile means, and until they do... how DO you sell a car that truly gets 100+mpg in the first 100 miles. Write a novel on the sticker to explain it all?



> To design a car to cover 100% of the possible needs is what got us where we are today. If 99% of your trips are short haul, why carry the extra weight of an ICE? If 99% are long haul, why carry the extra weight of a full sized battery pack?


Of course you know I agree with all of this. Yet here we are. People want a car that will do it all, and the PHEV is the car that comes closest to providing it.




> If you use 10khw climbing a hill at 60 MPH and come down the other side (equal slope and length) you will only recapture a small percentage of that 10khw.


True in the current Prius. Not true in a properly-designed large-battery vehicle. The Prius can recapture about 5-10%. My Rav can recapture 50%. And there's my point. Two of the big reasons I can capture more is because I have more storage, and because I have a better generator. 



> I'm not sure where Darell drives


Mostly Sacramento Valley to and around the SF Bay Area. I've maxed my battery more times than I can count, and I only have 700 miles on the car. One issue is that while I'm CLIMBING the hill, the ICE is busy charging the battery (I'm not climbing under full-throttle, obviously!). So at the top, I have a battery at 80%, so it takes very little to top it up. With a bit of finess, it is easy to do in very short order.



> If the bigger battery in teh PHEV does not stay depleted, then it's being charged by the ICE along with the stock battery. This should make the ICE run longer when it does finally kick in.


Ah. I'm gonna dredge up a memory of our first hybrid conversations here... just for grins. I recall you telling me that the battery in the Prius was typically charged by the ICE with "extra" energy that it was producing anyway. I had my issues with that statement (I know.. surprise!) But you were pretty convinced that the ICE didn't have to run more or harder to charge the batteries. So let's go ahead and use that same "free" ICE energy to charge the bigger pack. 

The real answer here? The vehicle has to be designed properly The current Prius (as you've pointed out many times) is not designed to have a larger pack. For what it is, it is a great vehicle. Yet with relatively insignificant changes, it could attain far better lifetime fuel mileage, higher efficiency and less pollution - by adding more battery and a way to charge it off-board. I won't put any numbers on this so I don't get in trouble. 



> That sort of defeats the idea of supplementing the power with grid unless you almost never deplete it to the point where it needs to charge. If that's the case you should be using an EV.


Not true! If you drive 300 miles and, you have only enough battery for 100 miles, you're still WAY ahead of the game when you get to 300 miles and recharge. As I said - the car needs to be designed correctly for this to work, and nothing new needs to be invented. What you're saying here is that if you park your car in the garage at night with any fuel left in the gas tank, then you're just wasting energy. True... but how significant?


> If I spent 10K and a lot of time adding an extra battery pack to my car, I'd probably be tempted to paint a rosy picture. Not saying these guys are, just that it's human nature to defend expensive decisions.


Please don't go there. It isn't fair. No, you aren't saying it, but you are certainly implying that it is likely. I know what has gone into these cars, and these guys have put so much of their own money and blood, sweat and tears into the projects. And what they have is fantastic. Expensive, but fantastic. To cheapen it in this way is a disservice to innovators in every dicipline. If you think that the Prius traction system cannot be improved, you are welcome to your opinion. Most people don't think the ICE vehicle can or should be "improved" - so think about what that means for a moment. The fact is - the Prius CAN be improved, and it has been improved. I've witnessed it personally. We don't advance unless we experiment, and that is what this is all about.

In fact, to put the "defend expensive decisions" comment into perspective - you do realize that most non-hybrid drivers think the same thing of your (our?) defence of the vehicles? And of BEVs, most certainly!


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 27, 2006)

> Ah. I'm gonna dredge up a memory of our first hybrid conversations here... just for grins. I recall you telling me that the battery in the Prius was typically charged by the ICE with "extra" energy that it was producing anyway. I had my issues with that statement (I know.. surprise!) But you were pretty convinced that the ICE didn't have to run more or harder to charge the batteries. So let's go ahead and use that same "free" ICE energy to charge the bigger pack.



There's a big difference between FREE and EXCESS energy. Excess energy happens when it takes X hp to move a vehicle but the engine generates X+Y hp to run at an appropriate speed (due to gearing, effciency or pollution limits). The Y portion can be stored for use later. This can be a net gain as long as the losses of energy storage / retieval don't exceed the increased efficiency of the engine. 

So I don't think there's an inconsistancy. 

It's my understanding that the ICE will run even if the power is not needed to move the vehicle if the battery charge falls too low. The aux pack would require that the ICE run soley to bring it back up to 80%. Given a 100 mile range on electric, the power cycle on a 500 mile trip at freeway speeds would look like this;

0->100 miles, only occasional ICE use when the power requirements exceed what can be provided by the electric motor.

100 -> ??? miles, The battery pack is depleted, the ICE runs continuously (100% duty cycle) to get it up to 80% again.

???->500 the car runs normally, with the ICE running about 50% of the time.

You get home, with the battery pack at 80% or more, charged by running the ICE. You top it off (the last 20%) with the household charger. The battery pack contains energy from a mix of sources; 80% from the ICE and 20 % from the grid.

Under this scenario, the contribution of the grid power is less than 20% of the total energy. There is a strong possibility that the initial aux battery charge is only 20% from the grid too, since 80% charge is the normal charge policy of the hybrid. That only leaves 20% capacity to charge off the grid at any time.

Now if you set it up so the extra pack is charged only at home, the first 100 miles is primarily on grid power, the balance is ICE at 50% duty cycle, and the aux battery pack is recharged off the grid at the end of the day.

Sorry that mention of the human impulse to validate their decisions is upsetting. It's a valid fact that has to be factored into all reports of progress. It's not deception, it's the tendancy to ignore or gloss over the minor problems and inconvieniences. Yes, we are often accused of being in love with our cars. And we all know love is blind. I could probably find a hundred faults with it if I really, really tried. The fact that the faults don't come to mind is good enough for me. 

The main design change I'd like to see is the ICE staying off till the first time it's really needed so that the 1 mile trip to the store on 35 mph streets could stay electric. The ICE starts up (on gen 1) as a self check so that you don't get to a busy intersection and find the ICE is broken. Once it starts, it runs till it reaches operating temperature. 

Lots of room on teh soap box Darell. Hop right on.



Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> 100 -> ??? miles, The battery pack is depleted, the ICE runs continuously (100% duty cycle) to get it up to 80% again.


This, however, is not how it works, nor how it should work. The process is called "charge depletion" because you effectively deplete the charge and leave it there. In some iterations, the small HV battery remains in place, and after the big battery is depleted, it remains depleted and just uses the HV battery as it always had - unless there is excess charge via regen - then that can be stored in the large pack for later use. The SOC level of the large pack is kept at a level that does not harm the battery.



> You get home, with the battery pack at 80% or more, charged by running the ICE. You top it off (the last 20%) with the household charger.


You get home to an almost empty battery, and charge it from the grid. 



> The main design change I'd like to see is the ICE staying off till the first time it's really needed so that the 1 mile trip to the store on 35 mph streets could stay electric.


You just add the EV mode button that all other markets get as a factory option. I did this before the car was 4-hours old. 



> The ICE starts up (on gen 1) as a self check so that you don't get to a busy intersection and find the ICE is broken. Once it starts, it runs till it reaches operating temperature.


Normally does the same thing on Gen2.



> Lots of room on teh soap box Darell. Hop right on.


And I appreciate that... and our discussions.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 27, 2006)

Darell said:


> gadget_lover said:
> 
> 
> > 100 -> ??? miles, The battery pack is depleted, the ICE runs continuously (100% duty cycle) to get it up to 80% again.
> ...



Now that makes sense, but is not the scenario mentioned in the post above. If I was looking at a PHEV I'd want only a 10 to 20 mile range to minimize hauling extra weight and to minimize cost. That works for me since about 50% of my milage is short hops followed by being parked. The next gen of batteries should be able to handle high charge rates and deep discharge at the same time. They are due this year. WHOOPIE!

I wish the EV mode button was an option on the gen 1. Last I looked it was only for gen2 models.

Are you sure you are getting 100% charge on your trips to SF? There are almost no hills between Sac and SF except the Oakland hills, and I never get 100% charge going over them. I know that the gen 1 display looks full when it's not. I wonder if the gen2 display was changed to mollify drivers, showing a full battery when it's actually just at the target. 

BTW, going back a post or two.... The question was asked whether all the Prius drivers are turned off that they aren't seeing 60mpg? The answer is no. But that is the biggest single complaint. The MPG on the window does not match real life. This has lead to some folks griping loudly that they will never recoup their investment in the car. Of course, they are comparing their real life Prius milage against the EPA estimate for all other cars, so the reasoning is not really valid. 

I would rather see EPA figures that are low so the word of mouth would be that it's even better than advertised. 

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Are you sure you are getting 100% charge on your trips to SF?


As sure as anybody ever can be with the crude instrumentation. Two green bars is as full as the Prius allows.



> There are almost no hills between Sac and SF except the Oakland hills


You missed the one in Vallejo... and all the ones in SF!



> I know that the gen 1 display looks full when it's not.


How can you tell? The Prius battery is NEVER allowed to go to 100% SOC, of course. When I say "full" I mean the point at which the battery is no longer allowed to charge. That point is reached when two green bars show on my display. No sense in arguing about it one way or the other. The fact still remains that the capacity is miniscule, the car attempts to charge the battery even up hill, and regen is terribly inefficient. We can change ALL of those aspects, and have a more efficient vehicle.



> I wonder if the gen2 display was changed to mollify drivers, showing a full battery when it's actually just at the target.


We have blue bars for "target" and green for full. 



> I would rather see EPA figures that are low so the word of mouth would be that it's even better than advertised.


Hard enough to sell the Prius to Joe Six Pack. Now tell him the mileage is "just" 40mpg and see how he responds. Most folks don't care how "clean" the Prius is. By far, most people ONLY want to pay less at the gas pump, and have no other use for a hybrid.


----------



## cobb (Mar 27, 2006)

Daniel, thanks. I think I see where you are coming from. I can use the pack for short range, but need to remove it for long trips? Maybe a better idea to make this a tow behind unit like the rav4 extender trailer? 

Yeah, 23-26 grand is a bit much, so's 10 grand for a kia ICE car or 15 for a diesel vw. If I am going to finance a car for life, just as well get something with some value and benefits down the road with the price of gas. Didnt it rise 15 cents today alone? 

I discovered from a call to a toyota dealer they are plentyful, new and used. No waiting list at all. 

Idle, yeah, I would trade gasoline for electricity to get from point a-b. Still not traveling for free unless I plug in at the shop, still not completely environmentally clean. I am sure some of the fuel too would evaporate, some burned during the warm up stage if I do not completed disable the ice so it wont run at all, yet the car drives on electric only. 

Darrel, whats your opinion of the solar panel roof top since you mentioned it back a few hundred pages? Doesnt that supplement the cars batteries along the lines the extra battery pack does? How much weight does that add? Do you think its worth it, not counting the price of the panel?

So, whats the general opinion of the additional battery packs or a plug in hybrid va FUEL ECONOMY? 

Sure it would skew the data for someone who did short range trips vs long ones, but so does doing city stop and go driving vs highway in a pure ice car. Instead of getting a fraction of the EPA highway fuel economy for city driving, you get some high figure. Then again, most hybrids give better city than highway fuel economy. That was one of the bases for my idea of a hybrid truck. Sure there are long haul hauler, but many just go a few miles down the road and back. Others just drive in the city making deliveries or picking up.


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2006)

cobb said:


> I discovered from a call to a toyota dealer they are plentyful, new and used. No waiting list at all.


What are plentiful? New and used Prii? Wow! You sure don't live anywhere near me. My dealer didn't even have one for me to test drive before I purchased.



> Darrel, whats your opinion of the solar panel roof top since you mentioned it back a few hundred pages? Doesnt that supplement the cars batteries along the lines the extra battery pack does? How much weight does that add? Do you think its worth it, not counting the price of the panel?


