jdh2550_1's blog

Well, it's sort of mounted! I'm not going to bolt the motor mount to the motor platform until I have the front sprocket on the motor shaft - that way I can do a better job of lining things up (well that's the plan anyway).

Making the motor mount went fairly smoothly (apart from when I smashed my left pinkie with the 10lb engineer hammer - it's pretty much better now though). I purchased a 12" square piece of 0.25" thick aluminum from the metal supply place. I cut this into two 6"x12" strips. The first strip makes the motor platform and is bolted to the frame - I drilled through the frame for the mounting bolts. So far this is the first, and maybe only, frame modification. On the one hand I was leery about putting holes in the frame - on the other hand though (a) I'm adding a structural member & (b) the El-Ninja seems to have enough bolt holes to qualify as swiss cheese...

Here's a picture of the platform bolted in place (actually the bolts are just resting in the holes - nothing is tightened yet (hence the lack of washers on everything!)). The bolts closest to the camera are not at either end of the plate (like the ones at the back) because of the presence of the side stand welded to the bottom of frame rail:

With the other 6"x12" strip I made the motor mount. I drilled four holes to match the bolt pattern on the motor. Of course I didn't get it spot on - I had to file out three holes a bit, but not too much. I then used a 2 3/8" hole cutter to cut out the hole for the shaft (and there's a ridged ring around it hence the large size hole). I trashed the hole cutter - it was a cheap one anyway. The other one I bought didn't fit on my shank. So, using the 2/3rds cut hole as a guide I used a smaller drill to drill a ring of holes and then a file to finish the job. It was a PITA but it turned out OK.

To attach the motor mount to the motor platform I'm using two pieces of the 1" angle steel that I have. Hopefully the dissimilar metals won't bite me. I'll keep an eye out for corrosion and I can replace if necessary. Here's a couple of pics of the finished mount:

The final pic (below) shows the motor mount resting in place on top of the motor platform. I will fashion some form of simple support for the other end of the motor and then use some thin aluminum strap to wrap around the motor and keep the non-shaft end secure.

I'm pretty happy with how things came out. Of course if it all ends up as a twisted mess when I fire up the motor then it's back to the drawing board!

Now that the motor is in place I will mount all the "engine bay" batteries "for real". BTW, I managed to shave two inches off the width of the front bottom three. A Spring ride is certainly looking feasible at the moment...

I got my batteries delivered on Friday. I now have about 360lbs of lead to play with! Along with a whole bunch of other stuff and I need to fit it all in that poor, unsuspecting 750 frame...

I went to the local metal supply shop and bought some 1/8" strap and some L shaped as well. I've been playing around with specific mounting strategies in my mind for a while - now it was time to try them out for real. So far, touch wood, I've been reasonably happy with my progress.

The front four batteries are now in place. The lower three are held together by 4 L-shaped corners fastened together with 5/8" threaded rod. Four flat straps are used to provide top and bottom support and to form the third and fourth side of the box. The middle bottom battery rests on two brackets (made from the strap) which attach to pre-existing motor mounts. The fourth battery sits on top of the middle battery forming an inverted T. I'm reasonably happy with how it has turned out so far. I need to fasten the bottom middle battery to stop side to side and back to front movement - I plan on using more brackets made from flat strap and attached to the engine mounts and four more threaded rods. The additional straps will fasten to the frame and spread the load from the existing two straps (four bolts). The additional rods will be longer and will also fix the top battery in place.

The battery on top will also attach to the frame - different frame attaching point than the bottom battery - not sure on this yet. I'm holding off on mounting this top battery and the fifth battery (which sits over the top of the motor) until I've fitted the motor. I'm in process of ordering an ADC motor 6.75 inch diameter, 11.3 inch body length (not including shaft). It's rated at 8hp continuous, 35hp peak. It's a base mount motor and I'm hoping that I can simply attach a floor between the two frame rails and mount the motor to that. Not sure if I'll get the floor welded in place or whether I will drill into the frame and bolt the floor in place (Bidwell's El-Ninja uses lots of bolts in the frame). If I do go the drill and bolt route then I'm starting to think I might be able to complete this without welding (that was the original goal after reading Bidwell's book - but then I started to doubt the feasibility of this approach.)

