The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Ona smooth road it makes almost NO difference

Meanwhile, here in the UK...

"Mastuna" wrote in message
...

But heavier after.

It depends on the car.

But even in the worst case scenario, if the battery car ends up 300 kg
heavier than the ICE car (that's 20%), it still consumes less energy
than the ICE car because its thermodynamic efficiency is so much
higher.

Even if the electricity used to charge a battery car were 100% derived
from oil power plants, it would still use less oil per km than an
equivalent ICE car. Modern combined-cycle thermal power plants are 60%
efficient. Electricity transmission is 95% efficient. Charging/
uncharging about 80% and the electric motor about 95%.


So that's about 43% before you factor in minor things like, lights, wipers,
heaters, AC, etc.
and you are being optimistic.

In message et, at
00:13:29 on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars,

In English 310 miles, the full to "running on air" range of my car is just
over 600 miles. I normally fill up somewhere between 450 and 500 miles.

I'm sceptical of the 310 miles of course.

My current petrol car manages 650 miles between refills on long runs,
which is very handy. Years ago I had a car that did 22mpg and needed
filling up every 180 miles. It was a COMPLETE pita. One's life was
dominated by where you might be able to refuel - although this was
before there were as many 24hr filling stations.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Years ago I had a car that did 22mpg and needed filling up every 180
miles. It was a COMPLETE pita.

Heh. I just sold a car that managed 17mpg, and had a 17 litre tank... I
kept a 20l jerry can in it...

In article ,
Adrian wrote:

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg).

According to:
http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/colt/specifications.asp?strCar1=ME7
the Diesel is 1050Kg. So there appears to be only 100Kg difference
between the two, which is quite impressive considering this was done
taking a production car built for an ICE rather than building the car up
around the electric drive system, which would allow you to engineer it
to a lower weight.

Espen Koht gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg).

According to:
http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/colt/specifications.asp?strCar1=ME7
the Diesel is 1050Kg.

re-checks Yes, you appear to be right, the diesel is a little bucket of
lard. The petrol can be as low as 930kg, though.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/...el=1286&page=2

So there appears to be only 100Kg difference between the two, which is
quite impressive considering this was done taking a production car
built for an ICE rather than building the car up around the electric
drive system, which would allow you to engineer it to a lower weight.

Sorry, but I fail to see how and why.
Impact regulations are the same.
Occupant expectations are the same.
The only inherent difference is the drivetrain, which is bulkier and
heavier in the electric than the ICE vehicles.

On or about 2008-06-03,
Adrian illuminated us with:

Starting from cold, idling for 30sec, then switching off can also cause
some petrol engined cars to kick the engine management into a "flood
protection" mode which will prevent the car from starting again for an
extended period of time.

And I think in an RX-7 (rotary engine) it's likely to mean an early
trip to the mechanic. AIUI running the engine for only a short time
from cold is expressly deprecated in the manual. But it's not a
diseasel.

--
Mark
Real email address | Love is real if you and the other person stick together
is mark at | like peanut butter and jelly.
ayliffe dot org | (child's response to "what is love?)

"Mastuna" wrote in message
...
On Jun 4, 1:13 am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna wrote:
The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars,

In English 310 miles, the full to "running on air" range of my car is
just
over 600 miles. I normally fill up somewhere between 450 and 500 miles

The battery car fills up nightly though.

So you're always starting the day with a "full tank". And how often do
you drive further than 500 km in a day? (sorry, I meant 2500 furlongs
- forgot we're using quaint units now ;-))

Nothing quaint about furlongs. They're in daily use.

Mary

"Espen Koht" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg).

According to:
http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/colt/specifications.asp?strCar1=ME7
the Diesel is 1050Kg. So there appears to be only 100Kg difference
between the two, which is quite impressive considering this was done
taking a production car built for an ICE rather than building the car up
around the electric drive system, which would allow you to engineer it
to a lower weight.

But the iEV only has a target range of 160 km so it has been weight reduced
by fitting a small battery.

I want one, how much, when?