Well, if I don't have to count the price of the panel, then my answer is "Yes! Well worth not paying for!" But the price of the panel is what makes it impractical, of course. The weight isn't the issue, and if you use the low-efficiency-yet-still-expensive flexible ones, aerodynamics isn't a problem either (they just conform to the roof). The problem is how much you gain after spending many thousands of dollars. The answer is, somewhere around 1 mile of range per day. On a perfect day, you may see three extra miles. Basically, you'll increase your range by the amount you can comfortably walk! At this point it isn't worth it. If you invest in PV, put it on the roof of your home or parking structure where it can do some good ALL day long. Once you park in the shade or in the garage, etc - the PV on your car is just an expensive mistake. The the car is not driven much, and is parked outside in teh sun all day, there may be a case made. And that was my plan for the Ranger. But that same idea (not really using the car) is what also lead me to sell it. 



> So, whats the general opinion of the additional battery packs or a plug in hybrid va FUEL ECONOMY?


Not sure I really understand. The more battery you use (and more electricity you use) will typically mean that you burn less fuel. So Fuel Economy goes up with additional battery capacity - in general.



> Then again, most hybrids give better city than highway fuel economy.


For accuracy - most hybrids get better *EPA-listed* mpg in the city. In reality, the mileage figures are about equal (depending on what you call city driving these days) or even worse than highway driving. Obviously it'll be different for everybody, but the reality is that hybrids are not getting significantly better city numbers than highway numbers - again... in general.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 27, 2006)

Darell said:


> gadget_lover said:
> 
> 
> > There are almost no hills between Sac and SF except the Oakland hills
> ...



The new Prius must have a radically different charge indicator. I don't count it as a hill unless the ICE shuts off for at least 5 continuous minutes. In SF it's always Up a hill followed by right back Down again, so I never have seen a full charge there.

Where I have seen a full charge is the times when I'm going down a steep mountain for 15 or 20 minutes straight. Like the mountains in southern Oregon or coming back from Reno, where you are dropping 5,000 alttude in 20 or 30 miles. Those are the ones where you'd drop your car into second to preserve the brakes, and the trucks have a 30 MPH limit. 

Driving over coastal hills (such as the 1,800 foot pass that takes Highway 17 into Santa Cruz) doesn't quite fill my battery to capacity. The altamont pass (summit elevation of 721) does not usually top it off either. It would be nice if the regen of the Prius Gen2 was that much more efficient.

As for selling to joe sixpack, it would probably be easier to sell him if the EPA figure said 40 but all his friends brag they got 55, instead of the EPA saying 60 and all his friends complain that they only get 55. It's all in the perception. 

I could, of course, be wrong. 

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Mar 27, 2006)

cobb said:


> Darrel, whats your opinion of the solar panel roof top since you mentioned it back a few hundred pages? Doesnt that supplement the cars batteries along the lines the extra battery pack does? How much weight does that add? Do you think its worth it, not counting the price of the panel?



I'll step in for Darrel.

It's probably not worth it. You're going to have to modify the charging system extensively to accept input from the PV array. Using commonly-available cells, you might get around 200 watts from an area the size of the Prius roof - maybe double that if you pay through the nose for the most efficient available. Commonly-available cells will run _around_ $2000 - the custom build running you signifiganly more than that. The price for high-performance cells will be astronomical.

The good news is that a 200W array can probably charge up your battery pack with about 8 hours of solid sunlight, 0-100%

The bad news is that this will make very little difference in your fuel economy since the battery pack seems to operate at 40-80% SOC.

So ... you dropped > $2000 to add an additional few hundred watt-hours of energy into the Prius's ~1.4kWh pack. Say your array can make the jump from 40% to 80% - that's 560 Wh.

Assuming 40 MPG, the Prius uses about 900 watt-hours per mile in terms of gasoline (~36 kWH/gallon), probably less in terms of electrical power since electric drive is far more efficient (no thermal conversions). Let's say it's around 400.

Your PV array adds enough energy to travel a bit less than a mile-and-a-half. I don't care to amortize that difference in fuel consumption until gas prices are a great deal more expensive than all the worst-case predictions out there.


----------



## Brock (Mar 29, 2006)

Which gets us back to cost of typical grid electricity ($.15kw) vs. $2.50 for a gallon of gas. I know Darell is using solar to charge and I would think anyone serious about any EV or plug-in hybrid would at the very least use off peak? So at $2.50 a gallon what does that come to in KW in the RAV4? Or the Prius if we can figure that out?

In other words, bottom line, is at what point it is cheaper to plug in a hybrid then to fill it with additional gasoline. I know I am ignoring everything else, but I believe bottom line for the end users is what is going to make or break the plug-in hybrid.


----------



## Darell (Mar 29, 2006)

Brock said:


> Which gets us back to cost of typical grid electricity ($.15kw) vs. $2.50 for a gallon of gas. I know Darell is using solar to charge and I would think anyone serious about any EV or plug-in hybrid would at the very least use off peak? So at $2.50 a gallon what does that come to in KW in the RAV4? Or the Prius if we can figure that out?
> 
> In other words, bottom line, is at what point it is cheaper to plug in a hybrid then to fill it with additional gasoline. I know I am ignoring everything else, but I believe bottom line for the end users is what is going to make or break the plug-in hybrid.


A gallon of gas costs less than a gallon's worth of electrons. But we must now also add in the efficienty of USING that energy. On one gallon of gas, the average passenger vehicle drives less than 25 miles. On one gallon of gas worth of electrons, an un-aerodynamic EV will go about 130 miles - about 5x as efficient in using the energy.

So if we're doing this just for cost, assume 3.5 miles/kWh from the socket vs. 25mpg from the gas pump.

So with $2.50 for gas, it is $2.50 to drive 25 miles in a gas car. At $0.15/kwh, it is $1.07 to drive the same 25 miles in the Rav4EV.

Or... 10c/mile in the ICE compared to 4c/mile in the Rav.

And this is ONLY if we ignore every other expense of both fuels and ONLY look at the "price at the pump."


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 29, 2006)

That's a real good question to ask, Brock.

Looking at Darell's EV page I see he uses .275 kwh per mile. A hypothetical 30 mile day will use about 8.250 kwh. Doing some reverse engineering, I see the Prius (generating it's own electricty) is using about .674 kwh per mile. Driving 30 miles per day in the Prius will take about .6 gallons of gas (assuming 50mpg for ease of calculations).

Since I'm in California, there are wierd rates. As a rough example, up to 12kwh per day is one rate, each kwh from 12kw to 24 kw is twice that, and from 24 to 36 kwh is 3 times that. Over 36kwh is 4 times the initial rate. Thatr's averaged, and does not matter if the energy is drawn all on one day or evenly throughout the month. This makes it real hard to determine in advance the exact cost of any particular kwh.

We usually hit at least the second tier each month. So adding 8.25 kwh per day will cost me $0.21788 per kwh or $1.79 per day. At $2.50 for regular, that .6 gallons costs me $1.50.

I could go to a time of use metering, but that really adds to the complexity. The rate would drop to $0.17463 per kwh but my daytime use would jump to $0.29372 (at baseline) so that might be a net loss.

I could fudge the numbers a bit in several different directions. I could drop the Prius MPG to 42 (my worst ever tank) and boost the cost of gas to $3.25. That gives $2.32 for 30 miles. I could assume that I'm paying only baseline rates of $0.11430 to charge my car since I threw out the stove, refigerator, TV and computers and use a wood stove for heating. That gives me just $0.94 per day for 30 miles of driving.

I'd say that the average Prius owner who does not have a solar installation will not see the break-even point unless they can buy a kwh for less than roughly 7.5% of what they pay a gallon of gas. In some areas of the country that is possible, in others it is not. BTW, that break-even does not include the cost of the battery pack upgrade.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 29, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> BTW, that break-even does not include the cost of the battery pack upgrade.


Neither does it include the non-quantifiable national security costs...

There are NO easy answers - you can only hope to compare apples to apples and hope it can mean something to somebody. Even if electricity were 5x more expensive than it is now, I still say it is the fuel we should be using.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 29, 2006)

There are other considerations besides straight money....

I like having the cleanest car on the block. I was in a big city yesterday and was aghast at the fumes in a short tunnel, expecially since those fumes were the norm in open air when I was 10 years old.

Then there's the availability factor. During the embargo of the 1970s (1974, IIRC) gas was just in short supply. I remember wasting a gallon of gas inching along a 1/2 mile long line at the gas station. Should this happen again, Darell will be sitting pretty. 

And there's the options. I have no options when it comes to supplying gas for my car. I can't grow enough corn or other crops to make my own fuel. I can't drill for oil nor refine it if I could drill. I can (with a fairly modest outlay) generate electricity and store it for use in an electric car. Some days being self sufficient seems like a nice option.

I'd agree with Darell on the non-quantifiable national security costs except that I'm pretty sure the wars are being fought for reasons other than oil. Afghanistan is not, to my knowledge an oil exporter. We are not allowed to discuss politics nor religion here, so I'll leave it at that. 

Daniel


----------



## BB (Mar 29, 2006)

Darrel,

If I recall correctly, you have E7 for your home and E9 for your electric vehicles (separate electric meters)...

How does PG&E's murky disclaimer (link to PG&E Tariffs):



> BASELINE RATES: Baseline rates are applicable only to separately metered residential use and exclude separately metered EV battery chargers or NGV fueling stations. PG&E may require the customer to file with it a Declaration of Eligibility for Baseline Quantities for Residential Rates.



really work in real life? Do you have a separate base-line quantity for each meter--or do the base-lines get added for both meters to calculate the effective power rates?

If each base-line account is separate, then getting an E9 (TOU for alternative energy vehicles) can really save some money.

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 29, 2006)

Wow! E-9 is great. Only $0.04965 (5 cents) for the first 13-18 kwh (depending on baseline which is based on location which makes no sense for EV charging but what the heck it does not make sense anyway) during off peak.

13kwh is almost 50 miles per day in the Rav4EV. 13kwh at .05 each is only 65 cents plus meter charges( another 22 cents per day), compared to (today) 2.10 for 50 miles in the Prius. As long as that rate is available and as long as your usage satays below tha magic baseline, it's a good deal. Add a second car doing 50 miles per day and you pay $0.13764 per kwh, so the second car makes less sense, but still is pretty good at $1.79 for 50 miles.

Long range commuters who have to fill their 26K pack every day will have a slightly higher penalty; 13kw at .05, 7kw at .137, 6 kw at .26 for a total of $3.16 a day for a 100 mile round trip commute. The cost per mile for the last 6kw is a touch over 7 cents.

Obviously the EV is a surefire winner for local use with TOU metering and EV pricing for energy.

Daniel


----------



## BB (Mar 29, 2006)

G_L,

TOU with Grid Tied Solar (in California under PG&E) is great... If you are currently getting into 2nd Tier (or higher) of baseline, the Solar "pays" off the higher rates first--so your payback is much quicker. And, roughly 1/2 of your power (if you choose the noon-6pm E7 rate) is generated during the higher rates.

To install a TOU meter, PG&E will charge you $277 for the install, and hold you to a one year minimum contract.

Overall, since I have installed my 3kW (peak rated) panels and E7 meter last September 23, 2005 thru today (March 29th, 2006) I have only used 20-30 kWhrs net total from PG&E--and because of TOU charges, I have about $35 or so credit in my account (paying roughly $5-$6 minimum connection/billing charge per month for electricity). (Inverter has produced about 2,100 kWhrs of power since 9/2/06)

I hope to go extremely positive during summer so that when the electric car becomes available that I have the reserves to power it (close to netting zero power).

-Bill


----------



## cobb (Mar 29, 2006)

FYI, the toyota dealers are in the 23227 area code, Richmond, VA. Priority Toyota. THe power here is about 5 cents a kilo. 

I did some math to get a rough idea what I am looking at money wise.

27 grand for a prius at the high end, / 60 months with no interest factored in = 450 a month

15 grand for a diesel vw / 60 months = 250 a month

10 grand kia / 60 months = 166 a month

500 bucks for bubbas truck that gets 4mpg, who cares, its paid for.  

Considering the fuel economy seems to be going up, think I will wait and just do the advice to buy an old truck from the suv crase to drive 22 miles a day round trip. I bet with swapping out the final drive and keeping it in first gear I can get it down to 2mpg.


----------



## ikendu (Mar 29, 2006)

gadget_lover wrote:

I'd agree with Darell on the non-quantifiable national security costs except that I'm pretty sure the wars are being fought for reasons other than oil. Afghanistan is not, to my knowledge an oil exporter. We are not allowed to discuss politics nor religion here, so I'll leave it at that. 

