# Using Chevy S-10 chassis as a base ?



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm wondering if anyone with S-10 pickup truck build experience could comment on an idea I've been kicking around. 

Below is an S-10 chassis with suspension, brakes, wheels, etc. It has actually been lowered using an airbag system replacing the leafsprings.











Can anybody ballpark what this much of an S-10 would weigh ? 

This seems like it would be a good base to build a custom EV on rather than a completely custom tubular chassis. This would mean readily available parts for suspension, brakes, spindles, etc. The wheelbase of 108" is even very close to what is need for some common kitcar bodies like Diablo or Murcielago. I would build a steel-tube space-frame to support the and mount the body to the S-10 base chassis above. I would keep the motors (two motors in tandem driving the S-10 tranny) and controllers mounted low to fit the low hoodline. I'd mount all the batteries between the framerails, keeping the center of gravity very low.









Does this seem like a feasible project using two 9" Warp motors (each with its own 144v Curtis 1231C) and the S-10 tranny, driveshaft, and rear-end ? Would the acceleration be supercar-esque if the curb weight came in under 2000lbs ?


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

What battery config do you plan for this? Chemistry, voltage, AH size, etc.

Seems a bit tough to get it all under 2000Lb...


----------



## judebert (Apr 16, 2008)

I don't have any answers for you, but I wanted to provide some encouragement. I like your idea. You'd think that a truck suspension would be able to handle as much weight as you care to throw at it.

I'm not convinced it'll handle very well while it's at it, though.

I also think it'll be hard to find a body to put on it, and that it's lowered a little too far in your pictures.

I'll be following your thread with interest, though!


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

I think your basic idea is great. You'd have a shot at a vehicle that is 50% battery and still within the GVWR of the chassis. You'd also have much better aerodynamics.

A book I have (I think it's "How to make your car handle") got an S10 to corner at 1+ g with just bolt-on suspension mods. The Rodster sells spindles that make their S10 kit handle more car-like.


----------



## Jimdear2 (Oct 12, 2008)

I would think a 1000 lbs. of batteries at or below the level of the axles with good springs, tires and shocks and a light body above would make it handle "Just Fine"  truck or no

Can you say Go Kart


----------



## JimO (May 24, 2008)

Boy, it looks like that frame is touching the ground!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I like the idea of using the S10 frame for all the reasons you listed, though that may be too low since it's almost on the ground. I assume it's adjustable.
As for the weight, I weighed my bare full sized 1986 Blazer frame at 300lbs, and a Dana44 front end at 250. My Blazer frame is an open C channel while your's is boxed, and probably lighter. Your rear end will probably be a bit lighter without steering knuckles and hubs. Not sure how much the airbag system weighs, plus tires and rims.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

dimitri said:


> What battery config do you plan for this? Chemistry, voltage, AH size, etc.
> 
> Seems a bit tough to get it all under 2000Lb...


A pack of 45 cells LFP160AH should be able to feed 500 amps peak simultaneously to each controller without too much trouble. It would weigh <600lbs. 18kwh usable at 80% DOD might yield a range of 80 miles.

A pack of 12 Hawker PC1750's would also do it at 700lbs, but range would be half the lithiums. Those are 75AH, with maybe 50AH usable, so only 7.2kwh and 35 miles.

I can't find weight figures on the mechanical components shown in the pics, but a custom tube chassis and fiberglass body vehicle with a big V8 can come in under 2000lbs. It comes down to whether a big V8 with accessories, exhaust, and a full tank of gas is roughly the same weight as the motors, controllers, and batteries. I think the airbag suspension saves about a 100 lbs vs. traditional springs+shocks. Leaf springs are heavy.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

JimO said:


> Boy, it looks like that frame is touching the ground!


I'm pretty sure it is. That is a "RoadGrater" system built to slam a truck all the way down to the ground. It can drop an S-10 by up to 12 inches. For a sports car that needs a low ground clearance to "look" right, but also needs to be able to get over speed bumps and up and down steep driveways, and airbag system with 12" of movement seems like a good idea.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

DavidDymaxion said:


> I think your basic idea is great. You'd have a shot at a vehicle that is 50% battery and still within the GVWR of the chassis. You'd also have much better aerodynamics.
> 
> A book I have (I think it's "How to make your car handle") got an S10 to corner at 1+ g with just bolt-on suspension mods. The Rodster sells spindles that make their S10 kit handle more car-like.


The RoadGrater system actually replaces the entire rear suspension with a 3-link airbag suspension. Taller c-notch and everything, and the old framerails and c-notch are cut away after this setup is bolted in place. Sounds good, but I don't know how it actually performs on the skidpad. Here is a pic of the whole rear suspension:


----------



## JimO (May 24, 2008)

You have to put the batteries in the bed. There won't be room for battery boxes with a frame that goes that low.


----------



## JimO (May 24, 2008)

You have to put the batteries in the bed. There won't be room for battery boxes with a frame that goes that low. But a low truck looks cool!


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

JimO said:


> You have to put the batteries in the bed. There won't be room for battery boxes with a frame that goes that low. But a low truck looks cool!


There wouldn't be a truck bed. Or truck cab. The idea is to use ONLY the chassis, then build a steel-tube space frame on top of it to mount a sports car fiberglass body as in the Murcielago picture shown. 









The car obviously can't go lower than the bottoms of the frame rails which are 6" tall. So an 11" tall battery would only be sitting 5" above the frame rail if the battery boxes are sitting down between the frame rails flush with their bottoms. It looks like there should be room for a battery box 16" x 36" between the driveshaft and the frame rail on each side between the back of the seats and the rear suspension. With LFP160AH batteries that are 11" tall, 2.8" thick, and 7.5" wide, that means fitting 22 cells in each box would work.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Dreamer, 

why 2 Warp9's ? Is this going to be a racer or a street car? No way you can get 80 miles with that pack and 2 motors, too much current to spin 2 motors. Why not use single Warp11 and a badass 1000amp controller? You'd shave 100lb and few grand $$$ compared to dual motor/controller setup. On a 2000Lb aerodynamic car, Warp11 will burn rubber easily...assuming you are keeping the tranny, I think you said that you are keeping it...

Also , with dual setup you'd be pulling 6C from the pack, not a good idea for more than few seconds. With Warp11 its less likely, so its easier on a pack...


my $0.02


----------



## nheistand (Jun 2, 2009)

Probable 100 x 2 for 200 peak HP? Yep, that would smoke the tires. While a standard gas S10 needs to use gears and rpms to get some HP going, the electric gets all the torque right now. As you know the single setup does a good job for a standard S10 conversion so would perform very well for a lighter version like you describe. Double? Twice the fun?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

dimitri said:


> Dreamer,
> 
> why 2 Warp9's ? Is this going to be a racer or a street car? No way you can get 80 miles with that pack and 2 motors, too much current to spin 2 motors. Why not use single Warp11 and a badass 1000amp controller? You'd shave 100lb and few grand $$$ compared to dual motor/controller setup. On a 2000Lb aerodynamic car, Warp11 will burn rubber easily...assuming you are keeping the tranny, I think you said that you are keeping it...
> 
> ...


+1 so make that 4 cents...

Warp 11 with 1200 Amp Raptor-II
http://www.black-sheep.us/product_info.php?products_id=163&osCsid=d2786540665c0f587ceb7fac9490443b

1200 peak, 800A continuous, 192V capable....

nuff said....


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> +1 so make that 4 cents...
> 
> Warp 11 with 1200 Amp Raptor-II
> http://www.black-sheep.us/product_info.php?products_id=163&osCsid=d2786540665c0f587ceb7fac9490443b
> ...



I didn't know the Raptors were still in production. But at $3100, it is even more expensive than the Zilla was. Plus $210 for the interface board.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

dreamer said:


> I didn't know the Raptors were still in production. But at $3100, it is even more expensive than the Zilla was. Plus $210 for the interface board.


By the time you done with your build, EVNetics1000 will be available ( a.k.a. BMF  ) , better specs than Zilla and cheaper....


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

dimitri said:


> Dreamer,
> 
> why 2 Warp9's ? Is this going to be a racer or a street car? No way you can get 80 miles with that pack and 2 motors, too much current to spin 2 motors. Why not use single Warp11 and a badass 1000amp controller? You'd shave 100lb and few grand $$$ compared to dual motor/controller setup. On a 2000Lb aerodynamic car, Warp11 will burn rubber easily...assuming you are keeping the tranny, I think you said that you are keeping it...
> 
> ...


Those are good points. On the other hand, a dual motor setup provides failure redundancy, so one set of motor+controller can be disconnected and you still have a working vehicle while you wait for replacement parts. And a failed component would be less expensive to replace than in the single Warp 11 + Zilla/Raptor/BMF case.

The Raptor Bowser suggests is $3310 plus the Warp 11 is $2500, for $5810 total.

A Curtis 1231C plus Warp 9 is $3000, so two sets are $6000. Not "a few grand" difference in price. And I'm even considering the Belktronix controllers which are even less expensive at $1000 each. Haven't found many reviews on them though.

Why would you expect dual motor+controller systems running in parallel to use more energy propelling a vehicle than a single larger motor and controller ? Efficiency shouldn't be that big a difference. It would be a 1000A total draw from the pack either way, wouldn't it ? And concentrating all that power in a single controller and motor also concentrates heat -- so much so that the Zilla requires liquid cooling and the Raptor forced air cooling.

With 18KWH usable from the 23KWH pack and usually running less than the 3C continuous rating on the LFPs, 80 miles would be 225wh/mile. Is that unreasonable for an aerodynamic 2000 lb sports car ?

As far as pulling 6C during accelerations, the LFPs are rated 10C for 5 seconds and 3C continuous, so 6C for the typical 5 second acceleration away from a stoplight shouldn't tax the batteries too much unless their ratings are completely bogus.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

dimitri said:


> By the time you done with your build, EVNetics1000 will be available ( a.k.a. BMF  ) , better specs than Zilla and cheaper....


Well, I haven't been following that thread continuously, but didn't I see that they were limiting your beta testing to only 500A ? That didn't sound promising.

For $2000, I could get a pair of 500A 144V Belktronix controllers, which at least have a dozen conversions using them. I'm going to try contacting some of the users and get their feedback.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

dreamer said:


> Those are good points. On the other hand, a dual motor setup provides failure redundancy, so one set of motor+controller can be disconnected and you still have a working vehicle while you wait for replacement parts. And a failed component would be less expensive to replace than in the single Warp 11 + Zilla/Raptor/BMF case.
> 
> The Raptor Bowser suggests is $3310 plus the Warp 11 is $2500, for $5810 total.
> 
> ...


You are planning on making a replica LAMBO...I would think you would want to replicate the performance as well...

A warp-11 with a 1000A (BMF, Raptor, Zilla, etc) controller will generate more torque and more hp than two warp-9s with 500A controllers...

If this is still not convincing you...then check out this...

http://www.electricdiablo.com/

Not only does Zach have a Warp-11, but he has the nearly 5000$ Zilla 2K!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Another option besides Curtis is Synkromotive
http://www.evcomponents.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=SYNKRO


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> You are planning on making a replica LAMBO...I would think you would want to replicate the performance as well...
> 
> A warp-11 with a 1000A (BMF, Raptor, Zilla, etc) controller will generate more torque and more hp than two warp-9s with 500A controllers...
> 
> ...


Actually, I'm not planning on building a replica. That is just a starting point, since I've never really seen the charm in trying to pretend a vehicle is something it's not. I go to the Knott's Berry Farm show every year and see all the "Lambo" replicas and "Cobra" replicas and shake my head. Some of these people have spent $75K building a car that they ultimately have to admit isn't the real thing.

I've followed Zach's build off and on, but his performance is still unknown since it isn't on the road yet.

Have you read the history of the White Zombie and the various motor and controller combinations its been through in the last 15 years ?

http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/reviews.php

Notice that up until 2000, it was running a race-modified 11" Kostov motor. He blew up that 11" motor and replaced it with two Warp 8" motors coupled together. He had no trouble with blowing them up, and even finally had them taken apart by Jim Husted and remounted onto a single long motor shaft to get a shorter, lighter motor. But even with the two separate stock Warp 8" motors, he was outrunning Vipers at the drag strip.

Which is all very interesting, but I don't plan to drag race my car. I just want a solid package that will have the power available for hills and stoplights. I think 500A to each motor will be enough.


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

My only concern would be weight distribution. While a truck body is made to hold a lot, it anticipates load being increased on the back, rather than the front. Two motors + two controls + coupling bits, and you're probably looking close to 400 lbs. That also isn't going to leave much room up front for any batteries.

Which means you'll be putting 6-700 lbs of batteries in the back. A quick look says that the load capacity is almost 1700 lbs though, so it seems like you should be good. Front axle weight is even more than that, about 2400 lbs.

Seems like I've dispelled my own concerns.  Seems like it would be very doable!


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

dreamer said:


> ...
> 
> Have you read the history of the White Zombie and the various motor and controller combinations its been through in the last 15 years ?
> 
> ...


Well since you wont be dragging it, you shouldn't really worry about that 11" blowing up...plus that Kostov 11" is not as strong as a Warp-11"...he used the kostov for the interpoles which allow for higher voltage applications...

I think you will have enough power to "handle" hills and stoplights just fine with 220ftlbs of torque however please understand that a difference of 552ft.lbs of torque is pretty big....

144V 500A Max Torque (x2) = 220ft.lbs
374V 2000A Max Torque (x2) = 772ft.lbs

And with the two 8's john would be less efficient than with a single larger motor, but consider a few things...his pack voltage is 374V (230V more than 144V) which helps increase efficiency...Also, as a drag car, he is not as concerned with efficiency as someone with a daily driver would be...


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

Since you have an S-10 You could pack a 144v with 440AH LiFePo4's for some serious range and power  Comming in at only 22k


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

I don't know about anyone else, but this discussion is making me glad I went with an 11-inch motor. All my reasons have been validated in this thread. I basically wanted the "no replacement for displacement" philosophy in an electric format.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

I will be following this thread very closely because I've pretty much had the same idea for a while.

Fake Lambo or not.. I want one. 

I have about a million questions tho.. 

Could you give a laydown from stock s-10 frame to finished kit? Would this still pass crash ratings? 

So far (as I understand) you could get an s-10 frame or a full S10 (in my case the full s-10 would be about 500$) and then need to add a lowering kit to it air ride system to allow for the weight and ride height.

Have you considered a AC brushless? 50wK burst should give some nice takeoffs at 2000lbs.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Nomad said:


> I will be following this thread very closely because I've pretty much had the same idea for a while.
> 
> Fake Lambo or not.. I want one.
> 
> ...


I have no idea if the crash rating would survive trplacing the stock cab with a custom tube rollcage and fiberglass body. It would be inspected as a custom-built vehicle, and not retain its S-10 designation, I think. I wish it would retain the S-10 registration but that might take some convincing of the CHP inspector.

The air ride kit that I showed replacing the rear suspension is pricey at $1500, and the front airbag lowering system is about $700, I think. So the pictured setup would probably hit $3000 including the S-10 donor.

I had hopes for the HPGC AC-31 motors, but they are not dual-shaft so coupling them is not possible. A Pair of them would also cost over $8000. And the reports say the HP and torque numbers advertised are unlikely.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

After looking at some kits, I have no idea how this can be affordable unless it looks like an s10 on the inside and lambo outside and even then it's like 10k for the fiberglass. Do you know a place to get the shell cheeper? Then Glass.. Lights..  Looking outside my price range again


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

toddshotrods said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but this discussion is making me glad I went with an 11-inch motor. All my reasons have been validated in this thread. I basically wanted the "no replacement for displacement" philosophy in an electric format.


Is your car on the road ? What kind of performance have you seen ?

Your "no replacement for displacement" comment seems kind of backwards to me. It seems like the analogy, given the relative weights of the motors involved would be like this:

Warp 11 plus 1000A controller = 4.0 liter Inline 4cyl engine with single 800cfm carburater

Dual Warp 9's plus dual 500A controllers = 5.0 liter V8 with dual 400cfm carbs

The power of an electric motor is proportionate to the weight of the motor, and the two Warp 9's weigh more than the single Warp 11. So the dual motor setup would seem to have the higher "displacement".


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> Well since you wont be dragging it, you shouldn't really worry about that 11" blowing up...plus that Kostov 11" is not as strong as a Warp-11"...he used the kostov for the interpoles which allow for higher voltage applications...
> 
> I think you will have enough power to "handle" hills and stoplights just fine with 220ftlbs of torque however please understand that a difference of 552ft.lbs of torque is pretty big....
> 
> ...


The efficiency issue is something I don't get. Two motors with smaller diameter can run at a higher RPM than the larger single motor, and the power required to get the larger diameter motor spinning from a stop seems like it would be less efficient. Plus the power lost as heat in a larger controller as compared to two smaller controllers would seem to favor dual controllers to me. So where does the "single motor is more efficient" argument come from ? Maybe Major or Jim Husted has explained this somewhere ? If so, I'd appreciate a link.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

"144V 500A Max Torque (x2) = 220ft.lbs
374V 2000A Max Torque (x2) = 772ft.lbs"

The White Zombie page doesn't show more than 500ft-lbs for the 11" Kostov at 1200A.
It shows 540ft-lbs for the dual 8" Warps at 1200A.

So are you extrapolating that 772ft-lbs number or has that been tested on some other vehicle somewhere ?

I've been reading the Electrocraft thread again and if that controller tests well, I might go to 192V @ 500A for each motor, but 374V doesn't really have any controller available except the Zilla. And the Zilla is not really available at the moment.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

Don't forget about my Shell question on page 3. 

And does anyone know why zilla stopped?


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Nomad said:


> After looking at some kits, I have no idea how this can be affordable unless it looks like an s10 on the inside and lambo outside and even then it's like 10k for the fiberglass. Do you know a place to get the shell cheeper? Then Glass.. Lights..  Looking outside my price range again


It wouldn't be cheap, that's for sure.

A very basic fiberglass package would be this one:

http://www.carkitinc.com/mercy.php

They estimate $12,000 to complete a car, but I figure a dual motor, dual controller, Lithium setup would actually cost closer to $25,000. 

Here is a picture from the site above of the type of steel-tube support structure I'd have to build and mount to the S-10 chassis for mounting the fiberglass body. In the picture, the chassis base is a Fiero, but the concept is the same.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Zilla stopped production because Otmar couldn't keep up and has been looking to sell the business. I think he has someone who may take over soon and begin production.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

dreamer said:


> It wouldn't be cheap, that's for sure.
> 
> A very basic fiberglass package would be this one:
> 
> ...


Now that puts it back in my price range of what I was looking at. 
I'm looking at a 320v System, bms, charger, controller, Motor 7k
Batteries Lithium [email protected] or 100ah have figured it out yet. 6.6k-10k
And a car kit of 12k only 5k needed upfront and the rest over how ever long give me a starting price of around 23k which isn't more expensive then any car I've been looking to buy.

Only thing that bothers me at this point is crash safety and insurence. What would they cover?


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

Nomad said:


> ...
> 
> Only thing that bothers me at this point is crash safety and insurence. What would they cover?


That's actually a pretty important consideration. There's a big to-do right now about three wheeled vehicles, because they look and drive like cars (often, not always) but are classified by many states as motorcycle. Being clasified as a bike lets them avoid highway safety tests, which is convenient for the producer, but potentially a problem for the consumer.

You'll also have to get the vehicle inspected by your DMV and/or DOT to get a VIN number. Keep your receipts; they're mostly looking to make sure that the parts haven't been stolen. You may be needed to come up with crash safety results, however, since it is a four wheeled vehicle. I would recommend contacting your local DMV/DOT for information on the title/registration process to make sure you're going to be able to comply.

If you can get it registered, you can probably get it insured for liability. Again, keep your reciepts, as if you try to go for anything more than that, the insurance company may want to send an adjuster to value the car.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

dreamer said:


> Is your car on the road ? What kind of performance have you seen ?
> 
> Your "no replacement for displacement" comment seems kind of backwards to me. It seems like the analogy, given the relative weights of the motors involved would be like this:
> 
> ...


No, I am working on the chassis now, and hope to get going on the coupler and adapter soon. I based my plans on the results others have had. The 11-inch motor gives me the opportunity for massive torque in a relatively small package.