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:48:32 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

It needs repairing.

At the time of me sat in it getting cold it didn't need any repairs,
now is another matter.

Let me guess - engine problems? Bearings or rings? Caused by the
engine never getting properly warm because the thermostat was defective?

Nope the engine is fine. Diesels just don't generate vast amounts of waste
heat at idle.

Or at 50 mph it seems!

We drove about 25 miles in our 93 218SD (1900, non turbo). When we
came back to the car park I noticed some water under the front of the
car. It had been raining so I hoped it had just run out of a crevace
somewhere.

About 20 miles from home I felt the heater go cold (it's never as hot
as the old 2L Sierra one) and then noticed the temp gauge creeping up.

We stopped and I found one of the hoses split where it joins the oil
cooler. I couldn't fix it as it was one of those crimped hose clips
and I didn't have a spare clip (I did have some hose repair tape
though) so just dribbled some of what water I had on board into the
system and carried on.

We drove home at about 45 mph and by gentle use of the throttle and
temp gauge got home with no issues.

I trimmed the hose back, filled up and it's been fine ever since! ;-)

Tough old lump that.

All the best ..

T i m

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 20:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

Rupert Moss-Eccardt gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

and air-cooled VWs certainly used electric heating.

No, they didn't. Heat exchangers on the exhaust manifolds, with the
vaguely-warm air ducted down the inside of the sills.

Like on my Messerschmitt KR200 ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Thirdly, electric cars have regenerative braking and don't suffer from
idling losses in city traffic, making them more efficient still.

Stop-Start in city traffic is hardly unusual in ICE cars.

You didn't get his point.

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km

chortle

500 km range is achievable.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Mastuna wrote:

The overall result is that it is now possible to build electric cars
with a range of 500 km, which comes close to ICE cars,

In English 310 miles, the full to "running on air" range of my car is just
over 600 miles. I normally fill up somewhere between 450 and 500 miles.

What is your point?

So that's 43% efficient.

Which is still twice as efficient as the best internal combustion
engines. And that's assuming all electricity is made from oil.

Why "compared to"? The normal wheel is still fitted, as is a normal
brake. It's purely extra weight.

I doubt Mitsubishi are simply using a normal wheel and sticking a
motor inside. I am sure they are redisigning the whole wheel assembly
from scratch to make space for the motor. They are probably looking
for ways to make the wheel lighter than in an ICE car, since it has
become more of a priority. The disk brake will be a different design,
since it will only be needed to assist regenerative braking during
emergency braking maneuvers. Finally, the driveshaft will be missing,
saving some unsprung weight.

Marketing... Most OEM alloys are at least the same weight as factory
steels - they have to be thick for reliability. On the XM I used to have,
I replaced the factory steels with OEM alloys. Same size rim. The alloy
was noticably heavier.

Ah, that would explain it. They do look prettier.

Then there's the Li-Ion laptop battery recalls (and subsequent supply
problems) of the other year...

Childhood diseases...

Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Why "compared to"? The normal wheel is still fitted, as is a normal
brake. It's purely extra weight.

I doubt Mitsubishi are simply using a normal wheel and sticking a motor
inside.

Look at the pics.

I am sure they are redisigning the whole wheel assembly from scratch to
make space for the motor.

They aren't.

They are probably looking for ways to make the wheel lighter than in an
ICE car

It would have to be stronger, due to the much higher unsprung weight
meaning there's much larger shock loadings on hitting a bump.

Finally, the driveshaft will be missing, saving some unsprung weight.

Roughly half of the driveshaft's weight counts as sprung, since I've
always found it helpful for them to be attached at both ends.

Then there's the Li-Ion laptop battery recalls (and subsequent supply
problems) of the other year...

Childhood diseases...

chuckle They've only been on the market since 1991...

Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a couple
of days with no access to electricity overnight.

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher han
a battery car in a few years time.

In message , at 11:15:02 on Wed,
4 Jun 2008, Doctor Drivel remarked:

500 km range is achievable.