Daniel

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So... without getting into the politics, here is just a bit of history:

1905 Constitutional "revolution" in Iran replaces the rule of the Shah monarchy
1908 British discover oil in Iran
1912 British navy switches from coal to oil
1914 British Gov't invests 51% in Anglo-Persian oil company
1951 Iran elects Mossadegh Prime Minister
… British oil agreement dissolved
… Hague World Court sides with Iran on the dissolution
… British Intelligence coup attempt foiled, British thrown out of Iran
1952 British ask Pres. Truman to overthrow Iran's gov't; he refuses
1953 Pres. Eisenhower agrees to coup, CIA installs Shah Reza Pahlavi
… Shah rules next 26 yrs.; holds power with SAVAK secret police & torture
... everyday Iranians see the linkage of U.S. support to the repression of the Shah
1979 Pres. Carter allows ailing Shah U.S. treatment, American embassy hostages
… Anti-American riots have picture placards of Prime Minister Mossadegh
… 2nd oil disruption of the 70's triggers more recessions
… Iran becomes a sponsor of terrorist acts against the West

This is just Iran. For Iraq, the British have now invaded and occupied Iraq four times in the last 100 years since their navy switched from coal to oil. They never did invade prior to that. Is this a coincidence? I don't believe so.

If the "Christian west" invades Muslim countries or subverts their democracy by engineered coups, do the neighboring countries like Afganistan notice? I think they do. 

So... yes. Afganistan is no oil producer. However, I don't think that means that the way they view the west is not influenced by what western countries have done in the region for the last couple of centuries (like Britain's invasion and occupation of India). The reasons for our wars in the Gulf go back further than 9-11. The seeds were sown many years before.

Energy Independence is not a partisan issue. It is what allows us to have a fair and even foreign policy without regard to whether or not a country can cut off our oil supply. Energy Independence is freedom from the coercive power of a resource that we must have; controlled by foreign governments.


----------



## Darell (Mar 29, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> I'd agree with Darell on the non-quantifiable national security costs except that I'm pretty sure the wars are being fought for reasons other than oil.


You'll never hear me say that recent wars have been exclusively, or even *mainly* for oil. My only point was that much of our foreign policy is most definitely based on our oil needs. And like you've wisely done... I'll leave it at that too.


----------



## Darell (Mar 29, 2006)

BB said:


> Darrel,
> 
> If I recall correctly, you have E7 for your home and E9 for your electric vehicles (separate electric meters)...


I have just one meter now. E7. We won't get into exactly what I *should* have, and why. It would roughly be a wash if I had two meters - one specifically for the EV... I just didn't want the headache.



> How does PG&E's murky disclaimer (link to PG&E Tariffs):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The tariffs are currently screwed up beyond belief. And we have a small EV/PV volunteer commission trying to straighten it all out. Regardless of the number of meters, we've never had more than one baseline, so we don't get to double-dip. In fact, what they're doing lately is charging our PRODUCTION against the baseline. Yup, you heard right (and if you're on E7, you're getting nicked by this too!). Doesn't matter what your NET usage is, they count your production against you - bumping almost everybody who managed to stay into tier one into at LEAST tier two.


----------



## Darell (Mar 29, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Wow! E-9 is great. Only $0.04965 (5 cents) for the first 13-18 kwh (depending on baseline which is based on location which makes no sense for EV charging but what the heck it does not make sense anyway) during off peak.


We pay roughly half the regular residential rate for off-peak power, and we pay about 3x the residential rate for on-peak. In my opinion, that's how we should ALL be billed. Why is power the same price regardless of how expensive it is to make? We have folks running their pool pumps and AC (using more power than my car charger draws!) at any time of the day, for the same price of doing it during off-peak hours. Makes no sense.



> Long range commuters who have to fill their 26K pack every day will have a slightly higher penalty; 13kw at .05, 7kw at .137, 6 kw at .26 for a total of $3.16 a day for a 100 mile round trip commute. The cost per mile for the last 6kw is a touch over 7 cents.
> 
> Obviously the EV is a surefire winner for local use with TOU metering and EV pricing for energy.


Now just imagine all this with solar panels producing more power than your EV consumes. Ahhhh.


----------



## Darell (Mar 29, 2006)

cobb said:


> I did some math to get a rough idea what I am looking at money wise.
> 
> 27 grand for a prius at the high end, / 60 months with no interest factored in = 450 a month


I'm not sure why you'd include a fully-loaded Prius in the same list as the other cars. You're getting leather interior, GPS, HID, reverse camera, VSC, Smart Key System, blue tooth integration, countless airbags, 6-disk JBL in-dash stereo, Automatic Climate Control... almost an endless list of goodies that are not anywhere to be found on the other vehicles you have listed. At least use the stripper Prius at ~22k... though even that has items that are found on no other car in the price class.


----------



## NewBie (Mar 29, 2006)

Isn't this thread over the 300 or 400 post per thread, and by the rules used in other threads, it needs to be locked and restarted, right?


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 30, 2006)

I'm sorry to hear that the PG&E tariffs are that screwed up. They really have it so complex that it's almost impossible to use the tariffs to plan your energy expenditures. It should help to know that the tariffs are created by political process, not by the free markets. When I worked at PG&E there were periodic announcements of what great work had been done creating a new tariff that the PUC (Public Utility Commision) would accept without asking for major concessions. That knowledge, unfortunately, does not help.

For those outside the Public Utility industry, a Tariff is a set of legally binding conditions and rates for selling product to the public. They are generally proposed by the utility and modified/approved by a government body such as the PUC or the FCC. Each state can have their own PUC. Most phone, power and water companies have to work with tariffs at some level. At one point cable TV companies had to file tariffs too.

The nice thing about tarrifs is that you can bring suit in court to enforce them. 

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 30, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Isn't this thread over the 300 or 400 post per thread, and by the rules used in other threads, it needs to be locked and restarted, right?


That rule is no longer valid with the new software, and long threads have not been chopped up since then.

However... for practicality we probably SHOULD start a new one anyway. Anybody have anything significant to start it with? Go ahead and start one if you do, and I'll lock this one up... just put a pointer from this one, please.


----------



## BB (Mar 30, 2006)

Darell said:


> ...The tariffs are currently screwed up beyond belief. And we have a small EV/PV volunteer commission trying to straighten it all out. Regardless of the number of meters, we've never had more than one baseline, so we don't get to double-dip. *In fact, what they're doing lately is charging our PRODUCTION against the baseline.* Yup, you heard right (and if you're on E7, you're getting nicked by this too!). Doesn't matter what your NET usage is, they count your production against you - bumping almost everybody who managed to stay into tier one into at LEAST tier two.



Hi Darell,

How do they do that??? Looking at my 11 page E-Net bills (E7 rate), it appears that Peak and Off-Peak are treated as completely separate accounts--so it seems they can't use PEAK generation to mess with OFF-PEAK use or anything like that...

I spent several hours one day trying to figure out why my bill seemed to be off by a couple of bucks and came to the conclusion that every gray area in the billing/tariff was decided in the favor of PG&E--go figure!

Since the billed energy is calculated per month--then if you generate over baseline--and it appears on the bill that they looked at PEAK and OFF-PEAK as separate accounts. So--if my PEAK account was at 130% of baseline--I should get a TIER-1 credit of baseline rate on 100% of baseline and a TIER-2 credit on the next 30% of baseline... And OFF-PEAK would be calculated the same way based on its baseline amounts and rate TIERs...

Now, I thought that PG&E would not want to "pay" (really credit) me for generating above baseline (effectively paying me a 3x to 5x funny money in summer for energy I may have spent in winter)--So, I thought I may see something strange like getting only TIER-1 credits (billing rates) for generating over baseline... Or whatever...

However, since I have my system only since late September (in terms of E-NET billing)--I have not seen any generation over TIER-1/100% baseline yet...

Pray tell, in what new and wonderful way will PG&E be scr*w*ng me this summer??? Do I actually have to watch my power generation and either cut my solar panels for a week or two every month (or put a space heater in the back yard)?

1kWatts of HID backyard lights on all night during summer to tick-off the neighbors? 

-Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 30, 2006)

It's quite possible that you guys are the only ones in your respective service areas to have your specific types of installations. I imagine (based on Darell's laments) that there are only a few thousand users with the electric car rate in Calif. It could easily be that the local service rep just does not understand the tariff.


Any time you think that PG&E or any other power company is screwing you by misapplying the tariff you can file a complaint with the PUC. Same if you think the tariff is written incorrectly or flawed. TURN ( http://www.turn.org/ ) will be happy to pursue justice for you. That's their stated goal.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Mar 30, 2006)

BB said:


> Hi Darell,
> 
> How do they do that???


Way more complicated than I have time or inclination to type here! I will send you the specific info off-line however.



> However, since I have my system only since late September (in terms of E-NET billing)--I have not seen any generation over TIER-1/100% baseline yet...


Yup... it is that 100% baseline stuff where the problem lies. PG&E thought we were robbing them blind if we generated over 100% in one period, and consumed in others.



> Pray tell, in what new and wonderful way will PG&E be scr*w*ng me this summer???


It is looking good - like we'll get it ironed out in a couple more billing cycles. Some folks are putting in some serious time on this, as you'll see when I send you the info.


----------



## Darell (Mar 30, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> It's quite possible that you guys are the only ones in your respective service areas to have your specific types of installations. I imagine (based on Darell's laments) that there are only a few thousand users with the electric car rate in Calif. It could easily be that the local service rep just does not understand the tariff.


Bill and I are on the same tariff, actually. The special EV rate (E-9) is what I was on before I became a generator - then I switched to E-7 for everything. There aren't all that many of us. But enough thousands of us to make a stink about them screwing us!...and certainly enough of us for them not to have an excuse for what they're doing.



> Any time you think that PG&E or any other power company is screwing you by misapplying the tariff you can file a complaint with the PUC. Daniel


Sounds like you have some experience here, Daniel!  Yes, we're all over this. The PUC is currently ALMOST as confused as PG&E, but we're getting there!


----------



## Brock (Mar 30, 2006)

> 27 grand for a prius at the high end, / 60 months with no interest factored in = 450 a month
> 
> 15 grand for a diesel vw / 60 months = 250 a month
> 
> ...



Cobb (or someone) you need to add the cost of fuel to all of these at their MPG rating for a real comparison. So many people leave out the cost of fuel over the life of a car.


----------



## Brock (Mar 30, 2006)

So Darell I am paying .0515 for off peak and .19 for on peak. I need to get an electric car. Right now my daily round trip is right about 25 miles so if I take the

Van to work uses 1 gallon of RUG or $2.50 (25 mpg)
TDI to work uses .5 gallons of diesel or $1.25 (50 mpg)
EV to work uses 7.15 kw @ .19 on peak or $1.35
EV to work uses 7.15 kw @ .101 reg rates or $.72
EV to work uses 7.15 kw @ .052 off peak or $.36

While I agree with not wanting our dependence to be on oil, I think until people understand these numbers it won’t matter. And I agree that there are so many costs hidden with all energy sources be it gas, Bio fuels, electricity and even solar electric it is bottom line cost that will drive consumers.

I need a PHEV (plug in hybrid electric vehicle)


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 30, 2006)

I' worked at the utilities and have seen their response to PUC inquiries from the inside. They are taken very seriously.

I was skimmimng through the tariffs for PGE, and it appears that both E7 and NEM apply at the same time. Is that optional? You probably have to apply for NEM (Net Metering) as I don't imagine they'd search you out.

On another issue....
I think Cobb was simply illustrating the short term economics of the options available to people in his position. When you don't have extra resources you have to look only at day to day expenses (as I recall from that time of my life).

Daniel 

Daniel


----------



## BB (Mar 30, 2006)

G_L

Yes, you can have both E7 TOU metering with Net Metering... You can choose E7 without Net Metering (but I don't think you can have a GT solar system), and you can choose Net Metering with any standard residential rate (net metering required if you will be placing any energy back into the grid???).

Darell sent me an email _*to PG&E *(mistake on my part--originally I thought it was from PG&E)_ explaining how TOU Metering works with Net Metering... At this point, having a BS in Engineering appears not does not give me enough "higher math knowledge" to figure out PG&E explanations without a bunch more study. You cannot use the E7 rate sheet to calculate your E7 bill if you use more than baseline. Especially with Net Metering and Solar Generation thrown in with multiple tiers.

It appears that PG&E needs _(changed from "has")_ an eight step process to figure out the bill (including a known problem when some bills can end up with a divide by zero problem). *[update #2: forget this paragraph--from what I have, there is no PG&E bill calcluation formulas present. So, for now, just leave it as "Net Metered multi-tiered E7 Bills are not obvious as how one is to calculate them."]*

California schooling--no wonder they are ranked where they are at these days. Did the Eron guys come from here???

