My understanding is that more voltage requires the cells to be in series,
which reduces charge capacity (compared to being in parallel, where they
produce lower voltage but have higher capacity). Power vs. convenience -- a
familiar tradeoff.
-----Original Message-----
From: John J. Stimson-III [mailto:john@idsfa.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 13:55
To: Michael R. Clements
Cc: James Creasy; Nandaholz@aol.com; ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Electric Autocrossing (was: Cheap Gas?)
Maybe. The bulk of the weight is in the batteries. The batteries are
heavy because of the amount of energy they store. That relates to the
range of the vehicle, not the power. Power delivery is more closely
related to the total voltage and the type/size of the motors. There
are electric dragsters that play the range vs. weight game and achieve
phenomenal 1/4 mile times.
A hybrid with more of a motor than the Insight, with just enough
battery to last through one autocross run and then recharge between
runs, could be pretty good.
Or you could lose the engine altogether and have just enough battery
for three or four runs (or a quick-change battery bank good for one
run!). Of course, you'd have to bring the car to the autocross on a
trailer, but that's not any different from the Street Prepared cars...
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 01:07:13PM -0700, Michael R. Clements wrote:
> Yup, a perfectly flat torque curve is ideal for autocross. But electric
power,
> when you include the batteries, still doesn't have the power to weight ratio
> of gasoline. This is especially noticeable in R/C airplanes, where you can
get
> 1 hp glow fuel (nitromethane) engines that weigh about 8 ounces (normally
> aspirated). Lesse, that's 2 hp per pound, and I think even the S2000 engine
> weighs more than 120 lbs. AFAIK, electricity can't beat that -- can it?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Creasy [mailto:black94pgt@pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:03
> To: mrclem@telocity.com; Nandaholz@aol.com; ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Cheap Gas?
>
>
> i think you could make a pretty cool hybrid car with super performance.
> have a gasoline motor for cruising and charging the battery pack, reclaim
> power under braking rather than wasting it as heat.
>
> you could have a pretty small battery for light weight and a very powerful
> electric motor(s) to assist the gas motor. electric motors are great for
> launches because they produce maximum torque at 0 RPM.
>
> of course you might have only a few 0-60 in 2.5 seconds launches before the
> battery runs down and you need to cruise a bit to charge it back up, but by
> then the corvette will have given up. maybe turn down the power for a few
> autocross runs. talk about torque on demand!!
>
> in fact, i see that our local honda hybrid (NOT a sports car) on street
> tires is a tiny tick behind a 127hp civic on R-tires in SFR!
>
> -james
>
> PS down with social engineering!
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael R. Clements <mrclem@telocity.com>
> To: <Nandaholz@aol.com>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:37 AM
> Subject: RE: Cheap Gas?
>
>
> > Sure, yeah, let's tax the heck out of gas (and diesel) like other
> countries
> > do. Since just about everything is transported by vehicles that burn gas
> or
> > diesel, we can make everything cost more. This would be great for the
> economy!
> > And it would have another salient benefit: we could carry things on our
> backs
> > instead of transporting them with vehicles that use fossil fuels. Not only
> > would this give us cleaner air, it would create thousands of jobs
> overnight!
> >
> > But why stop there? We could also adopt the socialist economies of other
> > countries, so we can enjoy right here at home the benefits of double digit
> > inflation and unemployment, without having to travel to Europe!
> >
> > Seriously, consider that gas powered vehicles so far outnumber
> "alternative"
> > transportation, that making new gas powered vehicles even 1% more
> efficient
> > would lower overall pollution far more than a fleet of electric cars ever
> > would. When you consider that the millions / billions of dollars spent so
> far
> > on electric cars and other "alternative" technologies, in the absence of
> > government subsidies, would have been spent on current gas technology, we
> > might have cleaner air today if these programs had never been enacted.
> >
> > In short, as Kevin says, social engineering sucks. Not only does it rarely
> > (never?) achieve its intended objective, it usually exacerbates the very
> > problems it was intended to solve, leaving a morass for future generations
> to
> > fix.
> >
> > just my $0.02. P.S. my sarcasm is directed at the idea, not at any person.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Nandaholz@aol.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 09:06
> > To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Cheap Gas?
> >
> >
> > I really think we need to increase gas prices....say up to $5 per gallon
> like
> > in other markets around the world. This would have a serious impact on the
> > amount of single occupancy cars and FUV's on the road, and would promote
> > alternative transportation like motorcycles and smaller hybrid vehicles.
> Maybe
> > more attention would be devoted to telecommuting, shifted work schedules
> etc.
> >
> > .. just my $0.02
> > ~Nanda
--
john@idsfa.net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|