Here's pics of what I've done so far. Bear in mind that nothing is finished or tightened down - it's still very much in the design stage. I sure wish I had access to a full metalwork shop and that I had the skills to fabricate better brackets - but seeing as so far I've used nothing more than a drill and a hand held grinder I'm pretty pleased with myself! (I run the risk of "pride before the fall"...)

OK, so it is kind of wide! Maybe I should have one of those "Wide Load" signs? I could have made it a little narrower (maybe 26 or 27 inches rather than 28). The original motor was about 23 inches at it's widest point but the bulk of it (the cylinder block) was probably more like 18 inches wide. Ah, whatever, at least the weight is low. This represents a little less than half the major weight addition - I have another 3 batteries to add and the motor (which is 60lbs of fun).

Hmmm, at the moment I'm actually starting to think I might be riding this in the spring... (this is by far the most ambitious mechanical project I have undertaken so I've approached it with a healthy dose of skepticism!).

Battery and Motor Layouts

The following pictures show my trial layouts using 55Ah batteries and an ADC motor (6.75" diameter, 11 inch length). The box for the batteries includes the terminal height and is also oversized by 1/4 inch (the internal measurment is the external measurement of the battery).

My design is now at 84V - which requires seven 12 volt batteries. When I researched my options I found out that a 96V capable speed controller was going to cost me about $1200. I found that Kelly Controllers do an 84V model for $389 - I need an extra DC-DC convertor in their circuit (the control voltage needs to be 24V).

Now, if I could manufacture real batteries which were this light I'd be a VERY rich man and I could use a Zilla (which is closer to $2000).

Layout One
This is my favorite layout. It packages 5 batteries within the frame rails in a simple to implement box. Two other batteries would go as saddlebags/paniers - I will probably make larger paniers so that I can mount 7 seperate 12 volt battery chargers on the bike (not sure about this yet). I feel comfortable that the weight distribution is appropriate (the batteries are 38.5lbs each and the gas motor was over 180lbs (I broke my bathroom scale trying to weigh the motor!). So the majority of the weight is where it "belongs" - in the engine bay and as close to center and as low down as possible. Also, no changes to any of the foot pegs or rear brake lever is needed - so ergonomics aren't affected. The downside of this design is that I can't run a chain directly from the motor (mounted where the battery and oil tank used to be) to the rear sprocket. The swing arm gets in the way - and there's no way I want to modify that. So, I'd need to use a jack shaft - and I'd need to figure out where to mount it.
Layout Two
Next up, layout number two, places the ADC motor so that the output shaft is approximately where the output drive of the gas motor was. Above it are the two side by side batteries which were on the bottom before. The fifth battery is where the ADC motor was in layout number one. This still keeps the weight centered, and the ADC motor is 65lbs so the weight of shifting two batteries higher vs. bringing the motor lower pretty much cancels out. The battery placement is more tricky now - but not too bad. However, this design is "tight" - until I get the real batteries I'm not confident I can make this all fit. In the photos the fifth battery is resting on the rear tire - however, in real life it will mount an inch or so higher. That gives some clearance but not enough. To make this design work I need to shift all the batteries forward slightly - to do this I'd need to grind away the "back side" of a bracket up by the front of the gas tank. I'm pretty sure that won't affect strength - but I'm still not sure I'd end up with enough clearance for the rear wheel (I can also put the rear wheel towards the back of the chain adjustment slot (and sacrifice adjustability). Another area where this design is "tight" is around the right foot peg and brake pedal. I will need to bend the brake pedal out - I might be able to leave the foot peg alone - or I might not. I don't think either of these are a deal breaker.
Layout Three
Layout three addresses the concerns of not having rear wheel clearance for the fifth battery in layout two. I've mounted one battery on top of the ADC and between the frame rails and then I've mounted two batteries outside the frame rails next to the front stack of two batteries. As I look at these photos I realize that I should move those outside batteries lower to get the weight lower down. I'm also a little concerned about putting too much weight too far foward on the bike - however, it's still within the profile of where the original gas motor was. Obviously this design sitll suffers from the "tightness" around the right foot area.

Front Profile

This last picture shows the front profile of the bike. It's for layout #1. Note that the ADC sticks out "a little bit but not too much" (hey, I never said I was an automotive engineer - this is as accurate as I get at this stage!).

