# Saturn SW conversion - AC



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

Your choice of a Saturn for your project is spot on. They are light and cheap when bought not running.

Miz


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Awesome project and progress! 

Where are you finding the motors for sale?

Have you considered the motors within the GM Tahoe Hybrid? I created a thread about it...

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/150kw-200hp-ac-motor-inverter-7-47672.html

What do you think? Would it be too hard to extract the motors from the GM transmission and create a casing for them?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Very nice! I'd love to come see it sometime! I'm not too far from you.

Do you go to OEVA meetings? Not sure if Vancouver has an EV club, but Portland sure does. Check out oeva.org and come to one of our meetings.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thanks for the comments!

I chose the saturn exactly because it was light and fairly roomy. I think lightness won't be such an issue when I get the Ford motor, but I didn't know about it at the start of the project. It was running on 3 cylinders when I bought it so it was cheap but it still got me home without a trailer (and to a closed weight station, it weighed 2425 pounds with about a gallon of gas, I'll post more about this later).

I read the Tahoe thread a bit, and those motors look really cool, but aren't perfect for my needs. I wanted a transaxle style transmission and also a smaller one... I think those things will be huge. But the motors do look cool, especially if there are 2 per transmission. I can't speak for Tritium, but I am fairly certain that if you got hold of those motors the WS200 would run then fine, but at 400V DC, not 650 which according the the specs is required for them to produce 150kW. Still, 87 kW in a 33 or 40 kg package is not bad at all. Do you know if they are the high torque version in the tahoe? That looks like a good solution for direct drive to a differential. The MGR and ford fusion stuff is mostly under $1500 on car-part.com, the tahoe trans is about 2500 and only 4 come up. Searching for "transmission" on any ford or toyota hybrid will get you to the electric motors, same with the tahoe apparently. I have no idea about removing the motors, they might be built in.

Travis, apparently I forgot to change my location, I actually live in Seattle now (north end). But if you're ever up here want want to stop by, send me a message. I still go to portland a bit too, I'm hoping this car will get me there some day, but but probably not soon.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Looks like an interesting build.

Nice to see more people using the WS200. 

About the headways, I am also using them, the HW38140 (12Ah) version. But three in parallel. 131 series and 3 in parallel tested out to be about 95kW of battery power. (tested in autumn / winter)

Their internal impedance prevents you to pull more than 100A from them without dipping below 2.5V. You're practially at 30kW max now due to the batteries. Upgrading to more in parallel or bigger as you already have planned will certainly help. It may be interresting to see what the Toyota IPM motor can handle with the bigger battery pack before replacing it.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thank Steven, I did do the the calculation with .008 ohms series resistance and found right around 30kw as the peak power, maybe a little more if really let the voltage drop if I remember correctly.

Honestly, I was hoping that .008 was conservative but it sounds like maybe not. But either way, I won't be able to get much more than 30kW from the motor anyway for several reasons. The phase connections on the motor are really small and probably not able to handle more than about 60-80 A for any period of time. It's also an IPM motor, and running excessive current comes with the risk of demagnetizing the magnets. So you really have to be able to supply more voltage to be able to get more power from it. I'm supplying less voltage than designed, so I probably won't even get close to the 50kW stock power. If I get 30 kW I'll be very happy. The car is only about 2300 pounds right now, so it should get me around town with that.

I guess battery voltage sag at high power combined with the motor's needing high voltage to deliver high power may be an issue I didn't totally sort out, I'll let you know how it turns out when I get a belly pan on and can really drive it around.


----------



## azdeltawye (Dec 30, 2008)

Ryan800 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> View attachment 11923
> ...


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

I have no experience with IPM motors, what I do know from experience with BLDC motors is that they do tend to demagnetize if the magnets heats up. But that shouldn't happy too rapidly with an traction motor designed for the 'task'. 
The nice thing with a propper engineered rotor is that it can spin comfortably near max rpm with max motor rated power without the ill effects of a increased in wear. 
If your interrested in rotor temperature, parking the car after a fast drive, measuring the motor temp through its sensor may give an indication. If it rises after parking/stopping, the rotor is hotter than the stator, which may be a bad thing for IPM.

The headways are quite nice, but they are not all equal. From the 420 cells I bought, I noticed a few have a higher discharge rate than the rest. This will be noticed as the last ones (if ever) to reach HVC level on the BMS. 3 or 4 cells of the 393 in the Z3 are reluctant to ever hit 3.6V. I think Rimac (CroDriver) has noticed this zener effect of the A123 cells with the 20Ah pouches as well.

Have you implemented regen as a binary function on off function or are you using a brake pedal pressure sensor? Im having great success with binary regen and using an exponential regen-decay to prevent rapid 'un-tensioning' of the drive train.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Darren, I'll have axles built professionally when I get the Ford motor installed.

As for regen, it's not connected right now because I thought it wasn't implemented in the driver controls software yet. Do you know about this steven? It sounds like you have it connected and working.

Once that's sorted, I'm going to put a second pot on the clutch pedal so that regen will be essentially the same as the accelerator (displacement sensitive pedal), but left footed. That way the brakes are untouched, coasting is easy, and I have complete control over regen strength. What do you think? I've never driven a car with regen, but this is what sounds good to me.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

If you ask for firmware of the EV Driver Controls, they will send you a copy. However, you should be experienced in writing C-code, prefereably for microcontroller platforms. 
Experimenting with C for the first time with potential 165kW at the tap is probably a bad start.

Regen is quite nice, however I have been experimenting with regen with the throttle and regen with the brake pedal. Regen with throttle is okay, but I have a manual gearbox. Selecting gears was not possible with accelerator pedal regen.

Moving the regen to the brake pedal solved this. Also the sensation of pulse & coast with the accelerator pedal is quite unique. Pulse accelerate, and you'll not be touching the accelerator/brake pedal until the end of the street. Personally I liked that very much. Keeps your feet free/relaxing for a while! 

Best is to experiment what YOU like.


----------



## efan (Aug 27, 2009)

Ryan800 said:


> but at 400V DC, not 650 which according the the specs is required for them to produce 150kW. Still, 87 kW in a 33 or 40 kg package is not bad at all. Do you know if they are the high torque version in the tahoe? That looks like a good solution for direct drive to a differential.


