# 1936 IH, Scott Drive 200, R-EV Motor etc..



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

Is scott drive handle 240kw?

Wow?

IS it possible?

I hope It can handle remy motor please!! hohohoho

Good luck!


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

Why not CALB CA100's. They should do the 600 amp hard pulls with no problem and they can do the normal cruising no problem.

400v would mean about 125 cells. Depends on if you are trying to settle after charging at 400v or if you want to have it sag to 400v on full 600amp draw.

125 cells would give you a 40kWh pack which should be a good capacity for a vehicle this size.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I forgot to show the Rockwell 1-ton rear differential which is expected to take 500Nm of torque. The u-joint input is quite antiquated, but there are still 2 or 3 available in the world. 




























The u-joint looks like this:









I will use a 'combination' u-joint which is antiquated on one side and modern on the other.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

palmer_md said:


> Why not CALB CA100's. They should do the 600 amp hard pulls with no problem and they can do the normal cruising no problem.
> 
> 400v would mean about 125 cells. Depends on if you are trying to settle after charging at 400v or if you want to have it sag to 400v on full 600amp draw.
> 
> 125 cells would give you a 40kWh pack which should be a good capacity for a vehicle this size.


Yes, the CALB's are certainly under consideration. However, 120 of the CALB 100's come to about 900 lbs and the cost of 120 CA100 cells is somewhat considerable.. so not ideal in several respects. More of a 'range' option than power/hotrod option. But in the mix..

The Chaoyang Liyuan New Energy Company claims their 60ah Hybrid Super capacitor cells can put out 1500A and the pack would only weigh 460 lbs and be cheaper than the CALB 100's by about $5,000.

http://www.cyliyuan.com/

Here we go... a battery thread as promised..


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Here we go... a battery thread as promised..


If you rather, we can talk about the merits of trapezoidal motors. haha.


----------



## Linukas (Feb 22, 2011)

Hi,
I use these hybrid battery on my high power bikes and they realy deals good with high currents. 20Ah and 60Ah cells have best wh/kg and wh/l rate. their performances are almost same as A123. but have little more Ah for same performance, kg and size.
for ~10C rate you need additional cooling.
for now I do not know better high power rate cells with acceptable price (price is ~1.6 expensive than calb).
some graphs:

















also manufacturer claims that battery can be charged from -20C comparing to other lifepo4 cells from 0C...

--
Linas
www.4motus.com


----------



## kerrymann (Feb 17, 2011)

ruckus said:


> Yes, the CALB's are certainly under consideration. However, 120 of the CALB 100's come to about 900 lbs and the cost of 120 CA100 cells is somewhat considerable.. so not ideal in several respects. More of a 'range' option than power/hotrod option. But in the mix..
> 
> The Chaoyang Liyuan New Energy Company claims their 60ah Hybrid Super capacitor cells can put out 1500A and the pack would only weigh 460 lbs and be cheaper than the CALB 100's by about $5,000.
> 
> ...


I hope you go with those LNE super caps if only to see some testing of them. . They have a lot of appeal but are really unknown. They are $1.60/ah as opposed to $1-1.20/ah but at 25C (claimed) that is lot of power. If you don't need the range then you can have a much smaller lighter pack (things you already know).


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Yes, the CALB's are certainly under consideration. However, 120 of the CALB 100's come to about 900 lbs and the cost of 120 CA100 cells is somewhat considerable.. so not ideal in several respects. More of a 'range' option than power/hotrod option. But in the mix..
> 
> The Chaoyang Liyuan New Energy Company claims their 60ah Hybrid Super capacitor cells can put out 1500A and the pack would only weigh 460 lbs and be cheaper than the CALB 100's by about $5,000.
> 
> ...


CALB 60's would give you 600A peaks, it just comes down to how long those peaks are if it's practical (safe) or not.

The pack would likely fit nicely under the "bed" and allow you freedom for optimal weight distribution (traction).


----------



## Linukas (Feb 22, 2011)

rwaudio said:


> CALB 60's would give you 600A peaks, it just comes down to how long those peaks are if it's practical (safe) or not.
> 
> The pack would likely fit nicely under the "bed" and allow you freedom for optimal weight distribution (traction).


CALB 600A you must compare to 1500A Lyiuan cells...


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

Linukas said:


> CALB 600A you must compare to 1500A Lyiuan cells...


The graph you linked showed a 14% drop in voltage at 10c. The calb has been demonstrated at 15% drop at 12c by EVTV. I'm not seeing how these are so much better.


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

Linukas said:


> CALB 600A you must compare to 1500A Lyiuan cells...


It doesn't really matter what the peak discharge is if you can only draw 600A, you may go easier on the cells (temperature rise), but at what price$$$?

I do agree with Kerrymann though, the testing data would be nice, however that alone doesn't make it a good choice unless it's a purpose built race car.

And the CALB 60 will do more than 600A for peaks.... but it really doesn't matter if 600A is the maximum draw.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Linukas said:


> Hi,
> I use these hybrid battery on my high power bikes and they realy deals good with high currents. 20Ah and 60Ah cells have best wh/kg and wh/l rate. their performances are almost same as A123. but have little more Ah for same performance, kg and size.
> for ~10C rate you need additional cooling.
> for now I do not know better high power rate cells with acceptable price (price is ~1.6 expensive than calb).
> ...


Hi Linukas, good to hear a positive report of the NEC (new energy company) supercap cells. Do you have a good source for these or buy direct from the factory? What is the price in US$/ah?

I think the key issue here folks is SAG.

I have freeze-framed the EVTV tests and recorded pages of sub-second data comparing load to voltage. For the 180ah test at 12C the average voltage was 2.23v and at 8.5C the average voltage was 2.59v.

If you compare that to Linukas graph where 10C stabilizes at about 2.8v, there is a pretty big difference.

Let's say I went with 60ah cells and pulled to 10C (600A):

NEC 120 batts x 2.8v = 336v x 600A = 202kva
CALB 120 batts x 2.4v = 288v x 600A = 173kva

hmmmm... which would YOU rather have? (it IS called the Scott Drive 200 after all, not the Scott Drive 173) 

I'm not saying the CALB's are bad, just that they are more of an energy cell than a power cell. To really get maximum power out of the motor and controller (for dyno testing) I would have to go with the 100ah cells. Depending on the exact price, we are talking about $15,000-18,000 in batts...


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> I think the key issue here folks is SAG.
> 
> I have freeze-framed the EVTV tests and recorded pages of sub-second data comparing load to voltage. For the 180ah test at 12C the average voltage was 2.23v and at 8.5C the average voltage was 2.59v.
> 
> If you compare that to Linukas graph where 10C stabilizes at about 2.8v, there is a pretty big difference.


I'm not sure we are looking at the same video. What I see at 12c draw is that the 3 series voltage starts at 8.5 and slowly drops to 8.2 over 30 seconds of draw at this power level. That leaves the cells at 2.88 to 2.73 volts per cell. Pretty much the same as the "unknown" cells that you are comparing to.

http://youtu.be/aR5Ct4H1bNk?t=40m55s

I must admit that I'd love to see some testing on these cells, but the published data does not show anything that impressive. We have no idea about cycle life and such, but if we assume it is the same as CALB there is not any real compelling reason to switch.

I don't know if it is true but Kerryman indicated earlier that these cells cost $1.60/Ah compared to the CALB at $1.25/Ah through Keegan at CalibPower. If we are talking about the CALB 60Ah and the Liyuan 60Ah then there is not any cost savings either.

I hope you do purchase some of these and then test them. I'd love to see the results. I certainly recommend purchasing a sample set for testing before shelling out for the complete pack.

Oh, and 120 of the 60Ah Calb CA's is only $9,000 not the $15k-$18k you indicated. Oops, I see...you were quoting the 100CA's. That is true, but it seems you can get the 200kW out of the 60's if you believe Jacks data from the video linked above.


----------



## Yabert (Feb 7, 2010)

Interesting! 
Nice to learn than the overpriced ''supposed to be powerful'' Liyuan hybrid supercapacitor don't beat the Calb performance.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Loved that video the day it came out. That is the type of testing that all EV products need. (Say, how to you link in to the middle of a vid like that? That is a very nice tool.)

I was referring to the 180ah test done more recently. Part of what we are up against is that small cells sag less then large cells. So the 40ah cells came out a lot better than the 180ah cells. Hard to exactly predict the 60ah or 100ah voltage sag from that data. 

My loose plan is to get NEC and CALB cells of the same size and put them to a serious load test and see who wins...

It should be noted that NEC has multiple cells, some high energy and some high power, and some in the middle. We don't know which was tested in the graph.

At this point everything anyone on this continent knows about the NEC cells can be summed up in ??????

The fact that we have one positive report is good news. I look forward to more comprehensive evaluation of these cells.

Cheers


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

You link to a specific time by right clicking on the time bar at the point you want and select "copy video URL at current time".


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> You link to a specific time by right clicking on the time bar at the point you want and select "copy video URL at current time".


Thanks! That's super nice when you're dealing with a 3 hr video.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Continuing on the battery theme, here are some specs for the capacitor hybrid cells from New Energy Company (NEC). The 60ah cells are circled.










You will notice they are rated for 10C continuous and 25C pulse. This is about double the rating on the CALB's, which implies about half the voltage drop for the same load. But it get's even better. Notice the weight. 1.73kg=3.806lbs. For comparison the CALB 60ah are 4.45lbs and rated for 10-12C maximum. 

If we look at this on a pack level the differences become magnified:

CALB60ah max output = 720A. 120 cells weigh 534 lbs.
NEC 60ah max output = 1500A. 120 cells weigh 457 lbs.

One thing to consider is that after thorough dyno and road testing of the Scott Drive 200 I will likely be installing the soon-to-be-released Scott Drive 250R which uses the more powerful 900A IGBT module (900A x 400V = 360kva peak). This will provide informative back-to-back testing on the same vehicle.

It would be best not to have to change the battery. You can see the CALB 60ah can't deliver the necessary 900A. That would force me to buy the 100ah cells and end up with a 900 lb pack... about double the weight. 

The 60 ah cells would give me a 23kwh pack for an estimated 60-75 mile range (depending on DOD and speed). At any point I could add another string of 60ah cells to double the range to 120-150 miles.