-Bill


----------



## Brock (Mar 30, 2006)

Daniel I agree completly that often what is considered in the purchase of a car is the here and now cost, understandably so. I just like to look out ahead, I often spend more now to avoid cost later on, 1/2 the time it pays off


----------



## cobb (Mar 30, 2006)

Darrel 22 grand for regular prius / 60 months = 366 a month. WOW, much cheaper, I can almost afford that. 

I know many who attack hybrids use the fuel price, vs savings to see if its affordable to go the hybrid route. Ive never considered the cost of fuel vs use. 

Its the security knowing I can get to point a and b on so much gas and I can afford that til it reaches 15 bucks a gallon. So, my starting comfort point is about 40mpg. The only reason the prius hybrid appealed to me is the fact it COULD get 100-150 mpg with more battery capacity if externally charged. None of the other hybrids appeal to me. 

Speaking of hybrids, anyone see southpark last night?

Any hope for a ford e350 gas van with automatic tranny? Its a contractors van thats been used, but kept up. I think that would give me a lot of room and capacity for batteries to make it an EV. Whats the capacity of it, 9600 lbs? Maybe I can make it a hybrid with some monster garage engineering by welding a sprocket to the drive shaft and mounting an electric motor under the body to the frame and simple off/on speed controller and a few batteries?


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 30, 2006)

> Maybe I can make it a hybrid with some monster garage engineering by welding a sprocket to the drive shaft and mounting an electric motor under the body to the frame and simple off/on speed controller and a few batteries?



That would probably "worK" in that it would move the van. It would not do it smoothly, and would quickly start breaking welds and things. 

In the 1960's there was some neat poor man's controllers built out of the oddest parts. One controller had a coffee can sized cylinder with wedge shaped contact plates. The cylinder spun at some RPM. The brushes slid from side to side, giving a crude but serviceable high current PWM (pulse width modulation) controller. It had to be serviced occasionally, but back in the 60's cars needed tune-ups every 3k miles or so.

EV's in the 60's did not become mainstream for many reasons, including the battery and charging technologies. Almost as important was that they had to be used differently. If you are willing to do things like manually switch from ICE to electric, and to service mechanical parts frequently, and put up with minor quirks there is no reason one can not build a nice 1960's era BEV with 2006 know-how and (in some cases) 2006 technologies.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Apr 2, 2006)

Daniel, I would need to investigate the kits vs parts. Regan braking is a good thing to have, but seems easiest to have with it built into a controller. I know one of the geo metro kits they had one with a relay that used your mannal tranny to get 35mph with 3 batteries. With an automatic tranny it would be rather wasteful, but possibility a fun ride. 

My idea was to use the ice to get around, once up to speed, turn the ice off and the large knife switch on to a bank of batteries to allow me to maintain highway speeds. Otherwise I would need a good speed controller to keep from breaking stuff. The click bang method of controlling electric motors is dangerous. 

I still cant think my way clearer on this. I talked to my parents this weekend about my concerns about the unknown, price of gas 10-20 years down the road. I told them the kia and vw diesel did not have room for upgrades and get 38, 4? mpg. THe prius can be upgraded and the insight gets 60/66. 

The conversation after a visit to the criminalone website and kbb to see the finance info and they seem to think the honda insight is what they would get, assuming I get a better job first before buying/ordering it. 

Funny thing is, the insight by honda is a hybrid, who knew? Maybe it can be upgraded for 100s of mpg in the future? Second is, the kbb website said it would cost more 5 years down the road in maintenance vs the kia. I thought hondas were well built, much like toyotas? Anyway, they said they would shy away from the vw and go for the toyota corolla next. 

So.....? Why not much conversation on the insight?


----------



## Darell (Apr 2, 2006)

cobb said:


> Funny thing is, the insight by honda is a hybrid, who knew?


Yup, the first one Honda made, and still made today... and still the highest mileage hybrid we have on the road.



> So.....? Why not much conversation on the insight?


I hear about them all the time. But then I run around in different circles.  They aren't the most practical cars (low and two seats), and of all the hybrids on the road, I've heard of the most problems from them (of course they've also been ON the road almost the longest). They're still great, efficient vehicles for commuting though!


----------



## cobb (Apr 2, 2006)

Darell said:


> Yup, the first one Honda made, and still made today... and still the highest mileage hybrid we have on the road.
> 
> I've heard of the most problems from them........



Highest mileage hybrid? Man, why doesnt anyone seems to care? My parents were along those line in their thinking and that when the warranty runs out, likely some aftermarket kits to expand the range and I could add that without voiding the warranty. 

So, whats the most problems from them? You left me hanging. My dad owned one of the first civics with the 3 barrel carburator and the hundreds of vacuum hoses that worked it, it never worked for him. He did have the cool red fog lamps on his bumper. 

I did see one of the insights in retrospect on the far right of the highway one day, it was going like 45mph. THe rear fender skirts give it away. The rear was full of bumper stickers, so not sure if he was going slower for optimal fuel economy or it has a speed limit. 

I know all about underpowered cars. I use to own a dasher, riden in a geometro with 3 fat guys and an old vw golf diesel that used to tow a chipper with a loaded hatch and stuff on the roof w/5 people. That golf many times was unable to maintain highway speed in 5th gear, it would lug down and had to ride in 4th instead. 

Speaking of power and circles, I was reading something on AOL a few weeks ago where this guy was making a new car that got 300mpg on an 11hp engine. It looks like an egg and the wheels were also egg shaped pods that attached to the car. It was made out of composities and it was a shoe string budget with a lot of testing being done in his driveway/sidewalk with his suv. Ive seen the acceleration first hand in quite a few small cars with at least a liter or 2 engine, I cant imagine the wait with 11hp. Not to mention the creak in the back to get in and out of the pod.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 2, 2006)

I don't hear about them as much either. Of course, with the internet you can hunt down any subject you want. The Insight is addressing a very specific, narrow market. It appeals to folks who might otherwise be driving a Mazda Miata on their 10 to 50 mile commute. I see about as many Insights as I do Miatas in recent times.

I would not suggest a hybrid for a person's first car for a very simple reason. It's the one you learn in. There's an astonomically high chance that it will be in a wreck within months. I always suggest a low value, high mass disposable clunker for a first car.

There is so little that can be predicted 10 to 20 years ahead of time. Most of us don't even try. All it takes is one administration to really, really push fully subsidized mass transit and gas prices may become irrelevant for many years. It's also possible that your high milage car of today may become the gas guzzler of tomorrow.

Wouldn't that be a kick?

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Apr 4, 2006)

cobb said:


> Highest mileage hybrid? Man, why doesnt anyone seems to care?


Maybe the same reason nobody cares about ZERO mileage vehicles like mine? :thinking: It isn't an SUV, so there's obviously no market for it. We know that "commuting" is just for sissies anyway. Need a BIG car for that.

Just for you, I found a place that specializes in converting these great cars:
http://www.cloudelectric.com/item.jhtml;$sessionid$M3PQMOYAAAK0ZTZENUFZPQWPERWRJPX0?UCIDs=866086%7C881991&PRID=1541019 - sure the conversion will cost more than you would be willing to pay for the car alone, but there it is. The fuel is sure cheap!



> So, whats the most problems from them?


Lots of explained little issues where the car just quits. Seems to be the only hybrid with battery issues as well. Not sure what really happend. They're becoming somewhat of a cult car. Odd that they are not advertised at ALL Any more, yet they're still made, and sold.



> not sure if he was going slower for optimal fuel economy or it has a speed limit.


They are fully highway capable, and not all that underpowered. They should be able to top 100mph, and there are several mass cars on the road with slower accel. They aren't rocket-ships, but they've got more than enough "go" to get the job done.


----------



## cobb (Apr 6, 2006)

I think I tried cloud, but they had nothing in stock at the time. going to recheck them out. I had thought about them and using the metro as a doner shell when we talked about that making it to a hybrid.

Darrel, the problem with your rav4 is the limited range between fill ups. That dependence on those pesky over head transmission lines. Thats where the hybrids accel, no range limits and 8 hour fillups. 

If the used ford ranger you had could do 100 miles per recharge, I would of likely bought it. I could of done 4gs a few months ago, no problem. Use my employee discount at work to get the batteries. Its not uncommon to have some old rental trucks shipped to us from CA from our former national rental program. After more thought, research and the shock at how many batteries the geo would take, it was a no brainer to get a range or s10 truck for an ev. 

Looks like the e350 van maybe the deal for now. Owner said he would also help me get my license included with the price of 2gs.


----------



## Darell (Apr 6, 2006)

cobb said:


> Darrel, the problem with your rav4 is the limited range between fill ups. That dependence on those pesky over head transmission lines. Thats where the hybrids accel, no range limits and 8 hour fillups.


I'd rather rely on the pesky transmission lines and domestic energy than on oil coming from an unstable, non-democratic country! No contest there. Yes, hybrids excel at being gasoline cars, I agree.

We've been over the range thing too many times before. The Rav (and all production EVs) were designed and built in the late 80's/early 90's, with resultant battery technology. Today's cars wouldn't have the same range or recharge limitations. As it is, we manage to put 12k miles on the Rav every year, so it isn't cramping us all that much, ya know? I know of Two Ravs that have over 80k miles on them after three years. 100+ mile range isn't as big a deal as most people assume. Obviously a show stopper for some.



> If the used ford ranger you had could do 100 miles per recharge, I would of likely bought it. I could of done 4gs a few months ago


$4k? You realize that I sold the Ranger for $15k, yes? That's a truck with no warranty, and only 50 mile range.


----------



## cobb (Apr 6, 2006)

No cpf discount Darell?  

If I bought it, I planned on adding extra batteries. Maybe this van I could do the same? 

Well 100 miles may seem like a lot, but we forget about worse case situations where you have one charging location and the return trip. I live 11 miles from work, 22 miles round trip. My parents both commuted anywhere from 50-75 miles roughly one way. A guy at work commutes from VA Beach to Richmond daily. I know with 64 its a hour and half run, but thats got to be a few miles. Sure he could plug in at work. 

Anyway, my parents had to buy gas this afternoon. They dont think my buying the insight or prius is such a bad idea if I get a better paying job.


----------



## Darell (Apr 6, 2006)

cobb said:


> No cpf discount Darell?  /quote]
> Well, water under the bridge now!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 7, 2006)

Darell said:


> That's insane. And obviously not the norm. The problem here isn't the range of an EV - the problem is the length of the commute!



50-75 miles isn't an "oddball" commute in Dallas, although it's quite far; there are some hardcore folks commuting 120+ miles daily... each way! I'm sure that as a CA resident you're aware of some of the mind-boggling daily commutes that your fellow residents undergo each day. I hear that 2-3 hours _each way_ is not uncommon around LA and the Bay Area...

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - the 50-100 miles being pitched as "enough" range for EVs will suffice for most commuters most of the time, but not enough of the time.

For example: I was actually toying with the concept of the low-end Tango when I realized that "50-80" miles' range (closer to 50 at highway speeds) would cut it for strict commuting to and from work, but if I wanted to run errands not along my commuting route, I'd be hosed. If I wanted to go to Fort Worth or even visit a friend on the other side of town after work, I wouldn't even make it.

I can already hear the EV advocates clamoring about "public charging." I _might_ somehow, someway, in another universe get my employer to install an outlet and "EV parking," but I'm not optomistic. Charging anywhere other than at home and at work (unlikely) isn't really an option. Even with direct AC charging... it's simply not available just anywhere at the higher voltages/currents that would make it a 2-4 hour affair instead of an 8-12 hour affair.

So... as it stands now, I have a commuter vehicle that's sufficient for 95% of my daily needs, but that means every other week I'll be unable to do something I wouldn't have to worry about with my gas vehicle.

Any new EVs need to be a 99.99% solution, not a 95% solution. A cross-country trip is that 0.01% scenario; driving double to triple your daily commute on random days is a 5% scenario.

I know, that's where PHEV cuts in... but those are being proposed with 20-40 mile EV ranges. If I _still_ run the engine 50% of the time, why pay that big premium for PHEV? When it comes down to the brass tacks of financing the thing, it may well be a questionable proposition...


----------



## NewBie (Apr 7, 2006)

I don't feel 80 mile commutes are out of the norm at all, in reality, they are quite common, imho.

