# [EVDL] OK, so what happened at the CARB meeting and what does it mean for EVs?



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I hope that someone posts a brief summary of what was
decided and what it means for people going to a
dealership in CA and actually being able to purchase
an EV.


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I was hoping for something too. I assume though that no one's been able to
yet. Plugin America doesn't yet have anything on their site from what I can
tell..,



> Steve Powers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I hope that someone posts a brief summary of what was
> > decided and what it means for people going to a
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Steve Powers wrote:
> > I hope that someone posts a brief summary of what was
> > decided and what it means for people going to a
> > dealership in CA and actually being able to purchase
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Can you tell us where we can monitor as well?
thanks
-Aaron



> JS <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Steve Powers wrote:
> > > I hope that someone posts a brief summary of what was
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Aaron Eiche wrote:
> > I was hoping for something too. I assume though that no one's been able to
> > yet. Plugin America doesn't yet have anything on their site from what I can
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

[No message]


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Just returned from Sacramento. For those who did not watch online or
> > aren't members of Doug's group yet, I was at the CARB meeting and
> > testified today.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Okay Folks, here's the low down about the CARB meeting today.

>From our perspective, CARB basically failed again. Instead of maintaining
the existing requirements on Automakers to produce 25,000 between 2012 and
2014, the requirements have now been set to a far lower 5,357 (a 70% drop).
Hydrogen is still the CARB favorite, and the benefit to automakers still
leans towards Hydrogen Fuel-cell vehicle, rather than BEVs.

Plug-in America's report (where I got all my info):
http://www.pluginamerica.org/press.shtm#Mar%2027,%202008%20Eviscerate%20Again

-Aaron





> JS <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Aaron Eiche wrote:
> > > I was hoping for something too. I assume though that no one's been able
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Forget the CARB.

They are nothing but a bunch of patsies for the special interests and 
status quo. And it's never going to change.

Once AGAIN they've killed initiatives for EVs, even after all the 
lobbying efforts.

The grassroots EV movement will have to skip the CARB and go after 
the legislators or get EVs and PHEVs on the roads themselves. Waiting 
for the "suits" to get off their ass will get us nowhere.

I'll tell you where the future of Alt Energy is and it's not with the 
useless bureaucrats running government boards and all the consortiums 
that just pay each other to do useless studies on stuff we already 
know. It's with forward thinking techno-corporations run by rich 
geeks. They aren't waiting for their grandfathers running these 
useless boards to get off their duff.

The "Googles" of the world will be the ones that will get the alt 
fuel energy industry jump started in the right direction with their 
own money.

It's time to take this in a new direction. You're just spinning your 
hubmotors getting those old fogies to wake up.

Chip




> Message: 20
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:28:19 -0800
> From: JS <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] OK, so what happened at the CARB meeting and what
> does it mean for EVs?
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>


> > Aaron Eiche wrote:
> >> I was hoping for something too. I assume though that no one's been
> >> able to
> >> yet. Plugin America doesn't yet have anything on their site from
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I have an idea: Let's call GM's bluff: Demand that IF they really
believe no one will buy a pure EV like the EV1, make the EV1 plans open
source (as opposed to locked up in a vault somewhere?). Not public
domain, but open source (the difference is a GPL Open Source license
cannot be taken private again like public domain could).

If GM doesn't believe in BEV, perhaps they will make the blueprints &
schematics available to some others who might be interested in testing the
market with a powerful AC motor and all the smart stuff they came up with
on that car. I realize there is likely some fancy language in their
license of Al Cocconi's technology, but I can dream.... The volt may be
nice, but a bit of overkill for my needs for a second car for 'trips
around town' but still preserving some sort of dignity (unlike an NEV).

Despite the Board Members (are any of them engineers or any interest in
learning the basics of EV/ Hybrid/ Fuel Cells?), there were some somewhat
encouraging glimmers of intelligent life on earth:

Adam Smith (From Google) - excellent testimony
Tesla Motors & Phoenix motor cars testimony
The two teenagers who made very intelligent presentations
All of you who have Rav4 EV's and your positive testimony

But in the end, I am very despondent that the commercially available EV
for sale will occur in my lifetime - and the saddest part is there does
not seem to be a single valid reason why they are not available and as
common as home computers are today.

If EV1 I drove in 1997 had been sold, I'd be able to afford one by now,
even if I had to buy completely new batteries for it. And if new ones
were being made, they would probably be far cheaper by now (same idea as
computer prices).

I remember when PC's were thought of as unnecessary - nobody would want
one. Then I remember paying $1100 for a three-color scanner, $4500 for a
66mhz 486dx PC with 16 mb of RAM and 200mb hard drive (and a friend asked
why I needed such a large one!).... Now you couldn't give it away.

The shear scarcity of commercially built Battery Electric Vehicles amazes me.

Dell



// Forget the CARB.
//
// They are nothing but a bunch of patsies for the special interests and
// status quo. And it's never going to change.
//
// Once AGAIN they've killed initiatives for EVs, even after all the
// lobbying efforts.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

It sounds like a decent idea, but it would never happen. In spite of our
sore feelings towards GM, the EV1 represents a lot of research time and
money. They've carried that research into other areas, and releasing
diagrams and schematics essentially means giving that research away for
free. No shareholder would stand for that (and I imagine that some of the
primary shareholders are associated companies like oil manufactures and
service industries), that's a company's primary focus: The shareholders.

I think our future (as you said) lies in small independent companies like
Tesla (and hopefully Phoenix). There's got to be a jump somewhere though.
EVs are focused primarily on the community, and a production EV would need
to (in my opinion) be available at a commercial car lot before it would
really take off.

If you're despondent about the possibility of available EVs, get started on
your own. Not just a conversion. See what you can learn about producing an
EV. I'll be on board with you, if you want, and So would a hundred others
here. Can't design? Find someone who can. Not Mechanical? Someone, somewhere
is.

The EV1 had huge demand when it was here, and after it left. That demand was
in spite of any of it's shortcomings. A similar car I think would see
similar demand.

(Sliding off topic slightly)
In the late 40's a guy named Preston Tucker decided that he wanted to make a
car. He made a car better than anyone had ever made, included features no
one had ever thought of, and priced it cheaper than anyone else thought he
could. He was taken down by automakers who didn't want to see his car hit
the streets.

That wasn't meant to be foreboding or depressing, but to illustrate that
anybody can do anything. There's nothing to stop you but yourself. It's
something I've been thinking of for a couple of days.
-Aaron


I have an idea: Let's call GM's bluff: Demand that IF they really
> believe no one will buy a pure EV like the EV1, make the EV1 plans open
> source (as opposed to locked up in a vault somewhere?). Not public
> domain, but open source (the difference is a GPL Open Source license
> cannot be taken private again like public domain could).
>
> If GM doesn't believe in BEV, perhaps they will make the blueprints &
> schematics available to some others who might be interested in testing the
> market with a powerful AC motor and all the smart stuff they came up with
> on that car. I realize there is likely some fancy language in their
> license of Al Cocconi's technology, but I can dream.... The volt may be
> nice, but a bit of overkill for my needs for a second car for 'trips
> around town' but still preserving some sort of dignity (unlike an NEV).
>
> Despite the Board Members (are any of them engineers or any interest in
> learning the basics of EV/ Hybrid/ Fuel Cells?), there were some somewhat
> encouraging glimmers of intelligent life on earth:
>
> Adam Smith (From Google) - excellent testimony
> Tesla Motors & Phoenix motor cars testimony
> The two teenagers who made very intelligent presentations
> All of you who have Rav4 EV's and your positive testimony
>
> But in the end, I am very despondent that the commercially available EV
> for sale will occur in my lifetime - and the saddest part is there does
> not seem to be a single valid reason why they are not available and as
> common as home computers are today.
>
> If EV1 I drove in 1997 had been sold, I'd be able to afford one by now,
> even if I had to buy completely new batteries for it. And if new ones
> were being made, they would probably be far cheaper by now (same idea as
> computer prices).
>
> I remember when PC's were thought of as unnecessary - nobody would want
> one. Then I remember paying $1100 for a three-color scanner, $4500 for a
> 66mhz 486dx PC with 16 mb of RAM and 200mb hard drive (and a friend asked
> why I needed such a large one!).... Now you couldn't give it away.
>
> The shear scarcity of commercially built Battery Electric Vehicles amazes
> me.
>
> Dell
>
>
>
> // Forget the CARB.
> //
> // They are nothing but a bunch of patsies for the special interests and
> // status quo. And it's never going to change.
> //
> // Once AGAIN they've killed initiatives for EVs, even after all the
> // lobbying efforts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi EVerybody;

Why doesn't it surprise me that CARB got shot down, yet, AGAIN, AGAIN? I 
MIGHT go off the Deep end on Politics but at this point I don't give a shit! 
Best Govt. Oil money can buy. I'll shout that from the rooftops, of my EV 
collection, EVen. Sheer , pure GREED, nobody gives a hoot about 
conversation, air quality or HELLO?? Balance of trade, or in simple terms, 
MORE US-ian CASH going overseas to people bound to our destruction. Energy 
or conservation planning? You gotta be kidding!!Anybody DRIVING our Ship of 
State? I mean thinking more than 15 seconds into the future? Fine legesy 
that the lame duck adm. is leaving? SHAME on US! The World is watching. I 
apologize to the rest of the world on an open forum! Just who do we think we 
are? I don't know the figures as to energy consumption to the rest of the 
World? But the figures are startling! We USED to sometimes set an example, 
but those daze are as quaint as horse drawn streetcars. IF half of one 
percent were spent on battery tech as nuclear bombs and the equipment to 
deliver them, for starters? Watch History Channel on "Extreme Aircraft" And 
I'm STILL driving a car with turn of the Century Battery tech, the LAST 
century!

I'll throw more inflammery comments in below;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]xx.xxx.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OK, so what happened at the CARB meeting and what does 
it mean for EVs?


>I have an idea: Let's call GM's bluff: Demand that IF they really
> believe no one will buy a pure EV like the EV1, make the EV1 plans open
> source (as opposed to locked up in a vault somewhere?). Not public
> domain, but open source (the difference is a GPL Open Source license
> cannot be taken private again like public domain could) If GM doesn't 
> believe in BEV, perhaps they will make the blueprints &

General Murders? Yeah! Right? Forgetabout it! Let them follow Baldwin 
Locomotives into Oblivion, that's not a town in Texas<g>! There IS hope on 
the horizon, Tesla, Phoenix, to mention just a few. EVen our own Lee Hart , 
IF he can get Sunrise off the ground? At least the "Can Do" thing hasn't 
been killed off.......YET? Will my grandkid in about 15 years be able to 
choose an EV at a local dealer. Hell! Look at computer tech; You can't EVen 
GIVE stuff that was cutting edge stuff ,10 years ago! Example;I took about 
4-5 TV's and moniters to the DUMP, last weak. Gotta get RID of this shit 
before they, the dump, WON'T take it at ALL! Cleaned out the atttic, TV's 
and obsolete computer stuff REPRODUCES in dark places!! TV tech is changing 
,they won't even work when they go digital, anyhow?

> schematics available to some others who might be interested in testing the
> market with a powerful AC motor and all the smart stuff they came up with
> on that car. I realize there is likely some fancy language in their
> license of Al Cocconi's technology, but I can dream.... The volt may be
> nice, but a bit of overkill for my needs for a second car for 'trips
> around town' but still preserving some sort of dignity (unlike an NEV).

I think Al Coconi's tech lives on? With AC Propulsion, think ; crate 
controllers, motors, for you guyz with DEEP pockets? Maybe Al is a sorta 
"free Agent" with his stuff?Unlike Stan Ovshinsky? A sad , beaten man, now.
>
> Despite the Board Members (are any of them engineers or any interest in
> learning the basics of EV/ Hybrid/ Fuel Cells?), there were some somewhat
> encouraging glimmers of intelligent life on earth:

Sorta like flagging down the "Super Chief," with a candle in a 
hurricane? Or hurding cats? IF there is a history written about 
transportation in our times? Sometime BEFORE Long Island and NYC are STILL 
above sea level?

> Adam Smith (From Google) - excellent testimony
> Tesla Motors & Phoenix motor cars testimony
> The two teenagers who made very intelligent presentations
> All of you who have Rav4 EV's and your positive testimony

I'm SURE Doug Korthof was there, Maybe got a edge in wordwise?

> But in the end, I am very despondent that the commercially available EV
> for sale will occur in my lifetime - and the saddest part is there does
> not seem to be a single valid reason why they are not available and as
> common as home computers are today.

Welcome to the club! It's a BIG Godamn CLUB!

> If EV1 I drove in 1997 had been sold, I'd be able to afford one by now,
> even if I had to buy completely new batteries for it. And if new ones
> were being made, they would probably be far cheaper by now (same idea as
> computer prices).

There would be a thriving market in used EV-1's I'm sure? Banged up 
ones, looking shabby, before their time. A certain amount of US-ian folks 
knock the shit out of ANY car in a few short years! Think,any inner city.

> I remember when PC's were thought of as unnecessary - nobody would want
> one. Then I remember paying $1100 for a three-color scanner, $4500 for a
> 66mhz 486dx PC with 16 mb of RAM and 200mb hard drive (and a friend asked
> why I needed such a large one!).... Now you couldn't give it away.
>
> The shear scarcity of commercially built Battery Electric Vehicles amazes 
> me.

Bingo! Right on Dell! IF EV's were sold like computers, plug an' play, 
if you will? Try the new "Oe Bla De" Unobtanium battery, gives you more 
range, try it ,today! Amps ,dolts, volts, smults? Who cares? IF grandma can 
just go out and BUY something better? Quick quiz; WHAT make is your Washer, 
dryer, stove, fridge? Do you give a shit? No! They work, do the stuff you 
expect of them. Lets face it, cars are appliances, too. I have Other Stuff 
I'd like to do and it doesn't involve cars. Oh Yeah, cars are nice, NEED 
them out in the country. My requirments are relatively ,modest, get me down, 
and up the road, keep up with traffic (NO NEV's!) Rav-4 and EV-1 did just 
FINE in that dept! I could keep it 10-15 years, upgrade it as needed? I LOVE 
to go to the Races, watch EV's Kick Ass!And when you consider John Wayland's 
racing budget compared to John Force's. JW couldn't BUY ONE of Force's tumed 
engines!They get, what, 2-3 runs BEFORE scrapping them. Waylands' STILL 
running the Siamese 8's thast I saw and touched YEARS ago! Jim Husted ; Take 
a bow! Purple Power!Yeeeeha!
>
> // Forget the CARB.
> //
> // They are nothing but a bunch of patsies for the special interests and
> // status quo. And it's never going to change.

I coulda told ya that 2 weaks,(weeks) months, YEARS ago!

> // Once AGAIN they've killed initiatives for EVs, even after all the
> // lobbying efforts.

It will take some sort of National Emergency, far worse than 911. After 
all, how much did 911 effect somebody in, say, Rapid city, ND or is it SD? 
Or in Surprise AZ? No surprise?? Other than sending their sons and daughters 
off to Current Occupent's war, to "protect" the supply? What EVER, it will 
hurt?Oil, food rationed out, as the supply line would be busted. No more 
plethura of FOOD in the Stuper markets? We'd ALL lose weight FAST. A quick 
diet plan, painful, though? We MIGHT have to MAKE stuff in USA as importing 
crap from China will be too expensive? Actually BUILD our own RR cars. Gasp! 
There is NO US-ian car builder now, passenger cars, I mean. No Pullman, St. 
Louis, Budd,Osgood-Bradley, Niles, Brill, etc. Bombardier? Yeah, Canada, I 
don't begrudge the Canadians for filling a market nitch.

Who was it that said " Wait til NEXT year!" If there IS one, and it 
isn't too late?

Back to One-car at-a-time...Sigh!

Bob.end of rant!


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

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 27 Mar 2008 at 23:04, Chip Gribben wrote:
> 
> > Forget the CARB.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

IMO, the best thing CARB could do for EVs is clear barriers for 
homebrewers and small converters, and stop forcing the automakers into 
expensive, risky ventures. Let the invisible hand do its work, but help 
guide it with incentives.

Much more dicey is forcing the automakers to incur costs or risks 
against their will. This is communistic, and in principle is theft and 
violates the doctrine of eminent domain (taking without compensation.) 
That's largely what happened with the 1990s EV initiatives; automakers 
were forced to pour many millions of dollars into a boondoggle, with 
little choice but to write it off as a peculiar California tax.

I think that, ironically, what made it a boondoggle was CARB backing 
down - had they kept the 10% mandate, this would've happened: Consumers 
and then automakers would slap Honda generators on the back of their 
EVs, solving the range problem in one swell foop. Automakers would ask 
CARB to credit them for a fractional EV based on the fraction of driving 
that would be all-electric. Instead of 10% EVs, we'd have 12-20% PHEVs 
by now.

However, nostalgia aside, that would still have been force.

Ultimately the automakers are whores. They do it for the money. Whores 
know how to deal with people who force them to do things they don't 
want. Ask Jimmy Hoffa about that.

With incentives, you don't have all that trouble with force.

This industry needs incentives on every level - the homebrewer, the 
small builder/converter, and the big automakers.

The homebrewer needs incentives (carpool lane) and credits (you know 
that $600-$1000 that Air Quality Management Districts statewide pay to 
remove stinkers from the road - that should go to help out people trying 
to convert an EV.)

The small builder has the toughest situation of all. It is incredibly 
difficult to "break into" the auto business. Tucker and deLorean 
couldn't do it, and they were insiders. The state needs to help them 
have a fighting chance.

Large automakers simply need insulation from risk, so they can justify 
something other than legal opposition to their stockholders. They need 
to know they're not going to pour millions into a social experiment 
without due compensation.



> [email protected] wrote:
> > I have an idea: Let's call GM's bluff: Demand that IF they really
> > believe no one will buy a pure EV like the EV1, make the EV1 plans open
> > source (as opposed to locked up in a vault somewhere?). Not public
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 28 Mar 2008 at 18:18, Robert MacDowell wrote:
> 
> > Much more dicey is forcing the automakers to incur costs or risks
> > against their will. This is communistic, and in principle is theft and
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 27 Mar 2008 at 23:04, Chip Gribben wrote:
> 
> > Forget the CARB.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

My problem with this whole carb thing is that we are all wasting our
time trying to get auto manufacturers to change via mandate. The faulty
assumption is that the existing auto manufactures are the most likely
candidates to make BEV's. I think it is more like the typewriter
companies did not make the best computer companies syndrome.

We should instead find a way to get funds available for new
transportation companies to make ZEV's.

When people can go to a dealer and choose between 300mile range 3 min
fill time (in 4 major cities) for $100,000 vs a 100 mile, charge
anywhere EV for 30K, Then they auto manufactures will adapt or die. 
(don't pick apart my numbers please, just an example)

you can't legislate in common sense.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

From: Bob Rice <[email protected]>
> Why doesn't it surprise me that CARB got shot down, yet, AGAIN, AGAIN?
> ...end of rant!

That was a great rant, Bob! You could almost write one like Leonard Cohen's "Howl", which was supposed to be a poem, but turned into a major-league rant on our disfunctional society that he became famous for.

Imagine a cartoon. Picture of a treehouse, with several hugely fat rich kids in it, with sacks of money and all the toys imaginable. There's a poor skinny kid at the bottom, looking up. There's a ladder up to the treehouse. The guys on top yell, "Sure, come up just like we did!" Except that all the lower rungs have been sawn out of the ladder (one of those in the treehouse is holding the saw), and another has his foot on the top of the ladder, ready to push it over if the poor kid tries to climb it anyway.

--
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the one who is
doing it. -- Chinese proverb
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart-at-earthlink.net

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

From: Bob Rice <[email protected]>
>> Why doesn't it surprise me that CARB got shot down, yet, AGAIN, AGAIN?
>> ...end of rant!



> Lee Hart wrote:
> > That was a great rant, Bob!...
> 
> Oops! My most humble apologies to all. That was supposed to go to Bob Rice, not the EV list!
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> > My problem with this whole carb thing is that we are all wasting our
> > time trying to get auto manufacturers to change via mandate. The faulty
> > assumption is that the existing auto manufactures are the most likely
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Robert MacDowell wrote:
> > For my vote I think you'd be much much better off finding a reliable
> > chassis already proven, and customizing to the degree you see fit. For
> > instance I like the F-body (Firebird/Camaro) because it is a relatively
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi Bob;

Yur RIGHT! Comments below!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert MacDowell" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OK, so what happened at the CARB meeting and what does 
it mean for EVs?




> > Jeff Shanab wrote:
> >> My problem with this whole carb thing is that we are all wasting our
> >> time trying to get auto manufacturers to change via mandate. The faulty
> >> assumption is that the existing auto manufactures are the most likely
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

We will have to agree to disagree.

A new successful elect car company, we are talking about mainstream
level here, a "manufacture", must...

a) Not depend on another car manufacturer for parts.
b) Take advantage of the very differences in an EV to create a chassis
that optimizes this.
For example, perhaps electric motors are shorter for their power
allowing a more aero dynamic shape
perhaps the battery is significantly heavier and larger than a
fuel tank so hanging it on the other side of a rear axle is not a good idea.
Perhaps weight is critical, and electric drive trains don't mask
noise, so a composite monocouqe is dictated.
Perhaps batteries are gonna be a commodity item so the space and
connections will be in public domain.

I am not as impressed with the current chassis as you are. People die in
40mph collisions while race car drivers go into the wall at near 200 and
get in a second car for the second race on the same day.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I have a 4th gen Camaro and love it. Many times I have thought it would be a great conversion. The aerodynamics are fantastic. Camaros and Firebirds are the only stock bodied cars that have exceeded 298 and 300 mph on the Salt Flats.

While they are lighter than trucks, and lighter than a Supra, GT3000, or Porsche 928, they are alot heavier than many small cars. Mine weighs 3425 lbs, I estimate I could remove about 800 lbs of ICE stuff. My friend with an LS1 has stripped the interior, removed the AC, cut off every bracket he could, put in race seats, cut away extra wiring, gutted the bumpers, removed the window mechanisms, removed the handbrake hardware, did lighter wheels, and the car still weighs over 3000 lbs. The only practical place left to remove weight is plastic windows.

Moving all that mass quickly (as quickly as I want mass to move, anyways  ) would mean 2 motors and lots of expensive batteries. The car might be OK with Lithiums, but if you did a lead sled and wanted to race you'd need larger brakes, and a beefier rear axle.

So an f-body is going to be around 1.5 to 2 times the mass of a small, light car. That means the electric parts cost will be close to double for the same acceleration!

----- Original Message ----


> Josh Wyatt wrote:
> ...For my vote I think you'd be much much better off finding a reliable
> chassis already proven, and customizing to the degree you see fit. For
> instance I like the F-body (Firebird/Camaro) because it is a relatively
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Isn't Tesla, by design, depending on other manufacturers? Didn't they basically electrify a design close to the Lotus Elise? Let's hope they make it!

Comparing race car wrecks to regular car wrecks isn't exactly apples-to-apples. The race car driver is wearing a helmet and a 5 point harness -- that right there makes alot of difference.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Shanab <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:52:06 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OK, so what happened at the CARB meeting and what does it mean for EVs?

... A new successful elect car company, we are talking about mainstream
level here, a "manufacture", must...

a) Not depend on another car manufacturer for parts.
b) Take advantage of the very differences in an EV to create a chassis
that optimizes this.
For example, perhaps electric motors are shorter for their power
allowing a more aero dynamic shape
perhaps the battery is significantly heavier and larger than a
fuel tank so hanging it on the other side of a rear axle is not a good idea.
Perhaps weight is critical, and electric drive trains don't mask
noise, so a composite monocouqe is dictated.
Perhaps batteries are gonna be a commodity item so the space and
connections will be in public domain.

I am not as impressed with the current chassis as you are. People die in
40mph collisions while race car drivers go into the wall at near 200 and
get in a second car for the second race on the same day.






____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. 
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>
> Isn't Tesla, by design, depending on other manufacturers? Didn't they basically electrify a design close to the Lotus Elise? Let's hope they make it!
> 
This is contracted OEM. Not exactly what I meant when compareing to kit
car/donor car scenarios. By car company I meant hitting the ground
running with 15K to 30K units in the first year.

> Comparing race car wrecks to regular car wrecks isn't exactly apples-to-apples. The race car driver is wearing a helmet and a 5 point harness -- that right there makes alot of difference.
> 

The Physics is the same. I think the lessons learned should have
provided more improvement than it has.
Specifically Stronger seat backs, better energy redirection and
better belts.
(my design goes to 4 point. A criss cross across the chest keeps the
upper body straight during frontal impact and lessens the tendency to
slip out from under the belt in a side impact. It is gender friendly and
only costs one more retractor. The road racers in the stock classes at
sears point use it all the time.)
They have made great strides in air bags, but sometimes I think that
is almost an indication that they are expecting compartment collapse and
intrusion and significant belt stretch, even at low speeds. Care must be
taken putting more safety stuff on a person as they will just defeat it.

P.S. One might ask why race cars don't have air bags. I think that it is
because of two reasons, with an almost incolapsable cage and adequate
crumple zones, the air bags would not add much, but mainly cause the
race would be over pending replacement. Once they deploy, they can't be
of any furthor safety. Makes one wonder what happens when you are
involved in an accedent on a crowded freeway. The air bags deploy on
initial impact but what saves you from the secondary collisions?

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> [email protected] wrote:
> > I am a firm believer however that no business has ever survived on a
> > plan to do philanthropy. First you have to make a profit, then you do
> > the philanthropy (and hopefully lots of it).
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> (my design goes to 4 point. A criss cross across the chest keeps the
> upper body straight during frontal impact and lessens the tendency to
> slip out from under the belt in a side impact. It is gender friendly and
> only costs one more retractor. The road racers in the stock classes at
> sears point use it all the time.)

And it's twice as hard to put on as a regular seatbelt so that virtually
guarantees that hardly anyone will wear it.

They use to make cars with automatic shoulder belts, all you had to do was
put on the lap belt. Only problem was, people wouldn't put on the lap
belt. So they add sensors to that set off alarms if you don't have the
lap belt on, so people go and buckle the belt in and sit on top of it.

Beats the hell out of me why people don't like to wear seatbelts, but
making a more complicated seatbelt is surely not the solution.

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


----------

