# [EVDL] Best Practices in EV Design



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

So I was getting a little nervous reading the recent threads on
registration and insurance of EVs. I'm still in the research /
learning stage and I haven't committed monetarily to anything yet; so
I'm still reasonably open with regards to a final implementation.
I made two calls yesterday, one to my insurance to get the ball
rolling (I proposed to hypothetically convert my current car; they'll
get back to me...), the other call was to the Vehicle Engineering
department of the Quebec DOT (SAAQ).

I asked the SAAQ if they had guidelines beyond their publication
"Modified and Hand-Crafted Vehicles".
Ref (in French, like all our Provincial legislation):
http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/publications/dossiers_speciaux/veh_modif_artisan.pdf

In Quebec, all vehicles on which modifications have been made to the
chassis (including transmission and drive) or body from the production
car original; or vehicles which have been built from the ground up
(including kit cars) fall into such a category. The original document
seemed mostly geared to hot-rodding and pimping of vehicles (rules for
window-tinting, suspension jacking or dropping, exhaust mods, etc.).
It was badly lacking in EV related guidelines (battery boxes, safety
disconnects, etc.).

I was pleasantly surprised that they actually had an answer; they have
seen the trend towards EVs and are trying to address the situation.
They were working on some guidelines and be elaborating on them over
the summer.

These are the guidelines they had to date:
1 - Meet all the requirements set out in the aforementioned guide.
2 - Respect the weight distribution of the vehicle
3 - Batteries must be securely anchored
4 - Vacuum pump must be installed for the power-braking system
5 - A heating and window defrosting system must be present
6 - Batteries must be installed outside of the passenger compartment
in a ventilated location with a drain for electrolyte.
7 - The accessory bus must be run from an independent battery than the
traction battery pack.
8 - Hatch-back vehicles are prohibited.
9 - Following the conversion the vehicle must undergo a mechanical inspection
10 - The report will be forwarded to the vehicle engineering
department for final approval.

Faced with this set of guidelines; which seemed a little zealous,
slightly under informed and lacking in some obvious aspects, it
occurred to me that I might want to be proactive and educate them with
regards to what are considered 'best practices' in EV design; in the
hopes that they will endorse a set of guidelines that don't limit
creativity and ingenuity while still keeping safety in mind.

The idea is that self-regulation based on hundreds of cumulative years
EV experience is going to be way better than what the bureaucrats can
come up with (even with their best intentions, they are simply lacking
the experience and resources).


That said, here comes the totally open-ended question:
What would you consider are 'best practices' in EV Design?

[If you've already written down your thoughts somewhere else, post a
link if you prefer]

Thanks,

-Nick

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 29 May 2008 at 10:50, nicolas drouin wrote:
> 
> > 8 - Hatch-back vehicles are prohibited.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

It must be related to the batteries being in the passenger compartment -- I
guess it's okay if they are in the trunk, but not if they are just behind
the rear seat. But what if they were all under the floor?

Z

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:58 AM, EVDL Administrator <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> > On 29 May 2008 at 10:50, nicolas drouin
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The new EV FAQ has a lot of safety information (the OLD version is up
at evparts.com, but the safety stuff has not changed much). Also, Bob
Batson of http://www.ev-america.com/ offers a free safety paper that is
really good. They have a link for that on the left of their home page.



> --- nicolas drouin <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > So I was getting a little nervous reading the recent threads on
> > registration and insurance of EVs. I'm still in the research /
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

And I have a Mazda 626 hatchback I'm hoping to convert.

I'm not surprised to see that prohibition for the reasons you note. 
However, I would think if the batteries are in a structural, sealed box, 
an allowance could be made. Of course guess what is between the trunk 
and the rear seat of most (non-hatchback) cars? Pressboard and some 
open steelwork. Fold down rear seats are probably even less sturdy.

SteveS



> nicolas drouin wrote:
> > Yeah, I own two hatches: Hyundai Elantra GT and Suzuki Ario Fastback
> > both reasonable candidates for a conversion. I was none-too-thrilled
> > I've already asked why:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> EVDL Administrator wrote:
> > On 29 May 2008 at 10:50, nicolas drouin wrote:
> >> 8 - Hatch-back vehicles are prohibited.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Clarification;

I think those standards listed were from just one state or province, 
not for the entire country.

Prius batteries are not under the floor, they are behind the rear 
seat above the rear axle in a semi-sealed enclosure securely bolted to 
the chassis. They vent externally i.e. not into the passenger 
compartment.

The EV button is not in Canadian market Priuses either.

>>
>
> It would appear the 2004+ Prius violates this standard right from the
> factory. It is a hatchback, and the EV batteries are in back, under 
> the
> floor. It has an EV mode (can drive it as a pure EV) in every country
> except the USA. All you have to do is add the missing pushbutton to
> engage "EV mode".
>
> So by this law, adding nothing but this pushbutton make the car 
> illegal?
> Rubbish!

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The reason why they cannot use the EV switch in the U.S. is that the battery 
technology in that car or any car cannot be use over a certain ampere-hour 
using the chemistry in the battery that is one oil company has the patent 
rights to.

If you change the chemistry of the battery, but still is a Li-Ion battery 
structure, this is consider the pioneer patent of the original design. No 
longer can one person patent a device, and than change a resistor or a bolt 
or electrolyte and then re-patented it.

I think this can only be done for a certain amount of times, which the 
original patent holder can make a change. I think this is for about 
seventeen years.

So in 1991 when this battery chemistry was bought by the oil company, we 
should be able to use it in 1991 + 17 = 2008 which is this year some time.

I just written to the big man in Washington about this, and lets see what 
happens.

Roland


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Hart" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Best Practices in EV Design




> > EVDL Administrator wrote:
> > > On 29 May 2008 at 10:50, nicolas drouin wrote:
> > >> 8 - Hatch-back vehicles are prohibited.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Roland Wiench wrote:
> > I just written to the big man in Washington about this, and lets see what should be able to use it in 1991 + 17 = 2008 which is this year some time.
> > happens.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

At 17 years you can renew it for another 17 years, which made it 34 years. 
Is the 20 years a final period of time?

Roland


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Wujek" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Best Practices in EV Design




> > Roland Wiench wrote:
> > > I just written to the big man in Washington about this, and lets see
> > > what should be able to use it in 1991 + 17 = 2008 which is this year
> > > some time.
> ...


----------