Although the specs of these motors say that you need high voltage to get 150kw, I think that you can run them at lower voltage but higher current and still get the 150kw. The folks form EVDRIVE are using the Remy HVH250 core for their motors and I believe they are currently running a 150kw system in their BMW using a battery pack ~350vdc...they kind of discuss it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VXNNGN-F0M&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Hi Efan

I cant watch the video with audio now.
Probably you already know, but before he (Bob with his E-car 325) made an enclosure for the HVH250 he was using a Siemens ACIM traction motor. At that time he had his traction battery reconfigureable between 350 and 700V? (I could be a few volts off, do not remember exactly) That allowed him to do 150kw with the right controller. 

Could well be that he was testing with a high voltage pack configuration. (?)


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Bob was supposed to use a drive from another manufacturer but they never finished development (Evisol) , so he chose a Rinehart Motion Drive system. For the new motor (Remy) and controller, he kept it at 350V. The Siemens was wound for 700V, but since he never got the Evisol working and used the Rinehart, the voltage stayed at 350VDC. 

I just gotta say, that this thing scoots! Bob took me for a drive a couple times in it, the craftsmanship is amazing. I should touch base....he's been busy with the EVDrive business and the development of the Gitano sportscar.


----------



## Mesuge (Mar 6, 2008)

Ryan, THANKS for the update, it's great after those years we started the debate at aussie forum and later here at diyforum, finally some practical results. As time allows and given the batt. pack limitations, would you please test the road speeds for the torque (Nm) drop-off related to given RPM (and your vehicle platform tire dia/weight/aero drag) for that Highlander MGR? Perhaps dyno wouldn't be necessary, just try some quick and dirty test. This is definately not highway flyer/overtaking concept bin of parts as we know.

You are right that the lower voltage/higher power output Ford(-pseudo HSD) FWD package is much more promising, especially given the high import prices for WS200, that way the kW/$ ratio spent will be more adequate.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I'll definitely do what I can testing wise and post the results.

When I started I was worried about a steep drop in torque similar to what BLDC motors experience, but IPM motors have a fairly large constant power region, so I think the main issue will just be overall lack of power. For example, I could run the motor without load up to a couple thousand rpm with just a 40V pack. I'm not sure if this is what you meant?

Anyway, I should have the electronics sealed off this weekend and be driving it around shortly after.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thought I'd start posting about the build process...

I bought the car for $1600 with 115k miles. It looked ok on the outside but there were lots of little issues, so I spent basically all of spring break fixing them (I'm back in school doing a master's degree). I'd post a picture of the car but apparently I forgot to take one so I'll have to do that later. I wasn't very good at thining of what I'd want to have a picture of later, I'll try to do better on the second half of the build.

-Remove garbage, vacuum, shampoo carpets
-fiberglass over broken plastic pieces-arm rest and center console mainly
-re-attach and reinforce side mirrors, one of which was about to fall off, and the other got hit by a garbage bin and snapped off
-Un-jam rear seat lowering mechanism
-fix rattles and other stuff








There was about an inch of water in the spare tire well, I just drilled a hole in the bottom to drain it. Under the back seat looked about like this too.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

So with the car clean (but no pictures to prove it), I began pulling out the ICE with help from my brother and a few other people. I've only worked on my other car a little bit so this is by far my most involved car-related project. I used a Chilton for guidance but things didn't generally seem to work as described. Nonetheless we got the engine out in a weekend.









Me, left, my brother, and my mom, still enthusiastic about having a dirty old car taken apart in her garage.








Removing the engine.








The engine weighed in at 220 pounds, the transmission was another 75, the exhaust 60. We removed 530 pounds total, not counting fluids and a few small things. Starting weight was 2425 pounds.








Ready for electric stuff.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

The first thing I did was mount the Highlander Hybrid rear motor. Since the motor and differential are all in the same housing, there is no precision work required here. I just used a tape measure and some wood block and got it more or less where it looked like it should sit.















I've never welded before, but I figured it was a good time to learn. I practiced for a couple days then got impatient and cooked up this bracket. Not pretty but I don't think it's going to break.








Looks a little better painted...


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

While doing this parts started showing up...








Axles








Controller








Stuff to make the controller work








Batteries connected in parallel for initial balancing.

I also received contactors, fuse, some other stuff and the electway charger (I think electway is the brand but it's actually not complete clear to me, I bought it from low carbon idea)


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Axle shops seem to want about $700 to make both intermediate shafts, which isn't worth it at this point, so I made a coupler and just welded the two parts together.








I welded them like this first to send them to a shop, then learned the price.








Welded and painted. They have a bit of runout but they'll work for now.

The battery was the next big project. The box itself is all aluminum with polycarbonate panels on the inside to gaurantee the battery stays isolated. The sides are .04" sheet, the top is .125" polycarbonate only so you can see in. I meant it to be .25" but the batteries took up a little extra space.








Testing fit








Populating the box








Don't touch more than one thing at a time...








Dropping it into the car. It's actually pretty easy to install with two people.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I made this little box to hold the tritium display, ev display from Dimitry to count coulombs, and the cell log 8, which monitors the 12V battery. It flips up so you can use the charger interface, which is a 7" lcd screen. Making a lid is still on my list.

The cell log 8 worked ok at first, but quickly became glitchy and I'm not sure why. The car was outside and there may have been a small a mount of condensation inside, but not much.  It is supposed to control a relay but when "closed" I still measure 800 ohms across the alarm pins, which is too much to trigger even a small relay. Additionally, the screen was glitchy and eventually shut off completely. In the end my 12v battery was at more risk with it than without, so I disconnected it.

When I bought the charger from low carbon idea there was no mention of the touch screen, so I was a bit upset when they mentioned right before shipping that I would have to send $200 more to be able to actually use my charger. So total cost came to $1700. In the end the touch screen looks good and is easy and convenient. I can adjust the charging rate and voltage and it tracks cycles.

