Electric car engineering issues

Roadam · February 26, 2009

GM really deserves the same fate as his EV1.

Zythryn · February 26, 2009

According to the last row of this chart for the contiguous U.S., current generating capacity minus current demand yields an estimated 16% margin. That, combined with the fact that rolling blackouts are not uncommon during peak demand times, leads me to believe that the only way current generating capacity would be sufficient is for very carefully managed demand control that makes power available to loads when the excess is available for use.

I would also point out that the same chart lists total generating capacity at 915,292 megawatts and it would be my guess that our total passenger car energy consumption far exceeds 16% of that amount.

An important footnote for the available margin is noted:

[4] Capacity Margin is the amount of unused available capability of an electric power system at peak load as a percentage of capacity resources.

I could not find an estimate there, but I would guess this means there is a larger margin during non-peak times.

Even if it were not though some rough calculations give us a better picture.

915,000 megawatts is 915,000,000 kilowatts, 16% of this is about 137,200,000 kilowatts. A heavy vehicle uses a 35 kwh pack.

So that is about 4 million vehicles.

Certainly not the entire light vehicle fleet, but a very healthy number.

And again, I suspect the off peak margin of available electricity is much more, few vehicles will need a recharge every day and they will get more and more efficient as time goes by.

Yes, work needs to be done, but we need to improve the national power grid anyways, do we not?

If used completely each day

CraigD · February 27, 2009

Phoenix currently sells "fleet vehicles"
Powered by the revolutionary Altairnano lithium titanate battery pack, Phoenix Motorcars’ zero-emission, all-electric Sport Utility Truck (SUT) can cruise on the freeway at up to 95 m.p.h. while carrying five passengers and a full payload.
The SUT has a low-cost maintenance schedule and will be introduced to fleet managers in 2008.

I’m not sure I agree with your read of that, GAHD. It could be read to mean they would be introducing fleet managers to their maintenance plans, or describing the vehicles to them. I suspect that if they had actually shipped more than a few, they’d announce it in a less ambiguous manner.

I’ll feeler my org’s fleet manager. We promote ourselves as a “queen of green”, and have trialed a few rather wretched EVs over the decades (surprisingly, in the one I had a chance to drive, speed and power were not so bad – I broke 50 MPH before the person responsible for letting me drive it convinced me to let up :) - but the transmission very clunky, and suspensions bad enough to be dangerous). So hopefully, I’ll be able to confirm or deny the claim that fleets have Phoenix SUTs within a day or a few.

And the Zenn is currently sold in a LOT of locations (check the retailor map) for inner city driving. let's face it, how many cities do you know where traffic moves faster than 25mph in rush hour. And that's the GOVERNED speed, you can take the limiter off with a little techno-wizardry; though that reduces your total travel per charge.

The ZENN is a NEV. Though you could likely trick it out to go faster, it’s not designed for that, so this might be an unwise idea. Although I don’t know much about the FEV laws (like FMVSS 500), I suspect you might get risk trouble with the law if your did this, too.

That said, if I had a NEV, I’d want an easily accessible “governor off (give me all you’ve got)” switch of some sort. Having witnessed tractor trailer trucks going over 60 on 35 MPH speed limit roads, I’d feel like a sitting duck sharing the road with them in a vehicle that couldn’t exceed a bicycle-like 25, but unlike a bike, can’t hop the curb to get out of the way in an emergency.

My main beef with ZENN is that they’re currently pedaling a bit of a bait-and-switch, promoting their contract for exclusive worldwide rights to use EEStor’s ultracapacitors in “all-electric 4-wheeled personal transportation uses for vehicles with a curb weight up to 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb), net of the battery weight”, while actually selling a NEV with very old-tech lead-acid batteries (actually, slightly worse than old tech, being gel-pack unless you pay extra for valve vented wet cells).

If EEStor’s claims prove true, they and ZENN will likely be big winners in the EV and other electrics and electronics markets. From what I’ve read, though, there’s still a real likelihood that EEStor will prove a multi-million dollar boondoggle

If GM crashes the Phoenix SUV/SUT could easilly take over GM's manufaturing plants, gut out the gas engine works departments, and crank out cheaper, more economical and eco friendly vehicles.

I think GAHD misunderstands how Phoenix makes their cars.

Although I’m unable to find clear information about their factory, Phoenix appears to be a car conversion company, not a car manufacturer. The Phoenix SUT appears to be a SsangYong Actyon with its gas motor replaced with an electric motor, and batteries and control systems added.

Also, although I’m unable to find a populated field for it at any online company profining site, Phoenix Motorcars appears to have on the order of 20 employees. It’s simply too small to take over even the senior management of a large manufacturing company, let alone its actual operations.

In My Honest opinion, General Motors Needs to Die, and Die NOW.

If by die, you mean replace its senior executives and key policy makers with better ones, I agree. If by die, you mean fire all 120,000+ of its US employees and/or about an equal number in other countries, I disagree. The “death” (or "recareering") of so many skilled workers is too appalling for me to wish for. :hyper:

GAHD · March 24, 2009

If GM crashes the Phoenix SUV/SUT could easilly take over GM's manufaturing plants, gut out the gas engine works departments, and crank out cheaper, more economical and eco friendly vehicles.
I think GAHD misunderstands how Phoenix makes their cars....gas motor replaced with an electric motor, and batteries and control systems added.

Bit of a nitpick here, but this stops them from taking over the chassis-creation (automated CNC) divisions how? This stops them from wiping out the gas-engine works depts (including drivetrain, exaust, and other associatedsystems they hav e 'experience' removing), how?

Also, although I’m unable to find a populated field for it at any online company profining site, Phoenix Motorcars appears to have on the order of 20 employees. It’s simply too small to take over even the senior management of a large manufacturing company, let alone its actual operations.

IYO. I think one of the major problems is too much management. I'm a fan of 'workers as management' companies. EG the 'cell' architecture of Standard Aero ltd.

If by die, you mean..."recareering" of so many skilled workers is too appalling for me to wish for. :hihi:

No I mean a complete removal of anyone who doesn't twist a wrench; phasing out high-level management first, followed by and extensive downsizing of 'middle management' untill the company has a more direct communication line between the 'floor' and the 'office' hopefully with with the various 'lead hand' or 'floor senior' workers taking up more pf the papertrail(or eliminating some of it)

It WOULD mean recareering of the various engine related specialists, but machieneing is machieneing is machieneing. Eg: I know a few old deisel tractor mechanics who are now working in aerospace; skills are allways transferable.

tank-makers can still cut & weld: just battery mounts now.

machienists now macheine the various SIMPLE EM fixtures, instead of 400+ inter-connected pieces.

Onboard ECM specialists work off a new wiring diagram :o

Of course such an initiative would invove a large-scale downsize of the behemoth that is GM, with various facilities getting sold off (eg crash testing: outsourced) But considering the LARGE boondogle that is GM and HAS been GM for the past 10 years...I still think it's worth it.

CraigD · March 24, 2009

Disclaimer: my personal experience in the car manufacturing industry is slight, consisting of work in a replacement car parts warehouse, driving a truck between suppliers’ warehouses and ours and from ours to parts stores, writing software for a similar auto parts distributing company, and, second had, having lived with a former Ford assembly line worker. I’m far from expert.

If GM crashes the Phoenix SUV/SUT could easilly take over GM's manufaturing plants, gut out the gas engine works departments, and crank out cheaper, more economical and eco friendly vehicles.
I think GAHD misunderstands how Phoenix makes their cars....gas motor replaced with an electric motor, and batteries and control systems added.
Bit of a nitpick here, but this stops them from taking over the chassis-creation (automated CNC) divisions how?

A company of 20 people can’t begin doing the jobs of tens of thousands of people, even if trained to do them, because there are simply too few people in it. Even if some part of the whole vehicle manufacturing process, such chassis or body fabricating (hardly any present day passenger car has a chassis, but has instead a unibody, or Monocoque), is so highly automated that only a few people are needed to operate it, other steps, such as assembly, still use human workers. Compared to systems such as automate bottling and food packaging, most car manufacturing remains very hands-on.

If a large car company crashes and burns, whoever picks up the pieces will likely need to employ many of the dead company’s employees at the same factories and offices to do nearly the same jobs as before. Though new senior leaders can change a lot about a company, even following a takeover, companies retain much of their previous identity.

This stops them from wiping out the gas-engine works depts (including drivetrain, exaust, and other associatedsystems they hav e 'experience' removing), how?

The consensus among industry experts appears to me to be that, even if the success of battery electric-only cars in the market place meets the most optimistic reasonable expectations, there remain applications that they simply can’t perform, such as traveling distances longer than a few hundred miles with only brief rest and refueling stops.

I think that emerging battery technology like Altair’s Lithium-titanate battery will prove this belief wrong, and that all ground vehicles (I’ve yet to see a convincing case for the feasibility of electric aircraft) can be powered by electric batteries. I think your vision of wiping out gas engine manufacturing, GAHD, is much less far-fetched than most experts believe.

We’re prudent, however, to keep in mind that these new battery technologies are not quite proven. Until I’ve actually seen them – they will likely appear first in new laptop computer – I’ll remain wary that they may not work as well as claimed, or may be prohibitively expensive or difficult to manufacture in sufficient numbers and size.

If by die, you mean..."recareering" of so many skilled workers is too appalling for me to wish for. :)
No I mean a complete removal of anyone who doesn't twist a wrench; phasing out high-level management first, followed by and extensive downsizing of 'middle management' untill the company has a more direct communication line between the 'floor' and the 'office' hopefully with with the various 'lead hand' or 'floor senior' workers taking up more pf the papertrail(or eliminating some of it)

I don’t doubt that carmakers suffer from the same “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” problem as many other large enterprises. However, I think you might be surprised at the importance of many jobs that don’t involve actually twisting a wrench on a production line.

One kind of job that’s obviously very important is design.

Management/clerical is also more important than one might think. Components and subassemblies of most vehicles are made at many places by many different companies. Tracking and managing this can be as critical to successful production as actual hands-on work.

belovelife · March 24, 2009

belovelife · March 24, 2009

YouTube - Electric Car in-wheel motor Siemens eCorner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPSoNfmuBXc

YouTube - Lithium ion Polymer Batteries http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyYBh4ec05c

GAHD · March 30, 2009

Some video :friday:

How to Make a Car Video ? 5min.com http://www.5min.com/Video/Learn-How-Cars-are-Made-64727537 neat docu about the body structure. Lotta robots.

YouTube - How It's Made (Season 2 / Episode 12 / Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agGmDzJnBnY "Discovery Channel: How It's Made === 025 How It's Made 2x12 (Cars, ..."

Again, divide the big corp down and let the small companies have pieces like this. For in-city use in places not subject to ecological extremes making current battery tech viable for in-city bulk use, and current capacitor technology for necessary burst draws, I don't see many issues. The bolt-fitters in the engine in dept get replaced with tester-wielding sparkies checking in-wheel motors and cap systems.

Don't think many chariots get made shelby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAz2Fy0Cf9o cobra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2eHoe-Qoeo style anymore...

... A company of 20 people can’t begin doing the jobs of tens of thousands of people, even if trained to do them, because there are simply too few people in it. Even if some part of the whole vehicle manufacturing process...is so highly automated that only a few people are needed to operate it...

I was referring to having these various parts of the bigger GM conglomerate 'sold off' as whole to other smaller manufacturers to prevent the "too many eggs in one basket" problem that is currently threatening to continue an economic collapse.

If a large car company crashes and burns, whoever picks up the pieces will likely need to employ many of the dead company’s employees at the same factories and offices to do nearly the same jobs as before. Though new senior leaders can change a lot about a company, even following a takeover, companies retain much of their previous identity...I don’t doubt that carmakers suffer from the same “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” problem as many other large enterprises. However, I think you might be surprised at the importance of many jobs that don’t involve actually twisting a wrench on a production line.

I think we're on the same page, but looking at different angles. Yours appears to me to be that the large company needs to remain as is and as a whole, while I think that having it go under and be portioned-out to existing companies like phoenix/zenn to be converted into a different type of personal conveyance manufacturing plant. It is my understanding that there are different plats set up for different vehicles, though I may be wrong. Having them transfer to a wider audience of owners promotes competition, and stops the eggs being in one basket (and oh no the basket went rotten!) problem.

I'm not saying that any one small company should get the whole pow-wow, rather that that huge horde of cheifs stops sitting in one camp and instead goes out to make preparations and do economic war with each other, some of them going to the smaller camps with less horse dung.

The consensus among industry experts appears to me to be that...there remain applications that they[electric vehicles] simply can’t perform, such as traveling distances longer than a few hundred miles with only brief rest and refueling stops....

This is why different companies make busses and planes. Im shure the ICE experts will still have work for years to come even if the personal motor vehicle industry has a shift.

Any further spinoff (like legalised nuclear batteries) to help the "industry" needs is a seperate issue IMO since GM doesn't do aircraft; that's boeing/magellan, standard aero, RR, WP, etc...

...I think your vision of wiping out gas engine manufacturing, GAHD, is much less far-fetched than most experts believe.

More a vision of wiping out gas engines as a bulk-use thing. They have their uses! I don't deny that. I just think that there is too much infrastructure dedicated to them.

We’re prudent, however, to keep in mind that these new battery technologies are not quite proven...
Yup. Hearing Lockheed Martin sign-on to EEStore got my attention though.

One kind of job that’s obviously very important is design.
yup, to their credit electric engines need a lot less of that. Quite a few less parts, different timings

Management/clerical is also more important than one might think. Components and subassemblies of most vehicles are made at many places by many different companies. Tracking and managing this can be as critical to successful production as actual hands-on work.

Yyup, if it was all fractured into say 10 smaller corps i could see a lot of job-hires.

CraigD · March 30, 2009

We’re wandering out of engineering into the realm of business economics and economic policy, and should IMHO eventually move some of these posts to another forum, but it’s an interesting discussion.

I was referring to having these various parts of the bigger GM conglomerate 'sold off' as whole to other smaller manufacturers to prevent the "too many eggs in one basket" problem that is currently threatening to continue an economic collapse.
…
I think we're on the same page, but looking at different angles. Yours appears to me to be that the large company needs to remain as is and as a whole, while I think that having it go under and be portioned-out to existing companies like phoenix/zenn to be converted into a different type of personal conveyance manufacturing plant. It is my understanding that there are different plats set up for different vehicles, though I may be wrong. Having them transfer to a wider audience of owners promotes competition, and stops the eggs being in one basket (and oh no the basket went rotten!) problem.

The basic idea I think GAHD is proposing is monopoly breaking, a complicated and controversial one many times older that the car industry.

The core of the idea of what constitutes an unfair monopoly that should be broken, is, I think, that large companies use the influence arising from their size to prevent small companies from competing with them. The “big 3” US car companies, then – Chrysler, Ford, and GM – can be seen as the only surviving companies by virtue of being similar enough in size that they were unable to ruin one another in this way.

Following the same logic, small companies like Phoenix, ZENN, and Tesla survive only because they occupy niche markets the big companies see as too small to warrant their competing in, and overlapping their main markets too slightly to much affect their revenues. Where the market of these companies to grow, the big companies would likely buy them from their original private owners or shareholders. In the business world of the last few centuries, in fact, being acquired by a large company is considered a sign of great success, and how many owners of small companies become rich. Without strong contradicting statements, we can reasonably assume that the owners of Pheoneix, ZENN, and Tesla would be delighted to have their companies acquired by Chrysler, Ford, or GM.

The only effective way, then, for there to truly be many small, independent companies competing in the main markets, is for governments to force this to occur by breaking up large companies, and forbidding more successful ones to use their relatively greater size to ruin less successful ones, or recombine via acquisitions. The main problem if government does this, is how to avoid unfairly protecting smaller, less successful companies that are less successful because their cars are simply less good, resulting in many end consumers being stuck with inferior products.

The ideal scenario is one in which a small company with a superior product is able, with only minimum support from the government in the form of assuring that their large competitors don’t ruin them with outright criminal acts (eg: threatening to or actually murdering their employees or vandalizing their property), win a growing share of the market. However, there are more barriers to this than just competition.

One of the greatest barriers involves how cars are actually sold to consumers. In the largest part, this is done through “brick and mortar” car dealerships that have contracts with one or a few manufacturers in which they agree only to sell only those manufacturer’s cars. Although niche market companies like Phoenix and Tesla are able to sell small numbers of cars via the internet and word of mouth, this can accommodate only a small number of customers.

To sell numbers of cars approaching those of the current big companies, new, small companies likely will need dealers. Creating a large number of contracted dealers, however, is difficult, so some alternative seems needed.

One possibility that come to mind are large, multi-store, nation or world-wide independent dealerships. Currently, in the US, only two to my knowledge, AutoNation and CarMax, matches this description, and only on a small scale, less than 2% of total new car sales (both are primarily used car stores).

Were business modeled after AutoNation and CarMax able to gain the majority of new car sales market from name-brand dealerships, the dealership bottleneck for small manufacturers could be reduced.

GAHD · March 31, 2009

:umno: Obviously neither of that big 3 is too big to be ruined or they wouldn't need bailouts :umno:

and I'm not talking about the monopoly breaking procedures (that bill Gates proved were futile and silly not too long ago). I'm talking about what happens when a company fails: It is put on the chopping block by the creditors who then sell off it's various pieces at discount auction prices.

I think that needs to happen and SHOULD happen.

I just HOPE that one or two of those plants continues producing the shells it currently does, and get bought out by Phoenix/zenn/others who might make a better go of it.

Dealers don't really care what they sell, just that it sells. And obviously "less successful companies that are less successful because their cars are simply less good, resulting in many end consumers being stuck with inferior products" Applies to the current situation quite a bit, or the big boys wouldn't be screaming for government milk.

robnibg · June 5, 2009

I know this is a bit off topic.

What's the minimum it would cost to build an electric car with a decent 200 mile range? Using either Lithium ion or Nano titanate batteries? What would batteries that large cost at current prices?

DFINITLYDISTRUBD · June 14, 2009

probably no more than it would cost to build any other type car...I'd say roughly 10 or 12 grand

Zythryn · June 14, 2009

10-12 Grand?? Not right now, although hopefully soon.

For a 200 mile range you need about 50Kw battery.

That alone would run well over 12k. Closer to 30-40k.

Now, in the future I would expect that to come down. Tesla's model S is planned to come in with a range of 160 miles for a total cost of $50k. While it is much closer to a reasonable price than the Roadster that is currently being sold, it is still a ways from affordable.

DFINITLYDISTRUBD · June 15, 2009

robnibg - What's the minimum it would cost to build an electric car with a decent 200 mile range?

Zythryn -
10-12 Grand?? Not right now, although hopefully soon.
For a 200 mile range you need about 50Kw battery.
Tesla's model S is planned to come in with a range of 160 miles for a total cost of $50k.

There has been no mention of how comfortable, fast powerful.....simply how cheap for the most basic rudamentary automotive transportation capable of traveling 200mi on a charge (assuming as it is not directly specified more implyed really).

In this day and age a 40 BHP internal combustion powered car would likely be laughed at....a twenty five horse, most definately would get you laughed at....my point there have been many capable (even wildly successful EX. Beetle, VW microbus) auto's that have been built with very minimal power and accessories...going minimal on all aspects of the vehicle might get you laughed at but will definately reduce the overall cost and weight of the machine...(which translates into more range/dollar thanks to less weight to move, less appetite from a smaller motor to move less weight, which means less battery is needed to git ya where yer tryin to go)...sadly we live in an era where even subcompacts are expected to b have high numbers and lots of gagets and gimickery.....you mention the Tesla cars... Do you really believe they're not planning to make a proffit on 'em?..and with the very limited production numbers (and of course due to a very limited market right now) a high enough margin to provide nice fat salaries for the executives as well as wages for the grunts who actually build the things?

ould you consider them to be the most basic of electric automotive transportation, Built to be as cheap as achievable, not as a fancy toy for the financially well off?

My point is under 12G is doable if you are willing to be saticefied with mediocre performance, a cheap light and compact structure, and very few amenities (in short an auto which is an auto nothing more).

You can but a two seater sport motorcycle with a top rated speed of 85MPH, lithium battery pack, and a range of roughly 85mi for around 6G (2.5G more for each additional battery packs)....which means you can easily build a compact two seater car with a top speed of 65 with a range of 195mi+/- for around 11G give or take for hired labor or the lack thereof... As I gots mad skillz as a mechanic, a welder and a fabricator I'd not hire anyone and would therefore save more cash than those less blessed;)

Zythryn · June 15, 2009

My point is under 12G is doable if you are willing to be saticefied with mediocre performance, a cheap light and compact structure, and very few amenities (in short an auto which is an auto nothing more).

You only quoted half of rob's question. Here is the whole question and the reason why 12k is not possible today.

What's the minimum it would cost to build an electric car with a decent 200 mile range? Using either Lithium ion or Nano titanate batteries? What would batteries that large cost at current prices?

He stipulated Lithium Ion or Nano titanate batteries, he also stipulated 'car'.

With those stipulations in place, I don't believe you could get under 30k for the batteries alone.

I do agree with you that the price would come down if you eliminate niceties and strip the vehicle down to simple a device to get you from point A to point B.

And in the future (near future I hope) economy of scale will hopefully play a part in making batteries cheaper. But right now, I don't think it could be done as cheaply as you mentioned.

DFINITLYDISTRUBD · June 15, 2009

I specificaly mention Lithium batteries (Ion or sulfide eludes me ath the moment fairly certain Ion though)

and that based on the cost of a limited production bike (and additional batteries of the same type) which uses said batteries one could build a compact car for roughly 11G.

For less power there is an even a cheaper production L-ion powered bike but it's range is 65 Mi at 65MPH....But a compact car for two with a loss of top speed and possibly range one could pull the cost below 8G.

But again one must be willing to give up a great deal of whats taken for granted in todays autos.

I am....but then my fave mode of transport amounts to an engine, trans, frame, lights, fuel tank and a seat...no radio, no heat or air conditioning, no floor, no roof, no windows;)....a bare auto as described be me amounts to a cabin (likely polycarbonate or ABS on a simple tube chassis), essential lights, bare minimum wipers, bare minimum heat, small cheap tires, very basic rigid plastic seats (beach buggy style) and a bare minimum motor to push it all down the line (the unit from either of the afforementioned bikes would likely be a good candidate).

I shall seek the links and provide them when found (had em but the demise of my old computer has me screwed up at the moment as far as valued data such as this goes at the moment.)

BTW I'm not trying to argue with you merely clarify

Zythryn · June 15, 2009

Dfinitly, I have been doing some searching.

I found this 2 seater: Electric Motorsport :: Electric GPR

60 Mile range (economy not performance) for $8500.

It is a 3.3kwh Lithium pack.

So this vehicle weighs in at 285 lbs without a driver. Giving it about 18 Miles/kw. This is phenomenal.

However, if you double the pack, you add another 90 lbs. What does that do to the miles/kw? It won't double it, as the added weight will cut into your range. A third pack and you have added 65% (about) to the curb weight.

Then add the weight of two more wheels, a larger frame, the seats (no matter how cheap).

Now, I was going under the assumption this would be a street legal vehicle capable of highway speeds.

I do believe you could make a beach style dune buggy for 12k, but I don't see a street legal car for anywhere close to that.

Unfortunately the only prices I have found are at Wiki, $2.8-$5/watt. So if we need 200 miles and can get 5 miles/kwh (the Th!nk City gets about 4mile/kwh but could be trimmed down some), we need a 40kwh pack.

At those prices, the pack would cost ... ok, those wiki numbers must be out of date. I can't see them costing as much as my math comes out to, or I am tired and have really messed up my math:)

I'll keep searching for some accurate costs of large lithium ion batteries.

Rob, if you see this, could you further define 'car' for us? Are you asking about a street legal, highway capable car, or something else?

Sign In

Electric car engineering issues

Recommended Posts

Roadam

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Zythryn

CraigD

GAHD

CraigD

belovelife

belovelife

GAHD

CraigD

GAHD

robnibg

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

Zythryn

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

Zythryn

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

Zythryn

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity