SRAM or nuvinci electric pedal asssist
G.fried
is there something evolving wih regards to the combination of internally
geared hubs and electric propulsion?
- more power?
- xtra durability?
thanx
Efried
Ryan Cousineau
"G.fried" <radl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there something evolving wih regards to the combination of internally
> geared hubs and electric propulsion?
> - more power?
> - xtra durability?
electric-assist bicycle power is limited, as far as I can tell, by
battery capacity and local laws. The batteries are still getting better.
Geared hubs could make for some sensible e-bike solutions with nice
drivetrains, but they aren't really a key part of e-bike technology.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
DougC
I dunno much about electric drives, aside from the fact that they might
benefit a lot from a variable-ratio drive setup.
The NuVinci I do know a bit about; early on they engaged Staton to build
a gas-engine bicycle based on the NuVinci rear hub, to allow the gas
engine to have a variable-ratio drive.
http://www.staton-inc.com/Details.asp?ProductID=3216
One user account-
http://www.motoredbikes.com/showthread.php?t=10230
The NuVinci hub seems to be the ONLY hub so far that is considered
strong enough to withstand motorized use. None of the common
internal-gear-hubs seem to have been sold in any motorized version that
actually drive engine power through the variable gears. Most
home-builders who experimented with the idea soon found themselves with
a long walk home and a handful of internal-gear-hub parts to carry.
-----
I built a gas-engined bicycle with a Golden Eagle kit, which has its
advantages but has a couple big disadvantages--and one is that it still
sticks the engine with only one drive ratio. Those little engines don't
have much torque, and what they do have only comes at the upper 75% or
so of the RPMs. The engine isn't capable of starting up even small
inclines, or of climbing moderate hills. If I built another motorized
bicycle, I'd most likely use the NuVinci.
~
Bernhard Agthe
G.fried wrote:
> is there something evolving wih regards to the combination of internally
> geared hubs and electric propulsion?
You mention two different things (which could cooperate well, but there
are other options).
One thing is the electric propulsion - there are motors to drive the
chain, the front wheel or the rear wheel. Each with different control
wiring and battery packs. As far as I know, there is little data
comparing the different drive types and even less comparing the whole
systems... For example on recumbents the chain-drive variants seem
popular while on upright bikes the hub-motors are more common. As for
control systems I would favor the Pedelec type where the motor only
comes on to aid in pedalling.
As for geared hubs there seem to be two new ones over the last year or
so: the NuVinci as well as the Sram 9-speed. With both of them I would
wait for the "first revision" - I am careful buying the "latest" product
;-) I have not heard much about the NuVinci - it's rather rare? Also
there seems to be a good internal gear hub from Shimano, though they
used to have a "standard" and a "premium" version with only the
"premium" being good and reliable - don't know if still...
If I look at electrically assisted bikes, I would envision much more
recumbent trikes in that category with a small motor (not sure which
system) adding power while pedalling but only for up to 25 km/h or so -
but with long ranges. Since the rider is still required to pedal, he/she
will require a gear shift, probably even an automated one, but it can be
internal or chain shift - or even the Dual-Drive gear shift which I
personally consider rather nice. The components are available either one
by one or as complete bike - it's just not really popular yet.
You see, when you add a high-power drive to a bicycle with a separate
control to switch the assist drive on while not pedalling, I would
consider this a (light) motorcycle.
Have fun...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Around here the problem is where to ride them. 'Motorized' makes it
illegal for bike lanes and multi-use paths. Have to slug it out in
traffic like a normal bike. PLUS the weight, expense, complications,
etc makes me wonder why you wouldn't just buy a motorized, 49cc
scooter. Really cheap used.
Ron Ruff
> Around here the problem is where to ride them. 'Motorized' makes it
> illegal for bike lanes and multi-use paths. Have to slug it out in
> traffic like a normal bike. PLUS the weight, expense, complications,
> etc makes me wonder why you wouldn't just buy a motorized, 49cc
> scooter. Really cheap used.
Another problem occurs to me whenever I see bicycles with electric
assist. Even if you could use them in bike lanes... what issues do
they solve and who is likely to use them? People who are happy riding
bicycles do not want the extra weight and expense, and people who are
not happy riding bicycles will reject these for the same reasons that
they reject bikes... slow, dangerous, exposed to the weather, still
have to work hard enough to get sweaty on a warm day, etc.
I've studied electric vehicles quite a bit, and there is really just
one niche where they excel... and that is very light and small city
vehicles... say something 300-400lbs with a 30mi range and a 45mph top
speed. Old cheap technology... nothing fancy... could be made for $2k
each in China for sure. No, they wouldn't have all the comforts of
your living room (like modern SUVs), not even heat and AC, but for
most of the population they'd much more viable for general
transportation than a bicycle or a scooter. If our roads and
infrastructure were designed to accomodate these and bicycles...
rather than ever larger SUVs and trucks... we could solve all of our
traffic density and fuel use problems.
DougC
>
> Another problem occurs to me whenever I see bicycles with electric
> assist. Even if you could use them in bike lanes... what issues do
> they solve and who is likely to use them? People who are happy riding
> bicycles do not want the extra weight and expense, and people who are
> not happy riding bicycles will reject these for the same reasons that
> they reject bikes... slow, dangerous, exposed to the weather, still
> have to work hard enough to get sweaty on a warm day, etc.
>
In some locales, motorized bicycles have no use restrictions that
regular bicycles don't have--including bike-path use.
As to who would use them, there's three groups I can think of:
1) people who don't want to drive or don't have a car, but who use a
bicycle as /transportation/,and need to get to their destination with a
minimum of time and exertion,
2) people with physical limitations that cannot easily or safely pedal
very much, or who (for medical reasons) may suddenly have great
difficulty pedaling *at all*, and finally
3) people who just want to have fun.
As to "the extra weight and expense", someone who only rides
penny-farthings probably thinks you're a pussy for acting like you need
/gears/.
The whole development of civilization is that you get to choose what
"extra weight and expense" you engage in. If you truly believe in that
concept, you wouldn't have a bicycle at all, you'd just walk everywhere.
-----
By the by--where I live, there are no bike paths.
There's a chain of streets through town designated as a "bike route",
but for the most part it sticks to side streets and goes nowhere really
useful. I find the "need" of bike paths to be rather baffling.
~
Chalo
>
> illegal for bike lanes and multi-use paths.
A lot of places make no such distinction. E-scooters without pedals
aren't even legal in the State of Texas without DOT equipment and a
moped license, but Austin police let them go because they'd rather
folks use e-scooters than something else.
> Have to slug it out in
> traffic like a normal bike. PLUS the weight, expense, complications,
> etc makes me wonder why you wouldn't just buy a motorized, 49cc
> scooter. Really cheap used.
You have to register, license, and sometimes insure gas scooters.
They are noisy, stinky, and hot, and you can't keep them inside decent
living quarters. They have several more modes of failure than e-
bikes. They aren't acceptable on bicycle facilities anywhere. Even
mopeds that have "pedals" don't work under human power alone, while
most e-bikes are fully functional bicycles with or without motor
power.
Chalo
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Expensive, complicated answer to a simple question..kinda like 'bents.
Here we GO!!!
Chalo
>
> >
> > Even
> > mopeds that have "pedals" don't work under human power alone, while
> > most e-bikes are fully functional bicycles with or without motor
> > power.
>
Administrative requirements for most motor vehicles are also expensive
and complicated, and they can be circumvented by using an e-bike.
My e-bike in Seattle made sense for getting me home from work, in
bulky fisherman's raingear, up a 400 foot tall hill, after 12 hours or
more on the job. Once I returned to Austin, it didn't fill a need
anymore and I removed the motor and electrical gear. I am planning to
put the e-motor back in business on a cargo bike, though.
If I had to wear a suit to work, I'd surely still ride an e-bike.
Chalo
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Micro market. These are sold a block away as mainstream transportation
in a town that has no dress code. $50 answer to a $5 question. Buy a
$250 bike and pedal it. Nothing in Boulder is more than 7 miles away.
Peter Cole
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> Around here the problem is where to ride them. 'Motorized' makes it
>> illegal for bike lanes and multi-use paths. Have to slug it out in
>> traffic like a normal bike. PLUS the weight, expense, complications,
>> etc makes me wonder why you wouldn't just buy a motorized, 49cc
>> scooter. Really cheap used.
>
> Another problem occurs to me whenever I see bicycles with electric
> assist. Even if you could use them in bike lanes... what issues do
> they solve and who is likely to use them? People who are happy riding
> bicycles do not want the extra weight and expense, and people who are
> not happy riding bicycles will reject these for the same reasons that
> they reject bikes... slow, dangerous, exposed to the weather, still
> have to work hard enough to get sweaty on a warm day, etc.
According to this, Chinese bought 7.5 million e-bikes in 2004, 10M in
2005, 16-18M in 2006, and estimates of up to 25-30M in 2007. 3M exported
in 2006.
http://postcarboncities.net/cheap-and-green-electric-bikes-are-rage-china
And:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-08-15-europe-electric-bikes_N.htm
France: 6,000 2006, 10,000 2007; Germany 60,000 2007, 120,000 2008
(est); Netherlands 45,000 2006, 89,000 2007, 121,000 2008 (est).
They're certainly solving somebody's problem.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >> Around here the problem is where to ride them. 'Motorized' makes it
> >> illegal for bike lanes and multi-use paths. Have to slug it out in
> >> traffic like a normal bike. PLUS the weight, expense, complications,
> >> etc makes me wonder why you wouldn't just buy a motorized, 49cc
> >> scooter. Really cheap used.
>
> > Another problem occurs to me whenever I see bicycles with electric
> > assist. Even if you could use them in bike lanes... what issues do
> > they solve and who is likely to use them? People who are happy riding
> > bicycles do not want the extra weight and expense, and people who are
> > not happy riding bicycles will reject these for the same reasons that
> > they reject bikes... slow, dangerous, exposed to the weather, still
> > have to work hard enough to get sweaty on a warm day, etc.
>
> According to this, Chinese bought 7.5 million e-bikes in 2004, 10M in
> 2005, 16-18M in 2006, and estimates of up to 25-30M in 2007. 3M exported
> in 2006.
>
>
> And:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-08-15-europe-ele...
>
> France: 6,000 2006, 10,000 2007; Germany 60,000 2007, 120,000 2008
> (est); Netherlands 45,000 2006, 89,000 2007, 121,000 2008 (est).
>
> They're certainly solving somebody's problem.
Compare that to 'manual' bicycles sold to get an answer. Also check
the price of gas. A gent I know in the Netherlands said gas was about
$9 per gallon, hasn't really gone down. We paid $4 and whined..now
it's $1.60, probably stabilize about $2.50.
Also look at distance from home to work to shopping, etc. and compare
to the US. Boulder is small, very centralized, most urban areas are
not. Even tho centralized, an 'E'bike is a tough sell here. Fitness,
showers, lockers, Ebike would seem like cheating. Even if it was
cheap, simple, which it isn't.
Peter Cole
"In many major cities, electric bicycles now make up 10 to 20 percent of
all two-wheeled vehicles on the roads, a trend that could have an impact
on the nation's rising greenhouse-gas emissions and poor air quality.
Many Chinese cities, including Shanghai, with its population of 20
million, have banned motorcycles and motor scooters as dangerous and
polluting, giving a huge sales boost to what the bike trade has dubbed
e-bikes.