About the charger: It's 4 kW, less from 120v outlet and can be adjusted for battery voltages from 200-450V. I'm not sure if it keeps the 4kW rating for lower pack voltages. It has a noisy fan that comes on when you plug it in and stays on. Build quality is fairly poor, I already had to open it once to remove a loose screw, and the mounting points were bent on arrival, but fairly useless anyway. It would have been worth paying a bit more for a better battery charger, but I'm hoping this one works at least for a while so I don't have to pay a bit more right away.








This is how most of the stuff fits into the engine bay. The box on the left does the high voltage switching. The first contactor comes on when I turn the key to run to precharge the controller. To drive, I engage the second contactor via a button and latching relay circuit. This way both contactors automatically turn off when I turn the key off and I don't have to worry about forgetting to turn it off and skipping precharge the next time. It relies on the driver to watch the bus voltage and not engage the second contactor if it doesn't rise to 400+V. The button is far enough away that if the driver isn't paying attention he won't it fast enough to skip precharge, so there won't be a problem unless some sort of controller failure occurs at the same time. The precharge time constant is like 0.1s.








Ok, please don't judge too harshly on this one. I didn't bother to buy orange conduit for this phase of the project, but the controller is mounted under the car in the exhaust tunnel, so I had to seal the cable exits somehow. I taped the cover instead of gluing it because a)the proper locktite is really expensive and b)I'll be removing the cover to put larger cables in so it seemed easier to just tape it to seal it. I'll do things the right way on the second half of the build. This proper way would be to rubber cement orange conduit to the cable feedthrus and use threadlocker to seal the lid mounting screws.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

My car is finally ready to drive! Unless I screwed something up. I know I started this thread by saying that, because I had it on stands and it ran fine, and just about everything was connected. But now the controller has water cooling, the electronics are sealed off from rain and road spray, and the car has a belly pan. I thought the belly pan would be needed to protect things, but actually I had some vinyl that ended up working really well, so now the pan is just an aerodynamic aid.

Hopefully the first drive will be tomorrow!








Finally nothing is sticking out!








I like the belly pan. I'll extend it the full lenth of the car eventually.








Inside, also put back together again.








I put the coolant reservior next to the 12V battery, and the pump underneath it. I ran into an odd problem here: All of the Tritium parts seem to be top quality, so I followed their recommentation for cooling system but it doesn't seem to be perfectly suited to automotive use. Here, I discovered that the pump has an electronic shut off at 13.1V. I don't have an actual 12v power supply, so I voltage divided my battery so the pump will come on even when my 12v battery is fully charged. I use 1 ohm on top and 20 on bottom, this should work under just about all conditions, though not if I use a dc/dc converter set above 13.6V. It draws about 2.5A with the divider instead of about 1.9 with the pump only. Turning on the headlights also fixes the problem.

Other issues with the coolant system are unreinforced hoses and the temp rating on the pump is 60 C, but the controller lets the device junctions reach 100C, which I assume means the coolant can exceed 60C before the controller cuts back. Anyway, there are plenty of things on this car that will break before the cooling system...


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

It drives!! I live on a hill, so I went up and down the driveway a couple times, decided I didn't think it would make it up the hill at the 60A rms set point I started out at, so I bumped it up to 80 and drove it around the block. No problems, starts up the hill fine, runs really smoothly, makes a little bit of a clunk when letting off the accelerator quickly, but nothing too bad.

For sure it will drive around town without much trouble. I'll have to experiment with steeper hills to see how much low end torque it has. Freeway driving will be another experiment, but I think it will work for short trips, which is all my battery can supply right now anyway.

I also have to tune the rotor inductance to get maximum torque per amp. In the tritium software this means adjust one parameter, so it shouldn't be hard.

My favorite part was the motor's linear response. It feels so smooth starting out. I'm used to revving the motor and letting the clutch out, or at least the slight jerk automatics create when they start moving. I've never actually driven an electric car up to now and I have to say that it was as good as expected. I was concerned at first because the response is so linear and I think most of the cars I've driven provide most of their torque in the first small amount of pedal movement. I thought it was not even going be enough to get the car up small hills, but I kept pushing the pedal and the torque kept coming. Not that it's fast and as I said I did adjust the motor current up a bit to be safe, but the feel is fantastic. And quiet.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Great!
Not sure how effective it is to run the ws200 without having it tuned to the motor... It may be missing quite a bit of torque.

Why are you using tape ontop of the inverter? The rubber seal should be more than enough for under the hood. Id be more worries about the cell to cell isolation 
I don't think a thread-sealer is overly important unless you expect full jet-blast of water. Using a thickening (anti-rust) compound may work as well. I use a compound that hardens into a wax like consistency that mostly is used to protect structural parts of vehicles from corroding. .


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I think it's probably missing some torque but it feels pretty good, I bet it's within 25% of ideal. From Tritium's documentation it doesn't look like there's a huge range for typical inductances, and I think being slightly off doesn't make a big difference anyway.

The controller is mounted in the exhaust tunnel behind the belly pan so it will get a bit of spray. I know I'll be opening it again soon, so this was just a temporary way to ensure no water leaks in. You can see it in some of the under car pictures - it's a great fit there except that it's exposed until I get the belly pan extended back further.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Update: I killed a few cells and made a lot of work for myself, but now the car is semi road-legal and seems pretty efficient. I'll start off with some battery problems I discovered after my first drive back in January.

When I measured cell voltage after driving around the block, 2 were dead (0V) and one was probably significantly damaged (0.8V). I bought 2 extra cells, so I removed the battery from the car and replaced the dead ones with the 2 extra cells I bought, then swapped the 0.8V cell with one from the 12V battery so it would be easier to swap out later if i need to. I also wrapped each battery with electrical tape when I reassembled the pack to make sure there are no current leaks.

What I learned:

Headway batteries can twist when you use a set screw to attach two cells together. I thought it was just the plastic wrap at first but while dismantling the pack I noticed that actually the anode twists relative to the cathode, which I think may have been what ruined the two dead cells. Definitely they have an internal short as the voltage quickly goes back to 0 after taking them off the charger.