There are five of my co-workers who live by me that commute the same 80 mile distance I do, and two more that commute even further. 

On the weekends, it is very common (nearly every weekend) for me to put in a 200-300 mile trip on one of the two days, and sometimes further.

Three times this winter, I put in +1,000 mile weekend trips, and in November I did a 1,800 mile trip. A straight up EV could not have made any of the trips.

In your 300 mile no-gas Nevada example, are you saying there are public EV electric sources every 50 miles or whatever? I know plenty of loggers that toss severa 20 gallon gas cans in the back to extend their range for their commutes...and it is not uncommon for them to add a permanent hard tank back there.

The instant refill ability is very important to me. Maybe we could get them to design the EV with universal swapable packs, so a fella could pull off, station swaps them, and off you go again.

Though, for much of the city types you find in California, an EV would be a great vehicle for that limited crowd. Maybe they should just outlaw ICE vehicles for those that live in the city, for city commutes...


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 7, 2006)

anyone care to speculate or toss out some approximate or even widely inaccurate number for how much power one needs on average for those long commutes? 

I'm wondering how heavy a diesel generator one would have to bring to extend the mileage to "enough". For my part I would probably not bother driving any longer in one day than 7-8 hours and in this country I'd get around 350 miles away in that time.

If one planned ahead, one could start the gen immedietely when one were going out on a long trip.

For example if you are averaging 50mph at 20KW, with a 20KWH battery, then your range is 50miles. if you add a 10kW gen, you double the range. with 15kw the range is quadrupled.
I think it's brilliant since it can make ecological cars as versatile as "smokers".


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 7, 2006)

The concept of doing a homebrew "strong serial hybrid" has been discussed before in at least one incarnation of this thread.

The problem is that a conventional 10kW generator - be it gas, diesel, whatever - is typically too heavy and too large to be adapted to automotive use, unless you care to sacrafice all the trunk space in a large sedan or most of the bed in a pickup truck. The typical generator is also _less_ efficient than the average automobile engine and almost certainly pollutes more. I'm also not sure I'd want to operate a generator in a moving car - they seem to prefer remaining stationary and isolated from vibration.

This is not to say that you couldn't devise something clever. AC Propulsion built an EV range-extending trailer using a motorocycle engine that's relatively small and light.


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 7, 2006)

neat trailer. Haven't seen no hybrids here, I wonder why; hence the question.
I didn't have a specific project in mind though. I just can't see any large part of the population here owning a pure EV as their only vehicle; there isn't even a city in this country, just towns. also we have maybe the cheapest gas in Europe compared to our income. Doesn't matter if the genset outsmokes a car engine if you hardly ever use it. Probably they do because of being unregulated?

Was gengas/wood gas discussed here too?


----------



## James S (Apr 7, 2006)

I"m not buying the argument that people need more than the already spoken about daily range.

There is a huge market segment of people that own 2 cars, one is driven almost exclusively back and forth to work and the other back and forth to school and the store and for shopping. with 2 cars to choose from it would be very easy to replace one with an EV for daily commutes and keep the other as an ICE or hybrid for longer trips that make up a smaller percentage of the use of a car.

My family is like this. I recently replaced my ancient saturn with a Mazda5 hatchback/wagon/suv/whatever you call it. This car still gets amazing gas milage compared to any SUV but it will seat 6 (as long as the 2 in the back back are kids  ) and easily carry us on long trips. In another year or 2 my wifes accord will be up for replacement. She drives it back and forth to work and around town to the various hospitals she has to visit during the day. Once a week she has to drive a longer distance to visit a clinic further away. That would be perfect for an EV. just about 50 miles on an average day, take the EV. Once a week drive my car and I'll take the EV to school to get the kids that day.

This does not encompass everybody, so if you commute 80 miles each way or more then you aren't the target audience for the first round of EV cars. Thats OK, there are a HUGE number of families that ARE, more than enough to sustain a HUGE market for the car manufacturer that is brave enough to get back into that market.

But just because you dont believe that 100% of the people driving a car can be completely served by a 100 mile a day range, doesn't mean that it's not a viable and profitable market to be in!


----------



## BentHeadTX (Apr 7, 2006)

Counting my mileage for today,
Went to work, went to the air terminal, went home. Total distance about 4 to 5 miles. Plugged in for two hours and went back to work, stopped off at a friends house and went home (another 3 to 4 miles) 
The reason I "plugged in" was my vehicle is an electric scooter. A heavily modified Schwinn S600 with a 1000 watt brushless motor and 36V 14Ah SVR AGM cell battery pack. Been running the SVR pack for 5 months and no matter what the family does, they have never killed the pack. 
Normally, I ride my bike to work and the scooter is the runabout to pick up things etc. The fact that the pack has never fully discharged shows the low amount of miles in daily use. My family members know to plug in the charger after using the scooter (36V 2 amp "smart charger" for AGM SLA) 
My perfect EV would be a very small pickup truck that holds two people and a 1.3 meter (4 foot) bed with fold down sides. Throw two 20KW (26 HP) 360 volt hub motors on the thing and a range of 40 miles. If A123 systems gets off their butts and builds 120AH nanotechnology lithium-ion packs. Figure about 140KG (310 lb) of batteries would do it. Since the aerodynamic pickup would only weight around 600 KG (1325 pounds) I think the small truck would be fast enough for freeway use and general commuting. As long as the battery packs don't cost more than $5,000 and they last longer than 5 years, it should be successful. 
Make sure the charger can do 120V 12 amps for slow charging anywere or 220V 30A for your house. Not sure if gas stations would go for 480 3-phase 200A fast charging (A123 states they can charge the packs in 15 minutes) I can see if what A123 states as true, and they can make long life li-ion safe packs that have a 5+ year life... maybe electric work vehicles can become a reality. The small pickup makes sense to me since it can haul things the family hauler car won't do. A small electric pickup and gas sedan would be ideal for my family. At least until fuel cells or 5 minute speed charging becomes common with 200 mile battery range. 
For now, my experimental 1.35 HP 36V scooter is demonstrating that I don't need two tons of steel to get most of my transport needs satisfied.


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2006)

Man... you guys sure don't need me around any more. Hmmm. Maybe you never did? :thinking: 

OK, so I do have some rather unique shots of the Rav trailer on my site: 
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/rav_longranger.htm

And I can tell you that this is a totally viable solution to limiltless range in an EV. As shown here, the Rav can drive until the gas tank runs dry, and gets about 30mpg at 60mph. so if you did this for the few trips a year you needed it, and ran around in pure EV mode the rest of the time, you'd be set to just have one car.

These pictures are from a friend who drive it non-stop (except for human rest-stops!) from LA to Lake Tahoe. Toyota would not allow any of the three existing proto trailers to be sold to the public. Last we knew of them, they are sitting in a warehouse rotting away silently.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 7, 2006)

James S said:


> I"m not buying the argument that people need more than the already spoken about daily range.
> 
> There is a huge market segment of people that own 2 cars, one is driven almost exclusively back and forth to work and the other back and forth to school and the store and for shopping. with 2 cars to choose from it would be very easy to replace one with an EV for daily commutes and keep the other as an ICE or hybrid for longer trips that make up a smaller percentage of the use of a car.



We will have to agree to disagree.

Inadequate range and lack of charging infrastructure are two of the top reasons people don't want to buy EVs _(we'll ignore the fundamental "lack of availability" problem)_.

The range issue is what it is - lead-acid batteries don't have the energy density to offer much range, economy of scale never materialized on NiMH, all lithium-ion concept EVs are just that - concept - and all the other vaporware energy-storage technologies out there have yet to condense into solid form.

Charging infrastructure is something that's a real sore point. All production EVs have _most_ of the charging electronics built in to the vehicles, but they used one of 3 interfaces to offboard "chargers" that were expensive and - outside of California - don't exist in quantity _(and even in CA seem to be a dying breed)_. The two inductive charging standards add no small amount of cost and complexity to a vehicle.

I'm not sure why the automakers took the offboard-charging path. They dreamed of selling EV chargers to businesses and consumers; some market for high-power "electric fueling stations" that could charge an EV in 10 minutes? Regardless, offboard chargers are an _impediment_ to market acceptance. The electrical grid is everywhere and economical to extend; EV chargers are neither.

If there needs to be some semi-intelligent box at the wall, let it be a simple thing that knows what the breaker is rated for, communicates that to the EV, and will shutoff the flow of current should the EV load get near the limit so as not to trip the breaker.

Back to the range issue - how well do you _really_ plan your day? I have a 40 mile round-trip commute. Most days I go to and from work with no side trips. Some days I deviate - I go out to lunch, run an errand or several, forget to do something on the way to or from work, visit a friend on the other side of town, etc. On an average day, I have enough gas in the tank to double or triple the number of miles driven _without even having to think about it_. It's rare that I have to refuel anywhere other than the gas station nearest my apartment - _without planning ahead_.

I can only afford to own one vehicle. I can't afford to rent a car once or twice a month to drive across town, and the market for doing so is highly inconvenient - especially for a 2nd-shift worker like myself.

If there's a second generation of EVs, there's going to be minimal infrastructure for them at first save for whatever recharging setup you have at home. I suspect that early-adopters will learn quite quickly to plan their route exactingly if they have to operate close to the range of their EV regularly. You should read some of the discussions on EV lists - what's routine with ICE cars requires detailed planning with EVs... and infrastructure is not at all reliable for today's EVs.

Also - there's so very little basis for comparison. Save for the handful of production EVs leased/sold to fleet operators and enthusiasts, there are no other comparable vehicles on the road with similar range/refueling issues. Motorcycles are the closest I can think of on range, but they typically don't stand in for family vehicles, and they can easily refuel like an ICE car.


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2006)

I give up. I spend 30 minutes on my first reply. Lost it. Spend 20 minutes on the second reply. Lost it.

You know what I was going to say anyway.


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.


I'll try this one last time. VERY short. If I lose it again, I'm gonna come kill somebody, Idle - watch your back.

Are you seriously disagreeing with what James said? I've gotta say that shocks me. I can only assume that I'm missing something here. Basically, he is saying that an EV would work quite well for many two-vehicle households. That's MILLIONS of two-vehicle households where one car never drivers more than 50 miles in a day. I'm a bit surprised to hear you repeat the tired, "since I can't have two cars, then EVs won't work for anybody" line. How many times have we heard that? And why doesn't it make any more sense now than it did before? EVs are not perfect. They are not a good solution for some people (same as motorcycles, trucks, SUVs, Prius, etc) yet EVs have a place. For a typical commuter (no, not YOU maybe) they are the perfect solution. If they don't work for YOUR situation, they would not work for anybody else's situation? What did I miss?

Also a bit surprised about your take on the charging infrastructure (since you are obviously a part of our little EV community now ) Contrary to what you posted, we have MORE usable public chargers today than we did last year. And more last year than the year before. We're putting in new ones quite regularly - and this is all done while we have NO more cars. I can only imagine it would go faster if there was also demand! And yes, you hear about some unreliable ones - but you don't hear about the other 1200 that work correctly - every day. We get some unreliable ones because we don't have enough cars to use them/check them regularly, and they get vandalized. These are not insurmountable hurdles, but are a symptom of the underlying problem of not having EVs on the road! And the BIGGEST problem we have is gasoline cars (mostly Prii in CA these days) who block the dang chargers.

And I'll leave it at that so I only lose a few minutes of typing this time...


----------



## James S (Apr 7, 2006)

> I can only afford to own one vehicle



Umm, so how is my suggestion that a 2 car family might be able to use a limited range EV worthy of your argument at all? Seems you're not a member of the demographic that I was mentioning at all 

As far as the infrastructure, are you talking about public charging stations with a specialized external charging box? If I only used 50 miles of my range each day then there would be no problem just charging overnight from a regular old 20 amp outlet in the garage to recoup that amount of power. And there would be no excessive strain on the overall electrical infrastructure as the things would be phased in slowly, like every other car model and give the electric company plenty of time to watch the trends and upgrade infrastructure where it was going to be needed. Nobody makes everybody in a city switch over night  If you want to do high speed charging somewhere as you go on a long trip, then thats another issue completely and it has absolutely no bearing on my suggestion that it would be the gas powered car that I'd take cross country and leave the EV at home during spring break trips.

