# Scratch built Porsche 550 themed EV



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Hi everyone,
It has been a while since I last posted. Some of you may remember my previous projects which were budget minded autocross centred EVs. Since then our governing body has closed the gate on EVs and there is no glimmer of hope for the foreseeable future for electric vehicles under them. So my last chassis is going into retirement. I am commencing a new project which will enable me to continue my EV journey on public streets. It will be a scratch built Porsche 55 Spyder themed road car.
I have placed a deposit on a locally built chassis which normally has a fibreglass body but will be near perfect for my objective.
I will be building a buck for the 55o style body and constructing an aluminium body.
I know there are kits available. But I am not really doing this to gain a car. I am doing this for the satisfaction that can only be obtained by doing something special.
It will not be a true replica as the interior and some other details will be different. One notable difference will be the addition of head rests which are mandatory for all new road cars here. I will be building streamlined pods behind each occupant. The headrest will be built into the front of each pod. Inside each pod will be a roll bar.
I will be aiming to have about 20kwh of capacity.
The voltage is yet to be nailed down but it will be somewhere between 175 and 350 depending on the final choice of controller. I may well start with my existing ZEVA controller and upgrade later.
I had ambitions of having a front and rear motor providing all wheel drive. But I need to have an engineer certification for road registration. It has gone through a few iterations and I haven't fully landed on the final decisions but AWD is off the table. I can do pretty much anything but I face a choice between something different which would incur at least $5000 extra cost for all the tests. So I am having to compromise in order to align with a previously tested chassis and avoid all the extra costs. The approved design is 550Kg (1200lbs) so keeping reasonable battery capacity and power is tricky. The chassis design calls for a mid mounted drive train using a FWD gearbox. I know a load of people will scoff at the idea of running a gearbox but again changing this part of the design would trigger a chain reaction that would result in a heap of delays and extra costs. Running through the gearbox means I only need an adaptor and mounts and I'm good to go.
The motor I am running is an Advanced DC 8 inch. In the previous car the motor performed excellently from 0 - 80kph (45mph) but was lacklustre from there to 100kph (70mph). But that was running at 172v so the back EMF was catching me in the higher revs. So I am intending to swap to a controller that can handle high volts to combat the back EMF and give better top end performance. But even if I run with the ZEVA controller for a while it will perform just like my last car which was awesome up to 80kph.
This will be a long project but I plan to provide regular updates along the way. 
I have placed a deposit on the chassis. So I anticipate picking it up in March (maybe). I have already designed the slices for the buck and I can get started on parts of the construction. I have already created a scale mockup of the buck in paper just to check for any concerns. As a result I am adjusting my approach slightly. I have an english wheel and bead roller. I will need to purchase a few other tools and I need to do a TIG course (booked in for March). I am practicing with the various techniques and in particular I am performing a full size proof of concept on the door area to understand how to achieve a good gap.

I will upload some photos for reference shortly


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

That looks truly awesome!
I would not dare to try to make an aluminium body!

Have you thought about using something like a Nissan leaf power unit ?
You get the engine and gearbox together as a single unit - as long as it is low enough for the body


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

This sounds like a great project, and I'm looking forward to following it. 



Duncan said:


> Have you thought about using something like a Nissan leaf power unit ?
> You get the engine and gearbox together as a single unit - as long as it is low enough for the body


Yes, and we had this discussion during the design of galderi's previous project; however, I think the explanation for this choice has already been given:
​


galderdi said:


> The chassis design calls for a mid mounted drive train using a FWD gearbox. I know a load of people will scoff at the idea of running a gearbox but again changing this part of the design would trigger a chain reaction that would result in a heap of delays and extra costs. Running through the gearbox means I only need an adaptor and mounts and I'm good to go.​​


​


galderdi said:


> The motor I am running is an Advanced DC 8 inch. In the previous car the motor performed excellently from 0 - 80kph (45mph) but was lacklustre from there to 100kph (70mph). But that was running at 172v so the back EMF was catching me in the higher revs. So I am intending to swap to a controller that can handle high volts to combat the back EMF and give better top end performance. But even if I run with the ZEVA controller for a while it will perform just like my last car which was awesome up to 80kph.


That makes sense. Or you could just shift, since you're stuck with the transmission anyway.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I have placed a deposit on a locally built chassis which normally has a fibreglass body but will be near perfect for my objective.
> I will be building a buck for the 55o style body and constructing an aluminium body.
> I know there are kits available. But I am not really doing this to gain a car. I am doing this for the satisfaction that can only be obtained by doing something special.
> It will not be a true replica as the interior and some other details will be different. One notable difference will be the addition of head rests which are mandatory for all new road cars here. I will be building streamlined pods behind each occupant. The headrest will be built into the front of each pod. Inside each pod will be a roll bar.


It's also mechanically very different from the 550, in both suspension and in engine configuration, so it will be near-replica of the body on a different chassis of the same general layout. I like the fairing (pod) plan.

Searching for the chassis, I learned that Graham McRae built some highly regarded replicas a couple decades ago, but this is not one of those or a continuation of them - they were much closer to the original mechanical design. It does look like a very nice design, with a much better suspension than the original.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> That looks truly awesome!
> I would not dare to try to make an aluminium body!
> 
> Have you thought about using something like a Nissan leaf power unit ?
> You get the engine and gearbox together as a single unit - as long as it is low enough for the body


Thanks Duncan, Lets wait and see the quality of the outcome. I am new to body work. But doing the course did give me some confidence. It looks like a load of trial and error and rework. There are some areas (example around the wheel arches) where I am clueless at the moment. But I will try a couple of techniques and see how it goes. Funny enough after examining many photos I can see the replicas do not have the little flare around the wheel arch which would solve the problem.

I have and still am considering all the options. Leaf, Tesla, Bigger DC, AC etc etc. But I already have two of these motors and they are simple. I have enough learning coming with the body. I don't want to distract myself with trying to alter the driveshafts, hubs and the snow ball effect all that could potentially have on other components. But certainly down the track something like that could be the basis of phase 2 (or Phase 3 assuming it is AC  )


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> This sounds like a great project, and I'm looking forward to following it.
> 
> 
> Yes, and we had this discussion during the design of galderi's previous project; however, I think the explanation for this choice has already been given:
> ...





brian_ said:


> It's also mechanically very different from the 550, in both suspension and in engine configuration, so it will be near-replica of the body on a different chassis of the same general layout. I like the fairing (pod) plan.
> 
> Searching for the chassis, I learned that Graham McRae built some highly regarded replicas a couple decades ago, but this is not one of those or a continuation of them - they were much closer to the original mechanical design. It does look like a very nice design, with a much better suspension than the original.


Hey Brian, the motor choice is about convenience and cost. I am already up against a load of challenges, I don't want to add more to the mix.

Shifting up doesn't help significantly. The gearing doesn't drop the revs low enough to put the motor back in it's ideal rev range. So then there isn't enough power to over come the mechanical disadvantage the new gear just introduced. I am fairly sure what I need is higher volts to extend the power into the second half of the rev range.

The Chassis is known as the GTZ here in Australia. It was produced under agreement with the original designer in the UK. There is a thread here (Hopefully you can see it):





Sign In - OzClubbies







www.ozclubbies.com.au


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm building a Marlin Roadster 
I sort of fell into this build
Its simply too small to fit enough batteries to make it a second electric car
So its getting an old Ford Crossflow

If I had not started this my "plan" was to make a Jaguar "C" Type - or XK120 replica
But I was going to make the body from fiberglass

The chassis I was going to make using fiberglass honeycomb sandwich panels


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> I'm building a Marlin Roadster
> I sort of fell into this build
> Its simply too small to fit enough batteries to make it a second electric car
> So its getting an old Ford Crossflow
> ...


Interesting project. Not enough space for batteries!!! It looks like a semi trailer compared to a 550. But looks can be deceiving.
I have done fibreglass (not suggesting I'm an expert). I recently completed a metal shaping course (english wheel etc). My simple assessment is....
If you have access to suitable moulds or if you intend making more than 1 copy then fibreglass is awesome.
But if you don't have moulds and only intend a single copy then metal is the way to go. The other caveat is the complexity of the shape. Older cars have curves but they tend to flow and can be replicated through basic metal shaping techniques. Modern cars have curves and angles that cross over each other and intersect and compete and would be a nightmare to replicate. I don't blame modern panel beaters for just buying new panels. 
I'm not talking you out of fibreglass. I think it is horses for courses.
Here is a pic of the panel I made in the metal shaping course which was only 2 days and much of that time was standing waiting for machines that were shared amongst the 12 students.








What will the new car be used for? Road registered? That chassis would be a nightmare to get certified here. Keep me informed of the progress.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Looks can be deceiving - the Marlin is an old kit car - this one is Morris Marina Based so its about a foot shorter and narrower than my "device"
The wings and running boards design means that you cannot use that space - putting the motor - I had a nice 9 inch unit for it - in the gearbox space leaves the engine bay for batteries
Using that and the duel tank location I could have squeezed as many batteries as I have in my "Device" - 14 kwh
But I already have a short range car
I find I'm either driving less than 50 km - the Device will work - OR over 150 km
So I need about three times as much in the way of batteries

I haven't had any kickback at all using my Device for autocross and such like - maybe I would hit problems if I started to win!


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> Looks can be deceiving - the Marlin is an old kit car - this one is Morris Marina Based so its about a foot shorter and narrower than my "device"
> The wings and running boards design means that you cannot use that space - putting the motor - I had a nice 9 inch unit for it - in the gearbox space leaves the engine bay for batteries
> Using that and the duel tank location I could have squeezed as many batteries as I have in my "Device" - 14 kwh
> But I already have a short range car
> ...


What if you made a small trailer in a suitable style containing another small set of batteries (like 100kwh) as a range extender. Then just suspend a cable from the trailer back to the car. I really should take my own advice. That might work for the 550


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> What if you made a small trailer in a suitable style containing another small set of batteries (like 100kwh) as a range extender. Then just suspend a cable from the trailer back to the car. I really should take my own advice. That might work for the 550


I thought about that - the trailer could earn its keep as storage for my solar panels when it was not being used
Now I'm trying to remember why I did not go that route!!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> The Chassis is known as the GTZ here in Australia. It was produced under agreement with the original designer in the UK. There is a thread here (Hopefully you can see it):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That forum requires a login, so I can't see the thread, but I found the car...

Listing by AutoYas: Suncoast Sports Cars Australia & NZ
Facebook: Suncoast Sports Cars Australia & NZ Strangely, they posted this: "10th GTZ NOW SOLD. Thanks for the support to all the builders of GTZs. Its been a wild ride. No longer taking orders. Check in for further updates on existing builds."
Brochure linked to Facebook page: GTZ Brochure.pdf (some specs, not a lot of good images)
Entry in Bolwell Sports Cars blog: GTZ Built to Drive (more photos)
Custom Fiber Creations - Services: Suncoast Sports Car (the manufacturer of the fiberglass body, but that won't be used in this project)
Shannons Club: 2019 Suncoast Sports Cars GTZ (car belonging to an RX-7 club member; mentions "Kit is designed to use the mechanical and electrical components from a 2005-2012 1.6L Hyundai Getz")
I don't know which British kit this is based on - 550 kits typically use VW/Porsche suspension, and even the that I noticed with double wishbones (from Holmes) uses a boxer engine.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> Shifting up doesn't help significantly. The gearing doesn't drop the revs low enough to put the motor back in it's ideal rev range. So then there isn't enough power to over come the mechanical disadvantage the new gear just introduced. I am fairly sure what I need is higher volts to extend the power into the second half of the rev range.


Big steps between gears can be a problem, but will that be a problem with the Hyundai 5-speed that this kit uses? All you need is to maximize motor power output; it doesn't matter what the speed and torque combination is, because that's what the transmission changes for you.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> What if you made a small trailer in a suitable style containing another small set of batteries (like 100kwh) as a range extender. Then just suspend a cable from the trailer back to the car. I really should take my own advice. That might work for the 550


With any luck the combination of electric power and towing a trailer won't drive Porsche enthusiasts to kill you in their rage. 

But it could work. Presumably one would equip the trailer with its own BMS, and the car with a switch to choose between onboard and trailer batteries, routing the BMS information for the chosen battery to the dashboard or displaying both.



