Plug In America Wants Automakers to Retool for the Future

[Dave (Battery Boy) Hawkins]

All,
Do you think we should bail out the big three and save a boat-load of
jobs?

Here is a really easy way to contact you congress critters and tell them
that you want the big three to build plug-in high brides and pure eelectric vehicles, per the Plug In America link below.
The text that goes to congress follows.
Suck Amps,
BB

-----Forwarded Message-----

>From: Jay Friedland
>Sent: Nov 20, 2008 3:04 AM
>To: [hidden email]
>
>David (Battery Boy),
>
>American automakers are begging for a bailout. And they have a significant amount of money headed their way. A $25 billion loan was approved by Congress in September.
>
>This money was designed to help the auto companies retool for the manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles.  These are vehicles that Americans want and need now more than ever.
>
>Now the automakers are asking to use that money for short-term cash flow needs.  In other words, at the brink of bankruptcy, the automakers are still resisting technological change and wishing for business as usual.  GM CEO Rick Wagoner admits his company is burning through "$5 billion each month."  How does GM expect to repay taxpayers, and compete in tomorrow's showrooms, without undergoing change?
>
>Congress is back in session today, Thursday. They may retain the existing fuel-efficiency provisions, or could decide to give the automakers the $25 billion with no strings attached.
>
>Congress doesn't want to risk being blamed for "letting the carmakers go under", and so may drop the fuel-efficiency requirements. They need to hear from us that we support keeping the requirements in place.  They need to understand we want our American automakers to gear up for the cars of the future.
>
>Visit our "No Bailout Without Strings" page:

http://action.pluginamerica.org/t/5960/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=337
>
>Enter your ZIP and you will get a form that makes it easy to send an immediate message to your local representatives.  Please act now.
>
>Thank you for your continued support,
>
>Jay Friedland
>Legislative Director
>Plug In America

<text from above action>

We want to see the American automobile industry successfully transform into the future.

Only a bailout bill with strings attached which require and accelerate the transition to cleaner plug-in hybrids and electric cars can drive the auto industry forward.  We need green jobs for American workers and a more secure, less petroleum-dependent America.  Please ensure billions of taxpayer dollars are spent wisely by requiring auto manufacturers to retool for the production of plug-in hybrids and electric cars which run on clean, affordable, domestic electricity.  In WWII, the auto industry converted almost overnight to produce airplanes and equipment for the war effort.  We face no less of a global challenge today with respect to climate change, and we need this key industry to step up and do what is best for the country. Funding provided by Congress with appropriate conditions can create this change.
Thank you,

<end text>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[lcalarea47]

hi    my question is the big 3 auto makers , getting big bucks to retool ???
why not just convert the cars they are making now [ gas to hybrid ] to all
hybrids or electric  just change the drivetrain .use same bodys .  ??/
lonnie

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Dave (Battery Boy) Hawkins <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> All,
> Do you think we should bail out the big three and save a boat-load of
> jobs?
>
> Here is a really easy way to contact you congress critters and tell them
> that you want the big three to build plug-in high brides and pure eelectric
> vehicles, per the Plug In America link below.
> The text that goes to congress follows.
> Suck Amps,
> BB
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> >From: Jay Friedland
> >Sent: Nov 20, 2008 3:04 AM
> >To: [hidden email]
> >
> >David (Battery Boy),
> >
> >American automakers are begging for a bailout. And they have a significant
> amount of money headed their way. A $25 billion loan was approved by
> Congress in September.
> >
> >This money was designed to help the auto companies retool for the
> manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles.  These are vehicles that Americans
> want and need now more than ever.
> >
> >Now the automakers are asking to use that money for short-term cash flow
> needs.  In other words, at the brink of bankruptcy, the automakers are still
> resisting technological change and wishing for business as usual.  GM CEO
> Rick Wagoner admits his company is burning through "$5 billion each month."
>  How does GM expect to repay taxpayers, and compete in tomorrow's showrooms,
> without undergoing change?
> >
> >Congress is back in session today, Thursday. They may retain the existing
> fuel-efficiency provisions, or could decide to give the automakers the $25
> billion with no strings attached.
> >
> >Congress doesn't want to risk being blamed for "letting the carmakers go
> under", and so may drop the fuel-efficiency requirements. They need to hear
> from us that we support keeping the requirements in place.  They need to
> understand we want our American automakers to gear up for the cars of the
> future.
> >
> >Visit our "No Bailout Without Strings" page:
> http://action.pluginamerica.org/t/5960/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=337
> >
> >Enter your ZIP and you will get a form that makes it easy to send an
> immediate message to your local representatives.  Please act now.
> >
> >Thank you for your continued support,
> >
> >Jay Friedland
> >Legislative Director
> >Plug In America
>
> <text from above action>
>
> We want to see the American automobile industry successfully transform into
> the future.
>
> Only a bailout bill with strings attached which require and accelerate the
> transition to cleaner plug-in hybrids and electric cars can drive the auto
> industry forward.  We need green jobs for American workers and a more
> secure, less petroleum-dependent America.  Please ensure billions of
> taxpayer dollars are spent wisely by requiring auto manufacturers to retool
> for the production of plug-in hybrids and electric cars which run on clean,
> affordable, domestic electricity.  In WWII, the auto industry converted
> almost overnight to produce airplanes and equipment for the war effort.  We
> face no less of a global challenge today with respect to climate change, and
> we need this key industry to step up and do what is best for the country.
> Funding provided by Congress with appropriate conditions can create this
> change.
> Thank you,
>
> <end text>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Lee Hart]

lcalarea47 @dslextreme.com wrote:
> my question is the big 3 auto makers, getting big bucks to retool?
> why not just convert the cars they are making now [gas to hybrid] to all
> hybrids or electric, just change the drivetrain? use same bodies?

The alcoholic doesn't want to stop drinking. HE doesn't have a problem
-- YOU have the problem. He wants someone to support him, so he can
continue drinking the way he always has.

I don't think the auto companies have yet come to grips with their
addiction. Their past ways of doing business don't work any more. Money
won't fix it. If they get government money, they will spend it to keep
doing things the way they've always done it. They won't change until
they *have* to change, or die. And even then, they may well choose to
DIE rather than change!