> Also check
> the price of gas. A gent I know in the Netherlands said gas was about
> $9 per gallon, hasn't really gone down. We paid $4 and whined..now
> it's $1.60, probably stabilize about $2.50.
Probably not for long. The days of cheap gas are behind us -- forever.
But it's about much more than the price of fuel, it's more about
pollution (in all its forms).
> Also look at distance from home to work to shopping, etc. and compare
> to the US. Boulder is small, very centralized, most urban areas are
> not. Even tho centralized, an 'E'bike is a tough sell here. Fitness,
> showers, lockers, Ebike would seem like cheating. Even if it was
> cheap, simple, which it isn't.
"The e-bikes enable people to commute longer distances, allowing them
more freedom in where they choose to live."
"A simple electric bicycle has a battery that can power a rider along
for 25 to 30 miles before needing a recharge. Recharging the battery
requires eight hours."
"Riders find they can recover the outlay for electric bicycles over a year."
'"They spend less than 2,000 yuan (about $260) to buy an electric bike,
and they don't have to pay for public transportation," Ma said. "Some
people pay 10 yuan (about $1.30) a day in public transportation. An
e-bike costs just a few cents a day."'
"Experts say e-bikes can run 30 miles on 5 cents' worth of electricity,
a rate of energy consumption that makes them even more efficient than
fully occupied buses."
The whole "cheating" thing is a US and (possibly) European mindset. You
can't go without the automotive status symbol unless you're on a higher
mission.
American consumers are looking for some magic plug-in Hummer. It ain't
gonna happen.
A Muzi
>>> Even
>>> mopeds that have "pedals" don't work under human power alone, while
>>> most e-bikes are fully functional bicycles with or without motor
>>> power.
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> Expensive, complicated answer to a simple question..kinda like 'bents.
Chalo wrote:
> Administrative requirements for most motor vehicles are also expensive
> and complicated, and they can be circumvented by using an e-bike.
> My e-bike in Seattle made sense for getting me home from work, in
> bulky fisherman's raingear, up a 400 foot tall hill, after 12 hours or
> more on the job. Once I returned to Austin, it didn't fill a need
> anymore and I removed the motor and electrical gear. I am planning to
> put the e-motor back in business on a cargo bike, though.
> If I had to wear a suit to work, I'd surely still ride an e-bike.
Why? I wear suits at work and have no interest whatsoever in klutzing up
a lightweight vehicle. Then again I don't have 400 feet of climb either.
From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I wouldn't use China as a model for anything but China.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > If I had to wear a suit to work, I'd surely still ride an e-bike.
>
> Why? I wear suits at work and have no interest whatsoever in klutzing up
> a lightweight vehicle. Then again I don't have 400 feet of climb either.
Nor do you have three months of 100 degree weather per year.
> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
> better.
Except (as I already pointed out to Peter) for the license,
registration, insurance as applicable, noise, fumes, heat, drips of
petroleum products, periodic maintenance, lack of pedal-only option,
unacceptability on sidewalks/bike paths/bike lanes, and the fact that
they can't live inside with you unless you live in a dump.
Trying to equate e-bikes with gas scooters is like trying to drive
your F250 4X4 on the golf course. It's not the same thing, even if it
looks like it would work just fine.
Chalo
Peter Cole
Me neither, not for America anyway. E-bikes may never take off in
America, but not because they're too expensive or can't handle typical
commutes. It's interesting that the popular Chinese vehicles are
scooters, they don't want anything that looks like a bike.
Helmut Springer
> Even if you could use them in bike lanes... what issues do they
> solve and who is likely to use them? People who are happy riding
> bicycles do not want the extra weight and expense,
Not living in a flat area makes a difference here.
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Interesting that they seem to opt for an electric scooter where the
major component of their deadly air pollution is coal fired power
plants. I think they buy them cuz they can, not that they necessarily
answer any question or solve any problem they have with regards to
transportation and the bicycle.
Ron Ruff
> It's interesting that the popular Chinese vehicles are
> scooters, they don't want anything that looks like a bike.
Which was the next question I was going to ask... are most of these e-
bikes actually scooters? That would make more sense to me:
http://www.e-max-scooter.com/
And the point I was trying to make earlier is that a similar-sized
drivetrain with a tadpole trike configuration and a light fiberglass
or plastic body would be a more viable vehicle for most of the
population.
Peter Cole
They apparently went to electric scooters because the government banned
gas scooters. Gas scooters have historically been a mainstay of
transportation in much of Asia.
Even if all the electricity is coal fired, it still gives the ability to
locate the power plants outside of the metro areas. Down the road, it
offers the potential to mitigate the pollution at the source. That may
not help CO2 emissions (unless a sequestering approach is engineered),
but even with transmission losses, electric "well-to-wheel" efficiencies
are much better. When you consider electric bikes run in the 10Wh/mi,
cars 225Wh/mi and buses 1,000Wh/mi, and petroleum equivalent 82KWh/gal,
you get 80 mpg equivalent for buses, 300+ for cars and 7,000+ for bikes.
Even with generation and distribution inefficiencies, it's impossible to
get anywhere close with internal combustion.
Much of the world relies on electric rail for mass transportation. The
difficult problem is the inter-modal one ("last mile"). Bikes are
popular for this already, e-bikes just extend the range of this
solution. Many European cities are limiting auto access because of
congestion and pollution, bikes and e-bikes/scooters seem a natural
solution.
GM appears to be still chasing the idea of the "hydrogen economy" (fuel
cells, nukes, etc.), it doesn't look good (for either GM or the hydrogen
economy). The "electric economy" is already here. We (the world) have
distribution networks and a variety of generation sources already with
the ability to plug in new sources (wind, solar, geothermal) as they
become available. The Chinese are in a good position, being the world's
largest supplier of rechargeable batteries. They are transferring
lithium technology from laptops to e-vehicles.
Currently, a high-end e-bike with 500-1,000W motor, 500-1,000 W-hr of
battery, adds about 30 lb and $1,000 to a conventional bike. Prices and
weights have been coming down, and performance and reliability has been
going up. For cultural reasons, those regions where scooters have been
historically popular will probably continue with e-scooters, while those
who have used bikes may prefer e-bikes.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> It's interesting that the popular Chinese vehicles are
>> scooters, they don't want anything that looks like a bike.
>
> Which was the next question I was going to ask... are most of these e-
> bikes actually scooters? That would make more sense to me:
> http://www.e-max-scooter.com/
In China, yes, Europe, no.
> And the point I was trying to make earlier is that a similar-sized
> drivetrain with a tadpole trike configuration and a light fiberglass
> or plastic body would be a more viable vehicle for most of the
> population.
If you look at Asia, historically gas powered ultra-light (trikes, etc.)
have been popular, but scooters much more so. Of course colder climates
require more protection from the elements, so electric ultra-lights
might become more popular in those places. Enclosed cabins make the
vehicles more aerodynamically unstable, leading to tri/quad wheels,
which then make them much less agile/compact. We probably don't need
that degree of volumetric efficiency in the West (look at where we're
starting from), but things are different in the East.
Peter Cole
There is an interesting thread posted by a guy who used the NuVinci with
an electric motor:
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5845
Bottom line seems to be that the NuVinci is heavy, inefficient, won't
shift under power, and is pretty expensive. It doesn't really seem to
offer any distinct advantages to electric drive bikes.
Peter Cole
> In article <941c1$494a0057$506dc728$44...@news.chello.at>,
> "G.fried" <radl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> is there something evolving wih regards to the combination of internally
>> geared hubs and electric propulsion?
>> - more power?
>> - xtra durability?
>
> electric-assist bicycle power is limited, as far as I can tell, by
> battery capacity and local laws. The batteries are still getting better.
>
Batteries may have been just obsoleted. EEstore just received a patent
for their ultracapacitor technology. They claim 52 kW-h in an under
300lb device. That's 10x and 3x the energy/weight density of lead-acid
and lithium respectively. The other things that characterize this
technology is non-toxic & non-explosive chemistry, unlimited recharge
cycles and virtually instantaneous recharge time. If these devices are
for real, they'll completely change the game.
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7466536.pdf
Ultracaps have been progressing rapidly. Last year the first commercial
battery replacing product I know of was introduced -- an electric
screwdriver. The bad news was that it could only do 22 screws on a
charge, the good news was a charge takes 90 seconds.
Ryan Cousineau
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <941c1$494a0057$506dc728$44...@news.chello.at>,
> > "G.fried" <radl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> is there something evolving wih regards to the combination of internally
> >> geared hubs and electric propulsion?
> >> - more power?
> >> - xtra durability?
> >
> > electric-assist bicycle power is limited, as far as I can tell, by
> > battery capacity and local laws. The batteries are still getting better.
> >
>
> Batteries may have been just obsoleted. EEstore just received a patent
> for their ultracapacitor technology. They claim 52 kW-h in an under
> 300lb device. That's 10x and 3x the energy/weight density of lead-acid
> and lithium respectively. The other things that characterize this
> technology is non-toxic & non-explosive chemistry, unlimited recharge
> cycles and virtually instantaneous recharge time. If these devices are
> for real, they'll completely change the game.
>
> http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7466536.pdf
Patents are one thing, production is another.
> Ultracaps have been progressing rapidly. Last year the first commercial
> battery replacing product I know of was introduced -- an electric
> screwdriver. The bad news was that it could only do 22 screws on a
> charge, the good news was a charge takes 90 seconds.
>
> http://www.colemanflashcellscrewdriver.com/
Watch This Space. Actually, that's kind of cool. For what I need a
screwdriver to do, being able to take a charge quickly is probably more
important than doing more than 20 screws between charges.
Seriously though, ultracaps are one possible path to the future. If they
can hit their targets and become a competitive production technology,
then there you go.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Peter,
Speaking of completely changing the game, how many kilowatt-hours are
there in a gallon of gas (~7 lbs) that takes less than five minutes to
put in the tank?
:-)
"A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
kilowatt hours of energy."
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/why-gasoline-is-still-king
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
Yes, and if that car got 35 mpg, it would be consuming 1kWh/mi. An
electric car, by comparison, is more like 250 Wh/mi. When gas goes back
to $4+/gal (and it certainly will), this will get attention again.
The ultracapacitor has at least the potential to support electric
vehicles in a way that's similar to today's gas vehicles. First, the
"refill" time is short (6 min), second, even though the energy density
isn't close (30:1), it's much better than existing battery technology
(100-300:1). A version for the Tesla would weigh ~300lb vs. 1,000lb.
Electric motors and drive systems are much lighter than IC. The
characteristics of ultracaps make the technology very favorable for
hybrid designs.
I wouldn't expect "fair & balanced" coverage from the mouthpiece of the
American Enterprise Institute.
The
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Peter,
What do you see as unfair or unbalanced in this section about the
Tesla's shortcomings?
"We may earnestly speculate about flywheels and compressed air and
various gases, natural and unnatural—but we go with gasoline.Right now
the impressive Tesla electric roadster is the darling of the
automotive press. Its beguiling style and cutting-edge technology have
made it a sensation, albeit an expensive one, at close to $100,000 a
copy. Instead of conventional lead-acid batteries, or nickel
metal-hydride (NiMh) batteries such as those that are used in the
Toyota Prius hybrid, the Tesla draws its energy from an elaborate and
sophisticated array of 6,831 interconnected lithium-ion batteries—the
kind used to power top-line laptops. These batteries, each a little
bigger than a common AA alkaline, are immersed in a liquid cooling
system to prevent them from becoming too hot and possibly bursting
into flames when under the stress of feeding a total of 375 volts to
the Tesla's electric induction motor."
