tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post7098937570044669037..comments2024-02-06T10:02:20.731-06:00Comments on EVTV.ME: 2008 Cadillac Escalade Electric Drive Conversion - The ElEscaladeJack Rickardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-17197700015347668022010-10-08T09:15:23.289-05:002010-10-08T09:15:23.289-05:00Duane:
We'll try to stay within the bounds of...Duane:<br /><br />We'll try to stay within the bounds of the laws of physics. Indeed, we're hard pressed to escape them.<br /><br />Progress is normally made by changing the game. Each time a limit on the laws of physics is reached, the way through it is not usually by brute force, but by "changing the game", that is changing our assumptions about the "ONLY" way to do it. <br /><br />Indeed, while I was having the conversation with what truly was one of the leading experts in information theory at the time, as he described how 2400 bps was the absolute limit, I actually had a pair of Dennis Hayes prototypes on my desk in the other room. We'd already tested them and they indeed did 9600 bps quite reliably. I was unable at that moment to discuss it. But you can imagine my reaction.<br /><br />The tonal changes actually occurred at the same 2400bps rate. But by going from two tones to four, he was able to encode more information in the same tonal rate change - quadrature bit encoding. Later of course, this actually got into phase encoding as well. And ultimately we got to speeds of 57kbps - although 2400 "baud" was really all it ever did. That was the division between the term "baud" and stating data rates at bps instead. You see, the laws of physics did indeed apply. But a little different twist on our understanding of them led to order of magnitude improvements in the result.<br /><br />We don't need to change the laws of physics at all. We need to change the game. Look at it in different ways. This is all the harder in a world rife with myth and misunderstanding. If regen is worthwhile, we should pursue it and optimize it. But if it's a dead end anyway, making it a more efficient dead end at huge expense is not appealing to me.<br /><br />We do hope you'll stay with us. There's much more to come...<br /><br />Jack RIckardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-88159283038002186172010-10-08T08:11:05.238-05:002010-10-08T08:11:05.238-05:00Jack,
Your response is indeed embarrassing.
I wi...Jack,<br /><br />Your response is indeed embarrassing.<br /><br />I will sign off with this quote from Martin Eberhard, co-founder of Tesla motors.<br /><br />"Call me closed-minded, but I’ve come to have a lot of respect for the basic laws of physics. Push them to their limits, bend them to our needs, take every advantage of the corner cases – but don’t count on breaking them."<br /><br />Live well, fly safe, good luck!<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-4082150986747142502010-10-07T08:01:56.933-05:002010-10-07T08:01:56.933-05:00Jack and everyone else should just ignore this pap...Jack and everyone else should just ignore this paper pusher.. From all the comments I have read from "Dan" all he does is blabber incessantly and toot his own horn of how he is so right and everyone else is so wrong. So Dan.... Build it, prove it, or shut up already.. It's great that your so incredibly smart, use that knowledge to better society and show us all how regen is so efficient.. I am so tired of reading your "laws of physics", show us all how it's done don't just cite Ford's claims.. That's like reading an advertising brochure and believing everything in it as fact.. Ever heard of "MARKETING"? Good luck Jack and keep up the good work..Henry Fordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-26924156757083412822010-10-06T23:44:03.768-05:002010-10-06T23:44:03.768-05:00Dan:
I'm ignoring them to prevent your embara...Dan:<br /><br />I'm ignoring them to prevent your embarassment when I answer them. I'd like to continue to do so in this case. Do you insist on an answer to question?<br /><br />ALL electric drive cars, including all series DC cars get better range and efficiency in town than they do on the highway. That it is the reverse with ICE engine cars is more a testament to their INEFFICIENCIES than anything else. <br /><br />This would certainly be exhibited in a hybrid's fuel mileage with NO REGENERATIVE BRAKING OF ANY KIND. This is EXTREMELY common knowledge in the EV world and is even RELATED to the parts of this discussion, which you originally jumped into, as to why air resistance shows LESS of an impact at highway speeds on heavier cars.<br /><br />The only debate is that you don't know what this testing means at all. You've actually got it wrapped up with regen when it would be easily that way with no regen. And so the famous "laws of physics" discourse.<br /><br />Now quit it. They do this constantly on EVDL and DIYELECTRIC and I would commend you to the children there for further attacks/wrangling.