The death of a company is traumatic; but it does not mean the death of
the people working for it. The same number of cars are going to get
built and sold no matter who builds them. If GM goes bankrupt, its
plants will probably be bought by other carmakers, and their employees
will be building Toyotas instead of Chevys.

In my parody story "The Grinch Who Sold Green-ness", I cast the Grinch
as a car company CEO. He has an epiphany, when he realizes that he
should be building the cars *people* want, rather than the cars *he*
wants to build.
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[SteveS-5]

Lee I think you hit it right on.

I know much hay has been made of the big 3 CEOs each flying in their own
corporate jets to DC to ask for their bailout, but I think it does
illustrate how out of touch they are. In addition, they came with no
plan! "Just give us money." Not being very contrite.

On the Talk of Nation show Friday, mention was made that there are about
25 EV startup in the country and an allusion was made to what if the $25
Billion was split up among those 25? A $1B would be a huge boost to a
startup. On NPRs Morning Edition (also Friday) they were discussing EV
batteries and one of the participants seemed to feel batteries (esp
LiIon) were not fully developed and too expensive to be of much use
right now. I wonder what a few $B would do to make LiIon (or whatever
alternative you prefer) cheaper and better? Either one of these
investments would create new jobs and new industries that I feel have
tremendous growth potential. I guess that's the key  - these would
actually be investments; $25B to the big 3 would be.........

- SteveS

Lee Hart wrote:

> lcalarea47 @dslextreme.com wrote:
>> my question is the big 3 auto makers, getting big bucks to retool?
>> why not just convert the cars they are making now [gas to hybrid] to all
>> hybrids or electric, just change the drivetrain? use same bodies?
>
> The alcoholic doesn't want to stop drinking. HE doesn't have a problem
> -- YOU have the problem. He wants someone to support him, so he can
> continue drinking the way he always has.
>
> I don't think the auto companies have yet come to grips with their
> addiction. Their past ways of doing business don't work any more. Money
> won't fix it. If they get government money, they will spend it to keep
> doing things the way they've always done it. They won't change until
> they *have* to change, or die. And even then, they may well choose to
> DIE rather than change!
>
> The death of a company is traumatic; but it does not mean the death of
> the people working for it. The same number of cars are going to get
> built and sold no matter who builds them. If GM goes bankrupt, its
> plants will probably be bought by other carmakers, and their employees
> will be building Toyotas instead of Chevys.
>
> In my parody story "The Grinch Who Sold Green-ness", I cast the Grinch
> as a car company CEO. He has an epiphany, when he realizes that he
> should be building the cars *people* want, rather than the cars *he*
> wants to build.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1805 - Release Date: 11/22/2008 10:34 AM
>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Bob Bath]

So GM is forced to merge with Tesla.  Silicon Valley types know everything about batteries and writing software to work an EV properly.
Automakers know how to build a car that will pass EPA, NHSTA, and DOT rules.  Win-win, unless GM assumes too much leadership in such a partnership...

Thinking about converting a gen. 5 ('92-95) Honda Civic?  My $23 "CivicWithACord" DVD (57 mins.) shows ins and outs you'll encounter converting the sedan; the del Sol, or the hatchback. Each runs 144V/18 batteries.  Primary focus on component/instrumentation/ battery placement and other considerations.  For more info,   http://home.budget.net/~bbath/CivicWithACord.html
                          ____
                       __/__|__\__
             =D-------/   - -     \
                      'O'-----'O'-'
Would you still drive your car if the tailpipe came out of the steering wheel?
OR Lic. "LCTRNS"


--- On Sat, 11/22/08, Lee Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Lee Hart <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Plug In America Wants Automakers to Retool for the Future
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008, 8:41 AM
> lcalarea47 @dslextreme.com wrote:
> > my question is the big 3 auto makers, getting big
> bucks to retool?
> > why not just convert the cars they are making now [gas
> to hybrid] to all
> > hybrids or electric, just change the drivetrain? use
> same bodies?
>
> The alcoholic doesn't want to stop drinking. HE
> doesn't have a problem
> -- YOU have the problem. He wants someone to support him,
> so he can
> continue drinking the way he always has.
>
> I don't think the auto companies have yet come to grips
> with their
> addiction. Their past ways of doing business don't work
> any more. Money
> won't fix it. If they get government money, they will
> spend it to keep
> doing things the way they've always done it. They
> won't change until
> they *have* to change, or die. And even then, they may well
> choose to
> DIE rather than change!
>
> The death of a company is traumatic; but it does not mean
> the death of
> the people working for it. The same number of cars are
> going to get
> built and sold no matter who builds them. If GM goes
> bankrupt, its
> plants will probably be bought by other carmakers, and
> their employees
> will be building Toyotas instead of Chevys.
>
> In my parody story "The Grinch Who Sold
> Green-ness", I cast the Grinch
> as a car company CEO. He has an epiphany, when he realizes
> that he
> should be building the cars *people* want, rather than the
> cars *he*
> wants to build.
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377,
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
> Subscription options:
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

     

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[ChrisCG]

On the Talk of Nation show Friday, mention was made that there are about
25 EV startup in the country and an allusion was made to what if the $25
Billion was split up among those 25? A $1B would be a huge boost to a
startup. On NPRs Morning Edition (also Friday) they were discussing EV
batteries and one of the participants seemed to feel batteries (esp
LiIon) were not fully developed and too expensive to be of much use
right now. I wonder what a few $B would do to make LiIon (or whatever
alternative you prefer) cheaper and better? Either one of these
investments would create new jobs and new industries that I feel have
tremendous growth potential. I guess that's the key  - these would
actually be investments; $25B to the big 3 would be.........

- SteveS

Steve

You've touched on some of the key issues. In one fell swooped you've also touched on why we
are really pretty screwed.

I'm new to the EV discussion but I have been dealing with big business and politicians for some time.

Is it really that much of a technical challenge to produce better batteries? Without getting into the controversial NiMH discussion, it seems at a glance that most of the major independent players in the battery industry have have fallen into the big money groups who call the shots and most of the really promising existing options have been de-rated. I'll bow to the wisdom of the guys on this forum who know better and I mean no offense to anyone in the business.

Can there be real progress without increased demand? Is the lack of progress not really the most convenient excuse to not create demand? We're dealing with people who cal sell ice cubes to the Inuit.