"Enthusiasts see the Tesla as the 'I told you so' electric car, with
its world-class acceleration (a reputed 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds), a
top speed of over 120 mph, and a claimed range of 220 miles. But that
range will bear some scrutiny in real-life conditions as Teslas start
getting into the hands of owners. Automotive testers are already
sounding some warning bells. John O'Dell, who test-drove the car for
Edmunds Inside Line, notes that its range may be 'more like 180 miles
if you like to goose it every once in a while and down around 150 if
you regard speed limits as mere suggestions.' In other words, if you
drive it like a sports car (which it is) you will experience a steady
deterioration of performance as you drive. Add the weight of a
passenger or the challenge of a curving road through hills and the
downturn is more pronounced. O'Dell observes: 'The quickest your
electric sports car will be is in the first few minutes after you
leave the garage. It just gets slower after that until you return home
again.'"
"Make no mistake—the Tesla is an impressive performer, praised for its
handling, its responsiveness in tight spots, and its rocket-like
acceleration. It is often compared to a Porsche 911. Okay. Let the
Porsche drag with the Tesla a few times. The Tesla may well reach 60
mph slightly faster than some versions of the 911. But, while the
Tesla's batteries are electronically panting and cooling off and its
dash displays are flashing warnings about decreased range and
automatically restricting the electric motor’s torque, the Porsche
will go merrily on its way and cruise up to 400 miles on the remaining
gasoline in its 17.7 gallon tank."
"And while the Tesla is recharging its batteries over a period of
hours, the Porsche can have its tank refilled in a minute or two and
be on its way. The electrically refreshed batteries in the Tesla will
then begin another cycle of diminishing performance, while the
gasoline in the Porsche's tank will give it optimum performance to the
last drop. For all its technological edginess, the Tesla is really
just another example of why gasoline is still king. After all the
promises of their yesterdays, electrics remain the cars of tomorrow
because no battery or combination of batteries has duplicated the
energy density of a gallon of gasoline."
terryc
> They claim 52 kW-h in an under 300lb device.
Sounds a bit like the molten sulphur(?) battery, aka works great if
you are talking about powering a bus and have a power source to plug
into at all other time.
Chalo
>
> "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
> kilowatt hours of energy."
--and is toxic, dangerously flammable, stinky, and totally unsuitable
to park inside an efficiency apartment or office cubicle.
Chalo
Ryan Cousineau
<cad59565-7189-48c8...@q18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Chalo <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
I dunno about half of this argument, Chalo. I have met very few people
willing to eat a Li battery. Mind you, they only spontaneously combust
if mishandled, or if there's a design flaw.
The general point about how crazy gasoline is makes sense, but Carl is
pointing out something else that is overlooked a lot by people who
should know better: gasoline and diesel are used as fuels because
nothing as easy to handle as them has anywhere near the same energy
density.
Now, an internal-combustion engine only uses a fraction of that fuel to
make a car's wheels move, which is why other technologies even have a
chance.
I think, despite the AEI's doubting, the Tesla is the first good-enough
electric car. I am thinking back over my car use in the last year, and I
did not make a single trip that would have exceeded 180 miles between
charging opportunities. This wouldn't be universal, but I think that a
substantial number of people are in the same situation of rarely or
never needing long-haul capability.
The Tesla is still expensive, but they wisely gave it performance to
burn, and it's got fine and interesting performance for a $100k sports
car.
The next decade in cars is going to look like the last decade in
photography: we'll convert from gas to electric cars about as rapidly as
mainstream photography has converted from film to digital.
Peter Cole
>> I wouldn't expect "fair & balanced" coverage from the mouthpiece of the
>> American Enterprise Institute.
>>
>> The
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> What do you see as unfair or unbalanced in this section about the
> Tesla's shortcomings?
Why restrict my critique to one section of the article?
But just to respond to that, first read the primary source article:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124716
> "We may earnestly speculate about flywheels and compressed air and
> various gases, natural and unnatural—but we go with gasoline.Right now
> the impressive Tesla electric roadster is the darling of the
> automotive press. Its beguiling style and cutting-edge technology have
> made it a sensation, albeit an expensive one, at close to $100,000 a
> copy. Instead of conventional lead-acid batteries, or nickel
> metal-hydride (NiMh) batteries such as those that are used in the
> Toyota Prius hybrid, the Tesla draws its energy from an elaborate and
> sophisticated array of 6,831 interconnected lithium-ion batteries—the
> kind used to power top-line laptops. These batteries, each a little
> bigger than a common AA alkaline, are immersed in a liquid cooling
> system to prevent them from becoming too hot and possibly bursting
> into flames when under the stress of feeding a total of 375 volts to
> the Tesla's electric induction motor."
The text from the test drive article:
"The magic lies in the battery pack. There are 6,831 lithium-ion
batteries, each about a third bigger than the AA cells you use in your
digital camera. They're linked together in a unique package that
incorporates liquid cooling, safety fuses and fancy power control
programming to eliminate worries about what battery engineers like to
call "thermal events." The batteries feed 410 volts to the Roadster's
air-cooled AC induction motor, which redlines at 13,000 rpm."
Note the amplification of the hazard "possible bursting into flames when
under the stress..."
> "Enthusiasts see the Tesla as the 'I told you so' electric car, with
> its world-class acceleration (a reputed 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds), a
> top speed of over 120 mph, and a claimed range of 220 miles. But that
> range will bear some scrutiny in real-life conditions as Teslas start
> getting into the hands of owners. Automotive testers are already
> sounding some warning bells. John O'Dell, who test-drove the car for
> Edmunds Inside Line, notes that its range may be 'more like 180 miles
> if you like to goose it every once in a while and down around 150 if
> you regard speed limits as mere suggestions.' In other words, if you
> drive it like a sports car (which it is) you will experience a steady
> deterioration of performance as you drive. Add the weight of a
> passenger or the challenge of a curving road through hills and the
> downturn is more pronounced. O'Dell observes: 'The quickest your
> electric sports car will be is in the first few minutes after you
> leave the garage. It just gets slower after that until you return home
> again.'"
What the reviewer said was substantially different.
"We drove the Tesla Roadster hard all morning, and by the time we got
back to flat ground for our official instrumented acceleration run, we
had only about an eighth of a charge and nine miles of range left in the
battery pack. At this point, the Tesla's electronics are programmed to
kick into a torque-limiting, energy-saving mode when the batteries have
been drained significantly."
"Fortunately we were able to add a bit of juice with an hour's stopover
in Tesla's shop, hooked up to the 70-amp, 240-volt home-charger unit
that comes with each car (installation extra). But we still had only 23
miles on the range meter and a severe case of torque restriction when we
headed out to the lightly traveled highway that serves as Tesla's
unofficial test track for acceleration runs."
"Add damp street surfaces and a slight uphill grade and the best 0-60 we
were able to record was 6.0 seconds."
But, earlier in the article:
"Our test car was outfitted with the jury-rigged tranny Tesla is using
so it can get cars into production pending the introduction of a new
single-speed transmission and reconfigured motor — a system the company
is calling powertrain 1.5.
With the taller 2nd gear our only option, we didn't get the 3.8-second
0-60-mph acceleration that some people have reported, or the 4.4 seconds
that Tesla's own testers have recorded. But with a full charge early in
the day, the pace felt close to the 5.7 seconds the company says the
initial one-speed production models will achieve."
So, to summarize, the "deterioration of performance" that the American
Enterprise article highlighted, was 5.7 to 6.0 sec 0-60, with the
additional handicap of damp road & slight uphill. OK, big deal.
> "Make no mistake—the Tesla is an impressive performer, praised for its
> handling, its responsiveness in tight spots, and its rocket-like
> acceleration. It is often compared to a Porsche 911. Okay. Let the
> Porsche drag with the Tesla a few times. The Tesla may well reach 60
> mph slightly faster than some versions of the 911. But, while the
> Tesla's batteries are electronically panting and cooling off and its
> dash displays are flashing warnings about decreased range and
> automatically restricting the electric motor’s torque, the Porsche
> will go merrily on its way and cruise up to 400 miles on the remaining
> gasoline in its 17.7 gallon tank."
Never mind that the Porsche will also be "panting and cooling off" after
a few drag races, this predicts the Tesla will be in torque restriction,
but, other than low battery state (which shouldn't happen after a "few
drag races"), I don't see the basis for that prediction, and even if it
is true (for thermal reasons, for example). The performance hit seems
modest according to the test drive results.
So, the performance of the two is comparable, and the Porsche has a best
case range of 400 mi, the Tesla 225 mi. The price of the Tesla is
emphasized, while that of the Porsche is omitted. FYI, if the 911 is a
turbo, 2008 MSRP is $126-136K.
>
> "And while the Tesla is recharging its batteries over a period of
> hours, the Porsche can have its tank refilled in a minute or two and
> be on its way. The electrically refreshed batteries in the Tesla will
> then begin another cycle of diminishing performance, while the
> gasoline in the Porsche's tank will give it optimum performance to the
> last drop.
Again the emphasis of this "diminished performance". To call this
misleading would be charitable.
> For all its technological edginess, the Tesla is really
> just another example of why gasoline is still king.
No, it's really an example of how an electric car can compete today at
the performance high-end, with the only real caveats being range and
refuel times. For many owners/applications those issues won't be show
stoppers, but the reason I originally posted on this thread was to
discuss the possibility of ultracapacitor technology to ameliorate these
issues. It is not the only interesting technology, lithium cell
technology is relatively young, especially compared to IC
engine/drivetrain technology.
> After all the
> promises of their yesterdays, electrics remain the cars of tomorrow
> because no battery or combination of batteries has duplicated the
> energy density of a gallon of gasoline."
This is probably true, but is not really the issue (energy density). The
real issue is to get energy density (including lifetime costs) good
enough to compete with hydrocarbon fuels. For some applications, that
day is already here, for many others it seems within sight.
The real benefit is "well to wheel" efficiency, something the article
doesn't even mention. Check out:
http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php
for a comparison. The Tesla roadster is 2x the Prius.
But this is only a rebuttal of your cherry picking of a cherry picking
article. The article is loaded with other biases. The most glaring is
comparing (unfavorably) an actual test driven electric car (albeit a
Lotus-type sports car) against a hypothetical "concept car" of a more
pragmatic sedan configuration.
From the A E article:
"The cars we drive may be more Prius-like in one sense, mating the
virtues of electricity and internal combustion, but they will very
likely be larger and more powerful than a Prius. The cars of a decade
from now may be more like the Mercedes-Benz F700 research car now being
tested. It’s a big car, as big and roomy as the present S-Class Mercedes
flagship sedan. The F700 can accelerate from 0 to over 60 mph in 7.5
seconds and has a top speed of 120 mph, but it averages 44 miles per
gallon and has a very clean exhaust."
Sure, we'll all be driving Mercedes, big ones, too! (S-class, no less!)
From another, perhaps more realistic, source:
"The F700 isn't a hybrid, though — it uses a super-efficient
four-cylinder engine with a prototype powertrain that moves like a V-6
but gets a dreamy 44.3 mpg.
Remember this is a concept, so those numbers aren't even close to being
real yet."