Cheers


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

Nothing to add here except to say I love this build! Perfect EV application, simple and light, cool looking, lots of room for batteries. Looking forward to watching the progress.


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Continuing on the battery theme, here are some specs for the capacitor hybrid cells from New Energy Company (NEC). The 60ah cells are circled.
> 
> You will notice they are rated for 10C continuous and 25C pulse. This is about double the rating on the CALB's, which implies about half the voltage drop for the same load. But it get's even better. Notice the weight. 1.73kg=3.806lbs. For comparison the CALB 60ah are 4.45lbs and rated for 10-12C maximum.
> 
> ...


Great info! What does pricing/availability/history/reliability look like?? Who sells them? Do you have to buy directly from China and how long does that process take? Do they stock the cells or build to order?
Good luck, I'm guessing you might be the guinea pig on the implementation of these in a high power EV.

I don't want to sound negative, just add caution to your decision. I spent two years working on A123's. On the bench they test incredibly well, on paper they look good (compared to what was out 2+ years ago), in a pack in a car they are very difficult to make work for any length of time. I could have had a reliable working EV 1 1/2 years ago, but instead I'm just finishing it with CALB's and a hand full of A123's instead of the planned full pack of A123's.

I'll be watching your progress closely. I'd love to upgrade the pack in my 944 a few years down the road when it's time to build another EV and transfer my CALB's to a lower power conversion and finally realize the potential of my car.


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

ruckus said:


> One thing to consider is that after thorough dyno and road testing of the Scott Drive 200 I will likely be installing the soon-to-be-released Scott Drive 250R which uses the more powerful 900A IGBT module (900A x 400V = 360kva peak). This will provide informative back-to-back testing on the same vehicle.
> 
> 
> Cheers




Wow Is Remy250HVH working with scott 250R??

If so finally we can buy proper controller for remy!! great!! and how much cost it?


you can message to me thanks!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Pooh, the Remy just isn't in the same power class as we are talking.

At 320V it is rated at 82-87kw PEAK. The Siemens is better than that. I am using the R-EV permanent magnet motor (shown in picture above) with a peak output between 180kw-220kw (depending on input voltage, amperage, and temperature).

That is more than 2X the power of the Remy. So if you price 2X Remy plus 2X controller, it is not looking good at all if you are looking at kw/$.

Cheers


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

ruckus said:


> At 320V


Oh scott don't support 720 vdc... It's so sad T_T

but R-EV motor? for 220kw? Wow great!!

Can you tell me both price? You can message to me..

but I must to tell you I can't buy it now.. maybe last of this year I just came out from big money slump and Korea govermment still ristrict EV business T_T

but I really want to know! and It will be confidential!


----------



## Genius Pooh (Dec 23, 2011)

rwaudio said:


> Great info! What does pricing/availability/history/reliability look like?? Who sells them? Do you have to buy directly from China and how long does that process take? Do they stock the cells or build to order?


Oh Me too Me too!!






> but instead I'm just finishing it with CALB's and a hand full of A123's instead of the planned full pack of A123's.


Why you didn't satified with A123? .. Ah If I can make my EV test system I try to buy chevy's EV pack ( if it's not that much expensive) I think you made a point.. 

It must be tested and confirmed.. 

and good battery and good motor is just current issue just up to 5-7year top from now..

I'm preparing smart car system and smart OS. after 5-10years later everycar will run on similiar OS and people can buy accesary for car at wallmart and It's compatible with smart phone 

so if you can use with smartphone you can use it for car  at same times

Ah.. but I'm always appreciate about battery report!! you are the EV industry reader.. I'm so happy I can write with you  thank you!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Ok, I got a reply from the Liyuan New Energy Company. They are willing to send a small amount of 'test' batteries and the initial price given is $1.80/ah. So a 60ah cell would cost $108. 120 cells would be $12,960. Throw in a couple of spares and they are a little over $13,000. This should give well over 1000 amps (1500A supposedly) and 60-75 miles of range, and weigh about 456 lbs.

For comparison the CALB 60ah cells retail for about $1.48/ah from EVTV (I could probably find them a smidge cheaper). So each cell costs $89 and 120 cells would cost $10,680. Throw in a few spares and you are at $11,000. These would put out a max of 720 amps (less than half), also be good for 60-75 miles, and weigh in at a hefty 534 lbs. 78 lbs heavier.

My initial response to the data was that the CALB's must have more Ah. This is countered by Linukas test data and real-world experience. (do you have any other test data you can share?)

So now the question is whether ~$2000 is worth an estimated 50% less sag and the ability to test higher power Scott Drive controllers (over 300kva ) on the same pack?

I am leaning that direction...


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

ruckus said:


> So now the question is whether ~$2000 is worth an estimated 50% less sag and the ability to test higher power Scott Drive controllers (over 300kva ) on the same pack?


Yes! but it's not my money...


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

ruckus said:


> For comparison the CALB 60ah cells retail for about $1.48/ah from EVTV (I could probably find them a smidge cheaper). So each cell costs $89 and 120 cells would cost $10,680


Should be $1.30/ah or less from calibpower, and they're not the cheapest.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Should be $1.30/ah or less from calibpower, and they're not the cheapest.


Ok, I was just using the EVTV price. If I use $1.30/ah then 125 batts comes to $9750. This puts the CALBs up by ~$3250.

Maybe I should re-phrase the question: Is 38% greater cost worth 50% less sag, 17% less weight, and 208% more power? 

Tricky question... since it depends on the parameter(s) you value most. 

Cheers


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Also depends if the cells perform as claimed and what their delivered capacity is. I don't know about the CALB 60's but my 100's came in at 110-114 actual ah's, others have had similar results. If you went with 100's you'd get all the performance you need plus greater range, in a well tested cell. On the other hand it would be nice to have someone test the NEC cells, so I say go for it, at least a few test cells. If you get 4 then you at least have a nice 12V battery to play with even if you don't end up going with them in a full pack.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

I need to get a tee shirt that says "GUINEA PIG".

Oh well, we all have our lot in life..


----------



## PThompson509 (Jul 9, 2009)

Well, from an engineering point of view, you should be really testing the controller, not the batteries. CALBs are a known property, and tossing in some extra unknowns into the equation is not wise. If you are concerned about having enough current, go with higher capacity CALBs. I can sympathize with your dilemna - but - the purpose of this EV is to show off the Scott controller.

Just my $0.02 worth.

(I also need one of those guinea pig t-shirts - I've been testing stuff in my 914 the entire time it's been converted).

Cheers!
Peter


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

PThompson509 said:


> Well, from an engineering point of view, you should be really testing the controller, not the batteries. CALBs are a known property, and tossing in some extra unknowns into the equation is not wise. If you are concerned about having enough current, go with higher capacity CALBs...


Hi Peter, glad you're on this thread. How's your setup working for you?

I see EV's as a triangle. Batteries, motor, controller. It is all about the system and not one individual component. The maximum output of the system will be limited by the weakest of the three. 

Knowing this, it would be undesirable to spec any one component (such as batteries) which do not meet the desired specification. You are correct that I could just use the larger 100ah CALB's, but these come with a significant weight and cost penalty. 442 lbs and $3,000. The upside of this approach is that for 'only' another $3000 ($15,500 for the pack  ) I would have around a 100-mile range. 

So here is my solution. A 'carbon pile' battery load tester. They can be found at old big-rig diesel repair shops or fairly cheap used. The better ones can test 12V at 800A-1000A for 15-30 seconds. I will get 4 of the NEC and CALB batts, configure them in series for 12V and see how they perform at 13-16C ( I could start out at 600A to mimic the controller's amp draw). A volt meter and infrared heat sensor during the load test should give the necessary data to evaluate their performance. I could use something like a Powerlab 8 to test capacity before and after load testing.

This should provide some useful information for the EV community and help guide my project decision.

Cheers


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

PThompson509 said:


> Well, from an engineering point of view, you should be really testing the controller, not the batteries. CALBs are a known property, and tossing in some extra unknowns into the equation is not wise. If you are concerned about having enough current, go with higher capacity CALBs. I can sympathize with your dilemna - but - the purpose of this EV is to show off the Scott controller.
> 
> Just my $0.02 worth.
> 
> ...


A touch off topic but I see you have a 914 converted. I just picked up a nice rust free 73 original Signal Orange 914 to convert at a later date. Are you thinking of using a Scott Drive System? I'd love to do one for my 914 but just don't have quite enough information to go buy one. I think it would be great to do one of these. I'd like to see the controller work with the induction motors too. That may open up lots of possibilities. Rewinding may actually come back into fashion once again. Would be a ground level new/old business. 

Anyway, what are you running in your 914 and is there a place I can go to check out your ride? 

Thanks
Pete


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Pete,

Never mind. I found your EV-Album posting and Blog. So your using a Greatland BLDC motor. That 13" behemoth is the BLDC? Hows the performance with that motor controller setup? Is the R&P in the trans the stock ratio or a different one for use with electric motors like Rickard uses in his VW conversions with the 3.44 to 1. I am using that for my VW as well. Might consider a 3.88 to 1 for the Porsche. 

Pete


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Ruckus, are we any closer to a test of your system? I so much look forward to seeing it. 

Pete


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> So here is my solution. A 'carbon pile' battery load tester. They can be found at old big-rig diesel repair shops or fairly cheap used. The better ones can test 12V at 800A-1000A for 15-30 seconds. I will get 4 of the NEC and CALB batts, configure them in series for 12V and see how they perform at 13-16C ( I could start out at 600A to mimic the controller's amp draw). A volt meter and infrared heat sensor during the load test should give the necessary data to evaluate their performance. I could use something like a Powerlab 8 to test capacity before and after load testing.
> 
> This should provide some useful information for the EV community and help guide my project decision.
> 
> Cheers


Now you are talking. I look forward to the results of your testing. Thanks for being a pioneer on these unfamiliar products.