As far as I can tell it's just to mindbogglingly complex for those in political power to put money in the hands of people who might actually do something with it (grant money as the simplest example tends to go to people who have received it in the past whether they have accomplished anything positive with it or not).

As the excitement of the election winds down the cynical side of me begins to thing “change” is just another word for business as usual. This really isn't a business discussion it's a political one, and those usually just follow a circular path.

In answer to the original question, which really is do I as a tax payer want to bail out the big three? Regardless of the cost to the mostly unionized workforce, the answer is a resounding “hell no”. I've owned 5 American cars, the first was great, the rest had more than one major chronic problem. Dealing with repairs and sort-of honored warranties became the norm until I bought my first import, then another, sadly I doubt I will ever go back. But we are going to bail them out.

We already gave them 25b (with another 25b they haven't got yet) to retool and they haven't.  This 25b isn't about retooling it's about meeting operating costs. At present rate of lose GM will be out of money in 9 months, they have 11 billion cash on hand. I don't really see what 25b split 3 ways is going to accomplish unless mergers are part of the equation.

We could give them the money on the condition they put the EV1 into full scale production but that would be insanity wouldn't it.

[Joseph Ashwood]

Just thought I'd weigh in. So I'm replying to pretty much everyone at once.
I'm sure everyone will notice that I am strongly opinionated on this.

> Do you think we should bail out the big three and save a boat-load of
jobs?

Bailing out the big three would be meaningless. They need a major
restructuring, the kind that only comes from bankruptcy. The saving of jobs
is a myth, it would only marginally delay the loss of the jobs. The US auto
makers lost because their methods simply cannot compete with the foreign
makers.

> Using the money to retool them

Bad idea. They don't need retooling, they need new business practices, it is
the business processes that lost, not the tools.

> Force them to convert to all hybrid or electric

So much for capitalism. Let the winners win and this crop of losers, let
them lose. Let the market decide, the market has decided that the big US
auto makers need to be eliminated.

> The bankruptcy of the auto makers will eliminate the jobs

In the short term yes, but long term no. The new Getrag facility makes a
perfect example, the one that Getrag has sued Chrysler over (Chrysler
countersued). If Chrysler backs out of the contract to buy the
transmissions, it will mean an immediate reduction in need for the facility,
but the investment in the facility has been made. This means that it is
important to make use of it. I estimate that hiring a 30% workforce would be
good for that facility, this would be a short term loss of 70% of the jobs,
but keep reading. This opens Getrag's ability to do what they do best, build
the fastest transmissions possible. The vehicles that Chrysler was going to
sell will still be sold, and the same ones that would have required a Getrag
transmission before are likely to have a Getrag transmission after, whether
it is OEM or aftermarket. As such over the next 5 to 10 years the Getrag
facility will reach the same 100% capacity. This applies across all the
suppliers that should survive, as such a bankruptcy of Chrysler/GM/Ford/etc
would cause only a temporary hiccup. Anyone saying anything else needs to
study economics again.

> Merge GM with Tesla

Here is where I started laughing. Take a company using century old
technology to make a second rate vehicle that has a demonstrated inability
to deliver and is looking like they will soon be bankrupt, and merge it with
GM. For those of you that are undoubtedly upset by this, look at the facts.
Tesla has delivered only a tiny fraction of the vehicles promised. Tesla
vehicles continually underperform the promises, whether it is range about
half the promised, or the number of gears, or the acceleration, or the top
speed, or even the promised price (which has increased by almost 50% since
initial estimates), to the claim that they engineered it themself (it is
almost all Lotus work). This has been so dramatic that there have already
been suits filed. As for the ability to run the company, have a look at
Whitestar, or the fact that Tesla has already gone through more than one set
of lay-offs, one of them even included closing an entire design studio (I
have no idea why they even had one, Lotus does their engineering and they
hire external industrial designers). The most valuable thing Tesla Motors
has is the name Tesla, and Nikola would roll over in his grave if he knew
that his name was being used for this.

> Give the small startups a billion each

This is a worse idea. Most companies wouldn't know how to work with one
million, giving them 1000 times that would just results in further waste. 24
of the 25 would burn through the cash with nothing to show, the 25th would
have it all embezzled.

The best idea is to allow the market to handle the market. Too big to fail
is a myth. Letting them fail is not only the best idea for the market, it is
the best idea for the technology, it is the best idea for the current
employees, it is the fastest way to reach viable market for EVs, it is the
fastest way to reach the recovery phase. Anything we do to the contrary will
just make things worse.
                    Joe

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Bob Rice-2]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Plug In America Wants Automakers to Retool for the
Future


> Just thought I'd weigh in. So I'm replying to pretty much everyone at
> once.
> I'm sure everyone will notice that I am strongly opinionated on this.

       Right on , Joe! Good on you, opinions, even good ones are welcome,
let's face it, it's YOUR money, and quite topical!Until I saw on the snooze
that ALL those Exec. Bums FLEW to DC, hats in hand, in PRIVATE Biz jets , to
BEG for our money! Not a godamn ONE of them flew in todaze cattle-car
conditions, on a Commoner's Commercial jet. Crammed in to a seat that makes
a VW Beetle back seat seem commodious? Oh no, burn up 20 GRAND, What? No Jet
Pool, they couldn't have come down, all of them, in GM or Ford's flying
machine? That's a F**k You! To US taxpayers!!! On this cheerie note I say
"F**k ALL of them! Liquidate them ALL!Pass the surviving bux, if any, divie
it up among the guyz that WERE on the lines, pensions, Med plans, etc. Give
the "bail out money" to them! To Hell with them all! Eliminate the
middleman! Here's Obama's chance to Reform the US medical racket, er, I mean
Medical $system, a racket that makes Auto's seem a small potato thing.

>> Do you think we should bail out the big three and save a boat-load of
> jobs?
   Hmmmm? MAYBE? If they are forced to build EV's and fuel Efficient cars?
It certainly isn't  a car shortage issue? There are too Godamn MANY cars,
NOW! Don't ya listen to the traffic reports? Thin 'em out a bit? Would it
kill anybody out there to do a few more years with the cars and trux they
have NOW? While the survivors retool, IF they do?