So there you have it - three contenders. Any thoughts on which are best? Or a completely different set up? Feel free to leave comments or send me an email or PM (both can be done through links on this site). At the moment I'm thinking layout number three - but we'll see.

Finally, I'm trying to decide whether to look more at batteries to see if I can find something with higher Ah that I can still get to fit. I should probably do some more checking on the specs of my chosen Universal Battery UB12550 to see if they're up to the job...

Stop Press
The Universal Battery UB12750 (75Ah AGM) is the same height but 1.2 inches longer and 1.2 inches wider. I can fit them in the same basic layout as layout three above with the battery "on top of the motor" extending further back into the battery box compartment.

Well, when I'm not reading the daily soap opera posts (and participating from time to time!) over on the message boards I have made some progress with the CB-750. At the moment the new front runner is a 96V system, based on 55Ah UB12550's and an ADC MT2113.

Here's the original 72V graph, followed by the new 96V graph:

I'm not sure I can go as small as 9 teeth on the front sprocket - I need to check into that. If I can't not sure whether I'll just go as small as possible and settle for a higher top speed and less acceleration or whether I'll get a larger rear sprocket.

The 8 UB12550's fit better on the bike than the 6 UB121100. But, of course, I sacrifice range. The 6 110Ah's were a definite stretch in terms of packaging and overall weight. Plan was 4 in the engine compartment and 2 as saddle bags. With the 55Ah's I can get all 8 in the engine compartment. However, that might mount some of the weight a little too high - so I might go 6 up front and 2 in saddle bags. Of course, I could go with 120V and do 8 up front and 2 in saddle bags (or go completely mad and put 4 in saddlebags for 144V). OK, I'll stop getting greedy - and go forward with the idea of a 96V / 55Ah combination. However, I will check into motor options to see if I can find a motor rated for up to 120V or 144V and a suitable controller as well. That way I can start at 96V and then go crazy later if it doesn't all end in a nasty mess before then.

I'll post some pictures of the two different sets of battery configurations.

Next up:
1) Research 96V capable motors
2) Mock up motor and motor mount
3) Mock up battery box

Oooh, it's exciting isn't it?

OK, so I found a round tuit down the back of the sofa and decided to use it for calculating some numbers for my CB750 conversion. I've created a spreadsheet based off of Bob Brant's Build Your Own Electric Vehicle and John Bidwell's Secrets of El-Ninja. I used BYOEV for the required torque formulas, and I used El-Ninja for the available torque formulas (they were presented as a nice short list in the Bidwell book!). I used the co-efficient of drag and frontal area figures from the defaults on the electricmotorcycles.net calculator (http://electricmotorcycles.net/modules/toolbox/battery_worksheet.php)

You can see the spreadsheet at: http://www.editgrid.com/user/jdh2550/CB-72V - if you want to use it yourself then you can get a free edit grid account (takes 5 minutes to setup) and do a Save As ... and create your own copy because you can't edit this sheet directly. BTW, the graph is on the summary tab and all the gory details are on the calcs tab. The other tabs are all work in progress.

Here's the pretty picture I drew:

The lines that run "left to right" are the required torque for various gradients (from level through 25%). The lines that run "up and down" are the available torque for a Perm 132 @ 72V - these are plotted for 3 different ratios (1) the original ratio on the bike right now; (2) the ratio Bidwell uses for El-Ninja & (3) the ratio I'm thinking will be best for me. So, where the "up-down" line crosses the bottom "left-right" line is my theoretical top speed - around about 66mph. The tick marks are at 25A intervals - so I'll be drawing around 120A @ 66mph. The Perm is rated for 110A continuous - so I reckon 60mph should be fine. I figured the available torque by calculating y=mx+c equations for the speed and torque values off of the 72V Perm chart. I only had a small chart so I upsized it and then used a ruler to measure off the values - it's close but it certainly isn't spot on (I don't even know if the torque and speed lines are really 100% linear).

Bottom line is that this exercise tells me that I'm not crazy - I should be able to get a 60mph cruising speed out of the beast without frying the motor. It also tells me that I'll likely be out accelerated by a Festiva By my reckoning I'll be able to accelerate at around 3.5 mph per second - which gives a 0 to 60 time in 17.1 seconds (btw, does anyone know why it's the de facto standard to use 0 to 60? - just curious). With that accel I'll be drawing 400A which will push the poor little Perm if I do that too much.