----------



## Hankster (Feb 2, 2013)

Let me start with kudos for your taste in project vehicle. koolness level way high! In fact I see electrification as a naturall blend with the restoration or rodding of ancient iron, wether it be a 70 Maverick or maybe a 63 corvair or the venerable model A, electric drive only enhances these projects. as for the differencial yoke, that is actually a very good design. should be more than adaquate. good luck with project. hope to see you at evccon 2013.


ruckus said:


> I forgot to show the Rockwell 1-ton rear differential which is expected to take 500Nm of torque. The u-joint input is quite antiquated, but there are still 2 or 3 available in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Hi Peter, glad you're on this thread. How's your setup working for you?
> 
> I see EV's as a triangle. Batteries, motor, controller. It is all about the system and not one individual component. The maximum output of the system will be limited by the weakest of the three.
> 
> ...


Now you are on to something!

I look forward to seeing the results. Are you going to test CALB 60's or 100's?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

rwaudio said:


> Are you going to test CALB 60's or 100's?


Since the readily available testers are mostly 800 amps, it will likely be the 60ah cells. That would be 13.33C. Much more of a severe test than 800A from a 100ah cell which is only 8C. 

I will initially find the sag at 600A. This should allow a pretty good estimation of total input power using the Scott Drive 200 (600A nominal).


Cheers


----------



## grip911 (Dec 14, 2011)

ruckus said:


> I need to get a tee shirt that says "GUINEA PIG".
> 
> Oh well, we all have our lot in life..


 Did you talk to Wang in china? I`ve been working on him for a while. Maybe a group buy would interest him more. I do have a 60ah on the way which will arrive soon from the guys in Utah.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Since the readily available testers are mostly 800 amps, it will likely be the 60ah cells. That would be 13.33C. Much more of a severe test than 800A from a 100ah cell which is only 8C.
> 
> I will initially find the sag at 600A. This should allow a pretty good estimation of total input power using the Scott Drive 200 (600A nominal).
> 
> ...


Awesome, I'm very interested in the values because I'm planning to use the CALB 60Ah cells at 600 amps.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

MN Driver said:


> Awesome, I'm very interested in the values because I'm planning to use the CALB 60Ah cells at 600 amps.


What controller/motor/vehicle??


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

ruckus said:


> What controller/motor/vehicle??


Soliton Jr, Kostov 9 HV, 2000 Honda Insight.


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

Ruckus, do you have an estimation to when will you have your dyno numbers?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Time for an update.

Parts are starting to trickle in. Brakes, door handles, etc.










In 1936 International was a bit ahead of the curve with modern hydraulic brakes (Ford used mechanical brakes until 1939). Since my rig was missing the entire brake assembly, I decided to go with a new frame-mounted dual master cylinder and brake pedal assembly. They are made for older rigs like Model A's and come without vacuum boost. 

Example:










This eliminates the need for the dreaded vacuum pump and modernizes the Achilles heel of older braking systems.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Build threads are interesting because after about two pages the project begins to deviate from the original course. This one will be no different.

I really do like the idea of direct-drive. Simple, light, cheap. What's not to like?

Here's the rub: no matter how good a vehicle can be with direct-drive, it's faster with a transmission. The data is irrefutable. Here are the torque curves for the Scott Drive 200 with and without a transmission:










While the direct-drive torque curve is perfectly functional, even sporty, it pales in comparison to the tire-burning launches and blistering top speeds possible with a transmission. 

A decent trans unit costs somewhere between $1500 and $3000. Plus coupler, adapter, trans mount, etc.. 

Is the extra torque and top speed worth it? I am thinking it is in the case of a 'hot rod' application.

Cheers.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

ruckus said:


> ...Is the extra torque and top speed worth it?...


There's more to the story than just speed, unless it's a single-focus, purpose-built, race car. In that case, whatever wins the race is worth it.

For most other cases, it's also a question of what experience you're looking for. My first ride in a, road-going, EV was a car with a clutch, and 4spd. The driver was shifting it like a normal car. I didn't like it. I had formed an impression in my head of what the EV experience would be like, and that felt like I was riding in an ICE car with a really good muffler. The motor whine was present, but also sort of lost in the whine of the gears and constant clicking and creaking of pedals and shifter. There was also the unmistakable choppiness in acceleration, that comes with gear changes - even an automatic. Maybe a CVT would be okay, never rode in one?

My expectations were shaped, in part, from reading reviews of smooth, seamless, direct drive, EVs. The instant torque thing was a huge part of the draw for me and designing around it, and exploiting it, have been the cornerstones of all my projects and hopes.

Scrape, my e-bike, is direct drive and even with an undersized motor and incomplete drive system - I love it. I love the tractor beam like pull, and wouldn't give it up for any amount of additional speed or acceleration. It has been moving around very slowly, to date, but ALL of my plans for getting it fully up to speed are based on direct drive.

My hybrid hot rod will also also be direct drive on the electric side, for the exact same reason.

My two pence...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Also depends on the power you have available, and what the intended use is. Obviously Tesla has no problems using a single speed gear reduction. Even without much power I could get away with just 2nd gear in my Fiero, but having the option to use 1st occasionally made it more fun. I also never needed to do highway speeds with it, where I would definitely need 3rd.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Maybe choose a third option, instead of 3-4 gears choose only two, a low speed gear and a high speed gear, city and highway. Powerglides are lightweight two speeds and can be built bulletproof to the torque if an e-motor. Two speeds simplifies the operation of a 4 shift tranny while offering better than direct drive torque multiplication. I've personally never felt the shift of a powerglide with an e-motor attached but imagine the shift can be made to be quick and smooth. Also wouldn't even 100mph be too much? How often would you ever need to go that fast, let alone over 140mph. It's so infrequent that I would limit the top speed for the sake of a more enjoyable "real" speed. I guess that's s reason to keep an extra few gears up top, in the case you want to use them....


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Gulah said:


> Ruckus, do you have an estimation to when will you have your dyno numbers?


I second this...


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Also depends on the power you have available, and what the intended use is. Obviously Tesla has no problems using a single speed gear reduction. Even without much power I could get away with just 2nd gear in my Fiero, but having the option to use 1st occasionally made it more fun. I also never needed to do highway speeds with it, where I would definitely need 3rd.





Bowser330 said:


> Maybe choose a third option, instead of 3-4 gears choose only two, a low speed gear and a high speed gear, city and highway. Powerglides are lightweight two speeds and can be built bulletproof to the torque if an e-motor. Two speeds simplifies the operation of a 4 shift tranny while offering better than direct drive torque multiplication. I've personally never felt the shift of a powerglide with an e-motor attached but imagine the shift can be made to be quick and smooth. Also wouldn't even 100mph be too much? How often would you ever need to go that fast, let alone over 140mph. It's so infrequent that I would limit the top speed for the sake of a more enjoyable "real" speed. I guess that's s reason to keep an extra few gears up top, in the case you want to use them....



I am a huge proponent of direct drive, but I do agree with both of these guys/posts. I didn't mean to suggest that direct drive is the only way, or proper way - just wanted to bring up the point of what type of EV experience one is after. The Inhaler Model E, which was my original project, started out with the intent of using a 3 speed circle track style transmission as a mode selector - much as they described - then evolved to direct drive.

Guess what? It's back to a planned two or three speed mode selector, as the racing goals just kind of dictated it...  I still hope to be able to just put it in the appropriate "mode" (gear) and drive, not shift, unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

Bowser330 said:


> Maybe choose a third option, instead of 3-4 gears choose only two, a low speed gear and a high speed gear, city and highway. Powerglides are lightweight two speeds and can be built bulletproof to the torque if an e-motor. Two speeds simplifies the operation of a 4 shift tranny while offering better than direct drive torque multiplication. I've personally never felt the shift of a powerglide with an e-motor attached but imagine the shift can be made to be quick and smooth. Also wouldn't even 100mph be too much? How often would you ever need to go that fast, let alone over 140mph. It's so infrequent that I would limit the top speed for the sake of a more enjoyable "real" speed. I guess that's s reason to keep an extra few gears up top, in the case you want to use them....



The Powerglide would be a great option if it was going to be a dragster where quick shifting was needed. From what I am hearing from Ruckus it is being designed as more of a hot rod. In this case the 200-4R makes more sense. This transmission is superior to the powerglides and can be modified in much of the same ways as the powerglides for EV use. They share many traits but the 200-4R gearing is superior for EV applications. It has a lower first gear for greater acceleration and a higher top end gear for superior cruise speeds. It would also better distribute the power and torque Ruckus is planning for this build. Also just because its a 4 speed does not mean he will have to be shifting anymore than he would with the 2 speed powerglides. The advantage is he has the extra top end there if he needs or wants it with the greater acceleration initially for little weight penalty with the 200-4R. 

THe powerglides were very popular with the dragsters and this migrated to the EV world but anybody that knows anything about transmissions will tell you that the THM 200-4R is a superior transmission to the Powerglides, THM350 and other variants hands down. It is a much more versatile transmission and can be built to handle every bit of torque and horsepower us EV guys can throw at it. 

Good choice on this Ruckus I think you will be really pleased with this component selection and will be a great compliment to the vehicle design. 

If you don't mind me asking where did you ever come up with the idea of this transmission anyways? I ask this because it rocks man this has to be one of the coolest builds to date you get my vote for build of the year 
You have to be putting in some serious brain drain sessions to think up all this LOL..

Better you than me my friend,

GreenHornet..


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The higher top end gearing is not necessarily an advantage in an EV where you want to keep your RPM's higher, unlike an ICE.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> The higher top end gearing is not necessarily an advantage in an EV where you want to keep your RPM's higher, unlike an ICE.


And, don't EVs, with transmissions, usually end up using two of the available gear ratios anyway?

The two areas of concern a transmission could address on Ruckus' hot rod are limited RPM range (higher top speed), and less current draw with quick acceleration (protect the batteries/conserve energy). Two gears solve that. Anything more is just there because it can be. As JRP3 mentioned, ideally you want to do the opposite of what an ICE would do and keep the revs up (for better efficiency) - every extra shift will drop the motor back down to a less efficient state of operation.

It took me a while to really wrap my head around that because, having played with ICE so many years (decades), it's counter-intuitive to what my brain says is right.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

toddshotrods said:


> ..... with transmissions, ....... less current draw with quick acceleration (protect the batteries/conserve energy)......


Where do you get such ideas? I go through this over and over. Yes, a multiple ratio transmission may improve acceleration times but it will not "protect the batteries/conserve energy". Here is a recent example http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/ev-planner-questions-83368.html


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

major said:


> Where do you get such ideas? I go through this over and over. Yes, a multiple ratio transmission may improve acceleration times but it will not "protect the batteries/conserve energy". Here is a recent example http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/ev-planner-questions-83368.html


(I didn't read that thread...)

"Hot rod" means "power take-offs", which means pulling a lot more current from the pack than the average EV user would during normal commuting. If you gear for a higher top speed, with one ratio, it comes at the expense of bottom-end acceleration, meaning you will put more current through the motor for the same given acceleration rate - that current comes from the batteries - more energy used. Also, there has been a lot of discussion about what batteries he should use, and the maximum current those cells can deliver. If he's close to the maximum, anything that helps keep him away from that limit is protecting the batteries.

I guess the part that's missing, that I assumed Ruckus would "get", is that hot rodders are looking for a feeling when they step on the pedal, and he/she is going to push that pedal harder until they feel it. Drawing 300 amps with 3:1 gearing is going to feel different from drawing 300 amps with 6:1 gearing, and a hot rodder is going to push the pedal harder and "spend" whatever current is necessary to get pushed back in the seat. It doesn't matter if it still accelerates _okay _with 300 amps and 3:1 gearing, it feels better with more of one of them, or both. 

So, if it can effortlessly do burnouts, and slam him (and his passengers) back in the seats with less power used, he will protect his batteries and conserve his energy. It's all relatively to what you're building. With Scrape, I don't need any extra reductions because it's so light in overall weight, and it's a putt-putt cruiser bike, not a racer. With Schism, again it's a lightweight but I want a lot of torque, so I need cells that can dish out a lot of current with its "direct drive" set up. I'm willing to pay that price, for others it might be better to have a extra ratio to keep the cells from working so hard.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

major said:


> Where do you get such ideas? I go through this over and over. Yes, a multiple ratio transmission may improve acceleration times but it will not "protect the batteries/conserve energy". Here is a recent example http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/ev-planner-questions-83368.html


If I take off in 3rd and floor it I'll have weak acceleration and will be pulling full current for a longer period of time than if I used 1st or 2nd.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

toddshotrods said:


> (I didn't read that thread...)
> 
> ......meaning you will put more current through the motor for the same given acceleration rate - that current comes from the batteries - more energy used.........


Please take the time to read that thread. Motor current is NOT battery current. Energy is related to change in velocity, not acceleration.

There are reasons to use a multi ratio transmission. But battery and energy saving are invalid reasons.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

We're also off topic. I'm gone, was just trying to offer an opinion on user experience, not ride this merry-go-round.

Have fun.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

major said:


> Please take the time to read that thread. Motor current is NOT battery current. Energy is related to change in velocity, not acceleration.


D'oh!  I should know better.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Bowser330 said:


> I second this...


We'll get dyno numbers when Jack supplies them. Ruckus is still working on door handles and waiting for snow to melt.


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> The higher top end gearing is not necessarily an advantage in an EV where you want to keep your RPM's higher, unlike an ICE.


This is a valid point in some cases however not in most cases! 

So ICE usually reach max torque between 3000-5000 rpm engine depending of course. So a gearbox is needed to keep it in the most efficient operating range so to speak. I think everyone knows this as the main reason for the tranny on an ICE vehicle. 

Now the EV:

EV motors have full torque at 0 rpm and in most cases a much wider operating range compared to the ICE. Most of us know this fact as well! 
This is why most Electric cars have a single speed or in some cases a 2 speed transmission. I want to point out I am talking about built from the ground up electric cars like the Tesla not conversions! 

So far no arguments we are in agreement on these points or should be anyways LOL! 

Now this is where it gets foggy for most!

Question? More gears and if it will benefit the Electric vehicle. These are some reasons why I argue it will!

#1. Overall efficiency of the electric motor used varies at different speeds it is not a straight line like most would think. Most AC motors operate at 90% or better at optimal but this can plummet to 60% or less at low speeds! 

#2. More gears will give the EV better range while also better performance in most cases as long as gearing is carefully selected and optimized, who does not want that? 

#3. A lower torque motor can be used which would save on the wallet! It also in most cases will weigh less as well so another potential benefit. 

#4. Better launch acceleration, lower noise, and higher cruising speeds all ready pointed out

#5. The E motor can be better kept in its optimal range so you will have less wear which means less maintenance costs over the years. 

#6. You can use simpler, lighter and less expensive power electronics!

#7. You have the advantage of gear overlap which will benefit the EV at mid range and translates actually into fewer shift changes. 

The list goes on LOL So is it worth it to go with more gears well it depends really on your setup but in most cases an EV motor can in fact benefit from a few extra gears. I think Ruckus and his build would definitely benefit as the size of motor and vehicle he is going with as well as being not the most aerodynamic tadpole in the universe LOL..

GreenHornet


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The problem with your reasoning is that most people with multi speed gear boxes in their EV's don't end up using the higher gears. I've never used 4th and 5th other than once or twice just to see what it was like, they were pretty much useless.
As Major has pointed out gearing won't really do all that much for efficiency and 2 or 3 speeds at most should be enough to keep you in the zone.
I don't know why you discount what OEM's are doing with single speed gearboxes, they are doing all they can to get good range from their expensive packs, yet none of them think a multispeed gearbox is worth the effort.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> This is why most Electric cars have a single speed or in some cases a 2 speed transmission. I want to point out I am talking about built from the ground up electric cars like the Tesla not conversions!


Which ground-up EV has a 2 speed?



GREENHORNET said:


> #2. More gears will give the EV better range while also better performance in most cases as long as gearing is carefully selected and optimized, who does not want that?


Please demonstrate with science and math how "more gears will give the EV better range". It is possible in some rare scenario it could happen, but for the vast majority of EV use, multi ratio transmissions will not increase range. Ref: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/ev-planner-questions-83368.html


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> they are doing all they can to get good range from their expensive packs, yet none of them think a multispeed gearbox is worth the effort.


Aside from Brammo that is. Of course thats a motorcycle and not a car though.


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> The problem with your reasoning is that most people with multi speed gear boxes in their EV's don't end up using the higher gears. I've never used 4th and 5th other than once or twice just to see what it was like, they were pretty much useless.
> As Major has pointed out gearing won't really do all that much for efficiency and 2 or 3 speeds at most should be enough to keep you in the zone.
> I don't know why you discount what OEM's are doing with single speed gearboxes, they are doing all they can to get good range from their expensive packs, yet none of them think a multispeed gearbox is worth the effort.


No I am not discounting the OEM nor trying to hijack the build thread! however I am not surprised as to the response I got to my post LOL.. 

But you pointed it out yourself in your post one of my points!

Expensive packs! transmissions allow you to use smaller motors less batteries etc. Savings is what you will get utilizing the tranny properly optimizing the gear ratios. OEM like Tesla get around this by designing there own motors for increased RPM upwards of 10,000 and in most cases above in the 12,000rpm range. This is a good strategy but again look at the cost factor its much less cost to just go with a transmission and downsize to a motor in the 5000-6000rpm range. 

Some of those motors that run above 10,000rpm cost well over 8K alone and many above 10K a good tranny will run you 1-3K depending on if you do it yourself or have the shop build it for you! 

So I am not discounting the OEM I just would not try to afford their more expensive solution! 

GreenHornet


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> transmissions allow you to use smaller motors less batteries


Again, please, show me how a transmission allows less battery.


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

major said:


> Again, please, show me how a transmission allows less battery.


Major,

Lets be logical about this without doing the math first! 

why would there be so many manufacturers designing multiple speed gearboxes for electric cars if there was no merit to it or the possibility for increased efficiency and performance? They wouldn't waste there time if there was not hope for gain! 

While an ICE vehicle has different RPM and torque efficiency ranges the laws that govern it hold true for E-motors also. You just have less of a gap with the electric motors than with the ICE in most cases. However there is still much room for improvement. The ICE can overcome this also by using a smaller ICE! 

Company's and inventors far smarter than I think there is above 15% room for improvement. This is no small number and is why they have developed multi-speed gearboxes and are continuing to do it. This is a fact my friend! 

Nothing is perfect major there is always room for improvement! You can get sideways all you want and discount it as much as you want and try to use every math formula in the book to disprove it, but you never will be able to because the E-motor can benefit from a transmission with multiple gears. No motor or engine runs in its optimum range all the time which is why we have such a thing as a transmission and differentials. 

I apologize Ruckus for opening a can of works here so I will not chime in anymore if you Major want to open a new thread about the benefits and or pitfalls of a multispeed transmission I will definitely post my thoughts. 

Greenhornet


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks for everyone's input.  A few things to address:

1. Gearing

I initially wanted a direct-drive setup for all the reasons mentioned: simple, cheap, quiet, seamless. I have no doubts the BLDC can produce huge torque at low rpm without overheating since it has been doing this in Hagen's RAV4 in NZ for years.

However, a single gear requires a compromise between high torque and high speed and usually some degree of both. Cool to drive, but not ideal for a performance machine.

The cheapest way to double my torque is with a transmission (~$1500). I could use a second motor/controller, but that would cost another $6-8000. We'll get there soon enough...

The powerglide and 200R4 are both viable EV transmissions. There are others such as the A518 etc.. They all have weak points but can be built very strong. My favorite is the 200R4 because of the overdrive. This becomes important for 'top-speed' style racing like on the salt flats.

The 36 International needs to be able to hang with these folks if EV's are to continue to gain respect in high-performance ICE circles:





































The use of the overdrive increases torque output past 85mph as can be seen on the torque graph:









1st gear (2.74) is for burnouts and racing.
2nd gear (1.57) is zippy around town and drifting backroads (up to ~60mph).
3rd gear (direct drive) is for the 'tractor-beam pull' and cruising (up to ~95mph).
4th gear (.67) High speed pursuits (85+ mph)

The key thing to understand is that 2nd gear will make my 500Nm motor 'feel' like it has 785Nm. 

If I am in direct-drive and want 500Nm, the system must work at 100%.
But using 2nd gear, the same 500Nm only requires about 65% effort. 

Much easier on the power system.

Next up: batteries.

Cheers


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Are these the figures from the output graphs of the system using the Scott Drive?
What RPM does the torque start to drop off?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> Major,
> Lets be logical about this without doing the math first!


Mr. HORNET,

Please see this post http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=342812&postcount=16 And please pick up this discussion on that thread and tell me how it will extend range. I really want to know. Sorry ruckus, but I hate it when I see guys post up BS and have it go unchallenged.

Regards,

major


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hollie Maea said:


> We'll get dyno numbers when Jack supplies them.



I don't think Jack has a test jig intended for full motor torque (500+ Nm).

Dr. Scott's jig is. Note the heavy construction for testing motors over 1000Nm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCekfOTekw


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

major said:


> Mr. HORNET,
> 
> Please see this post http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showpost.php?p=342812&postcount=16 And please pick up this discussion on that thread and tell me how it will extend range. I really want to know. Sorry ruckus, but I hate it when I see guys post up BS and have it go unchallenged.
> 
> ...


Bigger motor = Bigger battery pack = bigger vehicle etc. Its a really easy concept major! with a transmission you have the ability to downsize everything that was my point that you still seem to not understand. 

No complicated math there just common sense really. 

I don't really think its BS as you describe if it was you would be saying that people like Antonov or Graziano or Vocis and many others who believe its benefits are full of crap like me major. You might get away with saying I'm full of it in a forum but I would like to see you act this way to them the people that are working on the real hard numbers day in and day out. 

I am not going to lie major I have a day job I grind it out like most folks day in and day out. I am no rocket scientist, however I have done my fair share of college course work in the sciences and math. I do not believe everything I read either especially from the net, but there are studies on it that prove it to be correct. Anyways sorry I tested your manhood and got you all worked up, I will catch you in the threads major for sure...

Enjoy your day!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

This is the type of graph that Green Hornet is talking about:










You can see the efficiencies below 4500 rpm (and 30kw) aren't very good. If you are using 100Nm at 1000rpm that is 10kw and only 70% efficient.

However, slide down that 10kw line till you get to 6000rpm. You are still using 10 kw, but your efficiency is now an incredible 82%. So in this case, having a transmission to raise the rpm WOULD likely result in energy savings.

This is all an aside, however, since permanent magnet motors do not suffer nearly the same low-rpm inefficiencies as the induction motor used in this chart.

Here is fairly typical for a BLDC motor:










If you look at the same 100Nm at 1000rpm it is above 90%. Gear that down just a little and it's pretty easy to get over 95%.


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

Here are a few articles that have pretty graphs LOL! 

I thought I would start off with these articles there major each have there own graphs as well. Big graphs that take up a whole page do not always paint a clear and transparent picture of the real world. Anybody can devise a graph to direct somebody in a certain direction. 

#1. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/09/vocis-20110905.html
#2. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/09/antonov-20110906.html 

I don't think its worth it to spend time and energy on big motors and big battery packs its a waste of energy and not the most efficient either. In most cases we have to due to the fact the OEM manufacturer cars typically weigh 3,000 lbs or more unfortunately. 

I would rather take full advantage of gear reduction that costs much less than spend another 5,000 or more in upgraded motor and battery pack sizing costs to power the motor and car. We have fundamentally different views and that is fine but don't call it BS because you don't agree. You can provide your points and I can provide mine to support each owns side but this argument has been going on for years truly, and no winners yet so time is going to be the only true decision maker on this topic! Not you or I Major.

GreenHornet


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

ruckus said:


> This is the type of graph that Green Hornet is talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes correct Ruckus and this is also why we will see a shift to PM BLDC Motors in the future and why we all ready are! Look at China for ex. almost all there motors in there EV run off 320V BLDC. Why is that you might say?


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

Anyways Ruckus I also like the fact you are taking the BLDC route I think it will be much better than if you would have gone series or induction! I think BLDC gives some real great advantages and I am surprised more people in America do not convert with this style of motor. Pound for pound and dollar for dollar BLDC is hard to beat per KW!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Please just remember that the purpose of this thread is not to compare systems or put one system or motor type (or transmission) above another. 

Each has it's place. And they all have weaknesses.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

ruckus said:


> This is the type of graph that Green Hornet is talking about:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or you can get a good motor like this: 









Which is a Remy. Yes you can shift around and gain a percent or two. But figure in the loss from the transmission. And then figure in the duty cycle. How long you spend at a point where you're efficiency suffers. And it won't add up to a hill of beans energy wise, except for unusual circumstances outside of the common EV car duty cycle.

GREENHORNET says some EVs use a two speed. Which ones? Every BEV to hit the market in the 20 years has been direct drive....no shifting. The battery is main factor in the OEM design and validation process. And the biggest cost factor. And they know how to make cheap reliable transmissions. Why then, if a transmission will benefit the battery, do not the OEMs use a transmission in the BEVs they design and make? Because it does not benefit the battery.

GREENHORNET throws some reference names up. Please follow that with links to their works related to transmissions benefiting batteries.*

I don't care if you guys use a transmission. And I see where a transmission can benefit performance, but not batteries. That is what I call BS. Saying the transmission will extend range or allow the use of a smaller battery is not correct. Show me the math, science or test which proves otherwise. In the referenced threads I've posted I do the science and math. I tried not to repeat myself here.

Regards,

major

*edit: I see the links now, thanks.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> Here are a few articles that have pretty graphs LOL!
> 
> I thought I would start off with these articles there major each have there own graphs as well. Big graphs that take up a whole page do not always paint a clear and transparent picture of the real world. Anybody can devise a graph to direct somebody in a certain direction.
> 
> ...


Yep, transmission companies attempting to justify their products. Understandable. Thanks for the articles. I'll read those over more carefully. I did notice they are a year and half old. Are you aware of any recent progress?

And pardon my use of the BS term, but you appeared to post false facts, like production EVs using a 2 speed transmission


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

ruckus said:


> If I am in direct-drive and want 500Nm, the system must work at 100%.
> But using 2nd gear, the same 500Nm only requires about 65% effort.
> 
> Much easier on the power system.


Good example. I looked at your efficiency map and the one I posted. Using a 2.5:1 final ratio and motor RPM of 2000 and 3000 RPM, I find the 2nd gear improvement of about 2 to 4%. O.K. A transmission loss could easily be that much due to friction. And then there is the extra mass of the transmission and rotational inertia to take in to account when changing speed. And the support equipment for the transmission like cooling and lube and shifting.

And I do not understand the "65% effort". The motor may be at 65% of its maximum torque, but the transmission is not making power or doing free work, so what is this effort and how is it saving any battery energy? 

"Much easier on the power system." It is the same power from the battery. The same power to the drive axle. The same power into the motor. The same power out of the motor. All within 2 to 4%. Not what I call much easier.

I agree. With a transmission you can gear down and burn rubber a whole lot easier than with a direct drive (single ratio reducer). But I fail to see how that saves any significant battery energy.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

major said:


> Or you can get a good motor like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, if you look at the same reference point (100Nm at 1000rpm) you can see that the Remy is only 88-89%. Better than the induction, but worse than the other BLDC graph (~92%) I posted (not the one I am using). 3% is not much of a difference and well within the error parameters of different people doing different efficiency tests at different voltages with different controllers.

You can also see the Remy tops out at 94%, while the motor graph I posted goes to 95%. Again, 1% is statistically insignificant. But it shows that any decent BLDC gets you into the 90's pretty easy.

Please also note the Remy only puts out 300Nm. The motor in my graph is rated at 976Nm. Personally, I find that to be a much more attractive number.

However, due to popular demand, the Remy is 'on the list' of motors to which the Scott Drive controller will be tuned.

Cheers.


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

major said:


> Or you can get a good motor like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually it does not benefit the market! The batteries is just part of the larger problem. The real problems the OEM have is in keeping the vehicle safety standards up to snuff. This requires larger vehicles which you guessed it require larger engines, motors, battery packs to push these bricks, and everything else that just adds costs and inefficiency. The bigger the car yes the bigger the battery pack the more amps the car is going to have to suck up to accelerate it. It is that simple. OEM can not build purpose built vehicles they don't have the luxury. They build prototypes and they never bring them to market. That is why conversions have the potential to be more efficient from a fuel economy standpoint.

Transmissions can in the right application reduce battery size because you will not need the extra batteries for the same performance out of your car. Your batteries will last longer also because you are not straining them so hard during acceleration as the transmission helps act as a natural buffer. 

I get what you are saying also major and I respect your viewpoint here and for the book you are correct there to this date is no successful 2 speed OEM EV. Plenty of hybrids but no BEV multi-speed transmission production rides. They have tried similar to Tesla but like I pointed out they decided to go the other route and go more expensive and increase size across the entire spectrum. I suspect in the next 10 years this will all change and we will start to see 2 and 3 speed gearboxes but only time will tell. 

Ruckus is correct in eluding to the point that its just one way and there is no real perfect way of doing it there are ineficiencies on each side of the fence. So as designers, converters, and builders we have to weigh these pros and cons and try to do the best we can. We will get it write and wrong since every build is unique that is the beauty of it we are free to experiment and come to our own conclusions as make changes as needed. 

Either way Major and everyone else we are all making a difference whether its the most efficient way or not and that really is what matters in all of this. So we can agree to disagree but we truly are in the end on the same side and that is what I appreciate. We can all learn a thing from each other. 

Thanks for sharing your build with us all Ruckus I look forward to learning more from you and others such as Major as I spend more time here. 

GreenHornet


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> Your batteries will last longer also because you are not straining them so hard during acceleration as the transmission helps act as a natural buffer.


I get the feeling you want this to end but I really would like for you to exlpain why you think this way. The transmission stores no energy so how is it a buffer? It takes a fixed amount of energy to change the speed of the vehicle and it all comes from the battery so how does the transmission lessen the strain on the battery?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

major said:


> I get the feeling you want this to end but I really would like for you to exlpain why you think this way. The transmission stores no energy so how is it a buffer? It takes a fixed amount of energy to change the speed of the vehicle and it all comes from the battery so how does the transmission lessen the strain on the battery?


Major, you supplied the answer with your data. The transmission keeps the motor in the zone of higher efficiency.

Example: You must drive your mother-in-law's china cabinet up a very steep and long driveway. The drive is bumpy, so you must go 10 mph to keep from damaging the cabinet. In direct-drive the motor is turning only 500 rpm. If the steep hill requires 300Nm, then the Remy is at 74% efficiency. 

Insert transmission with 2.74 low gear. Now at 10 mph the motor is turning 1400 rpm and must only put out 110Nm. This raises the efficiency to about 90%. 

A clear reduction (16%) in the amount of energy required to climb the hill. This 'saves' your battery for dragging out on Paradise Road..


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Major, you supplied the answer with your data. The transmission keeps the motor in the zone of higher efficiency.
> 
> Example: You must drive your mother-in-law's china cabinet up a very steep and long driveway. The drive is bumpy, so you must go 10 mph to keep from damaging the cabinet. In direct-drive the motor is turning only 500 rpm. If the steep hill requires 300Nm, then the Remy is at 74% efficiency.
> 
> ...


 But transmissions typically have 15-20% losses making this system less efficient.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

ruckus said:


> Major, you supplied the answer with your data. The transmission keeps the motor in the zone of higher efficiency.
> 
> Example: You must drive your mother-in-law's china cabinet up a very steep and long driveway. The drive is bumpy, so you must go 10 mph to keep from damaging the cabinet. In direct-drive the motor is turning only 500 rpm. If the steep hill requires 300Nm, then the Remy is at 74% efficiency.
> 
> ...


This would be the rare case exception of which I spoke. Yes that would reduce the stress on the battery 2500 Watts assuming the transmission was 100% efficient and had no mass. Step into the real world of transmission loss and weight and I think you have about a wash.

When you use that same performance point with and without shifting on a typical flat road acceleration with a typical EV you'll find that it accounts for less than one Watt hour of battery energy per cycle. Assuming 50 cycles per use, that would be a 0.2% reduction in battery energy approximately, assuming the transmission was 100% efficient and had no mass.

If you read the threads I referenced you will note that I do mention that there are specific special cases where the ability to shift gears can save energy. But these cases are rare enough as not to require the penalty of a transmission for all EVs, so it seems the OEMs have determined and I agree with them.

And I have always said there may be reasons why you would want to use a shifting transmission on an EV. But saving energy in the normal or typical EV duty cycle is an invalid reason.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

When you have to create an unlikely rare situation to prove your point, you actually have not proven your point. Major has show that a properly sized efficient motor with a properly selected gear ratio in normal driving conditions will benefit little to not at all from the addition of a multi speed transmission over a single speed gear reduction, other than improved acceleration. The OEM's already figured this out. You don't get to magically reduce the size of your battery pack because you used a transmission.


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

I have question about transmissions.
I live in a volcanic island (Madeira Island), and here we have several steep roads with very few straight roads, wouldn't a transmission help the engine stay in a more efficient rpm?


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Gulah said:


> I have question about transmissions.
> I live in a volcanic island (Madeira Island), and here we have several steep roads with very few straight roads, wouldn't a transmission help the engine stay in a more efficient rpm?


First off electric motors are called motors. "Engines" usually burn a fuel.
Second if you use a smart controller with a BLDC you don't suffer much by running out of the "efficient range".

It all comes down to many things like the speed you need for the hills the over all gearing of the car the size and type of the motor the controller running it.

Induction motors can run at a peak efficiency from a range in rpm I saw on graph where the range was something like 2000-5000 rpm for a flat peak efficiency.

Another thing to consider is when adding a transmission it will add weight and parasitic drag/losses. So even though it might let you multiply torque and get the motor to a more efficient rpm (if it does) then you will loose more than you gained from the drag inside the transmission it self.

You are best off to try to select the biggest motor/controller and best gearing you can without a transmission and it will give you more reliable and more efficient results.

Having said that most motors for DIY EV use are under powered for the car but as the AC induction and BLDC motor setups are developed this will change. Just look at the Telsa model S with 310kw and 1 speed 0-60 in 4.6 and top speed around 130 mph.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Gulah said:


> I have question about transmissions.
> I live in a volcanic island (Madeira Island), and here we have several steep roads with very few straight roads, wouldn't a transmission help the engine stay in a more efficient rpm?


So with this motor, 500 to 7000 RPM only varies the efficiency a few percent. 


major said:


>


 So is that small amount of power or energy saved worth the energy put into lugging the transmission up the hill and the losses encountered in the transmission? Maybe, maybe not. It will depend on the particular situation meaning the duty cycle, vehicle and system design including the motor and its efficiency map. 

Another thing to consider is motor cooling. The Remy motor used above is liquid cooled so likely would survive long low speed overloads. But an air cooled DC may have thermal problems with slow speed overloads so could benefit from a lower gear higher RPM.


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

First I'd like to say I'm sorry for my english 
And then I'd like to thank you guys for the answers, things are getting much clearer now.
Could you guys recommend any book, webinar or something like that to better understand all these EV issues?


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Ok, good discussion everybody. Obviously the gearing issue got folks more excited then the battery talk. Before this gets side-tracked into pages and pages of tit for tat gearing rants, let me summarize and we can move on.

1. Several folks REALLY like the idea of direct-drive EV's. Me too, that is why I set out to build one.  

2. Several folks REALLY like the idea of a transmission to multiply torque and increase efficiency under 'some' driving conditions (high-load, low rpm). Me too, that is why I am considering the use of one. 


I can assure you all that the use of a transmission in the 36 is not an easy decision. It is one more part to buy, one more part to fail, heavy, greasy, leaky, bluh.

But.... Chart please:









It is quite simply the easiest way to get huge torque numbers. 

Oh sure, next year, with my 1200+Nm system a transmission may be completely unnecessary, but at a mere 500 Nm my current system's performance is looking a lot better with a trans.

But this brings up a whole new issue. Where to get a good one? Several folks such as GoodFellas and TransDepot sell 700+ hp 200R4 race trannys on the web that sound pretty good, but when I look up independent reviews I get awful scared reading terrible stories. To me, this is the biggest feather in the 'no-transmission' cap. The sheer nightmare of finding a decent setup, getting it installed correctly, and then waiting for something to fail (not if, but when).  

Like I said many posts ago. The rig would be quite functional, even a little sporty without a trans. But with one, it will be a MONSTER. 

For EV's to get respect they have to be able to keep up with a stock 78 Camaro. End of story.

The direct-drive folks will have to wait until next year..

Cheers.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

No doubt transmissions have their appropriate applications. I'll be using one if I do my 4X4 project because it will spend a lot of time at low speed under high load, as well as needing to be able to drive down the highway. Since you need such a large speed range it makes sense for you as well.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Arlo said:


> First off electric motors are called motors. "Engines" usually burn a fuel.
> Second if you use a smart controller with a BLDC you don't suffer much by running out of the "efficient range".
> 
> It all comes down to many things like the speed you need for the hills the over all gearing of the car the size and type of the motor the controller running it.
> ...


 Then there are practical considerations like what motors/controllers are available, and how much are you willing to pay for them. Which of course is the reason for interest in this thread - there aren't any high torque and power AC motors available at low cost presently. It is generally cheaper, with both DC and AC, to keep the vehicle's transmission if it has one and use a smaller motor with lower peak torque. Direct drive is nice if you can afford a motor with large enough peak torque, power, and max rpm to give good acceleration and top speed. Not many can. That's why you see all those "under powered" vehicles on the evalbum.

Here is a graph of motor and controller efficiency for the AC50 and Curtis controller which roughly supports your statement of range for flat efficiency, though more like above 2500 rpm rather than 2000 for this motor:
View attachment AC50_1238-7501 efficiencies.pdf

Though the dyno test only went to 6000 rpm, the max rpm of the AC50 is 8000, but there isn't much torque at that rpm with this controller.

Table 5-8, page 114 in Bob Brant's book shows 90% efficiency for both front and rear wheel drive trains, or 10% loss, not 15 to 20%. Would be nice if people would quote referenced data.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

tomofreno said:


> Table 5-8, page 114 in Bob Brant's book shows 90% efficiency for both front and rear wheel drive trains, or 10% loss, not 15 to 20%. Would be nice if people would quote referenced data.


 A lot of the losses are based on just turning the shafts at x rpm so as you up the HP of the motor you will lower the loss % in the transmission. There for if you use a slightly underpowered motor as a majority of ev conversions are you will find the number in % wise of loss from the transmission more around 15-20% 

But hey even if it is 10% loss and you have a EV with say 70% efficiency would you relay want to add a transmission and lower it to 63% efficient?


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

Arlo said:


> A lot of the losses are based on just turning the shafts at x rpm so as you up the HP of the motor you will lower the loss % in the transmission. There for if you use a slightly underpowered motor as a majority of ev conversions are you will find the number in % wise of loss from the transmission more around 15-20%


 Most conversions run at similar rpm range as the original engine, so if the main effect on loss is "just turning the shafts at x rpm" losses should be similar.

But hey even if it is 10% loss and you have a EV with say 70% efficiency would you relay want to add a transmission and lower it to 63% efficient?[/QUOTE] See the rest of my first post for response to this.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Sorry I did read your post and ment to say what I maent when I said most diy evs use under powered motors was what you meant by practical. Price and availibility is what's holding the power down. 

What I was getting at on the other hand is it takes x hp to turn the transmission at x speed this is only partially % wise based off the input. Then as you add torque the hp to turn the transmission does not increase at the same rate as the hp passed through the transmission.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Ruckus
Love your chart,

Now how heavy is your car and how much weight is on the driven axle?

If you draw a line at the traction limit - what does your chart look like?


----------



## GREENHORNET (Dec 25, 2012)

tomofreno said:


> Then there are practical considerations like what motors/controllers are available, and how much are you willing to pay for them. Which of course is the reason for interest in this thread - there aren't any high torque and power AC motors available at low cost presently. It is generally cheaper, with both DC and AC, to keep the vehicle's transmission if it has one and use a smaller motor with lower peak torque. Direct drive is nice if you can afford a motor with large enough peak torque, power, and max rpm to give good acceleration and top speed. Not many can. That's why you see all those "under powered" vehicles on the evalbum.
> 
> Here is a graph of motor and controller efficiency for the AC50 and Curtis controller which roughly supports your statement of range for flat efficiency, though more like above 2500 rpm rather than 2000 for this motor:
> View attachment 15678
> ...


There are plenty of High Torque AC motors and controllers out there if you know where to go and look for them! I guess it also depends on what the individual considers cheap! Everyone will have there own answer on this. I can tell you this I have sourced PMAC motors with there controllers for under $6,000 USD. These motors put out some serious torque and horsepower for minimal weight. They run in the 7500-10000 rpm range. 

Other than that I agreed with your post. EV conversions are definitely not for kids. There is some serious money to be laid out for a quality setup. If you are a poor man like myself than you just have to be content on getting what you can and making the best of it! 

GreenHornet


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> Transmissions ...... Your batteries will last longer also because you are not straining them so hard during acceleration as the transmission helps act as a natural buffer.


Hello GREENHORNET,

Please explain how a transmission lessens strain on the battery. And define "natural buffer" as it relates to battery strain. 

Thanks in advance,

major


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Also, how about sharing some links for the PMAC motors you've found?


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

GREENHORNET said:


> Here are a few articles that have pretty graphs LOL!
> 
> I thought I would start off with these articles there major each have there own graphs as well. Big graphs that take up a whole page do not always paint a clear and transparent picture of the real world. Anybody can devise a graph to direct somebody in a certain direction.
> 
> ...


Hi GREEN,

I read over these links. Thanks, but I am not impressed. Look at the chart in the second article. It shows a 40% efficiency for "Motorway" using a single speed. Show me a driving condition or cycle above 2 mph where the Leaf or Tesla is 40% efficient. How can one take the article seriously?

I think we are better served looking at the theory when analyzing the use of a shifting transmission with regard to battery energy. And that shows no benefit. See the threads I referenced for the equations.

Regards,

major


----------



## E30_Dave (Apr 19, 2012)

Hi All,

I've read with great interest the heated debate regarding the merits (or otherwise) of the use of a gearbox vs a direct drive, and would like to throw in my two penneth.

Firstly, the battery issue (Rckus has already said it but I will echo): a reduction gear "protects" a battery through simply being kind to it. It won't necessarily increase range, nor will it allow the use of fewer cells without detriment to range, but I would expect it to increase the longevity and thermal safety of the pack(s). It does all this by simply reducing the prolonged high current draw associated with single gear acceleration to a series of much shorter peaks. It will therefore also reduce heat build-up within the battery pack(s) and the motor, which has got to be good.

Secondly, what nobody (that I have noticed) has mentioned is the improvement of control a reduction gear provides at low speeds, especially in slippery conditions.

Thirdly, a question: What is the point of the overdrive ?... (Please - no flippant answers !) I know what it does, but surely it's more efficient to have a 1:1 gear ratio between the motor and the prop-shaft, and then reduce the reduction gear of the final drive ?... What is the point of stepping up the speed of the prop-shaft, just to step it down again through the rear axle ?

Finally, to echo JRP3: Come on Greenhornet: Let's have a list of these PMAC motors !... I have a Siemens 1PV5135-4WS28, and would like nothing better than to find something lighter and more efficient !

Best Regards,

Dave.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

E30_Dave said:


> It does all this by simply reducing the prolonged high current draw associated with single gear acceleration to a series of much shorter peaks.


Hi Dave,

This is where you are mistaken. The "prolonged high current draw associated with single gear acceleration" is motor current, not battery current. For equal acceleration profiles, with and without shifting gears, the battery current is the same for both cases. The motor current is different, but the battery sees the same loading.

Regards,

major


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

There is a discussion about the transmission EV issue ongoing on another forum called elmoto.net. It is an electric motorcycle forum which includes a lot of DIY builds. A member calling himself mechanic posted this: 



> Fact 1- Transmissions do not increase HP.
> Fact 2- Transmissions reduce RWHP (which is why every manufacture claims crankshaft over RWHP... because is BIGGER, how much? approx. 15%)
> Fact 3- Transmissions do not increase efficiency
> Fact 4- Transmissions add inefficiency (evident of the HP losses)(but may facilitate motor efficiency)
> ...


You can find the context , if interested, here: http://www.elmoto.net/showthread.php?2835-City-bike-reviews-the-Empulse-R&p=35986#post35986 

They even don't address the issue of battery stress or energy related to the use of a transmission. Why? Maybe they know it is irrelevant


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

E30_Dave said:


> Thirdly, a question: What is the point of the overdrive ?... (Please - no flippant answers !) I know what it does, but surely it's more efficient to have a 1:1 gear ratio between the motor and the prop-shaft, and then reduce the reduction gear of the final drive ?... What is the point of stepping up the speed of the prop-shaft, just to step it down again through the rear axle ?
> 
> Finally, to echo JRP3: Come on Greenhornet: Let's have a list of these PMAC motors !... I have a Siemens 1PV5135-4WS28, and would like nothing better than to find something lighter and more efficient ! ...


Hi Dave,

In my case the 1936 Rockwell rear axle is 4.871 and there are no other gears available. On the odd occasion the rig needs to pull hard past 85 mph, it can. Most driving (assuming I use a 200R4) will be 2nd around town and 3rd on the highway. 1st and 4th are for 'fun'. 

If you want a BLDC I can get you one, but since you already have the Siemens, why not give it a try? The secret to the Siemens is to get the rpm's way up which means low low gears. The E-gear drive (8.28) is the equivalent of driving a regular car in 2nd gear. If you don't want your car to sound like a dentist's drill, then yes, get a magnet motor.

Cheers


----------



## E30_Dave (Apr 19, 2012)

Major and Rckus,

Cool posts - many thanks.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

ruckus said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> If you don't want your car to sound like a dentist's drill, then yes, get a magnet motor.
> 
> Cheers


This depends greatly on the controller/programing and motor type/winding type.

If you have a good motor that has a nice sine wave and terminated in WYE as well as a controller with FOC and some good control algorithms it will help keep the motor so quiet you can not hear it over the wind.
Trapezoid controllers are very noisy in comparison.


----------



## E30_Dave (Apr 19, 2012)

Arlo,

I couldn't agree more - but I've found that obtaining information on such things is difficult.


----------



## azdeltawye (Dec 30, 2008)

Arlo said:


> ...
> Trapezoid controllers are very noisy in comparison.


The Scott Drive apparently utilizes a trapezoidal topology. I wonder how noisy it will be...


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

E30_Dave said:


> Arlo,
> 
> I couldn't agree more - but I've found that obtaining information on such things is difficult.


 It is something I am experimenting with. 
The only way to learn about it is a lot of searching and getting down to the bare bones of the code. 

If you want to download the dspic30f4011 microchip data sheet and all attached info related to that microchip family it will teach you a fair bit.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hello,

Just a quick update..

Things are progressing. The fire-wall is coming along. Here is a mock-up of the controller position. I used an existing hole, but will likely move it up an inch or two...











For those who aren't familiar with the difficulties of restoring a 77 year-old vehicle, here are some shots of the brakes I am digging into.. 

Front:









Rear:









Nothing a little brake cleaner can't fix. Right? 

That $200 front disk brake conversion kit is starting to sound appealing... especially when you consider it would allow me to run modern rims. 










One thing to consider is my current rear drums weigh about 90 lbs EACH. The cast iron rear axle probably weighs 400+ lbs by itself. It's a monster.

So, as much as I loath the wimpy 5-on-5 1/2 and 5-on-4 1/2 patterns, for this application I am starting to consider a rear axle swap. However, the thought of a semi-floating Ford 8.8" on this rig seems more like sabotage than success.

Next up... 

Anyone want to see a foot cut out of a perfectly good frame? 

Cheers


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Simple brakes. Ill bet that with some decent wire brushing and some good cleaner you hav those apart in no time. If your not going for speed keeping the stock might be just fine. If your going for custom then the changes are in order. 

A foot cut out of a perfectly good chassis frame? Sure lets have a look.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

IBroke my back. Exploded vertibres ribs. Etc.

Paralized. Pretty bad. Some feeling so hope for recovery in 6 months. Sorry guys. Was trying to help push ev thing further. 

Hope for me. Please.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

ruckus said:


> IBroke my back. Exploded vertibres ribs. Etc.
> 
> Paralized. Pretty bad. Some feeling so hope for recovery in 6 months. Sorry guys. Was trying to help push ev thing further.
> 
> Hope for me. Please.


 Thats very shitty man. Is the Paralysis permanent?


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

ruckus said:


> IBroke my back. Exploded vertibres ribs. Etc.
> 
> Paralized. Pretty bad. Some feeling so hope for recovery in 6 months. Sorry guys. Was trying to help push ev thing further.
> 
> Hope for me. Please.



wow, VERY sorry to hear this. I'll pray that you'll make a full recovery from your accident.


----------



## Scott Ford (Apr 2, 2013)

ruckus said:


> IBroke my back. Exploded vertibres ribs. Etc.
> 
> Paralized. Pretty bad. Some feeling so hope for recovery in 6 months. Sorry guys. Was trying to help push ev thing further.
> 
> Hope for me. Please.



Sorry to hear about your accident, wishing you a speedy recovery....... what happened?


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

ruckus said:


> IBroke my back. Exploded vertibres ribs. Etc.
> 
> Paralized. Pretty bad. Some feeling so hope for recovery in 6 months. Sorry guys. Was trying to help push ev thing further.
> 
> Hope for me. Please.


Really sorry to read this, positive thoughts are coming your way! Hang in there, the EV stuff can wait.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Sorry to hear Ruckus, your efforts to bring the DIY EV community have not gone unnoticed. We very much appreciate all you've done, however now its time focus on you and your rehabilitation.


----------



## Jan (Oct 5, 2009)

Sorry to hear Ruckus. Get well.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

You will be in my thoughts Ruckus.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

Our thoughts are with you Ruckus. Sorry to here this news. 

Pete & Kim


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

Wishing you a speedy recovery Ruckus. I enjoy your enthusiasm and now I hope you can channel that into your recovery and get your life back on track.


----------



## toddshotrods (Feb 10, 2009)

Wow, sorry to hear this Ruckus - wishing my fellow EV hot rodder a speedy, full, recovery.


----------



## Joey (Oct 12, 2007)

Sorry to hear the bad news, Ruckus. Wishing you a speedy recovery.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

I am real sorry to hear that you are injured. I am curios as to how it happened.


----------



## Gulah (Feb 24, 2010)

I hope you get better soon, sorry to hear that :S


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Damn, that's harsh. Good luck with it.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

Oh crap  I'm sending hope your way! You have some feeling and that is a positive sign. 

Take care of yourself and get plenty of rest. I know broken ribs hurt, and I'm betting the rest of the damage doesn't feel good either. Please stop by DIY EV from time to time to catch up with us.



ruckus said:


> IBroke my back. Exploded vertibres ribs. Etc.
> 
> Paralized. Pretty bad. Some feeling so hope for recovery in 6 months. Sorry guys. Was trying to help push ev thing further.
> 
> Hope for me. Please.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

[QUOTE. :!:ragonsgate;349167]I am real sorry to hear that you are injured. I am curios as to how it happened. [/QUOTE]

The first air was sweet, but the second had a wicked lip that kicked me a into a slow backward spin. Landed upside down from about 2 stories going as bout 30 mph. Don't try that as t home!

Fuckd now. hope to walk someday.

Sucks. :/


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

ruckus said:


> [QUOTE. :!:ragonsgate;349167]I am real sorry to hear that you are injured. I am curios as to how it happened.


The first air was sweet, but the second had a wicked lip that kicked me a into a slow backward spin. Landed upside down from about 2 stories going as bout 30 mph. Don't try that as t home!

Fuckd now. hope to walk someday.

Sucks. :/[/QUOTE] 
I sort of have an idea but will not press it any farther. Just know that even I do not know you personally I am truly concerned for you and hope for the best on your behalf. Cliff……..


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

ruckus said:


> [QUOTE. :!:ragonsgate;349167]I am real sorry to hear that you are injured. I am curios as to how it happened.


The first air was sweet, but the second had a wicked lip that kicked me a into a slow backward spin. Landed upside down from about 2 stories going as bout 30 mph. Don't try that as t home!

Fuckd now. hope to walk someday.

Sucks. :/[/QUOTE]
Riding motocross?? Snowboarding??


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

ruckus said:


> [QUOTE. :!:ragonsgate;349167]I am real sorry to hear that you are injured. I am curios as to how it happened.


The first air was sweet, but the second had a wicked lip that kicked me a into a slow backward spin. Landed upside down from about 2 stories going as bout 30 mph. Don't try that as t home!

Fuckd now. hope to walk someday.

Sucks. :/[/QUOTE]

Stay positive man, you have some feeling which is better than none, you will be back. 

Due to the speed you can pickup it can be a pretty dangerous sport even before getting into jumps.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Sorry to hear of your accident. I'm going in for a right hip replacement April 22 so I'll be in rehab for a while, but nothing like you're going through. I will also probably need a back operation too, but I want to get the easier work done first because recuperation from lumbar surgery requires mobility for best results. 

I am taking calcium supplements and vitamin D to help with bone health, and also lots of vitamin C which can really help for rapid healing. Humans, along with primates and guinea pigs, lack the ability to make their own, while other animals such as dogs and horses typically make the equivalent of 2000-3000 mg daily and as much as 10,000 when injured or under stress. This enables them to heal more quickly than we can. Many doctors do not know this and other nutritional principles, or perhaps belittle those who promote such methods. Check with your doctors of course, and best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery.


----------



## albo2 (Oct 4, 2011)

Dude I don't know what to say I thought I'd have a look through your thread to see what you've been up to on the truck and couldn't believe what I was reading, please keep us posted on any news good or bad, you have 5 months before EVCCON, no pressure I really hope you can make it, you're one of the people that make it worth while going.


----------



## tomofreno (Mar 3, 2009)

ruckus said:


> The first air was sweet, but the second had a wicked lip that kicked me a into a slow backward spin. Landed upside down from about 2 stories going as bout 30 mph. Don't try that as t home!
> 
> Fuckd now. hope to walk someday.
> 
> Sucks. :/


 Thought there was a good chance it happened boarding. Very sorry to hear it. Check around for specialists (country-wide), ones that are considered the best. It might make a big difference in how you recover. The net is your friend for that.


----------



## RazTech (Jan 19, 2013)

Incredibly sorry to hear of your accident  I was in a chair for the better part of half a year and can sympathize. You will walk again, for sure - we all hope the best for you.


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi everybody 

Thank you for all the support and well wishes. Sorry if a bit garbled, tapping on phone in hospital bed on meds. <::]

They bolted me back together and now I am in daily rehab. The good news is I have pretty good feeling overall (belowthe knee feels like I am wearing rubber boots). I have 'power' but right now a gnat would beat me at leg wrestling. So I expect a full recovery and the only question is how fast I can get there.

Obviously, I was already under severe time pressure given the unfortunate change in the EVCON schedule (and those impatient to see yet another Scott Drive work flawlessly). So I have no choice but to QUINTROOPLE my determination.

This means YES, I will be there at EVCCON to show the power of Scott Drive, and YES I will be burning rubber, but I can't promise the fit and finish will be perfect. Life goes on.

Don't tell anyone, but there is even a possibility I will be demonstrating the new Scott Drive 300 (900A, 400V) No promises, just a possibility.

Cheers to all. 

p.s. don't put off your dreams. Carpe diem!


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Glad to hear the good news about your probable recovery


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Good luck with the progress.


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

Glad to hear your feeling better and your outlook is good. Forget about the car and take care of yourself first. It would be nice to have you at evccon even without your vehicle.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

ruckus said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> Thank you for all the support and well wishes. Sorry if a bit garbled, tapping on phone in hospital bed on meds. <::]
> 
> They bolted me back together and now I am in daily rehab. The good news is I have pretty good feeling overall (belowthe knee feels like I am wearing rubber boots). I have 'power' but right now a gnat would beat me at leg wrestling. So I expect a full recovery and the only question is how fast I can get there


My advice is don’t leg wrestle any gnats and get better real soon.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

Really great news and i love the attitude you've got.

I can only wish to have such an attitude if something like that ever happened to me.

I can't wait to see more from you and your products.

Cheers back to you!


----------



## ruckus (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi folks,
Sorry to let this thread languish. Such is the healing process.

Despite my challenges, things are coming together. Here's some of the parts list:

120 Hybrid LiFePo4/super-capacitor New Energy cells ordered (420V).
Frankland NASCAR/dirt-track quick-change rear axle (wide 5).
ZF-6S-650 wide-ratio aluminum transmission, Luk clutch, etc.
Brusa Charger (luckily it came in Scott Drive colors) 

More to list.. off to the bbq...

Cheers


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Fantastic to hear from you Ruckus. Good to know you are up and about also! That is a serious parts list. May I ask about the trans, I don't know it. Is it auto? You mention clutch so I figured not. Why not sir? I would expect a Powerglide 400 would eat up that beautiful torque from motor! Can't wait to see it. 

Please tell also of these hybrid cells! Do you have a link to them please? Sound really interesting, and pricey...


----------



## nucleus (May 18, 2012)

*Welcome Back Marcus*

Glad to see a post from you!

I've been wondering how you have been doing.


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Thanks. Well I've convinced myself than an Axial Flux PM motor is the way to go so am designing one slowly. It is a compromise between weight and packaging versus ultimate power. Whereas your motor is a bit hefty (not relative to the ICE it replaces mind...) I want a more modest continuous power rating but across a wide rpm to use a higher single speed reduction. A bit like a Tesla but less overall power spread across the entire review range. 

This design with cooling will hopefully also be happy with 30s peaks of 150kW dog input and thus huge torque through that reduction and maintain performance at higher speeds. My dread is not having decent performance at 80mph plus for prompt overtaking. Not Veyron performance but average family sedan performance. Remember my brick isn't that heavy but it is as aerodynamic as a 2500lb brick... 

But I don't want to hijack your thread Ruckus! I will get a decent thread going once my research and design threads have made enough progress to focus on my project. Chat soon I hope. Get well fast sir!


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Apologies if you all think I fell on my head. I misread the thread update and thought it was Ruckus replying. Fetching my coat...


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Ruckus, how are you sir? Long time no read! Miss your updates. I trust and pray you are healing well sir, in body and spirit! 
How are things?


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

I randomly came across a recent video from Marcus (Ruckus), Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F30AaYVSPck


----------



## tylerwatts (Feb 9, 2012)

Thanks Bowser. I'll check those out after work


----------



## Lowball (Apr 16, 2014)

major said:


> Please take the time to read that thread. Motor current is NOT battery current. Energy is related to change in velocity, not acceleration.
> 
> There are reasons to use a multi ratio transmission. But battery and energy saving are invalid reasons.



I know this thread is over a year old, but I couldn't help myself: Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Lowball said:


> I know this thread is over a year old, but I couldn't help myself: Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity.


Thanks Lowball, but I think we all know that. Would you care to elaborate on your opinion how that relates to energy from the battery on an EV? Isn't the difference in kinetic energy defined by the difference in velocity and not the rate of change of velocity?


----------



## Lowball (Apr 16, 2014)

Of course. Sorry for the ugly equations...

The change in velocity over a period of time is equal to the acceleration.

dV/dt=a

so

V2-V1= a*(t2-t1) 

And the kinetic energy of an object is

KE = .5mV^2

But the delta V is due to an acceleration, so:

KE2-KE1 = .5m((a*t2)^2-(a*t1)^2)

which is equivalent to:

KE2-KE1 = .5m(V2^2-V1^2)

And the difference in kinetic energy is the amount of energy required by the motor to accelerate to the new velocity. Of course the power output of the motor is going to be less than the power output of the battery due to losses in the system. Furthermore, the actual energy to accelerate to a greater velocity will be greater due to an increased drag force, which increases with the square of the velocity.

Let me know if I didn't adequately answer your questions.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Lowball said:


> Of course. Sorry for the ugly equations...
> 
> The change in velocity over a period of time is equal to the acceleration.
> 
> ...


No, all you show is that the change in KE is dependent on the change in velocity, not the rate of acceleration. The change in KE is the same if I accelerate to 60mph slowly or quickly, isn't it?


----------



## Lowball (Apr 16, 2014)

Yes, but the capacity of the battery will be reduced with a higher current draw, relative to a slower current draw.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

Lowball said:


> Yes, but the capacity of the battery will be reduced with a higher current draw, relative to a slower current draw.


That is nearly a zero effect with good Lithium batteries.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Hey Marcus, hope you are doing well and your recovery is coming along


----------