In something that looks like a 1950's bubble car.
--
Roland Perry

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Espen Koht gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg).

According to:
http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/colt/specifications.asp?strCar1=ME7
the Diesel is 1050Kg.

re-checks Yes, you appear to be right, the diesel is a little bucket of
lard. The petrol can be as low as 930kg, though.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/...el=1286&page=2

So there appears to be only 100Kg difference between the two, which is
quite impressive considering this was done taking a production car
built for an ICE rather than building the car up around the electric
drive system, which would allow you to engineer it to a lower weight.

Sorry, but I fail to see how and why.
Impact regulations are the same.
Occupant expectations are the same.
The only inherent difference is the drivetrain, which is bulkier and
heavier in the electric than the ICE vehicles.

Its also a different shape and distribution so there may be different ways
to arrange things.
Like no engine at the front so you can have a longer crush zone without
worrying where the engine is going.

Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Even if the electricity used to charge a battery car were 100% derived
from oil power plants, it would still use less oil per km than an
equivalent ICE car. Modern combined-cycle thermal power plants are 60%
efficient. Electricity transmission is 95% efficient. Charging/
uncharging about 80% and the electric motor about 95%.

So that's 43% efficient.

which plays havoc with the unsprung weight, giving considerably worse
ride and handling, and requiring heavier duty suspension.

That's a good point. Do you know how much an in-wheel motor wheel on the
Mitsubishi Colt weighs compared to a normal wheel?

Why "compared to"? The normal wheel is still fitted, as is a normal
brake. It's purely extra weight.


Some. Depending on the design you are sharing common bearings and a
rotor case. You have to add some copper, possibly some iron, and
possibly some magnets.

Of course the easiest way to reduce unsprung weight is to have much
smaller wheels. Now why don't performance cars do this? Why do
performance cars on the whole have much stiffer suspension than orinary
cars, transferring far more shockloads to te chassiis? why do F1 cars
lift wheels on kerbs when softer suspension would get the wheel moving a
lot more?

unpsrung weight is nice, but its not the only or even the dominant part
of suspension design.It does make for a more COMFORTABLE ride though.
Most luxury cars do NOT have solid beam rear axles,. Many hot hatches do.


Oh, and the Colt electric weighs 200kg more than the equivalent diesel.

I am not sure how much of a difference unsprung weight really makes. I
have driven the same car, an Audi A3, with alloy wheels and steel wheels
and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. Made me think that
perhaps alloy wheels are just a marketing scam. Or maybe I didn't drive
it fast enough ;-)

Marketing... Most OEM alloys are at least the same weight as factory
steels - they have to be thick for reliability. On the XM I used to have,
I replaced the factory steels with OEM alloys. Same size rim. The alloy
was noticably heavier.

Typical electric cars have 300-500 kg of batteries, even if they
don't weigh more than ICE cars overall.

If they have 300-500kg of batteries, before including the weight of the
motors and cabling, then they will inevitably weigh more than an
equivalent ICE cars, because an entire ICE drivetrain weighs less than
that.

They don't just replace the drivetrain. They replace most of the engine
assembly, the exhaust system, and the water cooling system.

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg). The battery pack in it is 22 modules, each 325v 40Ah. You
can probably calculate the weight from that, since Mitsu seem reluctant
in the articles I've read.

Anyhow, I think that the main advantages of battery cars will be
economic, not environmental, once batteries are mass produced at high
volume and low price. If the current downward trend in battery prices
continues, they may well replace the ICE.

Then there's the Li-Ion laptop battery recalls (and subsequent supply
problems) of the other year...

lllss that happen on just about every car every year..irrespective of
its make or propulsion type.

Adrian wrote:
Espen Koht gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Yes, dear. That's all part of the drivetrain. But anyway, the Colt EV,
with in-wheel motors, is 200kg heavier (1150kg) than the equivalent
diesel (960kg).

