# My Dream EV



## Ioku (Sep 27, 2007)

Should be a very cool EV, I also plan on going all out to build what would be my dream car. And like you say it even if the car is $60,000 if it lasts for 20 years and never needs fuel or repairs it would still pay for its self, you could easily pay $60,000 for a nice car that you would still have to fuel and wouldn't last for 800,000 miles.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

If you break it down that's only $3000 a year +electricity bills. Depreciation + servicing +fuel would be more than that on an ICE easy!


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

Yes exactly, so hopefully some time soon we'll all be allowed to buy NanoSafe batteries.

Who knows, if I achieve building my dream car, I could probably start a company to sell them, KiwiEV proved how simple they are to build so I could hire some smart kids from my small town to build em


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Mastiff, you seem to be nearly as crazy as me. I started a thread to discuss building from the ground up, you might find some of the ideas there useful, though it is a long read....

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/building-ground-up-4920.html


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

Yes it sure is a long read, quite a lot of good info in it too, I've read it.

It's what inspired me to go with a kit car, I wanted to design my own frame and body, but I realized it's a huge amount of work that's already been done before 

I chose the GT40 because I always loved this car, plus it's design having the engine in the back gives plenty of space for the EV parts, and the clamshell opening back allows you to show off all of the drive train 

This youtube video has great shots of the back end with people around for some scale:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DAgKdlV4imQ

As you can see, a great amount of space back there.
Not so sure about how much space the front end has though but it seems like a good amount.

Now I need to win the lottery


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm not sure if this matters to you or not, but the LS40 is not an exact replica of the GT40 and has a slightly different shape ans size, as it was only designed to accept a 4cyl engine instead of the usual V8. It also requires a ford focus as a parts donor.

But either way, there is a great deal of unused space in this type of car. The original GT40 has two rather large fuel tanks on both sides of the car and would easily fit a good size lithium battery bank, and if there is enough money left, there is still all the space behind the cabin for even more batteries (feel like setting an EV distance record?).

I was thinking of building a CAV-era GT40, like the one in the video clip, because of the stainless steel chassis, but the cost of the glider would have just been too high. And they never responded to my Emails anyway. There is a british supplier of much cheaper GT40s bodies, but they use a steel square tube space frame instead (powder coated).


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

I know the LS40 isn't an exact replica, but it's also cheaper than any of the more exact replicas, thus it's not that important to me 

Yeah I expected there to be a very large amount of space where the fuel tanks would be because this was a Le Mans racer after all, and refueling takes pit time.

Hopefully in a couple years time I could work up the money to start construction of this car.

About the distance record, you gave me quite an idea, I could possibly gain some sponsors for the car... I could promote Azure Dynamics, Altairnano and possibly LoneStar Classics and Electro Automotive at the same time

Of all the possible sponsors I hope Altairnano sponsors me by giving me the batteries, I can pay for the rest 

Oh and about the LS40 needing a Ford Focus as a parts donor, thank you for pointing that out, I missed that for some reason when I read it.

Either way:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2003...198863721QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item290198863721

It's not hard to find cheap Ford Focus parts


----------



## WCRiot (Nov 25, 2007)

Thats a very very nice car. But why is it using ford focus parts? that car is a pretty weak vehicle. I would not want a performance car to use those items.
An electric car out of these fiberglass bodied vehicles is a great idea, but that is more of a toy. it would be dangerous to drive a vehicle with a fiberglass body and be in an accident...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

For the same weight, fiberglass is considered stronger than steel.

There are many different types of fiberglass, and the kind used on truck canopies and car fairings are NOT what these kit cars use. On top of that, most of them have an internal steel space frame that is stronger and lighter than a comparable steel unibody car.

The result is a cat that is stronger than a run of the mill car, but also lighter, and less likely to collapse around the occupants in the event of a collision. Kit cars have come a long way over the years.

Using something like a focus as a parts donor keeps the build cost down, and again, the focus is heavier than the finished LS40, so the parts should last at least as long as they would on the ford.


----------



## WCRiot (Nov 25, 2007)

david85 said:


> For the same weight, fiberglass is considered stronger than steel.
> 
> There are many different types of fiberglass, and the kind used on truck canopies and car fairings are NOT what these kit cars use. On top of that, most of them have an internal steel space frame that is stronger and lighter than a comparable steel unibody car.
> 
> ...


Is Fiberglass realy stronger on impact than steel? Fiberglass is stronger in tensile strength. The phrase stating that fiberglass is stronger than steel is a very very general term that is tossed around.

Fiber glass is good because it will simply shatter to absorb the energy of an impact. Ask the supplier if they would really supply you with a simply replacement fender, I doubt it.

Also consider the fiberglass shattering and the splitters and haarm that would come simply from the debris of the shattered items.

I am not trying to me an online JERK. I encourage anyone wanting to build an EV no matter then use. I just needed to state some obvious items. I am a mechanical engineer that raced FSAE(formula of society of automotive engineers), I have lots fo carbon fiber/fiberglass experiance. I also have experiance with the space frames that are used in these kit cars.

Space frames are not designed for impact strength and TYPICALLY(this kit car could be different) are designed for performance vs. safety. The safety considered with designing a frame is only the structure strengths under the loads of driving, NOT impact.

Something i have been considering with cars that have fiberglass lightweight parts, to use an impact foam between the inner wall of the fender and the body structure. Although, this likely would defeat the purpose of te use of fiberglass for impact purposes alone (there would still be a weight savings).


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

> *Can I order parts to replace my body or frame if necessary? *
> *Answer:* Yes. We can provide you with sections of the body as well as sections of the frames all at a very reasonable price.


That's off LoneStar Classic's website, I'd have to imagine they'd sell parts.


I just found a possible source for power for my EV other than NanoSafe batteries, which I'm still not sure any of us will be able to get our hands on even after their contract with Phoenix Motorcars.

http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=1072

They have a 18650 Cylindrical Cell LiFePO4 battery without BMS that's 3.2V 1350 mAh and 3C max drain rate, they're $4.16 per cell if you order over 500.
Plus 80% capacity after 500 Cycles.

Here's that particular battery:
http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=3071

A 35kWh pack of those would come out to $33,700 and weigh 641 pounds.

Some of those plus a BMS could work great, but the (simple math) mileage out of them would be 80 miles times 500 cycles = 40,000 miles before my range is reduced...

I could drive 40,000 miles in 2-3 years fairly easily.


----------



## zeronaut76 (Jan 9, 2008)

This is all great, but when I am thinking of only 3 grant for my car... Well, that really shy me away.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Mastiff, you might be better off getting in touch with LionEV.com

They can supply a range of batteries from $400/wh up to $1000/wh, but they can offer a lifetime warranty on their higher end batteries if you get their BMS with them. For the cost you just showed, you would be close to that of one of their turn key setups.



As for composite/race frames VS passenger cars, I would personally prefer the stronger, lighter chassis over the use of heavy steel that rusts away over time. When they built the first carbon fiber car for F1 racing, the racing team was laughed at, and the assumption was that it would disintegrate on the first impact. Well thats sort of what happened, except it turned out to be safer, and now composite is the new standard(often using aluminum honeycomb core as well).

Foam, like composites also have a much more consistent structure compared to a stamped/wielded steel structure, and would make for a VERY strong structure if used as a reinforcing core of a composite structure, and in fact this is becoming a new norm in the independent auto sector - AKA "kit cars". Foam core construction is mentioned on my thread, and I think its a great idea.

Composite cars have been crash tested before, and when designed properly they do very well due to a more consistent structure, and lower kinetic energy gives them a big edge in terms of safety. But they have to be designed with safety in mind for it to be a fair contest against steel. But as a metal fabricator, I am a steel hater, so maybe I am biased that way.


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

> As a general rule of thumb our battery packs weigh not more than 135 pounds per 10,800 Ah.


Wow, those are some impressive specs, 80Ah per pound?



> Yes, our battery packs are very compact. 6.174 KWh occupies a space of only 18.1 inches, by 15.7 inches, by 5.3 inches. Doubling the KWh does not double the size of the pack. For instance the only change to the pack in this example if you doubled the energy would be in the third figure, which would increase only 3.9 inches. This allows our packs to occupy the space presently used by fuel tanks and exhaust system components.


Holy crap, that's compact.




> No, we do not do conversions of older vehicles. If you do want to keep that classic car on the road we suggest WWW.Ampmobiles.com or WWW.EV-America.com for conversions.
> --------
> No we do not sell our new vehicle high energy cores. We do manufacturer packs for conversions that are available through the two conversion companies on our conversion page.


So if I read this right they only sell packs though AmpMobiles and EV-America?




> Battery packs have a chemical life of not less than 15 years. 1300 full charge cycles while retaining 80% capacity after that. There is no known terminal life span for Lithium at this time. Testing seems to indicate that once the cells have reached their estimated number of full charge cycles they continue to provide 80% of their original range.


1300 cycles is very good, going with the same basic math I used before(80 miles times Cycles) that would be 104,000 Miles before 80%.


Btw, I'm assuming you meant "$400/*kWh* up to $1000/*kWh*", which is excellent, where did you find this price?
I can't find it on their website.


I searched the forums here and found this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7699&highlight=LionEV

My question is this, what is the situation with that?

Also has anyone used a LionEV pack before or personally knows someone who does?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

oops, you are correct its per KWH not WH.

texomaEV is a member here who has dealt with them (he is mentiones on LionEVs home page) and had a good experience.

The prices I refer to are from an older version of the website and have since been taken down. If you look at their links you will find one to an online store, I suspect they will be putting prices there as soon is it is up and running. Their website changes daily.

They did respond to my Email rather quickly, and if you want to confirm the price of their batteries, you can try to contact them directly. They have no less than 4 different types of LiFePo4 batteries, and a BMS for each type (at least they did before the website was changed).


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

Ah awesome, I'll E-mail them and see if I can get some info on their current prices and products.

Also it's nice to know someone is actually using and testing these batteries 

I saw on texomaEV's flickr page his method of keeping the batteries cool:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbarkley/2124896111/in/set-72157603514650280/

He uses coroplast to pipe air though, that's brilliant!
That could also provide shock absorption to the whole battery pack during high G's.

I will post the info I get from LionEV once I receive it.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Found a crash test clip of the mclaren F1 being composite, I though it would be interesting to see how it stands up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00&NR=1


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

That's really good and considering there's no engine in front of the driver you could pack that area full of foam (and batteries) and probably do 65mph into a wall and bounce right off. (assuming your neck didn't break)

Maybe if I made this car I should install 5 point seat belts (maybe 4 point, the bottom one between your legs scares me.).

Still awaiting the results of my E-mail to LionEV, I'll post em when I get em.


----------



## Caffe (Nov 26, 2007)

david85 said:


> Found a crash test clip of the mclaren F1 being composite, I though it would be interesting to see how it stands up.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00&NR=1


Yey! Swedish subs and all. 
(Well, it only says that carbon fibre can be designed to either collaps and absorb the crash energy or be more high strenght. And that it's the only car driveable after a crash test!)


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

There are two measures for comparing the strength of materials since they will certainly be of different densities. There is the strength to weight ratio which would be the most used comparison since composites are mostly used to reduce weight and then there is the strength to volume ratio. 
What makes carbon fibre exceptional is not so much its strength as its high modulus of elasticity. The high modulus of elasticity (stress over strain) makes the material very rigid. In other words when a carbon fibre structure is loaded up it will deform less than a structure made of virtually any other material. This allows panels to be made thinner and still be sufficiently rigid and thin structures (such as glider wings) to be made lighter and still be sufficiently rigid. There is a price to be paid for all this goodness. Carbon fibre has weaknesses. As a material it isn't very tough. It is a brittle material and will suffer from catastrophic failure when overloaded. 
Kevlar has a higher strength to weight ratio and is a much tougher material it just doesn't have that exceptional modulus of elasticity.
By putting a layer of structural foam between two layers of fibreglass what you are doing is increasing the rigidity of the panel by increasing it thickness for the minimal weight penalty of the layer of foam. 
The load carrying capacity of a structural member is not entirely unrelated to its rigidity. Members with a slenderness ratio over say 20 or so in compression become subject to buckling type failure. As the slenderness ratio increases to over 30 the dominant failure mode will become due to buckling with it becoming so dominant that simple compressive stress is no longer considered when calculating load bearing ability.
The foam fibre glass sandwich reduces the slenderness ratio and hence effectively increases the compressive strength of a structural member or panel if that member or panel had a high slenderness ratio.


----------

