Fuelly Forums - Electric conversion: Project ForkenSwiift

Fuelly Forums (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/)

- Electric and Solar powered (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/f18/)

- - Electric conversion: Project ForkenSwiift (https://www.fuelly.com/forums/f18/electric-conversion-project-forkenswiift-1605.html)

Go for 72v and kick some ***.

Have you nagged your local press to give you props yet? You could become the mascot for all sorts of dorks and nerds wanting to use less fuel.

But don't you want to help others see the light? Don't you feel and ethical obligation to help others? *jabswithastick*

Metro, your EV story done locally could offset that lead pipe story earlier this year.

Add the batts! The story about people stealing pipes in canada.

Said he drove around

Drove up to the city waste

That's about what you figured at 48 volts. Was that measured with or without the extra batteries?

Yep, pretty close. I figured about 100 lbs lighter.

Just learned that the provincial sales tax paid on items bought for an EV

It funny how 650 CDN is now more than 650 USD, :D, I remember when I was a kid...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVOboy (Post 76716)

It funny how 650 CDN is now more than 650 USD, :D, I remember when I was a kid...

Same here. Even not so long ago.

Congrats on our Dollar tanking!

RH77

Blegh, parts from Europe aren't nearly as much of a deal as they used to be. :(

I have to say I've spent a little more time hunting for US stuff on eBay than I used to.

Today... skooled by the EV masters was I.

So all you need now is a new gearbox.

1st 10:1 for the first 2 meters...
2nd 3:1
3rd direct
4th 0.5:1

good luck finding it ;)

Very interesting...

Got my Killawatt equivalent on the weekend.

Good thing too

The car's energy efficiency from the above figures...

For comparison: Tesla recenty did the EPA test cycles for the roadster. In city driving, it's rated for 300 wh/mile (also based on energy usage at the charger). :)

https://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/

https://www.teslamotors.com/display_d....jpg?width=300
VP1 undergoes range testing on the dynamometer

127 wh/mile doesn't seem too awful by comparison to 300. It would be like a 20mpg car compared to a 45mpg car, sort of.

Very cool all the same, the forken that is. Do you think the tesla can be hyperwatted? 10kwh/day seems a bit much. Is it as simple as crawling to minimize battery losses?

The Tesla is undoubtedly far more efficient battery-to-wheels

No more fiddling with spreasheets past my bed time.

Haha, wow! That's a pretty big oops right there...

At least your still on par with the professionals...:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 76909)

FS is 331 wh/mi, not 127.

Drat, Tesla wins, even with me driving 20 km/h.

No more fiddling with spreasheets past my bed time.

If ya had li-ions you'd be at 231Wh/mile and given that the Tesla's charger is such a hog, they're likely more than 127Wh/mile from the plug. Just sayin...

Here's some more from GCC

Quote:

Henrik,

Click "Where the Rubber Meets the Road" above and scroll down to the section on Range Testing. They show recharge energy of 31 kWh/100 miles for combined cycle. That's at the wall plug, not the battery. As you note, the car only needs a little over 200 Wh/mile from the battery. This means 1/3rd of the wall plug energy is lost in the charging process. Tesla's well-to-wheel white papers claim 90 or 95% charging efficiency instead of the 65-70% implied by this data. That's a huge gap.

Ok I get it. That is an interesting observation. Wonder what went wrong. Lithium batteries should have very high charging efficiency near 100% according to https://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-12.htm. So the problem must be the charging transformer. As far as I remember they often lose a lot of energy possibly 30% but it is possible to buy some that loose very little energy. Maybe they have chosen a model that is cheaper and perhaps lighter but that waste more energy in the conversion. Most people will never notice such a change anyway but you do. Plus electricity is still very cheap compared to gasoline so the economics is still ok and the people that can afford a Tesla will not care about the economics of driving anyway.

Remember that the EPA tests that tesla ran now include running the air conditioner. The california sun beating down through the windows, and on a dark green roof will require alot of air conditioner power to keep temperate. That could explaine alot of the difference between the 216 WH/mile that they got when actually commuting (probably with the top down), and the 310 WH/mile they got while running the EPA designed tests (top up, air on).

Coalburner, the problem with your theory is they show 245 mile range on the combined test.Even if they used all 53 kWh in the battery pack that only comes out to 216 Wh/mile. The diff between 310 and 216 is apparently charging efficiency. It's a really horrible result, hopefully caused by a really inefficient non-production charger. If not Tesla needs to completely re-do their well-to-wheels white papers.

Update, Tesla deleted my question but in response to another message said the difference between 216 and 310 Wh/mile was due to charging inefficiency, including the need to run a cooling system to keep the batteries cool during charging!

Somehow I doubt they'll update their well-to-wheels paper or stop making their ridiculous "penny per mile" claims. Tesla is doing good work but there's no shortage of snake oil, either.

Meh?

Good diggin', omg. Thanks for posting that.

Better not slow down unless you REALLY need too, :)

so then is the cost per km still round $.02? (since the calc error)?

Hi - yup, the cost calcs weren't affected by the error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 78080)

Emergency disconnect isn't done yet, but it'll be wrapped up tomorrow.

I realized I would have disconnected it unintentionally this evening. Got in the car at the store and pressed the clutch and brake when I put the key in. Tired. Old habit.

Maybe you might want to put something too soft feeling on the pedal surface so that when in auto-pilot it gives the brain a chance to do a real WT_ thought? :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG (Post 78080)

...
Except I need a heat source. High humidity, cool temps + no heat = visibility problems...

I wondered if you were going to need an exhale tube or something. Try rainex or fogex maybe? I had a buddy who swore by it.

Too bad you're a goof for not using a mac.

More of a sheep than a goof, I'd say.

two great video editing programs I use are Virtualdub and Jahshaka .

both are free and can do a lot of stuff including converting from one format to another :)

Thanks. I'm playing with virtualdub right now. Not having much luck (video speed seems to speed up & slow down). I'll try the other one.

I did a little looking around on fog-x ,
It is now called rain-x anti-fog. Clean the inside of the window and apply it. Other EV users have seen benefit in using it (my metro needs help too, not a lot of btu's to spare with the engine always off). It is a silicon based treatment, and if you get it on your paint it will not paint right again supposedly, so apply carefully.

Did I miss a link to the videos or something?