EV (electric vehicle) News & Discussion

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › EV (electric vehicle) News & Discussion

1 | ... | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | ... | 722

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#2060594 22-Jul-2018 19:42

MikeAqua:

...

Either or would solvev the issues

1,000km tested-range as Tesla are claiming they will build (perhaps 800 in real world use) would be fantastic.

But 500km with 5 minute 'charge' would be comparable to an ICEV so perfectly manageable.

Another thing to think about is autonomous cars. Once all cars are autonomous, accidents should be a thing of the past. Cars can then be built lighter (like aircraft) on the assumption they won't crash . That will significantly increase range.

If you'd driven 500km already you don't need to fully charge the car, surely. That's already a massive day. Maybe add 250km more on a Telsa Supercharger in 20 minutes......then you're good for 3-4 more hours of driving. You dno't need to add the whole 500km.

Even better....as you drive the first 500km just stop at charging stations for a quick break and pick up 30, 50, 75km as you go along.....so your effective daily range is about 750km....having made efficient use of the usual necessary breaks.

It's pretty easy to do. At 120kw a Tesla Supercharger can add 50km in......5 minutes. Add 100km in 10 minutes (6km / kWh and one kWh every 30 seconds).

I drove 350km today in my LEAF and the biggest struggle was getting my wife back in the car within the time it took to add some kms. The car charges faster than she goes about her whatever business. :-)

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

10999 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2061504 24-Jul-2018 09:25

The following is in case anyone is interested in converting a Morris Minor to an electric vehicle.

Just like buying a Harley Davidson motorcycle, it's obviously not about practicality

Note you're many more times more likely to get injured in a Morris Minor than in any modern car. It's also easy to steal a Morris Minor, though in New Zealand the public would notice a Morris Minor, and it'd probably be easy to track down.

http://livingwithaminor.blogspot.com/2012/11/so-whats-it-like-to-drive.html

The safest you make a Morris minor is replace the seats to have headrest, replace the seat belts, and get disc brakes, better suspension.

When you consider the cost of shipping the parts and the heavy batteries, it's probably more practical to ship a finished car. Consider how much easier it is to transport a car rather than load and unload hundreds of kilos of batteries and parts.

There is a speciality shop called London Electric Cars. If I was going to do it, rather than try to source a Morris Minor in New Zealand, it's much more practical to buy a Morris Minor in the UK. At the very least you'd have a much better selection of cars in much better shape, plus cheaper than could be locally sourced.

I'd have it delivered to London Electric Cars, and let them do all the work, including the batteries.

Besides the electric conversion, you'd probably want to use some other London based speciality shops, such as replacing the non-headrest seats and seatbelts, to avoid whiplash. In the case of the Traveller, I'd also use a London shop to replace the wood exterior pieces.

Perhaps the only thing I'd skip is the final paint job, so I wouldn't have to worry about scratches and bumps in transit.

Then have the whole finished car shipped to New Zealand.

Here's an email I received from London Electric cars. They also have Youtube videos.

---------------------------------------------------------

From: Matthew
Sent: July 24, 2018

[Regarding converting a 1967 Morris Minor Traveller to an electric vehicle]

We offer a few different options.

There’s the short kit which is motor to gearbox mounts, the flywheel coupler and motor to car mounts for a standard 9 or 11 inch motor with a 1 1/8” driveshaft. That covers all of the Netgain and HPEVS motors that we’d expect you to end up using. This costs £1100, [NZD $2,100].

The long kit is all the motor gearbox mounts, battery boxes, battery box mounts, controller mounts etc. This costs £3,300 but it sounds like you’d like it without the battery boxes, I'll have to price that up.

The full kit is everything you’d need to convert your car to electric: motor, batteries, controller, DC/DC converter, charger, and then all the parts found in the long kit etc. Costs for this depends on what kind of motor, charger etc you choose. And again I’d assume you wouldn’t want battery boxes. I’d estimate a cost somewhere between £8,000 - £15,000. [NZD $15,500-$29,000]

There are various options we can discuss to increase performance or bring down costs, depending on your priorities. Do you know what kind of battery you’ll end up using?

Any questions please ask away.

Best,
Matthew
-------------------------
Matthew Quitter
London Electric Cars
www.londonelectriccars.com

kingdragonfly

10999 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2064750 30-Jul-2018 07:28

Note the Nissan e-NV200 is based on the Leaf.

It has active cooling: the A/C runs whenever it fast charges. However at least one reviewer thought "this system is mostly ineffective at cooling the pack, but likely somewhat capable of equalizing temperatures within the pack."

https://insideevs.com/heres-nissan-employs-active-air-cooling-e-nv200-battery-pack/

http://autotalk.co.nz/news/nissan-launches-electric-camper

Nissan launches electric camper

"The e-NV200 40kW/h has a 200km range.

New Zealand-based tourism company Jucy plans to acquire up 10 Nissan e-NV200 40kW/h vans by this summer for its customers."

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2064867 30-Jul-2018 11:03

SaltyNZ:

MikeAqua:

Cars can then be built lighter (like aircraft) on the assumption they won't crash .

That's a hell of an assumption. Just because an AI is driving the car doesn't mean that if a tree falls on the road with 1 second's warning, it won't crash. Not to mention the fact that in order to be autonomous, they don't have to be better than humans, just as good as.

Just thinking out loud really. We seem to build commercial aircraft on the assumption they won't crash, but they do.

I've never personally seen a car struck by a tree (I know it happens from media coverage). But I have seen plenty of trees struck by cars. I'd suggest it's a very rare event. Are cars currently designed to withstand an impact from a falling tree?

Mike

SaltyNZ

8102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2064877 30-Jul-2018 11:27

MikeAqua:

Just thinking out loud really. We seem to build commercial aircraft on the assumption they won't crash, but they do.

What? Aircraft are absolutely built on the assumption that they will crash. They have multiple redundant systems at every level from (at least) twin engines powerful enough to take off and climb under full load with one engine dead, right down to a little windmill that falls out of the bottom of the plane under its own weight to power the hydraulics when all else has failed, and door slides that turn into life-rafts. Sure, they aren't built like tanks, but that's because tanks don't fly, not because we wouldn't build them that way if we could.

The fact that there are survivors at all when a plane hits the ground at 300km/hr is completely down to the fact that they are designed to manage the energy of a crash as best as possible.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

frankv

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2064915 30-Jul-2018 12:33

SaltyNZ:

MikeAqua:

Just thinking out loud really. We seem to build commercial aircraft on the assumption they won't crash, but they do.

What? Aircraft are absolutely built on the assumption that they will crash. They have multiple redundant systems at every level from (at least) twin engines powerful enough to take off and climb under full load with one engine dead, right down to a little windmill that falls out of the bottom of the plane under its own weight to power the hydraulics when all else has failed, and door slides that turn into life-rafts. Sure, they aren't built like tanks, but that's because tanks don't fly, not because we wouldn't build them that way if we could.

The fact that there are survivors at all when a plane hits the ground at 300km/hr is completely down to the fact that they are designed to manage the energy of a crash as best as possible.

Whilst those examples are mostly there to prevent a crash, there's things like seats and their anchors engineered to withstand 20G which are specifically there to enhance passenger survivability in a crash.

Having said that, aircraft are engineered and equipped for the least likely cost. There is a trade-off between the cost to prevent or mitigate a problem versus the cost of lawsuits to pay off the victims (and their estates) if that event occurs.

tripper1000

1602 posts

Uber Geek

#2064931 30-Jul-2018 12:55

frankv: Having said that, aircraft are engineered and equipped for the least likely cost. There is a trade-off between the cost to prevent or mitigate a problem versus the cost of lawsuits to pay off the victims (and their estates) if that event occurs.

Is that a quote from Thank You For Smoking?

Getting a bit off topic here, but it is a little more complex for aviation. It is the safest mode of transport by design, not coincidence. There is a lot more regulation and certification to meet than motor cars. Also with fewer models and fewer manufactures than motor vehicles company reputation is far more prominent, vulnerable, expensive and valuable. If one model flops (eg through lack of confidence) it can be the end of even a big company, but not for auto makers.

What you speak of above is truer for optional improvements, (ie upgrade/corrections recommend by the manufacturer but not mandated by FAA/CAA) and this is where your choice of airline affects your survival and safety.

The crash of ValuJet Flight 592 is a classic example. The aircraft crashed due to a fire in cargo hold that started before take-off. Fire detection in the hold was available and highly recommend by the Manufacturer but not mandatory so ValuJet did not have it. The crash would not have happened to more safety conscious airline that had opted for fire detection because they would simply never have unknowingly taken off and would have instead evacuated the aircraft on the ground.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2064935 30-Jul-2018 13:03

Linuxluver:

If you'd driven 500km already you don't need to fully charge the car, surely. That's already a massive day.

500km is a morning's drive. My idea of a big day is Blenheim to Invercargill - that used to be a biennial 1-day trip with kids and a Labrador. We just took turns driving. Leave home at sparrow's and be at the in-laws' in the Riviera of the south for dinner. Anything to avoid putting up porta cots.

My biggest day - Nelson to Dome Valley, towing a caravan. Slept on the ferry.

Mike

tripper1000

1602 posts

Uber Geek

#2064941 30-Jul-2018 13:11

That is outside the bell curve of normality even for yourself if it is a biennial trip.

I spoke to a guy at a charge station and both he and his wife owned nothing but EV's. They just hired vehicles holidays and the cost was covered many times over by the fuel money they saved the rest of the time. Advantage to him was they could hire different types of vehicles every time to best suit the type of trip they were going on.

I've saved $810 driving 4,500kms relative to my ICE in 3 months, so you can see I could hire an ICE for several weeks with the money saved.

Edit: My savings line.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2064972 30-Jul-2018 14:05

SaltyNZ:

What? Aircraft are absolutely built on the assumption that they will crash. They have multiple redundant systems at every level from (at least) twin engines powerful enough to take off and climb under full load with one engine dead, right down to a little windmill that falls out of the bottom of the plane under its own weight to power the hydraulics when all else has failed, and door slides that turn into life-rafts. Sure, they aren't built like tanks, but that's because tanks don't fly, not because we wouldn't build them that way if we could.

The fact that there are survivors at all when a plane hits the ground at 300km/hr is completely down to the fact that they are designed to manage the energy of a crash as best as possible.

Firstly, design to avoid a crash is not design to witstand a crash - two different things.

Secondly, for a relevant comparison you need to compare a light vehicle to light plane. The comparator for a family car is not a Dream-liner, it's a little Cessna.

Thirdly, for something built to survive a crash, aircraft do seem to have a propensity to scatter themselves over quite a wide area on impact ... there often aren't survivors.

Mike

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2064977 30-Jul-2018 14:21

tripper1000:

That is outside the bell curve of normality even for yourself if it is a biennial trip.

That's just one example. the other years we woudl typically go to the BOI.

Outside the bell-curve? Nothing in normal population is outside the real bell curve.

I want a car that meets all my needs not 95% of them - including the occasional needs. The market is right now teeming with cheap ICEVs that do just that.

How can more range on EVs be bad a thing? It would make one (operationally speaking) a realistic consideration to replace one of our vehicles. That would leave only three issues: -

- Looks like a suppository (being addressed by some manufacturers and Toyota/VW drivers are already accustomed to this);

- Too expensive (give it time);

- Lower trim standard in some cases

Mike

SaltyNZ

8102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2064979 30-Jul-2018 14:21

MikeAqua:

Thirdly, for something built to survive a crash, aircraft do seem to have a propensity to scatter themselves over quite a wide area on impact ... there often aren't survivors.

I suppose it depends on the crash. Only two people died in this crash after the tail snapped off:

And they were run over by a fire truck.

By contrast, many of the worst crashes have been caused by computer failures of various sorts - a computer set to fly at a certain altitude rather than the same rate of descent, a computer fooled by an iced pitot tube into thinking it had zero airspeed and choosing the exactly wrong course of action.

My point is that anyone who has spent more than 5 seconds around computers should know better than to think 'AI-controlled cars will never crash'. AI-controlled cars will crash, and probably for reasons that would be crazy if a human did it.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2065013 30-Jul-2018 15:33

SaltyNZ:

I suppose it depends on the crash. Only two people died in this crash after the tail snapped off:

Again - that's a heavy. No comparison to a light vehicle.

But I can link to photos too (well a page containing them at least).

https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/erebus/

Mike

MikeAqua

7769 posts

Uber Geek

#2065015 30-Jul-2018 15:38

SaltyNZ:

My point is that anyone who has spent more than 5 seconds around computers should know better than to think 'AI-controlled cars will never crash'. AI-controlled cars will crash, and probably for reasons that would be crazy if a human did it.

I haven't argued that - although others have. My point is if they crash less often, then we will be able to tolerate a lower level of protection as we do in aircraft and still ave less injuries. For example in aircraft we only have lap-belts, which have been described as 'lethal' by NZ's chief coroner when commenting on car accidents.

If plane crashes were as frequent as car crashes - and a high proportion of them were plane to plane collisions, I don't think we would be happy with the current amount of protection.

Mike

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2065024 30-Jul-2018 15:42

Can we go back to talking about EV please...

1 | ... | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | ... | 722