# HPG AC30/31/50 owners thread



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Here's the motor mounted, the controller will go on a plate mounted above it, I'll get some pics soon.


----------



## Grant_NZ (May 28, 2008)

Hi JR, sorry to ask a stupid question but do you have buld thread for this? Thanks


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Hey JRP3,

nice job on the motor mount! Is it clutchless? What kind of shaft does this motor have? Keyed, same as Warp9?

Motor looks real nice, definitely need to post more pics  and start a build thread 

Is the documentation for the controller available online? Link please....

Watching with great interest....


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

No build thread yet, probably once the batteries arrive and I make some progress. There is also another bracket at the end of the motor attaching it to the original motor mount, I'll get some pics up later.
The motor face and shaft are the same as a Warp9, adapter plate and clutchless coupler are from Craig at http://ev-solutions.net/store/
Motor and Controller info can be downloaded from here: http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/AC_drive_performance.htm
Best price at this time is here http://www.grassrootsev.com/motorsac.htm


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Here's what I did to mount the other end of the motor, I may weld on a section to use another hole just above the bracket









This is what happens when you over complicate a simple idea. I should have just bent some flat bar into a right angle but didn't have any on hand. Probably would have taken less time to go buy the flat bar and bend it than it did to make this thing









Controller mounting board will sit on top of the brackets


----------



## aktill (Jun 18, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Since there are now a few of us using the AC/30/31/50 motors I thought it might be helpful to have a thread to discuss how people are wiring and mounting them in various applications and what additional components are being used with them, contactors, DC/DC's, fuses, etc.
> I'm using a Kilovac LEV200 A5NAA contactor I got from HPG, I still need a fuse that I may integrate into an emergency disconnect, and I still need a throttle, (I may make my own since I think the PB6 is overpriced).
> 
> Did anyone else get a wire sticking out of their connector like this?
> ...


I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I can't actually find my wiring harness right now, since it's downstairs somewhere in one of 16 boxes of car parts. I'll let you know when I find it!

Thanks for starting this thread. I've been reading he 1238 manual, and it's somewhat intimidating! My main interest is in whether I can tap off the tach signal somehow from the controller wiring, and use that rather than the transmission mechanical output.

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> My main interest is in whether I can tap off the tach signal somehow from the controller wiring, and use that rather than the transmission mechanical output.


The motor rpm is displayed on the gauge that comes with the motor/controller, is that what you want?



> Did anyone else get a wire sticking out of their connector like this?


I did not.

Installed the motor and transmission today. Couldn't get the LHS drive shaft snap ring in though. Hard to get hold of the shaft and apply enough force to push the snap ring in place. Anyone know a way to do it?

Tom


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I've been reading he 1238 manual


You got a manual? I received no documentation other than a one page wiring schematic. Just the motor, controller, wiring harness and gauge. I had to email HPGC just to find out what the gauge displays.


----------



## aktill (Jun 18, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> The motor rpm is displayed on the gauge that comes with the motor/controller, is that what you want?


No, I want to drive an actual tachometer. I like to see needles move 



tomofreno said:


> You got a manual? I received no documentation other than a one page wiring schematic. Just the motor, controller, wiring harness and gauge. I had to email HPGC just to find out what the gauge displays.


Nope. Thunderstruck (who I bought from) has the manual as a download if you go to their site. They don't give you a printed copy, which is a little annoying giving that it's a 130 page manual.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Thunderstruck (who I bought from) has the manual as a download if you go to their site. They don't give you a printed copy, which is a little annoying giving that it's a 130 page manual.Thanks! I ordered the AC50 directly from HPGC (same price as at Thunderstruck) since at that time Thunderstruck only had the data from the 6" motor on their site and no information on the AC50. Good to see Thunderstruck now has the graph for the AC50 on their site along with mechanical drawings and manual.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Thunderstruck (who I bought from) has the manual as a download if you go to their site. They don't give you a printed copy, which is a little annoying giving that it's a 130 page manual.


Thanks! I ordered the AC50 directly from HPGC (same price as at Thunderstruck) since at that time Thunderstruck only had the data from the 6" motor on their site and no information on the AC50. Good to see Thunderstruck now has the graph for the AC50 on their site along with mechanical drawings and manual.[/quote]


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Installed the motor and transmission today. Couldn't get the LHS drive shaft snap ring in though. Hard to get hold of the shaft and apply enough force to push the snap ring in place. Anyone know a way to do it?
> 
> Tom


I never had the tranny out, but I needed to pull the passenger side shaft out to install the motor. I unbolted the lower control arm mount which allowed enough play to pull the shaft out far enough to get the motor mounted. To get it back in all I had to do was let the suspension swing back down, push on the end of the hub, then whack the end of the shaft in the hub with a rubber mallet, which pushed the snap ring in. Hope that made sense. Maybe if you assemble it enough you can use the same method.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> You got a manual? I received no documentation other than a one page wiring schematic. Just the motor, controller, wiring harness and gauge. I had to email HPGC just to find out what the gauge displays.


If you go to the Curtis website you should be able to find some documentation on the 840 display. I downloaded a bunch of stuff from them and Thunderstruck.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Curtis data sheets for all products:
http://curtisinst.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=cDatasheets.dspHome


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> If you go to the Curtis website you should be able to find some documentation on the 840 display


Here is what HPGC told me: 3 green lights: regen mode, 2 green lights: very good efficiency, 1 green light: good efficiency, yellow light: low efficiency, red light: very low efficiency. This is based on rotor slip. The gauge also displays motor rpm.

Turns out that my LHS drive shaft was all the way in the differential with snap ring in place. I just thought it wasn't.

Thanks for the links.

Tom


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The gauge should also show motor temp, controller temp, voltage, estimated amp draw, and can also be programmed to display any of the adjustable controller variables, though it doesn't come programmed that way.


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

hi all

first question, On the electric wiring schema, I can't find the solenoid (red
circle) in the cardbox I received from thunderstruck.










Is it this? 










if yes, How do I
differentiate the wires going to the B+ connector on the controller and the +
connector on the battery?

second question, thisv little black box, is it placed on the yellow or the green circle?










I think its the relay for the spyglass

third question, on the motor, there is a little plate saying that its rated at
35 hp max and 10 continuous, but thunderstruck say (on their website) that it's rated at 42 hp...that's odd


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The solenoid is the red circle, the relay is the green. My solenoid came marked with a + on the small wire near the +A1 side and a - on the small wire near the -A2 side. Mine actually came with screw terminals instead of molded wires but the orientation should be the same. The Spy Glass is controlled by the small red button, "menu push button", and does not use a relay.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

There is another thread here in the motor section http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/new-ac-motor-available-24498.html where we've discussed the different ratings for this motor. Basically they are all estimated as far as I can tell so no one really knows. There are different ways to calculate the output, I don't know which one was used, or if it's accurate.


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

thank you.

So, on the solenoid, the two little black wires are connected to the blue/white and orange/white wires on the 36 pin connector?

It's been a week i've amailed to thunderstruck to have awnsers to the same questions above. Still no news from them


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That's correct. I've had good luck emailing HPG directly with questions if Thunderstruck isn't getting back to you:
[email protected]


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

thanks man


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Anyone gotten to initial setup of the controller? Looks like either a 1311 hand held programmer or 1314 PC controller software is required. The latter also seems to require an interface box. Anyone gotten prices on these? I would guess HPGC did some initial setup, but seems like you still need to specify which type throttle box you are using, throttle deadband, etc. Also seems like some fine tuning of parameters in speed or torque mode, as well as braking parameters would be necessary to optimize performance for your tastes. Seems like torque mode might be better? Has anyone inquired with HPGC about these things?

Tom W.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I thought they came setup to use a 0-5k pot and all the other parameters were optimized for the motor and a vehicle in the 1500-2500lb range. Fine tuning would of course need the hand held programmer or PC interface but I was going to try it as is at first and hope they got it right.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I thought they came setup to use a 0-5k pot and all the other parameters were optimized for the motor and a vehicle in the 1500-2500lb range. Fine tuning would of course need the hand held programmer or PC interface but I was going to try it as is at first and hope they got it right.


 Yes, HPGC confirmed it is set up for a type3 pot (5k is full throttle, type 1 is also 0 to 5k but 0 is full throttle), and the controller should be "good to go" as is. They said check back with them when it is running if I think there is an issue.

Tom


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> The motor face and shaft are the same as a Warp9, adapter plate and clutchless coupler are from Craig at http://ev-solutions.net/store/
> Motor and Controller info can be downloaded from here: http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/AC_drive_performance.htm
> Best price at this time is here http://www.grassrootsev.com/motorsac.htm


My AC31 arrived today whoo hoo. However, another truck arrived just before it with the metal sheeting for my new roof. So it will be a little while before I get to installing the motor.

I looked on the HPGC and Thunderstruck sites but couldn't find the manual downloads. Could you give me the link.

This is my first EV conversion and looking at the wiring diagram that came with the motor, I just noticed that the main contactor is 24VDC. Where do I get 24V? Do I hook up to two pack batts?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I thought the controller controls the contactor with the Curtis AC controllers?

what model curtis is it? have you tried curtis's website?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The wiring diagram should show the contactor wired to the controller, that's where it gets the proper voltage. Here are the links to the manuals:
http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/1234_36_38 Manual Rev C2.pdf
http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/curtisac1238.pdf


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

This is the wiring diagram


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

This should be a better pic of the wiring diagram:


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

thanks jrp3


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Here's a question, the key switch relay in the diagram shows it being wired to "C" and "NO", I assume "C" is the same as "COM" on the relay? I assume the two small unmarked terminals on the relay are for the +12 volt from the key switch to ground?


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Here's a question, the key switch relay in the diagram shows it being wired to "C" and "NO", I assume "C" is the same as "COM" on the relay? I assume the two small unmarked terminals on the relay are for the +12 volt from the key switch to ground?


That looks right to me.

BTW, thanks for your earlier reply re: the 24V solenoid.  If I'd read the diagram more carefully, I would have seen that the solenoid was connected to the pack & controller. Also, re: the manuals; I did have links to those downloads, but perhaps incomplete as as I only had 75 pgs. vs. 130. Therefore I thought there was a separate manual for the motor when y'all were talking about the Curtis 1238 manual.

WRT the key sw. relay, what is the part #/source for it? I'm still ordering parts and wasn't sure I have that relay on my order list.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Mine came with the motor and controller.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

Does your key sw relay have a part # on it?

I ordered from Grassrootsev.com and only received the motor, controller, wire harness and Curtis 840 meter (I believe this is a package put together by HPGC as it was drop shipped from there). When I asked about the 24V solenoid, Grassroots didn't have one, only 12V. 

Jusr curious... could the label NO on the relay actually be ON upside down??


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It looks as if the picture on grassroots EV shows the relay, you should mention that you didn't get it, though it's a cheap enough item. Here's the part number:953-1c-12dm
One link to it http://www.jameco.com/webapp/wcs/st...toreId=10001&catalogId=10001&productId=137358

It's definitely "NO", Normally Open, as it also has a terminal next to it "NC", Normally Closed, which is not used.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I found out today 2/0 lugs won't fit on the AC50 terminals. The lugs connected on phases V and W touch, and those on V and U are only about 1/10" apart. I either need lugs that are about 5/8" wide, or to remove the block the terminals are mounted in and replace it with one about an inch wider with the terminals more widely spaced. The latter is straight forward enough, but more unforeseen time to spend.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'll have to check, can you grind a bit off of the lugs to make them fit? I've been thinking about the wire size to the motor and I don't think we even need 2/0 for the following reasons: Since it's a 3 phase motor the current will always be split between two of the wires, (I think), the wires from the controller to the motor should be pretty short, and the wires on the motor itself are not 2/0, maybe 2 gauge? Thoughts?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I've been thinking about the wire size to the motor and I don't think we even need 2/0


 I think that's probably correct. I emailed HPGC and asked what wire and lug size they recommend. I also don't think it needs to be welding cable, as mine are about 30" long with one gentle bend. I think I'll just buy what size they recommend at Home Depot, and use the other cables I made for connections between battery boxes.

Tom W.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I just checked and my heavy duty 2/0 lugs will fit on the motor terminals without hitting each other. Maybe your lugs are wider than mine?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Mine are about 7/8" wide. The top and center one touch. The bottom and center one are about 1/10" apart.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My lugs are 7/8 as well, the end motor terminals are each 1 1/4 apart on center from the middle one, laid out in a triangular pattern, with the middle terminal closer to the encoder end of the motor. 









More clearance can be gained if I skew the end terminals out a bit.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Sounds/looks the same as mine. The lugs are actually about 15/16" wide, with a rounded edge. If I play around with them the best I can do is about 1/10" clearance between them, but if they rotate much during use they can touch. I'm not sure of the breakdown field for air at 400 Hz, but it seems pretty dicey to me. I'll likely make another dielectric block and space them further apart. The other option is buying 1/0 cable. Lugs for this seem to be about 5/8" wide. But the block has just four holes with countersinks to drill for the bolts attaching the block to the motor and 3 holes with countersinks for the lugs. Looks like delrin or similar, so easy to drill. I'll see what HPGC responds first.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Maybe you could make up some dielectric spacers to slide in between the terminals. Or maybe just use the existing block but re-drill the center post so it's further from the other two. It depends on the cable length but I think even 1/0 would be overkill. The motor cables may even be only 4 gauge under their cloth cover. I'll be interested to see what HPG says.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

Not sure if it would help, but perhaps the V connection could be made from the opposite (right side in JRP3's photo) while the U & W connect from the drive (left side of photo) end. 

I do agree with tomofreno to get HPGC's opinion on appropriate cable sizing. These motors are similarly rated as the 36 kW 3-phase 115 VAC generators on the DC-9 (jet) I flew. Since the gen's were rated at 36 kW total, each phase could only carry about 100A. (Our Amp gauges read in %, so I'm not sure of the actual amperage.)

Also, look at the gages of the wires carrying current into the motor itself. While they're a bit shorter than those coming from the controller, they carry the same current as the supply leads. So the supply leads shouldn't have to be much larger (due to additional length) than the motor leads. Additionally, the supply leads need to be multistranded (the more the better) since AC flows more on the surface of the wires rather than through the wires as in DC.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RE Farmer said:


> Additionally, the supply leads need to be multistranded (the more the better) since AC flows more on the surface of the wires rather than through the wires as in DC.


My understanding of the skin effect of AC is that multistrand is effectively the same as a single strand of the same cross section since all the strands are in physical contact and not insulated from each other. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=11914


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

While I'm not 100% sure, I think that multi-strand still would have less resistance (especially @ 400hz) even though they do touch b/c they have more surface area than a single strand - in much the same way a jar of sand has more empty space (can hold more water) than the same jar with one large rock in it.

That's why big jets use high freq. AC power - it allows them to use lighter weight, lower resistance, multi-strand wire = more surface area/lb.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Response from HPGC: "Usually we use 1/0 - 5/16 lugs for the motor cables."


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Whew, lot of dust around here! Anyone know what pin the optional button for push button menu connects to on the Curtis 840 gauge? The 840 manual gives no mention of it. The gauge pictured doesn't even look like the 840 I received. Curtis documentation seems to be way behind. Anyone know the output parameters HPG has it set up to display? I'll check with HPG too.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Menu push button connects to the controller, not the gauge. Wiring diagram shows it connecting from #25 red wire to #10 white/red wire. I think the display is setup to show volts, motor temp, rpm, estimated amps, maybe some other stuff that I can't think of.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Duh. Thanks JRP3, I've been working on other things and didn't even think of looking at the diagram HPGC sent. I'm getting down to the wire. After I finish wiring the gauges I only have the bms left to hook up.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

Hello,

I have started my EV project, it is a Ferrari Dino 246 fiberglass replica on a vw chassis. I am trying to decide between ElectroAutomotives AC-24LS and EVparts.com Item #MT5615 AC50 motor with Curtis controller. I want the best performing system (Accel 0-60mph) and would very much appreciate any feedback anyone might have. The stock 1978 VW car transmission will be used, but researching optimized gearing and Heavy Duty clutch assembly. Feedback I have seen on the acceleration of the AC-24 is not good unless running at max voltage 336+ Volts even then not great. Additionally Metric Minds Systems are outside my budget. Netgain DC motor is an option but I would rather have an AC system.

Other related information,
LifePo4 will be used @ max recommended Voltage + AH will be determined for expected range and required discharge.
Finished Curb Weight- 1,500Ibs
Range Expected- 30miles @ 70mph (70% Pack Discharge)
0-60 time Expected- <10sec

Respectfully,

Jacob Blake
USNR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The HPG system has higher torque, runs on lower voltage, comes with a multi function gauge, and includes the wiring harness between the motor and controller. The Azure costs more than $2500 more than the HPG system, and that is not counting the wiring harness, which is extra.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

Thank you for your response, but if the price was the same which system would have the best acceleration? 

I am leaning toward the AC-50 but I do not want to drive a snail. To compare, I own a 08 ford focus that stock gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. I would be happy if it was equal or faster. I already know off the line would be quick due to the torque at 0 RPM. But I am looking for 0-60.

Also this system needs to be able to maintain speeds at 65mph without overheating.

Any thoughts?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't know if either of these systems will give you that kind of performance, though you do have a light vehicle. I think there are calculators where you can put in a vehicle weight and desired 0-60 time and it will give you theoretical power required. My feeling is the higher torque of the HPG will give a better driving experience.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

At 48 volts you're going to be constantly pulling high amps to get any power, and 35 ft lbs of torque isn't much, especially for $4500, when the AC50 gives you 115 ft lbs and higher voltage means lower C rates, for the same price.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

adtw said:


> Anyone check out the Green Motorsport GMS M1
> 
> *Liquid cooled 48V 36hp* peak
> Weight without coolant :*15.5KG*
> ...


I've watched various reviews and read up on that $2,000-2,500(depending on exchange rate) car. It seems the reviews I have seen show 0-60km/h(0-37mph) as 8.3 seconds and 0-105km/h(0-63mph) as taking 35 seconds. The 624cc twin cylinder doesn't have much power but I think that even if I were to consider a conversion of it, I'd go with a 72 volts system but would probably go with 96 volts with the AC50 motor just to make that little car feel like a drag racer. For simplicity and cost savings, a 72 volt system using the $4,000 AC31 kit would probably be the most practical for battery size, monitoring, weight distribution, cost etc. though. It seems odd to want to put so much money into such a low cost car but this cars performance could really shine. This car wouldn't pass our crash standards I am sure but emissions wouldn't be a problem with an EV conversion. The gasoline engine top speed brings it to 63mph but with electric that could easily be topped, not sure how the body or transmission would handle it. ...I'm day dreaming a bit right now though, for all I know this sort of system could rip that car apart.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Where do you get that figure? The chart shows a 45 nm peak, or 33 ft lbs.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

The site you linked to says this "Certified Dyna-Pro Dynamometers Dyno testing has demonstrated at 48v, 27.8 foot pounds, 21HP @ 4000 rpm using lead acid batteries."

110 ft-lb of torque from where? Even if this motor could do this, at 48 volts if it could do 110 ft-lb of torque it would be pulling a tremendous amount of amps. ...I just looked through the site and you found the figure that was multiplied by 3.75 for calculated torque at the wheel, not torque from the motor shaft, those are different. The site says 650 amps peak, which for the 36 HP that is mentioned. I could see 110ft-lb's coming from kilowatts ranging in the 50's, but not from 31kw. I'm all for water cooling though which makes this motor pretty cool.

I don't see this motor suitable for highway driving in a standard car, it would have to be the 1400 pound Tata Nano but I wouldn't want to use it in a ~2000 pound Geo Metro or Toyota Tercel unless I wasn't planning on driving 55+ mph on the highway, I'm sure it could reach 55mph but I couldn't help but think that it would be floored. If the car managed 200 watthours per mile(which no car that I know of that is natively over 2000 pounds can do), then it would pull 12,000 watts traveling down the highway at 60mph not counting losses or acceleration so it's under it's 18kW continuous rating there, but consider 48 volts pulling 12,000 watts, that's 250 continuous amps, this would be a best case scenario too. A less efficient vehicle but more common 300 watthour/mile would take the 18,000 continuous watts with no room for passing power and take 375 amps. Lead acid can't sustain this and a Lithium pack that would allow 60 miles after figuring peukert factors from the high amperage draw and to consider 70% SOC for max life would need to have to use cells well over than 500Ah. The 400Ah cells would handle the draw required for 650 amps for acceleration but to consider 70% SOC for max cycle life and to ignore that higher draws leave less total available power even with Lithium, would leave you with 45 miles. Wiring would have to have pretty thick cell to cell for the long 650 amps draw for the time it takes to accelerate and a 48 volt charger for 400Ah cells would have to pull a whole pile of amps. The largest would be 70 amps which would take about 6 hours to charge up after 45 miles of driving but most people don't have anything bigger than a 30 or 40 amp circuit going to their garage and 70amp service lines and chargers aren't cheap. So if you had a 40 amp circuit you would wait 10 hours for 45 miles of driving.

I'm not saying it isn't possible but a low voltage 48 volt system like this one stretches beyond the level of compromise for many. The amperage draws are high, the cell sizes are very large, the wiring needs to accomodate the amperage, and the performance has its limits.

I think the AC50 is great because with the 130 volt peak voltage that it supports, I could charge 35 200Ah cells, 36 if I stretch it and charge at a slightly lower voltage, or even more as long as the voltage drops down below the max threshold that the controller could handle but I don't know the details on that and I don't feel like testing it on a $4500 motor/controller package. I get an amount of torque that is generous in my opinion and a comfortable amount of horsepower for highway passing for my planned 1800 pound(with stock ICE equipment) donor car which has fairly low rpm highway gearing using 2 overdrive gears for my benefit. An EValbum car entry shows 185 watthour a mile with it at 50mph so I'm comfortable for my range expectations and should have ample extra room for 70% SOC with decent sized cells.

So what I'm saying is, if the compromises work for you, go for it. I'm sure there are various people on this site that can benefit from it but be mindful of how things are worded on their website such as the calculated torque at the wheel not matching the shaft torque. It works, but ultimately you need to make sure it's workable for your scenario.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

HPG told me the Curtis controller just shuts down on over voltage and shouldn't be damaged. 36 cells should be fine if you don't charge above 3.6 volts or so.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

JRP3, Do you know if the Curtis shuts regen off above a certain voltage or will it regen and need to be cycled back on? If I charge 36 cells to 133.2 at 3.7vpc, I'd be using a contactor with an AC controller as well, right? So by the time I unplugged the pack and put my key in, I'd be a fair amount below 130 already I figure. I once read something about a 122 volt figure which was later retracted but I don't know where the number came from but that would be 3.388vpc which is a number I couldn't be sure it would be powering up to.

I was thinking 36 cells would be awesome if I went with Sky Energy cells but the 180Ah cramps the range a little bit for my plans. Going for 36 also causes an issue with the 1 cell that is outside of the 5 cell pack that Thunder Sky's are put into, so I'd either have to have a lone cell that is clamped somehow or build one six cell pack, which I don't know how to do the clamping but I'm sure it's not tough, I've seen some people doing it in Youtube vids and I know the Sky Energy cells come with some sort of nut and long bolt kit setup which would make it a little easier to put an extra cell in the mix with a longer bolt. I'm not sure if the Sky Energy cells are configured for 5 cells between plate packs or not, I thought I saw or read otherwise at one time. On a seperate bit of question, is it possible to get the Thundersky Cells completely charged with a terminating voltage of 3.6 volts? I figured 3.7 would be better if it were possible. I don't have many areas that I come across for regen at the beginning of my drive besides a stop sign off of the 30 mph street my house is on which is right after a 90 degree left turn so I hit the stop sign at 20mph and I usually can time the first stop light so I really don't need the regen room at all.

I was even considering going with 35 260Ah Thunder Sky cells to add an extra 6720 watthours for flexibility of putting this pack into a different car in the future and get the same range and to account for future pack declines, but if I did this, I wouldn't be buying extras due to the cost so if one or two fails I'd be running the AC50 setup with slightly less range and performance, I'd also need to deal with the extra size involved with packing 29,120kWh of TS cells into a Honda Insight or Toyota Echo/Tercel type car. I'm still in the planning stage and my tape measure obviously needs to get some use first but I'm pretty certain I would be splitting the pack between the hood and the back with 260's. Also with the Insight the standard hybrid pack, BCM(Honda's NiMh BMS), and motor controller all are normally hidden under the carpet in a fan-ventillated rear hatch area so height is a consideration if I want to leave things appearing stock.

If you can tell I'm aspiring to high range, gentle battery treatment, and as long of a useful(relatively) life as possible, bringing this pack from one car to the next if at all possible.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think it will regen and then shut down if overvolted, but I don't know for sure. I think I posted the 122 volt number on some misinformation, I later checked with HPG and they said they've seen it cutoff a little above 130, maybe 135 or so. I would think you might want to stick to 34 or maybe 35 cells if using TS since they charge to 3.7-3.8 safely. SE seem to be happy around 3.5 or less. You don't want to "fully charge" a lithium pack since they will quickly go to over voltage when nearing their limit and there is very little range available in that extra voltage.
I wouldn't worry about the cell count in a package, I think you can request TS to strap them in other configurations besides 5 or repackage them yourself. The SE clamping system stinks, plain and simple, though they may change that in the future since there have been lots of complaints. I'm using 6 foot cargo straps with turnbuckle adjusters to make 12 cell "batteries".
In your case since I believe you are more than a year or so out from an actual build there is a good chance that much of this information could change from now till then, so don't lock yourself into anything until you are really ready to spend some cash. For that same reason I wouldn't try to make a much larger pack than you really need since cells will likely keep improving quite a bit in the next 5-10 years. It might not be worth moving a pack into another vehicle if there is better and cheaper technology available.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm not sure where you get some of your conclusions. The AC31 has an 1800 RPM range where over 100ft lbs are available, your transmission will allow you to select at what speed it's being used at. You don't need full torque at highway speeds. The GMS chart shows about 2000 rpm of 35 ft lbs torque max, from about 1000-3000rpm, how is that even close to the AC31?
There is also another thread where we talked about the HPG series and the new website: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/new-ac-motor-available-24498.html


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> To compare, I own a 08 ford focus that stock gets 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. I would be happy if it was equal or faster.


 I don't think either motor/controller package will give this performance. Performance of the AC24LS motor and DMOC445 controller will depend on whether you run the motor wye or delta connected. The higher voltage used with wye connected will give more torque at higher rpm. If you use delta connected, the performance will be worse than the AC50, if wye connected it could be better, depending on the gear ratios you use. The wye connected AC24LS/DMOC445 has about 67 lb-ft torque out to around 4700 rpm. The AC50/1238-7501 controller has about 90 lb-ft torque out to about 3000 rpm (I'm not sure where the 115 lb-ft came from. The max current of the 1238-7501 controller is 550A and that gives max torque of about 90 lb-ft, regardless of what pack voltage you use, as the max torque is limited by this max current). This gives a torque ratio of 1.34. Gear ratios for the AC24LS would have to be 1.34 larger than that for the AC50 to get the same max torque available at the wheels at lower rpm. Max rpm for the AC50 is 6k, where it has about 30 lb-ft torque if used with a nominal 115V pack (about max for the 1238-7501 controller), whereas the wye connected AC24LS has about 54 lb-ft at this rpm. Both motor/controllers have the same torque at about 4200 rpm (again, 115V for the AC50). Acceleration depends on the difference in max available torque at the wheels and required wheel torque (product of tractive effort and tire radius). So if you geared them as above, they should accelerate about the same at lower vehicle speeds, up to about 4200 motor rpm, but the wye connected AC24LS will have more acceleration at higher vehicle speeds. You could work out the acceleration of each if you've nothing else to do on a rainy day - or use the calculator on another forum on this site.