I also learned that I did a bad job balancing cells. I charged them to about 3.4V with all of them in parallel, but I think this wasn't enough to ensure that all batteries were fully charged. Right now, some are more than 8Ah out of balance on a 16Ah pack, so I'm going through and charging each one individually right now. This may also have been what damaged the cells, but since I drew less than 3Ah total from the pack it seems unlikely.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Unfortunately, that is why you shouldn't assemble them end-to end. They're not made to twist. Screw terminals like this are so that the screw PULLS the anode/cathode into the buss-bar and tightens against eachother. There should not be any twisting load on the ends relative to the body.

Sorry you lost a few cells.... kinda sucks.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Now the fun part. I got the car insured and drive it to the Seattle EVA meeting last Tuesday, which was the first substantial drive. It used about 200 Wh/mile, which I think is really efficient. This was on back roads, so always under 35mph, but it was also a lot of stop and go, a lot of hills, and I don't have regen set up yet, so I'm pretty happy.

I logged the entire drive at 1 second intervals so this should get some real world data out to people considering conversions. I'll log a more typical drive at some point and post that too, since I was trying to stay on slow roads this time around. I think the section with islands (which looks like speed bumps on the attached graph) hurt my Wh/mi while the slow speeds helped it, so we'll have to see what a typical value ends up being.

... ok well the log is a zip file because apparently you can't upload excel files and the limit for text files is pretty small.

View attachment First Drive.zip


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Very nice, Ryan! There's a couple of minus current readings in the log file. Was that just a burp from the controller or did some regen snuck up in there? 200 wh/m is excellent. Beyond the good aero of the car, I imagine it's the loss in weight and slow drive speeds contributing to that, what do you think?

How about shooting some video at the same time you capture the log on your next trip? I can try to mash those two up similar to Tomofreno's.

JR


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thanks!

I don't know why there is any negative current, right now the driver controls never commands regeneration. I thought maybe this was because I was starting on a hill but the logs don't support that. My next theory is that the controller expects there to be a limited ammount of motor acceleration, which is determined by the car's weight which is a parameter I had to enter during motor setup. I think backlash in the transmission/diff when going from coasting to driving the causes fast motor speed/position changes that the controller cannot track so occasionally negative current shows up.

Certainly you can feel a small bit of jerkyness when going from coasting to driving or vice versa. I'm hoping the ford fusion motor has less backlash, but I have a feeling OEMs deal with this by carefully ramping the torque to load the transmission softly. Also, rubber motor mounts would probably help.

Do other people notice have this problem? I've never seen anyone else mention it. Maybe it's because IPM motor torque is sensative to small rotor position changes?

As for Wh/mi, I think you're exactly right: 2300 pounds is less than most conversions and I was driving slowly and carefully for my first drive (and I only had 25hp to work with). I'm hoping with regen it will stay close to 200Wh/mi even with slightly faster driving.

I really liked that video, I'll certainly post a video and log. Another thought I had was to put a log and a model side-by-side to see how they match up. I think a few real-world logs of freeway driving would really help people know what to expect from their cars. I know I've done a bit of research but still don't know exactly what to expect.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Hy Ryan

You stripped out columns from the logfile that are also interresting. 
It is possible the firmware in Driver Control module "target RPM" changes from something high as 20000rpm to 0 when transitioning from driving to coasting or braking. This causes very small amounts of regen even if the commanded current 0. This is due to the decay of the command current filter within the WS200. 

The (complete) log file would show this. 

Also I noticed a minute amount of regen when in neutral and the throttle is operated 'liberately/violently/ICE-Style' up/down, this is barely noticeable though.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Steven,

RPM set point never changes, so that's not the culprit. I'll post more complete log files next time, I just though I would focus on the driving part for that one.

Do you have regen working? I haven't yet emailed James to ask what other program options they have cooked up. I just want to have regen controlled by a pot on the clutch pedal, such that it takes precidence over throttle command when pressed. I think the following code would do this, any thoughts?


Original code for "drive" mode:


case MODE_B:
command.current = pedal;
command.rpm = RPM_FWD_MAX;
break;


New code to include regen:


case MODE_B:
if (analog_c > REGEN_TRAVEL_MIN){
command.current = regen;
command.rpm = 0;
}
else{
command.current = pedal;
command.rpm = RPM_REV_MAX;
}
break;


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Hello Ryan,

Which firmware version are you working on? I do not recognize that code snippet being part of the pedal.c source file.

*pedal.c *

```
// line 126
            case MODE_DL:
            case MODE_DH:
            case MODE_BL:
            case MODE_BH:
                if( request_regen == FALSE ){
                    command.current = pedal;
                    command.rpm = RPM_FWD_MAX;
                    //regen = 0.0;
                }
                else{
                    command.current = regen;
                    command.rpm = 0.0;
                }
                break;
```
request_regen is a *unsigned char* that is passed from the main loop. I use the flag that indicates the brake pedal is pressed. Once the brake lights are lit, the controller will produce constant braking torque.


*tri86.c*

```
// line 231
if(switches & SW_BRAKE){
                      if (motor_rpm < 1000.0) {
                          command.current = (REGEN_MAX * (motor_rpm/1000.0));    
                      }
                      if (motor_rpm < 300.0) {
                          command.current = 0.0;
                      }
```
This code reduces the brake torque from 1000 RPM REGEN_MAX to 30% of REGEN_MAX @ 300RPM until it stops regen immediatly. This decay of brake torque is noticeable and requires additional brake pedal movement/pressure if the vehicle was braking solely on regen. I like this scheme, but it may be tweaked in the future. REGEN_MAX is set very low with my first tests, 

```
#define REGEN_MAX                0.16                    // %, absolute value
```
note 0.16 = 16%


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thanks! The code I was looking at is called "Microcontroller Source - 9th December 2010" which I downloaded from the driver controls page on tritium.com.au. I don't know what I actually have loaded, but it's at least slightly different from this.

It looks like you have similar code but with a few extra features. I don't think I need a seperate switch for regen_request, I'd rather just have regen take priority if pedal movement above REGEN_TRAVEL_MIN is detected. The regen pot will be attached to the clutch pedal which is currently just hanging limp.