More on the engine/car at :
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7679/
"The result is an 1800cc four-cylinder motor producing 238 bhp (175 kW)
with torque of 400 nm while delivering 6 l/100 km (47 UK mpg, 40 US mpg)
in an S-class."
The problem is we don't need 40 mpg vehicles, we need 100-200 mpg
vehicles. Internal combustion engines just won't get us there.
Peter Cole
Actually, the 52 kW-h pack is about identical in capacity to the
Tesla's, at 1/3 the weight. It would also shorten the recharge time from
hours to minutes.
The difference between ultracaps and batteries is that all batteries
make use of a reversible chemical reaction. The rate of the reaction
limits charge/discharge rates and makes the device sensitive to
temperature effects (e.g. loss of capacity in lead-acid, thermal runaway
in some lithium chemistries, etc.).
Very few predicted that capacitor storage densities would ever get high
enough to challenge batteries. EEstor is claiming to eventually produce
storage devices at almost 700 Wh/kg, for $40/kW-h. A 100 kW-h pack would
then weigh 140kg and cost $4,000. Although that's the energy equivalent
of only 3 gal of gas, the efficiency of electric motors gives at least a
4x multiplier, so that's roughly 12 gal equivalent. With a quick
charging technology, electric "gas stations" could be practical, and
because of their much smaller footprint and facilities, they could be
more numerous.
EEstor may turn out not to live up to the hype, but the fact that
ultracap devices are showing up on the consumer market (Coleman
screwdriver) and that Lockheed-Martin has reviewed their technology and
announced a deal seem to indicate that it's not all vaporware. Even if
it falls short of being a battery killer, ultracaps will be an important
technology in e-vehicles for power regulation & regenerative braking.
Peter Cole
> In article
> <cad59565-7189-48c8...@q18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Chalo <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Carl Fogel wrote:
>>> "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
>>> kilowatt hours of energy."
>> --and is toxic, dangerously flammable, stinky, and totally unsuitable
>> to park inside an efficiency apartment or office cubicle.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> I dunno about half of this argument, Chalo. I have met very few people
> willing to eat a Li battery. Mind you, they only spontaneously combust
> if mishandled, or if there's a design flaw.
I think Chalo's remarks were in the context of a personal transport
device like an e-scooter or e-bike. Only some lithium chemistries are
prone to thermal runaway. The popular new technology for e-vehicles is
lithium phosphate, which does not have that problem and is rated for
many more recharge cycles at a similar energy density. DIY e-bikers are
buying these packs in the 1kW-h size for around $700. The chemistry is
also non-toxic and the ingredients are relatively plentiful and cheap.
A lot of the world uses "Vespa" technology. Electric versions are now
showing up with acceptable performance and acceptable prices. A 60-70lb
e-bike is a practical device to commute or run errands with and still be
able to store indoors.
> The general point about how crazy gasoline is makes sense, but Carl is
> pointing out something else that is overlooked a lot by people who
> should know better: gasoline and diesel are used as fuels because
> nothing as easy to handle as them has anywhere near the same energy
> density.
Yes, but energy density only has to get "good enough", it doesn't have
to match petrochemical.
> Now, an internal-combustion engine only uses a fraction of that fuel to
> make a car's wheels move, which is why other technologies even have a
> chance.
It's all about efficiency. The world needs much higher mpg. IC engines
can't ever get there. That is the #1 problem -- "well-to-wheel"
efficiency. Energy density is critical in spaceships, not in cars,
buses, trucks, trains and boats.
I added an electric motor to my skiff this summer. While the motor is
similar in size/weight to a gas (~25lb), the battery is 50 lb, but who
cares in a boat? The boat weighs 100 lb, the cargo (2 adults & stuff)
450. 50/550 is negligible. Even at our very high electric costs, I can
go out all day for $0.20. Realistically, my dominant cost is the
amortized battery cost of probably $0.50-1.00 a day. Switching to
lithium cells would cost ~7x, but probably increase battery life cycles
by 20x. If I used it every day, it's be a no-brainer, even at today's
prices.
> I think, despite the AEI's doubting, the Tesla is the first good-enough
> electric car. I am thinking back over my car use in the last year, and I
> did not make a single trip that would have exceeded 180 miles between
> charging opportunities. This wouldn't be universal, but I think that a
> substantial number of people are in the same situation of rarely or
> never needing long-haul capability.
10+ years ago, the GM EV1 got 75-150 mi range. Even with that much older
technology the car was hugely popular with its owners (leasers).
> The Tesla is still expensive, but they wisely gave it performance to
> burn, and it's got fine and interesting performance for a $100k sports
> car.
>
> The next decade in cars is going to look like the last decade in
> photography: we'll convert from gas to electric cars about as rapidly as
> mainstream photography has converted from film to digital.
Yes, and like our cameras, our cars will probably come from China.
"GM R&D chief Larry Burns now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid
EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: "If we could
turn back the hands of time," says Burns, "we could have had the Chevy
Volt 10 years earlier."
Dave Lehnen
Even though that article mentions that almost 80% of the heat energy of
gasoline is lost in conversion to mechanical power in a car, it then
ignores that, and compares it directly to electrical energy in a
battery, which can be converted at relatively high efficiency to
mechanical energy by a motor and its drive electronics. The 35 kwh in
the article is slightly more than the 117,000 BTU mentioned earlier in
the same article, which they say is before the almost 80% wasted.
Gas is still a high-density way to store energy, but their math or
thermodynamics is flaky, and their energy-density comparison wrong by a
factor of roughly 3.
Dave Lehnen
Peter Cole
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>> "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
>> kilowatt hours of energy."
>> http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/why-gasoline-is-still-king
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Even though that article mentions that almost 80% of the heat energy of
> gasoline is lost in conversion to mechanical power in a car, it then
> ignores that, and compares it directly to electrical energy in a
> battery, which can be converted at relatively high efficiency to
> mechanical energy by a motor and its drive electronics. The 35 kwh in
> the article is slightly more than the 117,000 BTU mentioned earlier in
> the same article, which they say is before the almost 80% wasted.
>
> Gas is still a high-density way to store energy, but their math or
> thermodynamics is flaky, and their energy-density comparison wrong by a
> factor of roughly 3.
It gets worse if you look at the total "well-to-wheel" efficiency. This
"analysis" of course overlooks the obvious, that electricity can come
from a number of sources, while gasoline comes almost exclusively from
our generous and level-headed Arab friends.
At the end of the day, in a "post-peak" environment, raw efficiency tops
the list of goals. Energy density just has to get good enough. In some
transport applications, like those involving a lot of stop & go like
local delivery vehicles the efficiency picture gets even more lopsided.
All of the range comparisons seem to assume continuous high speed travel
on an open road. How realistic is that?
Cheap fuel has encouraged habits (100 mi daily commutes & shopping
trips) and presented very little penalty for using overkill vehicles. If
it doesn't cost anything, you might as well own a 7 passenger car for
the <1% of the time you might actually need it, ditto for hauling
capacity and long distance travel. In the old days, people had things
delivered or rented the necessary vehicle. Those options are still
available, but seem to be forgotten.
Ryan Cousineau
<rcousine-596579.06370123122008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <cad59565-7189-48c8...@q18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Chalo <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carl Fogel wrote:
> > >
> > > "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
> > > kilowatt hours of energy."
> >
> > --and is toxic, dangerously flammable, stinky, and totally unsuitable
> > to park inside an efficiency apartment or office cubicle.
> >
> > Chalo
>
> The general point about how crazy gasoline is makes sense, but Carl is
> pointing out something else that is overlooked a lot by people who
> should know better: gasoline and diesel are used as fuels because
> nothing as easy to handle as them has anywhere near the same energy
> density.
Re-reading, I ought to clarify this: gas is basically the cheapest
source of reasonably portable energy available. It's common, the
industrial processes to refine it work very well, and its energy density
is great.
> Now, an internal-combustion engine only uses a fraction of that fuel to
> make a car's wheels move, which is why other technologies even have a
> chance.
This, however, holds, and is the reason why gasoline can be beaten at
all.
Peter Cole
> In article
> <rcousine-596579.06370123122008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <cad59565-7189-48c8...@q18g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> Chalo <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Carl Fogel wrote:
>>>> "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
>>>> kilowatt hours of energy."
>>> --and is toxic, dangerously flammable, stinky, and totally unsuitable
>>> to park inside an efficiency apartment or office cubicle.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>> The general point about how crazy gasoline is makes sense, but Carl is
>> pointing out something else that is overlooked a lot by people who
>> should know better: gasoline and diesel are used as fuels because
>> nothing as easy to handle as them has anywhere near the same energy
>> density.
>
> Re-reading, I ought to clarify this: gas is basically the cheapest
> source of reasonably portable energy available. It's common, the
> industrial processes to refine it work very well, and its energy density
> is great.
Coal is much cheaper. When it comes to electricity generation, hydro &
geothermal often beat even coal, wind is close, solar thermal isn't far off.
>> Now, an internal-combustion engine only uses a fraction of that fuel to
>> make a car's wheels move, which is why other technologies even have a
>> chance.
>
> This, however, holds, and is the reason why gasoline can be beaten at
> all.
Converting thermal energy to electrical energy typically runs about 30%
efficiency (worst case, 60% best case), so with coal at $150/ton, 1kW-h
of electricity costs around $0.10. From that POV, you could say that the
35kW-h in a gallon of gas is (currently) cheaper than the $3.50 coal
generated electricity, but that's off by a factor of about 5, so the
"electric equivalent" is more like $9-20/gal. (gas price between
$1.60-4.00).
Unless you're heating a house, it doesn't make sense to talk about raw
(thermal) energy. It makes more sense to talk about electrical energy
since the thermal energy must be converted to mechanical and electric
can be considered an equivalent for it. The 120 lb of gas in a 20 gal
tank could be replaced by 240 lb of coal for the equivalent thermal
energy, filling your tank (bin) would be much cheaper.
Of course true costs need to include all factors, including all forms of
environmental and economic impact.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Peter,
Er, you picked the Tesla as your example in your original post.
And the slower acceleration was after they stopped for an hour's
recharge, according to what you quoted.
You noticed the range and refuel problems--what about the $100,000
price tag?
And what about the manufacture of the batteries, the ability of the
electrical grid to recharge them all (California already has rolling
blackouts in the summer), and the cost of that electricity (apart from
the "fuel", someone has to pay the tax for the roads).
Last I heard, gas is $11 a gallon in Italy, with no swarms of electric
cars in sight.
The problem is that someone decides is "needed" isn't the same as what
actually works on a large scale.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Chalo,
Few people park cars inside efficiency apartments or office cubicles.
:-)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
>> The problem is we don't need 40 mpg vehicles, we need 100-200 mpg
>> vehicles. Internal combustion engines just won't get us there.
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Er, you picked the Tesla as your example in your original post.
I'm sorry, I don't think I did, but I don't know the point you're trying
to make.
> And the slower acceleration was after they stopped for an hour's
> recharge, according to what you quoted.
Yes, and after that recharge the range indicator had 23 miles if I
recall correctly, but the "slower acceleration" was hardly slower at
all, according to the original road test article, but the right-wing rag
made it sound crippled. The spec wasn't mentioned, but I'm guessing it's
8 hr or more for a complete recharge.
> You noticed the range and refuel problems--what about the $100,000
> price tag?
It's a high performance sports car, body by Lotus, etc. The price tag is
typical for that market.
> And what about the manufacture of the batteries,
Lithium technology has been around for years, but the only high volume
source has been the laptop market, which is why the Tesla uses a huge
number of laptop cells. It's the typical chicken/egg problem.
> the ability of the
> electrical grid to recharge them all (California already has rolling
> blackouts in the summer), and the cost of that electricity (apart from
> the "fuel", someone has to pay the tax for the roads).
If the average person drives 1k miles/mo and an e-car gets ~250 W-h/mi,
that's 250 kW-h/mo. The average household uses about 1,000 kW-h/mo, so
yes, there would be impact on the distribution grid, but rather modest,
since these cars will be phased in over several years. 250 kW-h/mo is
$25-50/mo much less than people could expect to pay for gas, even at
current prices. Most roads are not paid for by gas tax, but I imagine
that this use of electricity would be taxed to support roads. That won't
be for a while, since around the world these vehicles are being given
tax breaks.
> Last I heard, gas is $11 a gallon in Italy, with no swarms of electric
> cars in sight.
There are no "swarms" anywhere, except scooters in China. The swarms are
coming. In Italy some cities have banned vehicles with emissions, from
what I understand, trash collection is almost all EV in Italy. EV's are
exempt from the London access fee, etc.
I didn't raise the Tesla originally, you brought up the American
Enterprise article which gave it an unflattering spin of a reported test
drive. I was talking about ultracapacitors, which may have the ability
to go past the present capacity, cost and charge time specs of
batteries. Battery technology is improving rapidly as well.
> The problem is that someone decides is "needed" isn't the same as what
> actually works on a large scale.
"Large scale" solutions are difficult to introduce, even those that
actually work. We haven't seen a lot of new car companies in the last
century. The problem that we saw in the 70's and again last year is that
the economics of fuels can change overnight, but the global fleet can't
be swapped and new technologies perfected in the same time frame. In the
computer business we've seen the mainframe guys get wiped out by the
mini guys who in turn got wiped out by the micro guys, none of them saw
the truck that hit them.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Peter,
Given the sprawling nature of the replies, you may have forgotten this
post:
"A version for the Tesla would weigh ~300lb vs. 1,000lb. Electric
motors and drive systems are much lighter than IC. The characteristics
of ultracaps make the technology very favorable for hybrid designs."
"I wouldn't expect "fair & balanced" coverage from the mouthpiece of t
the American Enterprise Institute."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c22c1b30034e1933
Just as your concern with fairness and balance may led you to forget
fair and balanced comments like this:
"No, I don't hate cars. I dislike the dominance of the car culture,
particularly in the city, which I find the car has made it much less
livable. I actually think cars are a pretty good fit to rural areas,
and I don't have an opinion about the suburbs as I believe, as James
Howard Kunstler says, they're mostly places not worth caring about."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c5b55354ec1c6f5
If you write that theoretical improvements in capacitors are going to
change the whole game, you'll probably find a lot of comments that you
find spinning things in an unfair and unbalanced fashion--but that's
okay, since so far electric cars aren't worth caring about.
:-)
I agree that it would be nice if four-wheeled electric passenger
vehicles were practical, but so far they seem to be restricted to golf
courses.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
Yes, I commented on the Tesla, since that was the focus of the article
you cited, but that was hardly my "initial post".
>
> "I wouldn't expect "fair & balanced" coverage from the mouthpiece of t
> the American Enterprise Institute."
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/c22c1b30034e1933
>
> Just as your concern with fairness and balance may led you to forget
> fair and balanced comments like this:
>
> "No, I don't hate cars. I dislike the dominance of the car culture,
> particularly in the city, which I find the car has made it much less
> livable. I actually think cars are a pretty good fit to rural areas,
> and I don't have an opinion about the suburbs as I believe, as James
> Howard Kunstler says, they're mostly places not worth caring about."
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6c5b55354ec1c6f5
>
> If you write that theoretical improvements in capacitors are going to
> change the whole game, you'll probably find a lot of comments that you
> find spinning things in an unfair and unbalanced fashion--but that's
> okay, since so far electric cars aren't worth caring about.
Well, Kunstler feels that cars should be abandoned completely, I don't
go that far. I think that it's been obvious for quite a while that
Western per capita energy consumption is unsustainable and physics
doesn't offer much hope for internal combustion, so I'll have to
disagree and say I think electric cars are very much worth caring about,
but that's a pretty mainstream position these days.
> I agree that it would be nice if four-wheeled electric passenger
> vehicles were practical, but so far they seem to be restricted to golf
> courses.
Well, practical is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. The only real
impracticality of today's EV's is the batteries, but many people found
even the original lead-acid GM EV1 of 10+ years ago quite practical. A
Tesla would make one hell of a golf cart.
Ryan Cousineau
Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
Yes, but all fail the portability test. Coal is sometimes turned into
methanol (and possibly gas or diesel?) but coal-burning don't work great
at much below the electrical-powerplant scale.
This is a bit off-topic, but I ought to point out a few things about all
those grid-oriented power-generation techniques you mention.
I don't know much about geothermal, but hydro works beautifully in
large-scale operations. The only problem is nobody has the stomach
(read: environmentalists throw organized shit-fits) when anyone proposes
another flood-and-dam hydro project, such as the many that for so long
powered most of British Columbia*. Solar thermal is in its infancy, but
may become important. Probably not so much in Canada.
Wind though, is a nice fragment of a power-generation grid, but it has a
hard time being more than that. The big problem is that in most places,
wind power is available both irregularly and at odds with the highest
demand times. It's possible to mitigate that, but as far as I know, the
major mitigation tricks involve storing the energy (heat water, pump
water uphill, gargantuan batteries, other essentially-undeveloped
technologies). It's not a great solution.
> >> Now, an internal-combustion engine only uses a fraction of that fuel to
> >> make a car's wheels move, which is why other technologies even have a
> >> chance.
> >
> > This, however, holds, and is the reason why gasoline can be beaten at
> > all.
>
> Converting thermal energy to electrical energy typically runs about 30%
> efficiency (worst case, 60% best case), so with coal at $150/ton, 1kW-h
> of electricity costs around $0.10. From that POV, you could say that the
> 35kW-h in a gallon of gas is (currently) cheaper than the $3.50 coal
> generated electricity, but that's off by a factor of about 5, so the
> "electric equivalent" is more like $9-20/gal. (gas price between
> $1.60-4.00).
>
> Unless you're heating a house, it doesn't make sense to talk about raw
> (thermal) energy. It makes more sense to talk about electrical energy
> since the thermal energy must be converted to mechanical and electric
> can be considered an equivalent for it. The 120 lb of gas in a 20 gal
> tank could be replaced by 240 lb of coal for the equivalent thermal
> energy, filling your tank (bin) would be much cheaper.
>
> Of course true costs need to include all factors, including all forms of
> environmental and economic impact.
*British Columbia used to be a net exporter of power, with almost all
local power produced via big hydroelectric projects**. But the province
has grown, and new projects have not been approved, because there are a
lot of people who are opposed to pretty much any large reservoir-type
hydro projects.
**my dad worked on this one, doing the surveying for the logging
operation that ensured the reservoir lake wouldn't have treetops poking
out of its shoreline waters:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._C._Bennett_Dam>
2730 MW is a lot of power.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Well, Kunstler feels that cars should be abandoned completely, I
> don't go that far. I think that it's been obvious for quite a while
> that Western per capita energy consumption is unsustainable and
> physics doesn't offer much hope for internal combustion, so I'll
> have to disagree and say I think electric cars are very much worth
> caring about, but that's a pretty mainstream position these days.
>> I agree that it would be nice if four-wheeled electric passenger
>> vehicles were practical, but so far they seem to be restricted to
>> golf courses.
> Well, practical is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. The only
> real impracticality of today's EV's is the batteries, but many
> people found even the original lead-acid GM EV1 of 10+ years ago
> quite practical. A Tesla would make one hell of a golf cart.
That has always been the problem. Electricity is a slippery quantity
that is not readily stored. That's why hydro electric plants often
pump water back up hill to the reservoir at greatly poor efficiency in
low usage times. We have had electric machinery and vehicles of many
sorts for more than 100 years, so the electric contraption is not the
problem, but rather where to store electricity. Golf carts work well
as do streetcars, elevators, escalators, ski lifts and TGV high speed
rail, so the problem doesn't lie there.
We still have no useful batteries that have a power density even a
tenth what a gasoline, diesel or natural gas fuel tank has. There's
the problem so don't get lathered up over speed and acceleration
claims. Where's the "beef"?
Jobst Brandt
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
[snip]
>Yes, but all fail the portability test. Coal is sometimes turned into
>methanol (and possibly gas or diesel?) but coal-burning don't work great
>at much below the electrical-powerplant scale.
[snip]
Dear Ryan,
Well . . .
Charcoal-powered steam-bicycle by Roper, 1869 and 1905:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/steambike/steambike.htm
More, with detailed photos of an 1894 Roper charcoal steam-bicycle:
http://motorcyclemuseum.org/classics/bike.asp?id=3
Replica Roper charcoal steam-bicycle in action, going choo-choo:
http://www.lindsaybks.com/gallery/Jorg/cycle/Jorgbike.mov
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
This is true, but I think Peter makes a fair point that for the first
time, we're seeing electric cars on the market that don't seem like
complete doofus vehicles, or glorified golf carts.
The Tesla is a genuine market competitor. Admittedly, it's competing in
the arena of small sports cars, where the parameters of success are
quite different than those of family haulers, and where the profit
margins (this is important!) are better too.
Sure, it costs $100,000, but it appears to be at least as much fun as
most of the other $100,000 sports cars.
Here's an interesting review by a current Lotus Elise (with
dealer-installed supercharger option) owner who has decided to buy a
Tesla:
http://wilshipley.com/blog/2008/09/tesla-v-supercharged-lotus-elise.html
Of note, he speaks about the aesthetic joy of having a throttle that is
very nearly a literal rheostat, and of having its performance
concentrated in the off-the-line range where most drivers spend a lot of
time, and largely ignoring speeds above 100 mph.
Er, where was I? Portable electric storage systems are suddenly a lot
better than they used to be, and there are multiple promising avenues
for improvement. Honda is among several makers playing the
hydrogen-storage game, to the extent that they are now leasing this
thing to select customers for $600/month:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity>
Peter Cole
> We still have no useful batteries that have a power density even a
> tenth what a gasoline, diesel or natural gas fuel tank has. There's
> the problem so don't get lathered up over speed and acceleration
> claims. Where's the "beef"?
The question is really what energy density is the minimum to be
practical in a vehicle. Currently, gas vehicles typically have a vehicle
weight of around 4,000 lb and a fuel weight of 100 lb, with a typical
average payload of 300 lb or so. The Tesla has 900 lb of batteries and a
curb weight of 2,700 lb. That 900 lb of batteries has the equivalent
energy of 1.5 gal of gas, but the 4:1 efficiency multiplier makes it
equivalent to around 6.
To make a pure electric that's competitive with gas, the battery
technology has to improve by a factor of 2-3. Laptops have brought
lithium chemistry to the market over the last decade. The question is
whether new chemistries or fabrication techniques can get that
additional 2-3x improvement (density & cost). The research looks
promising. If those goals could be met, you could have a 4,000 lb car
with 900 lb of battery and the equivalent energy storage of 18 gal of
gas. Still a >10:1 difference in specific energy, but practical none the
less.
Since the average commute is on the order of 40 miles, the question is
whether, in at least commuting applications, an electric vehicle needs
to be competitive with gas on a range basis. A 2-seat electric with half
the performance of a Tesla (i.e. 100 mile range, 0-60 in 8-10 sec) would
only need a 450 lb battery pack with existing technology. That would
seem to be an adequate spec for the application. The current problem
with such a vehicle is that the battery pack cost is roughly $20,000. To
make such a vehicle affordable, that needs to come down by a factor of 4
or so. The raw materials for lithium batteries are relatively plentiful
and cheap, so the cost issue seems to be manufacturing process driven.
It doesn't seem far fetched to see that kind of cost improvement in
extremely high volume production. The cost of the equivalent capacity in
lead-acid is around $2,000. The problem there is the 1,500 lb weight,
poor cold performance and low cycle lifetimes. None the less, a car that
some found practical (GM EV1) was produced in volume (>1,000) and driven
for several years, over a decade ago, with that very dated technology.
I'm not so much inspired by the Tesla as by the electric scooters that
are taking China by storm. These seem to be a more pragmatic initial
application of EV technology. Gas scooters have long been a
transportation staple in Asia, but gas engine efficiency and pollution
are very difficult to improve on small engines. This application seems
to offer the greatest bang for the buck. The Chinese are already the
world's largest producers of lithium batteries and rare earth magnet
motors, it seems a logical progression for them to develop the
technology and manufacturing capacity to smoothly evolve from scooter to
ultra light weight vehicle to light weight vehicle. They are also the
world leaders in composite (carbon fiber) production.
The "top-down" vehicle evolution path takes you from gas to hybrid to
battery, attempting to maintain the performance envelope along the way.
This is the path the US, Japanese and European car makers seem to be
pursuing. The "bottom-up" evolution goes from scooters to larger
vehicles as the technology improves. I think it's the winning strategy.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
http://wilshipley.com/blog/2008/09/tesla-v-supercharged-lotus-elise.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity
I have had a test ride with Tesla marketing manager and found the
following: There is little space in the car beyond two people, the
styling is rife with gratuitous aerodynamic vents for an IC engine and
radiator, and the electric motor must be run with torque control ON.
Without torque limiting computer control, the car burns rubber faster
than human reaction.
I don't know whether I saw a Tesla test car or one in private hands
that passed me in both directions on a local forest climb (Tunitas
Creek Rd.) It made no sound other than tire swoosh and left no
exhaust smell, but climbing 200ft summits from sea level probably
takes a large part of the charge in the batteries.
This is a toy, as I see it. I believe the market Tesla should
approach is to license the power plant to small car makers such as the
Smart and other city cars. We don't need any more road toys.
Jobst Brandt
Peter Cole
> In article <tcb4l.728$BC4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Coal is much cheaper. When it comes to electricity generation, hydro &
>> geothermal often beat even coal, wind is close, solar thermal isn't far off.
>
> Yes, but all fail the portability test. Coal is sometimes turned into
> methanol (and possibly gas or diesel?) but coal-burning don't work great
> at much below the electrical-powerplant scale.
Modern coal plants are 60% efficient -- that still leaves the problem of
pollution (at the plant & at the mines).
> This is a bit off-topic, but I ought to point out a few things about all
> those grid-oriented power-generation techniques you mention.
>
> I don't know much about geothermal, but hydro works beautifully in
> large-scale operations. The only problem is nobody has the stomach
> (read: environmentalists throw organized shit-fits) when anyone proposes
> another flood-and-dam hydro project, such as the many that for so long
> powered most of British Columbia*. Solar thermal is in its infancy, but
> may become important. Probably not so much in Canada.
Hydro works pretty well with wind in that hydro generation can be
regulated to match demand. While I agree that there isn't much room for
hydro expansion for environmental reasons, its effectiveness can be
improved by mixing with less controllable sources.
> Wind though, is a nice fragment of a power-generation grid, but it has a
> hard time being more than that. The big problem is that in most places,
> wind power is available both irregularly and at odds with the highest
> demand times. It's possible to mitigate that, but as far as I know, the
> major mitigation tricks involve storing the energy (heat water, pump
> water uphill, gargantuan batteries, other essentially-undeveloped
> technologies). It's not a great solution.
It seems pretty straightforward to get to 20-40% electric from wind (see
Denmark). It will never be a total solution, but will be an important
factor. Fossil fuel & hydro plants can largely balance the output variances.
> *British Columbia used to be a net exporter of power, with almost all
> local power produced via big hydroelectric projects**. But the province
> has grown, and new projects have not been approved, because there are a
> lot of people who are opposed to pretty much any large reservoir-type
> hydro projects.
Worldwide, hydro is around 20% of electricity generation, ~0.7TW, with
another 0.2TW or so in development. It probably won't go much higher as
a percentage.
Solar photo-voltaic is interesting because, while peaky, the peak more
or less coincides with demand peak. Currently, installed system costs
are in the $5-10/W range. If you consider that the US uses around 1TW of
electricity, and take a 20% duty cycle for PV, you'd need 5TW or at
least $25T to go completely solar. Given the current worldwide
production of ~5GW/yr, it would take a millennium. Nukes, clean coal,
wind, etc., all have roughly similar investment and production hurdles.
I think the bottom line is that there's no silver bullet, the best
payback right now is probably conservation and judicious and rapid
expenditure on R&D. Technologies like e/hybrid-vehicles, cogeneration,
passive solar, highly efficient appliances and lighting can reduce
fossil fuel consumption without necessarily introducing new energy sources.
Peter Cole
> I have had a test ride with Tesla marketing manager and found the
> following: There is little space in the car beyond two people, the
> styling is rife with gratuitous aerodynamic vents for an IC engine and
> radiator, and the electric motor must be run with torque control ON.
> Without torque limiting computer control, the car burns rubber faster
> than human reaction.
>
> I don't know whether I saw a Tesla test car or one in private hands
> that passed me in both directions on a local forest climb (Tunitas
> Creek Rd.) It made no sound other than tire swoosh and left no
> exhaust smell, but climbing 200ft summits from sea level probably
> takes a large part of the charge in the batteries.
>
> This is a toy, as I see it. I believe the market Tesla should
> approach is to license the power plant to small car makers such as the
> Smart and other city cars. We don't need any more road toys.
It is a toy, but sometimes it's the toy market that funds the initial
development curve, examples like ball point pens, digital watches, cell
phones and microwave ovens come to mind.
Personally, I'd bet on the necessity market in the developing world
driving the technology rather than the affluent toy market, but it's
just a hunch.
Ryan Cousineau
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
In fairness to the Tesla design, there is little space in a Lotus Elise
beyond two people, either. Those vents might not be as gratuitous as you
think: note that this thing uses liquid cooling to keep the battery pack
alive, so there's some radiators (not to mention brake cooling ducts)
under the skin.
> This is a toy, as I see it. I believe the market Tesla should
> approach is to license the power plant to small car makers such as the
> Smart and other city cars. We don't need any more road toys.
The "problem" Tesla faces is that there exists a market for $100,000 toy
cars that have spectacular acceleration. City-sized cars are expected to
cost more like $15000, and can't do things like eat a new battery pack
every 2-3 years.
Tesla has already announced that its second car will be a $50,000 sport
sedan, basically an electric BMW 5-series. That's an ambitious goal, but
you can see the progression there. If they can build those two cars, and
if their expertise and production scales well, and if battery packs keep
dropping in price, your competitively priced electro-Smarts will arrive
within a decade.
Of course, BMW is just now introducing electric Minis in limited
production, using a drivetrain very similar to that of the Tesla. The
stated rate for a 1-year lease (the only terms on which they will let
you have one) are $850/month. Even discussing whether that covers their
costs is nonsense, since the announced production run is 500 units.
Bill Bushnell
> The "top-down" vehicle evolution path takes you from gas to hybrid to
> battery, attempting to maintain the performance envelope along the way.
> This is the path the US, Japanese and European car makers seem to be
> pursuing. The "bottom-up" evolution goes from scooters to larger
> vehicles as the technology improves. I think it's the winning strategy.
I think this is an important point.
We need to ask ourselves if we really need cars that accelerate 0-60 in 4 seconds
(or even 15 seconds), that weigh 3000-4000 lbs and carry payloads 10-20% of that,
and have top speeds over 100 mph. While this may appeal to our lizard brains, it
is incredibly wasteful of energy. Let's save the fossil fuels for uses that have
no substitute: e.g. air travel and manufacture of plastics and derivatives.
I'd like to see the emphasis on building reliable, aerodynamic, lightweight
electric vehicles that are fully weather-protected, have usable interior space
for passengers and cargo, and have most of the comforts drivers expect in an
automobile but weigh under 2000 lbs and are power limited to somewhere around 1
hp per 100 lbs gross vehicle weight. Something like the Aptera is a good start,
and of what I can discover on-line, is a more interesting design than the
Tesla.
As I see it the main problem is not technology but one of marketing, changing the
attitude and resetting the expectations of western drivers.
--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The "top-down" vehicle evolution path takes you from gas to hybrid to
>> battery, attempting to maintain the performance envelope along the way.
>> This is the path the US, Japanese and European car makers seem to be
>> pursuing. The "bottom-up" evolution goes from scooters to larger
>> vehicles as the technology improves. I think it's the winning strategy.
>
> I think this is an important point.
>
> We need to ask ourselves if we really need cars that accelerate 0-60 in 4 seconds
> (or even 15 seconds), that weigh 3000-4000 lbs and carry payloads 10-20% of that,
> and have top speeds over 100 mph. While this may appeal to our lizard brains, it
> is incredibly wasteful of energy. Let's save the fossil fuels for uses that have
> no substitute: e.g. air travel and manufacture of plastics and derivatives.
In the 60's I drove a Fiat 850 Spider*, 1500lb, 49hp, 90 mph top end. I
also drove all over the country in a VW microbus, which I think had a
36hp engine. I was quite used to high power cars at the time, regularly
driving big V8's, cars that would do 0-60 in under 6 seconds and had
top ends over 120. I enjoyed the Fiat more.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fiat_850_Spider_(16.06.2007).jpg
> I'd like to see the emphasis on building reliable, aerodynamic, lightweight
> electric vehicles that are fully weather-protected, have usable interior space
> for passengers and cargo, and have most of the comforts drivers expect in an
> automobile but weigh under 2000 lbs and are power limited to somewhere around 1
> hp per 100 lbs gross vehicle weight. Something like the Aptera is a good start,
> and of what I can discover on-line, is a more interesting design than the
> Tesla.
>
> As I see it the main problem is not technology but one of marketing, changing the
> attitude and resetting the expectations of western drivers.
I agree, although as the current owner of two wildly impractical cars
(which are fortunately approaching their end of service), I'd say the
vehicle choices made sense with the fuel costs of the era. I have no
doubt we'll all be downsizing over the next decade, much as we did in
the 70's. Modern materials & technologies can do a much better job of
wringing performance from an efficient base platform. It's kind of
unfortunate that today's electrics are compared to 2 ton 250 hp gas
contemporaries. After the gas downsizing I think the comparison will be
more even.
I also like the Aptera design.
Tom Sherman
> [...[
> The problem is we don't need 40 mpg vehicles, we need 100-200 mpg
> vehicles. Internal combustion engines just won't get us there.
Put a state of the art 1-hp diesel in this, and I would expect much
better than 200 mpg: <http://www.go-one.us/Pictures_of_go-one3.html>.
Now if you insist on a mobile living room that can be crashed into a
brick wall at 35-mph, that is a different story.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll
Tom Sherman
> [...]
> We need to ask ourselves if we really need cars that accelerate 0-60 in 4 seconds
> (or even 15 seconds), that weigh 3000-4000 lbs and carry payloads 10-20% of that,
> and have top speeds over 100 mph. While this may appeal to our lizard brains, it
> is incredibly wasteful of energy. Let's save the fossil fuels for uses that have
Air travel is a luxury of the rich, not a necessity.
Tom Sherman
a B.o.B. in the bathroom.
Tom Sherman
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> It's interesting that the popular Chinese vehicles are
>>> scooters, they don't want anything that looks like a bike.
>>
>> Which was the next question I was going to ask... are most of these e-
>> bikes actually scooters? That would make more sense to me:
>> http://www.e-max-scooter.com/
>
> In China, yes, Europe, no.
>
>> And the point I was trying to make earlier is that a similar-sized
>> drivetrain with a tadpole trike configuration and a light fiberglass
>> or plastic body would be a more viable vehicle for most of the
>> population.
>
> If you look at Asia, historically gas powered ultra-light (trikes, etc.)
> have been popular, but scooters much more so. Of course colder climates
> require more protection from the elements, so electric ultra-lights
> might become more popular in those places. Enclosed cabins make the
> vehicles more aerodynamically unstable, leading to tri/quad wheels,
> which then make them much less agile/compact. We probably don't need
> that degree of volumetric efficiency in the West (look at where we're
> starting from), but things are different in the East.
Single-track vehicles will never be a viable solution for mass use in
areas with regular snow cover in winter. Bicycles only work on snow
covered roadsdue to their low speed and mass.
Tom Sherman
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> Even
>>>> mopeds that have "pedals" don't work under human power alone, while
>>>> most e-bikes are fully functional bicycles with or without motor
>>>> power.
>
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>> Expensive, complicated answer to a simple question..kinda like 'bents.
>
> Chalo wrote:
>> Administrative requirements for most motor vehicles are also expensive
>> and complicated, and they can be circumvented by using an e-bike.
>> My e-bike in Seattle made sense for getting me home from work, in
>> bulky fisherman's raingear, up a 400 foot tall hill, after 12 hours or
>> more on the job. Once I returned to Austin, it didn't fill a need
>> anymore and I removed the motor and electrical gear. I am planning to
>> put the e-motor back in business on a cargo bike, though.
>> If I had to wear a suit to work, I'd surely still ride an e-bike.
>
> Why? I wear suits at work and have no interest whatsoever in klutzing up
> a lightweight vehicle. Then again I don't have 400 feet of climb either.
>
> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on the
sidewalk!
Tom Sherman
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> If I had to wear a suit to work, I'd surely still ride an e-bike.
>> Why? I wear suits at work and have no interest whatsoever in klutzing up
>> a lightweight vehicle. Then again I don't have 400 feet of climb either.
>
>
In the last two decades, the heat and humidity in Wisconsin is bad
enough during the summer to discourage bicycle commuting for those who
lack shower facilities. Cleaning up with paper towels and rubbing
alcohol every day becomes a major drag.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> [...[
>> The problem is we don't need 40 mpg vehicles, we need 100-200 mpg
>> vehicles. Internal combustion engines just won't get us there.
>
> Put a state of the art 1-hp diesel in this, and I would expect much
> better than 200 mpg: <http://www.go-one.us/Pictures_of_go-one3.html>.
Why do anything that complicated? Put a 1kW brushless DC motor and a
1kW-h lithium pack and you're good to go. That would add 30 lb and
$1,000 to a $10,000+ vehicle. I don't know about weight, they don't seem
to give it? Of course for around that price, you can get a Vectrix.
A Muzi
> carl...@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:02:17 -0800 (PST), Chalo
>> <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Carl Fogel wrote:
>>>> "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
>>>> kilowatt hours of energy."
>>> --and is toxic, dangerously flammable, stinky, and totally unsuitable
>>> to park inside an efficiency apartment or office cubicle.
>>>
>>> Chalo
>>
>> Dear Chalo,
>>
>> Few people park cars inside efficiency apartments or office cubicles.
>>
> I used to park three (3) bicycles in an efficiency apartment, and stored
> a B.o.B. in the bathroom.
>
Obviously no female in that household!
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> If you look at Asia, historically gas powered ultra-light (trikes,
>> etc.) have been popular, but scooters much more so. Of course colder
>> climates require more protection from the elements, so electric
>> ultra-lights might become more popular in those places. Enclosed
>> cabins make the vehicles more aerodynamically unstable, leading to
>> tri/quad wheels, which then make them much less agile/compact. We
>> probably don't need that degree of volumetric efficiency in the West
>> (look at where we're starting from), but things are different in the
>> East.
>
> Single-track vehicles will never be a viable solution for mass use in
> areas with regular snow cover in winter. Bicycles only work on snow
> covered roadsdue to their low speed and mass.
Yes, but although we get a fair amount of snow here in MA, the days that
the roads are actually snow covered are rather few. An open vehicle
isn't ideal either for inclement weather, but lots of us ride bikes in
the rain and all winter. Anything a pedal bike can do and e-bike can, too.
Peter Cole
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
>> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
>
> butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on the
> sidewalk!
>
I've been meaning to ask, what's a Spree?
Kerry Montgomery
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:50U4l.1147$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Peter,
I don't know either, but found an interesting link from a Google search for
Spree bicycle:
http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=19502
Kerry
Peter Cole
> Chalo Colina wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> If I had to wear a suit to work, I'd surely still ride an e-bike.
>>> Why? I wear suits at work and have no interest whatsoever in klutzing up
>>> a lightweight vehicle. Then again I don't have 400 feet of climb either.
>>
>> Nor do you have three months of 100 degree weather per year.
>>
> In the last two decades, the heat and humidity in Wisconsin is bad
> enough during the summer to discourage bicycle commuting for those who
> lack shower facilities. Cleaning up with paper towels and rubbing
> alcohol every day becomes a major drag.
Ever since I bought an electric motor for my skiff last summer I've
become more interested in electric propulsion in general. I brought up
the idea of electric assist to my wife (she bike commutes) and she was
very negative. She was afraid of losing her "workout". I had a similar
concern about my rowboat, but found, after using it a summer, that I
still row frequently, but I do things with the motor I couldn't/wouldn't
do just with oars. I began to think the same thing might be true with a
bike. There are days she doesn't use her bike to go to work because it's
either too hot, too cold, too wet, or she has too much cargo. It seems
to me that with assist, you could wear bulkier clothes in the winter,
more complete rain gear, or ride to work in heat & humidity without
getting too sweaty. It might just make the bike more useful.
A Muzi
>>> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
>>> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on
>> the sidewalk!
Peter Cole wrote:
> I've been meaning to ask, what's a Spree?
'unguided missile'
A nefarious and loud device erratically piloted by careening undergrads
to terrify the citizenry. Often, as Tom notes, on a sidewalk (when not
wrong-way on a one way street).
http://www.musicdownloadinstrumentalsongs.com/HONDA_SPREE.jpg
A hawaiian shirt with jeans is shown in the example. Usually much less
clothing is used.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> If you look at Asia, historically gas powered ultra-light (trikes,
>>> etc.) have been popular, but scooters much more so. Of course
>>> colder climates require more protection from the elements, so
>>> electric ultra-lights might become more popular in those places.
>>> Enclosed cabins make the vehicles more aerodynamically unstable,
>>> leading to tri/quad wheels, which then make them much less
>>> agile/compact. We probably don't need that degree of volumetric
>>> efficiency in the West (look at where we're starting from), but
>>> things are different in the East.
>> Single-track vehicles will never be a viable solution for mass use
>> in areas with regular snow cover in winter. Bicycles only work on
>> snow covered roads due to their low speed and mass.
> Yes, but although we get a fair amount of snow here in MA, the days
> that the roads are actually snow covered are rather few. An open
> vehicle isn't ideal either for inclement weather, but lots of us
> ride bikes in the rain and all winter. Anything a pedal bike can do
> and e-bike can, too.
Not to forget that Issigonis invented the Morris Mini to get poor
folks inside an enclosed vehicle, thereby killing the M/C w sidecar
to which they had been relegated by discriminatory tax codes. The
Mini fit the parameters of M/C w sidecar.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Tom Sherman
I believe the question related to what type of mileage an internal
combustion powered vehicle could obtain.
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> carl...@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:02:17 -0800 (PST), Chalo
>>> <chalo....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel wrote:
>>>>> "A gallon of gas weighs about 6.3 pounds and produces roughly 35
>>>>> kilowatt hours of energy."
>>>> --and is toxic, dangerously flammable, stinky, and totally unsuitable
>>>> to park inside an efficiency apartment or office cubicle.
>>>>
>>>> Chalo
>>>
>>> Dear Chalo,
>>>
>>> Few people park cars inside efficiency apartments or office cubicles.
>>>
>> I used to park three (3) bicycles in an efficiency apartment, and
>> stored a B.o.B. in the bathroom.
>>
>
> Obviously no female in that household!
>
closet, unless I put it where it blocked the refrigerator.
Tom Sherman
>>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
>>>> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on
>>> the sidewalk!
>
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> I've been meaning to ask, what's a Spree?
>
> 'unguided missile'
> A nefarious and loud device erratically piloted by careening undergrads
> to terrify the citizenry. Often, as Tom notes, on a sidewalk (when not
In the neighborhood of Andrew's shop, there are lots of college students
riding 50cc scooters, and many of them do illegally ride on the sidewalks.
Tom Sherman
See <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Honda_Spree.jpg>.
Nearly ubiquitous on college campuses.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
> Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > The "top-down" vehicle evolution path takes you from gas to hybrid to
> > battery, attempting to maintain the performance envelope along the way.
> > This is the path the US, Japanese and European car makers seem to be
> > pursuing. The "bottom-up" evolution goes from scooters to larger
> > vehicles as the technology improves. I think it's the winning strategy.
>
> I think this is an important point.
>
> We need to ask ourselves if we really need cars that accelerate 0-60 in 4 seconds
> (or even 15 seconds), that weigh 3000-4000 lbs and carry payloads 10-20% of that,
> and have top speeds over 100 mph. While this may appeal to our lizard brains, it
> is incredibly wasteful of energy. Let's save the fossil fuels for uses that have
> no substitute: e.g. air travel and manufacture of plastics and derivatives.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,100140,00.html
Works for airliners also.
>
> I'd like to see the emphasis on building reliable, aerodynamic, lightweight
> electric vehicles that are fully weather-protected, have usable interior space
> for passengers and cargo, and have most of the comforts drivers expect in an
> automobile but weigh under 2000 lbs and are power limited to somewhere around 1
> hp per 100 lbs gross vehicle weight. Something like the Aptera is a good start,
> and of what I can discover on-line, is a more interesting design than the
> Tesla.
>
> As I see it the main problem is not technology but one of marketing, changing the
> attitude and resetting the expectations of western drivers.