Tom


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> The AC50/1238-7501 controller has about 90 lb-ft torque out to about 3000 rpm (I'm not sure where the 115 lb-ft came from. The max current of the 1238-7501 controller is 550A and that gives max torque of about 90 lb-ft, regardless of what pack voltage you use, as the max torque is limited by this max current).


Probably from me mixing up the AC31 and AC50 figures


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Your conclusions don't seem to fit with the real world. An 84 volt AC 30 system in a Geo metro can do 80 mph, a 115 volt AC31 or AC50 will certainly do better than that.
http://www.evdl.org/archive/index.html#nabble-td20693118


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> If you need that 110 ft-lb of torque you will need to shift up to lower the rpm! There is no gain there, the motor torque might be higher, but the overall torque on the wheels is still the same.


 This is not generally correct. It depends on the form of motor torque as a function of motor rpm. For example in my Swift with an AC50 at 50 mph vehicle speed, in second gear I have about 5600 motor rpm, 36 lb-ft available motor torque, 234 lb-ft available wheel torque, 39HP, and 1.7 mph/sec available acceleration.. If I shift up to third gear I have about 3790 motor rpm, 80 lb-ft available motor torque, 352 lb-ft available wheel torque, 58HP, and 3.0 mph/sec available acceleration.

The max HP is over 60 for this car due to a nominal 115V pack. The published max of 50HP is for a 96V pack (which sagged to 85V).


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Also worth considering, with an ICE how often is maximum HP ever used, or even approached? Most driving is done with much less than peak HP.


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

adtw said:


> *There is no substitute for horsepower!*


Only if you have a suitable transmission that allows you stay at this level all the way through RPMs. If you don't, you won't be able to employ all your horses you have under the hood and you will end up with reduced effective power.
On the other end, a drive with completely flat torque would be very handy, even its maximum power would be achievable at high end only.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

I'm new to EVs and I have a question regarding the 130V cutoff for the AC31 w/Curtis controller;

Assuming I have a 40 cell TS LiFePo4 pack (nominal 128V @ 3.2V/cell), does the controller stop working/shut off or does it limit the max voltage available to the motor (possible 148V pack voltage = when cells freshly charged to 3.7V/cell) to 130V and continue supplying that voltage until the pack dips or sags below 130V?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

No it shuts off to protect itself. 36 cells charged to 3.6 is right on the edge, if you regen quickly you might go into over volt and shut down.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Anyone looked at em brake control using the brake pot? I'm wondering if you could control regen with an external pot, as well as stop regen using a relay and resistor in parallel with this pot (similar to what people have done with the throttle pot) or if programming must be changed for the controller to use the signal. Yes I asked HPEVS about this. They dodged by responding they were making a bms that would control regen.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think that would depend on how it is setup in the controller, if it is even enabled. I think there is a brake throttle input, but I don't know if that overrides the regular regen. If it's already set to regen when you lift off the gas I'm not sure what a brake throttle input would do. I suppose you could have one level of regen set for off throttle and then a brake throttle input would increase that.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

RE Farmer said:


> I'm new to EVs and I have a question regarding the 130V cutoff for the AC31 w/Curtis controller;
> 
> Assuming I have a 40 cell TS LiFePo4 pack (nominal 128V @ 3.2V/cell), does the controller stop working/shut off or does it limit the max voltage available to the motor (possible 148V pack voltage = when cells freshly charged to 3.7V/cell) to 130V and continue supplying that voltage until the pack dips or sags below 130V?


What about using some 200ah Kokam batteries that have less sagging and limit the charger for how high they charge? For example 33 @ 3.7 nominal =122.1 then limit full charge state too 3.9 =128.7 peak pack voltage on the charger. What reaches the controller will be a little less than peak do to the resistance in the wiring.

On another note instead of pushing the voltage issue how hard would it be to get more peak amps? For example if a better heat sink and cooling was used on the controller could we be able to push 600 amps for about 30 sec?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Kokams are pretty expensive, and I don't think their cycle life is very good, though that may have changed. But you still have the problem of regen pushing you over the top if you charge to 128 volts. That leaves you no headroom to take regen.
I don't know if the controller can dump heat fast enough internally to go higher amperage even with better cooling, but maybe. I don't think you'd even need 30 sec worth of 600 amps anyway, 10 or so would probably be enough.


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

adtw said:


> AC31 ,GMS M1, and Agni 95 all have similar peak power at around 36 hp. Agni motor being lightest at 11.5kg, and cheapest at half the cost of the other two.


but what about the torque with those three? the agni is little weak compare to the ac31 for example


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Is the 15 HP continuous rating of this system based on limits of the controller or heat in the motor? I'm wondering because this means that I'd pretty much be hugging, if not going over that continuous rating pretty often if I calculate horsepower mathmatically 745.7*15=11,185 watts continuous. Is this enough to drive on the highway at 65 miles per hour with an aerodynamic lightweight car such as a Honda Insight, Toyota Tercel, or Geo Metro? It seems that 50HP would be plenty for acceleration in these cars but can I hang at highway speeds? If I can't is the limit part of the motor or the controller and would extra cooling bring that continuous rating up?

I love everything about this setup but I'm trying to find what its true limits are and where they lie. I've been on the edge of asking this for a long time, not sure why I haven't asked until now.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My guess is that it's more of a controller issue than the motor, but both might be improved with more aggressive cooling if necessary.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Is this enough to drive on the highway at 65 miles per hour with an aerodynamic lightweight car such as a Honda Insight, Toyota Tercel, or Geo Metro?


 I estimate about 13, 19, and 27 H.P. at 50, 60, and 70 mph for a 2260 lb vehicle with drag coeff of 0.32, and xsect area of 19 sq ft (Suzuki Swift with 36 SE180Ah cells). For an 1800 lb vehicle with 0.29 drag coeff, and 19 sq ft, I get about 11.5, 17, and 24 HP at same speeds.

HPEVS responded to me by email several months ago that the continuous rating for the AC50 was 17 HP. When I received the motor the plate said 15 HP.  I emailed back asking what limited this, but did not receive a response. You might give them a call. I had already purchased so didn't pursue it further. I have a 250 cfm axial fan I can turn on to blow directly at the controller heat sink. I also have another I will mount in place of the shroud at the rear of the motor if I have problems with it overheating. I expect the rating is conservative, and hope the fans would improve it by 3 - 5 HP. Shouldn't be an issue this winter.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Tom, in your brief drive, did you get to feel regen? Does it come on as soon as you're off the pedal?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Photo of the fan. The controller is mounted to the opposite side of the same bracket with spacers to give a 5/16" gap. The fan blows through a 4.5" hole in the bracket and out radially through the gap, across the controller heat sink plate (that thick shiny plate in the photo).


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Tom, in your brief drive, did you get to feel regen? Does it come on as soon as you're off the pedal?


 Yes, but I was only going about 10 mph at best in a circle in the driveway, so it wasn't a big effect. I did notice the negative current reading on the TBS Ex-pert Pro gauge though. 

There is an obvious typo on my post on HP. The 16 HP for 1800 lb vehicle should be 11.5 HP.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Yep, its the controller. After driving around about 20 miles today, about 2/3 on freeway, the controller was at about 90C and the motor was around 60C. I was driving between 60 and 70 mph at the time. Next drive I'll turn on the 250 cfm fan on the controller and see how much impact it has. Shouldn't be a problem this time of year. High today was about 45F. I'm concerned about 90 - 100F during July/August though.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah that 90C is pretty high for cool weather. You don't have any additional heat sinking on the controller right, just the fan? Be interesting to see what the fan does. I've been thinking of bolting the controller to a finned heat sink, with a fan. Sounds as if it might be good idea.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I've been thinking of bolting the controller to a finned heat sink, with a fan. Sounds as if it might be good idea.


 I think it will be a "must" in summer if you drive at 50 mph+ regularly. Mainly a fan, heat fins will be a smaller effect unless you have them in good airflow. The 250 cfm fan gives a good "wind" on the bottom of the heat sink plate. It should have a significant effect now, but in summer with 100F+ temp under the hood I expect I'll have to limit time at higher speeds considerably.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Those curtis controllers get really warm.... that should offer a water cooling plate for it, they get way too hot!

I will probably end up making a cooling plate for mine.


----------



## jorhyne (Aug 20, 2008)

Travis have you successfully installed your AC system in your bike? I'm eager to hear what kind of performance you're getting out of the AC-15 motor.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

frodus said:


> I will probably end up making a cooling plate for mine.


I've kicked around that idea as well. Anyone know at what temperature the controller starts cutting back, or cuts off?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

jorhyne said:


> Travis have you successfully installed your AC system in your bike? I'm eager to hear what kind of performance you're getting out of the AC-15 motor.


Just got it like 2 weeks ago.... a few days before I went to Barefootmotors and Brammo to visit..... then thanksgiving.

I'm going to wait to get my charger and elithion BMS and then do some bench testing while I get my motor mount fabbed.

I got the AC-15 motor and 1238-7501, so i'll be running at higher voltage (32s6p of the 38120S headway cells).


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> The AC50/1238-7501 controller has about 90 lb-ft torque out to about 3000 rpm (I'm not sure where the 115 lb-ft came from.


Looks as if the 115 lb-ft may have come from Thundersky EV website:

"Medium Car Kit, up to 3800lbs and 75 mph, Motor 122 lbs , Controller 12 lbs.
AC-50 1238-7501 72-108 volts 550 amps, 8.5" x15" motor, 50hp, 115ftlbs, 6500 rpm"


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Looks as if the 115 lb-ft may have come from Thundersky EV website:


Thunderstruck, in case someone is looking  http://www.thunderstruck-ev.com/AC_drive_performance.htm


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Thunderstruck, in case someone is looking


 Whoops! Thanks.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Is anyone else thinking these line of motors would make good hybrid setups like the netgain EMIS system, with the added benefit of regen..??.. (netgain EMIS connects a DC motor in the middle of the driveshaft of a rwd front engine car *after the transmission*..)

90ftlbs of torque from 0-3000rpm for the AC-50 (which looks to be double shafted) would be enough to move the car at low speeds or through traffic in econo mode, and when switched to sport mode both motors could work together to produce improved performance...

if the brakes are tapped the system could regen and slow the driveline down which would put less stress on the brakes..


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't think the cost really works out that well for a properly integrated hybrid system. If you want a plug in hybrid buy a used Prius and install a plug in package.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I don't think the cost really works out that well for a properly integrated hybrid system. If you want a plug in hybrid buy a used Prius and install a plug in package.


That is an idea...buy an nissan altima hybrid, take out the engine and transmission and swap a regular nissan engine + trans into and sell it...take the hybrid drive and install it in any other car...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That really sounds like the hard way to do it. Buy a used hybrid and make it a plug in. Done.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> That really sounds like the hard way to do it. Buy a used hybrid and make it a plug in. Done.


Problem is I dont like the "look" of the current hyrbids out there...yes i know the style is functional and aides aerodynamically, but I still have the right to not like it...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sure, I understand that. However I've become more of a "form = function" guy myself, and I try to look at the reality of what might be involved verses the end result. Fact is whatever I'm driving I spend more time inside it than outside looking at it.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

For those of you runnibg this setup, I'd like to a few things. Who's running direct? Who's running an auto or manual trans? How well will this system work direct, or maybe just about a 2:1 ratio?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't think anyone will use it without a transmission, it's just not a powerful enough setup.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

not in a car anyway


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

What I was thinking, was a 2002 ford focus zx5 as a donor. 
It has a gvw of about 3600lbs and a curb weight of 2700 lbs. Think the ac50 could pull it? Not looking for a super car, just a low speed commuter for my wife to run the kids around. And I'm tired of fixing the engine and fuel system. 
If no transmission is used, maybe just a 2.5 or 3:1 gear box? With a max motor speed of 6500, this would give the car about 55-60mph and may be low enough geared to have decent power. I'd like to use my 30hp industrial 3phase motor, but that may be too much work.


----------



## aktill (Jun 18, 2008)

Those aren't rear drive, I don't think, and so you still need the front diff (or two motors, I guess). I think the diff is built into the transmission, isn't it?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Is your ford focus an automatic or a manual? 

If its a manual and you are deadset on single gear you can do a google search and find the best gear ratio to use, if you are looking for 2-3:1 overall then it probably 5th gear (overdrive)...

If its automatic, I would just use the transmission as it is and figure out an idle control setup by reading some of the more famous threads on using automatic transmissions...this would make for a more versitle conversion...

and yes, 50hp and 100ftlbs should be able to move 2600lbs but i would look into getting lifepo4s to keep the weight down...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

If you read through Tomofreno's SwiftE thread you'll see that an AC50 without a transmission probably won't work well. You'll have sluggish acceleration and draw more amps at low speed than necessary. This will reduce your range, strain your batteries, and overheat your controller. Other than that....I suppose of you spend most of your time on the flat, at a steady speed of 45-50mph with little stop and go you might be able to get away with a single speed equivalent between second and third gear.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Yup, front wheel drive, 4 speed automatic transaxle. If it were any GM th-*** transmission I could set it up easy, as I've rebuilt and swapped a few around. Its the ford electronic set up being related to engine rpm, temp, tps, and a few other issues. I can't find an aftermarket programmable comp for the tranny. I have read all of swifte info, all the auto tranny info. No way to know but to try.


----------



## few2many (Jun 23, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> Is your ford focus an automatic or a manual?
> 
> If its a manual and you are deadset on single gear you can do a google search and find the best gear ratio to use, if you are looking for 2-3:1 overall then it probably 5th gear (overdrive)..


Sorry, I meant 2-3:1 ratio + the diff ratio. so if i used a manual tranny it would be probably 2nd or 3rd. With a diff of 3.96, that would be 7.92-11.88 overall gear reduction. So if I had a single speed gear reduction at 3:1*3.96, 11.88 overall and a 24.5" tire, thats only 40mph
2:1*3.96, 7.92 overall=60mph
1:1*3.96, 3.96 overall=120mph
If the top end of the motor, ac50, is 6500, why does the curtis website say the controller is good for 8000rpm
I think I'll look into the auto tranny more.
too bad its not a corvair powerglide transaxle!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

They limit the RPM's of the motor because there is very little power beyond 6000RPM's and therefore no good reason to stress the motor that much.


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

hello all

does anyone has ever opened it's motor (ac 31/50 or below) to see what's what inside?


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

80N541 said:


> hello all
> 
> does anyone has ever opened it's motor (ac 31/50 or below) to see what's what inside?


I'm pretty sure its the same as any other motor, bunch of little hamsters running in a cage, being zapped by electricity 

Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

80N541 said:


> hello all
> 
> does anyone has ever opened it's motor (ac 31/50 or below) to see what's what inside?


I opened my AC15 motor a few weeks ago. 

Blog post here:
http://blog.evfr.net/?p=305

More pictures here:
http://evfr.net/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=38










http://evfr.net/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=38


----------



## aktill (Jun 18, 2008)

I wouldn't advise it - I think you need to heat the case a bit or to use a press to get the endbells off. I accidentally loosened one of the screws that retains the bearing, and the the uncaptive nut fell off the back into the motor. Needed to take it to a motor shop to get the thing opened and the nut retrieved, since I couldn't get the endbell all the way off.

Worked out fine, since they needed to redrill my motor endbell to match the adaptor plate that had originally been ordered to suit an 8" motor.


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

dimitri said:


> I'm pretty sure its the same as any other motor, bunch of little hamsters running in a cage, being zapped by electricity


This may lead to shorts by carbon.
To be serious, their motors have internal air cooling, there must be airducts and heat exchange surfaces inside.

EDIT: Hmm can't see any ducting on pictures above.

Frodus: Could you state how fine stator laminations are?
BTW. There are no "field windings" in an induction motor, stator windings provide both "field" (excitation to the rotor) and torque producing components.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

yarross said:


> Frodus: Could you state how fine stator laminations are?
> BTW. There are no "field windings" in an induction motor, stator windings provide both "field" (excitation to the rotor) and torque producing components.


I forgot what they were called, brain fart.... I'll correct it. I'm used to the outer windings in motors on DC being called field.

I haven't (and doubt I will), measured the lamination thickness. I do know that the motors are standard motor parts from Leeson that have been rewound for different voltages.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Check out the new 2 seat Wheego Whip Life:
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10003...ill-be-first-to-market-with-an-affordable-ev/

I am fairly sure it uses the HPEVS AC50 or a variant by Leeson - says it is 60 HP. It has a 28kWh pack! Should give performance similar to the SwiftE, but significantly greater range of 80 miles or more. I think top speed of 67 mph is "governor" limited to prevent controller overheating, as 60 HP would give greater top speed for such a light car. Cost is $32k, $26k after tax credit.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Interesting that HPG is doing the assembly of the car. I assume that means installing the EV drive train and pack.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Flux Power doing the batteries http://www.fluxpwr.com/products.html
I think Flux has an ex-Aptera guy.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Interesting that HPG is doing the assembly of the car.


 Yeah, my impression is that they consist of two or three guys. Don't know how they plan to do hundreds of cars. Strange the article gave a link to their old website, Bill told me they don't use that one anymore. Yeah, I remember reading an Aptera guy is a key player in Flux. Interesting looking drive systems there. Looks like mainly vapor ware now though.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I checked with HPEVS to confirm they are involved with the Wheego Whip. Their response: "Yes we are. The NEV has the AC-31 and the highway speed version will have the AC-50." Guess they will be growing.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

According to HPEVS the highway-capable Wheego's top speed is limited because it has a single speed 8:1 gearing. That is a bit higher than 2nd gear in my Swift (7.16:1).


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2010)

*Cooling*

Cape Precision Machine 573-334-9620.

We're working on Speedster Part Duh. The Curtis 1238 controller has quite a lot of protection built in to limit current if either the motor or the controller gets too hot. 

Heat is always the limiting factor on these motors and controllers and Curtis has been famous in the past on earlier controllers for having a heat problem. Many of the reports of their reliability problems have really been all about heat and they recommend heat sinking the controller.

I'm assured by an actual driver of one of these, and by Bill at HPGC, that they really don't need much heat sink. I'm a little concerned about getting maximum performance from this system. IF the Curtis will actually DO 550 amps, I think 36 180Ah Sky Energy cells will actually do the 550 amps at about 105 volts. Thats 57750 watts. At 88%, that would be 50kw or 68 horsepower. The original 1957 Speedster 356A 1600 was a 66HP ICE engine. As we are a bit lighter with the fiberglass, and have a wider RPM range, this should be nicely and appropriately powered. 

But we need to get all of it.

I've done a couple of things you guys might be interested in and you can have them.

First, OUR motor doesn't have an aux tail shaft. It just has a flat encoder on the end of it. I drew up a 3/4 inch adapter that bolts onto the rear end of the motor. We then take a $14 Comair Rotron fan we got on eBay, 235CFM and mount that on this adapter. It blows air directly up the skirt of the motor and should do quite a bit to keep it cooler.

I'm told that the motors they are shipping now DO have an aux tail shaft. If you are ordering, you can still get them without the aux shaft, but you have to specificy that. 

I don't know how much he wants for it, but you could call Lucien at Cape Precision Machine and get one of these plates to do the same thing.

The other thing we're doing is liquid cooling of the controller. We are mounting the controller kind of high in the hump and I don't have a lot of space for fans and heatsinks. So we've designed a chill plate. This is two pieces of aluminum the size of the Curtis with a water channel milled into the opposing faces. When you bolt it all together, it makes about a 3/4 inch plate with two -6AN ports on it. You can pump water through it to remove heat.

Brain was NOT onboard this theory. But we bolted it together and put a cap on one flare fitting and hooked the other up to a garden hose. It held 55 psi water pressure fine. He reallydidn't understand how a little bit of water through there would remove heat. Water is about 3600 times more effective at heat transfer than air is. 

So I arranged a little demonstration for him. We pulled the cap, and ran water where it just jetted out the other port about six inches. A very modest flow. I then took a MAP torch and blew it on the center of the plate for five minutes. I took the torch away and immediately put my finger on the plate right where the torch had been. It was cool to the touch, and in fact at 58F. I had to do it three times before he would actually touch it to try it.

In any event, I think the last I heard Lucien said he would assemble them for $195. 

If you have room, a fan and a finned heat sink is a simpler system. But the mounting is always a problem. This is an easy mount and takes up 3/4 of an inch vertically. But then you have to have a pump, heat sink, fill tank, hoses, and all that. It can get to be $600-$700 pretty quickly. But your Curtis will never see 85C. And so it will never go into current limit on a thermal issue.

Jack Rickard
http://evtv.me


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Saw the video, chill plate looks very nice. Since I'm running 100ah SE's I don't want to see 550 amps for very long, so the controller cutback is part of my BMS  I do have room so I'm planning on a heatsink and fan for the controller, motor temps will determine if I need to do an external fan for it. I really like the included gauge that gives you temp readings for the motor and controller, as well as RPMs, voltage, and amps, though it would be nice to see them all at once. I figure once I get used to driving it most of that information will be unnecessary, just as with an ICE.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

*Re: Cooling*



> IF the Curtis will actually DO 550 amps


 I have a 500A shunt and can verify I have pegged it briefly at 500A when "floored" to test 0 to 60 mph time. I figure around 80% efficiency (0.9*0.9) for the motor and controller at best, but not during acceleration when slip is larger.


> I'm assured by an actual driver of one of these, and by Bill at HPGC, that they really don't need much heat sink.


 Did you get any details from Bill on this? All he would tell me is they use a "big" plate of aluminum. I asked for dimensions of the plate and temperature difference they see between controller and ambient at sustained 60 mph but he didn't respond. Also, how much air flow do they have across the plate? 
I have a 260 cfm fan I thought about mounting on the rear of the motor with an adapter plate, but so far I don't think it will be necessary. We will see if that changes this summer in 100+ temperatures. 


> I figure once I get used to driving it most of that information will be unnecessary, just as with an ICE.


 That is what I am finding. I do check controller temp when driving fairly long on the highway now that air temperature is getting warmer (I have a heatsink, 10" x 11" with 2.5" fins, but have been too busy with other things lately to remount the controller with it - it will fit with one or two 260 cfm fans on it), but mostly I only watch the current reading during acceleration. I like to keep it under 1 1/2C and can usually keep it below 1C (180Ah cells) and pace traffic. But more and more I find I just drive it and don't watch the gauges much because I know how to drive it now without pushing anything - just like accommodating to a "new to you" ice as you say. Even if I accelerate aggressively to pass someone when starting from a stop light I typically don't pull over about 2C. That is because most drivers typically don't accelerate at a high rate, not because the car drives like a Tesla. The faster ones do leave me and the rest behind.

Sounds like you are having lots of fun as usual Jack.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

*Re: Cooling*



tomofreno said:


> Did you get any details from Bill on this? All he would tell me is they use a "big" plate of aluminum. I asked for dimensions of the plate and temperature difference they see between controller and ambient at sustained 60 mph but he didn't respond. Also, how much air flow do they have across the plate?


I have my controller mounted on a 1/4x12x19in plate of aluminum, no fan, sitting over the motor. There should be good airflow while moving. I'll see how that does, then add a fan if needed, then some heatsink if more cooling is needed. After than, Jack's chill plate, or a heatpipe setup would be really cool, no pump or tank, but probably pretty expensive to find one large enough.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2010)

*Re: Cooling*



tomofreno said:


> I
> That is what I am finding. I do check controller temp when driving fairly long on the highway now that air temperature is getting warmer (I have a heatsink, 10" x 11" with 2.5" fins, but have been too busy with other things lately to remount the controller with it - it will fit with one or two 260 cfm fans on it), but mostly I only watch the current reading during acceleration. I like to keep it under 1 1/2C and can usually keep it below 1C (180Ah cells) and pace traffic. But more and more I find I just drive it and don't watch the gauges much because I know how to drive it now without pushing anything - just like accommodating to a "new to you" ice as you say. Even if I accelerate aggressively to pass someone when starting from a stop light I typically don't pull over about 2C. That is because most drivers typically don't accelerate at a high rate, not because the car drives like a Tesla. The faster ones do leave me and the rest behind.
> 
> Sounds like you are having lots of fun as usual Jack.


More fun some days than others. Welll that's the problem for me. They've gotten sufficiently good at this current limiting that it can be hard to tell it is HAPPENING at all. So I want to remove the heat as best I can under the assumption that it will then make the best power it can. I've been burned on this before. Actually it was on a low voltage cutoff I had set to high on the Kelly. I would start accelerating, the pack voltage would sag below the low voltage setting, and the controller would cut back. Since I'd never driven the car before, it felt like it was driving well, I just didn't have much in the way of acceleration. I did notice the voltages though, and though well, maybe I'll set that a little lower. Dropped it about 10 volts, and when I got in the car, I almost went through the fence when I stepped on it. I didn't expect it.

There's also a component life issue. Basically, that controller is all about an array of MOSFETS mounted on a heat sink. Everything else in the box is to intelligently control those switches. If you maintain the temperature, they do their rated current. And if you don't, they blow up. Curtis's current limit is designed to circumvent that I'm sure. But I think I can keep it at under 35-40C all the time for a few ducats more. And that should end the question.

I'm sure your fins and one such fan would be overkill. But it is awkward for me to mount that on the shelf where we're locating the controller.

Jack Rickard
http://EVTV.me


----------



## speedy6963 (Mar 2, 2010)

*Re: Cooling*

Low cost heatsink for those interested

http://www.heatsinkusa.com/storename/heatsinkusa/dept/263913/ItemDetail-10502834.aspx


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2010)

They sell the finned stuff by the foot on eBay for half of that. http://cgi.ebay.com/HEATSINK-ALUMIN...ultDomain_0?hash=item27b04f026e#ht_616wt_1167

Jack Rickard


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

jrickard said:


> They sell the finned stuff by the foot on eBay for half of that. http://cgi.ebay.com/HEATSINK-ALUMIN...ultDomain_0?hash=item27b04f026e#ht_616wt_1167
> 
> Jack Rickard


Not exactly. Your link shows 8.5"x12"x1" for $28 min bid and $11 shipping.
Heatskink USA shows 8.45"x12"x1 for $27, don't know the shipping but it should be the same. 
http://www.heatsinkusa.com/storename/heatsinkusa/ViewDept-263912.aspx
So basically the same price.


----------



## clonezero (Oct 16, 2009)

Does the *AC-50 *motor and the *Curtis Controller 1238-7501* have a high pitched squeal when they are under load? The *Curtis* *1231C* had this squeal and it is something I want to stay away from. Thanks.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

No it does not.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

clonezero said:


> Does the *AC-50 *motor and the *Curtis Controller 1238-7501* have a high pitched squeal when they are under load? The *Curtis* *1231C* had this squeal and it is something I want to stay away from. Thanks.


totally different types of controllers.....one is AC, one is DC.... the DC version reduces the PWM frequency to a lower number (i forget all the reasons) when the speed is low. Thats what causes the noise. AC doesn't have this problem, although you WILL hear some noise from just about any motor, its not exessive.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

*Re: Cooling*



jrickard said:


> More fun some days than others. Welll that's the problem for me. They've gotten sufficiently good at this current limiting that it can be hard to tell it is HAPPENING at all. So I want to remove the heat as best I can under the assumption that it will then make the best power it can. I've been burned on this before. Actually it was on a low voltage cutoff I had set to high on the Kelly. I would start accelerating, the pack voltage would sag below the low voltage setting, and the controller would cut back. Since I'd never driven the car before, it felt like it was driving well, I just didn't have much in the way of acceleration. I did notice the voltages though, and though well, maybe I'll set that a little lower. Dropped it about 10 volts, and when I got in the car, I almost went through the fence when I stepped on it. I didn't expect it.
> 
> There's also a component life issue. Basically, that controller is all about an array of MOSFETS mounted on a heat sink. Everything else in the box is to intelligently control those switches. If you maintain the temperature, they do their rated current. And if you don't, they blow up. Curtis's current limit is designed to circumvent that I'm sure. But I think I can keep it at under 35-40C all the time for a few ducats more. And that should end the question.
> 
> ...