Update
OK, so I used the chart provided for this motor: http://www.evparts.com/shopping/product_details.php?id=533&product_id=1107 (as suggested by Andrew - thanks!). I read off the values for torque and rpm given amps between 25 and 325 in steps of 25 - yes I am that anal! Added them to the graph above. Getting kind of hard to read now. A couple of points to mention - the top two speeds for the original ration for the ADC have been truncated - so when counting "ticks" one has to start at 75A not 25A. The relationship between amps, torque and speed is clearly not linear for the ADC - yet I calculated as linear (and it's darn close according to this graph which I used as the basis for the calculation).

I'm a little nervous that my available torque curves are bogus. But, what the heck - at least it's not a billion dollars worth of Mars rover... So, I'm pressing onwards with what I've got.

Approximate values for top speed for both motors for my proposed ratio are:

Perm 132 @ 72V		ADC MT2113 @ 72V
Amps (A)	Speed (MPH)	Amps (A)	Speed (MPH)
125	65	150	68

So, the ADC will turn faster at higher amps - however, at 150amps I'm 50% over the continuous rating (listed as 100A). The Perm will give me a top speed of 65 at 125amps, this is only 13% over the continuous rating (listed as 110A).

In Summary: At the moment I plan to use a Perm 132 @ 72V with UB121100 batteries - using a 13 tooth cog on the front sprocket and sticking with the 48 tooth cog on the rear wheel.

Of course after doing some battery math I might change my tune...

Next Up:
1) Start poking at Peukert's law to try and figure some expected ranges (although Bidwell offers twovery simple rule of thumb calculations (a) 30mph steady state range = pack kWhours * 9.8 & (b) stop-and-go range = pack kWhours * 7). This will be the subject of an exciting new blog entry... (I bet you can hardly wait, eh?)

A big thank you to Jason and Jennifer! I picked up Jennifer's 1973 CB-750 this weekend - after a decade of no use they decided it was time to say goodbye. I promised to ride it back under electric power - but not for a while yet!

This weekend was spent stripping down the bike. It went remarkably easily - I mean I didn't even skin any knuckles! Getting the motor out was the biggest challenge but as of 3pm this afternoon the bike lost the last of it's old, loud, smelly, inefficient, oil burning, carbon dioxide belching parts. Know anyone who needs any CB-750 engine parts? Craig's list here I come...

Now that the bike is stripped down I want to weigh it and start mocking up cardboard components (batteries, motor, controller) and figure out placement. My goal is 60-65mph top speed and a 50 mile range. Not sure how close I'll get - but that's the goal.

My current plan is a 72V system. I was thinking of going with a Perm 132 motor - but Andrew has got me considering an ADC motor. The ADC's aren't as efficient or as high powered as the Perm - but they are much more robust. If I go up to 96V I could drop the amperage further - but I just don't think I can squeeze on eight batteries of sufficient Ah.

So far so good - but of course this was the easy part...

Next up: Doing some math (should make Mum proud - she's a retired math teacher!)

This weekend I converted my gas lawnmower to battery powered electric!

It was really easy. Research involved reading this page: http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Vehicles/LeeMower.htm

Three bolts and two cables detached the gas engine from the deck. Once removed I used a Tecumseh 90000A electric motor. This is a motor designed for lawnmowers - it's rated at 1.5HP continuous (using the "peak equals 3 times continuous" rule of thumb it should be good for about 4.5HP peak - and the gas motor being replaced was rated at 4HP). The 90000A also is designed to mount to a mower deck. The downside of the 90000A is the price - about $190 - however, I decided to go this route because it greatly increased my chances of success

Two out of three holes on the 90000A lined up with my Sears Craftsman 22" deck. I simply drilled out the third. The old motor had threaded holes in the motor casing - the new one didn't have threading. So, three new nuts, bolts and washers to attach the motor.

I made the battery platform by simply cutting a piece of 2 by 4 and mounting it on the deck with angle brackets. This was one end of a support for a plywood battery deck. The other end simply rests on the rear end of the deck (I use a mulching blade so I'm not concerned about restricting the movement of the rear springloaded door). The batteries sit on top of this and are strapped down with two heavy duty rubber straps. This works for my environment - you might want something more sturdy depending on your yard layout.