And also the creation of all that electircal power. Coal primarily
now, VERY dirty.
http://digg.com/environment/Breaking_Video_500_mil_gallon_toxic_coal_waste_spill_in_TN?FC=PRCT0
AND battery technology and using electricity to haul BIG loads.
>
> --
> Bill Bushnellhttp://pobox.com/~bushnell/
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>
>>>> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
>>>> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
>>>
>>> butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on
>>> the sidewalk!
>>>
>>
>> I've been meaning to ask, what's a Spree?
>
> See <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Honda_Spree.jpg>.
> Nearly ubiquitous on college campuses.
>
OK, a Honda Spree, a 50cc scooter, last made (from what I can gather) in
1987. A bit obscure.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> [...[
>>>> The problem is we don't need 40 mpg vehicles, we need 100-200 mpg
>>>> vehicles. Internal combustion engines just won't get us there.
>>>
>>> Put a state of the art 1-hp diesel in this, and I would expect much
>>> better than 200 mpg: <http://www.go-one.us/Pictures_of_go-one3.html>.
>>
>> Why do anything that complicated? Put a 1kW brushless DC motor and a
>> 1kW-h lithium pack and you're good to go. That would add 30 lb and
>> $1,000 to a $10,000+ vehicle. I don't know about weight, they don't
>> seem to give it? Of course for around that price, you can get a Vectrix.
>
> I believe the question related to what type of mileage an internal
> combustion powered vehicle could obtain.
>
I don't know of any 1 hp diesels. The extremely common Honda GX25 is a 6
lb/1.1 hp gasoline motor, often used to power bicycles. The Honda spec
sheet rates it at 340g (fuel) / kW-h. That's pretty good for a little
motor (it's 4-stroke). At that rate it's converting 4.5 kW-h of gasoline
chemical energy into 1 kW-h mechanical, so about 22% efficiency. This
motor is commonly available for under $200. A motor like that on a
bicycle can get 200 mpg.
As I related above, the modern (lithium, brushless) equivalent would be
about 30 lb and $1,000. Given a 60% generating plant efficiency and an
80% motor/controller efficiency, you're still overall more efficient by
a factor of over 2, so a 400-500 effective mpg. It's probably quite a
bit better than that since the electric motor is more efficient over a
range of speed/load.
The Tesla, reportedly, when driven hard has a 150 mi range. With its 52
kW-h battery, that's equivalent to 1.5 gal of gas, or 100 mpg, but it
takes 2 gal at the power station, so that's really 50 mpg. Not too
shabby for a hard driven sports car, but hardly free. Additional savings
come from coal being way cheaper than gas.
I think the overall 5x higher cost of the power plant and 2.5x
mileage/efficiency is probably typical with the current technology
(electric vs. internal combustion) over a pretty wide scale of vehicles.
If nothing else changed though, and the US went to entirely electric
vehicles, the reality would be that, in addition to those factors, we'd
be switching from petroleum to coal (although 2.5x less BTU's).
Most of the (manufacturing) cost differential is in the batteries, as
are the current range, recharge time and lifecycle constraints. At 12k
miles/yr, 30 mpg, $4 gal fuel, that's around $1,200/yr savings. Like
photovoltaic solar, the payback is in the 20 year range -- too long for
cars, but if more cities start charging fees for internal combustion
vehicle access in order to limit local pollution that would further tip
the balance, at least for metro use.
Bill Bushnell
> On Dec 24, 12:01?pm, Bill Bushnell <mrb...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > We need to ask ourselves if we really need cars that accelerate 0-60 in 4 seconds
> > (or even 15 seconds), that weigh 3000-4000 lbs and carry payloads 10-20% of that,
> > is incredibly wasteful of energy. ?Let's save the fossil fuels for uses that have
> > no substitute: e.g. air travel and manufacture of plastics and derivatives.
> http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,100140,00.html
> Works for airliners also.
Still requires non-renewable inputs: e.g. coal, natural gas, tar sands, and
there's no guarantee that the process could be scaled to the volume needed to
replace the fuels that we use today.
> > I'd like to see the emphasis on building reliable, aerodynamic, lightweight
> > electric vehicles that are fully weather-protected, have usable interior space
> > for passengers and cargo, and have most of the comforts drivers expect in an
> > automobile but weigh under 2000 lbs and are power limited to somewhere around 1
> > hp per 100 lbs gross vehicle weight. ?Something like the Aptera is a good start,
> > and of what I can discover on-line, is a more interesting design than the
> > Tesla.
> >
> > As I see it the main problem is not technology but one of marketing, changing the
> > attitude and resetting the expectations of western drivers.
> And also the creation of all that electircal power. Coal primarily
> now, VERY dirty.
> http://digg.com/environment/Breaking_Video_500_mil_gallon_toxic_coal_waste_spill_in_TN?FC=PRCT0
Nuclear.
Today nuclear makes up 20% of power generated in Northern California. Since
nuclear plants can't be throttled down at night, the excess capacity can be used
to recharge batteries at night when grid loads are low. The capacity exists
today. PG&E has a schedule (E-9) for just such a scenario.
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-9.pdf
Coal is cheap because the externalities of mining and burning it are mostly
ignored by the current economic models.
> AND battery technology and using electricity to haul BIG loads.
Battery-powered electric vehicles do best by replacing automobiles for short to
moderate-length trips. (e.g. the 10+ mile one-way commute) Heavily-used rail
lines need to be electrified. We'll still need trucks, and many of them will
probably run best burning some sort of fossil fuel until battery technology can
be scaled to meet the demand.
We need to prioritize our use of energy. Right now we're squandering
non-renewable fuels on discretionary personal transportation in heavy,
inefficient vehicles.
With gasoline and diesel temporarily down in price, now is the perfect time to
slap a $1-2 tax per gallon on the stuff and use the proceeds to build out the
electric infrastructure to enable tomorrow's transportation system.
--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/
Tom Sherman
> Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> considered Thu, 25 Dec 2008
> heating.
Good point. With proper footwear and clothes, I can ride at -20°C all
day long. A four hour trip on a motorcycle at 0°C while heavily bundled
up almost caused hypothermia.
A Muzi
>>>>> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
>>>>> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on
>>>> the sidewalk!
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> I've been meaning to ask, what's a Spree?
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> See <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Honda_Spree.jpg>.
>> Nearly ubiquitous on college campuses.
Peter Cole wrote:
> OK, a Honda Spree, a 50cc scooter, last made (from what I can gather) in
> 1987. A bit obscure.
I guess the generic term 'Spree' must be regional then.
cf. 'Kleenex'.
russell...@yahoo.com
I didn't know what Spree stood for until the wikipedia Honda link was
posted. But I don't live in a big college town and haven't been in
college for awhile now. Moped or scooter would be the generic term.
I've not seen any Sprees on the streets around here. Very, very few
scooters of any size on the streets.
Tom Sherman
> On Dec 26, 3:45 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>>>> From what I've seen, a used Spree does everything an e-bike does,
>>>>>>> better. And cheaper too. Those also interest me not one bit. YMMV.
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> butbutbut, on a Spree, you can terrorize pedestrians while riding on
>>>>>> the sidewalk!
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> I've been meaning to ask, what's a Spree?
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> See <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Honda_Spree.jpg>.
>>>> Nearly ubiquitous on college campuses.
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> OK, a Honda Spree, a 50cc scooter, last made (from what I can gather) in
>>> 1987. A bit obscure.
>> I guess the generic term 'Spree' must be regional then.
>> cf. 'Kleenex'.
>
> posted. But I don't live in a big college town and haven't been in
> college for awhile now. Moped or scooter would be the generic term.
> I've not seen any Sprees on the streets around here. Very, very few
> scooters of any size on the streets.
If you stepped out the front door of Andrew's shop, you would risk
getting run over by a student riding on a motor scooter.
Peter Cole
> like that in an environmentaly sensitive manner, particularly as it
> will need replacing at regular intervals.
The latest battery technology is lithium iron phosphate. The chemicals
are non-toxic and the battery packs are supposed to last 1,000's of
recharge cycles.
> That's still got to be added to the environmental cost of producing
> the electricity to charge it.
Every component on every vehicle takes energy/electricity to make.
> A decent 1-2hp diesel running on waste vegetable oil would be far
> cleaner (and if we were less profligate in our use of fuel, there
> would be enough WVO to go around).
Diesels are notoriously dirty, they take a lot of technology to make
clean. It's a lot easier to put the technology at the power plant.
Bill Bushnell
> Ever since I bought an electric motor for my skiff last summer I've
> become more interested in electric propulsion in general. I brought up
> the idea of electric assist to my wife (she bike commutes) and she was
> very negative. She was afraid of losing her "workout". I had a similar
> concern about my rowboat, but found, after using it a summer, that I
> still row frequently, but I do things with the motor I couldn't/wouldn't
> do just with oars. I began to think the same thing might be true with a
> bike. There are days she doesn't use her bike to go to work because it's
> either too hot, too cold, too wet, or she has too much cargo. It seems
> to me that with assist, you could wear bulkier clothes in the winter,
> more complete rain gear, or ride to work in heat & humidity without
> getting too sweaty. It might just make the bike more useful.
I've been experimenting with bicycle witchcraft for the last couple of years,
adding electric assist systems to two of my long-wheelbase recumbent bikes.
After I had broken the frame on one of my bikes I brought up the idea with the
framebuilder to add attachments for the extra hardware when he made the repairs.
I had always thought that a faired recumbent would be a good platform for an
assist system, exchanging the burden of some added weight (15-65 lbs, depending
on battery capacity and motor choice) for additional power to climb hills,
improving the platform the most at its weakest function, hill-climbing, without
degrading its other characteristics too much.
At about the same time a long-term heart problem (Afib) took a turn for the
worse, forcing me to curtail the amount of exercise I could enjoy. I still
wanted to enjoy cycling and to ride places I had ridden for years, which meant a
range within about 75 miles of home (150 miles round-trip).
The advent of lithium batteries, and for battery safety and longevity, those that
use the lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry, makes possible a range well
over 100 miles with significant climbing, provided the assist system is
reasonably efficient and contributes no more than 1/2 the total work.
Since adding a motor I have never felt deprived of a sufficient workout, except
for the few test rides I took where I intentionally just sat on the bike and let
the motor do all the work. Even on a recumbent it is difficult to merely sit on
the seat and not pedal. The legs naturally want to move.
The downside is that the bike is heavier and more complicated. The hardest
problem to solve has been placement and attachment of the batteries to least
affect the handling of the bike. All options I've tried degrade handling
somewhat, but some placements are worse than others. I have a better
appreciation now why some overweight individuals find it difficult to balance a
bicycle with an especially low moment-of-inertia. Ideally, the design of the
bike should anticipate the additional weight and complexity of an assist system.
My goal of an assist system to contribute 150 to 500 watts at the wheel and to
have a range of up to 150 miles may be excessive for someone wanting such a bike
for a 10-20 mile commute.
One of the more elegant designs I have seen (and competed with in a local
hill-climb series) was Peter Cazalet's that used a 180w Tongxin front hub motor
and a 36v/5ah NiMH battery (carried in the seat tube water bottle holder).
A design like this would be ideal for a short commute, and it wouldn't add too
much weight or complexity to the bike.
The next step is to provide some weather protection and storage space such as one
would find in an enclosed vehicle. I'm watching the development of the
Greenspeed Glyde with interest, and I hope that the designers anticipate the
addition of an assist system.
http://www.greenspeed.com.au/Glyde.htm