Have you or anyone else heard if HPGC has had any luck finding a higher power/voltage controller for the AC50?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

*Re: Cooling*



> If someone measures cell voltages during the CV stage, they're likely to get a different view of the pack than if they check voltages 15 minutes after everything shuts down.


 Don't think so. I think they have their hands full with the Wheego.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Tom, have you or anyone else looked into running various gauges from the Curtis to display system information parameters at once? The reason I ask is this person is using the Curtis controller, two of them, and shows his instrumentation as follows:


> Speedometer
> Tachometer
> Main battery voltmeter
> 12V battery voltmeter
> ...


http://www.evalbum.com/1396


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Tom, have you or anyone else looked into running various gauges from the Curtis to display system information parameters at once?


 No. On the 1234-38 AC controllers the output to the Curtis 840 gauge is through a serial port. I would guess the software would need to be modified to simultaneously display the values on different gauges, but dunno.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

The "stock" program for these controllers require you to use the spylgass button to toggle between all of the 6 or so values. It doesn't put them out simultaneously. I might ask HPGC if they can send me a program that just spits them out all at the same time over the serial port. 

I know if you use canbus, it spits out just about all of the values you'd want, but that's a big project in itself.

We're working on this:
http://www.xenopi.com/?page_id=229

First step, serial connection, next step, canbus.


Does anyone know, is there any circuitry needed to use the serial pins on the curtis to communicate to a computer/display? I haven't tried yet.


----------



## Korben_Dallas (Feb 27, 2009)

HI Jacob,

in case you didn't find a solution until now I recommend the following site:
http://www.electro-vehicles.eu/shop/browse.asp?cat=60&path=47,60&tipoprod=AC_Induction_Motors

We are using the 25KW Motor together with the Curtis 1238 and the results are very good, indeed.

For higher voltage you could use the 30KW motor with a mes-dea tim600 controller.

Cheers, Christian]


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

This is what Roger said about his setup:


> I have a custom VCL program that outputs all the values I am interested in to different output PWM drivers that the 1238 has (driver 2-5, PV driver, digital out 1, and digital out 2). I then built a simple opto-isolator so those output drivers could drive the 12V instrumentation in my existing dashboard.


----------



## raymond.nl (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm a bit confused about the number for the HPG AC50. If the sustainable output is indeed only 15hp (11.4kW) I would be *very* surprised if one were able to maintain 75mph.

So either a) the HPG AC50 is not highway capable; b) it can sustain way more than 15hp; c) I just don't get it.

Anybody care to enlighten me?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Of course it depends on the vehicle, driving conditions, etc. but I think it's conservatively rated at 15 hp constant. That probably means it can do that all day long. The rating is all about cooling, if the motor stays cool it can put out much more hp. In a fairly aerodynamic vehicle and reasonable ambient temperatures I would think it should handle sustained 75mph. In a truck on a hot day going uphill probably not.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

I'm planning on using the AC-31 and 72volt lithium iron phosphate in a 700lb. reverse trike.I'm using an 8-1 toothed belt drive(no diff,trans) with a Honda limited slip differential front wheel drive.I'm mounting the motor ahead of the front axle and batteries behind the axle.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That should scoot pretty well. I wonder if the torque might drop off too early though with only 72 volts and a fixed ratio? Of course I guess that vehicle doesn't require much hp to keep moving.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hello JRP3. Since you're the resident expert on HPEV motors (ok, I'm nominating you), do you have any info on the AC-18 that Dave's selling here: http://currentevtech.com/Drive-Systems/Curtis-Motor-and-Controller-Kits/AC-18-p84.html?

It lists as an AC15, which HPEV says it's a ~23HP peak motor but Dave says it's 70HP peak and 8K RPM. Either that's a very short "peak" or I'm something else.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm not familiar with the AC18 but I don't think that HP figure could be accurate. They are listing more torque and HP than the AC50, something doesn't seem right.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

Now that it's summer, how are the finned/fan cooling systems working for the 1238 controllers?

Jack has shown on his speedster that cooling IS necessary (at least in his and my part of the country) this time of the year and his water cooling is doing the job.


----------



## aktill (Jun 18, 2008)

Hi folks,

If anyone's interested in an AC31/Curtis combo, I'm probably going to be selling mine in the near future ($1000 less than I paid, not including shipping). Not going to be able to finish my project (family commitments, so I had to buy a Smart instead), so this is brand new.

Just need to figure out how I'd ship things...

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RE Farmer said:


> Now that it's summer, how are the finned/fan cooling systems working for the 1238 controllers?
> 
> Jack has shown on his speedster that cooling IS necessary (at least in his and my part of the country) this time of the year and his water cooling is doing the job.


I think Tomofreno's finned heat sink and fan is doing the job for him in Arizona. My small fan and aluminum plate works, but not on long trips and hot days. Part of my problem is mid engine placement and mounting the controller right above the motor, so hot motor air goes right up to the controller. I'm going to try pulling air out of the motor compartment with a boat bilge blower and see what that does.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

I was planning on installing the controller where the ICE radiator was, with the fins facing towards the front. That way as the car speeds up (i.e. more current thru the controller), more air would flow across the fins rather than just relying on convection or powering a fan.


----------



## Powered By DC (Jan 3, 2009)

JRoque said:


> Hello JRP3. Since you're the resident expert on HPEV motors (ok, I'm nominating you), do you have any info on the AC-18 that Dave's selling here: http://currentevtech.com/Drive-Systems/Curtis-Motor-and-Controller-Kits/AC-18-p84.html?
> 
> It lists as an AC15, which HPEV says it's a ~23HP peak motor but Dave says it's 70HP peak and 8K RPM. Either that's a very short "peak" or I'm something else.
> 
> JR


It is a typo on my website, I will make sure to get it corrected. It should be up to 50 HP


Dave Kois
Current EV Tech, LLC
http://www.currentevtech.com
253-988-5020
Skype dkoisii


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RE Farmer said:


> I was planning on installing the controller where the ICE radiator was, with the fins facing towards the front. That way as the car speeds up (i.e. more current thru the controller), more air would flow across the fins rather than just relying on convection or powering a fan.


That might not work. I've had most of my heat issues after a longer trip when I slowed down for some stop and go and some low speed uphill where airflow was reduced. You might still need a fan.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Powered By DC said:


> It is a typo on my website, I will make sure to get it corrected. It should be up to 50 HP
> 
> 
> Dave Kois
> ...


It's really putting out the same HP and more torque than the AC 50 which is much bigger and twice the weight?


----------



## Powered By DC (Jan 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> It's really putting out the same HP and more torque than the AC 50 which is much bigger and twice the weight?


According to the specs I have it is capable of 48 HP and 95ft-lbs of torque.

The AC50 while it is more than twice as big and heavy uses the same controller and doesnt produce much more power at 50 HP and 115ft-lbs of torque. Obviously the AC50 can handle being run continuously longer in a bigger vehicle much better though because of its mass

Dave Kois
Current EV Tech, LLC
http://www.currentevtech.com
253-988-5020
Skype dkoisii


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Powered By DC said:


> The AC50 while it is more than twice as big and heavy uses the same controller and doesnt produce much more power at 50 HP and 115ft-lbs of torque. Obviously the AC50 can handle being run continuously longer in a bigger vehicle much better though because of its mass


And presumably the AC50 is controller limited. With a higher power controller, it could probably handle a fair bit more power.

It would be great if Curtis or someone else made a higher voltage controller, which would be a better match for the AC50 and other motors. But that doesn't seem to be happening.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. When I spoke with HPEV a few weeks back, they said Curtis has a prototype of a 144V controller but have been at that stage for over 6 months and have no clear ETA for delivery. Going from 108V to 144V doesn't seem to be buying much though. Curtis controllers seem good but I wish HPEV sold the motor alone at a reasonable price.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Even a 144V controller would be a big improvement and should allow the torque to be carried to a higher RPM. I spoke with a guy at Curtis and he said the problem is going to a higher voltage requires a complete redesign of the controller, not just an incremental improvement. If Tesseract and Qer would stop wasting their time on new versions of the Soliton they could do it 
I would think HPEV would sell just a motor, have you asked? You could then pay Reinheart motion about $8K for a custom inverter


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> ...If Tesseract and Qer would stop wasting their time on new versions of the Soliton they could do it ...


Knock it off, and wait quietly in line behind Big Sol. 





JRP3 said:


> ...I would think HPEV would sell just a motor, have you asked? You could then pay Reinheart motion about $8K for a custom inverter


Hmmm, I didn't even realize this was possible. I still frequently toy with my original idea of a parallel hybrid setup on my Honda. The current dream has an AC50 driving the rear wheels, and something similar to an A123 pack's power-to-weight ratio, but I haven't gotten serious enough about it to see if I can get the overall vehicle weight where I need it. Ideally, I would like to be able to tap into the Inhaler's pack for more range when towing it, but the different voltages (300 vs 108) promised to make that too complicated. If there is even the possibility of having a 300 volt inverter...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

toddshotrods said:


> Knock it off, and wait quietly in line behind Big Sol.


BigSol I'll wait behind, but Jr.?





> Hmmm, I didn't even realize this was possible. I still frequently toy with my original idea of a parallel hybrid setup on my Honda. The current dream has an AC50 driving the rear wheels, and something similar to an A123 pack's power-to-weight ratio, but I haven't gotten serious enough about it to see if I can get the overall vehicle weight where I need it. Ideally, I would like to be able to tap into the Inhaler's pack for more range when towing it, but the different voltages (300 vs 108) promised to make that too complicated. If there is even the possibility of having a 300 volt AC controller...


Might still be a problem since HPEV says their motors max out around 200Volts, though they may be able to do a custom winding for you. You should also take a look at the new motor candy that Dave has at www.currentEVtech.com


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> BigSol I'll wait behind, but Jr.?...


I'm peeking over the shoulders of the Jr line myself, waiting for Big Sol. How's the weather back there in the AC line? 






JRP3 said:


> ...Might still be a problem since HPEV says their motors max out around 200Volts, though they may be able to do a custom winding for you...


...and the price creeps!  I wouldn't mind but attempting to juggle two outrageously budgeted projects probably isn't wise.  I want to be able to stop working long enough to enjoy them sometimes. Even if I decide to do this it will be down the road somewhere, after the Inhaler at least has its main components. Maybe I'll just stick with the standard AC50 idea, and see if I can figure out a way to conveniently split the Inhaler's pack for towing. I really want it for climbing hills and creeping my way through city traffic (manual trans on the ICE). When not towing, I can use the AC50 for normal errands and run all electric, or idling ICE (power steering/power brakes/12-volt systems) worse case.





JRP3 said:


> ...You should also take a look at the new motor candy that Dave has at www.currentEVtech.com


Sending you a PM to not drag this thread too far off topic.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

toddshotrods said:


> I'm peeking over the shoulders of the Jr line myself, waiting for Big Sol. How's the weather back there in the AC line?


Cold and lonely


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Cold and lonely


Lol!  It's a little warmer up here, but there isn't much company.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> The AC50 while it is more than twice as big and heavy uses the same controller and doesnt produce much more power at 50 HP and 115ft-lbs of torque.


 The AC50 has only a bit over 90 ft-lb max torque. Bill of HPEVS told me they traded off max torque at lower rpm for more running torque - torque at higher rpm. That is why the AC50 has max torque out to higher rpm than the AC31, but the AC31 has a bit higher max torque - just under 100 ft-lb if I recall correctly. (JRP3?) You can also see the max torque of the AC50 is about 90 ft-lb from the Curtis dyno data on it. Various websites have erroneous info on these motors which gets propagated. I am running the AC50/Curtis controller at 115V nominal (3.2V/cell), which gives me the max torque out to around 4000 rpm. Much higher rpm than the dyno data, which was taken with a 96V pack of older lead acid cells which sagged. The AC31 works fine too, as JRP3 can attest. The AC50 has higher power at higher rpm due to the higher base speed, and the AC31 has a bit more at lower rpm due to the bit higher torque there. I think a controller that gave 700 A at 144 - 156V would would be great for these motors. 

The bldc's at Dave's site sure look interesting though. The main thing I like is the much higher constant power, due to the permanent magnet rotor generating much less heating.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

AC31 is supposed to have close to 115ft.lbs.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Tom, what's the highest battery current you've seen? I've hit about 550 for a few seconds.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> The AC50 has only a bit over 90 ft-lb max torque. Bill of HPEVS told me they traded off max torque at lower rpm for more running torque - torque at higher rpm. That is why the AC50 has max torque out to higher rpm than the AC31, but the AC31 has a bit higher max torque - just under 100 ft-lb if I recall correctly. (JRP3?) You can also see the max torque of the AC50 is about 90 ft-lb from the Curtis dyno data on it. Various websites have erroneous info on these motors which gets propagated. I am running the AC50/Curtis controller at 115V nominal (3.2V/cell), which gives me the max torque out to around 4000 rpm. Much higher rpm than the dyno data, which was taken with a 96V pack of older lead acid cells which sagged. The AC31 works fine too, as JRP3 can attest. The AC50 has higher power at higher rpm due to the higher base speed, and the AC31 has a bit more at lower rpm due to the bit higher torque there. I think a controller that gave 700 A at 144 - 156V would would be great for these motors.
> 
> The bldc's at Dave's site sure look interesting though. The main thing I like is the much higher constant power, due to the permanent magnet rotor generating much less heating.


Does your AC50 have dual shafts as it is drawn on the provided schematics?

wow, 90ftlbs all the way up to 4000rpm NICE!


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Tom, what's the highest battery current you've seen? I've hit about 550 for a few seconds.


 Same, only when I was testing 0 to 60 mph time. Thanks for the correction on the AC31 torque.

No, I didn't get it with double shafts Bowser, but could have. Bill asked me if I wanted single or double shaft.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> wow, 90ftlbs all the way up to 4000rpm NICE!


 That's why I think a 156V 700A controller would give good performance with this motor. The higher current would boost the max torque, and higher voltage would extend that out to higher rpm. The AC31 would have even higher torque, but lower base speed. But with the right gearing should do well, since base speed would be considerably higher than the 1800 rpm at 96V. Of course, if you try and run either motor at high power for very long they will overheat.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Same, only when I was testing 0 to 60 mph time.


Tesseract points out that 550amp limit should be RMS from the controller and we should see about 800 battery amps, but we don't. You might want to jump in on this thread discussing what could be done by EVnetics for an AC inverter: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/soliton-1-controller-p197593.html
Also, I sent you a PM.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> That's why I think a 156V 700A controller would give good performance with this motor. The higher current would boost the max torque, and higher voltage would extend that out to higher rpm. The AC31 would have even higher torque, but lower base speed. But with the right gearing should do well, since base speed would be considerably higher than the 1800 rpm at 96V. Of course, if you try and run either motor at high power for very long they will overheat.


In the AC-50 if you were able to use 156V it seems it would be able to hold the torque until 5000+rpm, in which case the 90ftlbs would be 90hp (@5252rpm)...

@ 200V or even 300V it would really get interesting....


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> @ 200V or even 300V it would really get interesting...


 I think you will be limited by motor overheating. Accelerating with high transient currents should be no problem, but cruising at 65-70 mph in say a 2500-3000 lb vehicle would likely require too much constant power from the motor. As you say, the motor/controller could deliver the power, but I think the motor will overheat in hot weather. The water cooled, as well as the BLDC motors, seem to have a real advantage there. You might do ok with a 300-400 cfm blower blowing into the motor.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I think you will be limited by motor overheating. Accelerating with high transient currents should be no problem, but cruising at 65-70 mph in say a 2500-3000 lb vehicle would likely require too much constant power from the motor. As you say, the motor/controller could deliver the power, but I think the motor will overheat in hot weather. The water cooled, as well as the BLDC motors, seem to have a real advantage there. You might do ok with a 300-400 cfm blower blowing into the motor.


wait, so youre saying that we aren't able to use the AC50 for cruising at highway speeds? Maybe Im not understanding...

I would think, if it were wound for higher voltage, say 200V, then less amperage would be needed, thus less heat, to sustain a cruising speed vs. a 115V setup...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I think you will be limited by motor overheating. Accelerating with high transient currents should be no problem, but cruising at 65-70 mph in say a 2500-3000 lb vehicle would likely require too much constant power from the motor.


Have you seen high motor temps in your setup? You probably deal with hotter temperatures than I do most of the time but I've never had heat issues with the motor, just the controller. I assume the class H insulation in the motor would be the limiting factor, and that's good for 180C or 350F.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hello.



> but cruising at 65-70 mph in say a 2500-3000 lb vehicle would likely require too much constant power from the motor


Does sustaining 70 MPH require more than the ~90HP in the previous calculation? With the AC50 being rated at 200V you'd think it would run comfortably at 156V. Also, if traveling at 70 MPH, you will likely get the equivalent of 540 CFM air flow on the motor.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sustained speeds around 65mph should take around 30hp I think, depending on vehicle shape of course, so it shouldn't be a problem for the motor.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> wait, so your saying that we aren't able to use the AC50 for cruising at highway speeds? Maybe Im not understanding...


 You aren't understanding because I wasn't making sense. Yeah, it will cruise at 65 mph no problem, I've done that, and motor and controller remained below 55C with 90 F outside temp. I was thinking about a 700A/156V controller, and that if you poured all that power into the motor for very long it would overheat. Of course you would be going much faster than 65-70 mph if you did that. And I agree, if you went with 200V, currents would be lower at a given speed, and motor heating would be less. Sorry for the confusion.

JRP3, the label on my motor says Temp: 120 C. Highest I have had it is about 65 C on a 100 F day when it was stopped after driving - was at 61 C just prior to stopping. It gets hottest if you run it hard then stop, since it then doesn't have the internal fan or any air flow to cool it.

I must admit, I tend to worry and baby my motor/controller/cells, because I want them to last. For months I thought no way I could drive it up the 4500 ft change in elevation to Mt. Rose Summit without the controller or cells overheating. Then I did it and found it was no big deal for them. The motor and controller didn't heat up much more than normal, and the cells only increased about 2-3 F in temperature. It used around 170 A average for around 25 minutes. I expected it to use more like 250A average - it did get up that high in places, but only for a few minutes at a time. Such a joy to come down using electric braking only, just easing the throttle pedal up and down to slow to go through the switchbacks (hairpin turns) and accelerate again. I've done it several times since then.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

One thing to keep in mind is these motors are wound for lower voltage, so they require more current to generate their max torque. That is why I suggested a higher current controller - to get more torque for higher acceleration. If you run at 200V you would have lower battery pack currents, but motor currents must be the same to get the same torque. The cells would stay cooler, but the motor should heat about the same. I'm sure you could have them rewound for 200V.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> JRP3, the label on my motor says Temp: 120 C.


I wonder what's in there that would be more temperature sensitive than the insulation?


> Highest I have had it is about 65 C on a 100 F day when it was stopped after driving - was at 61 C just prior to stopping. It gets hottest if you run it hard then stop, since it then doesn't have the internal fan or any air flow to cool it.


I think an external fan similar to what Jack used would be a good idea if using a higher power controller. I've also wondered about winding copper tubing around the motor for some water cooling if necessary.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I'm sure you could have them rewound for 200V.


HPEVS told me the motors are good to 200 volts now, but they can rewind them for any voltage.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> HPEVS told me the motors are good to 200 volts now, but they can rewind them for any voltage.


 I was thinking rewind them with more turns so you get more torque with less amps, with the impedance appropriate for the higher voltage and current/torque desired. That way you can run them with less current to try to reduce heating. But seems at this point it would be cheaper to buy a BLDC from Dave than rewind a motor and get a special controller.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes the 80KW BLDC he's carrying looks interesting, the 120KW seems rather heavy for the power level.
The only way I see a HPEVs rewind being practical is if they get together with EVnetics and design a motor in conjunction with a higher voltage controller.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

> The only way I see a HPEVs rewind being practical is if they get together with EVnetics and design a motor in conjunction with a higher voltage controller.


Maybe. But most modern AC drives can adapt to a variety of motors automatically by spinning them a couple of times while measuring the motor characteristics. I have a $300 VFD in the garage that does that and every other one in that family of drives to 150 HP does as well. IMHO it would be great if EVnetics can do the same and not necessarily tie their drive to anyone motor.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm not suggesting that EVnetics tie their drive to one motor, nor do I think they will. I was just commenting on the practicality of an HPEVs rewind being cost effective on a large scale where it can be matched up with an appropriate inverter. Their current line is wound to get the most from the Curtis because that's all that is available, but it's not ideal for what EVnetics will likely produce.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

OK I see. With EVnetics having a suitable controller, it might incentivize HPEV to come up with a new motor, that makes sense. It's true that both the times that I've spoken with HPEV, they've said "we're waiting for Curtis".

JRP, you've mentioned that you get about a 50 mile range with your AC50 and ~120V/100Ah pack. I've seen others claim 100 mile range with a similar setup. Is that due to your local terrain or over excitement from the other guys you think? Are you running any accessories that might be reducing your range or 50 miles is pretty much what you get out of that size pack?

JR


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> ... the label on my motor says Temp: 120 C. Highest I have had it is about 65 C on a 100 F day when it was stopped after driving - was at 61 C just prior to stopping. It gets hottest if you run it hard then stop, since it then doesn't have the internal fan or any air flow to cool it.
> 
> I must admit, I tend to worry and baby my motor/controller/cells, because I want them to last.


Tomofreno: I don't recall from your build thread, but are you running any supplemental cooling (added finnned heat sinks/fans) on your controller? Like you, I want to make my hardware/cells last. Keeping the IGBTs in the controller cool seems to be most important for longevity. That's why I started asking for temp data from people now that we should have some good data on summer drives. 

Jack has gone to water cooling (more costly and complicated) while others are running just the stock heat sink. I was trying to compare notes and hopefully get by with just some finned sinks. It sounds like a fan may be needed for slow climbs and immediately after coming to a stop after a high current draw event.

JRogue: Unfortunately, I don't have real world data yet, but I'm estimating 50 mile range with a 12kWhr pack, like JRP3, based on Wh/mi. numbers others are getting with similar cars to mine. If I'm lucky, I might get a little better since I'm working very hard to keep my completed weight down (under 1800# where others are running ~2200#)



JRoque said:


> JRP, you've mentioned that you get about a 50 mile range with your AC50 and ~120V/100Ah pack. I've seen others claim 100 mile range with a similar setup. Is that due to your local terrain or over excitement from the other guys you think? Are you running any accessories that might be reducing your range or 50 miles is pretty much what you get out of that size pack?
> 
> JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

JRoque said:


> JRP, you've mentioned that you get about a 50 mile range with your AC50 and ~120V/100Ah pack. I've seen others claim 100 mile range with a similar setup.


Are you sure? a 12,000 wh pack getting 100 miles means you are doing an average of 120 wh/mi, most conversions don't even get twice that. I'd like to see documentation of anyone making those claims. Nissan's Leaf gets 100 miles from a 24kwh pack I think.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RE Farmer said:


> Tomofreno: I don't recall from your build thread, but are you running any supplemental cooling (added finnned heat sinks/fans) on your controller?


He's running a finned heat sink and a fan. I'm using just a 1/4 inch plate and a small fan, which is not enough. I need more fan on hot days, might need a finned sink too.


> Like you, I want to make my hardware/cells last. Keeping the IGBTs in the controller cool seems to be most important for longevity.


Mosfets I think in the Curtis.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Some interesting news from HEVS:



> Right now we are completely revamping the generic system software and including BMS master control as well as brake lights [activated by regen]. You will be able to pick and choose which features you want to activate. Should be ready by December.


Comment in brackets added by me.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Grrr.. I hate these movies with all the suspense.... BMS? on the Curtis? As in battery management? Did they say if the EEPROM update applies to all versions of the 1238-7501 controller? It's sure nice to see them working on the microcode... hopefully they're also working on the higher volt version to deliver around the same time.

JR


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Nissan's Leaf gets 100 miles from a 24kwh pack I think.


 And that is under the EPA test conditions. Range at highway speeds will be substantially lower than this. Many of the range numbers on evalbum seem to be wags - wild ass guesses.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> BMS? on the Curtis? As in battery management?


 I recall Bill telling me early this year when I was looking for a BMS that they were planning to use the motor controller as the master controller for a battery management system. My guess is they are doing this stuff for the Wheego Whip LiFe, and plan to make some of it available in products they offer to diyers. We probably won't learn much more about it until December or later. I'm sure all their focus is on getting the WWLiFe out now.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

JRoque said:


> hopefully they're also working on the higher volt version to deliver around the same time.
> 
> JR


I doubt it will be from Curtis as it would take a total redesign of the controller from what I've been told by a Curtis employee.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

I have a question regarding the rotation direction for HPEV motors. No one has talked about the direction so I assume that changing direction is just a matter of reversing the U & W leads?


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

RE Farmer said:


> I have a question regarding the rotation direction for HPEV motors. No one has talked about the direction so I assume that changing direction is just a matter of reversing the U & W leads?


As long as fan is direction-insensitive, all ac motors can be run in any direction.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

They can be switched in either direction through the controller, not the three phase wiring. You can do this with a switch in place of mechanical reverse as well. Forward wiring is +12v Red wire from pin 25 to white wire pin 22. Reverse is to yellow wire pin 33. 
I'm not sure if the fan is directionally dependent, might need to check with HEPVS on that.


----------



## thingstodo (Jul 16, 2010)

toddshotrods said:


> Hmmm, I didn't even realize this was possible. I still frequently toy with my original idea of a parallel hybrid setup on my Honda. The current dream has an AC50 driving the rear wheels, and something similar to an A123 pack's power-to-weight ratio, but I haven't gotten serious enough about it to see if I can get the overall vehicle weight where I need it. Ideally, I would like to be able to tap into the Inhaler's pack for more range when towing it, but the different voltages (300 vs 108) promised to make that too complicated. If there is even the possibility of having a 300 volt inverter...


Something you might be interested in ...

I have not seen a DC/DC converter in this range, but I run a surplus 5 HP 208V three phase VFD from a 300V (or so) battery pack. 

The VFD outputs an pulsed AC wave, but it is easily converted to DC with a three phase diode bridge and a couple of capacitors. There is some AC ripple on top of the DC, but my batteries don't seem to mind 

In simple Volts/Hertz output I can vary the output voltage from about 50VDC to around 280 VDC. 

Since the VFD is also changing the frequency when it changes the output voltage, the voltage is not as 'clean' below 50 VDC.

I use a 4 - 20 mA signal to the VFD to set the voltage output, sort of a programmable power supply.

Just a thought this might help ...

thingstodo


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

thingstodo said:


> Something you might be interested in ...
> 
> I have not seen a DC/DC converter in this range, but I run a surplus 5 HP 208V three phase VFD from a 300V (or so) battery pack.
> 
> ...


It helps me understand that you're saying there's a possible way it can work. Beyond that you just went way over my head!  I've spent the overwhelming majority of my time as gestating EV'er learning about making a simple series DC go fast. I have decided to give the project a fighting chance (thread in my signature) so I will keep trying to understand what the heck you're talking about as I work on plans for it.


----------



## thingstodo (Jul 16, 2010)

toddshotrods said:


> It helps me understand that you're saying there's a possible way it can work. ... so I will keep trying to understand what the heck you're talking about as I work on plans for it.


Hi again,

Sorry about that. I'm a techie at heart. Let me try that again.

A VFD can be used to drop the voltage from it's DC bus voltage (which would be the 300V battery pack you talked about) to a lower voltage, similar to a DC to DC converter. 

The VFD sends out pulses at between 2000 and 4000 hz. The amount of time between the pulses lets the voltage 'average' to an lower voltage, but it's AC.

If you connect that three phase AC through diodes, a pack of 6 diodes that's referred to as a diode bridge, out of the diode bridge you get a positive and a negative terminal that can be connected to your secondary battery pack.

To filter the output of the diode bridge, since it is not nice smooth DC, a filter can be connected across the positive and negative terminals. I don't use a filter when charging my 48V battery banks from the VFD. I charge two banks in series so that the VFD voltage is stable.

VFDs of various sizes can be purchased surplus or used from many sources - ebay, auctions, even craig's list. Just make sure that the rated output current is high enough for your application. The 208VAC VFD I have fits well into the 300 VDC range, so that's why I suggested it. My 5 HP VFD is rated for 17A. Multiply by 1.73 for three phase versus DC. It's just under 30A.

I've used my VFD as a DC power supply and in my testing, I found that it does not work well below 50VDC. The range does not quite go up to 300 VDC when I have a 300V battery pack. It only goes up to about 290VDC.

Hope this explanation was a bit easier to follow.

I guess it does boil down to - yes, it's possible, and it doesn't have to be expensive.

thingstodo


----------



## DawidvC (Feb 14, 2010)

To get a bit better response at lower voltages, tell your VFD that the nominal motor voltage at 50 Hz is Vdc(required)/1.73. That way it will generate the desired voltage with high enough frequency that you do not have to go overboard with filters to get it to work. This would allow you to generate really low voltages.

I like your idea - this is really a bit of lateral thinking. Thanks for the tip

Dawid


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

thingstodo said:


> Hi again,
> 
> Sorry about that. I'm a techie at heart. Let me try that again...
> 
> ...


So you speak English too!  Seriously, thanks for the idea and for breaking it down far enough for me to get a grip. I like it. The other option was to physically change the wiring on the high-voltage sub-packs and try to get it all to match - just for towing, then put it back. This is much better and adjustable, allowing me to increase the size of the second pack later.


----------



## thingstodo (Jul 16, 2010)

DawidvC said:


> To get a bit better response at lower voltages, tell your VFD that the nominal motor voltage at 50 Hz is Vdc(required)/1.73. That way it will generate the desired voltage with high enough frequency that you do not have to go overboard with filters to get it to work. This would allow you to generate really low voltages.
> 
> I like your idea - this is really a bit of lateral thinking. Thanks for the tip
> 
> Dawid


I will try changing the nominal speed to 50 and see if that helps on the low end.

The boost is required to get an actual motor running, but makes the low end voltage regulation worse

The lateral thinking is not mine - just passing on the tips of those more creative than I 

Thingstodo


----------



## helluvaengineer96 (Oct 8, 2010)

*Poll​* 
How many of you program your own Curtis controllers for your AC motors?
Any issues?
Did you goto a class offered by Curtis?
What did you pay for the SW to talk to the Curtis?
Prefer the Handheld programmer over PC?


I ask because I just ordered the AC50/Curtis combo.. And they need to know battery ect to program it. They also indicated it was not a great idea for end users to program since it has ended with many sad users with blown up controllers.

Right now I am down to 96V lead-acid or 112V Li for the power plant.
Ordering the Curtis water cooler.

I definitely want to program the sucker, been writing assembly and C++ for over 20 years (wow getting old).


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I had my AC31 programmed by HPEVS with their standard setup for max voltage. I then rented a hand held programmer because I didn't like some of the settings, weak accleration and weak regen. It's very easy to use the programmer, good idea to download the Curtis manual and look over the available parameters and what they do. Many of them don't apply to an EV, (pump control and such). These controllers seem to have enough safety features built in that I'm not sure you could change parameters in such a way that would damage the controller. Tomofreno got the VCL software and cable to program his controller, I'm not sure which is better but I'd like to try the software myself.


----------



## Korben_Dallas (Feb 27, 2009)

I think the PC interface and the handheld are basically the same. I don't think you get VCL as part of the PC interface. Programming with VCL is more about configuring switches and digging deeper into CANbus integration. I'd like to test VCL too.
We did get overvoltage alarms with lead-acid very often, but never with LiFePo4. I didn't test the controller with 34 or 36 cells, though.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I see, my mistake.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Specs for Wheego Whip LiFe are here:
http://wheego.net/more/vehicles/specs/
They state the nominal power of the AC50 at 20 H.P., and peak with their 115V pack as 60 H.P. From my one year experience at using one I think the 20 is more realistic than the 15 H.P. on the motor label. They also give the max rpm as 8500! The top speed is 65 mph, because it is direct drive, and motor rpm is limited by the controller.They us 36 260Ah cells, which from my experience should easily give it the spec'ed 100 mile range. For those unaware, the drive system is supplied by HPEVS.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I thought I remembered HEPVS telling me their motors were good to 10K so 8.5K should be fine though there isn't much power with the existing voltage limit. I've toyed with the idea of bumping mine to 7500 to see what happens, I'm sure I will once I get programming access again.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I thought I remembered HEPVS telling me their motors were good to 10K so 8.5K should be fine though there isn't much power with the existing voltage limit. I've toyed with the idea of bumping mine to 7500 to see what happens, I'm sure I will once I get programming access again.


Let us know, I've been curious about this. Since you (and I think Tom) have said that you could live with mostly using a single gear with the AC50/1238-7501 combo. If the rumors of Curtis building a higher voltage AC controller aren't vaporware, I wouldn't mind going direct drive into an appropriate sized differential with a max speed of at least 85mph.

JRP3, Does it have the power to pass someone on a 2-lane highway going highway speeds at high RPM or do you shift to the next gear normally?

I don't have steep hills to deal with but would prefer the power to pass, what RPM would you put 60 miles per hour at if you wanted to maintain reasonable acceleration but have power leftover to pass with your AC31?

Edit: Final comment/question removed


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I've never been on a highway with it so I'm not sure, most of my driving is at 55 or less. I did take it up to about 75 I think in third. Tom would probably have better information. If you want good highway passing ability I don't know if you can get it with a single speed setup. I can live with gearing for a 70 mph top speed, I think you'd give up too much on the bottom if you went for 85, unless the higher voltage controller becomes available. Depends on the vehicle of course. Also larger cells than my 100's would sag less under load so that would help as well.
I haven't done an accurate 0-60 test but I think it's around 15-16 seconds, but 0-35, (in first), is really quick. I agree that 10 seconds is good acceleration, maybe I've been misinformed but the Insight owner I last spoke to said he had to be really careful pulling out into traffic. Maybe there's something wrong with his car. I certainly don't have those fears. Of course I'm not pulling into 80mph traffic flow either.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I emailed HPEVS to confirm there was no issue with reprogramming mine to higher rpm. I hit a bit over 6300 rpm at 55 mph in 2nd gear, depending on slip, but there is still enough power to give more than adequate acceleration. I would like to be able to run up to about 65 mph in 2nd, then I would very rarely have to use third gear. I'll let you know what they respond. Another benefit, as you know, is the motor runs significantly cooler at higher rpm in the summer, due to more cooling from the internal fan I assume.



> I can live with gearing for a 70 mph top speed, I think you'd give up too much on the bottom if you went for 85, unless the higher voltage controller becomes available.


 Yeah, that would be the issue. My acceleration from a stop would be too slow in some cases (like pulling out in faster traffic) if I used only second gear. I have to use first for that, but second is fine in most cases when starting up from a stop light in traffic, since most people don't accelerate that fast. First gear is 13.45:1 and second is 7.16:1 (including rear end). I hit 6500 rpm in first at a bit over 30 mph (13" tires). 

MN, I think it will be difficult to hit 85 mph and have good passing acceleration at 60 with direct drive, maybe doable if the vehicle is like 1800 lb or less (Edit: Of course it depends on how fast you want to pass. You won't blow off any doors). I would think it would be doable if the controller max voltage was around 160. If HPEVS says it is ok to increase my rpm to 8500 I'll report back here on top speed in second gear and passing ability at 60 mph in second. I expect, like JRP3 said, power is going to fall off quite a bit over around 7000 rpm. Edit: I estimate 9168 rpm at 80 mph in second gear, so I couldn't get to 85 in that gear.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

According to my spreadsheet for the AC50 at 115V, I hit 6303 rpm at 55 mph, which agrees very well with what I see. At that speed I estimate 33 H.P. available motor shaft power. I estimate 6876 rpm at 60 mph, and about 29 available H.P., and 8022 rpm at 70 mph, and about 33 available H.P. Why does available or max power go up at higher rpm? Because of error in the fit of a second order regression equation to the dyno data from HPEVS/Curtis for motor torque versus rpm. So my best guess is there should be around 30 +/- "a few" H.P. at 60 to 70 mph. Estimated available wheel torque at 60 and 70 mph is 143 and 138 ft-lb respectively. How fast you can pass at that speed range depends of course on drag force and rolling resistance force for your vehicle, but like I said, you won't be blowing doors off. For my car I estimate available acceleration at 1.6 mph/sec, 0.5, and 0.3, at 50, 60, and 70 mph - not a lot. In third gear (4.85:1 overall), estimated available motor shaft power is 49 and 41 H.P. respectively at 60 and 70 mph, and estimated available wheel torque is 244 and 171 ft-lb, so you gain torque and power at the wheels by going to 3rd.

Edit: In 4th gear (3.45:1 overall) at 60 and 70 mph estimated motor rpm is 3313 and 3866, estimated available wheel torque is 279 ft-lb (have max motor torque in both cases) and estimated available motor shaft power is 57 and 66 H.P. respectively. So you also gain in going to 4th according to these calculations, but I haven't done a comparison in driving in 3rd and 4th to see if experience jives with these results. I'll try it.

Edit: I looked at using a 49 cell 156V pack. I assumed it sagged to 3V/cell or about 147V during acceleration. This is 147/84 - 1.75 higher than the sagged pack voltage in the dyno data (96V pack, sagged to 84), so I took the data above base speed, or knee of the curve, at about 3000 rpm and shifted it out to 1.75*3000 = 5250 rpm. This assumes that motor torque is limited by current, so as long as the controller can supply enough voltage to push its max rated current through the motor, you get full torque. With the higher voltage it should do this out to about 5250 rpm. Torque then falls off with current as input voltage to the motor starts dropping beyond this. I assumed the fall of is the same as it is above 3000 rpm with the 96V pack. Based on this, you get about 89 H.P. all the way out to 5250 rpm, 44 ft-lb motor torque and 59 H.P. at 7000 rpm, and 28 ft-lb motor torque and 43 H.P. at 8000 rpm. You would still be limited in acceleration in a gear ratio like my 2nd gear, since max torque is still the same. Would have to increase max current of the controller to improve that. And it still wouldn't get to 85 mph in my 2nd gear. In order to do that, and have good acceleration from a stop, you would have to increase the gear ratio a bit above my second gear, and have considerably higher max controller current to give the torque required for good acceleration from a stop with that higher gear ratio - at least with my car weight.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I did a test comparing acceleration in 3rd and 4th gears. I accelerated (floored it) from 60 to 70 mph. It took 7 seconds in 3rd and 9 seconds in 4th, or about 1.4 mph/sec and 1.1 mph/sec respectively. I hit max current almost immediately in 3rd, whereas it took a few seconds to "wind up" in 4th. But once I hit max current in 4th, the acceleration felt stronger than in 3rd - acceleration was significantly stronger at 70 than at 65. Whether that is enough acceleration of course depends on what you desire. I felt I was passing cars fairly quickly.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I did a "sanity check" with the above 60 to 70 mph data. The change in vehicle kinetic energy is one half the mass times the difference in the squares of the speeds. Vehicle mass is about 1022 kg, which gives 141,506 Joule or Watt-sec. Dividing by 7 seconds (data for 3rd gear) gives 20,215 W, or about 27 H.P. Of course this is added on top of the power required to move the car at 60 mph, which I estimated in my spreadsheet as about 19 H.P. So that says the power to the wheels was about 46 H.P. average over that speed range. The estimate of motor available power in my spreadsheet based on the AC50 dyno data is 49 H.P at 60 mph and 41 H.P. at 70, so about 45 average (that is with 115V nominal pack, not 96V). There are some drive train losses in there which would make the estimated power to the wheels maybe 10% lower, or around 40 H.P., but it passes the sanity check.

In 2nd gear (overall 7.16:1 gearing) I estimate about 33 H.P. available at 60 mph. Not enough to do any passing unless you have lots of time, but enough to cruise on flat or rolling highway. Problem is, that is at about 6880 motor rpm, and the Max_Speed controller parameter is set at 6500 rpm. I plan to increase the Max_speed parameter to 7500 rpm so I can go up to about 65 mph in 2nd, but want to confirm with HPEVS first. Don't see much to be gained with my car by setting it to 8000. The Curtis manual gives 3 constraints on max speed: 

1) 36,000/# poles
2) 600,000/encoder cpr
3) 8000 rpm set in firmware

I think the AC50 is 4 pole, so (1) gives 9000 rpm. I don't know what encoder is used. I would guess maybe 64 cpr, which would give over 9000 rpm, but I'll wait for a response from HPEVS. With the increase I could do almost all my driving in 2nd gear, except for pulling out fast in traffic, and when I want to go faster than 65 mph - and the motor stays cooler at the higher rpms.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Reading this article on the new Wheego http://green.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/la-2010-driving-the-wheego-whip-life-the-electric-car-from-an/ 
I found this interesting tidbit:


> The LiFe has three transmission modes: normal, sport (which bumps the motor controller to work at 650 amps instead of 550, which in turn raises the 0-30 acceleration rate by around 25 percent) and eco mode that extends range.


So how are they getting the Curtis to hit 650 amps, or do they already have the rumored newer higher amp unit?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> So how are they getting the Curtis to hit 650 amps, or do they already have the rumored newer higher amp unit?


 HPEVS says they have 3 prototypes of this new Curtis controller. It is higher current only. They have been pushing Curtis for a 144V/650A/90 H.P. controller, but so far it is only on paper. They wish they had it now. They are setting up all their cars with packs that charge to about 128-129V now.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> They are setting up all their cars with packs that charge to about 128-129V now.


With the existing controller voltage limit? I guess if they limit regen and use larger amp hour cells voltage rise might not be too high


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> With the existing controller voltage limit?


 Yes. If they use 36 cells as in the Wheego LiFe, and charge them to 3.55V/cell that is 128V assuming they top balance, and about 122V or less rest. They likely just set the User_Overvoltage to a percentage of 133% (~128V) or slightly less, so you get no regen if you start off down a hill initially after full charge. After driving a quarter mile or so on flat or uphill regen would no longer be limited unless you then went down a long hill.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Of course, I never charge that high so didn't even consider the obvious


----------



## 80N541 (Jan 11, 2009)

Hello all, how are you? long time no see.

I wish you a mery christmas

I've got a question about the regen of the 31/50.
How much did you get? I know someone who bought the ac50, and it get only 15A in regen, even changing the parameter with the console.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That doesn't sound right at all. Even with the weak stock settings I think I was getting over 100 amps, I increased it to 40% and now can get over 200 amps and usually get between 50-150 amps in most situations. I'm running the AC31. What parameter did they change?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Click on the "current" curve at the link below. Positive values are regen. The data is from the AC50.

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=208326&postcount=618


Are you adjusting the Neutral_Braking parameter under Torque Mode Menu/Response? That is what you want for regen. Mine arrived set at about 10%. I adjusted it to 55%. That was the setting when the above data was taken. You can also refine/tailor further it so it limits regen power differently at different motor speeds (rpm) if you like using the Regen Limiting Map under the Current Limits Menu.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The new 650 amp Curtis is now available: http://www.evparts.com/products/str...8-to-96-volt-street-vehicle-motors/mt5615.htm


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

New place to rent a 1311 hand held programmer for $30/month plus $15 shipping: http://cgi.ebay.com/Curtis-Handset-Model-1311-4401-Rent-Per-Month-/120689169236


----------



## helluvaengineer96 (Oct 8, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> The new 650 amp Curtis is now available: http://www.evparts.com/products/str...8-to-96-volt-street-vehicle-motors/mt5615.htm



JRP,
Thanks for link. 
I though Curtis has been shipping the 1238-8501 for a while now? 
I got one about 6 months ago.... hold it... I got a 7501.. But I thought its max current limit was already around 600 amps.. OK. looks like the 7501 is 550 amps....
Wonder what the HP and torque gains are? ev-parts just has the same numbers for the 7501 with the AC50.



BTW, my project has been put on hold due to work, but I made some progress in the last week. 

Here are a few pictures of the mount I came up with for the motor side. Note the ~ 1" gap between the motor and the bracket. I added a 2nd location to reduce any torque on the single bold and added nuts to keep the bolts from sliding. not sure how effective this will be. Thought about extending the engine cradles support bracket but got lazy.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I had a similar mounting system but found that the torque made the motor rock back and forth too much under load and had to add a torque arm.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

650 amps, Nice! It feels like we've been waiting forever for it since we first heard the rumors.
Thanks for the programmer rental information too.
JRP3, What voltage do your Sky Energy 100Ah cells sag to at about 5C? I'm thinking of going with 130Ah cells if I go with the Curtis 1238-8501/AC50 combo. I'm trying to keep the weight down since my conversion will be with a lightweight vehicle with good aero and range requirements aren't too high but I'd like to avoid pushing more than 5C for brief periods but am not sure what to expect for sag.
This data might be helpful for me and anyone who might be interested in running the HPEVS system. I'm curious about voltage sag so I can figure the volts*amps=power but without a figure including voltage sag I can't accurate calculate a good guess on power. I figure 5C on the 100Ah cells(500 amps) and 5C on the 130Ah cells(650 amps) would be similar enough to build a comparison.


----------



## helluvaengineer96 (Oct 8, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> I had a similar mounting system but found that the torque made the motor rock back and forth too much under load and had to add a torque arm.


I've been picturing extending the dog bone to reach the motor, is that what you did?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Its not a 1238-8501.... They must've settled on a naming convention. My controller is a 1238-7501, but I guess they've revised it and its a 1238R-7501?

The new 650A controller is a 1238R-7601

http://www.curtisinstruments.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=cProducts.DownloadPDF&file=50175%5F1238R%5FRevD2%2Epdf


----------



## helluvaengineer96 (Oct 8, 2010)

frodus said:


> Its not a 1238-8501.... They must've settled on a naming convention. My controller is a 1238-7501, but I guess they've revised it and its a 1238R-7501?
> 
> The new 650A controller is a 1238R-7601
> 
> http://www.curtisinstruments.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=cProducts.DownloadPDF&file=50175%5F1238R%5FRevD2%2Epdf


Yup that's what I am guessing as well from the datasheet on Curtis website...
Wish they had a HP/torque curve.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

helluvaengineer96 said:


> I've been picturing extending the dog bone to reach the motor, is that what you did?


Actually I moved it to the transmission end and tied it into the driver side hood hinge bracket.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

MN Driver said:


> JRP3, What voltage do your Sky Energy 100Ah cells sag to at about 5C? I'm thinking of going with 130Ah cells if I go with the Curtis 1238-8501/AC50 combo.


I haven't driven the car in a few months and don't remember the data, usually when I'm pulling high amps I'm looking at the amp gauge and not the voltage.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

*Re: HPEV AC30/31/50 Wholesale to members w/new 650A controller*

Just want to let everybody know that the 650A Curtis Controller is now being shipped for the AC30/31/50 motors. contact [email protected] for more info


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. I know they need to differentiate between their old and new products in terms of pricing but slapping newer, more efficient MOSFETs in place of the older ones and jacking up the price by ~$370 doesn't feel right from my frugal consumer point of view. Perhaps a price drop of existing older technology controllers would have been a better move to get those old ones out and start promoting the better one. Not everyone will be able to extract that much amperage at that volt level without major sagging. 

Truth be told, I'm whining because I want a >144V version of this package NOW!

JR


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

If you are talking about the Curtis controller rated at 650a replacing the 500a for the AC motors the cost differance to you is only $100.00. Also you will find that putting the extra AH at 130 volt instead of less at 144v, you will have a longer range.


----------



## helluvaengineer96 (Oct 8, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> I haven't driven the car in a few months and don't remember the data, usually when I'm pulling high amps I'm looking at the amp gauge and not the voltage.


Hmmm interesting. When you mentioned the torquing issue I pictured the transmission mounts holding and the motor flailing a little. 

So the transmission mounts were allowing the transmission housing to torque?.?... 

I'll have to keep this in mind. Tho I wonder if I might avoid the problem. I replaced all the bushing with polyurithene (sp?) bushings that have a different geometry then the original rubber bushings. The original rubber bushings were very worn. Here is a picture showing two of the new bushings (red).. Motor mount and front transmission mount. I don't have a picture of the rear transmission mount but it is similar to the front.

Did you replace your bushings when installing?

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

MN Driver said:


> 650 amps, Nice!
> ...
> I figure 5C on the 100Ah cells(500 amps) and 5C on the 130Ah cells(650 amps) would be similar enough to build a comparison.


Remember that the 650 A is RMS AC at the output. The draw from the pack will be about sqrt(3)/sqrt(2) = 1.225x higher, or about 800A. So that's a little over 6C for 130 Ah cells. Assuming you want to use the 650 A output, and why wouldn't you?


----------



## helluvaengineer96 (Oct 8, 2010)

JRoque said:


> Hi. I know they need to differentiate between their old and new products in terms of pricing but slapping newer, more efficient MOSFETs in place of the older ones and jacking up the price by ~$370 doesn't feel right from my frugal consumer point of view. Perhaps a price drop of existing older technology controllers would have been a better move to get those old ones out and start promoting the better one. Not everyone will be able to extract that much amperage at that volt level without major sagging.
> 
> Truth be told, I'm whining because I want a >144V version of this package NOW!
> 
> JR


If Curtis is just bumping the current rating by using FETs with lower RDSon I am sure they also went back an revalidated all the surrounding components and traces plus I am sure they had to complete a whole new set of validation testing. An added benefit of lower RDSon is the entire controller will be more efficient.. You are getting a bargain. 

Have to keep in mind we aren't paying for the components, otherwise the controller would cost about $400 with markup. We're paying for perceived value; 650 Amps and better efficiency than the 500 Amp model. 

If someone not Curtis designed a controller from scratch and it was 650 Amps you can be sure they will charge more than Curtis's 500 Amp (to start with at least)... even though it is probably cheaper to manufacture the newer device.

Look at it this way. Most of the various levels of consumer electronics you buy all have the same hardware... Super LG DVD player has the same hardware as mid-level LG DVD player. The manufacture just enables different features with software. Tho in some cases they might not pop some components on the same PCB.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

cruisin said:


> If you are talking about the Curtis controller rated at 650a replacing the 500a for the AC motors the cost differance to you is only $100.00. Also you will find that putting the extra AH at 130 volt instead of less at 144v, you will have a longer range.


It all depends on how much current you're drawing and the total pack energy.

You can't just make a blanket statment like that.... if you have equal energy, an HV system usually proves to be more efficient and can actually get you longer range.

and its a 650A curtis compared to a 550A curtis. AFAIK, they don't make a 500A. Devil is in the details if you're trying to sell a product. And from what WE can see as a consumer, on various websites with both the 650A and 550A 72-96V controller packages with a motor, the difference is more than $100.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Coulomb said:


> Remember that the 650 A is RMS AC at the output. The draw from the pack will be about sqrt(3)/sqrt(2) = 1.225x higher, or about 800A. So that's a little over 6C for 130 Ah cells. Assuming you want to use the 650 A output, and why wouldn't you?


Actually that's not what I saw. My EV display mounted on my battery pack showed a 550 amp max the same as the Curtis 840 display plugged into the controller. We had a discussion somewhere around here why that was so, I forget the details.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

helluvaengineer96 said:


> So the transmission mounts were allowing the transmission housing to torque?.?...


Yes, I just left the stock rubber, your stiffer poly's may prevent it, but the torque arm has a better mechanical advantage so you may wear the poly's faster without it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Actually that's not what I saw. My EV display mounted on my battery pack showed a 550 amp max the same as the Curtis 840 display plugged into the controller. We had a discussion somewhere around here why that was so, I forget the details.


Here's the relevant discussion, a few posts later I describe my meters confirming battery and RMS Amps being very close
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=197670&postcount=184


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Actually that's not what I saw. My EV display mounted on my battery pack showed a 550 amp max the same as the Curtis 840 display plugged into the controller.


 My understanding from HPEVS is that the Curtis displays "estimated" battery pack current, not rms phase current, so it should agree fairly well with a measurement of pack current (and it does on mine). I don't know the details of the "estimate". I would guess it is based on the rms phase current, but the qualifier "estimate" seems to indicate it is not just reporting the rms phase current.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Also you will find that putting the extra AH at 130 volt instead of less at 144v, you will have a longer range.


 I don't think range was JR's main consideration. The main advantage of higher voltage is more available torque and power at higher motor rpm. My car with AC50/Curtis 1238-7501 has good acceleration at vehicle speeds below around 45 mph, but lags at higher speeds, limiting 0-60 mph to about 16 seconds. With both 650A and 144V it would be about 10 seconds according to Maxtvol's spreadsheet. The extra 18% torque at bottom end with 650A isn't worth much to me without the higher voltage and higher power at higher rpm to keep the acceleration up at higher vehicle speeds.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> My understanding from HPEVS is that the Curtis displays "estimated" battery pack current, not rms phase current, so it should agree fairly well with a measurement of pack current (and it does on mine). I don't know the details of the "estimate". I would guess it is based on the rms phase current, but the qualifier "estimate" seems to indicate it is not just reporting the rms phase current.


True, but per the earlier linked discussion and my clamp on meter readings battery current and RMS current seem to be fairly close, unlike what was predicted.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Here's the relevant discussion, a few posts later I describe my meters confirming battery and RMS Amps being very close


Arrgh! Yes, of course. Motor current isn't all drive current; a fair whack of it is magnetising current, which mostly doesn't come from the battery.

I'd completely forgotten that discussion. Sorry! 

In fact, from Major's graph, the battery current can be a bit less than motor current. I guess it mainly depends on the power factor; basically whether the power factor is lower or higher than √2/√3 (= 0.816). Of course, below base speed, it is less than motor current because of the "transformer nature" of a controller. (Ok, I can't think of a good way to phrase that.)


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> I don't think range was JR's main consideration. The main advantage of higher voltage is more available torque and power at higher motor rpm. My car with AC50/Curtis 1238-7501 has good acceleration at vehicle speeds below around 45 mph, but lags at higher speeds, limiting 0-60 mph to about 16 seconds. With both 650A and 144V it would be about 10 seconds according to Maxtvol's spreadsheet. The extra 18% torque at bottom end with 650A isn't worth much to me without the higher voltage and higher power at higher rpm to keep the acceleration up at higher vehicle speeds.


This is why I'm looking for the 144v system too, the torque curve is at a higher RPM before it drops off and my conversion will be a highway conversion and that performance matters to me. I was considering going DC to get higher voltage and more comfort on the highway but my conversion will be lightweight and aerodynamic, not too different than Tom's car, so its not a super big deal but the more power the better. 144v, whether its nominal or maximum voltage would allow me to use more of smaller cells for the same capacity or more of the same size cells for more capacity so there is some flexibility there. Also instead of buying extra batteries in case some fail, I could have enough performance and range that if I happened to lose a few with age and cycles(hopefully not), I could just remove them and be okay. With 36 cells the difference is bigger, especially if using more cells of a smaller size with a higher voltage rather than less really big ones.

If we end up with 144v and 650amps, I'd be thrilled, a hefty bit of power for a lightweight aerodynamic car, even moreso if the 144v is a nominal rating.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

What you say makes a lot of sense, however, 144v is not even in the future for Curtis with the existing controller. My experience is that the 650a controller does help in the higher RPM, but maybe not enough for your needs. For what you are looking for you would be better off with
the Netgain and keep the RPM's down. I have used both and they both have their advantages. If using a light car, regen AC should NOT be a consideration. Your gain is going to be minimal at best. Anytime you are running over 4000rpm in either a DC or AC, the power is NOT going to be what you want. Use a higher gear and take advantage of the torque, however you will the max ah battery pack and controller amp output. I have tried about all the various options available and there is no perfect solution, just one that works for you. If you want real power, use the Netgain 11 and keep the RPM's below 4000.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> What you say makes a lot of sense, however, 144v is not even in the future for Curtis with the existing controller.


 According to HPEVS Curtis has been working on it for several months.


> If using a light car, regen AC should NOT be a consideration. Your gain is going to be minimal at best.


 Depends on what you call minimal. I get about 10% typically, as shown by datalogs of pack current and voltage. Less if mostly highway driving, no hills, more if hills and more stopping. My car weighs about 2250 lb.


> Anytime you are running over 4000rpm in either a DC or AC, the power is NOT going to be what you want.


 It will depend on your gear ratios and power band of the motor. If shifting up a gear results in less motor torque gain than loss in mechanical advantage, wheel torque will decrease. I have good power in second gear in the 4000 to 5500 rpm range (max rpm 8000).


----------



## bonewibb (Aug 30, 2009)

Hi:

Looking at purchasing a HiperDrive AC50 and Curtis 1238 controller with use in my 1971 VW Bug Conversion to all electric.

Which vendor did you use? Any regrets?


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

The best and cheapest source for the AC-50 for forum members is at [email protected] . Members only price is $4400.00.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

cruisin said:


> The best and cheapest source for the AC-50 for forum members is at [email protected]


Says Cruisin himself... I'll give you this much: you don't shy away from customers and have always posted your prices for everyone to compare unlike the many other "PM me for your cost" responses. Good job on that.

Is that for the 650A version Cruisin? The one mentioned above seems to be the 550A model still.

JR


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

YES, it is for the 650amp Curtis controller latest model. Custom programming and support is included at no additional cost. [email protected]
Most orders will be shipped from stock within 24hrs, thats hard to beat.


----------



## RE Farmer (Aug 8, 2009)

bonewibb said:


> Hi:
> 
> Looking at purchasing a HiperDrive AC50 and Curtis 1238 controller with use in my 1971 VW Bug Conversion to all electric.
> 
> Which vendor did you use? Any regrets?


I ordered from GrassRootsEV:

http://grassrootsev.com/motor.htm

Currently $4295 for AC50. Shipping took ~2 weeks.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

You FAILED to mention that the $4295 price is for the 550amp controller.
No special programming or support.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I got mine directly from HPEVS but I don't know if they still do that.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

I believe everybody sells direct but usually charge more and dont provide the service the dealer like me does.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

At the time I think they were the cheapest, of course when I bought it there weren't many options, and they've always been helpful, though I didn't need much support.


----------



## DrDirt (Aug 29, 2010)

Hey guys I'm starting my first conversion. Vehicle is a 1987 Nissan pickup, current curb wt ~2800 lbs. I'm thinking of using the AC-50 w/a lithium battery pack. Would appreciate comments on this setup.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

I think you have made a good choice. I have the AC-50 with the 650a controller in stock for $4400.00 to forum members. This is the lowest price anywhere with FULL support and special programming at no extra cost. Give me a try at [email protected]


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Should work well if you can keep the final weight at or below 3000lbs, and don't need to carry heavy loads too often.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Hey guys I'm starting my first conversion. Vehicle is a 1987 Nissan pickup, current curb wt ~2800 lbs. I'm thinking of using the AC-50 w/a lithium battery pack. Would appreciate comments on this setup.


 What acceleration do you want? How much do you plan to haul? If you plan to use it mainly at lower speeds, the AC31 might be a better choice since it has more torque at lower rpm, but less above about 2000 rpm. The AC50 has a bit more torque and power at higher rpm.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

cruisin said:


> I think you have made a good choice. I have the AC-50 with the 650a controller in stock for $4400.00 to forum members. This is the lowest price anywhere with FULL support and special programming at no extra cost. Give me a try at [email protected]


what is this "special programming" you speak of?


----------



## DrDirt (Aug 29, 2010)

tomofreno said:


> What acceleration do you want? How much do you plan to haul? If you plan to use it mainly at lower speeds, the AC31 might be a better choice since it has more torque at lower rpm, but less above about 2000 rpm. The AC50 has a bit more torque and power at higher rpm.


I did some quick calculation using the AC31 and AC50 data from HPEVS and it looks like from 0-20 I get better acceleration from the AC31 (~2.2 sec to 20 mph) vice the AC50 (~ 2.6 sec), but after that the additional power of the AC50 greatly improves acceleration. Time to 45 mph is 16 sec for AC31 and 11 sec for AC50. These times assume 3200 lb vehicle weight, flat ground and constant acceleration. Actual time should be shorter than these because acceleration at low rpm will be greater than the average I computed.

Theoretical top speed is higher for the AC50 (80 mph) than the AC31 (68 mph). I don't expect to be doing much highway driving so this isn't critical.

It looks to me like the AC50 should work OK. Do these numbers seem reasonable to y'all?


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

DrDirt said:


> It looks to me like the AC50 should work OK. Do these numbers seem reasonable to y'all?


Should be good estimations.
BTW If you retained the transmission, all torque issues could be resolved by changing gears. In this case, all that counts is just power.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi all. The AC-50 user's manual has a table on page 55 showing the MAX voltage as 130V and:



> Overvoltage = Either Max Voltage (see voltage ratings table) or User Overvoltage × Nominal Voltage, whichever is lower.
> 
> Severe Overvoltage = Overvoltage (see previous item) + 10V.


This would seem to indicate the controller will work at 130V bus and there's a +10V headroom where it presumably shuts down at 140V.

Has anyone actually fed 130V to see if it takes it? At 130V and 650A we're talking ~84kW or 112 HP which puts it in a different category.

BTW, this a serious controller. It really makes me think twice about fiddling with a homemade controller. I'm pretty confident I can build a basic 3 phase controller but programming all of those neat features in would take months of code/debugging. They seem to have thought about everything a driver would need to tweak it in perfectly to a vehicle. I'm impressed.

JR


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRoque said:


> Hi all. The AC-50 user's manual has a table on page 55 showing the MAX voltage as 130V and:
> 
> This would seem to indicate the controller will work at 130V bus and there's a +10V headroom where it presumably shuts down at 140V.
> 
> ...


There is also a feature i read about in the controller manual about a dual motor capability. Do you think that means one controller can control two motors? And if that is the case, then how does it power them? in series (65V MAX & 650A each), parallel(130V MAX each & 325A each), or each individually/isolated (130V MAX & 650A each)?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I can't imagine how the controller could control two motors at once, having to deal with two different rotor positions. The dual AC motor setups I've seen use two Curtis controllers.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. Right, the manual says two controllers and two motors can be linked so they work in tandem, keeping the correct speed during turns, etc. 

With the appropriate dual shaft ends, I suppose they can also be stacked with a belt for a dual motor, single gearbox setup. Ok, I now need to go and take a cold shower after visualizing that setup in my head... 

JR


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> There is also a feature i read about in the controller manual about a dual motor capability. Do you think that means one controller can control two motors?


Not at once. Remember, Curtis controllers are aimed to be used in forklifts and so. There're contactors, switching between motors (for example, between traction and hydraulic pump motors). It's a cost optimization.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

JRoque said:


> With the appropriate dual shaft ends, I suppose they can also be stacked with a belt for a dual motor, single gearbox setup. Ok, I now need to go and take a cold shower after visualizing that setup in my head...
> 
> JR


No need to visualize, but you may need another shower 

http://www.evalbum.com/1396


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Thanks for the replies, the 1238 datasheet sort of mislead me, later when I looked into the FAQs i read about the dual drive needs a controller for each motor.

_Dual-Drive functionality is standard, allowing correct
control of vehicles such as 3-wheel counterbalance trucks or
other applications featuring twin traction motors. This function
ensures smooth and safe operation, minimal tire wear and
correct load sharing between the traction motors at all times._


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

There is also this dual controller, dual/siamese ? motor setup that HPEVS was working on
http://www.hpevs.com/on-road-conversions/jetta-project


----------



## yarross (Jan 7, 2009)

JRoque said:


> Hi. Right, the manual says two controllers and two motors can be linked so they work in tandem, keeping the correct speed during turns, etc.


Do You mean each motor connected to different wheel?
That's possible with ACIMs. The idea is (when different speeds are needed) to operate the two motors on opposite slopes of torque curve around break torque point. It's a bit inefficient, but works.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Has anyone actually fed 130V to see if it takes it?


 HPEVS once told me they had "even gone a little over 130V with no problem." They didn't say they recommended it though. You get about 84.5kW with 130V/650A, but voltage sag at 650A will likely be 12V or more, and you only get 80% or so of that power at the wheels, so maybe about 60kW or 80 H.P., up to about 4k rpm.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

yarross said:


> Do You mean each motor connected to different wheel?


Yes like they have in zero radius turn vehicles. Using a steering wheel sensor, they calculate the angle and how much faster the outer wheel needs to spin when turning. Sort of what a differential does mechanically, but better (says I).



tomofreno said:


> HPEVS once told me they had "even gone a little over 130V with no problem."


Great! and it's there in the manual, that "little" over is +10V where an alarm would be triggered.



tomofreno said:


> you only get 80% or so of that power at the wheels, so maybe about 60kW or 80 H.P., up to about 4k rpm.


Nothing wrong with that and add the instant torque and it should do fine. Is anyone here running the 650A version yet? What's a typical 0-60 time with this setup?

JRP3:









The evalbum link says each motor was $1K, is that still true? And 11 seconds 0-60 with LA batteries.. nice.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

JRoque said:


> Great! and it's there in the manual, that "little" over is +10V where an alarm would be triggered.


Actually I think the controller shuts down.




> Nothing wrong with that and add the instant torque and it should do fine. Is anyone here running the 650A version yet? What's a typical 0-60 time with this setup?


Jack Rickard recently upgraded his Speedster Duh with the 650A version and did comparisons between it and the 550A version, I think he saw a 20-25% improvement. It was his April 15 Friday show http://www.evtv.me/vidarch.html


> JRP3:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That was a few years ago, I'm not sure on the motor pricing, but I suppose you could try and contact ABM, or try and find a couple of used ones.


----------



## Fiero_GT-EV (Jul 4, 2009)

JRP,
 I have yet to strip my Fiero of its ICE components but as I try to look at the available battery space I’m becoming a bit discouraged. I’ve already purchased the AC-50 kit with the 650A controller so I’m now limited to whatever the max input voltage on the controller is. It’s looking like about 130V at end of charge. My goal is to have a 100 mile range at 65 MPH and at 80% DOD. That works out to about a 28 or 29 KWH pack. To get there at such a low voltage I’ll need to use at least 260 AH cells. The question is how many of those do you think will fit in the Fiero chassis?

Thanks,
Marty


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Off hand I don't know the dimensions of those cells. I can tell you that I've fit 36 of the 100ah cells, about 12kwh actual capacity, all in the engine bay. I have 12 behind the motor, and two rows of 12 on top of each other in front of the motor, and with some creativity I could fit more of them in the engine bay. I think your range and speed requirements are a bit extreme to be honest, but if you really need that much you might be better off using twice as many smaller cells paralleled together.
If you cut out the trunk wall that opens up a larger usable area behind the motor, and you could do the same in the front by cutting out the angled wall where the spare tire sits. I don't know how tall the 260ah cells are but there may be room for some sitting over the motor.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi.


JRP3 said:


> if you really need that much you might be better off using twice as many smaller cells paralleled together.


Won't you have more impedance with paralleled smaller cells than one big one? Or are you suggesting smaller cells to better fit the available space? There's also balancing concerns with paralleled cells, no?

JR


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

JRoque said:


> Won't you have more impedance with paralleled smaller cells than one big one?


I think it will work out the same. Paralleling cells (like paralleling resistors) reduces the effective internal resistance.



> Or are you suggesting smaller cells to better fit the available space?


That's certainly an attraction. Marty might try 3x90 Ah or 4x60 Ah to be able to fit them better.



> There's also balancing concerns with paralleled cells, no?


I think they'll balance well enough, as long as you are careful with the connections (e.g. only ever connecting to the diagonals, so the resistance from each cell to the connections is always the same).

There is the concern that if a cell goes short circuit, then it will take its paralleled buddies with it. But the same thing goes if a larger cell develops a short circuit internally; you will lose the whole large cell too. With LiFe chemistry, a shorted cell will make an impressive mess, but hopefully not a fire.

Cylindrical cells are often paralleled, often four or more cells at a time.

So really, as far as I can see, paralleled cells do act much the same as a single larger cell, and can be easier to pack into a given space. Though I think you need to resist the temptation to split a paralleled set into different rows, or in fact any arrangement other than all of them strapped tightly together. But that still makes them easier to pack in many cases, I would think.

Edit: there is however the difficulty of using two connecting straps on each cell with prismatic cells. You could possibly use custom straps with say 4 holes for buddy triples, and a different version with a smaller gap at the end for connecting cables at the end of each row.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Coulomb said:


> (e.g. only ever connecting to the diagonals, so the resistance from each cell to the connections is always the same).


That is a brilliant idea! So + pole from cell A and - pole from cell B connect to the serial string. It would effectively null out any impedance imbalance caused by the parallel strap connections. Why didn't I think of that before...

I was asking about paralleled cells vs one larger one because the connecting straps add resistance.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sure there are some issues with using paralleled cells but it might be the only way to fit the needed capacity in the vehicle, and I don't think the issues are that much of a problem. As has been pointed out, paralleled cells are the norm with smaller form factors.


----------



## Fiero_GT-EV (Jul 4, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I think your range and speed requirements are a bit extreme to be honest, but if you really need that much you might be better off using twice as many smaller cells paralleled together.
> If you cut out the trunk wall that opens up a larger usable area behind the motor, and you could do the same in the front by cutting out the angled wall where the spare tire sits. I don't know how tall the 260ah cells are but there may be room for some sitting over the motor.


Thanks for the reply.

I'm between a rock and a hard place. My employer can't be convinced to make an outlet available to me and my round trip door to door commute is 80 miles. I need 100 miles so that at the end of 2 or 3 thousand cycles I'll still be able to make 80 miles. Oh and my route is 97% freeway to boot.

I don't think two strings is a good idea. With one you can shut the current off by opening the controller contactor. With parallel strings you have an unbreakable closed loop. If a cell fails low impedance there is nothing to limit the current except perhaps a very high value fuse.

I’m also not crazy about weakening the chassis by cutting out sections but I can see how tempting it is when you desperately need battery space. It sounds like you managed to squeeze quite a bit of capacity into just the engine bay.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. I believe prismatic cells achieve their higher amperage rating by paralleling layers inside which raise similar concerns.

Yes, you don't want to cut major structural components of your chassis. It is because you might not have a large space to accommodate all of your cells that the suggestion of smaller ones was made. That way you can put them where you can, going around beams, etc. Also, you won't be leaving cut outs empty. Once you weld the battery box in place, some of the integrity will likely be recovered.

JR

PS: Have you offered your employer to pay for the electricity? It seems a bit shortsighted of them.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Paralleled strings are no more a closed loop than a single string. Tesla, Nissan, GM, all use paralleled cells, as does anyone using smaller form factor cells such as A123 and Headway.
As for structure if you leave the top of the trunk section bulkhead and do the same in the front I don't think it would be an issue, you could add another cross bar if you're concerned. I looked up the TS/Winston 260 cells and they are 14.25x11.15x2.2 inches, long and narrow.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I did some quick measurements using the 260 TS cell dimensions and I'm pretty sure you can fit what you need, though you will have to do the body mods I suggested. If you cut out the slanted wall of the trunk and make it a vertical section you'll lose no strength and be able to fit 12-14 cells back there. Another 10-12 in the engine bay with some creative thinking, and then do the same mod up front to the slanted section and fit another 10-12 cells there.


----------



## Fiero_GT-EV (Jul 4, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Paralleled strings are no more a closed loop than a single string. Tesla, Nissan, GM, all use paralleled cells, as does anyone using smaller form factor cells such as A123 and Headway.
> As for structure if you leave the top of the trunk section bulkhead and do the same in the front I don't think it would be an issue, you could add another cross bar if you're concerned. I looked up the TS/Winston 260 cells and they are 14.25x11.15x2.2 inches, long and narrow.


I disagree; some time back I found a document that describes how Tesla designed their pack. Despite the complexity of 6800+ cells they still managed to put fuses on every cell. That's the only way to have cells in // and be safe. I'm not sure how the other OEMs are doing their small // cells, hopefully with similar protection.

Thanks for taking the time to look up the dimensions of the 260AH cells. I should have provided that info. After asking you what you thought of using them in a Fiero I revisited my prior measurement exercise more carefully and it doesn't look as bad as it initially did. I might actually be able to squeeze in as many as 36 of the 300AH cells, using up only the bottom portion of the trunk. This weekend was supposed to be the teardown weekend but obstacles keep popping up. The latest one is a bad clutch slave cylinder. I need to be able to drive the car down to Hollister CA which is 80 miles away in order to do the tear down. I'm holding my breath for an overnight delivery of a replacement cylinder from the Fiero Store. If I can get it installed by Friday night the gig is still on. Making measurements will be much easier then.

EDIT: I have since (05/22/13) discovered that i was wrong in my posting here. Jack Rickard made a video 2009 where he takes apart a TS 90 AHA cell and reveals that it is in fact made up of many two sheet cells cinched in parallel. I no longer believe that paralleling cells is an issue. Sorry for any confusion i might have caused.
Martin


----------



## Fiero_GT-EV (Jul 4, 2009)

JRoque said:


> Hi. I believe prismatic cells achieve their higher amperage rating by paralleling layers inside which raise similar concerns.
> 
> Yes, you don't want to cut major structural components of your chassis. It is because you might not have a large space to accommodate all of your cells that the suggestion of smaller ones was made. That way you can put them where you can, going around beams, etc. Also, you won't be leaving cut outs empty. Once you weld the battery box in place, some of the integrity will likely be recovered.
> 
> ...


You raise an interesting point. I’d like to know what the schematic of a single cell actually looks like. I’m going to guess that the reality is that these cells look more like a capacitor where increasing the surface area of the plates increases the energy storage. Hopefully they don’t actually parallel sub cells.
I think my initial discussion with my employer was a bit clouded. At that time (~ 3 years ago) I thought I needed a formal charging station. That’s because I wanted to use that nifty induction type paddle that GM used on the Ev1. It now looks like I only need an outlet. I am planning to outfit the car with J1772 connectors but I also intend to tote around an adapter box and cables. Back then I didn’t think to offer payment for the juice. I just assumed they would do a payroll deduction or make arrangements with a station provider for billing services. Anyway our facilities manger stated that he spoke to the power company and was told that all manner of site studies would have to be conducted and that it was going to cost a pile of money. Frankly I think he came up with that story just to blow me off. Once I get the car put together I plan to show it to him and try again to talk him into an outlet. With a 100 mile range I would not need an outlet but we all know how much more calendar/cycle life you get by limiting the depth of each discharge.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

Fiero_GT-EV said:


> That's the only way to have cells in // and be safe.


For laptop style cells, yes. But for LiFePO4 cells, a fuse on each cell is not necessary, IMHO.

With laptop style cells (LiMnPO4? LiCoPO4? I can't remember) you can still have a fire if half a cell shorts out. Every cell (of any battery chemistry) is like two half capacity cells in parallel. (And of course, each of those is like two quarters in parallel, ad infinitum). So I'm not certain that all those fuses really buys much. Well, I suppose that when you have say 8 cells in parallel, then you have 7 good cells dumping into any short circuited cell, which is presumably more of a problem than half a cell dumping into a short on the other half.

Now that I type the above, it's probably more like 8 cells verses one full cell. The part with the short doesn't go away; it also contributes to the short circuit current. Maybe the Tesla designers could reasonably guarantee that a single cell failure (short) would not burn the pack and/or the vehicle, but with multiple cells involved with the short, it quickly gets dangerous.

I'm just glad to be using a (basically) inherently fire-safe chemistry.


----------



## R Watson (Apr 3, 2010)

aktill said:


> No, I want to drive an actual tachometer. I like to see needles move
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Thunderstruck (who I bought from) has the manual as a download if you go to their site. They don't give you a printed copy, which is a little annoying giving that it's a 130 page manual.


Hey guys new to DIY.. I just stopped in for some help with a NetGaine controller & came across this post about the ac motors... My thing is competition golf carts... I started out with the HP 48-volt AC motor.. I was the first guy to ever put their 72-volt motor into a single seat golf cart & the only one ever to put their 108-volt AC motor onto one.. I have all three AC systems & cant wait for their new one to come out.. I run the same systems as yall do but I cant imagine a 130 page manual.. I can put any of my AC systems into any vehicle with only the less than ten pages of instructions they came with... What am I missing here...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Well the controllers are capable of much more than just driving a vehicle, there are many many adjustable parameters, far more than are used in a golf cart or car. It's really amazing how much they can do. Grab a copy of the manual if you want to see what I'm talking about.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hello all. I've been doing some searching to try to understand how my car would move if I used an AC-50, 650A package. My car is a VW Cabrio, weighing a portly 2800 lbs - not sure why the damn thing is so heavy.

According to actual dyno tests of the stock VW 2.0L engine, it puts about 85 HP and 89 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. The engine itself is rated at 107 BHP (or what I would call totally fake horsepower) and 110 ft/lbs of torque, all in peak value figures. 

EVTV clocked the AC-50 with it's matching 650A controller on a dyno putting out about 74 HP and 109 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels. The AC-50 won't improve my 0-60 MPH times but I'm not losing a whole lot either. And that torque is available to me a lot sooner than with the ICE.

I have no problems taking off or passing cars on the highway now. My current 0-60 MPH = yes, and I'm fine with that. In terms of performance, what can I expect to lose with the AC-50 then? Isn't this a nearly perfect match for my car? 

Cruisin, if you're copying, can you do a couple of 0-60 runs with your AC-50 bug?

JR


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> EVTV clocked the AC-50 with it's matching 650A controller on a dyno putting out about 74 HP and 109 ft/lbs of torque to the wheels.


 Seems reasonable since a 36 cell pack might sag to around 108V at 650A, giving 108*650 = 70.2kW from the pack. Minus about 20% for combined motor and controller losses would give about 56.2kW or 75HP motor shaft power. Also, the Curtis dyno data showed about 92 ft-lb peak torque at 550A, so at 650A you'd expect about 1.18*92 = 108.6 ft-lb. My bit less than 2300 lb car accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in about 16 seconds. That's using a transmission and shifting to keep the motor around it's peak power. It is more like 20 seconds (maybe a bit more) if I just leave it in second gear. Your performance of course depends on final ev weight. If it were to end up at about 2800 lb, I would expect about 16-17 seconds with the 650A controller, increased torque trading off about evenly with the increased weight.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

It would be very interesting to see a dual AC-50 setup, 150hp & 217ftlbs

Any news updates on the new higher voltage controller form curtis?


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

You might not need to run multiple motors/controllers. User ElectriCar is having his Curtis DC controller modified by a shop to increase its output. I just sent this shop an email to see if they can do something similar with the AC controller that comes with the AC-50 kits.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

rochesterricer said:


> You might not need to run multiple motors/controllers. User ElectriCar is having his Curtis DC controller modified by a shop to increase its output. I just sent this shop an email to see if they can do something similar with the AC controller that comes with the AC-50 kits.


Or maybe if people were so inclined they could build on this:

http://kellycontroller.com/kim7250b24v-72v500aac-induction-motor-controller-p-1051.html

Its an AC induction inverter 72V & 500A for 760$, good place to start...no?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Probably not, as Kellys aren't known for achieving their max ratings, and that's only half the voltage you'd want to start with and lower current than the Curtis.
As for modifying the Curtis, if it were easy to get more power out of it I think Curtis would already be doing it.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Bowser330 said:


> Or maybe if people were so inclined they could build on this:
> 
> http://kellycontroller.com/kim7250b24v-72v500aac-induction-motor-controller-p-1051.html
> 
> Its an AC induction inverter 72V & 500A for 760$, good place to start...no?


Off the top of my head, the Curtis 1238 that comes with the AC-50 kits already has superior specs to that unit. IIRC, the stock Curtis is already at over 100 Volts and will do 650 amps peak.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

I guess its just a waiting game until Paul & Sabrina's AC inverter is completed...

I wonder what the maximum voltage the AC-50 could tolerate...I know someone asked before, but I cannot recall...


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. I think Bowser was saying that if you're going to rip your power section out to replace it with a higher power one, you could start with practically anything. I'm sure the Kelly is cutting some corners - a 500A x 3 phase controller for $795? That's cheap.

It seems the 1238 runs to 130V and shuts down between that and 140V.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

1238 shuts down a little over 130V. HPEVS told me their AC31, and presumably the AC50, can go to around 200 Volts. They might even do a custom wind if you ask


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

I sent an email to the owner of the shop that modifies Curtis controllers. Unfortunately, he says he doesn't have any experience with the Curtis AC models and he thinks it would be difficult to increase their output.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> 1238 shuts down a little over 130V. HPEVS told me their AC31, and presumably the AC50, can go to around 200 Volts. They might even do a custom wind if you ask


Jeez, so if 120V can get the peak 80hp @ 4000rpm (tomofreno)

200V or 170V sagged should be able to push that peak to 5000rpm

Which would bump the peak HP to about 104, nice!


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

rochesterricer said:


> I sent an email to the owner of the shop that modifies Curtis controllers. Unfortunately, he says he doesn't have any experience with the Curtis AC models and he thinks it would be difficult to increase their output.


Doh! I wonder if he's thinking it's 3 times the work (3-phase) or because there are other things like DC/DC on each phase, etc to change.

You can buy a complete 300V, 400A IGBT power module, driver board, caps and current sensors and vector control board for about $1K and an industrial VFD for $300. You can use the AC-50 motor with that and get 80kW input power (at 200V max for AC50). Not much different than the 78kW of the HPEV package and that's why I'm hesitating with a DIY controller. That Curtis controller is a bargain for what you get. When they up the voltage to 144 nominal it will be a killer AC system.

JR

PS: oh yeah, forgot about the 6 months worth of coding and tinkering to get the industrial controller to work nice in a car instead of driving a bandsaw.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> PS: oh yeah, forgot about the 6 months worth of coding and tinkering to get the industrial controller to work nice in a car instead of driving a bandsaw.


 Oh, there is that.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I did some tests to determine base speed (manual page 62), and check at what rpm Modulation_Depth reaches 100% and Current_RMS starts decreasing from the max 550A when accelerating with the throttle “floored”. I also recorded Frequency and Motor_RPM, at controller frequency at 5000 rpm. I used the Curtis PC software and a laptop to view parameters.
For these tests I set things up for maximum acceleration:
Max_Speed = 8000 rpm (max value for motor rpm)
Accel_Rate = 0.1 (min value)
Gear_Soften = 0 (min value)
Drive_Current Limit = 100% (max value)
Typical_Max_Speed = 6000 rpm (max is 8k, but I think this only has an effect in speed control mode)
Base_Speed = 6000 (set to its max for the base speed test described on manual pg 62, this was factory set to 3200)

AC50 motor/1238-7501 controller running in torque control mode, 36 180Ah CALB cells, full charge at start of test. Suzuki Swift, 2250 lb, http://www.evalbum.com/3060

Results

The Base_Speed test was run twice and values of 4517 and 4663 rpm were obtained. I think I may have let up the throttle a bit on the second test, so have more confidence in the first number. Another estimate of base speed is to directly monitor when the controller is using full battery voltage, i.e. when the Modulation_Depth parameter reaches 100%, or equivalently, when the motor current, Current_RMS parameter, starts to decrease from its max of 550A rms, when accelerating at full throttle (I would guess the controller does something like this in the test).

It is unfortunate that monitored values cannot be data logged and/or that the software does not permit viewing of multiple windows simultaneously. It requires 5 or 6 clicks of the UP arrow key to move from the Modulation_Depth parameter to view the Motor_RPM parameter value. This takes far too much time to give even a rough estimate of the rpm at which Modulation_Depth reaches 100% (controller using full battery voltage) when accelerating at full throttle. So to get a rough estimate, I timed how long it took to reach 100% Modulation_Depth (run1), and how long it took for the rms current to start to decrease (run2), then checked the rpm after this elapsed time (run3). The first two runs gave the same result within measurement error as expected, about 5 seconds. The motor rpm at 5 seconds monitored in the third run was about 5200 (approx, it was increasing fast). A 0.6 second, or 12%, overestimate of time, which I easily could have done, would explain most of the difference between this value and the results in the Base_Speed test. After the test I entered a base speed value of 4550.

The controller frequency at about 5200 rpm (+/-100 roughly) was about 174 Hz (wasn’t possible to hold them constant). It agrees well with the speed as a function of frequency for a 4 pole motor: rpm = 120*f/4 = 5220. So at max speed of 8k rpm should be reached at f = 267 Hz. In an earlier test while accelerating with it floored I saw about 280 Hz, so it must have overshot a bit.

I also did some tests monitoring motor and battery current. At lower motor rpm motor current is greater than battery current and voltage modulation depth is small. At 50% modulation depth motor current is about twice battery current, and at 100% modulation depth (I extrapolated) they are about equal (controller rms current ~battery current), as expected. I only have a 500A shunt so could not directly compare rms current and battery current at 100% Modulation depth. I just extrapolated from several observations at lower than 100% values.So it appears controller output power about equals controller input power minus losses. Time to give the little transmission a rest.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Great data as always Tom. You mention that the software does not allow multiple windows, does a single window display more than one parameter at a time? For example the hand held programmer will display a few different values of a sub menu at once, say motor temp, current, voltage, rpms, or something like that as I remember.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. Agreed, good report.

Does anyone have the protocol detail for Curtis controllers of this type? Or at least a captured stream of data from the serial port? It should be possible to write a program to capture and display those parameters at once.

JR


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

hmmm, might be fun to set up some virtual ports on a computer and then "peak" at them with a serial data analyzer. 

I know the HPEVS don't stream, they're set to work with the dumb spyglass, so they only spit out one variable at a time.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> You mention that the software does not allow multiple windows, does a single window display more than one parameter at a time? For example the hand held programmer will display a few different values of a sub menu at once, say motor temp, current, voltage, rpms, or something like that as I remember.


 The motor parameters are all displayed in real time simultaneously in one window, but the controller parameters are not, the value of only one is displayed at a time. And the menu lists _Motor_ as a major heading, then each of its parameters is in an indented list under that heading. Same thing for the controller, and they both use the same window. So you have to select say, Modulation Depth, to view the value of that controller parameter in the window. Then to see a motor parameter such as rpm, you must scroll up the menu through the controller items listed above Modulation Depth, then through the listed motor parameters until you come to RPM, or scroll through them to the major heading Motor, and it will then display all of the motor parameters at once. It is really nice to be able to see all those parameters and watch them as you drive, but it would have been nicer to view both controller and motor parameters at the same time, or even more than one controller parameter at the same time. Datalogging would be even better.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I think it is interesting that the base speed came out higher than what you would predict from using the rpm for peak power on the Curtis dyno data, which I estimated at about 3100 rpm, then multiplying it by 1 plus the fractional increase in pack voltage between my (sagged) pack and the one used in the dyno test: 3100*[1*(110-86)/86] = 3965. I don't understand why. The test result was dependent on how fast I accelerated, and the road was slightly uphill, so maybe level ground would give a result closer to 4k.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Someone recently contacted me regarding performance of the AC50 motor. In an effort to quantify it a bit more I put together a graph comparing the available wheel torque in my car with it compared to an Advanced DC FB1-4001 9" series DC motor, both with 115V pack. It occurred to me it might be useful to others to compare the AC50 to an 8" ADC motor as well as the 9" ADC, and also to the AC31. So I put together charts for them below.

Few comments on the charts:
1) They are all for my Suzuki Swift (http://www.evalbum.com/3060)
which weighs a bit under 2300 lb. Gear ratios are given in the evalbum. Tire diameter (loaded) is about 20.75".

2) All are for a nominal 115V pack

3) The curve at the bottom in all the graphs is the "required wheel torque". This is the wheel torque required to move the vehicle at a constant speed. "Available wheel torque" is the maximum wheel torque obtainable at a given speed if you "floor it". The flat part of these latter curves are determined by the maximum controller current which is 550A for the Curtis controllers for the AC50 (rms) and ADC 8" motors, and 500A for the ADC 9" motor (FB1-4001). The decreasing part of these curves are determined from a second order fit to the torque-speed (motor rpm) curves for the ADC 8" and 9" motors, and the Curtis dyno data for the AC50 (adjusted for 115V since the original data is for 96V). Several torque-speed curves were used for each of the ADC motors to get a fit over as wide of pack voltage range as possible, but of course data doesn't exist on these for very low voltages or very low rpm so the curves are extrapolated there and subject to more error. They seem fairly reasonable though, at least for comparison purposes. All the fits were good, with R squared values over 0.98. The "bumps" at the knee of some of the curves are artifacts of the curve fitting routine. 

4) The wheels apply a force, F = ma to the road to accelerate the car. The acceleration is a = F/m = T/rm, where T is the wheel torque, r the "loaded" tire radius, and m the vehicle mass. The wheel torque is the product of the overall gear ratio, transmission and rear end, and the motor torque.

5) Drive train efficiency is assumed to be 90% and is factored into the available wheel torque (available wheel torque = motor torque*dt efficiency*gear ratio). No accounting is made of inertia of rotating drive train parts (I figured the torque for it was negligible compared to the required torque to move the car). Edit: I discovered some time after posting this that actually a good bit of the torque in first gear goes to rotational inertia, affecting acceleration in that gear significantly, not as much in the higher gears.

6) The difference in available wheel torque and required wheel torque is the net wheel torque available to accelerate the vehicle, so comparing available wheel torque for different motor/controller combinations indicates relative available acceleration at a given vehicle speed. 

So here is how I interpret the curves. The AC50 and AC31 are fairly close, with the AC31 having significantly higher torque at lower rpms, but the higher power (higher torque at higher rpms) of the AC50 gives a bit better acceleration to 60 mph, and higher top speed (defined as where the available and required torque curves intersect for a given gear).

The 9" ADC has higher torque than the AC50 at lower motor rpms (so lower vehicle speed in a given gear) but it doesn't extend out to as high of rpm or vehicle speed as the AC50. So it looks to me like the AC50 might do better. The AC50 clearly has more available torque and acceleration than the ADC 8" motor.

The AC31 and ADC 9" are fairly similar due to the lower base speed of the AC31 compared to the AC50.

As has been stated on this site many times "amps is torque" (or something like that), so if you use the ADC 9" motor with a 1000A controller the peak torque roughly doubles from what is show for it here with the 500A controller. Then we are in another league altogether. 

Also, the "knee" of the available wheel torque curves can be extended to higher motor rpm and higher vehicle speed if a higher voltage pack is used to compensate the increasing motor input impedance at higher rpm, providing the controller can handle it. The knee moves roughly proportional to the fractional increase in voltage. The highest voltage torque-speed curve I could find for the 8" ADC was 132V. This is (132-115)/115 = 0.15 higher, so doesn't change the knee that much - about 15% higher motor rpm and hence vehicle speed. I don't know how high a voltage is safe to use with it. My understanding is that the Warp9 gives similar torque per amp as the ADC 9", but has a number of changes like larger brushes to make it more robust. Considerably higher voltages can be run with the 9" motors, moving the "knee" of the curves to higher speeds, and giving overall higher acceleration.
Edit: According to this post: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19647&postcount=2, and post #4 in the same thread, the max motor input voltage Jim recommends is 160V. This is is about 39% greater than 115V, so for example, it would move the "knee" of the curve for the 9" motor in second gear out to about 35 mph rather than 25 mph. That would be about the same as the knee of the second gear curve for the AC50, but with about 700 ft-lb wheel torque compared to about 590 for the AC50.

*So keep in mind this is for the same 115V pack for all motor/controller combinations, and for 500A (9") or 550A (8", AC50) maximum controller current.* The idea is that because there are many more ev's around with DC systems, there are more examples of performance for these. This gives some way to compare that performance to what you might expect from an AC50 or AC31 with similar pack V and max controller amps.

Edit: I thought I should add a comment on how I adjusted the AC50 data for 115V. The dyno data is for a 96V pack which sagged to 86V. My nominal 115V 180Ah CALB pack sags to about 110V when I floor it (3C current, would be more sag for lower Ah cells), so (110 - 86)/86 = 0.28. The "knee" of the torque curve in the dyno data is at about 3075 rpm, so I estimated the knee would occur at 3075*(1+0.28) = 3936 rpm, which I rounded up to 4k. I rounded up since when I performed the base speed test as described in the Curtis 1238-7501 manual I initially got values over 4.5k rpm - but there was a slight slope to the road. After repeating the test on level ground I obtained values of about 4400 and 4500 rpm. So I thought 4k was a reasonable value to use. I adjusted the AC31 knee to 1800*(1 + 0.28) = 2300 rpm based on the 96V dyno data for it. I used 90 ft-lb peak torque for the AC50 and 117 ft-lb for the AC31.
View attachment AC50, ADC 8 inch, ADC 9 inch, wheel torque.pdf


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> Someone recently contacted me regarding performance of the AC50 motor. In an effort to quantify it a bit more I put together a graph comparing the available wheel torque in my car with it compared to an Advanced DC FB1-4001 9" series DC motor, both with 115V pack. It occurred to me it might be useful to others to compare the AC50 to an 8" ADC motor as well as the 9" ADC, and also to the AC31. So I put together charts for them below.
> 
> Few comments on the charts:
> 1) They are all for my Suzuki Swift (http://www.evalbum.com/3060)
> ...


GOOD JOB MAN, this should clear up some questions and make it easier for those on the fence trying to decide what to do.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Excellent work Tom! Let's hope this gets pinned to reference material section.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Anyone ever mess with the Throttle Frequency parameter in the Programming software? I don't see it listed in the manual and I don't remember seeing it in the handheld programmer either, though it may have been there.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Anyone ever mess with the Throttle Frequency parameter in the Programming software? I don't see it listed in the manual and I don't remember seeing it in the handheld programmer either, though it may have been there.


What Throttle Frequency parameter are you talking about? Be specific.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't have it in front of me right now but when going though the parameters there was an adjustment available for Throttle Frequency. I'll have to check the values later.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I don't have it in front of me right now but when going though the parameters there was an adjustment available for Throttle Frequency. I'll have to check the values later.


The throttle parameters that are programmable using a 2 or 3 wire pot is the starting point and the ending point of the 0-5v or 0-5k range. You can also program the torque curve by adjusting the knee point. I dont recall a adjustment for frequency. I you find a reference to that, point me in that direction.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Well I won't be finding anything for a while since I just fried a bunch of stuff  I'm not sure exactly what caused it but I was charging the car, with the car off, and I plugged in the PC cable to the molex plug, with the computer also off, but plugged into the same circuit as the Manzanita charger, and sparks and smoke started coming out of the IOGear adapter.  DOH! I quickly unplugged but the damage was done. The controller still seems to work fine but now when I plug in the 840 display all I get is the ******* symbols. So I fried my IOGear, fried one of the USB ports on my computer, and fried something in the communication circuit to the 840 display. I really should have put some fuses in the cable I made up. I'll get another IOGear and see if I can connect with a PC again but I'm not hopeful


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Well I won't be finding anything for a while since I just fried a bunch of stuff  I'm not sure exactly what caused it but I was charging the car, with the car off, and I plugged in the PC cable to the molex plug, with the computer also off, but plugged into the same circuit as the Manzanita charger, and sparks and smoke started coming out of the IOGear adapter.  DOH! I quickly unplugged but the damage was done. The controller still seems to work fine but now when I plug in the 840 display all I get is the ******* symbols. So I fried my IOGear, fried one of the USB ports on my computer, and fried something in the communication circuit to the 840 display. I really should have put some fuses in the cable I made up. I'll get another IOGear and see if I can connect with a PC again but I'm not hopeful


OUCH! I did something like that as well with a Kelly controller. I plugged in the programming cable from computer while charging and took out all the RS232 stuff including the CPU ports. I believe it is the ground path that took it all out. Advice, when charging, dont connect anything. When this happened, you probably didnt have the spyglass connected as that is where the programming cable goes, so that should not be a problem. If the spyglass doesnt work, I would suspect that there is damage to the controller in the I/O circuit which should not effect the rest of the controller.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Yikes sorry to hear JRP. Was that a laptop you were using? If so, running plugged in to AC outlet with a three prong connector? Could it be that your charger is not isolated? Can you measure a potential between your charger's negative pole and your AC outlet ground leg?

If the Curtis' serial port is opto-isolated, it shouldn't be too hard to fix. Best of luck and keep us posted as you can.

JR


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeah, Manzanita is not isolated, I was using a PC, plugged into the same circuit. I figured since the PC was off and the controller was off... well I figured wrong. I wasn't even going to try and program while charging, I was just setting things up to do so later. Since the 840 still powers up it's either the TX or RX feed from the controller that's messed up, or both.
Here's a pic of the damaged IOGear, I cut it open just to see:


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Yeah, Manzanita is not isolated, I was using a PC, plugged into the same circuit. I figured since the PC was off and the controller was off...


Yeah. Sometimes those slack PCs don't switch the earth connection off when they are powered off .

When about to connect a DSO/CRO or charger or PC gizmo, we have to think: do we have at most one non-isolated thing connected?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Sorry to hear that JPR3
I learned not to do anything with AC connected to the Manzanita after frying a cell log 8 when I dropped a lead.


----------



## DrDirt (Aug 29, 2010)

Go here to see a dual motor conversion of a Jetta.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That's been around for a while, never did see any info on how it turned out.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> That's been around for a while, never did see any info on how it turned out.


+1, we need details!

I'm surprised they are not using the Jetta as a promotional vehicle to get more people interested in using their motors...


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Spoke with HPEVS. They expect a prototype higher voltage controller from Curtis around the end of this year. It will be nominal 144V with max of 160V or 170V, and 500 or 550A. They are winding a 9" motor for more torque for use with it and expect 150 ft-lb peak torque and about 100 H.P. peak. Based on that, sounds like maybe 3500 rpm base speed. As with all things EV it seems, not available until next year. If I recall correctly etischer's Siemens motor and homemade controller give him just a bit over 100 H.P., so would be comparable.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Interesting, but I'm disappointed that it's not going to be the higher 650 amp unit  I was holding off getting the 650 amp version and waiting for the higher voltage one, assuming it would also be 650 amps. Endless frustration in the AC world.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Interesting, but I'm disappointed that it's not going to be the higher 650 amp unit  I was holding off getting the 650 amp version and waiting for the higher voltage one, assuming it would also be 650 amps.


 That is what I told him I thought people's reaction would be. That is when he mentioned the new 9" motor. Doesn't do those who already have motors any good though. Myself, I'd be happy with 550A, since the higher voltage would give me more acceleration at higher speeds resulting in zero to 60 mph of around 12 sec I think, and I'm fairly happy with what I have now. I mainly like the higher voltage for more range (I have room for about 13 more cells, 157V nominal), and lower current draw at highway speeds - would be around 1/2 C at 60 mph. I think many would have liked to have seen similar voltage with max 700A or so.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> That is what I told him I thought people's reaction would be. That is when he mentioned the new 9" motor. Doesn't do those who already have motors any good though. Myself, I'd be happy with 550A, since the higher voltage would give me more acceleration at higher speeds resulting in zero to 60 mph of around 12 sec I think, and I'm fairly happy with what I have now. I mainly like the higher voltage for more range (I have room for about 13 more cells, 157V nominal), and lower current draw at highway speeds - would be around 1/2 C at 60 mph. I think many would have liked to have seen similar voltage with max 700A or so.


I believe I mentioned a while back that the higher voltage controller would more than likely be only 550a. curtis is very conservative and doesn't want problems like some of the DC controllers have had. With the higher voltage comes higher costs with more cells. Higher voltage per SE doest extend the range, its the kwh that you need to increase. The higher voltage will increase the power at higher RPM, but at higher cost. A lot of complaints now concerning the higher cost without the need for higher voltage and more cells. I guess we just want more of a good thing.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Yes it is pack energy that gives range. I have 36 180Ah cells, I have room for 13 more in series to get more energy. You could use large Ah cells in a pack to get higher energy, but they are difficult to fit due to their large size. You could parallel smaller Ah cells, like groups of 2 130Ah for 260Ah, so 2p36s, but that requires 72 cells, which though smaller and easier to fit in odd spaces, is a lot of cells to fit in. I don't see any way that has a clear advantage in all circumstances.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> Yes it is pack energy that gives range. I have 36 180Ah cells, I have room for 13 more in series to get more energy. You could use large Ah cells in a pack to get higher energy, but they are difficult to fit due to their large size. You could parallel smaller Ah cells, like groups of 2 130Ah for 260Ah, so 2p36s, but that requires 72 cells, which though smaller and easier to fit in odd spaces, is a lot of cells to fit in. I don't see any way that has a clear advantage in all circumstances.


Yea, I see what you mean. Probably best way to accomplish your goal of more range would be to sell existing batteries and buy 36 new larger ones. I found the best way on mine was to use 5000 18650 cells without any plastic containers to save room. I now have 112v 225ah that takes up less room than 36 of the 180ah sky or Calib cells. Also, the 18650 cells are 3.7v, so more voltage less cells.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

tomofreno said:


> Spoke with HPEVS. They expect a prototype higher voltage controller from Curtis around the end of this year. It will be nominal 144V with max of 160V or 170V, and 500 or 550A. They are winding a 9" motor for more torque for use with it and expect 150 ft-lb peak torque and about 100 H.P. peak. Based on that, sounds like maybe 3500 rpm base speed. As with all things EV it seems, not available until next year. If I recall correctly etischer's Siemens motor and homemade controller give him just a bit over 100 H.P., so would be comparable.


subscribing.....


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Since the topic of this new motor/controller came up on david85's thread, I thought I would add here that HPEVS also told me both the controller and motor will be water cooled (I asked how they planned to control temperature with the higher power). If they are as reliable and well-made as my present motor/controller, this should be a very nice package.

My interest is mainly in the controller since it might permit me to add about 13 cells for a 49 cell, 157V, 28.2kWh pack, increasing my range to about 100 miles at 50 mph. I could do this straight forwardly by just increasing the size of my rear box. It would also decrease my discharge current to about 0.53C at 60mph, and decrease my 0 to 60 time to maybe around 13-14 seconds from the present 16, but the latter is not so big a deal to me. 

I think I could fit the 9" motor by making a specially bent bracket for holding the passenger side drive shaft (assuming about the same motor length as the 8.5" motor), but I would be concerned that the 150 ft-lb peak torque might snap my drive shafts or CV joints since the original engine had a peak torque of 70 ft-lb.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think I'm leaning towards the higher voltage unit myself instead of the higher current version. My torque is pretty good at 550 amps it just drops off too soon, another 10 cells for 151V nominal would stretch it out nicely. Of course the water cooling for the new motor would be nice too.....


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I think I'm leaning towards the higher voltage unit myself instead of the higher current version. My torque is pretty good at 550 amps it just drops off too soon, another 10 cells for 151V nominal would stretch it out nicely. Of course the water cooling for the new motor would be nice too.....


 
The proposed controller and motor sounds real good. Bill at HPEV says he will have the first later this year and that maybe I can have the second or the ?. Anyway, I am sure Curtis and HPEV will do it right. I dont see the advantage in the water cooling of the controller if it is going to cost a bunch of bucks. Since I have been selling the water cooling plate and kit for the 1238, most everybody complains saying they dont want any water cooled stuff. Go figure that. The current motor doesnt get too hot , but maybe with higher voltage the 9" will get too hot. Its going to cost more bucks to add that feature as well. We have to remember, in the AC DC discussions, most if not all say it is not worth the additional cost to go with AC. Wait untill the cost for this new motor and controller come out. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

Bump,

This is the one I have been waiting/saving for... I can't wait to see the specs and price on the 144V setup. Wonder if the efficiency will be any better to top things off? Please keep us updated!!


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

The water cooling will certainly add cost and I would rather not mess with it and the potential for leaks, but with the higher power output I don't think you could keep the controller cool enough with air cooling only. I would guess you could keep the motor cool enough with an added blower, but maybe not if running for say 40 minutes at 75 mph. HPEVS apparently is convinced water cooling is required, or the client this "application" is for wanted it. It would be nice to keep the controller below 55C - even in 43 C (110 F) ambient, which we have had here.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

There is probably good reason that all OEM's are going with water cooling.


----------



## brainzel (Jun 15, 2009)

Any news or dates about the 144V-controller?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I posted this under one of cruisin's threads several days ago but thought I would also put it hear to answer brainzel's question, and where it is more likely to be noticed.
I talked to HPEVS week of 11/13/11 and they said the new higher voltage Curtis controller will be available probably second quarter next year. Unfortunately it will have a peak current of only 500A. Max DC input voltage is supposed to be around 160 to 170V. No idea on price yet.

That is ok with HPEVS because they are going to use it with a new water cooled 9" motor with about 150 ft-lb torque at that current level, and peak about 100 HP. The cooling jacket makes the motor about 11" in diameter, so wouldn't fit in my car due to interference with the half shafts and other things. The length is about the same as the AC50. 

Not so great for those of us who were hoping to use the new controller with an AC50 or AC31. I estimate it would ADD about 1.2 seconds to my 0 to 60 time due to the about 10% decrease in lower end torque despite the higher peak about 80 HP (currently about 64 HP) *Edit: see post 376 this thread, I made an error, they actually come out about the same*. I assumed a nominal 156V pack (13 additional cells, so 160 lb more weight also). I would like to have the additional range it would give me due to adding about 12-13 more cells with the higher voltage controller, but I'll likely wait and hope they come out with a higher current version later like they did with the 1238-7601 after the -7501. Would be nice to not have to give up some acceleration.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Damn, that's a bummer, I was hoping for at least the same max current as mine. However I still might come out ahead with the higher voltage.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Yep, if you up to voltage close to 165V @ 500A that should be pretty good. Not sure they'd need to water cool the motor since it's about the same total power as the AC50 + 650A controller. I suspect the price difference with the new water cooling addition won't be worth a swap from the current model.

JR


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> Damn, that's a bummer, I was hoping for at least the same max current as mine. However I still might come out ahead with the higher voltage.


I put the numbers in my spreadsheet and get that I would shave 0.1 second off my 0 to 60 mph time with the new controller and an AC31 in my car. I assumed 156V pack, so peak torque out to about 156/115 = 1.36 higher rpm, but 10% lower peak torque (500A/550A).

It makes sense from simply considering that with the higher voltage controller you get peak torque out to about 1/3 higher rpm, but over much of the rpm range of the motor you now have 10% lower peak torque. Pushing the knee out to higher rpm is mostly canceled out by the loss in peak torque. With the AC50 it is more than canceled out because the AC50 already has peak torque out to around 4000 rpm with a 115V pack (I estimate 3900, Jack's dyno data indicate around 4100). Pushing it out to a bit over 5000 rpm doesn't make up for the fact that over about 4/5 of that rpm range you now have 10% less torque (new controller). 

Acceleration is proportional to the difference is available and required torque, so comparing different motor/controllers for the same vehicle it is basically determined by the area under the curve of available torque versus vehicle speed or motor rpm.

If you want higher acceleration the -7601 controller is better than the new one since it has 18% higher peak torque, even though it has a bit lower peak power output compared to the new controller. It shaves 1.1 second off my 0 - 60 mph time compared to the new controller adding 1 second. Peak motor shaft power with the -7601 and my present pack V is about 76 HP, and it is about 82 HP with a 156V pack and the new controller. 

I originally expected having higher torque at higher rpm (higher power) would improve my acceleration, and it would, but not enough to overcome the loss of peak torque at lower rpm.

It is a good demonstration of major's axiom: Torque is not irrelevant.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Nice analysis. The other consideration is the greater range I'd get from adding cells to my pack, but with the extra weight and the lower torque I might actually gain nothing in acceleration. If I went with the 650 controller and actually used the increased current then I'm stressing my cells a little harder. They couldn't have given us those extra 50 amps for at least 30 seconds or so? I think I'd have the same issue with the half shafts on the larger motor, plus I don't want to spring for a complete system. It's almost as if they are teasing us with the controller we want just out of reach. Sigh. More waiting I guess.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Seems it is to have the same V, I limits as their 1231C-8601 series DC motor controller. Maybe some psychology not to exceed that. One second isn't that much to give up for the added range, but I would be disappointed if I purchased one, and 6 months later they came out with a 650A model. In your case, I think you are not giving up much. I expect you would get about the same acceleration 0 to 60 with either controller (though lower 0 to 35) - and you stress your 100Ah cells a bit less with max current from the new one. Got to mess with water cooling though. Like JR said, I don't see that it is required for most driving, just very hot days driving for extended time at 70 mph maybe, or repeated max accelerations. Then your cells will overheat. It would have seemed more worth the cost and effort to me if I were gaining both range and acceleration.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The extra range would be nice but for my driving it's not enough to make much of a difference other than allowing me to charge less often, it wouldn't suddenly bring another destination within range. Might help if I drove it in the winter, but then so would a heated and insulated pack.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Jack Rickard referenced the higher voltage Curtis recently but mentioned 550 amps. Don't know if he has more recent information or is just mistaken. I'm not allowed to ask questions on his blog anymore since I've dared to have a different opinion, backed up by facts


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

That's Jack for you, point out something that is incorrect, even if it is painfully incorrect and he throws a fit. It is painful to see him as being the sole source of information for some people building their cars, especially for some of the dangerous advice he has given such as using 12v fuses and a 12v emergency disconnect(which he later changed his stance on after it failed to break an arc) on a high voltage DC application. ...or his thought that voltage sag is completely irrelevant, when it is a huge factor in power delivery efficiency, cell heating, overall performance, cold weather limitations, and essentially determines your C rate limits. Instead he gets in a fight about what to call it, whether its voltage sag, ESR, or IR. In reality it doesn't matter what its being called because we know the topic of discussion and we're discussing the topic and not the name of the topic. He is an old stubborn man who can't fathom that its possible that he is wrong about something. He has an entertaining show though and I've watched every episode but I cringe sometimes with where he goes with certain things and how angry he gets about it.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

MN Driver said:


> He has an entertaining show though and I've watched every episode...


Every episode? Wow, you deserve some sort of tin star for that!









Yes, his show is entertaining, and I applaud the concept of what he's trying to do, but I just don't have the stamina any more to sit through them. The blogs are worth combing through, I find.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think I've seen every episode as well. The secret is to download the show and use VLC player at 2X speed, or more  Plus jumping past the non EV stuff you may not be interested in, like changing the wheel bearings on a VW transaxle, or upgrading brakes on a BMW Mini.
Jack's biggest problems are that he pretends not to care what people think about him while desperately needing to appear as if he knows everything.
It's rather ironic that after complaining about being censored and banned from almost every EV related forum he chose to censor and ban me 
I'll keep watching though, it's the only hands on EVTV show, I just may have to start a thread here for comments on what I disagree with.


----------



## Bottomfeeder (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm just posting to subscribe to the updates on the AC50 motors. I've got a 144V x 130Ah Lithium pack crammed into my Spitfire, and I keep dreaming of an upgrade to AC. I'm using direct drive in my small car, so I'm going to have to make sure I'll be fine at low speeds with the AC motor. My WarP9 does fairly well with Paul and Sabrina's 500A controller. I'm only thwarted by the steepest of hills.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I would guess that Jack just assumed the new controller will have the same max current as the 7501, but it could be that Curtis changed their mind and squeezed out 10% more current. Would be nice. It won't be available until Q2 2012 so I won't pester HPEVS about it until around then. Maybe one of the dealers will get the scoop.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

> I'm using direct drive in my small car, so I'm going to have to make sure I'll be fine at low speeds with the AC motor.


 What is the overall gear ratio?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> > I'm using direct drive in my small car, so I'm going to have to make sure I'll be fine at low speeds with the AC motor.
> 
> 
> What is the overall gear ratio?


Hi Tom,

I like reading your posts but wish you would use the type of quotes which show the source.

Thanks,

major


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Hi major,

I never thought about it. I'll try to remember to click "quote" so the source is there, and trim it down to the relevant part. The source was bottomfeeder a few posts up. 



major said:


> Hi Tom,
> 
> I like reading your posts but wish you would use the type of quotes which show the source.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

JRoque said:


> Does anyone have the protocol detail for Curtis controllers of this type? Or at least a captured stream of data from the serial port? It should be possible to write a program to capture and display those parameters at once.
> 
> JR


If you can get your hands on a PC programmer cable and the software called "ATTACT" you are able to monitor and log 7 self-chosen parameters with a up to 4 ms rate.

For VCL programming you must have WINVCL and a standard Curtis operating system.

The absolute max voltage is 140. this is the shutdown voltage.
above 130V the controller will start to cut the regen current.


----------



## Korben_Dallas (Feb 27, 2009)

What's Curtis's policy on distributing the WinVCL software? Can you get it from Curtis to write your own VCL code? Do you have to be their official distributer to get it?


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm a developer at a company where we use Curtis AC controllers for our applications.

I have all the tools available but I'm not sure about the Curtis policy.



Korben_Dallas said:


> What's Curtis's policy on distributing the WinVCL software? Can you get it from Curtis to write your own VCL code? Do you have to be their official distributer to get it?


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Welcome to the forum, Hippie, and thanks for reading through the thread. Nice to have a VCL programming on board. 

So you can be 130v to 139V bus and the controller will simply cut back on regen current to keep it away from 140V? Is it that quick and accurate? Does it handle ok transients that go briefly over 140V?

If it can handle it, then 40 cells for 3.4v x 40 = 136V bus is doable. You just won't have much regen for the first couple of miles until the cells settle at their normal, lower nominal voltage.

This horse has been beaten already but I'm just thinking the combination of 136V bus with >650A output (and price) on the current controller model might hold up nicely against their upcoming 144V @ 500A model.

JR


----------



## Korben_Dallas (Feb 27, 2009)

From what I've heard the controller is safe until 125V and might get seriously damaged over 134V. Can someone verify if this is correct? Can you simply throw higher voltages at the controller and it will not be damaged? What about the warranty by Curtis?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I've hit 129V with my 36 cell pack of CALB 100's with no issues. I think 38 cells should be fine, don't know about 40 though. I think you'd have shut down problems.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

JRoque said:


> Welcome to the forum, Hippie, and thanks for reading through the thread. Nice to have a VCL programming on board.
> 
> So you can be 130v to 139V bus and the controller will simply cut back on regen current to keep it away from 140V? Is it that quick and accurate? Does it handle ok transients that go briefly over 140V?
> 
> ...


Thank you!
It is Absolute not possible to go above 140V. I don't Remember the sample rate for the overvoltage, but it's only a few milliseconds.
My experience is that the voltage only increases very little during regen.

At the moment I'm preparing for a project including the Curtis 1238 and 38 cells of 160 Ah WB. my plan is to charge them to 3,65v

I have no experience with the Curtis 1238 and high voltage, it is all based on what I can read and what I've heard from Curtis.
The HPEV system are probably limited to 130v but I have no knowledge about the HPEV system and what's in their VCL.

I will do my own VCL and use the standard Operating system.
Parameters in the VCL will always overrule parameters in the OS.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Regen voltage is also dependent on the size of the cells, and the pack temperature. My 100 ah cells will show more voltage rise with 200 amps of regen than a 180 ah pack will, and lower pack temperatures will also increase the voltage rise. My highest regen voltage has been on a cold morning going down a steep hill. My controller is set for 40% regen.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It has occurred to me that turning off regen and running 4 more cells would probably get me abit more range, and of course better performance, than using regen with 36 cells. On the other hand there might be some controller longevity issues with always running it near maximum voltage.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I have the cable and the Curtis PC programming software. Who makes the "ATTACT" software? I can monitor motor and controller parameters with the Curtis software, but would like to be able to data log them. 



Hippie Djohn said:


> If you can get your hands on a PC programmer cable and the software called "ATTACT" you are able to monitor and log 7 self-chosen parameters with a up to 4 ms rate.
> 
> For VCL programming you must have WINVCL and a standard Curtis operating system.
> 
> ...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Looks like Curtis.
http://attact.software.informer.com/



> *ATTACT* is developed by Curtis PMC. The most popular version of this product among our users is 1.0. The name of the program executable file is tact.exe.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> It has occurred to me that turning off regen and running 4 more cells would probably get me abit more range, and of course better performance, than using regen with 36 cells. On the other hand there might be some controller longevity issues with always running it near maximum voltage.


Hey JRP. Right and it was mentioned that the controller will cutback on regen if the voltage rises past a limit so there shouldn't be much risk - if it indeed can live with 130V or so input always. If this is true then you wouldn't get much regen when you leave your home but a couple of miles later it kicks in. If it works that way it would be nice.



tomofreno said:


> I have the cable and the Curtis PC programming software. Who makes the "ATTACT" software? I can monitor motor and controller parameters with the Curtis software, but would like to be able to data log them.


Isn't the data on the display coming over a standard serial connection? Perhaps you can read that into a logger. Hippie, is that possible?

JR


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

JRoque said:


> Isn't the data on the display coming over a standard serial connection? Perhaps you can read that into a logger. Hippie, is that possible?
> JR


Yes it is a serial connection.
It is not that easy to debug the signal and there is also some problems to do it. I don't remember why, but I've once tried to combine it with our own instrument cluster and it didn't work.

I'll try to dig in my old stuff...


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

My mistake...

It was our instrument cluster that didn't have serial port.
We ended up making our own "serial" connection in the VCL code by using a digital output to "morse" the frames.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Looks like Curtis.
> http://attact.software.informer.com/


This is a screen dump of ATTACT:
You can save the data file as csv format.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Very cool.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

know where we can get that? Would be nice to have!


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> know where we can get that? Would be nice to have!


If you are some kind of developer or OEM you should be able to get it from your Curtis supplier.


----------



## mcbrems (Oct 28, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Jack Rickard referenced the higher voltage Curtis recently but mentioned 550 amps. Don't know if he has more recent information or is just mistaken.


I spoke with Bill at HPEV and seem to remember him telling me as much, and remember him explaining the trade-off for bringing the amperage back down while raising the voltage. Don't remember understanding it in the moment, however. They are supposed to be building a new motor to pair with the new Curtis controller.

McB
914electric.wordpress.com


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I made an error in my comparison of performance of my car with the anticipated new controller from HPEVS and the current one, the Curtis 1238-7501 here: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=270720&postcount=341 
I forgot to do another 2nd order fit to the torque values beyond the constant torque part of the curve after I moved the max rpm for peak torque from about 3100 rpm to about 5200 rpm due to the higher (sagged) voltage (145V vs 86V). The 3100 rpm and 86V is from the HPEVS/Curtis data, and the 145 is a guesstimate at the sagged voltage of a nominal 156V pack with 2.8C discharge current (500A, 180Ah cells). 

I initially thought it wouldn't make that much difference, so was close enough, but it did. With this correction, the estimated 0 to 60 mph time with the high voltage controller is 15.5 seconds versus 15.8 for the 7501. The latter agrees well with the measured 16 seconds with the 7501 (The improved agreement is due to including 90% drive train efficiency which I left out initially). So the new controller seems to give about the same 0 to 60 time, not 1 second slower as I originally thought. I don't expect anyone cares too much about this, but thought I should set the record straight.

This time is with only shifting once, from 1st to 2nd gear, as it has peak torque out to about 55 mph in second gear. It has 10% less torque in each gear due to 10% less max current, but apparently this trades off fairly evenly with the fact that it has that torque out to higher rpm. Looks like the new one would have about 80 HP peak shaft power.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

I had searched the menus on the Curtis 1314 PC Programming Station software for data logging, didn't see anything, so concluded you couldn't. Turns out you can. It is not in _Help_ under data logging, but is under logging data.  Right clicking on a device such as motor, controller, or battery, in the _Monitor Test Data_ window opens a submenu with _Start Logging Data_, and _Set Sample Interval_ as selections. (Edit: data is saved as Excel files, .xls) This is logged _Keyswitch Voltage (Volt)_ (battery voltage I think since it is a fraction of a Volt to a Volt or so higher than _Capacitor Voltage_), _Battery Current (A)_, and _Battery Power (kW)_, with sample interval of 1 second for a low speed trip to town on secondary roads: 
View attachment 1.9.12 trip from house to town.pdf


A negative sign on current indicates regen. I included comments to give some indication of why current is changing as it is. Vehicle speed is roughly the posted speed limits indicated. The last 3 rows are as the comments say, power out of the battery, power into the battery (regen), and the ratio of these, taking absolute value of regen to get a positive number. This power data is spit out from the controller. The sample interval is 1 second so each of these power values can be considered an energy value, essentially an estimate of the energy into or out of the battery over each 1 second interval, with unit kWatt-second, or kJoule. The regen is about 16%, but the route had about 150 ft net decrease in elevation which helps a bit. It is more than I expected though for this fairly level terrain. Jack R. had said that his car was constantly going back and forth from regen to power out, and that was why regen didn't offer much benefit. This data doesn't show that at all. As I said at the time, I think he had a throttle problem or a foot problem.

I also data logged Controller parameters, including _RMS Current_, _Modulation Depth_, and _Frequency_, at the same time. Unfortunately you cannot start logging all parameters simultaneously. To log more than one device at a time you must open a _Monitor Test Data_ window for each one, then select _Start Logging Data_ in each window. Makes it a pain to try to match up sample times, and of course they are not exactly the same time. Time is only recorded to the nearest second even if you set sample interval to 500 ms or 0.5 second. In this case you end up with multiple readings for a given recorded time. 

The relation between RMS (motor phase) current and battery current is not a simple proportion since it depends on the battery voltage (how much sag), the modulation depth, and the frequency (motor rpm - which depends on vehicle speed and gearing).

I am going to try to record vehicle speed and elevation with a data logging gps along with battery and motor parameters, save them as csv files, and see if I can plot them all on the same graph with multiple axes with different scaling in Logview. Then you should be able to see how current is changing with changes in elevation and speed, as well as that you can have similar RMS motor current values at different battery currents depending on vehicle speed (frequency) and modulation depth (e.g. accelerating versus decelerating - batt voltage sag versus batt voltage increase due to regen).


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hey Tom. I'm going to show my true geek colors here but that data is just a thing of beauty! Gotta love those 0 current "idle" times at stop signs. It debunks the myth that EVs can't handle traffic jams as well as ICE. 

And you got all of these from the controller itself right? No external sensors? 

JR


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

awesome write up Tom.

I think looking at the data the peak was at about 33.3kw, any idea what speed you were traveling to require that much energy?*

*or am i not understanding that data correctly?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JRoque said:


> Hey Tom. I'm going to show my true geek colors here but that data is just a thing of beauty! Gotta love those 0 current "idle" times at stop signs. It debunks the myth that EVs can't handle traffic jams as well as ICE.
> 
> And you got all of these from the controller itself right? No external sensors?
> 
> JR


That's correct, all from the controller. Much more available too as I mentioned. Actually the vehicle speed is there too, since you can calculate it from the controller frequency knowing the gear ratio and dynamic tire radius. I may do that and compare to the gps.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> awesome write up Tom.
> 
> I think looking at the data the peak was at about 33.3kw, any idea what speed you were traveling to require that much energy?*
> 
> *or am i not understanding that data correctly?


Looks like it hit about that power a couple times, both while accelerating after a stop. This was a low speed, sedate trip on secondary roads. No speed limit over 35 mph, that's why the power is so low. But it is enough for me to accelerate and travel at or above the speed of traffic. I plan to take some more data along with a gps for elevation and vehicle speed. Probably do a loop and go out on the highway for a while.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> Looks like it hit about that power a couple times, both while accelerating after a stop. This was a low speed, sedate trip on secondary roads. No speed limit over 35 mph, that's why the power is so low. But it is enough for me to accelerate and travel at or above the speed of traffic. I plan to take some more data along with a gps for elevation and vehicle speed. Probably do a loop and go out on the highway for a while.


ahh i see that was a moment of acceleration, yah it would be good to see the cruising power usage at different speeds.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Nice detective work to find all that! It certainly seemed as if some data logging should be available.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Logging has always been there if you have the 1314 adapter and curtis software. 

Does anyone know if it spits anything out to a normal serial port?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> ahh i see that was a moment of acceleration, yah it would be good to see the cruising power usage at different speeds.


Hard to do since there seems to be no such thing as level ground, at least not for very long. For example:
View attachment Test data, some currents at constant speeds, 1.10.12.pdf


This data was taken on fairly level ground on a highway:
View attachment Test data, highway constant speed, 1.10.12.pdf


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

So an average about 190A @ 65 mph.
What car are you driving ?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Swift: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/swifte-36621.html


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks for the data, aerodynamic drag at 68mph hurts a bit at power draw, but that's to be expected. 65mph is as fast as the speed limits get until I get on an interstate that would take me into territory that I'd be well beyond a 100 mile round trip, so these numbers are very helpful.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Hippie Djohn said:


> So an average about 190A @ 65 mph.
> What car are you driving ?


 Also: http://www.evalbum.com/3060


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

tomofreno said:


> Also: http://www.evalbum.com/3060


Nice... 
Very similar size-wise to my project.
I'm converting a electric to electric 
http://www.evalbum.com/3878

I was hoping for a lower power consumption...

What is your RPM @ 65 mph ?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Hippie Djohn said:


> Nice...
> Very similar size-wise to my project.
> I'm converting a electric to electric
> http://www.evalbum.com/3878
> ...


5100, in 3rd gear. Seemed maybe a bit high to me also, but not certain. I calculated 17.4kW to 20.8kW for 65 to 70 mph. May not have been completely level. It doesn't take much change in grade to change the power by a couple kW. Actually, I was happy the calculations agreed that well.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Some more data from AC50/1238-7501 attached. Difficult to line everything up since sample times vary somewhat.
View attachment test data, selected, 1.16.12.pdf


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

So does the curtis spit anything out of the serial port while it's running without being hooked up to the curtis software? 

wonder if there's some sniffing we can do. Serial is much easier to work with than Canbus.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

According to page 12 in the manual it using +12V, Tx, and ground of the serial port for the spyglass, which is where you connect using the PC Programming software.



frodus said:


> So does the curtis spit anything out of the serial port while it's running without being hooked up to the curtis software?
> 
> wonder if there's some sniffing we can do. Serial is much easier to work with than Canbus.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I realize that.... 

but I wonder if the curtis spits out data, or if strings need to be sent to the controller to enable that. I know that the dongle talks serial (it's an isolated RS232 to Rs232 converter with a pic chip inside that "enables" the software), but I don't know what the software actually sends the controller.

Might fire up my serial sniffer.


----------



## sholland (Jan 16, 2012)

I have a hybrid project in mind, with the front-wheel drive ICE still in place, adding either a single AC35/50 (direct or some reduction gearing differential) or dual AC15/20 (one on each rear wheel - no reduction). 

The car is Honda Civic, will be ~2600lbs with everything installed, again front ICE still in place, only driving the rear wheels for slow speeds, cruise or assisted acceleration.

Most of the applications I have read about are using the ICE transmission, gears 2, 3 and 4 for torque multiplication. Do you guys think these motors can drive the wheels directly?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

sholland said:


> I have a hybrid project in mind, with the front-wheel drive ICE still in place, adding either a single AC35/50 (direct or some reduction gearing differential) or dual AC15/20 (one on each rear wheel - no reduction).
> 
> The car is Honda Civic, will be ~2600lbs with everything installed, again front ICE still in place, only driving the rear wheels for slow speeds, cruise or assisted acceleration.
> 
> Most of the applications I have read about are using the ICE transmission, gears 2, 3 and 4 for torque multiplication. Do you guys think these motors can drive the wheels directly?


Sounds like an interesting topic that I would like to comment on and provide whatever knowledge I have accumulated...However it deserves its own thread, I suggest you create one


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

sholland said:


> Most of the applications I have read about are using the ICE transmission, gears 2, 3 and 4 for torque multiplication. Do you guys think these motors can drive the wheels directly?


Not well. You'll have terrible acceleration from a stop.


----------



## sholland (Jan 16, 2012)

Bowser330 said:


> Sounds like an interesting topic that I would like to comment on and provide whatever knowledge I have accumulated...However it deserves its own thread, I suggest you create one


Will do, thanks!


----------



## e_abuzer (Jan 10, 2012)

Hi All,
Can I tell the Curtis controller to spin the motor at 'x' RPM via CAN bus?
The next question is ; Is there a way to set torque to 0 (zero) While driving. (actually when in neutral). Just want to see if I can make clutchless shifting simpler.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I don't think you can tell it an RPM, but rather a throttle percent. To get it to go a certain RPM, you'd set it in speed mode and command via canbus the throttle value. 

To set torque to zero, put the controller in torque mode (as opposed to speed mode) and if you want torque to be zero, set throttle to 0.

The two are mutually exclusive. One controls speed, the other controls torque, and you can only set in one or the other with the base software.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

e_abuzer said:


> Hi All,
> Can I tell the Curtis controller to spin the motor at 'x' RPM via CAN bus?
> The next question is ; Is there a way to set torque to 0 (zero) While driving. (actually when in neutral). Just want to see if I can make clutchless shifting simpler.


Thru VCL it is possible
Ask HPEV for advise... if they provide such service !?

Maybe I should setup my own VCL service


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

You'd have to start by recreating the code that is already inside the controller from HPEVS, then add on your own stuff, otherwise I think you lose some functionality.

there IS an canopen value called VCL_throttle that is read/write via canbus, but I don't know if that is ONLY accessable through VCL, or if the controller will allow the user to set this through canbus, and if HPEVS overwrites it at all. There are some other throttle parameters as well, but I can't really do much right now without a canbus analyzer... waiting to order one.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> You'd have to start by recreating the code that is already inside the controller from HPEVS, then add on your own stuff, otherwise I think you lose some functionality.


I don't consider recreating or creating new code to be a problem.
From what I can see, the HPEV code/ setup is very simple and they have removed more functions from the programming menu (compared to the "standard Curtis parameters) than they have added.
If they used alot of hours programming the CAN I would expect them to provide the specifications or it would be a waste of time .

If I had a HPEV system available, I could make and unlocked SW very quickly.



frodus said:


> there IS an canopen value called VCL_throttle that is read/write via canbus, but I don't know if that is ONLY accessable through VCL, or if the controller will allow the user to set this through canbus, and if HPEVS overwrites it at all. There are some other throttle parameters as well, but I can't really do much right now without a canbus analyzer... waiting to order one.


I haven't played lot with CAN yet, but from what I can read in the VCL manual the CAN must be setup in the VCL code.

VCL_Throttle is the only throttle parameter that you can write to.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

If you don't have an HPEVS system available, then how could you help? and why would you?

or are you just saying "it could be done"....


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> If you don't have an HPEVS system available, then how could you help? and why would you?
> 
> or are you just saying "it could be done"....


How?: if somebody with a HPEV system are willing to be test person I would like to help.

Why?: I think it is a shame Curtis doesn't make this fantastic system available to all.

Yes and also to tell that it could be done.
I wasn't aware that so few people had the programming tools available before intering this forum.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Hippie Djohn said:


> How?: if somebody with a HPEV system are willing to be test person I would like to help.


Would be much better to have one there to test, IMHO, but I have a 1238-7501, 1238-6501 and a 1236-6301 we can test on. I'd rather leave the 7501 alone for now, but the other two are game.



> Why?: I think it is a shame Curtis doesn't make this fantastic system available to all.


 Agreed, but there's a lot of dumbasses out there and I fear what would happen if you unleashed them with VCL.... it would be a nightmare for the resellers.



> Yes and also to tell that it could be done.
> I wasn't aware that so few people had the programming tools available before intering this forum.


Is it correct to assume that you have VCL, OS12 from Curtis and the Can tables?


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> Would be much better to have one there to test, IMHO, but I have a 1238-7501, 1238-6501 and a 1236-6301 we can test on. I'd rather leave the 7501 alone for now, but the other two are game.
> 
> Agreed, but there's a lot of dumbasses out there and I fear what would happen if you unleashed them with VCL.... it would be a nightmare for the resellers.
> 
> ...



VCL and OS is the same for all Curtis AC-Controllers
Somebody from Florida who what to be test rats ?

Yes I have it all.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I realize that, I was asking if you had OS12, as opposed to 10 or 11.

If you want to do some coding, I don't mind uploading code to either of the 2 other controllers I've got just for testing some stuff. Just need to know what it is I'd be testing and what functionality we'd be working on.


----------



## e_abuzer (Jan 10, 2012)

Wow!
It seems we've unleashed the Power of DIY ! 
We have good programming experience on many ICs , and pretty much all languages known to man  , but we don't have the toolkit required for this task. How much does the toolkit cost anyway? And where can we get them?
How about other controllers? Has anyone done something like this with another controller? Since CAN is a standard, they should accept similar params, etc. Or am I completely getting off the track here?
I'm really looking forward to a nice solution at the end of this.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

This is curtis-controller-specific programming. We're not talking about reverse engineering and reprogramming the IC on there from the ground up, we're talking about using the Curtis-developed VCL Compiler to get the controllers a little more "opened up". They've developed all of the algorithms for the AC Induction motor control... we're just trying to get access to more of the IO functionality.

Toolkit is more or less free to OEM's and they don't freely distribute the software to end-users. 

I just want Canbus stuff for the monitoring, less so for control.


----------



## e_abuzer (Jan 10, 2012)

Yes , I understand that. And I'm really happy about what's happening here  . I just said that to indicate we can understand and help if we have the toolkit. I'll ask the local distributor here to see if we can get the set.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

How many of these parameters are available in the HPEV programming menu ?

And how many of the listed parameters are interesting to you ?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

It's not the parameters that I'm after, I can change those with my HH and PC programmer.

It's making use of those extra inputs and outputs. Unless configured within VCL to do something, they are just sitting there gathering dust! Drive gauges, lights, water pumps, etc.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> It's not the parameters that I'm after, I can change those with my HH and PC programmer.
> 
> It's making use of those extra inputs and outputs. Unless configured within VCL to do something, they are just sitting there gathering dust! Drive gauges, lights, water pumps, etc.


So All these parameters are available in the HPEV setup ?

Yes I know you want to configure the extra I/O's yourself, but with all the parameters available and some creative thinking you will be able to use some of the standard assigned pins for different purposes.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Yes they are. AFAIK, you can't remove parameters, you can only add your own.

And as far as configuring them, there's no way to do this in the parameter setup unless HPEVS has hardcoded some way of accessing them through the programmer menu. You can monitor them.

That, and the standard pins, are assigned to HPEVS specific things, they've hardcoded it. I'm not as interested in those pins, as I am in the unused and unconfigured pins.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

frodus said:


> It's not the parameters that I'm after, I can change those with my HH and PC programmer.
> 
> It's making use of those extra inputs and outputs. Unless configured within VCL to do something, they are just sitting there gathering dust! Drive gauges, lights, water pumps, etc.


I've been trying to get HPEVS to add a few lines of VCL code to drive a DO for brakes lights for about a year and a half now. The idea is to write a command to set the DO high if regen current or power exceeds a specific value, say 30A, to drive a relay connected in parallel with the brake light switch. If the DO can't source enough current, it could drive a small ss relay that drives a larger one for the lights. Bill says he hasn't forgotten.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Let me get my controller hooked up and driving the motor, hook it up to the 6501 and maybe we can all work together on some of these features. 

I'd love to have a pulsed output to my taillights to indicate if it's in regen, full brake, etc.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I thought Jack said in his most recent video there already was a regen triggered brake light output enabled for the controllers, he just hasn't bothered to use it.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> Yes they are. AFAIK, you can't remove parameters, you can only add your own.


You can remove parameters by changing the access level.
There is 7 levels from Curtis developer to user. 
By changing the access level parameters become invisible to "normal people".



frodus said:


> And as far as configuring them, there's no way to do this in the parameter setup unless HPEVS has hardcoded some way of accessing them through the programmer menu. You can monitor them.


I've not tried, but my guess is that the already defined parameters are also available at the by Curtis standard wiring diagram defined pins.
You are able to opperate the motor without any VCL code present at all, just by using the assigned pins in the OS. 
VCL is only for customization. And yes I understand that is what you want.



frodus said:


> .
> That, and the standard pins, are assigned to HPEVS specific things, they've hardcoded it. I'm not as interested in those pins, as I am in the unused and unconfigured pins.


And yes I understand now, that is what you want.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

tomofreno said:


> I've been trying to get HPEVS to add a few lines of VCL code to drive a DO for brakes lights for about a year and a half now. The idea is to write a command to set the DO high if regen current or power exceeds a specific value, say 30A, to drive a relay connected in parallel with the brake light switch. If the DO can't source enough current, it could drive a small ss relay that drives a larger one for the lights. Bill says he hasn't forgotten.


Brake light would take 5 min to add the VCL


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I thought Jack said in his most recent video there already was a regen triggered brake light output enabled for the controllers, he just hasn't bothered to use it.


I want it to flash on brake input regen, full on with full brake. 

Would be cool to drive my Tach, Speedo and Fuel gauge as well, keep things stock looking.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> I want it to flash on any regen, full on with full brake. Right now there's only regen input (which can be wired as ON/OFF, or as 2 wire, 3 wire variable). I'd need regen input AND a brake input, or at least code inside that would flash if regen is above XX% and full on if 90-100% or so.
> 
> Would be cool to drive my Tach, Speedo and Fuel gauge as well, keep things stock looking.


That should be no problem... Brake for brake input and any switch for the lights.
Very simple.


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

frodus said:


> I want it to flash on any regen, full on with full brake. Right now there's only regen input (which can be wired as ON/OFF, or as 2 wire, 3 wire variable). I'd need regen input AND a brake input, or at least code inside that would flash if regen is above XX% and full on if 90-100% or so.
> 
> Would be cool to drive my Tach, Speedo and Fuel gauge as well, keep things stock looking.


and of cause use drivers to make signal chains to your instruments.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

frodus said:


> I want it to flash on any regen, full on with full brake. Right now there's only regen input (which can be wired as ON/OFF, or as 2 wire, 3 wire variable). I'd need regen input AND a brake input, or at least code inside that would flash if regen is above XX% and full on if 90-100% or so.
> 
> Would be cool to drive my Tach, Speedo and Fuel gauge as well, keep things stock looking.


People on the road aren't going to expect a flashing output, if anything they might think you are trying to signal them something. Considering that road rage is common, I'd hate to see someone misinterpret your flashing for being angry because it really looks like you are stomping on the pedal a bunch of times if its blinking. IMHO a different idea would be to either power a second set of lights that is in a different position or dimmer for regen versus full on. I like the idea of a brake light that gets brighter with more regen because I think it would be a little more clear to other drivers if you are going from regen to service brakes or a heavy increase in regen.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Brake lights are a warning to pay attention and be ready to stop. I don't think it should matter if you are slowing a little or a lot, with regen or friction brakes, the signal should always be the same and easy to interpret. Keep It Simple because people are Stupid


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Brake lights are a warning to pay attention and be ready to stop. I don't think it should matter if you are slowing a little or a lot, with regen or friction brakes, the signal should always be the same and easy to interpret. Keep It Simple because people are Stupid


Agree.
Doesn't make any sense to have more, less, flashing or non flashing stoplights.

Stick to the standards and people know what it means and can react to it.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Brake lights are a warning to pay attention and be ready to stop. I don't think it should matter if you are slowing a little or a lot, with regen or friction brakes, the signal should always be the same and easy to interpret. Keep It Simple because people are Stupid


 Yes, I think all the driver behind you cares is whether you are stopping or slowing substantially or not. Anything else will just confuse them. That is why I asked HPEVS to design in some threshold regen parameter you can adjust for how much regen is required before the lights come on - so the brake lights aren't going on and off as you slow a bit for a bend or the car in front of you, just when you are slowing down more rapidly with greater regen.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

MN Driver said:


> People on the road aren't going to expect a flashing output, if anything they might think you are trying to signal them something. Considering that road rage is common, I'd hate to see someone misinterpret your flashing for being angry because it really looks like you are stomping on the pedal a bunch of times if its blinking. IMHO a different idea would be to either power a second set of lights that is in a different position or dimmer for regen versus full on. I like the idea of a brake light that gets brighter with more regen because I think it would be a little more clear to other drivers if you are going from regen to service brakes or a heavy increase in regen.


 
I drive a motorcycle, and brake light flashers (of certain types) are legal in all 50 states. My situation is different than the masses, I drive a motorcycle and many motorists never see us, it's for visibility. 

From here: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/816.100 


> Brake lights for motorcycles may flash intermittently, provided that the brake lights do not override the rear turn signal function.


I'd want to specifically limit how it works, like off-Throttle regen shouldn't engage it, but front handlebar or rear foot brake should activate it, and when stopped stay steady.


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

frodus said:


> I drive a motorcycle, and brake light flashers (of certain types) are legal in all 50 states. My situation is different than the masses, I drive a motorcycle and many motorists never see us, it's for visibility.


many motorcyclists use hyperlites which flash the brake light upon braking (they offer a few different options depending on how you want the flashing to work). They are unquestionably annoying, which is exactly the point! If you are annoying someone, at least they are seeing you.  

doesn't solve your problem of differentiating regen from braking, just pointing out that it's not uncommon for motorcycles to have flashing brake lights. I don't think I've ever read about someone with them getting rear ended.


----------



## Kelmark (Oct 26, 2009)

mcbrems said:


> I spoke with Bill at HPEV and seem to remember him telling me as much, and remember him explaining the trade-off for bringing the amperage back down while raising the voltage. Don't remember understanding it in the moment, however. They are supposed to be building a new motor to pair with the new Curtis controller.
> 
> McB
> 914electric.wordpress.com


Has there been any progress on this new HV controller and motor from HPEV? Is there an expected release date?


----------



## Hippie Djohn (Oct 24, 2011)

According to my sources inside Curtis they stopped the project.
A 144V system doesn't fit into their commercial product line at the moment.
Unfortunately :-(


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

Hippie Djohn said:


> According to my sources inside Curtis they stopped the project.
> A 144V system doesn't fit into their commercial product line at the moment.
> Unfortunately :-(


Nooooooooooo....


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

That is their canned message for people before things are released. I'd wait to hear that directly from HPEVS rather than curtis dealers abroad.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hello HPEVs owners. Can you capture controller logs and shoot a video at the same time? Tomofreno did that for a Windows app I'm working on. It's nowhere near finished and kinda user-hostile but here's what we have so far:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/ev-trip-program-68530.html

JR


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

Hippie Djohn said:


> According to my sources inside Curtis they stopped the project.
> A 144V system doesn't fit into their commercial product line at the moment.
> Unfortunately :-(


Your sources are leading you astray. As of yesturday, its still comming along as expected wilh a projected date in July 2012. Although it doesnt even resemble a controller yet, it does look good. The final specs if all goes well is 72-144v @ 500amp with maximum voltage of 170v.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I thought I should add a comment on how I adjusted the AC50 data for 115V. The dyno data is for a 96V pack which sagged to 86V. My nominal 115V 180Ah CALB pack sags to about 110V when I floor it (3C current, would be more sag for lower Ah cells), so (110 - 86)/86 = 0.28. The "knee" of the torque curve in the dyno data is at about 3075 rpm, so I estimated the knee would occur at 3075*(1+0.28) = 3936 rpm, which I rounded up to 4k. I rounded up since when I performed the base speed test as described in the Curtis 1238-7501 manual I initially got values over 4.5k rpm - but there was a slight slope to the road. After repeating the test on level ground I obtained values of about 4400 and 4500 rpm. So I thought 4k was a reasonable value to use. I adjusted the AC31 knee to 1800*(1 + 0.28) = 2300 rpm based on the 96V dyno data for it. I used 90 ft-lb peak torque for the AC50 and 117 ft-lb for the AC31.
> View attachment 10569


So if 110V = 4500rpm knee....then....170V max = 48 cells in series @ 3.5V charged, 153.6V nominal * .9 (10% sag @ 500A) = 138V, 25% higher voltage = knew @ ~5600rpm

That's a nice peak rpm, It should make driving feel more natural (ice like), ~100hp & 110ftlbs (from 0rpm)


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

How is a longer flatter torque curve going to feel more like an ICE, which has a peakier torque curve?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> How is a longer flatter torque curve going to feel more like an ICE, which has a peakier torque curve?


I meant the power curve, not the torque curve.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> So if 110V = 4500rpm knee....then....170V max = 48 cells in series @ 3.5V charged, 153.6V nominal * .9 (10% sag @ 500A) = 138V, 25% higher voltage = knew @ ~5600rpm
> 
> That's a nice peak rpm, It should make driving feel more natural (ice like), ~100hp & 110ftlbs (from 0rpm)


 I used 3900, not 4500, for my calculations to be conservative. I think Jack R. estimated 4100 in his dyno testing. I consider these numbers fuzzy at best. I guesstimated the knee at about 5200 for the new controller, but dunno. The 110V is for a fully charged pack too, there is more sag at lower SOC. Here is a required and available wheel torque versus vehicle speed graph I put together for my car comparing 156V (49 cells) and 115V (36 cells):
View attachment AC50, 115, 156.pdf

The 500A versus 550A results in more torque at lower rpm for the present lower V/higher I 7501 controller (blue shading), but then the higher V of the new controller gives more current and higher torque at higher rpm. They about even out in the end - have about the same 0 to 60 time. Certainly to well within my estimation error even though the peak power is in the low 80's HP for the new controller and low 60's HP for the present (shaft power). The new one will give better passing on the highway - and as you said, that will more match the original ice performance which had peak power at about 6k rpm. 

I almost never go over 65 mph though, so would rather had more current and torque on the low end. My interest in it is the greater range a 33% increase in pack energy gives me, lower battery current at a given speed, and more miles range per hour of charging at the same charge current (due to more energy into the pack per unit charge added at 156V versus 115V).


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. More power, yes. But I'm not sure that it will result in a linear added range. There will be more weight from the extra cells and possible more losses from the higher volt switching and added connections.

It is definitely nice that they added a 170V max controller but they seem to have taken a step backwards with: lower current (500A), added complexity of liquid cooling (presumably) and added cost over the previous model. Unless the new package comes with a super-duper-efficient motor, I can't see much gain.

Why oh why didn't they pick one of the newer FETs out there than can do 250V nominal while delivering comparable current to the 7601... I think it was Prince that sang: "Maybe I'm just too demanding" 

JR


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JRoque said:


> Hi. More power, yes. But I'm not sure that it will result in a linear added range. There will be more weight from the extra cells and possible more losses from the higher volt switching and added connections.
> 
> It is definitely nice that they added a 170V max controller but they seem to have taken a step backwards with: lower current (500A), added complexity of liquid cooling (presumably) and added cost over the previous model. Unless the new package comes with a super-duper-efficient motor, I can't see much gain.
> 
> ...


 Vehicle weight and rr force will increase by about 100*160/2260 = 7%. Stored energy will increase by about 100*(49-36)/36 = 36%. The small change in switching and connection losses will be offset by lower Joule losses in conductors and connections with 36% lower battery current at a given speed. I agree on the added complexity and the lower current. In fact, I may just wait and see if they come out with a higher current version later.


----------



## Zak650 (Sep 20, 2008)

Does running a clutchless system with regen present any problems shifting between gears? If so, are there driving techniques to avoid grinding gears?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The regen quickly slows the motor when you lift off which means you have a narrow window in which to shift, but can allow faster shifting than with a clutch, if you get it right   I find a quick lift off the A pedal with a quick shift usually works well. This is for upshifting. Downshifting is more difficult and requires matching motor RPM more closely with the transmission. Probably also highly dependent on how your individual transmission behaves as well. Be prepared for some grinders as you experiment.  For 99% of my driving I just leave it in 2nd gear, from 0 up to around 65 mph.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> The regen quickly slows the motor when you lift off which means you have a narrow window in which to shift, but can allow faster shifting than with a clutch, if you get it right   I find a quick lift off the A pedal with a quick shift usually works well. This is for upshifting. Downshifting is more difficult and requires matching motor RPM more closely with the transmission. Probably also highly dependent on how your individual transmission behaves as well. Be prepared for some grinders as you experiment.  For 99% of my driving I just leave it in 2nd gear, from 0 up to around 65 mph.


You can progarm the controller to change the amount of regen that will make it easier for you to shift without a clutch, each car being differant due to its weight and transmission ratios. I use 3rd gear only from 0 to 80mph. It is very quite at 45mph with a rpm of about 3k. There is no need to do a bunch of shifting unluss you are hot rodding or want a neck snapping getaway from the light.


----------



## Zak650 (Sep 20, 2008)

In an old VW bug what are pluses and minuses or a comparison between the AC31 and AC50 assuming a 120 volt pack?


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

Zak650 said:


> In an old VW bug what are pluses and minuses or a comparison between the AC31 and AC50 assuming a 120 volt pack?


The differances between the AC-31 and AC-50 with a 130v pack is as follows.
The AC-31 has more torque 0 to 2k RPM than the AC-50, faster from the stop.
The AC-50 has more torque 2 to 4k RPM than the AC-31. More passing torque.
The AC-31 is 2 inches shorter allowing a easier installation.
Those are the main differances other than the cost.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Zak650 said:


> In an old VW bug what are pluses and minuses or a comparison between the AC31 and AC50 assuming a 120 volt pack?


 Basically what cruisin said. This is a graph of wheel torque versus vehicle speed for my car with 36 cells, 115V nominal, comparing the AC31 and AC50 (acceleration is proportional to the difference in available wheel torque and required wheel torque to move the car at a given constant speed):
View attachment AC31 and AC50 Wheel torque.pdf

If you want quicker passing on the highway the AC50 gives a little advantage. If you want to be quicker off the line up to 40 mph or so, the AC31 offers a little advantage (peak torque at 550A about 117 ft-lb versus about 92 ft-lb for the AC51). The estimated 0 to 60 mph times for my car are 15.5 seconds for the AC50 (measured 16), and 16.8 seconds for the AC31. I allowed 0.5 seconds per shift, and the AC50 requires two, AC31 requires three to optimize 0 to 60 mph for my transmission. So not a great deal of difference.


----------



## Zak650 (Sep 20, 2008)

Does the data show if one is more efficient than the other at 55 mph?


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> Basically what cruisin said. This is a graph of wheel torque versus vehicle speed for my car with 36 cells, 115V nominal, comparing the AC31 and AC50 (acceleration is proportional to the difference in available wheel torque and required wheel torque to move the car at a given constant speed):
> View attachment 12148
> 
> If you want quicker passing on the highway the AC50 gives a little advantage. If you want to be quicker off the line up to 40 mph or so, the AC31 offers a little advantage (peak torque at 550A about 117 ft-lb versus about 92 ft-lb for the AC51). The estimated 0 to 60 mph times for my car are 15.5 seconds for the AC50 (measured 16), and 16.8 seconds for the AC31. I allowed 0.5 seconds per shift, and the AC50 requires two, AC31 requires three to optimize 0 to 60 mph for my transmission. So not a great deal of difference.


Thanks for explaining it better than I. Looking at your graph it appears that the AC-31 in 3rd gear would do a better job around town than the AC-50. what tranny did you use in your tests, that could make a big differance.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> Vehicle weight and rr force will increase by about 100*160/2260 = 7%. Stored energy will increase by about 100*(49-36)/36 = 36%. The small change in switching and connection losses will be offset by lower Joule losses in conductors and connections with 36% lower battery current at a given speed. I agree on the added complexity and the lower current. In fact, I may just wait and see if they come out with a higher current version later.


 
As of Friday the plan is still 500a and 144v nominal (170v) max. The finished product is still in the future (june). The advantage will be if HPEV designs a bigger motor to couple with the higher voltage that doesnt need the higher amps.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

cruisin said:


> As of Friday the plan is still 500a and 144v nominal (170v) max. The finished product is still in the future (june). The advantage will be if HPEV designs a bigger motor to couple with the higher voltage that doesnt need the higher amps.


 Thanks for the update. I posted on the new motor some time ago:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=256014&postcount=327
A couple weeks ago Bill told me they were getting a new controller for testing soon, and it looks like 500A for now, though they have requested higher.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

cruisin said:


> Thanks for explaining it better than I. Looking at your graph it appears that the AC-31 in 3rd gear would do a better job around town than the AC-50. what tranny did you use in your tests, that could make a big differance.


 Agree. JRP3 can go up to 65 mph in his 2nd gear, I am at about 6k rpm at 57 mph. Using the original Swift manual transmission. Overall gear ratios: 13.45, 7.16, 4.85, 3.45, 2.88. Loaded tire diameter: 21".


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Zak650 said:


> Does the data show if one is more efficient than the other at 55 mph?


 I doubt there is a significant difference. It would depend on your gear ratios and what rpm the motor runs at for 55 mph vehicle speed. You should be able to find a gear that would permit you to run in the range of 4000 to 6000 rpm with either motor, in which case efficiency should be similar. According to the Curtis dyno data from HPEVS, AC50 efficiency is 87% to 90% from about 5.5k to 6k rpm, and over 84% above about 2.8k rpm. Controller efficiency is 94% or better above 2800 rpm. The mean combined controller/motor efficiency above 2800 rpm is 79.8%. I don't have efficiency data for the AC31.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Third gear for me would be pretty sluggish around town, second, at 6.834 over all, with 24 inch tires, is about perfect.


----------



## DrDirt (Aug 29, 2010)

I didn't plan my a clutchless setup but the throwout bearing I installed was bad and I'm too lazy to pull the whole tranny and replace. So I've been driving clutchless and it works fine. Takes a little practice but not much.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Clutchless, but with the weight of a clutch and flywheel, which should give the motor more inertia and somewhat limit the effects of regen slowing the motor while shifting. Interesting.


----------



## njloof (Nov 21, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Clutchless, but with the weight of a clutch and flywheel, which should give the motor more inertia and somewhat limit the effects of regen slowing the motor while shifting. Interesting.


You can approximate that effect in a true clutchless setup by tuning the regen parameters, no? Just trying to get my head around the options available...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

You can lower the amount of regen, or turn it off, but then you have less regen, and less energy recovery.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

njloof said:


> You can approximate that effect in a true clutchless setup by tuning the regen parameters, no? Just trying to get my head around the options available...


 
Do it the way the manufacturers do it, concerning regen. Minumum regen of about 5-10% with throttle off. You can very this a little for clutchless shifting to you particular needs. Then 0 to maximum brake regen for the first 2" of brake travel before brake pads interact. Why do it any way but the right way. Others can drive the car without any special instructions, and, someday you are going to sell the car and you should want it to be attractive to the buyer. No mickey mouse switches, levers, etc.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Of course actual EV OEM's such as Tesla and BMW have done it the "right" way with strong A pedal regen. They don't have to worry about shifting though since they can use a single speed gear reduction.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Of course actual EV OEM's such as Tesla and BMW have done it the "right" way with strong A pedal regen. They don't have to worry about shifting though since they can use a single speed gear reduction.


 
You keep talking about shifting, with the proper design using the right motor, controller, voltage, AH and most importantly, gear ratio, shifting is not necessary. Of all the cars I have done and currently use, shifting is NOT in the game, unless of course you want to be a hot rodder. Even if you do need to shift, the brake regen has nothing to do with being able to shift without a clutch. Thats why the "right" way is maximum brake regen that is 100% controlable at ALL times. Just like a production car.


----------



## Zak650 (Sep 20, 2008)

cruisin said:


> You keep talking about shifting, with the proper design using the right motor, controller, voltage, AH and most importantly, gear ratio, shifting is not necessary. Of all the cars I have done and currently use, shifting is NOT in the game, unless of course you want to be a hot rodder. Even if you do need to shift, the brake regen has nothing to do with being able to shift without a clutch. Thats why the "right" way is maximum brake regen that is 100% controlable at ALL times. Just like a production car.


I really like this comment on 100% contol on regen. I'm planning a car with a motorcycle twist grip on the emergency brake handle. All the regen input to the control will be applied thru this hall effect input without the friction brakes being applied at all. I'm in the planning stage so I don't have any experience with this system yet but I'm hoping it will work out well.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

cruisin said:


> You keep talking about shifting, with the proper design using the right motor, controller, voltage, AH and most importantly, gear ratio, shifting is not necessary. Of all the cars I have done and currently use, shifting is NOT in the game, unless of course you want to be a hot rodder. Even if you do need to shift, the brake regen has nothing to do with being able to shift without a clutch. Thats why the "right" way is maximum brake regen that is 100% controlable at ALL times. Just like a production car.


The reality is that the HPEV's systems don't have enough power to allow a single speed 100% of the time in all vehicles for the best performance, so shifting is a reality in some cases. For performance it's better to use 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, but for normal driving I can indeed just use 2nd. However you seem to miss the point that if you are indeed not shifting then full regen on the A-pedal which you can infinitely vary makes the most sense, exactly what Tesla and BMW have done. Most drivers of those vehicles talk about how much they love single pedal driving, something your setup does not allow.


----------



## cruisin (Jun 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> The reality is that the HPEV's systems don't have enough power to allow a single speed 100% of the time in all vehicles for the best performance, so shifting is a reality in some cases. For performance it's better to use 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, but for normal driving I can indeed just use 2nd. However you seem to miss the point that if you are indeed not shifting then full regen on the A-pedal which you can infinitely vary makes the most sense, exactly what Tesla and BMW have done. Most drivers of those vehicles talk about how much they love single pedal driving, something your setup does not allow.


My setup could have one pedal operation if you program it that way. However, if you look at all the EV's on the market, practicly all, including Hybrids, use my "setup". By the way, take a look at the Tesla S series operation of the pedals and then come back here.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Of course I know you can program A pedal regen on your system I have the same system. I'm talking about how you have it set up. As for the Model S I have not seen anything saying it won't have strong A pedal regen.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

HPEVS told me they installed the first higher voltage Curtis controller into a car yesterday and will start testing soon.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> HPEVS told me they installed the first higher voltage Curtis controller into a car yesterday and will start testing soon.


NICE!!! Thats great news!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Still 500 amp max I assume?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Still 500 amp max I assume?


I assume so, since they said earlier it looked like 500A for now. I don't think it is "great" news. Great news to me would be that they decided to up the max current to 650A, or they decided to go with 600A and max 200V. Good news would be that they max current would be 550A. The main advantage I see is that I could add 13 more cells to increase my range by around 30-35%, but I am reluctant to give up 10% bottom end torque to achieve that. Their are now some J1772 chargers at a couple points about 40 - 50 miles distant, so with the new controller and valerun's 10kW charger I could extend the distance I can reach quite a bit if I stop for a 1 hr charge.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

tomofreno said:


> I assume so, since they said earlier it looked like 500A for now. I don't think it is "great" news. Great news to me would be that they decided to up the max current to 650A, or they decided to go with 600A and max 200V. Good news would be that they max current would be 550A.


Agree. For me it's disappointing news that they can't hit at least 550 amps. I'm just afraid that as soon as I decide to get the 650 amp 7601 they'll announce a higher amp version of the higher voltage controller


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Hello everyone. I have finally joined this site after months of studying, so thanks very much for all the info even though you did not know i was here... I have a 98 Metro hatchback that i am converting. I got a good deal on an ac35 kit and have the motor in now. Had to get a pair of automatic axles and fab some mounts to move the manual tranny tranny over 4.5 inches so it would fit right. Already have 34 gbs 200ah third gen batteries. Could you guys tell me if my 550current amp. Controller has the ability to talk to a mimod? Also any ideas for bms that would work with a mimod. I am interested in instrumentation and have to see everything... thanks again for the months (years?) of info prior to me joining.


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

usually you need a serial to blue tooth dongle for the controller.

Miz


----------



## clonezero (Oct 16, 2009)

Can the Curtis 1238-7601 controller be mounted with the heat sink side up?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Can't imagine why not.


----------



## Ivansgarage (Sep 3, 2011)

Can any body tell me what is the part number, model number of the encodder used on the ac50..

Ivansgarage
http://ivanbennett.com/ 1999 sonoma electric


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

Ivansgarage said:


> Can any body tell me what is the part number, model number of the encodder used on the ac50..
> ...


http://www.usdigital.com/products/encoders/incremental/rotary/kit/e6


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Hmmm, why would the design master of a series DC controller have that data at their fingertips....... AC Soliton on the drawing board?  Should I keep holding off upgrading to a higher power Curtis?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Looks like August/2012 for production units of the Curtis 144V controller. Max V is 175V, so about 49-50 cells max. The AC-51 is an AC50 rewound for the higher voltage controller. 

Peak power is of course limited by the 500A/144V controller. Figure maybe 145V sagged pack V with 49 180Ah cells at 500A discharge current (2.8C), for about 97 H.P. peak, and peak motor shaft power about 80% of that, or about 78 H.P. 

HPEVS say they are using 47 180 ah cells in the Scion and getting peak torque of 110 ft-lb, peak 78 H.P., and 80 miles on a charge. They didn't say at what average speed. Based on the above, peak torque should be available up to about 3700 rpm. 

The AC50 with the 144V controller should have peak torque of a bit over 80 ft-lb available up to about 5200 rpm, and about the same peak shaft power. 

The AC31 should have about 106 ft-lb peak torque available up to about 2900 rpm, and about 58 HP peak shaft power with the 144V controller.

Nothing here to interest people who want sub 10 sec 0 to 60 mph, unless they plan on a vehicle well under 2000 lb.

Edit: Hmmm, it looks like my Swift with 49 cells, total weight of a bit over 2400 lb, and AC51 and 144V controller would do 0 to 60 mph in about 11.6 seconds (2 shifts, 1 sec per shift). Range would be about 95 miles at 55 mph.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The availability of A123 cells and packs would provide less voltage sag, higher HP numbers across the board, if you are willing to mess with them.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Their website also mentions an AC-75 model coming out:

http://hiperformanceelectricvehiclesystems.com/catalog-ac-144V.motors.htm


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> Their website also mentions an AC-75 model coming out:


Interesting. They seem to be testing it in the Porsche, using a 115 V controller. I'd love to know if that's just temporary, or if the AC-75 is designed for the 96/115 V controllers.

http://hiperformanceelectricvehiclesystems.com/porsche-photo-gallery1.htm 

Are those photos of the AC-50 they had in there, or the new AC-75? It looks rather air-cooled to me, so I'm guessing AC-50.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Both the AC-51 and AC-75 are listed under 144 Motors on their website, so I would assume they are both for the big controller.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

rochesterricer said:


> Their website also mentions an AC-75 model coming out:
> 
> http://hiperformanceelectricvehiclesystems.com/catalog-ac-144V.motors.htm


 I think that is the motor I posted on here:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=256014&postcount=327
It's peak shaft power will be limited to about 80 H.P. by the controller though, so won't be able to get 100 H.P. Too bad Curtis didn't go with 650A peak.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

I like the 175v max. Seems that I could get about a 20kwh pack if the 130Ah cells were still around. 50 cells at 100Ah would be about 16kwh, a bit on the small side for what I'm trying to convert and with 180Ah cells I'd be in the territory for the AC50 with the 650amp controller that has a 130v max. Hmm. I'd have strong consideration if I had the room and weight capacity for a pack larger than about 20kwh but it seems I'd have to roll with 60Ah cells paralleled and I'm trying to avoid pairing cells. If I built a car with this, I'd buy some nano-tech lipo cells for the 'Rickard 1/4 mile track day', it would take off at a decently quick rate at sub-2000 pounds converted with those light things inside(figuring it was only temporarily fitted with the capacity needed to make a few runs).


----------



## bonewibb (Aug 30, 2009)

Finally, into my conversion of 1969 VW Bug far enough to start looking at motor/controller. I went ahead and made the plunge for transmission adapter with the unit from RebirthAuto designed for air cooled VW Bug. A

How are the AC50/Curtis AC Motor Controller 1238-6501 holding up? I see one on ebay that is asking $1200 for Controller and wiring harness that seems like a good deal. Tempted to forge ahead.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

HPEVS has programmed the firmware specifically, so just make sure you know what you're getting into if you get something off ebay. 

If you do buy it, let me know... might have a motor (AC31) coming into my ownership within a week, or we could order an AC50 for it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Doesn't the AC50 ship with a 1238-7501 or 1238-7601, not the 1238-6501?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Yes, but if he gets the 1238-6501 controller off of ebay, he could still use it with an AC50, it'll just be a little underpowered..... peak torque would be the same as a 7501 though, it'll just push the torque curve out further if you use the 7501 and higher voltage. IMHO the 7601 is the way to go for an AC50, unless he wants to wait for the new 144V controller.


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Doesn't the AC50 ship with a 1238-7501 or 1238-7601, not the 1238-6501?


1238R-7601. Per http://hpevs.com/catalog-ac-50.htm .

Edit: so the Ebay 6501 has much less voltage capability, and a little less current capability, than the presently recommended controller.


----------