Consider this guy's setup, with dual 12-inch motors. I picked the 11-inch motor as the best compromise between weight and performance, for the size/weight vehicle I want to build. His setup is beyond impressive with 400hp/775lb-ft for *EACH* motor but the car has to be longer and obviously heavier. I wanted a short wheelbase, lightweight vehicle, so it will have good handling (autocross) as well as acceleration. I wanted to accomplish the equivalent of putting a big block Chevy, or maybe new LS7 427, in a Vega. Are you familiar with the V8 Vegas of yester-year?

If I develop 300hp/500lb-ft in a sub-2000lb vehicle, I will have a really fun toy. It will have a wide track, short wheelbase, low CG, and low polar moment - that spells fun to me! 

As far as my philosophy on size/power being backwards, and an 11-inch motor being the equivalent of a 4-banger with an oversized carb, your method of determining what the potential of electric motors does not correspond with what people are achieving in real-world efforts. I can't help you there because I am admitedly a novice, and haven't learned the mathematical forumulas yet. I am more concentrated on the overall vehicle design. JRP3 was kind enough to help me develop the EV technical concerns, so I cold concentrate on the big picture. Regardless of what you see on paper, you can't dispute what has happened already in real life.

These guys have actually spelled out the advantages very clearly for you (concerning using a single 11-inch motor) but you're trying desperately to prove your idea is better. They've given you the math to support their conclusions, but you dispute it. There's no problem with you running dual 9-inch motors if you want to - it's your project. People are just telling you that based on the math, and real-world experiences, it's not the best setup for your stated goals. I'd just love to see you build the car either way (dual or single motor) because I love custom stuff!

As for the crash ratings, you're not actually going to get government approval (of course) on it but if you follow the guidelines of one of the major sanctioning bodies in building your cage, you should have a much stronger and safer vehicle than a stock S10. NHRA and NASCAR guys smash into walls, roll and tumble, then walk away. Just remember that they are also straped in with five-point harnesses. A cage makes the vehicle strong enough to survive a massive impact but all the force of the crash is transmitted to the occupants. Modern production cars are designed to absorb the energy of the crash, and shield the occupants from it. If you have a head on crash in a caged vehicle, without the harness on, you're going to have some personal structural problems because your body is going to continue in the motion it was in, after your vehicle has changed its motion. Flesh and bone meet metal.

Add - in Ohio, there are no requirements for crash testing when registering a specialty vehicle. You just have to have all your receipts to prove where you got the stuff to build it, and have all the standard equipment (seat belts, lights, horn, wipers, etc.) Call the DMV in your state and check the laws before you start buying and building. I made the mistake of starting first and found out how strict they are here about having receipts - I was using stuff I had around the shop, but didn't have proof of ownership for.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

"As far as my philosophy on size/power being backwards, and an 11-inch motor being the equivalent of a 4-banger with an oversized carb, your method of determining what the potential of electric motors does not correspond with what people are achieving in real-world efforts."

I still point to the White Zombie. Using the same controller, the two 8" motors produce more power than the single 11" motor did. So that is a real-world comparison of just the motor component -- leaving controller and battery issues constant. 

I'm comfortable that the two motor setup would be fine powerwise. I am actually more concerned with having the physical space required for tandem motors, because that means the motors must sit on top of the front crossmember of the S10 frame and still be low enough to line up with the tranny -- while a Warp 11 might fit in between the corssmember and the tranny so the height of the crossmember is not an issue. I have no idea until I can get to a junkyard and take measurements.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

"Add - in Ohio, there are no requirements for crash testing when registering a specialty vehicle. You just have to have all your receipts to prove where you got the stuff to build it, and have all the standard equipment (seat belts, lights, horn, wipers, etc.) Call the DMV in your state and check the laws before you start buying and building. I made the mistake of starting first and found out how strict they are here about having receipts - I was using stuff I had around the shop, but didn't have proof of ownership for. "

I am hoping using an S10 chassis and VIN will help on this issue, but there is no substitute for asking. Unfortunately, I talked to somebody here in CA at a show about his scratch-built 3-wheeler and he mentioned that the DMV doesn't seem to want to give advice on how something should be built, but will just say "yay" or "nay" after it's finished. Definitely something that needs to be known ahead of time, because building a custom vehicle and then not being able to get it registered or insured would suck.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

dreamer said:


> I still point to the White Zombie. Using the same controller, the two 8" motors produce more power than the single 11" motor did.


Just remember those are highly modified motors by Jim Husted built into a single unit, not off the shelf motors.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

dreamer said:


> I am hoping using an S10 chassis and VIN will help on this issue, but there is no substitute for asking. Unfortunately, I talked to somebody here in CA at a show about his scratch-built 3-wheeler and he mentioned that the DMV doesn't seem to want to give advice on how something should be built, but will just say "yay" or "nay" after it's finished. Definitely something that needs to be known ahead of time, because building a custom vehicle and then not being able to get it registered or insured would suck.


Yeah, a title is actually the best way to prove ownership here; especially for things like the motor, transmission, frame, etc.

You can access the actual motor vehicle laws online. I have looked at my own, and have even seen a link to California's on a forum before. I can't remember who posted them, where it was, or what the discussion was about now though. Any laws that affect your life are public records.

Here it's worse than not being able to register the vehicle. If they are suspicious about whether or not something is stolen, they can confiscate the whole vehicle on the spot (during the registration inspection).


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Just remember those are highly modified motors by Jim Husted built into a single unit, not off the shelf motors.


And the 11-inch was a Kostov (sp?) not a built Warp 11, or equivalent. I point to the 12-inch motors in the 34 street rod again - 400hp/775lb-ft each.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

dreamer said:


> "As far as my philosophy on size/power being backwards, and an 11-inch motor being the equivalent of a 4-banger with an oversized carb, your method of determining what the potential of electric motors does not correspond with what people are achieving in real-world efforts."
> 
> I still point to the White Zombie. Using the same controller, the two 8" motors produce more power than the single 11" motor did. So that is a real-world comparison of just the motor component -- leaving controller and battery issues constant.
> 
> I'm comfortable that the two motor setup would be fine powerwise. I am actually more concerned with having the physical space required for tandem motors, because that means the motors must sit on top of the front crossmember of the S10 frame and still be low enough to line up with the tranny -- while a Warp 11 might fit in between the corssmember and the tranny so the height of the crossmember is not an issue. I have no idea until I can get to a junkyard and take measurements.


Dreamer, you are truly going against your name and sound very committed to this project. I applaud you.

You made a good point saying: "Leaving controller as a constant"...in the white zombie example you are right...because he had two motors to flood 2000A into rather than one, he made more torque.

However last I read you were planning on usuing dual curtis controllers, which can only push 500A into each motor. The Zilla which can flood each 8" motor with up to 2000A. 

As you know, Torque is directly related to Amps...the difference in torque output between 500A and 2000A is important to be aware of.

And the 772ftlbs comes from www.plasmaboyracing.com JWs website, under the tab White Zombie...where it talks about the torque produced from the siamese 8's....


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

> ...'Siamese 8' Dual armature series-wound. What used to be two separate 8 inch electric motors, is now one custom built motor that's 25 lbs. lighter, 7 inches shorter, and more powerful. Thanks to 'Hi Torque Electric' and 'Dutchman Motorsports'...





> 2000 amp Zilla by 'Cafe Electric' with programmable series/parallel motor section switcher; ...launches at full torque (772 ft. lbs.) with motor sections configured in series mode, switched over at higher speeds to parallel for maximum horsepower. Thanks to Cafe Electric for their support.


In case it seems otherwise, I love that car (White Zombie), and have nothing but respect for its setup and accomplishments. It's actually the car that tipped the scales and made me decide to build an EV.

That being said, that setup sounds expensive to me. If you like the idea of a dual motor setup, as opposed to a single, larger, motor go for it. There's no disputing the fact that serious power can be obtained. Just be sure you do enough research to make sure you don't get in the middle of it and discover that it's more complicated/costly than you have the motivation to overcome. The only thing worse than not building the vehicle of your dreams is getting up to your neck in the project and finding that you can't, or don't want, to continue. Search the (custom/classic vehicle) classified ads of your choice and the list of "project" vehicles that ended up stalled in the corner of the garage for years seems endless. _"Started this so-and-so five years ago, and lost interest/money. Now the wife wants it out of the garage. My loss is your gain..."_

Dream big, and plan wisely grasshopper.


----------



## alexcrouse (Mar 16, 2009)

i think the twin warp9's will be PLENTY of power, check out this baby:

http://www.evparts.com/galleries_zoom.php?GALLERIESTAG=1


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

I not sure about anyone else, but I'm still looking at AC for power. You can just slam more wattage at lower A's but more Voltage. [email protected]=320kW that is what it really comes down to IMHO. 

I would wager to say his real power comes from the fact he's running 374v 

374*2000=748kW
vs
144*1000=144kW

Even tho he is running Twin DC you can get that power from AC motors.. right now they are just too heavy.

But in all honesty like my friend Chris said, who has a 1100awhp Evo, racing a drag car vs a 4 door family car is kinda like someone with a motocycle beating a track runner. They are different applications and as such sould be considered with relation to their class.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Seems as if for massive off the line torque series DC motors are hard to beat.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Seems as if for massive off the line torque series DC motors are hard to beat.


For the weight of what you can (buy right now) I would agree.

But for the power, I'm now sure
380v (About what he is running) - 1000Nm @ 1100A's And thats all rated. 
But it is a 700lbs motor with 300lbs in casing. 

Anyways, the point wasn't to debate DC vs. AC just that apples and oranges both might be fruit, but they aren't in the same catagory.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Just remember those are highly modified motors by Jim Husted built into a single unit, not off the shelf motors.


I don't think so. Read the history again. When he was using the two Warp 8" motors seperately in 2000, they were unmodified -- or at least I didn't see anything that said they were modified.









Jim Husted did the rebuild in 2005, putting both motors' armatures onto a single custom-made motor shaft.









Also, the 11" Kostov (which the dual motor setup outperformed) HAD been "race-modified".

And ... this is all academic because I wouldn't run either setup at 2000 amps or go to the dragstrip. Or go without a tranny as White Zombie does. In fact, given that he destroyed several rear-ends while going direct, I don't think the Chevy S10 tranny would even survive 2000 amps.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

Your project has really renewed my desire for this. but I'm really sketchy about the kit, I want an inside and out look and can't find much on what needs to be done. I can weld(So I know about doing the convex angles and folds), and the DMV is cool as long as it came from an S-10 and I use a roll cage, but insureance is another deal. (*sigh*) They won't insure a kit car for anything another then the damage I do to other people's stuff and My medical. Without giving me this "unique" insurance that would drive up my payments to like 100 a month.

Does anyone have experince dealing with insurance companies? I mean DID anyone even tell them they converted to EV?


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

alexcrouse said:


> i think the twin warp9's will be PLENTY of power, check out this baby:
> 
> http://www.evparts.com/galleries_zoom.php?GALLERIESTAG=1


Very cool ! Two 9" motors and two 700A controllers PER MOTOR yields 11 second 1/4 mile with a Powerglide Auto Tranny ! And the two smaller controllers per motor performed better than the single higher-amp controller per motor.

Honestly, I think power is not going to be a problem.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

dreamer said:


> I don't think so. Read the history again. When he was using the two Warp 8" motors seperately in 2000, they were unmodified -- or at least I didn't see anything that said they were modified.


Running 336 volts and 1200 amps I would think they were modified.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Running 336 volts and 1200 amps I would think they were modified.


Wasn't his 374 volts?

187 per motor. 

To be fair we all modify motors by advancing them , but I get what you mean... this line right here..

_"'Siamese 8' Dual armature series-wound. What used to be two separate 8 inch electric motors, is now one *custom built motor"*_


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> Dreamer, you are truly going against your name and sound very committed to this project. I applaud you.
> 
> You made a good point saying: "Leaving controller as a constant"...in the white zombie example you are right...because he had two motors to flood 2000A into rather than one, he made more torque.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm aware that amps create torque. I also have no intention of running 2000A in a vehicle. The nickname "PlasmaBoy" came from some spectacular displays of high voltage and high amps released in arcing motors, welded contactors, etc. 

And I'm not wedded to the Curtis controllers. Although the Curtis controllers are ubiquitous and proven, they are a little pricey for what you get. I am following Belktronix and Electrocraft also. The Electrocraft at 192V and 500A at < $1000 seems like the best power/cost ratio available at the moment. I don't like the idea of wrapping too much money up into any single component. At 192V, I could drop down to 100AH LFPs and still have enough power for both motors at a lower battery cost -- $7K vs. $10K. I'd also be giving up some range, of course-- with a usable 15KWH vs. 18KWH.


----------



## Nomad (May 8, 2009)

dreamer said:


> Yes, I'm aware that amps create torque. I also have no intention of running 2000A in a vehicle. The nickname "PlasmaBoy" came from some spectacular displays of high voltage and high amps released in arcing motors, welded contactors, etc.
> 
> And I'm not wedded to the Curtis controllers. Although the Curtis controllers are ubiquitous and proven, they are a little pricey for what you get. I am following Belktronix and Electrocraft also. The Electrocraft at 192V and 500A at < $1000 seems like the best power/cost ratio available at the moment. I don't like the idea of wrapping too much money up into any single component. At 192V, I could drop down to 100AH LFPs and still have enough power for both motors at a lower battery cost -- $7K vs. $10K. I'd also be giving up some range, of course-- with a usable 15KWH vs. 18KWH.


They can pull 5C but I don't know for how long... might not be enough power @ 100AH if your looking for 500a's 160's would be better suited for 500a @ 3c. Anyone know what the 5c time is on the LiFePo4's?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

dreamer said:


> Yes, I'm aware that amps create torque. I also have no intention of running 2000A in a vehicle. The nickname "PlasmaBoy" came from some spectacular displays of high voltage and high amps released in arcing motors, welded contactors, etc.
> 
> And I'm not wedded to the Curtis controllers. Although the Curtis controllers are ubiquitous and proven, they are a little pricey for what you get. I am following Belktronix and Electrocraft also. The Electrocraft at 192V and 500A at < $1000 seems like the best power/cost ratio available at the moment. I don't like the idea of wrapping too much money up into any single component. At 192V, I could drop down to 100AH LFPs and still have enough power for both motors at a lower battery cost -- $7K vs. $10K. I'd also be giving up some range, of course-- with a usable 15KWH vs. 18KWH.


Right on, I'm all about high voltage...I think it is what will really elevate the performance of these popular DIY-DC-EVs....But are you set on 500A? The benefit of having a DC motor, especially a Warp, is that they can take a little beating and keep on trucking....granted a 192V dual setup with help move the rpm and eff. in your favor, the 500A in a warp 9 will still only be 110 ftlbs....I still think you would be happier with more torque...you cant really say you've read anyone saying they wish they never ever bought a zilla you know? on the other hand, there are several people saying they wish they got something more aggressive than a curtis (because of the Amp limit)...just saying...and whatever you choose to do, please keep us posted with all the details you can, I am very interested to follow your build..

The sky energy lifepo4 cells say 10C some say even 12C for power pulses of 5 seconds or less...so I can't see extracting 800-1000A from 100AH cells being an issue for 5 secs...


----------



## BikerA (Jan 9, 2008)

I think it's awesome. That is not an "expert" opinion, but I have done one conversion. If you are anywhere near Oak Harbor Wa. I'd like to help you do it.
Paul


----------



## speedboats (Jan 10, 2009)

Interesting about weight distribution a little ways back... Had you considered mounting the motors transversly? one to each rear wheel. Perhaps there isn't enough width? This would do without the weight of the trans, diff and drive shaft. Batts could then be mounted up front or down the tunnel.

Registration and insurance, how do the ground-up custom hot-rod guys get on? Seems we share alot of the same problems here in regard to crash ratings, new chassis, motors, bodies etc.

I also struggle to see how two motors are LESS EFFCIENT than a single motor. Under normal operation to maintain 60mph the vehicle needs x kW. Producing this from a single motor or dual motors should produce negilgable difference in power drain at the battery. The only arguement I can see is an all out performance one... am I wrong here?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

No motor is 100% efficient, with two motors the inefficiencies add up.


----------



## speedboats (Jan 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> No motor is 100% efficient, with two motors the inefficiencies add up.


Sure, but doesn't inefficiency increase as load increases? Therefore two motors share the load and overall loss is about the same?


----------



## TheAtomicAss (Feb 19, 2009)

JimO said:


> Boy, it looks like that frame is touching the ground!


It is. That is a picture from an airbag suspension manufacturer, that claims their kit can "lay frame".


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

speedboats said:


> Sure, but doesn't inefficiency increase as load increases? Therefore two motors share the load and overall loss is about the same?


I would tend to look at it this way.

Let's say all three motors have the same efficiency rating. These ratings are done under load, so you are only experiencing an X% loss on the large one, which is rated for that load, while you are experiencing 2X% on the small one, because neither is rated for that load and must both help each other.

Also, you've got more loss on the additional cabling. Rather than having the resitance of a total of N feet of wire, you've got the resistance of N + the distance to the second motor, and any loss from where the main wire must be coupled to the split.

Then you have to consider the weight of two housings vs one, two sets of cabling vs one, etc.

I think if you took three motors, one large, two smaller, and the two smaller were pruchased to provide the same load of work as the large one, that the large one would be more efficient. But of course, your two small ones may be able to exceed the work load of the one large one, which mucks up all those assumptions. But "all things being equal" one seems more efficient than two.

The difference would probably be negligable except over a large data set, however.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

rillip3 said:


> I would tend to look at it this way.
> 
> Let's say all three motors have the same efficiency rating. These ratings are done under load, so you are only experiencing an X% loss on the large one, which is rated for that load, while you are experiencing 2X% on the small one, because neither is rated for that load and must both help each other.
> 
> ...


Well ... if we suppose the two motors are going to be at 500A and 144V, while the single larger motor is going to run at 1000A and 144V, then:

1) Cabling, while slightly longer for the two-motor setup will also be smaller cable since it only needs to carry 500A instead of 1000A. So I doubt the two-motor setup's cabling would actually have more resistance.

2) Assuming all motors are 90% efficient, and that 144V would actually reach the motors at max amps; the single motor would send 0.9 * 144V * 1000A = 129.6KW to the drivetrain, while the two motor setup would send (0.9 * 144V * 500A) + (0.9 * 144V * 500A) = 129.6KW to the drivetrain. 

IE, components in parallel do not multiply their efficiency ratings together such that two 90% efficient components yield only 81% efficiency. This multiplication only occurs when stringing components together in series, rather than parallel. So a string of components like cabling from battery-to-controller-to-motor-to-drivetrain has losses at each step and each component's efficiencies multiply together for an overall efficiency. 

3) Even if there is more weight in two smaller motors, the energy needed to start a motor turning depends on the angular momentum -- the mass of the rotor turning around its radius. IE, smaller motors require less energy to start turning than a larger motor, draw fewer amps while starting, and reach their most efficient RPM ranges quicker. Smaller motors are also safer to operate at RPM ranges that match ICE transmissions up to 6000RPM, while a larger motor may be unsafe to run much above 4000RPM.


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

dreamer said:


> Well ... if we suppose the two motors are going to be at 500A and 144V, while the single larger motor is going to run at 1000A and 144V, then:
> 
> 1) Cabling, while slightly longer for the two-motor setup will also be smaller cable since it only needs to carry 500A instead of 1000A. So I doubt the two-motor setup's cabling would actually have more resistance.
> 
> ...


I agree in principal, but I can't recal if it was ever mentioned how the two would be set up. If they're being set up on seperate driveshafts or one on each axle, then my only argument would be that in order to avoid having 1000 A cabling, you would have to have both motors wired directly to the pack, which seems impractical. Because the voltage will stay constant, but the current will split, you have to pull 1000 A off the pack to get 500 A to each motor. So now you're going to have slightly longer cabling for the pair of motors, a coupler to the 1000 A cabling, and the larger resistance in the 1000 A cabling. But I believe these would all be fairly negligable losses. I think the argument against losses at this point would just be academic, but it could pose some significant hurdles to the build.

I seem to recal from soemwhere in the post, and I can't find it now, that a series setup was being considered, i.e. a "Siamese" setup for the motors, but I honestly don't know if that implies they would be wired in series or in parallel. I though series at first, but now thinking about it more, I don't see any reason why they couldn't be set up in parallel.


----------