<br /><br />If you have any QUESTIONS about the regen data we provided, I'll try to answer them. But for me, regen has been relegated almost to a way to have power brakes without a vacuum pump as to its total utility. We're past it. <br /><br />Jack Rickard<br /><br />Now quit it. Insisting on this nonsenseJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-85899158857513290042010-10-06T21:02:42.899-05:002010-10-06T21:02:42.899-05:00"It is so ingrained in the public consciousne..."It is so ingrained in the public consciousness that regenerative braking has to be a good thing"<br /><br />You really believe this, that there is a "public consciousness" regarding regenerative braking?. Are you kidding? Not 1 in 100 people could tell you what it is, and less than that care. OEMs are selling gas mileage, not regen. The Prius has been around for years and Toyota doesn't even mention regen in their specs on the web.<br /><br />You have a habit of ignoring my questions, but let me try this one again. If its not from regen, how does Ford get 127% better fuel mileage in town and 33% better in highway driving from their Hybrid compared with the same care with ICE? This is my data. No, I didn't do the test but it was done under strict guidelines and procedures and there is no debate that it is reliable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-26408109095517733972010-10-04T01:04:04.827-05:002010-10-04T01:04:04.827-05:00By the way, I've heard privately from three or...By the way, I've heard privately from three or four of the latent OEM manufacturer crowd we seem to be quietly attracting. <br /><br />The answer to my question on regen is remarkably simple. It is so ingrained in the public consciousness that regenerative braking has to be a good thing, that you cannot appear to be doing advanced work without it. It offers some gains in some selected situations, and so it has to be included.<br /><br />Bottom line - you guys think it works. We have to have it to compete. End of story.<br /><br />This is the kind of self fulfiling prophecy thing we love to look at with a fresh eye. I need not spend a 50% premium on a drive train to get LESS torque just to have regen? Cool.<br /><br />So yeah, it's kind of fallen off the table as a design consideration. Actually it hasn't, it's fallen off the table as a design PRIORITY. It's still a consideration. I actually like regen. But not because of efficiency gains. It's a lot more mundane than that. I can simulate power brakes without a noisy vacuum pump. On the Mini, the brakes are quite operational without the vacuum power assist, just stiff. With regen, they feel like power brakes, but it is the regen you feel to a certain point. After that, your mashing the real binders. So I like that.<br /><br />I've managed to get it MOSTLY off the accelerator, and we have no regen at all on the Speedster accelerator, only on the brakes.<br /><br />Jack RickardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-84225430812733291592010-10-04T00:56:00.901-05:002010-10-04T00:56:00.901-05:00Dan:
You've beat it SO long and SO lost I wou...Dan:<br /><br />You've beat it SO long and SO lost I would have to refer you to EVDL or DIYELECTRIC. There is nothing they love over there so much as to debate endlessly how many angels can fit on a pin, with absolutely NO data, NO experience, often NO cars, and no clue of course.<br /><br />The ANOMALOUS result we have has nothing to do with regen. It is an observation that the increase in power required at high speeds in small cars does not seem to exhibit to the same degree in larger cars.<br /><br />The regen is actually quite definitive. We tested on two entirely different cars in entirely different weight classes. We did it on various routes. And we did it with various drivers. The "baseline" performance was actually remarkably close in results -within a couple of TENTHS of an AMP HOUR. <br /><br />The results were not anomalous, they are quite definitive. Brian can get a 15% improvement, I can't get any. But that's because his natural driving is a lot more wasteful. His "non regen" drive is attrocious. His "regen" drive is very close to my no regen drive. Trace is in the middle. All on the same route and the same car.<br /><br />The conclusion is also quite definitive. If you want efficiency, learn to drive. The rather largish premium on AC induction systems to gain regen appears to be a solid economic loser and THOSE are the laws of physics.<br /><br />That is from real tests, on real cars, with real drivers, on real roads. <br /><br />We have a very friendly detractor, JRP, who claims widely to get 10% efficiency gains from his setup, which uses the same drive train as the Speedster Duh. The problem is he can't turn it off, lacking the controller programmer to do so. So he "simulates" no regen. I can't deal with that kind of data.<br /><br />In your case, no data at all. No experience at all. Armchair theories and again, the tireless dire warnings of all that will be befall me when I finally see it your way. <br /><br />Again, they LOVE that stuff over on EVDL and DIYELECTRIC. You guys can debate it for WEEKS over there without being hampered by anyone from the reality lane. Party like Rock Stars.<br /><br />Jack RickardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-76280487248985163762010-10-03T11:55:21.511-05:002010-10-03T11:55:21.511-05:00"And if fact history is replete with people w..."And if fact history is replete with people who had the anomalous result, and the WRONG explanation as to why it occurred."<br /><br />And so it seems you are adding to this history. Your anomalous result is that on multiple drives with "plenty of regen opportunities" you report negative energy recovery. Your WRONG explanation is that somehow being in regen mode causes the driver to somehow use more energy. So I am here as the one with the "curios question" of these anomalous results. On the one hand you seem to agree that your results were indeed anomalous, but on the other hand you conclude without further explanation that "as far as I'm concerned, it really is no longer a design consideration in an EV". This is a general and conclusive statement that is not even close to being supported by the physics involved or the volumes of evidence from other sources. Your results as reported DO support the statement, but there are serious questions to be answered before you can rationally call the results conclusive. I'll say again, it's your business whether or not you include regen in your projects, but it isn't intellectually honest to proclaim regen is not useful on EVs if you base it on what you report.<br /><br />Jack, I've beat this dead horse long enough and I am happy to move on and watch your progress on the Caddy. I want to encourage you and your readers to do more research and keep an open mind on regen. I think it is an important part of an important technology. I am VERY confident in the end even you will embrace regen!<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-86489320777143515212010-10-01T12:19:52.404-05:002010-10-01T12:19:52.404-05:00You remind me of the Phd patiently explaining to m...You remind me of the Phd patiently explaining to me years ago why 2400 bps was the maximum modem speed achievable because of the laws of physics.<br /><br />The laws of physics are more or less immutable, though our understanding of them is subject to change.<br /><br />We have an observation at this point. And are looking for an explanation. You're offering an armchair explanation of why this observation can't be.<br /><br />Great. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. Go build a car. And have Wikipedia ride around with you in it.<br /><br />Precisely the same on regen. Your model is not sufficiently complex to be a test of anything. We have tested it, and it isn't what you believe. I haven't devoted the resource to follow it further because it's no longer interesting. It's not a player as best I can tell. Feel free to go pencil out why. I'll read with interest.<br /><br />Simply chanting that it can't be so and citing to me how very many people KNOW differently is not persuasive. Cloaking yourself in an appeal to the authority of the laws of physics is childish. We already HAVE the observation. We're puzzling a bit what it MEANS, not whether its valid.<br /><br />Results do not HAVE to be reasonable Dan. They're just what they are. And predominantly most discoveries of everything have been the result of the curiousquestion of anomalous results. <br /><br />Often, and in fact I would say generally, it was not the first to report the anomalous result to fully explore the cause -essentially what it means. And if fact history is replete with people who had the anomalous result, and the WRONG explanation as to why it occurred.<br /><br />Jack Rickard<br /><br />Jack RickardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-69025339364172730522010-10-01T00:12:15.345-05:002010-10-01T00:12:15.345-05:00I'm ashamed I didn't make the SHOW ME conn...I'm ashamed I didn't make the SHOW ME connection myself. It all starts to make sense! Touche. ;)<br /><br />But, the laws of Physics must be obeyed. When test results appear to contradict a law there is some splainin to do. My belief is it should be the responsibility of the one making the claims to provide the complete explanation in a scientific way. Saying "maybe it has to do with this or that" isn't an explanation. The "myths that people know" that you rail against are propagated by vague theories like the ones I am hearing on regen and now wind resistance. Replicated data in a controlled experiment with sound calculations based on known laws is the only acceptable way to prove a theory. <br /><br />Regarding wind resistance, consider this quote from Wikipedia. <br /><br />"Assuming a more-or-less constant drag coefficient, drag will vary as the square of velocity. Thus, the resultant power needed to overcome this drag will vary as the cube of velocity." <br /><br />Does it make sense that doubling the speed (35 to 70) which results in 4X wind resistance requiring 8X power to over come it doesn't even show up on the power readings? The vehicle in question is reportedly an SUV so we know the wind resistance can't be trivial. I can't tell you where the error is, but the reported results don't pass the reasonableness test in my book. How about yours?<br /><br />BTW - Will we be seeing some trip data from your computer data collection rig and software you mentioned some weeks ago?<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-38224543746702697052010-09-30T07:11:40.262-05:002010-09-30T07:11:40.262-05:00Dwoodward:
I am desperately sorry, but while we d...Dwoodward:<br /><br />I am desperately sorry, but while we do a lot of calculations, we do not live by them. I cannot express to you how very MANY things we have learned doing these conversions that makes perfect sense, and is well accounted for by calculations, and just turns out not to be so. We tested regen rather thoroughly, with it on brakes, on throttle, with it, without it, over the same routes, over different routes, and with different drivers.<br /><br />The BEST I can say for regenerative braking is that it is mixed, and depends heavily on driving style. But as far as I'm concerned, it really is no longer a design consideration in an EV. If you can get it with what you're already doing, it won't hurt much. But the efficiency claims you and the gentleman from Ford are citing are simply in your mind, not in the car. <br /><br />We measured useage out of the pack and into hte pack, we measured kwH when charging, and it pretty much devolved to nonsense in the end. I can show 15% gains and -3% gains with the same car over the same course at will. <br /><br />The current observation comes from Arnul Laarsgard with a large Ford SUV using a series DC Netgain motor with no regen and an automatic transmission. He sees the SAME AH draw at 70 mph as he's getting in town at 35. I had kind of noticed the same phenomenon in the Mini Cooper - esssentially the same 1 AH per mile on the highway as I was getting in town. <br /><br />It is unexplained at this point. Since the much lighter Speedster shows a dramatic increase in power requirements at 70 mph, it's drag must be much worse than the other two vehicles. That actually doesn't make a whole lot of sense.<br /><br />What we are left with is mass. No, the mass has NOTHING to do with the drag. But the ratio of mass to drag DOES have to do with mass. We have to do a certain amount of work to move the mass, and that doesn't change with wind resistance. So it is possible that the wind resistance simply declines as a percentage of the overall mix of what it takes to move the car, and mass and rolling resistance become DOMINANT in the end. Air resistance does not go away, but it can be marginalized by other factors simply overwhelming it.<br /><br />By way of contrast, the speedster takes 225wh per mile, while the mini cooper takes 375. It is POSSIBLE that wind resistance gets lost in the rounding errors of the difference.<br /><br />On closer measurement, I'm sure we can detect wind resistance. But in casual measurement, the observation is that it doesn't matter much with these two larger vehicles. <br /><br />We LOVE your theories and calculations. Even better, we love to prove or disprove them. If you want to chant theory as gospel, you're in the wrong Church. These pews are in Missouri. And you have to SHOW ME in this state.<br /><br />Jack RickardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-78376536389827858962010-09-30T00:46:39.134-05:002010-09-30T00:46:39.134-05:00Maybe, but where's your data?
I'm not an ...Maybe, but where's your data?<br /><br />I'm not an aerodynamicist, and I don't have to be to know what I know. It isn't really about the math or what is "intuitively obvious." For all I know, the explanation I've been told is aerodynamically incorrect or incomplete, but it doesn't change the data: racers have been adding weight to go faster at Bonneville since the Daytona Beach days. <br /><br />Could it all be just more of that "racing religion" and not really true at all? Sure, that's possible, but racers are pretty keen on observing and replicating results. Could it actually be about increased stability and traction at speed, and have nothing to do with aerodynamic forces? That's plenty possible, too. Just about everything is POSSIBLE, particularly among "amateurs" unencumbered by a professional opinion about what certainly could not happen. That's what makes results so illuminating and challenging when compared to what just thinking about something a lot might predict.<br /><br />Jack threw down some interesting data on his EVs' energy usage, and a pretty cogent idea about why it might be that way. I added a similar thought from the history of high-speed racing with which I'm familiar, and I proposed a test of both ideas that wouldn't be too hard to do, and might surprise us both (if Jack survives the hazards of the exercise.)<br /><br />Are you saying you have an alternative hypothesis for the observations at hand and that you would like him to try something to test your theory, or are you just stating an (intuitively) obvious, but apparently contradictory non-sequitur that neither explains the data, nor advances the inquiry? How does "the equation for wind resistance" matter to Jack's observations?<br /><br />Your regen commentary is quite similar. Lots of intuiting, plenty of calculation, and no addressing the data. I don't see any relationship between the numbers you're putting down around regen, with ersatz accuracy, and the observations Jack & co. have taken the trouble to document. It just seems like a way to say "you're wrong" without actually contradicting anything real. Jack hasn't said regen doesn't exist, only that "the potential value" people often claim or believe hasn't really been found in careful observation of the EVTV fleet. What do you think about that?<br /><br />TomATom Alvaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138074813335115689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-1335783452662398102010-09-29T22:01:33.672-05:002010-09-29T22:01:33.672-05:00"it appears that the heavier the vehicle, the..."it appears that the heavier the vehicle, the less effect wind resistance appears to have."<br /><br />"the heavier car is more efficient through the air."<br /><br />The equation for wind resistance does not have mass in it, and thus mass cannot in any way affect drag. I think this should be intuitively obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-57332758066595468072010-09-29T21:46:42.828-05:002010-09-29T21:46:42.828-05:00"Regen. Might be more of a factor with this l..."Regen. Might be more of a factor with this larger vehicle. But I've grown wary of myths and what "everyone knows.""<br /><br />We are dealing with laws of physics, not mythology! If I did my calculations correctly when you get the beast up to 60 MPH you will be carrying 328 WH of energy. I spoke with the rep at the EV section of the Ford booth at Osh and he said they figure to recapture about 75% of the energy that would have been dumped into the brakes. You might do even better with your super-caps, recapturing 246 WH or more that would have been wasted as heat in the brakes. Of course, this assumes you actually use the brakes which I suspect you will by necessity do more in this heavy vehicle. <br /><br />Since hybrids get ALL of their energy from gasoline, any improvement in mileage must be primarily from regeneration since the major losses (rolling resistance and wind resistance) are the same for both. Again, the new MKZ hybrid published EPA mileage is 127% better than ICE in city driving.<br /><br />I'm not trying to say you should put regen in this project or any other for that matter, but I don't want the community to misunderstand the potential value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-45322599047908267032010-09-29T21:21:58.129-05:002010-09-29T21:21:58.129-05:00I'm not sure I follow you, but I do see that y...I'm not sure I follow you, but I do see that you are anonymous. I've had interaction with Jeff Jenkins both positive and negative in the forums in the past. No, now I don't want to buy 2 of his controllers, I already have bought two of his controllers. And they look pretty good. We're still looking at them, and I wouldn't say I'm committed, but they're strong candidates fore the Escalade conversion at this point.<br /><br />Now if you learn how to spell hypocrisy, and there's a clue here in this message somewhere, perhaps I'll try to explain to you what it means.<br /><br />Or not...<br /><br />Jack RickardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-36326438382550957932010-09-29T15:50:24.480-05:002010-09-29T15:50:24.480-05:00So, after all that crap you laid on Jeffrey Jenkin...So, after all that crap you laid on Jeffrey Jenkins in the past, now you want to buy 2 of his controllers? I see that hypocracy is still your virtue, Jack....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-62527385600844935072010-09-28T04:39:08.058-05:002010-09-28T04:39:08.058-05:00Hi Jack,
>If we look for a 30 volt sag at 2000...Hi Jack,<br /><br />>If we look for a 30 volt sag at 2000 amps on a <br />>180v pack, it is 1//2 x 42.66 x 900 or 19197 <br />>joules (amp seconds).<br /><br />quick correction, joules are watt-seconds, not amp-seconds.<br /><br />180v to 150v with a 41.55F cap = 206'217 J<br />0.5 * (180^2-150^2) * 41.66.<br /><br />206'217 J = 45kw for 4.5 sec (or 206kw for 1sec).<br /><br />bring on the data when its built though :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-5784199747415129892010-09-27T20:48:30.229-05:002010-09-27T20:48:30.229-05:00Idling. Well it's a bit cummulative. We actua...Idling. Well it's a bit cummulative. We actually plan to use the existing AC compressor, and it is a bit of a monster. I'm not sure what we did in the Mini could keep up. <br /><br />The biggest reason is to use the internal pump in the transmission for its hydraulic pressure. Yes, there are workarounds there too. <br /><br />Third of course is to use the power steering pump, in this case to drive power steering and power brakes. <br /><br />And you're quite right, we could do away wilh all that. But count it up, a motor and controller for the A/C compressor, a motor and pump for the hydraulics, a motor and pump for the power steering and a motor and vacuum pump for the brakes. With all those little motors, wouldn't it just be more efficient to idle one of the two big ones? <br /><br />And so that's what we're doing. It should simplify the system, and I don't think it will be any more power. We'll be pumping air through our motors without much of a load or current going through them, and that will likely help cool them over just having them stop. And I think it will be a lot easier on them to accelerate from 500 rpm to 2000 rpm than it is to start from a rotor stall.<br /><br />I haven't done the math on all those loads, it'sjust sort of a gut check approximation that we'll bebetter off with one motor turning.<br /><br />Should be less expensive too.<br /><br />Jack RickardJack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-88466518149526094102010-09-27T19:34:10.811-05:002010-09-27T19:34:10.811-05:00Wonderful project! I endorse the mythbusting exper...Wonderful project! I endorse the mythbusting experiment regardinf automatics as unsuitable for EVs.<br /><br />However, I must admit I am still uncertain as to why you need to idle the motors. Could you please clarify why it is necessary? <br /><br />I understand asking the motors to work hard at 0rpm is asking for trouble, but that's why you have a torque converter: It lets your motors spin up to a happier RPM (the stall speed) before asking them to do any real work.<br /><br />I understand you want your AC compressor to work at stop lights, but you know how to solve that problem without idling your motors: do what you did on the Mini.<br /><br />The only reason left I can think of is to reduce the time it takes to get your motors spinning at the stall speed, and for that you could get a converter with a lower stall speed.<br /><br />There's probably a good reason I've overlooked, so I'm hoping you can explain it to me. Otherwise I'm very excited to see how this turns out.<br /><br />Of course, all this presupposes spinning your motors at idle is an unnecessarily wasteful act. And next to the task of hauling 7200 pounds around, I'm guessing idling is no work at all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13461556577069595088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-27757091576276179662010-09-27T19:17:39.136-05:002010-09-27T19:17:39.136-05:00Help Jack! I still can't get this/last week&#...Help Jack! I still can't get this/last week's show to load! I even kicked in a couple of bucks to the bandwidth fund!Franknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-24752579932959927742010-09-27T18:18:19.335-05:002010-09-27T18:18:19.335-05:00Jack:
You've hit on a curious aerodynamic phe...Jack:<br /><br />You've hit on a curious aerodynamic phenomenon Bonneville racers have known about for many years- the heavier car is more efficient through the air.<br /><br />Its a simple thing- at any given frontal area and shape, the heavier car has more mass with which to shove the air column ahead of it out of the way. Since the aero forces involved are increasing with the cube of speed, and the mechanical forces of carrying the extra weight are only go up basically linearly, the heavier car has a growing advantage as the speed climbs. On the salt flats, the heavier car is significantly faster, even with the same drivetrain!<br /><br />I'm not sure this is the whole answer for what you're observing. In fact, I'm quite sure it isn't because the cockpit and underbody aero on the Speedster is terrible and the Mini is quite good. Still, it would be REALLY interesting to lay 400lbs of iron weights on the floor of the speedster and see what happens. I will bet you a big fat steak it is faster...<br /><br />TomATom Alvaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138074813335115689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-82354139052215049202010-09-27T12:31:46.608-05:002010-09-27T12:31:46.608-05:00Hi Jack,
How do you imagine you will be verifying...Hi Jack,<br /><br />How do you imagine you will be verifying any lifetime extension of the cells due to the caps ?<br /><br />Martin.Martin Zachohttp://www.citystromer.dknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-77595064940597422872010-09-27T11:29:09.726-05:002010-09-27T11:29:09.726-05:00Hi Jack et al.
It will be a fine battery pack the...Hi Jack et al.<br /><br />It will be a fine battery pack the Escalde will be packing :)<br /><br />Regarding the poor "milage" at 70 mph, your might recall that the power drain from the pack i proportional to the speed _cubed_ ! Since the speed tends to be constant for long durations, the energy drain will also be proportional to the speed cubed. There is also another factor and that is the airflow. It migth go from something resembling a laminar flow to a turbulent flow at higher speeds and thereby increasing the drag coefficient.<br /><br />The 72 Maxwell 3000F seems to be a good conservative choise for 52 CALB cells. The lifetime on the caps are very temperature dependent. The 3000F are rated for 150A continous and 2170A peak (1 sec) so you might have to consider the duty cycle of your application.<br /><br />Will you be using passive (resistive) balancing or the active balancing circuit from maxwell ?<br /><br />Martin.Martin Zachohttp://www.citystromer.dknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-39305410856987297742010-09-27T10:12:36.835-05:002010-09-27T10:12:36.835-05:00Tom:
I'm TOLD that this Cadillac Escalade EXT...Tom:<br /><br />I'm TOLD that this Cadillac Escalade EXT was a split year and some vehicles actually HAD hydroboost. If we can find that part number, I think we'll be good to go. But yes, it's a little bit of a detective story.Jack Rickardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15936311474215791697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6676835811534572362.post-23235182224715742182010-09-27T09:44:45.578-05:002010-09-27T09:44:45.578-05:00If you had a hard top for the Speedster you'd ...If you had a hard top for the Speedster you'd see the problem with convertible aero in back-back tests. It is otherwise pretty slippery, but I suspect the Mini is still smoother. <br /><br />TomATom Alvaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138074813335115689noreply@blogger.com