And stop worrying about battery technology that didn't come down in price years ago when the car companies never got beyond a pilot program stage. Selling a few hundred cars will not bring down the price of a nice NiMH pack, selling a few tens of thousands will. And if a company were to design such a car today, I doubt it would have an NiMH pack anyway, but I'm very confident that it wont have a lead acid pack.

I agree with your problems completely if you were a single car family or person trying to adapt to a limited range EV tomorrow. But luckily I wasn't actually suggesting that you do that  I was suggesting that I do it with our second car that would fit quite nicely 99% of the time into what we use it for.


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2006)

You hold him down, James, and I'll get the rope. 

I just know he'll come back here and respond that he was either drunk, or meant something entirely different than we read.


----------



## cobb (Apr 7, 2006)

Darrel, I am 28. I know what you and Daniel are trying to say, but you have to remember we live with ignorant people in an igonorant world. Those who use their cell phone as a cordless and wonder why their bill is 300 bucks, or sues the diamond corporation cause they lit a match and burned themselves. 


My parents lived in two cities where the neighborhood ran down hill, they wanted to live in a rural area away from the crime. I live in the county next to the city as its cheaper. 600 a month vs 1200 for rent. 

Let me ask you Darrel, have you even forget to charge you cell phone or found a light or some portable device that was dead or nearly dead that is battery powered? Did you ever forget to plug in your car? You know of an EV for 20 grand about the time i get ready to buy a car, let me know. 

As for the home made hybrid, with the best generator in the northerntool catalog, you get 12 mpg. Sure with little use, you can offset it going on electric most of the time. The problem was explained fairly well in a nut shell. Basically generators are worse than using a engine connected to the wheels, more room for energy losses. THen the weight of the generator. 

I think Darrels car takes 29 killos to go 100 miles or a few hundred watts a mile/minute at highway speed 60mph on level surface. I dont recall, but its less than 400 watts. Dont forget to factor in a few for use of AC or the heat pump. I think that runs 1200 watts an hour. He has nickle metal batteries taht fit under hte floor and between the floor pan, with lead acid you are looking at 1500 lbs in batteries or 28 group 24s, 50lbs each. You really need a cargo van or small pickup truck like an s10 or ranger to make a decent EV for 100 miles range.


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2006)

cobb said:


> Let me ask you Darrel, have you even forget to charge you cell phone or found a light or some portable device that was dead or nearly dead that is battery powered? Did you ever forget to plug in your car?


Yup, yup, and yup.

I've also lost my keys, run out of gas, and left the windows down in the rain. Doing stupid things is not EV-specific.  Probably the worst thing that's happened to me in a gas car that could never happen in an EV is filling up a tank with watered gasoline. Talk about screwed! And that's not a bone-head move that I could control. Ended up costing me two weeks without the car, and about $850 to figure out and fix the problem... and that was AFTER the tow and the messed up vacation. But I digress...

In the five+ years that my wife has been comuting in an EV, we ended up with not enough charge in the car once. She took the gas car that day. Considering how many times we've had to make other transportation arrangements when the gas car has needed a service visit (oil change, etc) this little issues wasn't very significant. But it happens, yes.

:wave: OK, guys... we're heading out for spring break, so don't expect my pithy replies for a bit.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 8, 2006)

Hm, Darrel skipped town, eh?

Nevermind my remarks about charging infrastructure. Let's just say that I _really_ dislike the way it was done with the last group of EVs - too costly, too proprietary, too inconvenient.

Perhaps I was reading too much into the complaints I hear on the EV list. It's hard to shake the feeling that the public charging infrastructure is crumbling with the stories about public chargers not working, disappearing, etc....

Anyway...

I was going into the problems if you happen to have a daily commute that's close to the edge of your EV's nominal daily range - all of this quite independent of your theoretical two-car family. If it's 50 miles nominal range and you drive 40, then you might run into some mobility problems if you have to make even a small deviation. If your round-trip is 20 miles, then a commuter vehicle with 50 miles' range will probably work just dandy assuming any errands you have to run aren't too far out of the way.

This post is really just summarizing my range comments in my previous post, which you did not really address...


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 8, 2006)

Gosh James, I said "as their only vehicle". I didn't say it wouldn't be convenient for a family with two cars. So either you was talking to someone else or you didn't understand my query. There are a few EV's here, but no hybrids that I know of. and the market for hybrids should be *bigger* than for pure EV's I think.

The trailer thing seems great. I guess that makes the car a hybrid.


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 8, 2006)

You probably didn't discuss wood gas then. In scandinavia, especially sweden, during and after WW2 and in the depression too maybe, there were alot of cars converted to run gas that comes from incomplete combustion of wood or coal.

Some of the comments I heard about it is that it is an explosion hazard, and that there is a risk of CO poisoning. You also loose probably about 20% of your horsepowers. Also the tar is not good for the engine so you need good filtering or have a shorter life of the engine, I think.
There are simple methods of making a non-explosive wood-gas generator and filters (a vacuum system so that gases doesn't escape), at a very low cost and with simple tools. As far as I know they still aren't used by more than perhaps a handful, not sure. I haven't read any extensive testing of such simple systems, but there are a few stationary generators around. These often have bigger cyclone filters and other stuff that doesn't lend itself to the adaption in vehicles.

*Any* extra work makes a system less attractive to most people here. One just needs to look at how much is paid to mechanics to do simple things like changing oil. 
It also takes up space and you get a lower mpg. However I can think of many areas in the world where such a tech could be put to enormous use. I want to try it myself if I ever get a car, I imagine having unlimited range, as long as I can find a branch or two, or some cow/horse/goat/yak/camel dung or something.


----------



## Darell (Apr 8, 2006)

idleprocess said:


> This post is really just summarizing my range comments in my previous post, which you did not really address...


Oh, I addressed the hell out of 'em. THREE times now. Just lost it again. I freaking give up. Good night, and good-bye! :wave:


----------



## Darell (Apr 8, 2006)

Can't speak to the wood gas thing. No clue.



AilSnail said:


> *Any* extra work makes a system less attractive to most people here. One just needs to look at how much is paid to mechanics to do simple things like changing oil.


Interesting to bring this up. This is what *I* sure like about EVs. No tuneups and no oil changes. Does that make EVs more attractive to anybody else?



> I want to try it myself if I ever get a car, I imagine having unlimited range, as long as I can find a branch or two, or some cow/horse/goat/yak/camel dung or something.


Imagine how much easier it would be to find a power outlet... instead of Yak dung.


----------



## Darell (Apr 8, 2006)

Wow. As long as my replies are like five lines or less, I'm good. But if I spend hours writing many paragraphs I seem to lose it every time.

There's a big silver lining for the rest of you guys.


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 8, 2006)

Also the "stratified downdraft gasifier" that I was talking about is apparenty not very good relative to its brethren, when it comes to changes in load. Only vehicule I've seen it on is a tractor.

Regarding upgrading of regular cars to become hybrids though: I see this have been discussed? I like the thought of buying a cheap old car and stuffing an electric drive in it. Chevies and many other 4wd has a transfer case that can be put in neutral. So what about connecting the el-drive between the tranny and transfer. Then you could put the tranny in neutral and drive electric, put it in gear and drive ICE/el, or charge with the ICE with the motor as generator, or put the transfer in neutral and charge while standing still? Also I think some transfers can be changed while rolling, so you'd have two gears on the electric? I haven't put alot of thought in it since batteries are so expensive. I think I have a 25kw monster but it is induction 3phase 380VAC. No idea what switching mechanisms would be required.


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 8, 2006)

Where there is yak dung there likely isn't a power outlet. Yes as I mentioned there are different demographics for each of the technologies and solutions.


----------



## ikendu (Apr 8, 2006)

I've been following these threads now for several years. 

And... I've seen the exact same themes rehashed over and over; EV range, recharge time and single vehicle ownership. 

It isn't likely that an EV will work as the single vehicle for a really large group of customers. However, it is very likely that an EV will work quite well for a huge group of two vehicle households. It sure would with mine. I'd own one right this very moment if there was a viable production vehicle I could buy (I'll have mine as a convertible, please).

Now, having summarized years of EV threads...

The real arbiter of this discussion will boil down to a simple factor (IMHO). Gasoline (our most popular vehicle fuel) is only going to get more and more expensive. You can already see it. We've already seen calculations that gasoline already costs THREE times what it costs for electricity to move a vehicle down the road. Later, that will be FOUR times, then FIVE times... and so on.

If we have some kind of lengthy fuel disruption (another Katrina style hurricane or a terror attack that succeeds on a Saudi oil terminal ...similar to the two that were attempted recently), Americans will simply find they can't even get the liquid fuel they want.

If gasoline costs 3x+ over electricity and you can't even be sure of getting it when you want it... you will see Americans begging to buy an EV. All our debates on this issue will be rendered moot. The market will decide. If our U.S. manufacturers continue to keep their heads in the sand, some foreign manufacturer will step in and get the job done.

Here is the heartbreak part. GM (where I worked for 17 years as an engineer) already had a viable, production EV. Darrel drove one (EV1) for years. Does GM need a fast selling, popular model? They sure do. Sure seems like it might "save their bacon" to get back into this market. I wonder if they will.


BTW... Biodiesel (that I've been advocating as an alternative fuel for years) is finally breaking through the volume pricing barrier. Right now, here is the pricing in my area (Iowa):

$2.40/gal Factory made biodiesel
$2.60/gal Petroleum diesel
$2.60/gal Gasoline

So ...not only does my 2003 VW Golf TDI (diesel) get excellent mileage (EPA rated at 49 mpg), it will run on THE cheapest liquid fuel available today; biodiesel. Biodiesel is locally produced, pure (no wierd extra chemicals like sulfur), clean, renewable, etc. Part of our future will also be locally produced biofuels that stimulate our economy (biodiesel and ethanol plants are springing up all over the midwest creating many construction and plant operation jobs). Biodiesel capacity is going from about 50 million gallons annual capacity to 850 million gallons in the next couple of years.

All good. EVs and alt fuels will happen. It is inevitable.


----------



## cobb (Apr 8, 2006)

Well said ikendu. Its the same old problem again, who sells EVs, where do I get one serviced IF it needs it, where do I plug it in and what about the batteries. Everyone forgets the technology avaliable NOW like bio fuels or bio diesel. 

Darrel for those that do not know, uses solar to recharge his car, so its purely clean. The rest of us would need to plug in, somewhere. Ive yet to ask the apartment manager where to here, but Ive always assumed I could plug into the shop at work somehow. Sure you could plug in at work, sure the management could setup something, but will they? Do they own or lease the building and grounds?

Will apartment complexes allow plugging in cars? If you use an outlet in the parking lot at a mall, walmart, etc what will security or grounds think or do, assuming its live? Who will pay the electrical costs for the non home owner situations? 29 killowatt hours times 30 days is 870 kilowatts. From my guestimate from a former power bill a few years ago one summer I decided to leave the AC on when not here thats nearly 70 dollars. Sure cheaper than gas, but unless the outlet is hooked to your meter, the complex, grounds, etc would end up eating it. 

Ok, having said that, most live in a house, condo, apartment, etc that has power. My thing is, if everyone plugs in one or two cars to recharge a 29 kilowatt hour battery pack, can the grid support it? THe circle i live in has 4, 4 1 (16 in all) bed room apartment units, 4, 4 2(16 units) bed room units and a few town houses. Thats at least 36 people in a part of a massive complex I live in. 36 x 29 kilowats is 1.044 mega watts daily. 30daysx1.044mega watts daily=31.320 mega watts a month. My monthly power bill is 25 bucks for 300 killowatts. What about peak demand like the heat of summer or dead cold of winter? I recall announcements in the Ricmond area to curb use of AC during the summer, just as to curb the use of water. 

For one, I am rather shocked Darrel hasnt said anything about expanding the batteries in his car. Is it possible to get 200mile range from a charge? TOo complicated?

Hitler had a plan to convert goal to gas, not sure if that is a similar process. You hear of stuff like that, but never any more or the results. I recall an article a while back about using farm animal poop to make power. They put the poop in these weather balloon like bladders and draw off the gas. 

Now landfills, at least the newer ones capture the gas and really do use the gas to run a generator to make power to light the place and sell off to the county. I know of one in the area. 

Anyway, my problems with an EV are, price, where to recharge, range, etc. Maybe its not hte best fit for me?


----------



## ikendu (Apr 8, 2006)

cobb said:


> Anyway, my problems with an EV are, price, where to recharge, range, etc. Maybe its not hte best fit for me?



Yes! From all that you have said, I don't think EVs are the best fit for you.


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 8, 2006)

No no, I'm telling you: The results are tangible, wood gas enabled an entire country to stay neutral and virtually independent from oil during WW2.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 8, 2006)

Such a FASCINATING discussion!

We are a three vehicle family and we could NOT have an EV as one of them. Mostly it's because of where we chose to live, but it's true all the same.

I'm trying to hold out until Biodiesel is mainstream. Of course if I lived near Austin or Dallas I could get it easily.

I really can't see any reason to argue against EVs. They, HEVs and Biodiesel/Gasahol are the future!


----------



## James S (Apr 8, 2006)

Didn't I just read that they are building a HUGE biodiesel plant in Indiana? oh, yes here it is

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm?news_id=9846

If there is clean, non-sulfated diesel fuel available in the US then I expect car makers to have a wide range of alternative engines they can offer us. The car I just bought to replace my ancient saturn is available as a turbo-diesel in europe, just not in the US. The reason being that diesel available here is mostly for trucks with different emission standards and car engines running on it dont meet emissions testing. If that problem goes away, they already make these cars, bringing them to our market would be simple, and fast for them.

about wood gas, I have experimented with that. you can see it very easily by putting some wood in a test tube, putting a cork with a tube in it and holding it over a flame, as the wood turns to charcoal you can actually light a flame off the end. But more easily than that I could put in a gas liquification station in my garage and run my car off natural gas like taxi cabs or something. You could probably gassify a large amount of the cellulose waste that is produced in the country with that process, but it would make more sense to instead convert it to ethanol for those ancient gas powered engines that are going to be around for a while yet  A liquid fuel infrastructure we already have.

The point being that there are lots of choices, the whole universe doesn't have to standardize on one of the other to make it work. and there doesn't have to be only 1 car or technology that needs to replace all others to have that work either. There should be SEVERAL competing technologies that would create an atmosphere where you couldn't shut us down by cutting off any individual kind of energy. Just because an electric car wouldn't be a good choice today for YOU doesn't mean that there aren't several million people that would jump at the chance.

My latest car is new, gets good gas milage, and when it's enough years old that I'm starting to look for a new one, I think there will be many different things to consider and that excites me.


----------



## Brock (Apr 8, 2006)

> Darrel, the problem with your rav4 is the limited range between fill ups. That dependence on those pesky over head transmission lines. Thats where the hybrids accel, no range limits and 8 hour fillups.


Sorry I couldn’t pass this up, but you do realize all ICE’s also depend on those same pesky over head lines. Every try to buy gas when the power was out?

Idleprocess, I am with you on charging. I have said for years it’s fine if they want to make an off board high capacity charger, but there NEED’S to be a 15 amp 120vac built in option as well. Sure it might take 8 hours, but 15 amp 120vac outlets are everywhere while 30 or 50 amp 240v outlets are not and best of all they come in all sizes and shapes.

Again as I have said in the past the next vehicle likely even EV’s to gain the publics acceptance need to have an ICE or some similar onboard charging option. While I agree that over time people will understand they never use it an make models without the ICE, people need that comfort level that if they choose to leave work in the middle of the day and drive 200 miles, they can and having a PHEV or plug in Prius is exactly this. The ICE only needs to be able to drive the vehicle at say 80MPH max (or 60 or 70, you choose the size) continuous and charge the batteries if your using less than that amount of power, what is that 20HP?


> Let me ask you Darrel, have you even forget to charge you cell phone or found a light or some portable device that was dead or nearly dead that is battery powered? Did you ever forget to plug in your car? You know of an EV for 20 grand about the time i get ready to buy a car, let me know.


Sorry Darell I am with Cobb on this one, this is exactly why I would like a small built in ICE. Then this couldn’t happen, unless you also ran out of gas. I know, I know what your going to say about it, but people need to feel like they have the freedom to take off driving at the drop of a hat, this would give them that option.

As far as overloading the grid (we already went over this as well) it wouldn’t be very likely and could be tied to load shedding already in place. Most overloading of the grid happens at peak times, like in the early afternoon on a hot day. Most charging happens at night when the load from that afternoon has decreased by 30% or so. Right now they can disconnect certain loads from the grid when at or near peak usage, it would be quite simple to add your EV charging station to this group. A bit more complicated, as Darell suggested, you could actually use the power from an EV to put power back on the grid when needed.

The grid is all about balance and transmission. The problems are the peaks and the valleys. Lack of loads at night create losses for power companies and peaks force power companies to build extra plants (or choose not to for economic reasons as CA did), just for peak loading, very expensive.


----------



## AilSnail (Apr 9, 2006)

> about wood gas, I have experimented with that. you can see it very easily by putting some wood in a test tube, putting a cork with a tube in it and holding it over a flame, as the wood turns to charcoal you can actually light a flame off the end. But more easily than that I could put in a gas liquification station in my garage and run my car off natural gas like taxi cabs or something. You could probably gassify a large amount of the cellulose waste that is produced in the country with that process, but it would make more sense to instead convert it to ethanol for those ancient gas powered engines that are going to be around for a while yet A liquid fuel infrastructure we already have.



This sounds very interesting. Though here is what I think, please correct or adjust me: there is no exclusiveness usually, when you cobble up a gasifier or LPG or ethanol. This depends on the engine, but often most of what is done to the engine has to do with startup and are such things as changing the timing a bit. There is nothing preventing a person from having for instance a main tank with ethanol, a small tank for gasoline when there is no ethanol around (spend all the eth, switch to gasoline, then fill up the eth tank with gas), and even have a gasifier too in case you were going for a long trip away from your garage (There is no ethanol infrastructure except liquor stores in many countries, including this one). Like I said I am totally not sure about this. 
I even read you can use a diesel engine with gengas, either by burning ~25% (?) diesel, or by installing spark plugs and an ignition system.

You were talking about liquefying wood gas: By this you mean pressurising the gas and putting it in LPG tanks? Is this a viable tech? What is required? I seem to remember querying about this several years ago, and got feedback that there would be explosion hazard due to the risk of getting oxygen mixed into the gas? And would the energy required to pressurise the gas, or the equipment cost, be prohibitive on a very small scale?

Eth production from biomass on a small scale: how is this done? How is the yield?

/OT/I have been experimenting on some natural draft gasifier stoves, up- and downdraft as well, never got any really practical results except fast combustion/small size, but I still think it might be possible to make stoves that burn clean enough that you don't need a chimney on your house.btw in sweden pellets or sawdust is often used in a semiautomatic central heating system for single households in place of an oil furnace. /OT/

What you talked about with the pipe is externaly heating the wood, which is in a sealed container. I think there is a critical point where the gasification will continue even if you remove the external heat. However I think those sealed, 1bar+ combustion chambers are what has been giving wood gas a bad rep because of the explosion hazards and poisoning, maybe because of the consequences of a leak in the plumbing. If they are built well enough it may be the most viable option for cars though because of the better response to changes in load. I would like to learn a lot more about this.

Here is a page about a stratified downdraft gasifier for vehicles, in english: http://www.gengas.nu/byggbes/executive_summary.shtml


> In occupied Denmark during World War II, 95% of all mobile farm machinery, tractors, trucks, stationary engines, and fishing and ferry boats were powered by wood gas generator units. Even in neutral Sweden, 40% of all motor traffic operated on gas derived from wood or charcoal. All over Europe, Asia, and Australia, millions of gas generators were in operation between 1940f and 1946. Because of the wood gasifier's health risks from toxic fumes, most of such units were abandoned when il again became available in 1945. Except for the technology of producing alternate fuels, such as methane or alcohol, the only solution for operating existing internal combustion engines, when oil and petroleum products are not available, has been theese simple, inexpensive gasifiers units.


This is the mother site in swedish: www.gengas.nu
Here is another swedish page with builds (pics too) www.gengas.se


----------



## James S (Apr 9, 2006)

When I was talking about liquefaction I meant actually of regular old natural gas. My initial reaction to your talking about wood gas was that it wouold never work as it's too dirty and full of tar! However, further reading reveals that it's actually possible to properly filter and clean it leaving mostly CO, Methane and Hydrogen. All of which burn quite nicely. A little extra range in the compression adjustment of a modern multi-fuel engine would be all that is necessary to burn the stuff. And it's even possible to liquify it and make something very similar to diesel out of it. But there are losses and issues at all those stages that would need to be overcome much better than they were during WWII. Just because grandpa had a pyrolysis tank attached to his tracker doesn't mean that I want to fill my car with wood chips in the morning on the way to work and scrape the ashes and tar out of it when I get there 

But we do have a huge amount of cellulose waste in this country from agriculture that isn't good for anything but turning into waste heat or land filling at the moment. I would like to see competing companies buying it up to turn it into ethenol or wood gas (and running the wood gas through a modified Fischer-Tropsch process for conversion to a liquid fuel. Would be interesting to see who would win out in the market place. 

The price of gas being what it is these things to enable the billion ICE engines we've already got would certainly have a market, especially if they can get the price down. Course, then the oil producing countries could just put an end to all their hard work by cutting the price of oil in half for a few years until they all die, then slowly raising it again.

Come to think of it, wouldn't that be an interesting conspiracy theory  wasn't it in the early 90's somewhere when gas was under a dollar a gallon for a while? I could fill my car for like 9 bucks! And that really killed the EV and alternative fuel developments going on at the time. So now it's expensive and we're working on that again, only to have them sell it to us cheap in another 5 years just as those things are about to pay off...


----------



## cobb (Apr 9, 2006)

Yeah..... Found quite a few rangers on ebay for around 10 grand or less. 45mile range per recharge??? Man....


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 9, 2006)

Hmmmm. Range. 

I have three cars. The Prius is our workhorse, turning over 40,000 mikes this evening. We drive it most everywhere. This weekend was 1000 miles to San Diego and back.

My wife's camry could easily be EV. It almost never leaves town, and when it does, it's only 30 miles to the airport. 100 mile range would be more than sufficient.

My truck also has left town only a few times in the last 5 years. It could easily be a Ranger EV without the range being an issue. The biggest problem would be getting a charging station at the curb where the truck lives.

Gas Prices? Today I paid $3.22 a gallon for regular. We were in the middle of nowhere ( I-5 north of Bakersfield) and had no choice. I was the only gas station around and I'f gone almost 500 miles on that tank. It's the only time I've paid $30 to fill my Prius tank. Had 49.0 mpg on that tank, including stop and go through LA and San Diego.

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Apr 10, 2006)

Range is the big question. A rented car maybe a fun option after driving an ev in a lazy manner to get the most mpg when range is needed. 

My biggest problem is not being able to own more than one car in the parking lot, the unknown of range needed. Right now, 11miles to and 11 miles from work, other stops along the way. Just visiting the parents out in the country 67 miles one way. I may need to commute til I find a new place to live, if i like the job. 

Maybe its I care? I saw the mpg thread, seems it started off with who gets the most, then right down hill to who gets the least.

My dads side of the family didnt care abut mpg, just liked small cars. Moms side went for fuel economy no matter what the car was. They went from muscle cars to vw diesels to geo metros. Dad likes two seaters and other such cars. 

I inquired more on my possible van. ford e250, inline 6, auto trans. Estimated 8-12mpg. I suspect a manual tranny and changing the final drive could bump that up. Inlines are know for torque, but low rpms.


----------



## ikendu (Apr 15, 2006)

Here is a pretty funny article about "Prius Backlash" from the LA Times that says how the drivers in HOV lanes are starting to hate the Prius drivers because they "only drive 65" ('cause they are able to monitor their mileage and hate to drive faster when they see it dropping).

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-hybrids10apr10,0,4636957.story?coll=la-home-headlines


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 15, 2006)

Boy, Ikendu , you are getting a lot of milage out of that article. 



Around here (SF bay area, east side) the car pool lanes are not clogged as far as I can tell. The addition of a few thousand hybrids has made no difference that I can see.

The articles make it sound like the hybrids are filling the lanes, but simple logic says it isn't so. First, the number of hybrids on the road at any one time is fairly small. The number of places with carpool lanes is even smaller. The number of hybrids that are traveling those stretches of road are even smaller. Not all hybrid owners have opted for the ugly stickers. Since I see (in oncomming freeway traffic) about 1 hybrid every few miles, I have to conclude that they still make up a small part of the commuting traffic.

As pointed out in other threads.... The perception is that hybrid drivers go too slow. You can tell that it's a hybrid and you can tell the speed it's going, so for some reason people attribute one to the other. The reality is that going the speed limit and driving a hybrid have very little to do with each other. I drive the speed limit no matter what car I'm in.

Last week I drove through LA county. I used the car pool lane and drove 65. There were frequent tailgaters that wanted to speed past. They even drove across the double-double yellow line illegally to pass, only to get behind the person 400 feet ahead of me who was doing the same speed (65) in a BMW. Then they'd do it again and again. They may have gotten to their destination a few minutes faster. On the other hand, they definitely wasted gas with the constant speed changes, so they will have to fill up their gas tank at least one extra time this year.

I sometimes wonder who would win a 400 mile trek from San Diego to San Jose if restricted to a max of 85 MPH. That's the speed limit plus 10. A Dodge Viper or a Prius? I know that I can do it in one tank. Can a Viper? Would that make the difference?


Daniel
Daniel


----------



## Darell (Apr 17, 2006)

It seems that no matter what type of car I drive, there will be somebody to tell me that I'm driving the wrong kind of car, or driving the care wrongly.  And this usually comes from the folks who point at me and exclaim that I should keep my nose out of everybody else's business - not tell them what to drive or how to drive it. And these are the folks who use the line that usually goes "if I can afford to..." or "If I'm not breaking any laws... then I shouldn't have to listen to anybody else." But apparently hybrid drivers should drive differently than the legal speed limit. OK.

Now... back to what I came here to post. This just in from Tom Gage at ACP regarding the Scion conversions:



> Darell,
> 
> It is looking more like May for the first car running. We are working hard, but the job is big. Thanks for your support.
> 
> Tom



Not much, but there you go.


----------



## rodfran (Apr 18, 2006)

I think that driving over the speed limit in the HOV lane is dangerous. Crossing over a double yellow stripe to pass someone driving the limit in an HOV lane is certainly dangerous.

My wife and I have drag raced cars for years. There are many legal sanctioned drag strips in California where you can drive fast. Crowded city streets and freeways are not good places to speed. 

I cannot imagine why someone would want to speed these days with fuel over $3.00 a gallon in many places!


----------



## Darell (Apr 18, 2006)

rodfran said:


> I cannot imagine why someone would want to speed these days with fuel over $3.00 a gallon in many places!


I guess it is the same reason people "want" to commute in vehicles that get single-digit mileage - it is their god-given right from what I hear.


----------



## cobb (Jun 1, 2006)

Please guys, do not bring my van into this conversation, my question is regarding experience driving a dodge, suzuki, ford f650, e250, mercedes 240d, kia rio.

A thread or two back we hashed out the watts per mile to drive, on level surface. One thing I noticed is that it seems you must vary the throttle, some cases to the floor to maintain speeds on the highway as the grade changes. 

Whats the fuel efficient way to handle those areas? Let the car slow til it up shifts or you need to and go slower so it takes less effort?

Also, hows the best way to throttle a manual shifting car vs automatic for best fuel economy. Its my experience the autos you can just tap the petal and it slowly gets to speed and shifts gears on its own. With manual gear boxes, you got to get teh car up to a certain speed or range of speeds to shift to the next gear, or you lugg it down. 

According to the VW Jetta forums link that was posted somewhere in this thread, it seems the newer vw diesels use a smoke map in the injector pump, so you can stomp it to the floor and it wil not inject any more fuel than necessary. So, they recommend you to stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp to 5th gear at 35mph. If you did this to a gas car it would dump more fuel into the engine, likewise with a regular diesel car. You would have a black cloud behind you. 

Just wondering.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 1, 2006)

As much as is possible with out MAJORLY pissing off people, I pretend there is an egg between my foot and the throttle and brakes. I also coast in neutral wherever I can.

Keeps my average mileage in the lower to mid 19's.

I shudder to think what I'd be getting with a Gas engine with this much power/torque!!!

And Cobb, while I get my best mileage at about 50, my truck downshifts on many hills. So I run about 63 to stay in overdrive. Therefor I suggest keeping a decent average speed with easy acceleration, and use that high seat to see ahead and coast a lot!


----------



## Darell (Jun 2, 2006)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> As much as is possible with out MAJORLY pissing off people, I pretend there is an egg between my foot and the throttle and brakes. I also coast in neutral wherever I can.
> 
> Keeps my average mileage in the lower to mid 19's.
> 
> ...


As the Schmoe points out so well... there is no single answer to these questions. It will depend on the vehicle!

Prius drivers have found that accelerating briskly and then feathering the throttle once up to speed is the most efficient way to drive that car. In fact, with "pulse and glide" (meaning accelerate with the gas engine, and then "glide" on battery power alone, accelerate again, etc) they've managed to get over 100mpg in a completely stock Prius. Driving at a constant speed would have netted about 50-55mpg at the same average speed they traveled.

Every car is different. The beauty of a pure electric car is that none of this "fuel efficiency" and "gear ratio" crap comes into play. You feed in as much throttle as you need, and your efficiency varies directly with your speed. There is one ratio. No shifting. Your are in the proper gear all the time.


----------



## Darell (Jun 2, 2006)

Here's a note to Calstart News Notes that an acquaintance wrote recently in regard to wild hybrid "greeness" claims:
----------------

Dear Mr. Moscoe,

I have been a big fan of the CALSTART News Notes since the mid-1990s, and have recommended it many times over the years to people interested in up-to-date information on alternative fuels and other advanced-transportation topics. Thus it was with great dismay that I read in today's article about the Mazda Tribute hybrid, at

http://www.calstart.org/info/newsnotes/nn_detail.php?id=8332 ,

a quotation from Mazda marketing materials saying that the vehicle was "99.4 percent cleaner than an unregulated vehicle."
I first read this claim on brochures I picked up at the L.A.
Auto Show a couple of years back when the Ford Escape hybrid (a close relative of the Mazda Tribute) was introduced.

This claim is probably true, but it is entirely useless, as "unregulated vehicles" haven't been sold new in forty years!
_Any_ vehicle currently legal to sell in the U.S. will be 99-point-something percent cleaner than those vehicles. Worse, the claim is seriously misleading, since the average reader of the News Notes or of that Escape brochure will likely think "gee, 99.4 percent cleaner than the 'ordinary' (i.e., non-hybrid) vehicles on dealer lots today," when in fact dozens of "ordinary"
vehicles are as clean (meeting PZEV emission standards) as any gasoline-only (non-plug-in) hybrid, and when the cleanliness margin of gasoline PZEVs over modern non-PZEV cars is a lot less than 99.4 percent.

This is of a piece with the efforts of every automaker (except, as regards natural gas, Honda) to bury real alternative-fuel vehicles, i.e., those that can run on a fuel other than gasoline and that have been built in a form other than million-dollar prototypes (say, fuel-cell vehicles). For example, for years Toyota claimed that its Prius is 90% cleaner than ordinary vehicles; this is a misstatement of the statistic that PZEV vehicles, including non-hybrids, are 90% cleaner than the 2002 fleet average, _when_ _new_ (recently they have begun saying "80% cleaner," as the fleet-average standards have tightened). This ignores both the fact that many "ordinary" vehicles are equally clean, and the fact that the emissions of any gasoline vehicle, hybrid or not, inevitably deteriorate with age as calibrations drift, catalysts age, etc. In a 2000 staff report, the California Air Resources Board calculated that when you account for this, gasoline PZEVs will be barely twice as clean as the 2002 fleet average over their lifetimes (and less so for later model years with cleaner fleet averages)--but a battery-electric vehicle will be an honest 98% cleaner than that fleet average over its lifetime, since EVs don't have emission-control equipment onboard to deteriorate, and in fact they will get cleaner over time as electrical generation is upgraded. (I don't have figures for how much cleaner natural- -gas vehicles will be over their lifetimes, but from my personal experience, I can state that the catalytic converter in my 1993 Dodge van crumbled from age a few years ago, but it never failed a smog check.)

By implying that hybrids are as clean as real alternative-fuel vehicles, or nearly so, automakers have given themselves an excuse to cut back or kill their AFV lineups as soon as they had hybrids, even minimal ("hollow") versions like GM's pickups, to talk about alongside their promises of hydrogen vehicles in the nebulous future. For example, Ford went from the nation's best lineup of NGVs in 2004 to _none_ in 2005, the same year they introduced the Escape hybrid. I'm starting to think that the Federal Trade Commission should look into automakers' deceptive advertising claims about the cleanliness of hybrids; but at the very least, the CALSTART News Notes (and the HybridBlog of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and www.driveclean.ca.gov of that same California Air Resources Board, to name a couple of others who have done the same) should not assist the automakers in spreading this kind of disinformation.

Best regards,
Mark Looper
www.altfuels.org


----------



## Brock (Jun 2, 2006)

There is another thread over on the TDI forums about hill climbing right now. With the testing one member is doing he is finding using cruise or maintaining speed, even on hills, results in the best mileage. He tried gaining speed before the hill and slowing to the limit at the top, maintaining the limit the whole way, slowing as he went up to 20 under the limit (I thought this would have netted the best mileage but it didn't) and lastly flooring it on the way up.

The consensus seems to be diesels have peak torque about 1900-2200 rpm and that is exactly the RPM he was running the hill at, getting above or below that he lost efficiency.

I believe a member that also has a Prius is running the same sort of test and finding getting a running start was netting him better mileage, but we suspect that is the gasser vs diesel difference, gassers tend to have a higher RPM sweet spot.

Darell is correct as usual, in a true EV none of this would matter, straight power to electricity used ratio. EV's don't have a "sweet" spot like gassers or diesel's do, well they do the whole RPM range


----------



## BB (Jun 2, 2006)

Drag goes up with the square of the velocity, and energy required goes up with the cube of the velocity... Going slower in any instance with a car is probably going to save you fuel once you are over a certain speed (where "fixed losses" predominate--like wheel & drive train friction--the amount of energy required just to idle the motor and keep the lights on with even zero motion).

Wiki (probably quoting from them too much recently)

Several interesting facts from the 1970's fuel crises... I had friends who were airline pilots... One airline told the pilots to turn off the two outboard engines when taxing into the gate--well, you can guess that those two engines ran the A and B redundant hydraulic systems. And, if the pilot used the brakes more than a few times, the accumulator pressure dropped, and the plane's nose was now parked in the departure lounge--instead of at the gate.

Second, passenger jet planes cruise at high altitudes very efficiently--Had one friend who flew 737's that found running max throttle against the "barber pole" (max aerodynamic speed which goes up as you increase altitude) during climb got the plane to cruise altitude faster, and therefore, overall, saved fuel for the overall flight.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jun 2, 2006)

BB said:


> Drag goes up with the square of the velocity, and energy required goes up with the cube of the velocity... Going slower in any instance with a car is probably going to save you fuel once you are over a certain speed (where "fixed losses" predominate--like wheel & drive train friction--the amount of energy required just to idle the motor and keep the lights on with even zero motion).


While I agree that there is a "minimum speed" for all vehicles, we can safely ignore that since it is quite slow to be practical. For example, I can go farther on a charge if I drive 10mph than if I drive 1mph... but that just doesn't happen. 

As for going slower in ANY instance over that speed to save energy, that's simply not the case. It is perfectly true in the case of an EV... which was my point. But it is NOT the case in an ICE vehicle. The the reason is *gearing* couple with ICE efficiency. I've studied this quite a bit on my now-departed Civic. The thing was most obviously geared for just over 60mph. At 62mpg, I was getting the same or slightly better mileage than at 55. I tested this for thousands of miles in many conditions. On average, I did better at just over 60mph than at 55. Gas engines are most efficient in a very narrow band of power/RPM. Going slower for sure pushes less wind, which is the biggest drag. But it also doesn't tell the whole story. Each ICE has a sweet spot, and it can be as important (even more!) than raw drag (again, depending on speed, of course!)

In my Civic, at 50mph, I did quite a bit better than at 60. At 70mph, I did quite a bit worse. But just over 60 was right in the money, and I could cruise all day for 39+mpg average.

I also discovered that going 15mph in the Civic was TERRIBLE. I got almost twice the mileage at 30mph. But that takes us back to the "minimum speed" deal. But in this case it isn't just to overcome the frictions involved. It is again the sweet-spot of the ICE coming into play.

Jeez. Did any of that make sense?


----------



## Darell (Jun 2, 2006)

I'm going to close this huge thing and start on Part 8


----------