I have no idea what I'm doing as far as actually uploading the code, I'll start trying to figure that out shortly. Software/programming is all pretty new to me obviously so I'm just trying to understand what's happening before I actually mess with anything that's not clearly explained in the manuals.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

the code snippet I posted for pedal.c has been modified by me to produce the linear decay of braking force. 


larger snippet from my modifications in the source which allow the binary braking/regen. 

pedal.c


```
void process_pedal( unsigned int analog_a, unsigned int analog_b, unsigned int analog_c, unsigned char request_regen )
{
    float pedal; //, regen;
    
    // Error Flag updates
    // Pedal too low
    if(analog_a < PEDAL_ERROR_MIN) command.flags |= FAULT_ACCEL_LOW;
    else command.flags &= ~FAULT_ACCEL_LOW;
    // Pedal too high
    if(analog_a > PEDAL_ERROR_MAX) command.flags |= FAULT_ACCEL_HIGH;
    else command.flags &= ~FAULT_ACCEL_HIGH;

    
/*    if(analog_c < REGEN_ERROR_MIN) command.flags |= FAULT_REGEN_LOW;
    else command.flags &= ~FAULT_REGEN_LOW;
    // Pedal too high
    if(analog_c > REGEN_ERROR_MAX) command.flags |= FAULT_REGEN_HIGH;
    else command.flags &= ~FAULT_REGEN_HIGH;
*/    
    
    // Run command calculations only if there are no pedal faults detected
    if(command.flags == 0x00){
        // Scale pedal input to a 0.0 to CURRENT_MAX range
        // Clip lower travel region of pedal input
        if(analog_a > PEDAL_TRAVEL_MIN) pedal = (analog_a - PEDAL_TRAVEL_MIN);
        else pedal = 0.0;
        // Scale pedal input to produce target motor current
        pedal = pedal * CURRENT_MAX / PEDAL_TRAVEL;
        // Check limits and clip upper travel region
        if(pedal > CURRENT_MAX) pedal = CURRENT_MAX;
        
        
        // Binary style regen.  If brake pedal is pressed, a constant torque is produced.
        if (request_regen)    
        {
          regen = REGEN_MAX;
        } 
        else    // no longer brake pedal pressed. Decay the brake pressure.
        {
          regen = regen * 0.95;
          if (pedal == 0.0) // only if accelerator pedal is not pressed, the decay is applied to the motor. 
          { 
            request_regen = 1;
          }
        }
```

Notice the 0.95 factor which decays the brake pressure once the brake pedal is lifted. This prevents jolts in the drive-line from 'un-torqing'


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi Steven, not to detract too much from Ryan's main topic but do owners of the Tritium controller compile and flash the code themselves? Or Ryan, are you part of the Dev team?

What's the ratio in that motor/differential unit, Ryan? How many turns on the motor per turn on the wheel? And what's your expected accel and top speed?

JR


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thanks, I like the decay idea, I'll definitely give something like that a try once I'm comfortable futzing with things.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

JR
The Inverter itself is sealed regarding firmware. But the control box which turns the analog inputs to CAN data for the inverter is open source. This allows full customisation / integration into modern vehicles. I can see this being a threat and feature at the same time. The default firmware is very adequate, but if you are familiar with programming it will be quite comfortable to add/change features. 

For instance, Can bus ready equipment can send data to the control box. SOC/SOH/Temperature and other data from the Orion BMS is now received and interpreted by my control box. This allows accurate movement of the analog fuel-gauge, limit battery current etc etc.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I'm definitely not on the development team, just trying to make small changes that suit my project. My current programming experience is a bit of matlab and I bought an arduino a few months ago.

The unit has 6.859 overall reduction ratio and my guess is about 100 ft-lb of torque at low rpms, at the motor. So you can figure out acceleration from that, but basically, it's slow. The equivalent would be starting an econobox somewhere between 2nd and 3rd gear, but at least there's no clutch to worry about. I think there are hills in the area that the car would struggle to climb but I haven't tried yet. Typical hills (say up to 10% grade) are slow but doable.

I've set the max battery current to 50A for now, which comes out to about 25hp at the battery. When I start allowing more, the motor will probably top out around 35-45 hp due to the low voltage (it's rated for 68hp at 650V). Theoretically it is possible for Interior PM motors to have unlimited constant power range, though some designs will not. (my limited understanding is that it depends on whether the motor is more similar to BLDC or variable reluctance type motor)

So I expect to be drag-limited probably around 75mph on flat ground. Other factors such as poorly balance half-shafts might prevent me from ever testing this though.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Well, I balanced the cells and drove for a while. Right now I have 12 useable Ah which gives me about 25 miles range.

For those who have headways, or anyone else, how much capacity are you finding? I think I have at most 14ah from cells rated at 16ah. My guess as to likely causes are

1 high current draw (3-4C for typical accel)
2 exaggerated capacity rating
3 I'm not chargin them all the way (after charging they rest at about 3.36V, while some were shipped to me at slightly above 3.4V)

anyone have any insight?

Details:

After using 12.5ah I had travelled 24-25mi and my batteries came to rest at 3.188 to 3.234V. I decided this was as low as I wanted to go but I think they might have another 0.5 ah before i start hurting things. 25 miles was the expected range, but I got there with higher than expected efficiency and lower than expected battery capacity.

I think the cells are at very most 1ah out of balance, so I'll work on that once they're charged up (I'm top balancing). So: 12.5ah used + 0.5ah left + 1ah charging the low cells to bring them into balance = 14ah total.


----------



## drgrieve (Apr 14, 2011)

If you are going to run the cells down that low consider bottom balancing so you don't lose any cells. Top balancing gives you no protection at the dangerous end.

You should only draw down 80% DOD on the smallest capacity cell for long cycle life. You are at over 100% on the smallest if you consider 2.5v (resting) to be 100%.

At rest 3.36V is slightly over a safe target. Aim for 3.33 or 3.34.

What is your C draw when cruising? Under higher average draw you will lose some capacity - this is usually low around 5 to 10% loss.

Perhaps you best bet is to measure the capacity of each cell and purchase a few more for 5 miles range and remove the smallest cells from your pack.

Oh I see you only have a 6.5kw pack. That is very small. If adding more in series is not a option then you'll need to go in parallel. 

What nominal voltage can you drop to for your motor / controller? Or would you need to double the pack to 2p128s?

If you do that consider rewiring the pack so that the cells are in parallel and then series. Of course this can split into more than 1 pack


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Thanks drgrieve, I realize I made a typo: 3.188 to 3.234 V, so none were brought much below nominal which is why I figure i had some capacity left. I figure with balancing I have a bit more than 13 ah available so drawing 12 was meant to be conservative. Due to some charger issues I'm more worried about over charging so I decided to go with top balancing. It's easier for me to measure ah out and just stop at 12.

This is around 10% less than nonimal capacity so maybe it's just a combination of some weaker than nonimal cells and the high amp draw.

I'm just trying to get what I can out of this pack, it's getting replaced with much larger prismatics soon. I needed to buy something to get the conversion running before really committing.


----------



## drgrieve (Apr 14, 2011)

Headways are good cells. Why don't you just add more in parallel? Unless you have another plan for them?


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I'm moving away from headways for my big pack because prismatic cells are cheaper and with 40kwh I won't need the power density. Also, it takes a lot of work to put large headway packs together.

I might use the headways in the new pack so I don't have to buy as many new cells but more likely I'll just keep them around to make a go-cart or something fun later on.


----------



## drgrieve (Apr 14, 2011)

40 kwH! That's a lot. What range are you expecting? 

Yeah for that amount headyways are not the best energy density. Sinopoly has a good energy density - maybe worth investigation.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

yeah! Actually, I'm tempted to try to stuff in 100 of the 200ah sinopoly's because of their high energy density. Even just 80 would still be 51kwh for under 1,000 pounds but it makes me sad to run the motor at less than stock voltage. For comparison, 100x130ah CALB cells weigh just about the same but only have 41.6kwh.

All of that might be a little ambitious since I was concerned about even fitting 40 kwh originally, but it's fun to think about.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Another thing that I thought was fun to think about is that there are some cool things you can do with front-end hybrid motors. They're designed around a planetary gearbox with one end going to the big electric motor and diff, another going to the ICE, and the third going to a smaller electric motor/generator (often called MG1).

You could put a small ICE, for example from a motor cycle, on the ICE input and use MG1 as a clutch, or replace it with an actual clutch or disk brake. Either way, when in electric mode MG1/clutch/disk freewheels to avoid adding too much minimal drag to the drive train (the compression of the ICE prevents that end from spinning). If you're on the freeway and you know you'll need range extension, you stop the brake/clutch/MG1* which would start the ICE. In the ford fusion transmission, the ICE with MG1 stopped is about a 3:1 ratio to the wheels, so it would work great at freeway speeds, but any slower and you need to actually control MG1. You can use a carbeurated ICE without too much guilt because it always operates at the same rpm and at full power. When you need to slow down, just use regen. If you get to a hill, use some battery power. Deactivate the brake mechanism and spark plugs when the car's brake pedal is pressed so when you need to make an emergency stop the ICE shuts down. This setup would be more efficient than a generator (no mechanical>electic>mechanical conversion) and once the details are sorted, it would be cheaper too.

I know there's a few people trying to hack prius control modules and obviously full control of MG1 is a more elegant solution, but I feel like this would be closer to the realm of most diy-ers. I decided it was too complicated for me and with the DC fast chargers they're putting around here, ICE range extension won't be much benefit soon.

*When I first thought about this I thought MG1 would have to be replaced by a mechanical brake. Now, however, I think that MG1 could act as the brake by shorting the windings which would cause it to dissipate power(very quickly if no resistance is used) then once it's moving slow enough applying a small DC voltage should lock the rotor in place. Making this transition might be tricky but I bet there some way to do it.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Well, first break down on public roads... The Anderson connectors on the main pack broke. I specifically double checked that they were properly engaged when I first started driving the car on the road a few days ago so I'm pretty sure it wasn't an assembly mistake.

Anyway, my car failed to pull away from a stop sign so I pushed it to the side of the road. I took these pictures before touching anything, so somehow they had opened a bit and developed that dimple all on their own. I could smell burning plastic when I opened the hood, so at some point there was a bad connection before the contacts completely seperated but I don't know if it caused or resulted from the housing failure. The two sides are really wedged together and I haven't actually been able to get them apart yet. They are SB120's and my battery current is electronically limited to 80A. Typical values are 60A during accel, 20 during cruise, so they are certainly not overworked. I'm fairly dissappointed since I assumed these connectors would be a reliable aspect of the vehicle.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Hi, Half a year back I was considering SB120/SB175 also for my battery pack, but upon inspection, these connectors are not ideally suited for the traction battery of a powerful ev. Dirt can work its way in between the large contacts. Id recommend if using them to inject a non drooping gel or grease / compound. This would prevent the contacts from alowing dirt to get between them. This only solves the problem temporarely.Disconnecting such greased up connector after prolonged usage may cause similar problems when reconnecting without cleaning.... I have chosen to go without disconnects on the traction pack and relie on two contactors/relays in series. 'IF shit hits the marble', the 400A 500VDC fuses pop sooner than I could park the car. 

I do have a 12V disconnect (yellow), but that is low current most of the time (< 10 .. 70A)


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Ryan800 said:


> Well, first break down on public roads... The Anderson connectors on the main pack broke.
> View attachment 12454
> 
> 
> View attachment 12455


Hi Ryan,

It appears to me you have problems with your assembly of the Anderson connector. It is a bit difficult to make such an analysis from the photos, but I think you have too large of a cable for that size connector and have wrapped insulation tape over the rear of the contact which interferes with the proper seating and spring action. Also the cables appear quite stiff and non-strain relieved which can also force separation of the contacts.

When the Anderson connectors are properly assembled and applied, they are extremely reliable. I have used so many of them it is hard to count, but I don't doubt it is over a thousand. Every failure or problem I have encountered has been attributable to assembly mistakes or misuse.

And the use of contact grease or lube is not necessary and IMO worsens the chances of contamination. The contacts are self wiping meaning any debris is pushed away when the mating contact is inserted.

Regards,

major


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I wouldn't feel comfortable assembling them without any shrink wrap or tape because the metal connector would be so close to the opening in the housing. It didn't look like the tape was interfering with anything and it stops well before the contact point but maybe tape on top of shrink wrap was overkill.

The wire is 6 awg, the smallest they sell crimp fittings for with this size connector so definitely not oversized. I guess the cables could be pulling the on the connector but they're not taught and while they can move a little because they're just hanging, they don't rattle around or anything.

I guess I still feel like they were assembled well enough that they shouldn't have failed, especially after just a week. I'll look at how other people have done it at the SEVA meeting in a couple weeks. Or if anyone wants to post pictures of their anderson connectors apparently I would do well to take some notes...


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Ryan800 said:


> Or if anyone wants to post pictures of their anderson connectors apparently I would do well to take some notes...


Here's a pic I took last week. 










It's an SB-175 with #1 AWG welding cable coming off the battery. Running up from the charger is the mating SB-175 with #4 and a protective boot. I had to slide the boot back due to the way the connector was attached to the battery. Usually the boot covers half of the Anderson housing.

Running heat shrink or tape up under the housing can really interfere. Also another source of trouble can be the crimp. Did you use the proper tool? Was this the first time you assembled and used an Anderson?

In you photos it is apparent that the two housing are not seated together properly. Something was wrong with the installation. Supporting that is the fact it failed after only a week. So it was not a durability issue IMO.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I guess the tape/shrink wrap must be the problem then. I would have preferred to use a boot, but they don't make them for the SB120. The crimp was done properly, with the proper tool, but it was my first time assembling an SB style anderson connector. I think as far as stress and vibration from the wires, I don't see much difference between our setups. I have thinner wires and smaller connectors, but it seems like those should cancel out.

The failure caused the unseatedness. They were properly seated for sure when I plugged in the car to charge from the previous drive.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I took the connectors apart, which required snapping the two plastic halves because they were thoroughly welded together. The metal contacts (connector-to-connector contacts, not crimp contacts) were pitted and the plastic around them burnt and melted. None of the contact points between the crimp inserts and metal contacts showed signs of heating.

To me it still seems unlikely that the extra insulation pushed the contacts so far out of position that they lost good contact. In fact it seems like they would push the contacts toward one another if anything. At the same time, I don't have another explanation and I see Major's point that anderson connectors have a much longer history of reliability than me.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Ryan800 said:


> None of the contact points between the crimp inserts and metal contacts showed signs of heating.


Hi Ryan,

Don't take any offense here. I am just trying to help. But the above statement bothers me. The "crimp inserts" and "metal contacts" are not two separate items. Something doesn't add up. Can you post photos of the parts?

major


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

No offense taken, I really appreciate the help getting to the bottom of this even if I'm hoping the blame will fall somewhere else. Actually, the advice you have given out on this forum is a large part of why this car runs at all. My first thought when I saw the connector was, "how did I screw this up, everyone uses them."

Ok, first is a picture of the "crimp insert", which looks good to me, other than the tape. All 4 of them look just about like this and the area on the metal contact in the housing where they touch looks good too.

To take the connectors apart I had to pull the crimp piece out with the connector assembled, which required pliers, which is what caused the marks on the tape.









Here are the "metal contacts" where the heating occured. As mentioned above, the other end of the contacts meets the crimp and showed no signs of excessive heat. First I tried prying the connector apart with a screwdriver, which created the jagged edges, but that didn't seem to be working so I just snapped it in half. The missing plastic is welded to the other side of the connector.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Ryan800 said:


> No offense taken, I really appreciate the help getting to the bottom of this even if I'm hoping the blame will fall somewhere else. Actually, the advice you have given out on this forum is a large part of why this car runs at all. My first thought when I saw the connector was, "how did I screw this up, everyone uses them."
> 
> Ok, first is a picture of the "crimp insert", which looks good to me, other than the tape. All 4 of them look just about like this and the area on the metal contact in the housing where they touch looks good too.
> 
> ...


Hi Ryan,

I see what happened with these latest photos. You did not properly insert the contacts into the housing. The housing is the red plastic part. It contains two steel springs which are flat metal molded into the plastic. These do not carry current. They function to hold the contacts in place and provide pressure to force the mating contacts together. The contact is the silver plated copper piece with the barrel in which you crimp the wire.

Without the contacts properly seated into the housings, the springs from the two mating housings touch each other on the ends as the two housings are pressed together. This caused those springs to bend and end up distorted as shown in your photo. You apparently had pushed in the contacts enough to touch the springs which then touched the mating housing springs completing the circuit. But the steel springs have high resistance and poor contact area, so heated.

By not having the contacts fully inserted left part of the contact exposed on the rear of the housing making you tape over it. A fully seated contact will not expose any metal as you can see in the photo which I posted.


Here is a photo from Anderson Power Products instruction sheet showing a cut-away of an assembled connector. Notice how the spring holds the mating contacts together without being in the electrical path.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

ohhh, that makes a lot of sense, I feel like an idiot now but at least that mystery is solved...

Thanks for sticking with me on this issue.


----------



## Johny (Jul 21, 2008)

Hi guys. I used the single 75A connector version of these - the PP75.








I found that you really did need to "peer" into the open end of the connector to ensure that you clicked the raised part of the pack of the crimped connector over the spring. I wouldn't have thought that the springs could touch at all though. Not unles you managed to ram the connector in on the wrong side of the spring - if that's possible.

As seen in the photo, I heatshrunk the rear of the connector AFTER it had been assembled. 3:1 heatshrink is good value!


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

yeah... It seems like a pretty boneheaded move to put them in up-side-down and not even realize it after they fail, but for at least the SB120's the springs do contact even without the crimp piece. Also the crimp piece will be much further into the housing when it's actually assembled correctly which makes me feel better about taking the shrink wrap off.


----------



## Johny (Jul 21, 2008)

Any more in this Ryan?
Did you replace the connector(s)?
Was it easier after the forum discussion or did we miss the mark entirely?


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

I replaced the connector and have only driven it once but I assume there won't be any more problems since, as it's been pointed out, anderson connectors are pretty reliable if they're used properly. Major's post pretty much sums up what happened.


----------



## jddcircuit (Mar 18, 2010)

Posting to subscribe


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Also posting to subscride!

Ryan

I thought I noticed your input on a thread on the Auzzie forum regarding these motoros and their winding. Did you ever find out how they are parallelled and whether they can be reconnected to lower the voltage at all?

Also, how are you getting on with using this motor and optimising the controller performance, and what about the replacement transaxle you want to use in the car?


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Hey, I thought I would come back on here as I try to get my project going again. I drove the car for a few months and maybe 500 miles but ran into a few problems:
1. My Headway batteries have different levels of self-discharge, with the worst completely draining themselves in about 6 months. I didn't notice this before the warranty ended and since I don't have a BMS, it was a lot of work to keep them balanced.
2. The Tritium controller had some tuning issues that resulted in a couple months of down time starting last June.
3. During the down time, my cheap charger put enough of a load on the battery pack to completely drain it, permanently killing about 10 cells and probably not helping the rest.

I didn't do much for a while after that but now I'm trying to move on with the project by installing a big Ford Fusion Hybrid motor and a new, bigger battery and of course getting everything working well.

The FFH transmission is nearly identical to that of a Prius, except that it operates on about 300V instead of using a boost converter and a 650V motor. It has a big electric motor connected to a differential with total reduction ratio of just over 9:1. There is also a planetary gearset with one output going essentially to the differential, another to the gas engine driveshaft, and the third to the second, smaller electric motor. Also mounted to the unit is a bunch of circuit boards, two 3-phase bridges, and another plastic box that probably does something.

So far, I bought the transmission a few weeks ago and have taken the it apart and removed the small electric motor, the panetary gearset, and all of the electronics.


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Right now I have run into one problem in particular: there is a pump in the transmission that keeps the electric motors lubricated and it's driven by the gas engine shaft, so I'm thinking of leaving the shaft in place (which also seals a hole in the case) and finding a 12v motor to spin it at 2000ish rpm.

Otherwise if anyone knows of an oil pump that can be submersed in hot oil, I could remove the existing oil pump completely (I prefer this option).

If I put the ring gear back into the transmission I can use the parking pawl, which seems really helpful. I have to have the driveshaft in place to do this.

I'm also thinking of using an external 12v oil pump to circulate transmission fluid through the heater core / radiator. I realize it wouldn't make much heat, but maybe still worth it? There isn't much cooling in the OEM application, but I figure the electric motors aren't processing the full hp to drive the car either. It has to be at least 20kw*5%=1kw waste heat, which should at least feel warm if not hot...


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Here's my new favorite solution:

The transmission fluid gets pumped into a couple chambers by one pump, with the entrance to each chamber being pretty small. The exits to these chambers are much larger and have no real restrictions, so they must stay at fairly low pressure and just drip oil onto the bearings.

There's a plug that leads into this chamber as well as a drain plug that drains the entire transmission casing, so I'll use an external pump to draw ATF from the case drain port and pump it through a T into the accumulation chamber in the picture. The other side of the T will go to either a radiator or the heater core. This should supply a consistent several psi of ATF where it's needed, right? Anyone see a problem with this plan?

Would this be a good pump to use?

The lower chamber in the picture is used to lube the small motor and planetary gearset, both of which I've removed, so it should be ok without oil.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Hi Ryan.

Really interesting motor that. We don't have the Ford hybrid in the UK yet that i know. I don't quite follow how it works with the 2 separate motors. The Prius seems rather different. Where was the planetary gear set in to assembly? Why are you removing the second motor? How will you lock or fix the ICE shaft?


----------



## Ryan800 (Apr 15, 2010)

Tyler, the Prius layout might be different (I think I've seen a chain in at least one version), but it works the same way. If you look at the "gears" picture a couple posts up, it shows fixed reduction gears that connect the big motor to the axles. The middle stage, labeled intermediate shaft, contacts a gear on the big motor shaft and another gear that connects to the ring gear of the planetary gearset that isnt' present in this pic. So the ring gear is at a fixed ratio relative to the wheels and (a different) fixed ratio relative to the big motor. The sun gear connects to the small motor and the planet gears connect to the gas engine.

This way, the small motor can act as a starter motor or a generator depending on what's needed, and because it's speed can be controlled in both forward and reverse, it allows the gas engine to spin at its most efficient rpm regardless of the vehicle speed. If you haven't seen this website, I think it's pretty interesting...

http://eahart.com/prius/psd/

I guess I didn't post a good picture of the planetary gearset, I'll upload one later. Basically, none of it is needed except that it drives a small oil pump and has teeth for the parking pawl. As I said, I'd rather just remove it all to get basically the same thing I have in the car already, but more powerful and a different shape.

The second motor could be used for more power, but I've already put a bit of money into this project and another controller isn't in the cards. However, with the right programming, this would basically be a very efficient ~100hp motor/controller combo for around $1k (used, but still). I can't do this myself, but I'd be happy to supply the electronics if someone things they might be able to figure it out.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Wow very interesting Ryan. Seems the Ford motor is more powerful than the Prius then! I look forward to your progress!


----------



## jddcircuit (Mar 18, 2010)

Ryan800 said:


> I can't do this myself, but I'd be happy to supply the electronics if someone things they might be able to figure it out.


Ryan,
I may be interested in the electronics that you are not using. I am hacking the Prius inverter right now but applying my controller to other systems is part of the future plan.

Does the Ford motor use the same type of Resolver for rotor position that the prius uses?

Thanks
Jeff


----------



## PlanB (Jan 20, 2010)

So you're going to use the wavesculptor to run just the big electric motor Ryan? What's the power of that larger motor & what do you estimate it will weigh when you've finished removing the stuff you don't need?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Congrats on a helluva project, Ryan!


40wkh is ambitious but by no means unreasonable for this type of car. I got ~32kwh in my saturn SL without loosing seating capacity or any trunk volume. Everything is installed under the trunk floor or in the [former] engine bay.

The spot for the fuel tank is still wide open so a drop in box under the rear bench could easily hold another 10kwh. Weight distribution would also be excellent.

Mind if I ask where you're finding these transaxles?


----------