According to:
http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/colt/specifications.asp?strCar1=ME7
the Diesel is 1050Kg.

re-checks Yes, you appear to be right, the diesel is a little bucket of
lard. The petrol can be as low as 930kg, though.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/...el=1286&page=2

So there appears to be only 100Kg difference between the two, which is
quite impressive considering this was done taking a production car
built for an ICE rather than building the car up around the electric
drive system, which would allow you to engineer it to a lower weight.

Sorry, but I fail to see how and why.
Impact regulations are the same.
Occupant expectations are the same.
The only inherent difference is the drivetrain, which is bulkier and
heavier in the electric than the ICE vehicles.

Simply not true.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Like no engine at the front so you can have a longer crush zone without
worrying where the engine is going.

You don't have to put the engine at the front of an ICE, of course.

Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Why "compared to"? The normal wheel is still fitted, as is a normal
brake. It's purely extra weight.

I doubt Mitsubishi are simply using a normal wheel and sticking a motor
inside.

Look at the pics.

I am sure they are redisigning the whole wheel assembly from scratch to
make space for the motor.

They aren't.

They are probably looking for ways to make the wheel lighter than in an
ICE car

It would have to be stronger, due to the much higher unsprung weight
meaning there's much larger shock loadings on hitting a bump.

Finally, the driveshaft will be missing, saving some unsprung weight.

Roughly half of the driveshaft's weight counts as sprung, since I've
always found it helpful for them to be attached at both ends.

Then there's the Li-Ion laptop battery recalls (and subsequent supply
problems) of the other year...

Childhood diseases...

chuckle They've only been on the market since 1991...

Thats tantamount to saying that the failure in the space shuttle was 'in
a type of technology that has only been on the market for 1000 years'


Given that's probably about right for rocket fireworks.

If you did in fact know anything about Lithium batteries, you would know
that there is a new twist every few months: Some of those twists bring
problems.

Sorry, but I fail to see how and why.
Impact regulations are the same.
Occupant expectations are the same.
The only inherent difference is the drivetrain, which is bulkier and
heavier in the electric than the ICE vehicles.

Once batteries are produced in high volumes, it will be cheaper to
manufacture an electric car than an ICE car. For the same sales
price, more money can be spent on weight reduction (carbon fibre doors
etc.)

I would also imagine that it is easier to optimally spread the weight
of batteries around the car, rather than having most of the
drivetrain's weight concentrated in the front, which requires extra
strengthening of the frame.

"Mastuna" wrote in message
...

Indeed. And the chemistry of those batteries, in manufacture and
disposal, is sooooo environmentally friendly.

That's a difficult comparison to make, because both ICE cars and
battery cars are recycled very efficiently these days. Batteries
contain valuable metals, so it is unlikely that they will simply be
thrown away at the end of their life cycle. Not unlike catalytic
coverters. Are the toxic emissions (dicounting CO2) from manufacturing
500 kg of Li-ion batteries worse than the emissions from burning
10,000 L of petrol in an ICE? Hard to tell.

The total energy consumption of making an electric car and running it for 20
years is the marker. And that includes energy for refining fuel, its
transportation and infrastructure - and energy in maintaining electrical
infrastructure too. An electric car will last and last, unlike an ICE
vehicle. Milk floats last well over 40 years because of the simplicity. In
short, two ICE cars will be needed for the life of one electric car. That is
one lot of total energy.

Anyhow, I think that the main advantages of battery cars will be
economic, not environmental, once batteries are mass produced at high
volume and low price. If the current downward trend in battery prices
continues, they may well replace the ICE.

What pushed the electric car to the fore again was environmental - hybrids
were the start. Once the inventive brains got behind it and looked into the
efficiency of motors (like motor in hub), re-gen braking, battery design,
etc, the economics and range started to make sense.

The electric car is feasible right now. The technology is here and is
getting better, quite quickly too. Planned roll outs should be implemented.
Once mass production gets hold they will drop in price and rise in
efficiency.

France produces most of its power via nuclear and they are eager to
implement electric cars, so much that they even installed re-charging
facilities in La Rochelle.

Richard Torrens wrote:
In article
,
Mastuna wrote:
Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels),

This statement is not true!

Without a gearbox you are talking massively high currents.


Not necessarily.

If you use extreme multipole designs, it is equivalent to gearing a 3
pole motor.You can step up the gear ratio by selecting different ways to
drive the poles.

As long as the torque is sufficient to e.g. spin the wheels on a dry
road,thats all you need torque wise.


We have a calculator for this:
http://www.4qd.co.uk/faq/current.html Motor Current Calculator

Indeed some cars do have motors in wheels, but performance on steep hills
if excessively poor. It really does not work for an electric only car.

Furthermore, to maximise efficiency, the motor's brushes are offset. This
may mean the motor cannot be reversed (depending on the amount of offset).


Brushes? gosh Richard, its rare to find you ten years behind the
times..no one uses BRUSHES. In built optical or hall sensors for wheel
position and solid state commutation are the order of the day. and
variable timing. If you use permanent magnets for the rotors, you don't
even need slip rings.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mastuna wrote:

Range is not what's holding back battery-electric cars anymore. What's
holding them back now is the cost and limited lifetime of Li-ion
batteries.

Cost yes, lifetime no. The car environment is not harsh rate wise: they
should do 500+ cycles which at 200 miles would be 100K mile.
Recharge time is the one the customer may baulk at.

Toshibas new fast charge battery:
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...a-launche.html
Losts on the web about it. It is aimed at auto use too.

There is a chicken and egg situation here until cheap volume batteries are
available the cars wont be built: without the cars there is no incentive
to develop the batteries in the volume to get the price down.

It is the total price of the car. Even if batteries are expensive, the rest
of the car is cheap to make, which should make the vehicle competitive
overall.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:15:02 on Wed, 4
Jun 2008, Doctor Drivel remarked:

500 km range is achievable.

In something that looks like a 1950's bubble car.

You made that up.

"Doctor Drivel" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

The total energy consumption of making an electric car and running it
for 20 years is the marker. And that includes energy for refining fuel,
its transportation and infrastructure - and energy in maintaining
electrical infrastructure too.

Does it include all the replacement battery packs which would be required
every few years on current battery chemistry? LiIon batteries die on age
from manufacture, not on charge/discharge cycles. A 5yo LiIon laptop or
mobile phone battery is useless.

An electric car will last and last, unlike an ICE vehicle.

Really...? Very, very few ICE vehicles are scrapped because of mechanical
problems with the engine or transmission.

Milk floats last well over 40 years because of the simplicity.

So why don't you drive round in a compressed-cardboard panelled milk
float?

France produces most of its power via nuclear and they are eager to
implement electric cars, so much that they even installed re-charging
facilities in La Rochelle.

Indeed they did. Initially in the 1980s, with a fleet of electric AXs.
Then they trialled it again in the '90s, with a fleet of electric Saxos.

Yet it's still not got past trials, and PSA have ceased production of the
electric cars and vans they built for years.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a
couple of days with no access to electricity overnight.

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher han
a battery car in a few years time.

Or a whole new industry will be born (as in the days of horses) where
pre-charged 'staging' cars will be available for long distance travellers.

A company requiring staff to travel would simply have an account with
them (instead of a fleet of company cars). Easy peasy.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Like no engine at the front so you can have a longer crush zone without
worrying where the engine is going.

You don't have to put the engine at the front of an ICE, of course.

No, but its pretty much a shape that isn't going to change and it has to go
somewhere.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"Doctor Drivel" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

The total energy consumption of making an electric car and running it
for 20 years is the marker. And that includes energy for refining fuel,
its transportation and infrastructure - and energy in maintaining
electrical infrastructure too.

Does it include all the replacement
battery packs

It does.

which would be required
every few years on current battery chemistry?

Toyota guarantee their batteries 8 years with an expected life of 12. That
is using now old technology.

An electric car will last and last, unlike an ICE vehicle.

Really...?

Yes.

Very, very few ICE vehicles
are scrapped because of mechanical
problems with the engine or transmission.

The lifetime of these vehicles is short.