> Bailing out the big three would be meaningless. They need a major
> restructuring, the kind that only comes from bankruptcy. The saving of
> jobs
> is a myth, it would only marginally delay the loss of the jobs. The US
> auto
> makers lost because their methods simply cannot compete with the foreign
> makers.

     Seems the docks are FLOODED with new foreign cars, too. So NOBODIES
exactly flooding the market with ANY new cars, anyhow?Remember? There IS a
depression going on? Did anybody bail out Victor Talking Machine in 1929?
Yeah? Radio Corp of America a brash upstart, merged to form RCA -Victor, as
they wanted the Victor" His Master's Voice" and name. to stick on the new
"Radiolas" rolling down the Camden , NJ, assembly line as Radio was a BIG
deal in the 20's; "I want to buy a Wireless set, you know, you can listen to
EVERYTHING for Nothing?  "Line in the" Cohen buys a Wireless set" monologue,
circa 1923 or so? The rest of the story; Victor's plant IS gone, Camden is a
Wasteland, nowadaze? Victor has merged out AGAIN? Sony?WHY buy 15 dollar
DVD's when ya can download "music" for yur I-pod for almost free?

>> Using the money to retool them
>
> Bad idea. They don't need retooling, they need new business practices, it
> is
> the business processes that lost, not the tools.
>
>> Force them to convert to all hybrid or electric
>
> So much for capitalism. Let the winners win and this crop of losers, let
> them lose. Let the market decide, the market has decided that the big US
> auto makers need to be eliminated.
>

     Well said!

>> The bankruptcy of the auto makers will eliminate the jobs
>
> In the short term yes, but long term no. The new Getrag facility makes a
> perfect example, the one that Getrag has sued Chrysler over (Chrysler
> countersued). If Chrysler backs out of the contract to buy the
> transmissions, it will mean an immediate reduction in need for the
> facility,
> but the investment in the facility has been made. This means that it is
> important to make use of it. I estimate that hiring a 30% workforce would
> be
> good for that facility, this would be a short term loss of 70% of the
> jobs,
> but keep reading. This opens Getrag's ability to do what they do best,
> build
> the fastest transmissions possible. The vehicles that Chrysler was going
> to
> sell will still be sold, and the same ones that would have required a
> Getrag
> transmission before are likely to have a Getrag transmission after,
> whether
> it is OEM or aftermarket. As such over the next 5 to 10 years the Getrag
> facility will reach the same 100% capacity. This applies across all the
> suppliers that should survive, as such a bankruptcy of
> Chrysler/GM/Ford/etc
> would cause only a temporary hiccup. Anyone saying anything else needs to
> study economics again.

   Getrag? Get REAL! WHO NEEDS more obsolete technology, anyhow? Direct
drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I go
along with John Wayland on this one!

>> Merge GM with Tesla

     Yeah? Right? Lets dump MORE money, at over 100K a pop, on Sheeple
CLUELESS to how a damn car WORKS? In this economy who gives a Rat's Exhaust
pipe IF a car can go from 0 to 125 MPH, in so many seconds? Are ya gunna be
hauling the ice cream home from the Stupermarket any faster? I don't think
so? Why didn't Tesla rattle Getrag's cage on the trannie issue?IF they had
to solve this issue?

>
> Here is where I started laughing. (Hell! I want to start CRYING) Take a
> company using century old
> technology to make a second rate vehicle that has a demonstrated inability
> to deliver and is looking like they will soon be bankrupt, and merge it
> with
> GM. For those of you that are undoubtedly upset by this, look at the
> facts.
> Tesla has delivered only a tiny fraction of the vehicles promised. Tesla
> vehicles continually underperform the promises, whether it is range about
> half the promised, or the number of gears, or the acceleration, or the top
> speed, or even the promised price (which has increased by almost 50% since
> initial estimates), to the claim that they engineered it themself (it is
> almost all Lotus work). This has been so dramatic that there have already
> been suits filed. As for the ability to run the company, have a look at
> Whitestar, or the fact that Tesla has already gone through more than one
> set
> of lay-offs, one of them even included closing an entire design studio (I
> have no idea why they even had one, Lotus does their engineering and they
> hire external industrial designers). The most valuable thing Tesla Motors
> has is the name Tesla, and Nikola would roll over in his grave if he knew
> that his name was being used for this.

    Yeah? White Star? Wern't they the guyz driving the Titanic? Bad name
choice? We have Blue Teeth stuff, nowadaze, and other quirky named qrap. But
White Star? Yur setting yurself up for being a butt of a joke!Hindenberg
Airlines? Hanoi Hilton Hotel chain ,Paris Hilton's Tours of Somalia? See a
new Pirates Paradise? On and on? As you say Nikola Tesla MUST be spinning in
his grave at sincronnous speed?60Hz??

>> Give the small startups a billion each

        For Chrissakes! They threw MILLIONS at Tesla for a Lotus Conversion?
I can't even GET in the damn thing, it's built for midgets! At least the
Brits are true to advertising one of their cars as a "Midget! Most
uncomfortable, USELESS  car on the road! But they have sold a few over the
years?
>
> This is a worse idea. Most companies wouldn't know how to work with one
> million, giving them 1000 times that would just results in further waste.
> 24
> of the 25 would burn through the cash with nothing to show, the 25th would
> have it all embezzled.

     IF Tesla wen't down, would they even be on the Car Co's radar? Nobody
but a few EV geeks would notice??

     Right on, for sure?  Give Lee Hart an  Co. a few hundred THOU to get
some Sunrises out there?He COULD hire some help and get something going? Did
I allude to JOBS? IF he could turn out one a week? for starters and the car
worked well, investors would help him out? BEFORE EV's get a shitty
investment reputation? It's guyz like him that COULD pull something off?
Without hat in hand to the taxpayers? HE would drive his green Prius to DC
for some Funding? Sleeping at Motel Six? No Private jet here?Or, better,
yet, just have it WIRED to his account? Why polute by GOING? This IS the
electronic age, anyhow?Or the age of capitatalism?And like Con Rail , or
Crapsler,the FIRST time,he COULD repay the loan, over time?The Govt. DID
bail out "Clown Rail," too.And I had a nice job drivin' their freight
trains, Before CSX took it over;423 miles per gal, for freight ton miliage
folks, ya see them on the TV ads?

> The best idea is to allow the market to handle the market. Too big to fail
> is a myth. Letting them fail is not only the best idea for the market, it
> is
> the best idea for the technology, it is the best idea for the current
> employees, it is the fastest way to reach viable market for EVs, it is the
> fastest way to reach the recovery phase. Anything we do to the contrary
> will
> just make things worse.

      And send off the exec's to jail? Same as gangsters? You bet? Stealing
OUR money, using Uncle Sap as a collection agent? I still have my bumper
sticker on my Electric; " Empty the Prisons, make Room for the Bush
Administration" And a few Auto Execs, too?Gotta add that line?

    Like the laws of physics are in effect til further notice, the laws of
economics are, too? So roll the presses 24/7? Print up MORE paper, worthless
"money!"NOBODY has said WHERE the cash is coming from, as we're bankrupt,
anyhow? Anybody in DC watching the store (news?) I didn't think so.At least
for the LAST 8 YEARS!

     End of Sundaze's rant?  Stay tuned.

      Seeya

      Bob.................Speaking for some American Sheeple?And I approve
of this message!

        An'
>                    Joe , the OTHER Joe, not the Plumber?
>
> _______________________________________________
> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[EVDL Administrator]

Folks, please, let's not waste EVDL bandwidth cussing at the automakers.  

Instead, write, phone, and/or email your representatives with your views on
their much-discussed requests for federal aid.  Will they listen?  I don't
know, but I'm pretty sure that congress doesn't read the EVDL, so griping
here is pointless.

Whether you write your reps or not, vote with your wallet.  Recycle an older
car or truck into a new EV, rather than buying Detroit's new products.  That
is, as an EVDL subscriber's email signature used to say years ago, one of
the highest forms of recycling.

David Roden
EVDL Administrator
http://www.evdl.org/


_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Lee Hart]

Bob Bath wrote:
> So GM is forced to merge with Tesla. Silicon Valley types know
> everything about batteries and writing software to work an EV
> properly. Automakers know how to build a car that will pass EPA,
> NHSTA, and DOT rules.  Win-win, unless GM assumes too much leadership
> in such a partnership...

That's how GM got the EV1; they hired Aerovironment to design it, then
used their talents to produce them.

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[okaauto]

The issue with US Auto industry is that 100% of vehicles sold in USA are  
different from the rest of the world due to emission and safety  regulations.
 
Only Japanese are capable of making 100% US compliant car in Japan from  
Japanese made parts (HONDA FIT, most ACURAS and LEXUS models, TOYOTA  YARIS)
 
While not a single US manufacturer (that includes transplants) is capable  to
make 100% US compliant vehicle in USA from US made components !!!
 
The ONLY vehicle with 95% US parts components is assembled in Canada and it  
is CROWN VICTORIA which is about to be discontinued anyway !
 
Most US cars have only 60% content of North American parts and that is not  
any different for MALIBU or CAMRY; who assembles the car is really pointless  !
 
GM pays their workers $63 per hour if all is included, Chrysler about  $53
 
HYUNDAI in Alabama pays $17.53 per hour is all is included.
 
It takes about 20 hours to assemble any vehicle.
 
SO that makes any NON big 3 vehicle cost about $1,000 more, but if you  
include the inefficiencies and big multimillion bonuses for CEO's  then the  
difference is more like $2,900 to $3,600 per vehicle.
 
IF US Consumers would be willing to pay premium for GM over HYUNDAI then  
there would be no problem with anything.
 
Mercedes=Benz gets away with sub standard quality and lot of warranty  
problems, Toyota gets away with thousands of engines failing due to "sludge",  yet
people still prefer them over GM or FORD due to 20 years behind fact  
reputation.
 
50 MPG + cars have been available from GM, but but few have ever bought  them
(GEO METRO), now AVEO sits on dealers lots, while there are none HONDA FIT  
in dealer inventory.
 
If people do not buy it, you can not force it on them no matter what.
 
Out of the 16 + million only few thousands are Hybrids and only PRIUS has  
any notoriety, ACORD and CIVIC is totally invisible and so are all the FORD  
models, even when available, without rebate that makes them CHEAPER than  
equivalent GAS car, CIVIC Hybrid does not sell !!!
 
If Plug IN people and EV people have their way, the US new vehicle market  
will be at best 4 million and people will resort to fixing 20 year old cars to  
keep them running forever, since from 1996 with the OBD II rules newer cars
are  too complex to "restore" and parts are generally not available after but 10
 years.
 
Political pressures will make US fleet look like what Cuba has had for  
decades (and Russia used to have till 1992)
 
Forcing anyone to any vehicle because it is good for them is about just as  
effective as telling them that they mow have to become Muslim to avoid
terrorist  attacks !
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
**************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks,
and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com
today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp
%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)
_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Joseph Ashwood]

I said (paraphrased):
Transmisions will still be necessary

Bob Rice said:
> Direct
> drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I go
> along with John Wayland on this one!

I disagree, obviously. If everyone only drove one speed it would be
reasonable to engineer a drive system for that specific rotational speed.
For some people that makes sense, they do only accelerate to a certain speed
and continue at that speed. For me, just today i was on roads with
reasonable driving speeds from 30 to 90 miles per hour, I believe
engineering a transmissionless vehicles to be efficient it a range that
large is insurmountable. Of course changes in the transmission and the usage
of it will be necessary, but I do believe that a transmission will be
necesssary. Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of the
foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of a
transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.
                        Joe

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Bob Rice-2]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:39 PM
Subject: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts! WAS: Plug
InAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future

>I said (paraphrased):
> Transmisions will still be necessary
>
> Bob Rice said:
>> Direct
>> drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I go
>> along with John Wayland on this one!
>
> I disagree, obviously. If everyone only drove one speed it would be
> reasonable to engineer a drive system for that specific rotational speed.
> For some people that makes sense, they do only accelerate to a certain
> speed
> and continue at that speed.

   Hi Joe;

   I beg to differ> I Never met a train in all my RR career, Con Rail or
Amtrak, that used a tranny. We GEAR for type of servive we wanna run. A
freight loco may have a 4 or 5 to one a Passenger one about3 to one. We ran
EMD GP-40's in commuter service, GP-40's are a classic midsize(3000HP)
freight engine, but we had the passenger cogs in them, anfd I could cruise
at 105MPH, with 3 lite, 45 ton Aluminum coaches.I, too, ramn on RR's with up
tp 150 MPH speeds.

   Of course on the RR we power for what speed we want to go. 14k for Acela
type 150 MPH speeds. A Metro Nporyth commuter job could hold me off the
line, but he's run out of "steam" (gears) about 100mph, and I'm getting my
second wind!

        For me, just today i was on roads with

> reasonable driving speeds from 30 to 90 miles per hour, I believe
> engineering a transmissionless vehicles to be efficient it a range that
> large is insurmountable. Of course changes in the transmission and the
> usage
> of it will be necessary, but I do believe that a transmission will be
> necesssary. Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
> difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of the
> foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of
> a
> transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.

       HUH!?

     Well, I can go 75 in my Jetta AND creep through a parking lot or a
barnyard of small farm critters, through the controller's magic, like wise I
don't blaze into Penn Station at 150 MPH, top Acela speed. Maybe White
Zombie can blast away in a nano second, but John keeps the reins on in
traffic?It's the magic of current multiplication, in todaze
controllers.Although I like the tranny that CAME with the doner car, for
REVERSE, without an expensive reverse contactor, and I can play with my
grears, like a sailor with his sails, for min. amp draw. But I often just
chunk it in one gear and just DRIVE like it was an automatic tranny.You mean
you haven't broken in a newbee Standard driver" Here TRY the clutch concept;
ya CAN'T stall the engine(motor)?Building an EV from scratch I'd follow
General Murders lead in EV -1 and Toyota's Rav-4 and go direct drive. Have
driven both and felt privlidged!You WON'T see any trannies( Yeah! Gearboxes,
definately) in a EV for the common Sheeple!

     Call it witchcraft?

     Bob

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Bob Rice-2]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Plug In America Wants Automakers to Retool for the
Future

> Bob Bath wrote:
>> So GM is forced to merge with Tesla. Silicon Valley types know
>> everything about batteries and writing software to work an EV
>> properly. Automakers know how to build a car that will pass EPA,
>> NHSTA, and DOT rules.  Win-win, unless GM assumes too much leadership
>> in such a partnership...
>
> That's how GM got the EV1; they hired Aerovironment to design it, then
> used their talents to produce them.
>

      Yeah! GM put together a TOP TEAM to grow the EV-1Best talent on the
planet. WHERE did it all go? Curious mind s would like to know?

      Bob> --

> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Morgan LaMoore]

If you use a barely adequate motor, a transmission will be needed.
However, if you're building something with more power, you can get
away without a transmission.

Look at White Zombie; with direct drive, it has a 60 foot time of 1.6
seconds and plenty of top speed. Use a Z1k instead of a Z2k and dual
8" motors and you'd have still adequate acceleration while putting far
less stress on the components. Of course, you'll have a far less
powerful battery pack, but the transmission does nothing to required
battery power anyways.

For a conversion of a car with an existing transmission, you can save
money by using that existing transmission with a smaller motor.
However, for a custom designed EV, it often makes sense to avoid the
expense of a transmission and instead use a motor that is adequate for
all operating conditions.

As for the throttle control at low speeds, that's an artifact of the
simple method most EVs use to control throttle. Most have the pedal
directly control the duty cycle of the motor, which, as you say, won't
be very controllable for direct drive at low speeds.

However, if you have the pedal control motor current as well as duty
cycle, you can make it much more controllable. The pedal would than
act literally like a torque pedal, or 'accelerator', giving you plenty
of fine control at low speeds.

The solar cars I've seen had the pedal directly control motor current.
This gives the driver total control over the torque produced; if
you're stopped and use 10% throttle, it'll give you 10% of your max
torque, not try to accelerate like crazy until the back EMF reaches
10% of pack voltage like a DC setup would. They were easily
controllable at creeping speeds with people all around, and still made
over 70mph on the highway with no shifting or changing pedal settings.

-Morgan LaMoore

On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Joseph Ashwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I said (paraphrased):
> Transmisions will still be necessary
>
> Bob Rice said:
>> Direct
>> drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I go
>> along with John Wayland on this one!
>
> I disagree, obviously. If everyone only drove one speed it would be
> reasonable to engineer a drive system for that specific rotational speed.
> For some people that makes sense, they do only accelerate to a certain speed
> and continue at that speed. For me, just today i was on roads with
> reasonable driving speeds from 30 to 90 miles per hour, I believe
> engineering a transmissionless vehicles to be efficient it a range that
> large is insurmountable. Of course changes in the transmission and the usage
> of it will be necessary, but I do believe that a transmission will be
> necesssary. Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
> difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of the
> foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of a
> transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.
>                        Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Evan Tuer]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Ashwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

[direct drive]

> Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
> difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of the
> foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of a
> transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.

That's not true at all - the throttle pedal controls torque, not
absolute speed.  My EV is direct drive and can be controlled easily
and accurately at a less-than-snail pace right up to it's maximum of
100km/h, with no manual intervention.

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Joseph Ashwood]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rice" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts! WAS:
PlugInAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:39 PM
> Subject: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts! WAS: Plug
> InAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future
>
>
>>I said (paraphrased):
>> Transmisions will still be necessary
>>
>> Bob Rice said:
>>> Direct
>>> drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I
>>> go
>>> along with John Wayland on this one!
>>
>> I disagree, obviously. If everyone only drove one speed it would be
>> reasonable to engineer a drive system for that specific rotational speed.
>> For some people that makes sense, they do only accelerate to a certain
>> speed
>> and continue at that speed.
>   Hi Joe;
>
>   I beg to differ> I Never met a train in all my RR career, Con Rail or
> Amtrak, that used a tranny. We GEAR for type of servive we wanna run.

Exactly, and running off of the target run lowers efficiency, sometimes
significantly.

> A
> freight loco may have a 4 or 5 to one a Passenger one about3 to one. We
> ran
> EMD GP-40's in commuter service, GP-40's are a classic midsize(3000HP)
> freight engine, but we had the passenger cogs in them, anfd I could cruise
> at 105MPH, with 3 lite, 45 ton Aluminum coaches.I, too, ramn on RR's with
> up
> tp 150 MPH speeds.
>
>   Of course on the RR we power for what speed we want to go. 14k for Acela
> type 150 MPH speeds. A Metro Nporyth commuter job could hold me off the
> line, but he's run out of "steam" (gears) about 100mph, and I'm getting my
> second wind!

That is acceptable in the train market, there is a relatively short amount
of time spent off target speed, the sacrifice in efficiency/performance is
reasonable. In a life that can easily span traveling almost 0mph during rush
hour and 70mph, one will be more efficient than the other.

>
>        For me, just today i was on roads with
>> reasonable driving speeds from 30 to 90 miles per hour, I believe
>> engineering a transmissionless vehicles to be efficient it a range that
>> large is insurmountable. Of course changes in the transmission and the
>> usage
>> of it will be necessary, but I do believe that a transmission will be
>> necesssary. Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
>> difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of
>> the
>> foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of
>> a
>> transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.
>
>       HUH!?
>
>     Well, I can go 75 in my Jetta AND creep through a parking lot or a
> barnyard of small farm critters, through the controller's magic,

In this case the controller is providing a limiter, as I noted before, but
also you are losing substantial efficiency of the motor at the slow speed.

> like wise I
> don't blaze into Penn Station at 150 MPH, top Acela speed. Maybe White
> Zombie can blast away in a nano second, but John keeps the reins on in
> traffic?It's the magic of current multiplication, in todaze
> controllers.Although I like the tranny that CAME with the doner car, for
> REVERSE, without an expensive reverse contactor, and I can play with my
> grears, like a sailor with his sails, for min. amp draw.

That would be the reason for the gears, to increase efficiency at the target
speed. At the same time it will increase the useful maximum speed.

> But I often just
> chunk it in one gear and just DRIVE like it was an automatic tranny.You
> mean
> you haven't broken in a newbee Standard driver" Here TRY the clutch
> concept;
> ya CAN'T stall the engine(motor)?

There is an enormous difference between the transmission and the clutch. The
clutch is generally not necessary, but multiple gearing will be necessary
for efficiency.

> Building an EV from scratch I'd follow
> General Murders lead in EV -1 and Toyota's Rav-4 and go direct drive. Have
> driven both and felt privlidged!You WON'T see any trannies( Yeah!
> Gearboxes,
> definately) in a EV for the common Sheeple!

That's where we differ, I'd use a continually variable transmission, and
program it for the eletric motor. But at the same time, I am on a "Oh its
you, nevermind" basis with the local police (he really did say that before
he got in his car and drove away).

I think as much as anything, this is a matter of different points in the
market. There are those people whoc due to their reduced requirements,
reduced range, reduced performance, reduced everything, the reduced cost of
a transmissionless machine is reasonable. At the other end, no one needs the
performance of a Corvette ZR-1, and the Aston Martin 1-77 sold out before
the looks were even fully revealed. Something in the supercar market would
have to sacrifice almost all of the high speed ability in the name of low
speeds without a transmission, a transmission fixes this. The equivalent of
a Smart would sacrifice notably less.
                    Joe

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Matt Lacey]

 
"Exactly, and running off of the target run lowers efficiency, sometimes
significantly."
Where is your data for to back this up? Have you done side by side dynos?
Have you measured actual low speed motor efficiency?
Have you measured short ratios in a gear box?


"There are those people who due to their reduced requirements,
reduced range, reduced performance, reduced everything, the reduced cost of
a transmissionless machine is reasonable. At the other end, no one needs the

performance of a Corvette ZR-1, and the Aston Martin 1-77 sold out before
the looks were even fully revealed."

The conversions that retain a transmission are inherently *slower* than
their direct drive counter parts because theyre limited to the low
rpm(<3000rpm) (if series DC) of the motor, and the low torque ( less than
500Nm) that a *normal* transmission will accept reliably.
That means a max peak value of 150kw or there abouts.....at the motor, not
the wheels.

Few ( I have yet to see one, that has) purpose built Evs have a gearbox, and
especially not the high performance variants.
Even the Tesla guys ditched their gearbox in favour of single ratio, having
tried both.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Joseph Ashwood
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2008 9:09 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts!
WAS:PlugInAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rice" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts! WAS:
PlugInAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:39 PM
> Subject: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts! WAS: Plug
> InAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future
>
>
>>I said (paraphrased):
>> Transmisions will still be necessary
>>
>> Bob Rice said:
>>> Direct
>>> drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I
>>> go
>>> along with John Wayland on this one!
>>
>> I disagree, obviously. If everyone only drove one speed it would be
>> reasonable to engineer a drive system for that specific rotational speed.
>> For some people that makes sense, they do only accelerate to a certain
>> speed
>> and continue at that speed.
>   Hi Joe;
>
>   I beg to differ> I Never met a train in all my RR career, Con Rail or
> Amtrak, that used a tranny. We GEAR for type of servive we wanna run.

Exactly, and running off of the target run lowers efficiency, sometimes
significantly.

> A
> freight loco may have a 4 or 5 to one a Passenger one about3 to one. We
> ran
> EMD GP-40's in commuter service, GP-40's are a classic midsize(3000HP)
> freight engine, but we had the passenger cogs in them, anfd I could cruise
> at 105MPH, with 3 lite, 45 ton Aluminum coaches.I, too, ramn on RR's with
> up
> tp 150 MPH speeds.
>
>   Of course on the RR we power for what speed we want to go. 14k for Acela
> type 150 MPH speeds. A Metro Nporyth commuter job could hold me off the
> line, but he's run out of "steam" (gears) about 100mph, and I'm getting my
> second wind!

That is acceptable in the train market, there is a relatively short amount
of time spent off target speed, the sacrifice in efficiency/performance is
reasonable. In a life that can easily span traveling almost 0mph during rush

hour and 70mph, one will be more efficient than the other.

>
>        For me, just today i was on roads with
>> reasonable driving speeds from 30 to 90 miles per hour, I believe
>> engineering a transmissionless vehicles to be efficient it a range that
>> large is insurmountable. Of course changes in the transmission and the
>> usage
>> of it will be necessary, but I do believe that a transmission will be
>> necesssary. Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
>> difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of
>> the
>> foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of
>> a
>> transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.
>
>       HUH!?
>
>     Well, I can go 75 in my Jetta AND creep through a parking lot or a
> barnyard of small farm critters, through the controller's magic,

In this case the controller is providing a limiter, as I noted before, but
also you are losing substantial efficiency of the motor at the slow speed.

> like wise I
> don't blaze into Penn Station at 150 MPH, top Acela speed. Maybe White
> Zombie can blast away in a nano second, but John keeps the reins on in
> traffic?It's the magic of current multiplication, in todaze
> controllers.Although I like the tranny that CAME with the doner car, for
> REVERSE, without an expensive reverse contactor, and I can play with my
> grears, like a sailor with his sails, for min. amp draw.

That would be the reason for the gears, to increase efficiency at the target

speed. At the same time it will increase the useful maximum speed.

> But I often just
> chunk it in one gear and just DRIVE like it was an automatic tranny.You
> mean
> you haven't broken in a newbee Standard driver" Here TRY the clutch
> concept;
> ya CAN'T stall the engine(motor)?

There is an enormous difference between the transmission and the clutch. The

clutch is generally not necessary, but multiple gearing will be necessary
for efficiency.

> Building an EV from scratch I'd follow
> General Murders lead in EV -1 and Toyota's Rav-4 and go direct drive. Have
> driven both and felt privlidged!You WON'T see any trannies( Yeah!
> Gearboxes,
> definately) in a EV for the common Sheeple!

That's where we differ, I'd use a continually variable transmission, and
program it for the eletric motor. But at the same time, I am on a "Oh its
you, nevermind" basis with the local police (he really did say that before
he got in his car and drove away).

I think as much as anything, this is a matter of different points in the
market. There are those people whoc due to their reduced requirements,
reduced range, reduced performance, reduced everything, the reduced cost of
a transmissionless machine is reasonable. At the other end, no one needs the

performance of a Corvette ZR-1, and the Aston Martin 1-77 sold out before
the looks were even fully revealed. Something in the supercar market would
have to sacrifice almost all of the high speed ability in the name of low
speeds without a transmission, a transmission fixes this. The equivalent of
a Smart would sacrifice notably less.
                    Joe

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.0 - Release Date: 5/11/2008 12:00
AM


_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Roland Wiench]

Using a transmission or not may depend on the overall gear ratio, weight,
grade and speed you want to go.

Here is a example of my drive this morning to the Hill Top Café which is on
a hill that is five blocks from my home, but it raises about 400 feet in
that distance.  Very steep in some parts then the other.

I start up backing out of my garage in a overall gear ratio of 26:1 at a
battery ampere of 3 to 5 amps and motor ampere that peaks at 200 amps to get
the EV to move than it comes down to less than 40 amps while moving a 6800
lb EV.

Now I shift the transmission into 1st which is about 20:1 ratio and start to
accelerated way up to 15 mph going up a hill that I measure to be over 8
percent grade in some spots which is all in a residential area.

I may coast down a different direction of this hilll to a lumber yard to
pick up a load of wood and construction material, that may take my EV closer
to 8000 lbs.

The ampere peaks to 400 amps and battery amperes goes to about 100 amps
during acceleration to 15 mph.  Holding this constant speed, the motor amps
now come back to about 150 amps and the battery is at 40 amps with a Zilla
controller holding 9 inch Warp motor to about 5000 rpm.

The batteries are Trojan T-145's 180 volt pack, that I will finish charge to
225 volts just before I leave.  I find that I use 2.6 ah for the drive up
and down as compare to 3.2 ah if I have charge the batteries the nite before
which the battery voltage will float back to 192 volts.

Now, that everybody is talking about direct drive, so I try to shift the
transmission into the 1.0:1 transmission gear ratio with a 5.57:1
differential gear, which is a overall ratio of 5.57:1.  I did not allow the
motor ampere to peak over 800 amps which is over 200 battery amps for over a
micro second, so I quickly shifted into more gear ratios to reduce the
ampere.

Coming down this hill, I keep the overall gear ratio at about 20:1 so my
motor rpm is now up to 6000 rpm at a speed of 25 mph.  The motor and battery
ampere is now at 0 amps, but my rotating DC-AC invertor-alternator is still
generating power to the accessory battery, power steering, vucuum pump,
cooling fans, water pumps, air condition system in summer and/or up to 2500
watts of heating systems in the winter.  This provides a braking type of
REGEN, so the EV can hold this speed going down these hills.

The round trip of this 1 mile run, generating all this accessory power
usages about 425 kwhr.

Roland





----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[hidden email]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 8:39 PM
Subject: [EVDL] Transmissions or lack thereof was Re: Nuts! WAS: Plug
InAmerica Wants Automakers to Retool forthe Future

> I said (paraphrased):
> Transmisions will still be necessary
>
> Bob Rice said:
> > Direct
> > drive is the way to go on the new Transportation appliances, anyhow? I
> > go
> > along with John Wayland on this one!
>
> I disagree, obviously. If everyone only drove one speed it would be
> reasonable to engineer a drive system for that specific rotational speed.
> For some people that makes sense, they do only accelerate to a certain
> speed
> and continue at that speed. For me, just today i was on roads with
> reasonable driving speeds from 30 to 90 miles per hour, I believe
> engineering a transmissionless vehicles to be efficient it a range that
> large is insurmountable. Of course changes in the transmission and the
> usage
> of it will be necessary, but I do believe that a transmission will be
> necesssary. Also with a vehicle with a top speed of 90+ it will be very
> difficult to maintain a safe speed in a parking lot, a small twitch of the
> foot would be the difference between 5 and 30 mph, so a driver concept of
> a
> transmission is useful, even if it is just a controller limiter.
>                         Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
> Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
> Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
> Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>

_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[EVDL Administrator]

This is a fairly common topic of discussion on the EVDL.  Among others, Lee
Hart has repeatedly posted a cogent explanation of why most  conversion EVs
use a multispeed gearbox, and why most OEM EVs don't.

We have also had many discussions over the years about the pros and cons of
CVTs.

I don't mean to seem testy, but it'll save us rehashing all of this yet
again if you'll peruse the archives.

Current archive : http://evdl.org/archive/

Old archive : http://www.mail-archive.com/ev@.../

Thanks,

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not
reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
General EVDL support: http://evdl.org/help/
Usage guidelines: http://evdl.org/help/index.html#conv
Archives: http://evdl.org/archive/
Subscription options: http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev