DIY Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This article was featured in a recent CalCars News release. It is very
complete, and would make interesting reading for any one on these lists.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5490
--
Steven S. Lough, Pres.
Seattle EV Association
6021 32nd Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-7230
Day: 206 850-8535
Eve: 206 524-1351
e-mail: [email protected]
web: http://www.seattleeva.org

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> The most interesting statement to me is that the California Air
> resources Board may actually be part of the problem. They require a car
> to last 10 years or 150,000 miles with original components (implied
> warantee, cool)
>
> Of course, that is easy to solve. the purchase comes with two packs. "1
> you pick up at time of vehicle sale and one at 5 years or 75K miles
> which ever comes last."

Or "batteries not included".

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
>The most interesting statement to me is that the California Air
>resources Board may actually be part of the problem. They require a car
>to last 10 years or 150,000 miles with original components (implied
>waraentee, cool)

The A123 cells will be able to do this. Having said that, we
must keep in mind that the calendar life is projected, not measured.
The technology would have to be at least ten years old to _prove_ a
ten year life span.

Rules like this stifle the application of new technologies.
I guess if you want to churn out the same old cars and not pay for
any R&D, this rule works to your advantage. It forces everyone to
"slow down" innovation.

Bill D.

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The one that was interesting to me was "third-party tester who requested an=
onymity because he wasn=92t authorized to speak to the
news media. He noted that even when the cells were subjected to severe abus=
e, including extreme overcharging, they failed in a
=93relatively benign fashion.=94"

I'm wondering if this was someone I've met ;-)

Mike,
Anchorage, Ak.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Bill Dube
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Very comprehensive Article on Li-Ion - Thanks to
> CalCars
>
>
>
> >The most interesting statement to me is that the California Air
> >resources Board may actually be part of the problem. They require a car
> >to last 10 years or 150,000 miles with original components (implied
> >waraentee, cool)
>
> The A123 cells will be able to do this. Having said that, we
> must keep in mind that the calendar life is projected, not measured.
> The technology would have to be at least ten years old to _prove_ a
> ten year life span.
>
> Rules like this stifle the application of new technologies.
> I guess if you want to churn out the same old cars and not pay for
> any R&D, this rule works to your advantage. It forces everyone to
> "slow down" innovation.
>
> Bill D.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
In a message dated 9/3/2007 5:48:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


The A123 cells will be able to do this. Having said that, we
must keep in mind that the calendar life is projected, not measured.
The technology would have to be at least ten years old to _prove_ a
ten year life span.

Rules like this stifle the application of new technologies.
I guess if you want to churn out the same old cars and not pay for
any R&D, this rule works to your advantage. It forces everyone to
"slow down" innovation.

Bill D.

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

and it also keeps all the ICE people proteced.




************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
After picking my self up of the floor, (that was very funny Lee), You
may have a really good point!

If we could establish some kind of set of commodity sizes and
standardized protocols, then "batteries not included" may be the perfect
solution.

I don't see it happening with current automotive suppliers, they like to
own everything. It would have to be approached more like the computer
industry does. This si what A123 and other battery companies should be
doing, not getting into bed with the car manufactures but establishing a
set of standards like the MPEG,VESA,PCI, 802.11, zigbee committees.

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

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
On 4 Sep 2007 at 6:54, Jeff Shanab wrote:

> After picking my self up of the floor, (that was very funny Lee), You
> may have a really good point!

Jeff was responding to Lee's "Batteries not included." I'll let Lee give
the final answer but I don't think he was joking. I'm not when I say that I
still think this is the way forward : sell the EV and lease the batteries.
It takes the largest maintenance problems off the user's shoulders and makes
it more likely that improvements in battery tech will be passed down to the
user.

Pressed for time and can't elaborate further right now but we've discussed
this several times in the past. If you're interested check the EVDL
archives.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


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

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Jeff Shanab wrote:
> If we could establish some kind of set of commodity sizes and
> standardized protocols, then "batteries not included" may be the
> perfect solution.

AA cells are the most common standard battery size. They represent about
50% of the total consumer market for non-rechargeable batteries all by
themselves! Notice that there are dozens of companies making them, and
they often sell for $1 or less. Consumers can easily replace them
themselves. Behold the benefits of mass production and standardization!

As a counterexample, the sub-C is the most common size of rechargeable
cell. They are also manufactured in huge quantities by dozens of
companies, and sell for $2 or so (same capacity as a AA cell but it is
rechargeable). But... no consumer product uses them as loose cells. They
are always glued or sealed into special proprietary boxes. There are no
standards; every product has a unique non-interchangeable battery box.
When they need replacement, consumers are expected to buy these
pre-boxed cells at extreme markups. It is not unusual to have to pay
$100 for a box with $10 worth of sub-C cells inside.

Now, you *can* cut open the battery box from your cordless drill or
camcorder or laptop, buy replacement cells from Radio Shack, and replace
the bad cells yourself. But the manufacturers make it hard; the cases
are difficult to open without wrecking them, the tabs between cells are
welded, etc.

> I don't see it happening with current automotive suppliers, they like to
> own everything.

Exactly. It is the "modern" way to do it. Lock 'em in, and keep it
secret so you can charge the bejesus out of 'em. Notice that all the
recent auto company EVs used special proprietary size batteries, that
can't be replaced with anything available to consumers on the open market.

We EVers are lucky that the standard golf cart battery exists. Without
it, our options for inexpensive reasonable-performing EVs would be
pretty grim.

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
On 4 Sep 2007 at 11:05, Lee Hart wrote:

> We EVers are lucky that the standard golf cart battery exists. Without
> it, our options for inexpensive reasonable-performing EVs would be
> pretty grim.

Some advanced batteries have been designed with a golf car battery size and
shape. The Eagle-Picher nickel-iron prototypes were, and so were Saft's
STM180s.

Both are out of production. I suppose that tells us that folks in the golf
car world weren't interested - what they have now works well enough.

That's the risk for a battery maker. Do you go for a potentially huge but
highly competitive market, with possible large volume but low per-unit
profit, or do you try to lock in a small and possibly unstable proprietary
market that will never yield volume (and may go away), but where the per-
unit profit is astronomical? (Rhetorical question)

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not
reach me. To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top