Duncan said:


> I thought about that - the trailer could earn its keep as storage for my solar panels when it was not being used
> Now I'm trying to remember why I did not go that route!!


A major issue with my Spitfire conversion plan was inadequate range, and I can see doing this: transit to events using the trailer, saving the onboard battery for the event. For me, the problem would be that I would have built a really fun-to-drive car, then saddled it with a trailer when on the road. I don't mind towing a trailer, but it's not what I want attached to a sports car.

Also, a trailer is a real drag... literally. Towing one costs more in energy per distance travelled than just carrying the battery weight in the car.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

The design of this conversion will be a challenge in the usual area: battery packaging.

In general, mid-engine cars with longitudinal engines have the advantage of a substantial space between the seats and the rear axle for battery. Even the Porsche 914 - which had a short boxer 4 like the 550 - has a generous engine compartment (perhaps because it was designed to fit the Porsche 6-cylinder as well). Unfortunately, the GTZ uses a transverse engine so it is not clear how long (front-back) that space is, and the conversion is to use the same transaxle; with the transaxle and electric motor in place, there might not be much room left for battery. I realize that it isn't feasible in the local regulatory environment, but a drive unit that places the motor on-axis (such as the Chevrolet Spark or Bolt) would be nice to leave battery space while not mounting the motor hanging out the back.

A rear drive and originally mid-engine car doesn't want a lot of battery mass up front, but it is reasonable to replace the fuel tank (which is usually up there, including in the 550 and any traditional VW/Porsche) with a small battery pack. Unfortunately, much of the space is taken by an inboard suspension. Inboard suspension is usually used to get the springs and dampers out of the aero tunnel, but of course this car doesn't have those. Often in kits inboard suspension is just used to look cool - not so much here, as it is not exposed. In current racing cars, inboard suspensions bring the components together making interesting designs such as heave springs and inerters possible, but there's none of that here. I assume that GTZ uses front uprights which are designed to carry the load through the upper ball joint (because they are adapted from the Hyundai - it uses the same hub-bearing units front and rear), and resorts to rocker arms to keep the springs and dampers low, rather than sticking right out the top as they would need to if mounted directly to the upper arms near the uprights. Anyway, with major suspension modification unlikely, and the foot box extending to the suspension area, there appears to be no room to stuff battery modules up front.

Centre consoles or big sill boxes (depending on how the seats are placed in the width) are sometimes potential locations, but this narrow car doesn't offer either.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

After a substantial time looking at this car it finally dawned on me that although the plan for the body is to emulate the Porsche 550, the chassis and kit body are not based on a Porsche at all, but instead copy the body of some low-production British car of the past (similar to the Ginetta G12). I was just interested in the chassis and not paying much attention to the body. I hope the 550 body proportions work with the chassis, but I'm sure that has already been considered.

A genuine Porsche 550 has a 2100 mm wheelbase; the GTZ is significantly longer at 2260 mm so the body will need to stretch to accommodate that. I don't know how the stretch will need to split between ahead of and behind the driver position to place the cockpit correctly, or how much if any will be in the cockpit opening. The width is a nice match, and the cockpit sides appear to be taller on the 550 (which is a lot easier to accommodate than the other way around).

The GTZ has a wide single rollbar, which would have to go to be replaced by twin rollbars in pods. The GTZ bar is just tacked on top anyway, not extending to the floor and not braced rearward at all (it wouldn't pass any reasonable racing tech inspection); the twin bars can be better than the original if care is taken to feed the loads into appropriate frame points.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Thanks for all the effort and interest there Brian. You are on the money with your responses. 
Yes Glen's vision was only to build 10 of the GTZ. While he has not totally closed the door to more it is not on his immediate horizon. He has taken this on as a life journey and is keep to find a new journey. He is watching the EV side with much interest.
Yes a slight stretch is required through the body to match the GTX wheel base. I am planning for a small portion of the stretch to be just in front of the door, another 1/3 to be in the door. The final 1/3 is interesting and debatable. I have noticed on my scale model and most of the 550 photos I have found it appears the rear wheel is slightly forward of the arch centre. It is possibly a visual illusion but regardless it is an opportunity to move the wheel back slightly to centre it in the arch without altering the body design. But aside from all this I acknowledge the process I am going through is far from precise. The buck I will build won't be perfect, then I will eye ball it and make adjustments (even less perfect). But hopefully my eye balling will still end up with a body that is recognisable as 550ish. If non porsche people look at it and recognise the shape then I am happy. I won't be concerned with purists criticising small deviations. The whole front and back top surfaces of the 550 are higher than the GTZ. It will likely only be a couple of inches but it is still enough to buy me some internal space for batteries. When I inspected what has turned out to be my chassis I realised there is triangulation front and rear in the door area. This will be challenging as the 550 did not have this. So with the door open it will look different from the 550. But the triangulation is on the inner part of the frame so I am confident I can shape the inner part of the door to dovetail with the frame shape while the outer door shape will be closer to the 550 design.
The majority, if not all, the battery will be behind the seats as you suggested. I don't like the idea of side pod batteries. If they do have an issue resulting in extreme heat or fire I don't want that in the only point of egress. The foot well on the driver's side is a no go for battery capacity because the design requires space for pedals. But the passenger side standard design does have some space in front of the foot well. Plus the foot well itself is overkill as it doesn't have pedals. So I plan to bring the passenger footwell back in line with the Driver's pedals. This does buy a little space I could use for a small portion of the batteries. However I am not convinced I will take this option as splitting the battery then introduces the need for heavy conductors running from front to back. I still have some design work before these decisions are finalised. There are other components that can be placed up front without the need for the heavy conductors. But that approach will make it more difficult for me to match the original weight distribution. Like I said I have some work to do here.
The single rear roll bar is being omitted from my chassis in favour of 2 individual hoops as you say. The chassis will still not be supplied with any rear stays but I will add them later. I need to take care with that part of the design otherwise I risk blocking the ability to get the motor, gearbox and batteries in and out of the car.
I know I haven't address all of your points because many of your points were spot on anyway. But if I have missed anything requiring clarification please let me know.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> The Chassis is known as the GTZ here in Australia. It was produced under agreement with the original designer in the UK. There is a thread here (Hopefully you can see it):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I decided to register with OzClubbies, which took a couple of days.

Strangely, the original UK manufacturer seems to be some sort of secret, since everyone seems to avoid using their name; the problem is that the Australian builder only bought the rights to the chassis and body design, not any of the names. It is Sylva (the Jeremy Phillips designs); the model with that body would be their J15 or later Vectis, although the chassis design started with the Riot. Each model is tweaked to use the popular donor of the day: the Vectis goes with MGF bits, and Suncoast has set up the GTZ for Hyundai Getz bits.

Front suspensions vary - only some have the rocker arms and inboard damper and springs; the Ford version of the current Riot appears to have the same rear suspension as well. At least some Sylvas appear to use Triumph Spitfire front spindles (hopefully with lower ball joints instead of the trunnion bearings), like many British kits and low-volume sports cars; the GTZ uses modified front uprights from the donor (Getz in this case).

The front upright conversion is unusual in that it requires cutting and drilling (typical practice is bolt-on adapters), and interesting in that is incorporates the steering arm in the adapter to reposition the rack much higher.

One of the goals of kit car design is the "single donor": every needed donor part from one salvaged vehicle. This isn't one of those - you need two sets of front hub-bearing units, and steering column parts from different Hyundai models. For the EV version it would likely make sense to just buy the needed chassis bits and transaxle individually.

Interestingly, the originals appear to typically have dual roll hoops which would fit the 550 body plan better than the wide single hoop used on the GTZ.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> The single rear roll bar is being omitted from my chassis in favour of 2 individual hoops as you say. The chassis will still not be supplied with any rear stays but I will add them later. I need to take care with that part of the design otherwise I risk blocking the ability to get the motor, gearbox and batteries in and out of the car.


Bolt-in rear stays seem like a reasonable design to me.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Oh I forgot to mention. The Porsche nose is slightly longer than the GTZ and there is no ned for the radiator. So there is a possibility of including some battery up there. But it's not my preference as I'd rather not have it at risk in a front impact.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> Bolt-in rear stays seem like a reasonable design to me.


Agreed. Although I don't want to commit to that just yet. It is certainly a leading contender. If I can run with permanent structure I will but I doubt I can make it work without restricting access to all the mechanicals etc.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Anyone know of a good thread that considers/debates the various battery box designs and materials. I can see a heap of individual threads that talk about a single approach but I can't seem to find one talking about all the various options. If one exists it might be worth making it a sticky thread?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> The Porsche nose is slightly longer than the GTZ and there is no ned for the radiator. So there is a possibility of including some battery up there. But it's not my preference as I'd rather not have it at risk in a front impact.


My vote would be for never putting anything heavy or anything vulnerable to damage in the nose of any car, so a strong no for battery modules up there.

Won't you still have a small radiator for controller and battery cooling? Or are you planning to put that in the back, suiting the body design and Porsche configuration?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> Anyone know of a good thread that considers/debates the various battery box designs and materials. I can see a heap of individual threads that talk about a single approach but I can't seem to find one talking about all the various options. If one exists it might be worth making it a sticky thread?


Sorry, while I have opinions on the subject, I don't know of a summary thread.

But speaking of the battery box...

In the chassis manufacturer's OzClubbies build thread (only readable by registered members) he shows the fuel tank, which is located in the engine bay behind the driver, ahead of the transaxle.
Here's the tank by itself, seen from behind and to the right:








and here it is installed in the GTZ, seen from behind and the left:









He says that it has a capacity of about 24 litres, and given that volume it appears to be very roughly 40 cm tall and perhaps 20 cm to 30 cm in each of the other directions. It has some clearance to the transaxle and would have the same front-to-rear space right across the engine bay with an electric motor replacing the engine, but there are bits sticking out (such as the bellhousing) which would prevent a much larger box (fore-aft). The bulkhead between the seats and the powertrain is tilted back (the seatback angle), so a rectangular box fit there would tilt backward at that angle.

If the fuel tank is 24 litres and three of them would fit side-by-side across the car, there is space for a tilted rectangular box of about 75 litres volume there, enough for a substantial battery pack (as much as 150 kg and 30 kWh)... if only battery modules would pack nicely into an arbitrarily sized box and they didn't need mounting structure, cooling, and interconnections.

Is roughly that location and size what you are thinking of for the main (or only) pack? Do you have the dimensions of the available space (easiest and most straightforward to understand is the lateral width between frame rails)? Any thoughts yet on the modules to be used?


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> My vote would be for never putting anything heavy or anything vulnerable to damage in the nose of any car, so a strong no for battery modules up there.
> 
> Won't you still have a small radiator for controller and battery cooling? Or are you planning to put that in the back, suiting the body design and Porsche configuration?


Agreed....no putting batteries up my nose. Should have learned that lesson as a toddler.

Not sure yet. It depends on the final choices. My existing controller does not need cooling and that will likely be in the car on day 1. Probably to be replaced down the track when funds and time allow. My existing batteries do have cooling. But they are almost certainly not going to be in the car at any point. I am holding off on a firm direction on batteries in case a new option becomes available in the next 12 months. If a radiator is required it will go in the back. The body design calls for no grill in front. It also does call for a vent just in front of each rear wheel arch and twin grills (almost horizontal) in the rear. I would mount it slightly in front of the rear grill and have some hidden panels to channel the air from the arch grills, through the radiator before exiting out the rear grills.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Yes your comments mirror my thinking so far. That space will certainly be the primary space for the batteries if not the entire space for the batteries. The only reason I would consider splitting the battery is if I need to compensate for changes to weight distribution in order to align with the certification of the chassis. But that would be a last resort. There are better components that can be moved toward the front. 
I did not get to see / measure a chassis with the gearbox or engine mounted. So I am largely running from the same photos you are looking through. So my ideas are concepts and estimates at this stage. I did get to see the chassis with no motor and gearbox and the space back there is substantial. I am confident I can fit 20KWh or close to it without much issue. There will also be substantial space above the motor and gearbox. But again that will be a last resort as I want to retain easy access to the motor and keep the batteries low. The finer details are still hazy but will become clear once I take delivery of the chassis and a gearbox so I can take some accurate measurements. There is plenty of volume back there so it should just be a decision around how to group/package the cells. I believe I would start to struggle if I was looking to put anything more than 20Kwh. But I can't afford that extra weight anyway. The car is for fun so a bit over 100km range would be fine in most circumstances.
I will also have some flexibility with the mounting of the gearbox and motor. I would be able to move it back a few mm (maybe 50mm) without major impact. I just need to be careful not to put too much angle on the CV shafts.
I based my estimates on a 70ah Lithium Ion cell measuring 200mmx37mmx130mm and factoring 40s2p to achieve a 144v pack. Sorry I don't know the cell details, I only have these specs from a local supplier who is MIA at the moment. The 2p part is important because I may choose to reconfigure the pack to become 288v 80s if I implement a higher voltage controller in future. Although I based my estimates on these dimensions I will not be using these cells as I will be looking for a chemistry with a lower fire risk. I'm not too concerned yet. Cell availability here is an issue so I will wait another 12 months before doing more rigorous searching. Hopefully by then I will find a cell with reduced fire risk, increased density, better C rating and half the price.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I think this is a better pic as it shows that the tank is entirely in front of the gearbox. So with the ICE removed it should be able to take the entire width of the inner chassis.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

The highlighted "rail" in this pic is what takes the weight of the motor and gearbox. They basically hang from there. Then there are some mounts towards the lower end to limit sideways or front/back movement.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Can you fit batteries down the central hump?
I would be looking at a Nissan power unit in the back and batteries all down the center of the car - going straight past the passenger area and forwards as far as possible
Going by my car I think you could fit a single lump of modules of about 12 kwh down that center - possibly more
If you have still got a gearbox you may have to do something weird with the gearshift to free the tunnel up
Then you could look at the other locations for batteries


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> There will also be substantial space above the motor and gearbox. But again that will be a last resort as I want to retain easy access to the motor and keep the batteries low.


I agree... and there are other components (controller, charger, DC-to-DC, HV junction box...) that will need space and would work well over the motor and transaxle.



galderdi said:


> I believe I would start to struggle if I was looking to put anything more than 20Kwh. But I can't afford that extra weight anyway.


That makes sense to me. In your weight estimate (which led to the discussion of allowed mass), what were you allowing for battery modules?



galderdi said:


> I will also have some flexibility with the mounting of the gearbox and motor. I would be able to move it back a few mm (maybe 50mm) without major impact. I just need to be careful not to put too much angle on the CV shafts.


Good thinking - any significant amount would be bad, but a little bit might make sense to make a battery configuration work, given the fixed dimensions of battery modules.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Can you fit batteries down the central hump?
> I would be looking at a Nissan power unit in the back and batteries all down the center of the car...
> 
> Going by my car I think you could fit a single lump of modules of about 12 kwh down that center - possibly more


The central tunnel of the GTZ is barely wide enough for the shifter - it couldn't hold any production EV battery module, and only a trivial number of individual prismatic cells. The car is so narrow that to use the Hyundai Getz (compact car) powertrain it needs to use shorter axle shafts (one custom, one from a different Hyundai model); that fits the desired style and the Porsche 550 body, but leaves little room between the seats.



Duncan said:


> If you have still got a gearbox you may have to do something weird with the gearshift to free the tunnel up
> Then you could look at the other locations for batteries


The transmission is not in the tunnel of the GTZ - it is a transverse mid-engine chassis. The gearshift is there - it is presumably a cable system.

The space ahead of the passenger footbox has been considered, but it is small. There are no other good locations, since the inboard damper and spring take up what little space there is ahead of the footbox, there are no large sill volumes, and there is little vehicle length behind the rear axle.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I based my estimates on a 70ah Lithium Ion cell measuring 200mmx37mmx130mm and factoring 40s2p to achieve a 144v pack. Sorry I don't know the cell details, I only have these specs from a local supplier who is MIA at the moment. The 2p part is important because I may choose to reconfigure the pack to become 288v 80s if I implement a higher voltage controller in future.


Not many lithium-ion cells are available as single-cell prismatics, other than the LFP cells which were commonly used for conversions for a few years, although there have been some used in early production EVs. Individual cells with mechanical terminals (threaded posts or sockets) certainly would be desirable for configuration flexibility, but production EV packs are essentially all now built of pouch or cylindrical cells welded into modules; the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV does appear to use modules which are each built of 8 prismatic Yuasa cells (about 40 Ah each), and the BMW i3 modules might each be built of 12 individual Samsung SDI cells (60 Ah to 120 Ah per cell depending on generation).

Those dimensions are generally similar to CALB individual cells of similar capacity. 80 of these cells would be roughly 160 kg. The specified dimensions correspond to nearly 1 litre per cell (I don't know if that includes terminals), or about 80 litres for the 80S1P or 40S2P set, or about as much as is likely to fit... because of course this has already been considered.

Samsung SDI doesn't publish detailed cell specs, but some retailers do, e.g.
Li-Ion SDI94 Battery Cell 3.7V 94AH, Samsung NMC



galderdi said:


> Although I based my estimates on these dimensions I will not be using these cells as I will be looking for a chemistry with a lower fire risk. I'm not too concerned yet. Cell availability here is an issue so I will wait another 12 months before doing more rigorous searching. Hopefully by then I will find a cell with reduced fire risk, increased density, better C rating and half the price.


The CALB cells are LFP, which is the only chemistry with a significantly different thermal runaway risk from the common lithium-ion chemistries. Since LFP has a nominal voltage of about 3.2 V and the other common types (NCA, NMC) are at about 3.75 V, the choice affects the number of cells required in series.

A sports car with a relatively small battery needs a high C rate, which is an unfortunate combination with LFP electrode chemistry. The CALB cells are rated by CALB for only 1C to 2C, which is far short of what the car would need. Presumably the old A123 cells were much better, but they mostly disappeared when A123 stumbled (some form of the company still around) circa 2104 - the Chevrolet Spark EV had A123 LFP modules for a year then was switched to LG Chem modules essentially the same as those in the Chevrolet Volt when A123 couldn't deliver.

Here's a random LFP screw-terminal prismatic cell with a more desirable 3C discharge rating, although that still wouldn't be enough as a peak discharge rate:
LiFePO4 High Power Cell (3.2V/60Ah) - Alu case, CE


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I think this is a better pic as it shows that the tank is entirely in front of the gearbox. So with the ICE removed it should be able to take the entire width of the inner chassis.
> View attachment 121651


Yes, that's what I was assuming. The question, of course, is what is that width?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Galderdi
Re Brian's comments about the center tunnel
It may well be too narrow but that is just sheet metal !
You will need a seat each side wide enough for your bum - 15 inches ?? - does for my large butt
So 30 inches for the two seats
The Porsche 550 was 65 inches wide
So say 7.5 inches for each chassis side leaves a potential 20 inches for the center row of batteries
That's a LOT 
The Chevy Volt batteries are 9.5 inches wide at the base

On my car I sit between the rear tyres - a bad decision I made at the start - so the width of the "cockpit" is only 46 inches
I still have 12 inches at the back of the cockpit for the diff nose and propshaft 

If you narrow the seat area down its more difficult to find "seats" to fit - instead you build the shape into the floor and sit on padding

Looking again at your pictures the center tunnel has some steel tubes as well as the sheet metal
Cut the beggars off and move them! - do it nicely and nobody will ever know
You have too little space on such a neat car to waste prime real estate like that


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

galderdi said:


> The highlighted "rail" in this pic is what takes the weight of the motor and gearbox. They basically hang from there. Then there are some mounts towards the lower end to limit sideways or front/back movement.
> View attachment 121652


Brian, You and Duncan are both a wealth of knowledge and are awesome to have around to bounce ideas off.

It is looking like I will take delivery of the chassis early March (A fair bit earlier than I anticipated). I will certainly be posting useful pics and more accurate dimensions shortly after getting it home. 

Yes the shifter uses the standard Getz cables with just a few minor customisations to reverse the position (usually the Getz shifter is behind the transmission).

Batteries are always challenging. I am not too hung up on outright performance with this project. As long as it is zippy and can achieve 110kph/70mph then I'll be happy. Outright performance would always be challenging in a car with such tight dimensions and low weight. 

I had allowed 100kg for the batteries. But I acknowledge that was based on those mystery lithium ion cells. So choosing another cell would likely increase that weight. It also didn't allow for mounting hardware / battery box materials. So there are many areas that could easily trip me up. But if I worry about them all now the project would go nowhere. I will just address each one in turn. It will be nice if I can avoid the extra testing. But the odds are against me. If I do exceed the target weight or if the distribution is altered I will just bite the bullet and have the testing re-done. It's not the end of the world. But sticking to the target as much as possible (even if I fail by a little) means I will still end up with a fun vehicle to drive.

I seem to spend a lifetime searching for batteries. It is so much more difficult here. There are very few local sellers, importing is very restrictive and we have a very slow EV take up. Hopefully the first and last points will improve over time. My reluctant fall back position would be to install my existing 7kwh Volt pack as a stop gap. Obviously this would give hardly any range but it would suit the weight restriction and would get the car moving enough to be certified and registered.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> Hi Galderdi
> Re Brian's comments about the center tunnel
> It may well be too narrow but that is just sheet metal !
> You will need a seat each side wide enough for your bum - 15 inches ?? - does for my large butt
> ...


That's not an option for two reasons. The structure beneath the skin of the centre tunnel is a structural part of the chassis. Altering it in any way means it is deemed a different chassis and would trigger about $5000 in extra engineering costs. The other reason is the seating positions are tightly constrained on both sides of each person. Any increase to the tunnel would also need to be reflected in an increase of the frame. Narrowing the seats more than they already are would not be possible. They are already padding directly on the floor. But anyway it might not be necessary. Lets wait and see what the dimensions tell us.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> The Porsche 550 was 65 inches wide...


That's across the widest point, which is not the doors. And the chassis (which as galderdi explained cannot reasonably be changed) was designed for a different body, which is narrower. A battery pack in the tunnel might be viable under a Porsche 550 body with a custom chassis, but that choice is not available.

So apparently the 550 body will provide some extra width outboard of the passenger cell, which suggests the possibility of outboard packs (not really in sills, as body tucks under), but the GTZ has a structural tubing truss on each side which contributes some of the required torsional stiffness, so it can't be omitted or modified.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I had allowed 100kg for the batteries. But I acknowledge that was based on those mystery lithium ion cells. So choosing another cell would likely increase that weight.


Any lithium-ion cell runs about the same density of about 2 kg/L (for instance the Samsung SDI cell that I linked above is 1.04 liters and 2.1 kg), and the dimensions given correspond to almost a litre and therefore 2 kg, so I can't see 100 kg as possible for 80 cells of those dimensions, whatever the mysterious source; maybe the dimensions included tall terminal studs.

With current technology, 100 kg of modules (or bare cells with interconnects and some brackets) will be about 50 litres of cell volume (significantly more pack volume) and 20 kWh or less of energy capacity in typical (NCA, NMC) electrode chemistries.

For example, 40S of Electric GT's OX-Drive Energy 4S3P modules would be
10 x 11.2 kg = 112 kg
10 x 5.9 L = 59 L
10 x 2.2 kWh = 22 kWh
... and you would need to change modules to build a higher-voltage pack, since the connections within the modules are not reasonably changeable. 60S2P would be possible in the same number of modules of the same size and weight, by replacing the 4S3P modules with 6S2P modules.



galderdi said:


> My reluctant fall back position would be to install my existing 7kwh Volt pack as a stop gap. Obviously this would give hardly any range but it would suit the weight restriction and would get the car moving enough to be certified and registered.


That seems like a reasonable backup plan. 

Assuming the modules are run across the car in the front of the engine bay, could you stack more rows of them for more capacity (assuming you use a controller able to handle the higher voltage) and still stay within the weight budget?


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Oh dear. That does not fill me with confidence. Here is a copy of the response I used to base my estimates: 
_Based on your 7-9KWH u looking at approx a 70AH cell._
_40S1P u will have 40 cells in series.

144V x 70ah = 10KWH battery.

Cell data
149mm x 40mm thick and 98mm high_
_Weight 1.23kg_

Note: When I asked for these details I did not have this particular project in mind, hence the 7-9Kwh comment. It is unfortunate he did not provide the specific code for the cells he was offering. From his response I was expecting 2 sets of 40 (40s2p) at 49.2KG each set. I was expecting each set to be 1600mm long 149mm high and 98mm wide. Depending on the width available I was expecting to need 4 rows of 20 cells across the car. But it sounds like I may have been misled. Maybe the weight was a typo, possibly 2.13KG.... :-( 

There is no point clarifying with him right now. I will wait until I have accurate dimensions of the space (Mid March). Then I can assess my options with better requirements.

Regardless, I will make it work one way or another. But it is sounds less likely I would avoid the handling tests.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I based my estimates on a 70ah Lithium Ion cell measuring 200mmx37mmx130mm and factoring 40s2p to achieve a 144v pack.


Based on this, I calculated a volume of 0.962 L, and so I expected close to 2 kg per cell.



galderdi said:


> Oh dear. That does not fill me with confidence. Here is a copy of the response I used to base my estimates:
> _Based on your 7-9KWH u looking at approx a 70AH cell._
> _40S1P u will have 40 cells in series.
> 
> ...


This is a very different set of dimensions, only about 3/4 of the length and 3/4 of the height (and similar thickness): 149 mm x 40 mm x 98 mm is 0.584 L, so 1.23 kg is entirely reasonable (2.1 kg/L) and the 100 kg and 20 kWh totals make sense. The total cell volume is only 47 L, an easy fit in the available volume and reasonably packaged in four rows like that, presumably either with each row staggered back from the one below it or in a rectangular box leaning back, to match the seatback angle. Of course interconnects, structure, enclosure, and any cooling system will bulk it up, but it should still fit. 

I'm not sure why the supplier assumes only 144 V / 40 cells = 3.6 V/cell, since most lithium-ion chemistries other than LFP run up to 3.75 VNOM, but it might just be a difference in assumptions about voltage at 0% and 100% SoC due to different charging practices, and the resulting nominal voltage. Samsung SDI specifies 3.68 VNOM.

Those cells are so small that they could almost (but probably not quite) run in a stack down the console under the shifter and parking brake as Duncan suggests, although only about half the wheelbase is available and that would only accommodate only one-third of the required cells.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> Based on this, I calculated a volume of 0.962 L, and so I expected close to 2 kg per cell.
> 
> 
> This is a very different set of dimensions, only about 3/4 of the length and 3/4 of the height (and similar thickness): 149 mm x 40 mm x 98 mm is 0.584 L, so 1.23 kg is entirely reasonable (2.1 kg/L) and the 100 kg and 20 kWh totals make sense. The total cell volume is only 47 L, an easy fit in the available volume and reasonably packaged in four rows like that, presumably either with each row staggered back from the one below it or in a rectangular box leaning back, to match the seatback angle. Of course interconnects, structure, enclosure, and any cooling system will bulk it up, but it should still fit.
> ...


Oh crud, I can see what happened now. These latest details ARE the ones I used for my estimates. 
When I responded a few days back and quoted 200x37x130 I was looking at the wrong row in my spreadsheet. They weren't the ones I used for the estimate. Hence my totals did not match the cell dimensions. 
So sorry for the confusion and resulting effort.

The 200x37x130 cells were one of many other options I have considered to some degree. They were LifePo4 105ah (2.02kg) and it was looking more like a single set (45s1p) at about 91kg and 15kwh. 

But again I don't really have a firm choice for cells yet. I am a good 12 months possibly 18 months away from needing them.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Just because it's interesting to think about... would a complete 3rd or 4th generation Smart ED battery pack fit, across the car and tilted up to match the angle of the seatback?
Smart gen 4 Battery NEW!! 17.6 kw








The overall width will be a little over a metre, so it's probably too wide, but it would be really convenient if it fit. Of course these are built of typical LG Chem cells, not LFP.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> The 200x37x130 cells were one of many other options I have considered to some degree. They were LifePo4 105ah (2.02kg) and it was looking more like a single set (45s1p) at about 91kg and 15kwh.


Using these large cells singly, instead of pairs of smaller cells in parallel, would eliminate the option of reconfiguring later for twice the voltage. This is likely to be the direction you will need to take, because the market direction is toward larger cells in the case of prismatics. With any cell type any needed number of cells can be connected in parallel, with the more commonly used pouch cells that's (presumably automated) ultrasonic welding, while the prismatic cells are normally connected via threaded terminals. The threaded terminals that make DIY pack building easier make OEM construction heavier and more expensive, so in prismatics the manufacturer will prefer to use cells that have the needed capacity without paralleling.

With the minimum viable EV pack up to about 40 kWh, the cells need to have about 100 Ah capacity (like these, or the 94 Ah cells used in the BMW i3); smaller prismatic cells are only likely to be produced for plug-in hybrids, non-roadgoing applications, and non-automotive markets.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> Oh crud, I can see what happened now. These latest details ARE the ones I used for my estimates.
> When I responded a few days back and quoted 200x37x130 I was looking at the wrong row in my spreadsheet. They weren't the ones I used for the estimate. Hence my totals did not match the cell dimensions.
> So sorry for the confusion and resulting effort.


That all makes perfect sense.  No problem, and thanks for sorting that out.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

That pack looks like a good option except we don't have them here. It would be touch and go for the width. But I am tending to think it would fit. Unfortunately we are a third world country when it comes to EVs. The list is just starting to grow in the last two years or so but still not enough to make a significant impact on the salvage market. So really we have a few Teslas and Leafs. Then there is handful of i3 and MItsubishi Outlander and iMev. That is about it. Hence another reason why I'm not stressed right now. There really will be a different set of options in 12-18 months. There will likely be Jag, Hyundai and MG to add to the mix just off the top of my head. I have some local EV registration figures, I'll dig em up.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Just listing the reasonable numbers as at Jan 14, in Queensland only and only cars (no motorbikes or trucks):
BMW i3 = 48
Hyundai IONIQ = 95
Hyundai Kona = 136
Jag ipace =50
Mini = 17
Mitsubishi IMiev = 39
Mitsubishi Minicab = 27
Nissan Leaf = 267
Renault ZOE = 22
Tesla = 1454

This is in a state with about 3,000,000 cars in total (again excluding trucks and motorbikes). So you can see our salvage market so far hasn't bee great for EV enthusiasts. Just to clarify "reasonable numbers" I mean I didn't bother with those with only 1 or 2 as they are mostly DIY EVs and aren't likely to impact the salvage market.


----------



## reiderM (Dec 30, 2020)

brian_ said:


> we had this discussion during the design of galderi's previous project; however, I think the explanation for this choice has already been given:


The motor itself is fairly small and the differential can be easily unbolted. At least from what I remember. So in theory it would be very similar to your current motor approach. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong though. This is just what I remember reading online.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Yes the suggestion makes sense. But I already have a DC motor and controller. The leaf option is not readily available here. I am toying with the idea of importing an entire Leaf from Japan but I can't justify that expense and hassle at the moment.

There is no reason why I can't run with what I have for now and then replace it with a better option once I get past the rest of the project expense.


----------



## reiderM (Dec 30, 2020)

galderdi said:


> Yes the suggestion makes sense. But I already have a DC motor and controller. The leaf option is not readily available here. I am toying with the idea of importing an entire Leaf from Japan but I can't justify that expense and hassle at the moment.
> 
> There is no reason why I can't run with what I have for now and then replace it with a better option once I get past the rest of the project expense.


Ah I didn't notice the AUS flag. Typical American thing of assuming you were American lol.

Yeah importing likely isn't going to be worth any potential cost savings of going with a leaf.

Good luck with your project, looking forward to seeing it completed!


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

reiderM said:


> Ah I didn't notice the AUS flag. Typical American thing of assuming you were American lol.
> 
> Yeah importing likely isn't going to be worth any potential cost savings of going with a leaf.
> 
> Good luck with your project, looking forward to seeing it completed!


Well my household is half American. My wife is from Louisiana. All good. :-D

Importing the leaf becomes viable if I plan to use the motor and batteries. But it's not a huge saving. It's mostly attractive because of the availability. but all the import red tape is a turn off.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

The new Tesla 46mm x 80mm tab-less batteries should be available from wrecks, as soon as they begin rolling down the road.
I’m planning to build an ultralight 550 Spyder, with a monocoque Alulight chassis. Alulight aluminum metal foam panels are 8mm thickness, with 1mm aluminum face plates, heat fusion bonded. This Alulight monocoque chassis is several times more rigid than a Lotus chassis. The panels can be welded, bent and Lotus method of epoxy/Ejot bonded.
There is room behind the engine bulkhead for the batteries. Nice thing about the new Tesla batteries, is that their power density is much greater and they charge faster, so you can use a smaller pack. I’m using suspension A-Arms, front and rear. I’m using the Spyder space frame as a template, for making the monocoque chassis.
Tesla's new battery cell features a "tabless" design, which the company claims will provide five times the energy, six times the power, and 16% more range compared to its old batterycell.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

sunworksco said:


> The new Tesla 46mm x 80mm tab-less batteries should be available from wrecks, as soon as they begin rolling down the road.
> I’m planning to build an ultralight 550 Spyder, with a monocoque Alulight chassis.
> There is room ahead of the engine bulkhead for the batteries. Nice thing about the new Tesla batteries, is that their power density is much greater and they charge faster, so you can use a smaller pack. I’m using suspension A-Arms, front and rear. I’m using the Spyder space frame as a template, for making the monocoque chassis.
> Tesla's new battery cell features a "tabless" design, which the company claims will provide five times the energy, six times the power, and 16% more range compared to its old batterycell.
> ...


Thanks for the info. Do you have a thread for me to follow? The problem with that type of chassis for me is that it would require a full set of engineering tests so it would add an extra $5000 to my project. The advantage of the chassis I have chosen is that it has already been through those tests. So as long as I stick to the chassis design it saves me $5000. Over there you probably don't need to consider the same constraints. But I am super keen to see how your build progresses. What do you consider ultralight? What would the target weight be? Mine needs to be 550kg or 1,220 lbs.

Don't forget we are about 2 years behind the USA with the rollout of EVs including Tesla. We are the poor cousin.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Something doesn't add up. You mention Alulight which appears to be an Aluminium based sandwich foam product. But the photos you posted show a tubular chassis. Do they make Alulight in tube form and even if they did I can't imagine it being suitable for a tube chassis? Are you planning on designing a bespoke chassis using Alulight panels? I am confused.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> Thanks for the info. Do you have a thread for me to follow? The problem with that type of chassis for me is that it would require a full set of engineering tests so it would add an extra $5000 to my project. The advantage of the chassis I have chosen is that it has already been through those tests. So as long as I stick to the chassis design it saves me $5000. Over there you probably don't need to consider the same constraints. But I am super keen to see how your build progresses. What do you consider ultralight? What would the target weight be? Mine needs to be 550kg or 1,220 lbs.
> 
> Don't forget we are about 2 years behind the USA with the rollout of EVs including Tesla. We are the poor cousin.


Sorry, no build images, right now. I’m planning to collaborate with a Spyder kit maker and can’t share much more. The entire car will weigh 1,000Lbs. (453.592 kilograms).
I’m assuming that Australian built cars have to go through stringent engineering to receive a registration?
Your chassis is very nice. I like monocoque chassis’s, because they’re much more rigid and offer slightly more interior space. Also the Alulight construction is very simple, using wood tools to cut and shape. You can also use the Lotus/Alcoa panel bonding construction, with one-part epoxy and Ejot screw rivets.
Alulight tubing design is made. The space tube frame is used as a template, to build the Alulight panel chassis.





Automotive - Page 1 of 713 | Gardner Web







www.autobeatonline.com


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

sunworksco said:


> Sorry, no build images, right now. I’m planning to collaborate with a Spyder kit maker and can’t share much more. The entire car will weigh 1,000Lbs. (453.592 kilograms).
> I’m assuming that Australian built cars have to go through stringent engineering to receive a registration?
> Your chassis is very nice. I like monocoque chassis’s, because they’re much more rigid and offer slightly more interior space. Also the Alulight construction is very simple, using wood tools to cut and shape. You can also use the Lotus/Alcoa panel bonding construction, with one-part epoxy and Ejot screw rivets.
> 
> ...


That is an ambitious target. I will keep an eye out for your progress.
Yes building a bespoke chassis requires a raft of tests that would add more than $5000 to the build cost. This includes a torsional rigidity test and a handling and lane change test requiring a closed track and a professional test driver.

The torsion test must exceed the following: Torsional rigidity should be at least 4,000 Nm per degree over the wheelbase.
Here are some photos showing the torsion tests: Clubman Builders Resource - Australian Chassis Modifications


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Very rigid....


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> ... Unfortunately we are a third world country when it comes to EVs. The list is just starting to grow in the last two years or so but still not enough to make a significant impact on the salvage market...





galderdi said:


> Just listing the reasonable numbers as at Jan 14, in Queensland only and only cars (no motorbikes or trucks):
> BMW i3 = 48
> Hyundai IONIQ = 95
> Hyundai Kona = 136
> ...


The province of Alberta, Canada, has about the same number of cars (with a slightly smaller population), with about 3,000 EVs... so EV adoption and the salvage situation are not much different here. For any Alberta EV builder getting components is likely to be an exercise in shipping from other provinces.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

sunworksco said:


> The new Tesla 46mm x 80mm tab-less batteries should be available from wrecks, as soon as they begin rolling down the road.
> ...
> Tesla's new battery cell features a "tabless" design, which the company claims will provide five times the energy, six times the power, and 16% more range compared to its old batterycell.


They are not likely to be rolling down the road any time soon - this is one of Musk's random claims that has some connection to reality, but no real schedule. Real Tesla practice is to still use 18650 cells in the Model S and X, and 2170 cells in the Model 3 and Y... and all of the models which they have been promising for years but are not delivering (new Roadster, Cybertruck, Semi). From Autoweek:
"Musk indicated they're about three years away, actually putting them beyond the starting dates for the production of several new Tesla models. The Cybertruck is planned to enter production in late 2021, about the same time as the Tesla Semi. Both of these models, at least according to Tesla estimates, are expected to outpace the start of mass production of the tabless battery."​
The "tabless" design has value, but it is completely unreasonable to expect huge improvements. And what would "five times the energy" and "16% more range" mean, given that range depends only on energy? What it means is just that the cell is five times as large (so one-fifth as many fit in the pack and there is no improvement in total energy in the pack); of course the much larger cell can produce much more power, but again there will be many fewer of them in the pack so it's not a big improvement. The 16% range improvement (due to slightly better packing density or efficiency) is an unsubstantiated claim, but even if we accept that it is true, it's a minor advance as should be expected after years of development.

In the end, the tabless battery thing is just a distraction which is not relevant to this project, even if the battery isn't purchased for a couple of years. It is, on the other hand, an example of the ongoing battery improvements that are hoped for.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> The province of Alberta, Canada, has about the same number of cars (with a slightly smaller population), with about 3,000 EVs... so EV adoption and the salvage situation are not much different here. For any Alberta EV builder getting components is likely to be an exercise in shipping from other provinces.


All the states surrounding Queensland would have similar numbers. I would have been quite willing to source from another state but even they don't have much coming up. Unfortunately the nearest place to import any reasonable Evs is Japan (or maybe NZ) and we can only import via Surface shipping. The Air freight companies are unwilling to ship large quantities of Lithium batteries (knowingly). But it is slowly improving.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

I’ve read many articles that say the CyberTruck will have the 4680 cells and the CyberTruck will be sold end of this year. I think Autoweek is somewhat biased.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

sunworksco said:


> I’ve read many articles that say the CyberTruck will have the 4680 cells and the CyberTruck will be sold end of this year. I think Autoweek is somewhat biased.


Articles in Teslarati and wild speculation by Musk fans? The Autoweek article states the same end-of-2021 Cybertruck expectation, and reports that _Musk_ is saying that it won't have 4680 cells. More importantly, even if Cybertrucks with 4680's are pouring off the line this Christmas, galderdi won't see their battery components as affordable salvage in Queensland for years, if ever.

Aside from the fantasy of the tabless cell, Tesla batteries are useless for this project. Like all production EVs, Tesla batteries are built in modules which are connected in series, so to get to any fraction of the battery overall voltage the salvage user must use that same fraction of the stock modules. Tesla only builds large-battery models, so for this project's target of roughly 1/3 to 2/3 of the usual 360 VNOM pack, 1/3 to 2/3 of the modules would need to be used, meaning for a very basic 60 kWh model (the base Cybertruck will probably have twice that) it would take 20 to 40 kWh of modules. 20 kWh might fit but would have barely adequate voltage; 40 kWh has no chance of going in the GTZ chassis.

Some modules can be broken down and reconfigured: the rare examples with prismatic cells and bolted connections (BMW i3?) can be unbolted and used easily; the most common design of stacked pouches can be disassembled and restacked but ultrasonically welded tabs must be cut apart and rejoined; the cylindrical cells of a Tesla module not only have ultrasonically welded electrical connections but are glued together in a block that can't be torn apart without destroying the pack and likely the cells.

So, the idea is to look for prismatic cells, or modules which are configured for a very small pack such as a high-capacity plug-in hybrid or a very basic battery-electric EV.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> The torsion test must exceed the following: Torsional rigidity should be at least 4,000 Nm per degree over the wheelbase.
> Here are some photos showing the torsion tests: Clubman Builders Resource - Australian Chassis Modifications


According to the document showing the torsional rigidity requirement, 4,000 Nm per degree is only for vehicles over 1,000 kg tare mass; below that, the requirement is 4 Nm/deg per kilogram of tare mass. At 550 kg, you (and the normal GTZ) should only need 2,200 Nm per degree... if this is considered a "four cylinder" vehicle, as the GTZ is. Is the assumption that an EV is a more-than-four cylinder, or did I miss something? If this is an EV issue, why would the GTZ be certified to 4,000 Nm/degree when it is only required to reach 2,200 - was the builder allowing for V8 conversions?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

I realize that Australia is more Land Cruiser territory than Jeep territory, but Jeeps are sold there. If you get the 4xe hybrids which are just coming out this year, you might be able to get salvaged battery packs in a couple of years, and while I haven't seen any images of the pack's internal construction, they are reportedly using Samsung SDI prismatic NMC cells. If you are willing to use the NMC cells, it should be able to reconfigure them to suit the space. The Wrangler has a 96S 17 kWh pack, so that's 96 cells at 47 Ah each... maybe a good fit if you use a controller that can handle the 360 V voltage, or parallel pairs for 180 V and 94 Ah, or even something higher than 180 V and more than 17 kWh by using more than 96 cells in pairs. The Renegade and Compass 4xe are only 11.4 kWh, so if they are 96S as well then the cells are 32 Ah and other combinations are possible; for example, 96S2P for 22.8 kWh @ 360 V, 64S3P for 22.8 kWh @ 240 V, 48S4P for 22.8 kWh @ 180 V, or combinations of fewer than 192 cells at corresponding lower voltages and energy capacities. Cell dimensions are unknown, unless these are existing Samsung SDI cells for which specs are already published; if they are existing sizes the Jeeps just become potential additional salvage sources.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Brian,
Let’s just agree to disagree.
It’s the same argument that I had with people, in the 1990’s, about NmH batteries will be making NiCads obsolete and later when I said that lithium will be the next battery technology.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> According to the document showing the torsional rigidity requirement, 4,000 Nm per degree is only for vehicles over 1,000 kg tare mass; below that, the requirement is 4 Nm/deg per kilogram of tare mass. At 550 kg, you (and the normal GTZ) should only need 2,200 Nm per degree... if this is considered a "four cylinder" vehicle, as the GTZ is. Is the assumption that an EV is a more-than-four cylinder, or did I miss something? If this is an EV issue, why would the GTZ be certified to 4,000 Nm/degree when it is only required to reach 2,200 - was the builder allowing for V8 conversions?


Brian you are right. To be honest I haven't gone into it too deep because the chassis is already certified. I am just trusting the engineer. But in verbal conversations with the chassis builder they were aiming for 4,000Nm anyway just because stiffer is better. I just grabbed the first statement I saw in the guidelines to demonstrate how tough the certification is. This (plus the engineering cost) is why I turned away from the idea of constructing my own chassis. I have made two before but never needed to have it certified against such difficult criteria. The chassis is costing a significant amount but building my own would have cost just as much, would have added 10 months to the project and wouldn't have been guaranteed to pass certification.

Even though the engineering of the chassis well exceeds the required bench mark it does not give me any latitude. Any change to the structural components of the chassis throw the previous results out the window. The new results can be estimated but estimates are not sufficient for the certification. As a result any changes to the chassis would trigger all the engineering tests which won't fit in my budget.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I have never worked with a DC-DC converter before. I have one that will be suitable (at least while I am running 172v). I will still need a small 12v battery as the rules state that compulsory systems (lights and blinkers in my case) must still operate if the traction system fails. 
So my assumption is that I will need a regulator as well so the 12v battery is not over charged? Any recommendations?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

The DC-to-DC converter is a regulated voltage source. I assume that you just set it to a voltage similar to what a typical automotive regulator is set to, and you don't need any other regulator.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Awesome, one less component to purchase. Thanks


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> Awesome, one less component to purchase. Thanks


I went even more basic that that
I charge my auxiliary battery at the same time as I charge the main battery - and its got more "life" than the main battery

I did start with a DC-DC - I used an old laptop power supply - but when it died I just went with charging the auxiliary with an old power supply


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I am thinking of towing a trailer with some solar panels, wind turbines and an alternator off each wheel so it will recharge while I am driving. What do you guys think?
Will it need a flux capacitor before it will work?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> I am thinking of towing a trailer with some solar panels, wind turbines and an alternator off each wheel so it will recharge while I am driving. What do you guys think?
> Will it need a flux capacitor before it will work?


Definitely need a flux capacitor! - maybe two


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> I went even more basic that that
> I charge my auxiliary battery at the same time as I charge the main battery - and its got more "life" than the main battery


That works, especially for sprint competition vehicles. I assume that's what galderdi's track car has, right?

Personally, I can't see putting tens of thousands of dollars into a street-driven vehicle, and not installing a DC-to-DC to avoid having to charge the 12 V battery every time I drive it.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I am thinking of towing a trailer with some solar panels, wind turbines and an alternator off each wheel so it will recharge while I am driving. What do you guys think?
> Will it need a flux capacitor before it will work?


Shhh.... don't give the perpetual motion nuts ideas!


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> Definitely need a flux capacitor! - maybe two


Two? Crazy idea, there is no way to synchronise them.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> That works, especially for sprint competition vehicles. I assume that's what galderdi's track car has, right?
> 
> Personally, I can't see putting tens of thousands of dollars into a street-driven vehicle, and not installing a DC-to-DC to avoid having to charge the 12 V battery every time I drive it.


Particularly when I have a suitable one sitting on the shelf. Just a shame I need to run the 12v battery at all.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Running a separate 12v auxiliary battery - with or without a DC-DC - gives lots of advantages
You can completely isolate the High Voltage pack when the car is shut down and then do the start up before enabling the high voltage

If you run the 12v stuff just through a DC-DC then the high voltage needs to be switched on first


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I have the chassis and I have started work on the buck. There may be some minor adjustment required but overall I am happy so far. Next step is to do the equivalent on the back. Then I will be connecting the dots with 8mm rod to form the contours. I can't wait till it gets to that stage as that is when it will resemble the final shape and I can commence shaping metal.


----------



## Rusted B&B (Nov 6, 2020)

this is really cool!


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

It's great to see this progress.  

With the chassis now in hand, can you share some dimensions, following up on the packaging challenge discussed earlier (most recently around post #36)? I was wondering about the cockpit interior width (which would also presumably be the engine bay interior width where a battery pack might go), and the width of that centre console.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> It's great to see this progress.
> 
> With the chassis now in hand, can you share some dimensions, following up on the packaging challenge discussed earlier (most recently around post #36)? I was wondering about the cockpit interior width (which would also presumably be the engine bay interior width where a battery pack might go), and the width of that centre console.


Thanks guys, Yup, will do. It is pretty much as I remembered. But that doesn't help with the finer detail around dimensions. There is quite a lot of unused space between the chassis structure and the front panels (above the occupant's legs). But my preference would be not to split the battery resulting in the need for cables front to rear. There is also a tonne of room in the nose and tail but I will not be using that for batteries. Those voids may be useful for some small luggage for a day trip etc. But I have a lot of time before I will need to finalise those sort of decisions. I'll get back to you with dimensions.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Ok, I have some dimensions. I'll start with the simple ones and complicate it from there.

The space behind the seats is 900Wx820Lx600H in mm. 
However the gearbox and motor will eat up 500mm of the length. There will be a little more length available on the motor side.
The seat lays back 200mm at the highest point which also eats into the length (its 820 at floor height and 220 at shoulder / panel height.
The chassis is 1000mm wide at the bottom of the seats but narrows towards the back to 900mm. There is also suspension mounts that eat into the width by 100mm on each side. So the available width is 700mm at floor height or 900 if the battery mounting is raised by 50mm to clear the suspension mount.

So I think the worse case scenario is 700W x 300L x 550H (Assuming a tilted mount to match the seat back). But I may be able to improve on this space depending on the flexibility of the chosen batteries.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Oh and the centre hump is really not usable. It is only 100mm wide on the outside of the structure and it does still need to house the handbrake, handbrake cables, gear shift and gear shift cables.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> Ok, I have some dimensions. I'll start with the simple ones and complicate it from there.






galderdi said:


> The space behind the seats is 900Wx820Lx600H in mm.
> However the gearbox and motor will eat up 500mm of the length. There will be a little more length available on the motor side.
> The seat lays back 200mm at the highest point which also eats into the length (its 820 at floor height and 220 at shoulder / panel height.
> The chassis is 1000mm wide at the bottom of the seats but narrows towards the back to 900mm. There is also suspension mounts that eat into the width by 100mm on each side. So the available width is 700mm at floor height or 900 if the battery mounting is raised by 50mm to clear the suspension mount.
> ...


It sounds huge, until the powertrain is considered. 

Presumably that front-back length is 620 mm at shoulder height (820 -200). The tilt back idea looks promising.

700 mm x 300 mm x 550 mm is 115 litres... perhaps a bit better than we were guessing earlier, and more than enough space for as much battery as the mass budget allows, if the shapes and proportions of the cells or modules work out reasonably.

Of course other components need to fit in back there (or up front), such as the controller, likely cooling system, charger, BMS, DC-to-DC, 12 V battery, and wiring termination boxes. You've dealt with all of that before, so it shouldn't be a problem.



galderdi said:


> Oh and the centre hump is really not usable. It is only 100mm wide on the outside of the structure and it does still need to house the handbrake, handbrake cables, gear shift and gear shift cables.


If the seating area is the same 900 mm wide inside, that's 400 mm (16 inches) per seat (after accounting for the 100 mm hump/tunnel/console)... as you said before, nothing extra there!

Depending on component placement, there may also be AC or HV DC cables in there, and perhaps even coolant lines.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Thanks Brian. I agree with all you have said. Weight and packaging are the main challenges from here. Oh yes, you picked up a typo from me. Yes that should be 620 at shoulder height. I'll correct that shortly.
The power train does sit low. So there is space above them. Probably not suitable for batteries but certainly a controller may end up there.
As you say the other components are too challenging. I want to keep everything involving big cables at the back of the car if possible. I'd prefer to minimise the total cable weight. That means the controller will likely be at the back. The other components can mostly sit in the ample space above the occupant's legs. I would still like to reserve some of that space for small luggage items. I think there is room for both.
Yes the seating area is 900 + 100 inside at the hips. It will be wider at the shoulders but that width has not been set yet. There is a possibility of mounting small components (not batteries or controllers) in the voids down the sides. But access there will be limited so I struggle to think of anything that would be suited there.
I am likely to get a drive in a finished GTZ this weekend. It will be interesting to take a close look at all the dimensions. I have seen one in person before. But that was way before I was considering building one.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here is the latest on the spyder buck. I have bent all the steel to roughly the right shape. The steel is just wired in place for now while I deal with the imperfections. Then I will weld it in place.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here is the latest.
The Front Driver side is adjusted, cut and welded on the inside.
The Front passenger side is almost adjusted and almost ready to be cut and welded.
The rear is not adjusted yet at all.
I have cut the tops of the passenger side door. I just need to cut some and weld some tube to achieve the desired contour along the top.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

I appreciate the ludicrous amount of effort and documentation going into this. I'm not posting much because your skill level is so far beyond what I would even consider possible, but, don't take my or anyone's silence for a lack of appreciation or interest, this is a magnificent build.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> I appreciate the ludicrous amount of effort and documentation going into this. I'm not posting much because your skill level is so far beyond what I would even consider possible, but, don't take my or anyone's silence for a lack of appreciation or interest, this is a magnificent build.


Thanks for the very kind words. Although I am not sure I agree with my skill level. I am still a beginner/novice at all this stuff (including EVs). I am just using ambitious projects to build skills along the way. I wouldn't want to pass myself off as an expert just because I've dipped my toe in the water. I am totally conscious I'm not starting the project with the skills required. I am also aware there will be mistakes and rework along the way. My previous projects have been focused on grass roots motorsport and as a result I could accept results that were less than perfect. This is intended to be a piece of art so I need to alter my approach to be much less forgiving. The challenge will also be avoiding the excuse "This was my first attempt, that's why its not perfect". I am sure there will be cases where that ends up being true and that's ok if I only find out after the fact. 

I appreciate your response and I am not concerned about responses. But I think I will get a significant increase in responses once I start adding shaped metal. I can't begin shaping metal until at least the basic buck is complete. There is a risk that when I stand back and consider the completed buck there might be a problem that makes me redesign an earlier part of the buck. If I had already shaped metal based on the earlier design that piece would be wasted. Some consistency in the buck is crucial otherwise the panels will not line up with each other. I will be continuing to post updates when ever there is noticeable progress. This weekend I only have a portion of one day available but I still hope to tidy the front passenger side, progress the passenger door and commence adjusting the rear passenger corner. I have been working on it at night during the week but progress is limited as I can't use my grinder etc. There are stations on the buck that require cutting before they will settle into the correct position. So I can't even commence adjustment on those.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I do have a little issue I am working through. I had been given a boost of confidence because I found a metal shaping trainer on Youtube who was using a Spyder as his example for in depth tutorials on his approach. So I though I was all set to follow his lead. But I have been informed by a 50 year veteran Italian coachbuilder that his approach is dead wrong and fraught with peril. That view has been backed up by many others in the same forum. So in some regards I am back to square one to try and understand the "correct" way. But I won't totally discard what I have seen. It may well still be useful along the way. So long as I achieve the desired results I don't mind.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here's my latest progress. I prepared the motor and gearbox in order to understand what was required to the sandwich plate. It turns out I will be able to use my original flywheel and I can choose between the new or old pressure plate. They are all compatible with the clutch.
I made more progress on the buck too. All the steel is bent to the basic shape and welded in place at one end. Now I need to do any final adjustments before welding all the cross bracing in place. I also need to work on the fine details like the nose, tail and dash. The left door area is done enough for me to start on the sill panel.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I made a little more progress on the front of the buck and decided on the approach for the hinge mount structure. I still have a long way to go.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I made a little more progress on the front of the buck and decided on the approach for the hinge mount structure. I still have a long way to go.


Adding doors to a structure not intended to have them is certainly a challenge. I don't know if the clamp-on approach is intended to be permanent, or is just for positioning during planning. If the structure will stay clamp-on, will you add something like shear pins to keep the brackets from shifting over time?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> I made a little more progress on the front of the buck and decided on the approach for the hinge mount structure. I still have a long way to go.
> 
> 
> View attachment 122744





galderdi said:


> I made a little more progress on the front of the buck and decided on the approach for the hinge mount structure. I still have a long way to go.
> 
> 
> View attachment 122744


Re the doors - it makes more sense if you think of the doors as a way to get your feet past the steering wheel without standing on the seat

My solution was to tilt the steering column up to get in and back down to drive


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Re the doors - it makes more sense if you think of the doors as a way to get your feet past the steering wheel without standing on the seat


More sense than what? This is a Porsche 550 copy, so it needs front-hinged doors. The structure (which can't be modified, only added to) is intended to be doorless, so the sills are determined by the side structure and extremely high. The questions are really how to form those doors and attach them, rather than how to get into the car; you can get in the same way as is intended for the (doorless) kit.

Details depend on the specific car and person, of course, but I used to routinely get into (but not out of) our Spitfire without opening the door, even on the driver's side and even without a tilting or removable steering wheel. It probably helps that it has no roll bar.



Duncan said:


> My solution was to tilt the steering column up to get in and back down to drive


That might be a good solution to access with the high sills, regardless of the door design.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> Adding doors to a structure not intended to have them is certainly a challenge. I don't know if the clamp-on approach is intended to be permanent, or is just for positioning during planning. If the structure will stay clamp-on, will you add something like shear pins to keep the brackets from shifting over time?


Thanks Brian. Yes the clamp approach is intended to be permanent. I am trying to avoid welding to the chassis as this could be deemed as a modification by the engineer and could trigger the need for retesting. However if the engineer asks for a different approach I will accept his advice.
The lower bracket can't slide forward at all as it is up against a corner. The top bracket can't slide either way as it is also in a corner. This means the only way the front bracket could slide either way would be resulting from a significant impact.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I have had a couple of people suggest having fake doors. But at my age (51 going on 90) I want the doors to make it as easy as possible. 
The solution to the steering wheel problem as applied to the original kit seemed to just be to stand on the seat. I am having trouble tracking down a suitable height adjustable column but it is a necessary item.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> I have had a couple of people suggest having fake doors. But at my age (51 going on 90) I want the doors to make it as easy as possible.
> The solution to the steering wheel problem as applied to the original kit seemed to just be to stand on the seat. I am having trouble tracking down a suitable height adjustable column but it is a necessary item.


I took a Subaru Legacy column and removed the limit stop

With the wheel all the way up you can't steer it ! ( the wheel won't rotate)


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I finished the hinge and striker structures on both sides. I just received the foam for the dash to comply with the QLD head strike rules. I have some cheaper (non legal) foam I plan to use as a trial run first. But both the trial run and final dash are both jobs a fair way down the track. My next priority is to finish securing the rear end of the buck so I can pull the buck off and fit all the mechanicals to the chassis. This may sound premature but it is the only way to ensure the wheel arch is positioned accurately around each wheel.


----------



## sarangpaul9 (Jul 11, 2021)

I know I haven't address all of your points because many of your points were spot on anyway. But if I have missed anything requiring clarification please let me know. teatv apk
e sadhana


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Hey Sarangppaul. I don't get the context. Maybe the wrong thread?


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Hi all. Here are the latest photos of my project. The Buck is now self supporting. Which means I can remove it from the chassis and add the suspension to the chassis. That will allow me to determine with accuracy where the wheel arches and flares need to be. The buck still needs some fine tuning, mostly just to grind down any high spots.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Some decent progress to report. I had to start on the mechanicals in order to locate the wheel positions. So the chassis and suspension is now painted and assembled. The peddle box is moved forward 25mm. The internal panels are all cut and predrilled. The buck is now complete including wheel arches.
I had to redo the nose panel. The original attempt looked ok from a distance. It had the correct curve when I wheeled it but the bead more than reversed the curve. So I needed to put it back through the wheel. This removed the beads and I then proceeded to add more curve than required to compensate for the expected impact of the bead. It worked a treat. The panel now has the intended curve.
I also made some more progress on both ends of the motor mount. But there is still a fair bit of work to do there.
According to my current plan this brings me to 46%


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

As always, fantastic work being done here. Really appreciate you sharing it with the community, especially as you're not asking for help on things, it's entirely for our enjoyment and benefit


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I decided I didn't like the standard mounting position of the gear shifter on my chassis. It usually sits high on top of the tunnel. Mainly because there is usually radiator pipes running under there. But I don't have the pipes so I decided to modify the shifter and squeeze it into the tunnel. I removed the left mount points in the process so I will need to make a bracket to support that left side. But otherwise I am happy with the result.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here is the latest progress on my project. I had a trial run fitting the interior, I mounted the brake fluid reservoirs and the gearbox end of the motor is mounted. Next I will make some brackets to secure the other end of the motor.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I have started on the door frames.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here is the latest on my project. I have almost completed the left door. I just need to add a weld to each the top corners. The right door is half way there also. I have also started on a practice run for the dash. I am just working out how to achieve a reasonable shape using the required EVA. For the final version it will be black, a bit fuller/rounder and the top edge needs to line up with the panel surface more accurately. I had also run out of staples for this photo which is why the end is messy.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

So I had my first visit with my engineer. It was about as good as I expected. there are certainly some requirements I need to work through. Some are minor but others aren't ideal. Mostly because they conflict with the theme of the car. But it is what it is.

We also started prepping for the electrical certification side of things. Most of the requirements are familiar to me and I am on top of them. One of the requirements is no access to high voltage components without the use of tools. Apparently access is defined as a 2mm object. for most of the high voltage components I have plans to cover it off. But I am running a DC motor so the brush cage is a concern for me. I specifically asked him about it and he confirmed the rule does apply there. I am thinking I could wrap the cage in a thin layer of polycarbonate and attach it in a way that would require tools to remove. But then that would restrict the air flow around the brushes. I could then run a fan to pump fresh air through the cage. None of this is appealing to me.

Any other suggestions or anywhere you have seen this requirement satisfied before?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> So I had my first visit with my engineer. It was about as good as I expected. there are certainly some requirements I need to work through. Some are minor but others aren't ideal. Mostly because they conflict with the theme of the car. But it is what it is.
> 
> We also started prepping for the electrical certification side of things. Most of the requirements are familiar to me and I am on top of them. One of the requirements is no access to high voltage components without the use of tools. Apparently access is defined as a 2mm object. for most of the high voltage components I have plans to cover it off. But I am running a DC motor so the brush cage is a concern for me. I specifically asked him about it and he confirmed the rule does apply there. I am thinking I could wrap the cage in a thin layer of polycarbonate and attach it in a way that would require tools to remove. But then that would restrict the air flow around the brushes. I could then run a fan to pump fresh air through the cage. None of this is appealing to me.
> 
> Any other suggestions or anywhere you have seen this requirement satisfied before?


You need to exclude "things" larger than 2mm
So a fine mesh would qualify and you can bend your mesh so that the area of the holes is larger than the openings in the brush cage 

I'm thinking forming the mesh 30 mm off the motor and clamping it to the motor above and below brush cage 

I'm having fun with my car with the new rules from Motorsport NZ - but they do seem to be quite keen on working out ways that I can continue to compete


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> You need to exclude "things" larger than 2mm
> So a fine mesh would qualify and you can bend your mesh so that the area of the holes is larger than the openings in the brush cage
> 
> I'm thinking forming the mesh 30 mm off the motor and clamping it to the motor above and below brush cage
> ...


Thanks Duncan, I had the same thought since posting this question. I think sturdy fly screen (non conductive) may do the trick. I can make a light frame to hold it off the motor.

It sounds like I need to move to NZ :-D. A few days ago I saw that the EV rules for Motorsport Australia are still in draft. That is over 2 years now. They also acknowledged the Tesla club is asking to get involved in motorsport. But until Motor Sport Australia communicate their position our club is forced to reject any EV entries. It is so frustrating. Hence why I made the decision not to persue it. When it happens it happens.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> Thanks Duncan, I had the same thought since posting this question. I think sturdy fly screen (non conductive) may do the trick. I can make a light frame to hold it off the motor.
> 
> It sounds like I need to move to NZ :-D. A few days ago I saw that the EV rules for Motorsport Australia are still in draft. That is over 2 years now. They also acknowledged the Tesla club is asking to get involved in motorsport. But until Motor Sport Australia communicate their position our club is forced to reject any EV entries. It is so frustrating. Hence why I made the decision not to persue it. When it happens it happens.


Its not roses over here
A std EV can compete - but they need to get a Motorsports Logbook
I also need a motorsports logbook - I think that I will get one soon - they are discussing it just now

IMHO they are missing the very people they need to attract - people buy Teslas BECAUSE they go like stink

Those are the punters we need to attract

Re the mesh - I was thinking of a standard metal mesh - it will be clamped to the motor body so no need for a non conducting one - after all the "main isolation" is the steel body of the motor


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> Its not roses over here
> A std EV can compete - but they need to get a Motorsports Logbook
> I also need a motorsports logbook - I think that I will get one soon - they are discussing it just now
> 
> ...


Of course its not all roses over there.......Its all silver ferns.

Allowing a standard EV to compete with a log book is still a step ahead of Australia. But I agree, I have been in contact with the representative of the local Tesla club and they are ready to hand over thousands of dollars to become affiliated with Motor Sport Australia and yet MSA aren't ready to accept them.

My motor does not have any mesh. But I know of the mesh you are referring to. I don't think that mesh would pass by itself because the gaps seem greater than 2mm. I do get that any mesh is suitable as a physical barrier. It just doesn't feel right implementing a conductive barrier as a high voltage protection. Non conductive would just make me feel better.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

The engineer just gave me a heart attack.. I sent him an Email proposing a mesh cover to comply. He responded saying he thought the cover needs to be water proof. I literally had an ARRRRRRRRR!!!!! moment. Sure it is achievable but it will then stop breathing and overheat.

But I went back to the EV conversion rules. High voltage components in the engine bay must be protected to IP2X. Which just means protection against dripping or a spray up to 15 degrees from vertical. No problem, I'll just add a plastic cover to the top of the motor. Crisis averted 😄


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Couple of thoughts
"No access to High voltage bits without tools"
Your motor is under its bonnet - if you fit a bonnet lock then you will need a "tool" - the key - to open the bonnet

This is the NZ Motorsport EV Guide




__





Electric Vehicles - MotorSport New Zealand







motorsport.org.nz





Its not ideal - but it sounds better than nothing 
If you are in touch with the Tesla Club then you could suggest that they start by plagiarizing this document


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

So... here's my forklift motor with the screen off:










And with it on (the left one, the right two have fans that pull through the whole face):










Cheap and easy could buy perforated metal anywhere and cut it with tin snips or a grinder.










Your case is certainly thick enough to just drill and tap a few bolt holes.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Thanks Duncan, I need to take a closer look at my motor and work out how I can mount something similar. My engineer also informs me it must be IPX2 rated which basically means it must resist drips or sprays of water up to 15 degrees from vertical. But that is easy it just means the addition of a plastic cover over the top .


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I tried my hand at quilting on the weekend.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

That looks impressive - how is it done?


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> That looks impressive - how is it done?


Mark out the lines being careful not to make the diamonds too small or too big. Also make sure the diamonds aren't too square (otherwise they aren't diamonds). Then run the panel through a bead roller starting from the inside and working out (other wise the bending of the panel will interfere with the bead roller). The bead roller has a tipping die on top and a nylon roller (or skateboard wheel) on bottom. Do all the lines in one direction. Then flatten the panel over your knee to remove the curve induced in the process. Then run the panel through in the other direction. Flatten the panel again. Then change the dies to a set of step dies and run a step around the outside to create a border.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

One of the registration requirements here is a G force meter used to disable the drive system in the event of an impact. 
I have done a search on the forum but the results I see are talking about Airbag sensors. I'm not implementing airbags.

Are the airbag sensors the same type of sensor used to disable the motor?
Can someone point me to a thread with diagrams or explanation of a possible way to rig this up?

I am assuming the G meter acts like a momentary switch so maybe I will need to operate a 12v relay that interrupts the main contactor until the 12v relay is manually reset?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

This is what I use 









Amazon.com: Hotwin First Inertia Switch Vehicle Crash Sensor Standard Ignition Electric Fuel Pump : Automotive


Buy Hotwin First Inertia Switch Vehicle Crash Sensor Standard Ignition Electric Fuel Pump: Fuel Pump Cut-Off - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com




Not sure if that link will work

This is the sensor - AND the chart showing the G forces






First Inertia Switch Vehicle crash sensor, 8-14G


First Inertia Switch Vehicle crash sensor, 8-14G




www.evworks.com.au





Its available on Amazon


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> One of the registration requirements here is a G force meter used to disable the drive system in the event of an impact.
> I have done a search on the forum but the results I see are talking about Airbag sensors. I'm not implementing airbags.
> 
> Are the airbag sensors the same type of sensor used to disable the motor?


I assume that you need the same type of inertial switch used to kill the fuel pump; they are apparently the same type as used to kill EV battery power.

The collision conditions to kill powertrain operation and the collision conditions to trigger the airbags could be different, but in a quick online search it seems like they may typically be triggered by the same switch.



galderdi said:


> Can someone point me to a thread with diagrams or explanation of a possible way to rig this up?
> 
> I am assuming the G meter acts like a momentary switch so maybe I will need to operate a 12v relay that interrupts the main contactor until the 12v relay is manually reset?


The Wikipedia article for _Inertial Switch_ suggests that fuel pump and EV switches are likely normally closed, and pop open on impact until manually reset. The same article suggests that dedicated airbag switches are normally open, closing and presumably staying closed until manually reset (or replaced?). Of course a switch can have both normally open and normally closed contacts... so a wiring diagram from the switch manufacturer would be good, although a factory service manual's wiring diagram for a vehicle using a particular switch should also be informative.

==============================

I had this discussion open from earlier so I didn't see Duncan's post, and mine is mostly redundant... although I will note that these switches generally require a manual reset (they are not momentary contact), and that the example shown does have both NO and NC contacts.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I have the switch wired to open my 12 volt supply - so if it triggers it opens both of the main contactors

The NZ motorsport requirement says that it should switch ON a warning light when activated - mine switches OFF the "operating light"
which I have argued is the same thing but I may end up adding a light just to keep them happy

Mine is mounted nose down - so that I can reach the button to re-set it - I was worried that would mean it was too sensitive - been two years and no triggering events so far


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Awesome, Thankyou both. I'll do some more research. The "Inertia switch" terminology is possibly the key. That would explain why I wasn't seeing the results I expected.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I solved a couple of key challenges over the weekend.
The first one was how to secure the tube bends accurately so I can weld them and end up with them in the correct position and angle. I came up with these little brackets which are made from a steel tube one size larger than the aluminium tube. I split it in two parts and cut a window in each side so I can weld through it while it is clamped in place.

The second challenge was the inner panels under the bonnet. I made a guide so I know where the edge of the bonnet needs to be. But the edge of the bonnet does not line up with the edge of the chassis. I thought about twisting the panel or putting some shape into it to get it to twist. But I think the accuracy would have suffered. The edge needs to be straight on the vertical plane but follow the bonnet curve on the horizontal plane. What I came up with is a bend part way down the panel. I am happy with the result. It gives me the ability to adjust the top edge of the panel to line up fairly accurately with the intended bonnet line.
























\


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I made some progress on the driver's dash. Its finally starting to look like something. Still some work to do though. I had to have some wood in the mix so I have somewhere to attach the vinyl with staples hidden up underneath


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here's my latest progress


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here is my progress after the weekend:


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

I'm at a loss for words. What a marvel.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I have done some refinement on the front panels and started tacking them in place. Here is how it is looking.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here are a couple of my latest photos and an update of my progress. I have made some reasonable progress on a few fronts and also found a few learning opportunities. The wheel arches and flares are causing no end of grief. I have totally stuffed the left outer guard and decided to start from scratch. No big deal. These things are to be expected the first time around. Basically I cut a round hole for the arch not thinking about how the stretching of the flare basically warms the top of the circle. So next time I will stretch the flare before cutting the arch. 
I have completed the frame that extends the rear of the chassis. The frame will support the hinges on which the rear panels will pivot.
I have almost completed the panel that fills in the gaps behind the head rests.
I have completed the bar that supports the head rests and mounts the centre brake light.
I have added the mount points for the ends of all the hard brake lines.
I have done about a 3rd of the brake lines. Some additional fittings were delivered today so I should be able to continue that step now.
My batteries have arrived. I have gone with 328 Headway cells. 41S8P giving just shy of 175V maximum. Last night was my first chance to begin a more precise design of the pack. The low hanging fruit has seen 270 of those cells fairly easily. I have a couple more areas to measure and I will also adjust my spacings to get to the 328. It will be tight but should be doable.


----------



## floydr (Jun 21, 2021)

galderdi said:


> I have gone with 328 Headway cells





galderdi said:


> 41S8P giving just shy of 175V maximum.


Last I heard headway cells were LiFePO4.
LiFePO4 3.2V-3.65V Not 3.7V-4.2V (NMC, Lico, etc)
41S 131.2 to 149.65V max Happy to be wrong wouldn't be the first time
later floyd


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

floydr said:


> Last I heard headway cells were LiFePO4.
> LiFePO4 3.2V-3.65V Not 3.7V-4.2V (NMC, Lico, etc)
> 41S 131.2 to 149.65V max Happy to be wrong wouldn't be the first time
> later floyd


You are mostly right except the 3.2 is the nominal voltage not the maximum. Maximum voltage is 4.2v for these cells


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

floydr said:


> Last I heard headway cells were LiFePO4.
> LiFePO4 3.2V-3.65V Not 3.7V-4.2V (NMC, Lico, etc)
> 41S 131.2 to 149.65V max Happy to be wrong wouldn't be the first time
> later floyd


That ties in with my experience of Headway cells - in fact I would say the range was less than that - more like 3.3V to 3.5V

But that was 10 years ago the chemistry must have changed since then


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> You are mostly right except the 3.2 is the nominal voltage not the maximum. Maximum voltage is 4.2v for these cells


I would take a few of those cells and run them through a few cycles - see what the actual voltages are

When I tested mine the Voltage/charge curve had definite top and bottom inflections - at 3.3 volts and 3.5 volts 

When I had Headway cells they were 16AH - so I used 80% - 12.8 AH - 
WRONG!! - the bloody things were from 12 AH to 15 AH - so I killed a few

After that I cycled each one to test it before I used it

This was about 10 years ago - Headway cells were OK - but they did fail 

The Chevy Volt modules I'm using now are about 100 times better - but would be more difficult to fit

One other thing - the "correct method" is to wire parallel first then the parallel units in series
When I did that one cell would fail and take its parallel buddies down with it 

So my last Headway main pack was four strings - connected in series THEN the four strings connected together
I used a Batt Bridge to tell me if a cell had died and I could then unplug that string


----------



## floydr (Jun 21, 2021)

Do you have a link to the cells? Could be useful. All I have seen are 3.65V max headways. 
Would like to get some more.
later floyd


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Ah crap. It looks like they have incorrect info on their site. I better let them know.
OK, So I'll adjust my plan to be 48S7P no big deal other than the need to find space for another 8 cells.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> I would take a few of those cells and run them through a few cycles - see what the actual voltages are
> 
> When I tested mine the Voltage/charge curve had definite top and bottom inflections - at 3.3 volts and 3.5 volts
> 
> ...


I do love my volt pack but it would literally be impossible to fit in this car and would be too small and too old anyway. But anyway this car will be lucky to see the light of day other than on a trailer so its all academic. I will do some research on the Batt bridge it sounds like good insurance.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> I do love my volt pack but it would literally be impossible to fit in this car and would be too small and too old anyway. But anyway this car will be lucky to see the light of day other than on a trailer so its all academic. I will do some research on the Batt bridge it sounds like good insurance.








Electric Vehicle Discussion List - Lee Hart's Batt-Bridge Battery Balance Alarm







www.evdl.org




The battbridge was so simple even I understood how it worked


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

galderdi said:


> I do love my volt pack but it would literally be impossible to fit in this car and would be too small and too old anyway. But anyway this car will be lucky to see the light of day other than on a trailer so its all academic. I will do some research on the Batt bridge it sounds like good insurance.


Why do you say this car won't see the light of day? As a prototype or you'll never get it roadworthy or not going to finish it?

cheers
Tyler


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I have gone with 328 Headway cells. 41S8P giving just shy of 175V maximum.





floydr said:


> Last I heard headway cells were LiFePO4.
> LiFePO4 3.2V-3.65V Not 3.7V-4.2V (NMC, Lico, etc)





galderdi said:


> You are mostly right except the 3.2 is the nominal voltage not the maximum. Maximum voltage is 4.2v for these cells


3.2 V is the nominal (mid-range) voltage of LiFePO4 cells... not the maximum but also not the minimum, as some of the stated ranges suggest. And 4.2 V would be far too high for even the maximum of any LiFePO4 cell.



galderdi said:


> It looks like they have incorrect info on their site. I better let them know.


What website are you consulting? There appear to be many sellers of Headway cells, but I haven't found the manufacturer's site.
Also, what specific cells are these? All of the Headway cells that I've seen listed are similar - cylindrical with threaded terminals - but they come in different dimensions and capacities.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

I don't really want to call the supplier out as I am sure it was an honest mistake. But here is the link.




__





Headway 38120 10Ah cell LiFePO4 Cell 3.2V 10Ah


Headway 38120 10Ah cell LiFePO4 Cell 3.2V 10Ah - HEADWAY




www.evworks.com.au




To be honest the 4.2v max wasn't a factor in my purchase. It is only now a factor in the decision around the cell format. So no harm done. I will just run with the 48S7P format.

I am hopeful the car will be registered. I am still kinda on target for completion around April 2023. The only real risk is if my engineer retires in the next 12 months. I can't afford to have another engineer insisting on a full range of tests. I will likely drive it around the block. There is a nice twisty road there that will be massively fun. But the range will not be good enough to drive anywhere else. EVs can't compete in motorsport here so my track days are over. That only leaves the occasional car show where I will be forced to take it on a trailer as I won't have the range to get there and back. If I go by myself I will be able to put a generator in the passenger seat. But even then I expect I would only drive it about 50miles.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> Electric Vehicle Discussion List - Lee Hart's Batt-Bridge Battery Balance Alarm
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, I've taken a look and it does seem like a good option at the budget end but I don't see any additional benefit over the BMS I already have. My BMS monitors each set of cells and provides a numeric and graphical display of the differences. I have had instances with my Volt pack where I have ceased driving as a result of voltage differences.

Can you please describe how it plays out when a cell does fail? Is it sudden? Was it under load at the time or being charged?
Is there a window when one cell starts to fail where it can be disconnected before it kills the adjacent cells?
Also what is the percentage rate of failure (in your experience). In other words how many spares should I have on hand?


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

You Kiwis need to lobby your MP's to get some bills in play that encourage conversions.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> I don't really want to call the supplier out as I am sure it was an honest mistake. But here is the link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to call anyone out - just trying to understand the specs that are being used.
That includes this in the description:


> Voltage: 3.2V nominal, 2.5V min, 4.2V max


The maximum is improbable, but at least this shows a rational minimum voltage in addition to nominal. The specifications section has no electrical specifications.

So 48S7P will be 154 V nominal, and 10.8 kWh (nominal). Charging to 3.65 V, the maximum voltage for component specification would be 175 V.

Are there real manufacturer's specs for these things anywhere? It looks like "Headway" is Zhejiang Xinghai Energy Technology Co., Ltd., and the HW-38120S cell has
cut-off voltage: 2.0 V
charge voltage: 3.65 V


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

brian_ said:


> I'm not trying to call anyone out - just trying to understand the specs that are being used.
> That includes this in the description:
> 
> The maximum is improbable, but at least this shows a rational minimum voltage in addition to nominal. The specifications section has no electrical specifications.
> ...


Thanks Brian, I wasn't suggesting you were calling him out either. I just wanted to make it clear I was including the link for visibility and I'm not displeased with the supplier. I sent them a message late yesterday advising of the details. so hopefully they will correct it promptly.

So far I haven't seen specs directly from the manufacturer. Only ones indirectly via forums and vendors.

I seem to be great at generating noise on forums :-D


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

galderdi said:


> So far I haven't seen specs directly from the manufacturer. Only ones indirectly via forums and vendors.


What I linked appears to be from the actual manufacturer:


brian_ said:


> It looks like "Headway" is Zhejiang Xinghai Energy Technology Co., Ltd., and the HW-38120S cell...


There are other cell models as well, in the Li-ion cell product category. I've seen more detailed spec sheets (from Headway, not sellers) for other cell models.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

remy_martian said:


> You Kiwis need to lobby your MP's to get some bills in play that encourage conversions.


I am in the Western State of New Zealand. But you are right. We only seem to have discouragement at the moment. Lucky we have an election looming. I am hoping it will shake things up.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Here on the South Island of NZ - I can use my car in motorsport but it was a bit of a drag getting it accepted
However I do believe that is a temporary thing - in the next couple of years I'm expecting it to become easier


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> Here on the South Island of NZ - I can use my car in motorsport but it was a bit of a drag getting it accepted
> However I do believe that is a temporary thing - in the next couple of years I'm expecting it to become easier


Ah yes I should have said the Western Island of NZ 🙃 
Here standard factory EV racing is nearly on the cards again. But home built, converted or non standard EVs will be off the cards for many years. 
I had purchased another ICE car with the intent to share it like I did with my old Pulsar a few years back. But MSA have changed the rules around day licenses. As a result that plan is also blocked. So I have wasted my time and money once again. I have already given up any hope of going back to them. I think my racing days are past.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> Ah yes I should have said the Western Island of NZ 🙃
> Here standard factory EV racing is nearly on the cards again. But home built, converted or non standard EVs will be off the cards for many years.
> I had purchased another ICE car with the intent to share it like I did with my old Pulsar a few years back. But MSA have changed the rules around day licenses. As a result that plan is also blocked. So I have wasted my time and money once again. I have already given up any hope of going back to them. I think my racing days are past.


If you visit here and there is an event on during that period you will be very welcome to drive my "Device" - even if you do beat me!


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Duncan said:


> If you visit here and there is an event on during that period you will be very welcome to drive my "Device" - even if you do beat me!


Thanks Duncan. that is an awesome offer and it is just the sort of objective I need at the moment.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

galderdi said:


> Thanks Duncan. that is an awesome offer and it is just the sort of objective I need at the moment.


Let me know if you make any plans - currently planning on doing a big teardown and rebuild this winter - you are welcome anytime but the summer is when we will have some events


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here are my latest pics of my project. The headrest support is in which doubles as the centre brake light support. I have created the frame from which the rear panels will hinge. My second attempt at a flare and arch are going much better. It still requires some work but it is heading in the right direction.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Here are the latest pics from my project:


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

The guards are all tacked in place now. Currently working to finish the final welds so I can move on.


----------



## UglyCarFan (8 mo ago)

galderdi said:


> That pack looks like a good option except we don't have them here. It would be touch and go for the width. But I am tending to think it would fit. Unfortunately we are a third world country when it comes to EVs. The list is just starting to grow in the last two years or so but still not enough to make a significant impact on the salvage market. So really we have a few Teslas and Leafs. Then there is handful of i3 and MItsubishi Outlander and iMev. That is about it. Hence another reason why I'm not stressed right now. There really will be a different set of options in 12-18 months. There will likely be Jag, Hyundai and MG to add to the mix just off the top of my head. I have some local EV registration figures, I'll dig em up.


Galderdi: Very interesting project. Regarding batteries, do you have any experience importing them from the USA? I'm sure someone would be willing to help you out. I would. One of my best friends spent her entire career doing export documentation for industrial production equipment, sent worldwide. My masters happens to be in international business contracts. We normally utilize INCOTERMS to specify details of the shipment, payment, documentation, etc. The last one I did with her was to translate some Russian documents to enable the shipment of food processing equipment. I have no particular experience with your country, however, it should be do-able. The documentation is key...you must get it right the first time, or chaos ensues.

I cannot imagine being able to take a class on using an English wheel. Wow. I'm envious.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

^Some colleges offer it in the US


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

UglyCarFan said:


> Galderdi: Very interesting project. Regarding batteries, do you have any experience importing them from the USA? I'm sure someone would be willing to help you out. I would. One of my best friends spent her entire career doing export documentation for industrial production equipment, sent worldwide. My masters happens to be in international business contracts. We normally utilize INCOTERMS to specify details of the shipment, payment, documentation, etc. The last one I did with her was to translate some Russian documents to enable the shipment of food processing equipment. I have no particular experience with your country, however, it should be do-able. The documentation is key...you must get it right the first time, or chaos ensues.
> 
> I cannot imagine being able to take a class on using an English wheel. Wow. I'm envious.


Thanks. I have since purchased the batteries locally. There would be two challenge to importing them. One is the paper work which is not simple but certainly still achievable. The other is the restrictions around shipping of batteries.

I just found out this morning the organisation that ran the class I attended is closing its doors in a few months.

Metal Shaping is easy to do at a novice level. It is much harder to do really well. You can get to a novice level through trial and error plus digital resources. There are loads of youtube videos and you can order tutorials as well. I recommend looking up Peter Thomasini. He is very traditional.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Just posting again for applause. Galderdi doesn't need our help. He's sharing for the sake of sharing. And he'd doing stuff no one else has done.

Just, bravo man. Outstanding.


----------



## galderdi (Nov 17, 2015)

Thanks Matt, although I do think I will require assistance along the way. I don't profess to be an expert in any of this stuff. But am an expert at ignoring fear and uncertainty and taking the first step in what I know will be a long and eventful journey. Regardless what your dream is and how different it is from mine I can highly recommend taking those first steps.


----------