Milk floats last well over 40 years
because of the simplicity.

snip idiotic drivel

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Like no engine at the front so you can have a longer crush zone
without worrying where the engine is going.

You don't have to put the engine at the front of an ICE, of course.

No, but its pretty much a shape that isn't going to change and it has to
go somewhere.

Under the floor, p'raps? Seems to be a popular place for battery packs.
The designs seem to bear a remarkable similarity to the "sandwich" floor
on the A-class Merc, where there's a short frontal impact zone, because
the engine's designed to go under the car, between the floors.

Or plenty of larger people carriers which basically have the engine under
the vehicle.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a couple
of days with no access to electricity overnight.

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher han a
battery car in a few years time.

That's right! Hit him in the pocket and he will soon see sense.

"Richard Torrens" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Mastuna wrote:
Furthermore, an electric car can do away with the entire drivetrain
(since the motors are inside the wheels),

This statement is not true!

Without a gearbox you are talking massively high currents.

We have a calculator for this:
http://www.4qd.co.uk/faq/current.html Motor Current Calculator

Indeed some cars do have motors in wheels, but performance on steep hills
if excessively poor. It really does not work for an electric only car.

Furthermore, to maximise efficiency, the motor's brushes are offset. This
may mean the motor cannot be reversed (depending on the amount of offset).

Look at this companys motors:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...ybrid_mini.php

http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:
Mastuna gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The battery car fills up nightly though.

If you have access to electricity.

And how often do you drive further than 500 km in a day?

Not infrequently. Even more often, I drive more than that across a couple
of days with no access to electricity overnight.

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher han a
battery car in a few years time.

That's right! Hit him in the pocket and he will soon see sense.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Without a gearbox you are talking massively high currents.


Not necessarily.

If you use extreme multipole designs, it is equivalent to gearing a 3
pole motor.You can step up the gear ratio by selecting different ways to
drive the poles.

Yes, that would work! Given enough brushes.

As long as the torque is sufficient to e.g. spin the wheels on a dry
road,thats all you need torque wise.

Which can be quite a significant torque.

We have a calculator for this:
http://www.4qd.co.uk/faq/current.html Motor Current Calculator

Indeed some cars do have motors in wheels, but performance on steep
hills if excessively poor. It really does not work for an electric
only car.

Furthermore, to maximise efficiency, the motor's brushes are offset.
This may mean the motor cannot be reversed (depending on the amount of
offset).


Brushes? gosh Richard, its rare to find you ten years behind the
times..

Given my age (64) I think I have adequate excuse!

Brushed P.M. motors still constitute the bulk of the small motor market,
so is where the bulk of controller sales is!

no one uses BRUSHES. In built optical or hall sensors for wheel
position and solid state commutation are the order of the day. and
variable timing. If you use permanent magnets for the rotors, you don't
even need slip rings.

I cannot disagree!

--
Richard Torrens -
The email address used here is time limited and must not be added to any mailing list: A charge will be invoiced for handling any unsolicited mailing list emails received.

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:

Nothing quaint about furlongs. They're in daily use.

Mary

Furlongs per fortnight is a useful unit of speed.

Milliweek is a useful time!

--
Richard Torrens -
The email address used here is time limited and must not be added to any mailing list: A charge will be invoiced for handling any unsolicited mailing list emails received.

"Doctor Drivel" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher
han a battery car in a few years time.

That's right! Hit him in the pocket and he will soon see sense.

There's rather more to it than sheer cost, of course - else everybody
would already be driving things like Smarts or C1s.

"Doctor Drivel" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher
han a battery car in a few years time.

That's right! Hit him in the pocket and he will soon see sense.

There's rather more to it than sheer cost, of course - else everybody
would already be driving things like Smarts or C1s.

"Doctor Drivel" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

So you will juts have to put up with running costs 3-10 times higher
han a battery car in a few years time.

That's right! Hit him in the pocket and he will soon see sense.

There's rather more to it than sheer cost, of course - else everybody
would already be driving things like Smarts or C1s.