The circuit is as follows:

The blade mounts to the keyed motor output shaft via a rectangular blade adapter. The output shaft itself is threaded - you slip on the adapter and then the blade and bolt both to the shaft. The old one was seized tight so I ordered a new one from Sears online parts store.

Notes:
1) I don't have a deadman's handle anymore. Both the breaker and the switch are in easy reach so I'm not concerned - however, an improvement would be to use the old springloaded handle with some form of high amp limit switch. I just re-read the above page and I notice that Lee is using the deadman's handle to operate the same style of breaker that I have - so I might try that out.
2) I placed the breaker between the batteries - it was a convenient place to mount it and I switch it off to allow both batteries to be charged seperately (with cheapo $18 1.5A battery chargers from Wal-Mart)
3) The volt meter was designed to mount into a 12V power socket (cigarette lighter) - so I just wired it to one of the two batteries - should be good enough.

The original mower was self-propelled and I didn't convert that feature. I might look at dismantling the engine casing and seeing if I can somehow salvage the gearing and output shaft for the self propel mechanism. But I probably won't bother. My yard isn't that big (we inherited the mower when we bought the house - I doubt I would have ever got a self propelled mower for our small yard).

Here's the parts list:

Part	Price in USD	Notes
Motor - Tecumseh 90000A	190	This used to be available as a surplus item for $70. Another approach would be to use a cheaper 1 to 1.5HP DC brushed motor with a shaft speed of about 3000 RPM - it should be relatively easy to create a mounting plate
50A Circuit Breaker, 50A Switch & #6 Gauge Lugs	25	Peak draw for this 24V system will be about 45A - in general you won't find this stuff in your local hardware store. Look at boat supply places instead
#6 Gauge wire	5	You can get this at Home Depot or Lowes
Assorted hardware	10
2 U1 sized flooded lead acid batteries	40	I'm hoping these cheapie batteries will have enough juice - I only mow my lawn about a dozen times a year (lots of tree cover) so if I get 50 cycles I'll be more than happy
Battery Platform	0	made from leftover scraps - I'm going for function here, not form!
Blade Adapter	8	You might not need this - my old one was seized on tight so I bought a replacement from www.sears.com
SUB TOTAL	278
Optional Accesories
Digital battery meter	15
2 cheapo 1.5A battery chargers	36
Sticking it to Condoleezza’s friends over at Chevron	PRICELESS	What more can I say?

Yes, I can get a push mower for that price - and that's even more environmentally friendly. Yes, I can get a corded or low-end cordless mower for that price. However, a few counterpoints: (a) my deck is 22" - bigger than those options, (b) my batteries are removable and cheaply replacable, (c) I already had the mower so it's more eco-friendly to recycle than replace.

BTW, my neighbor just bought a 14" mower with a plastic deck - she paid around $400 - so my $278 doesn't seem too bad.

Of course, at the end of the day I mostly did this simply because I could!

But now it's your turn - get rid of the gas in your life...

This opinion piece was published in the Ann Arbor News in July. When it was published I realized quite how long it was (must have been a slow news day!). It ran in the Sunday edition with a large artist sketch of a Zap-X and the title "Idea for the Billionaires". Gosh, darn it - I admit it - this one was good for the ego.

I decided to write it after coming to my own realization that expecting the Auto Industry to solve this problem is impractical. IMO, history demonstrates that they are unwilling to do so and even if we could "force them" via legislation we would get a crappy job (if there heart isn't in it then what would you expect?) I was also uncomfortable with the plug-in hybrid and especially with the bio-fuels hype with most of the auto industry latching on to one or both of these convenient, yet flawed, "silver bullets".

At the time this was published I wasn't using an EV myself. Whoops. I felt distinctly uncomfortable about that and so I decided to bring forward my EV plans and started looking for something I could do today. After considering a self-conversion and buying someone else's conversion I came across the XM-2000. I've been happy ever since...

---

Title: Idea for the Billionaires

It seems that at last battery electric vehicles are about to have their time in the sun. In truth they are an old technology waking up from a long slumber. Did you know that around 1912 or so there were more electric cars sold than gasoline engined ones? How times have changed! However, there now seems to be a glimmer of hope.

Tesla Motors producers of the much talked about one hundred thousand dollar roadster are several steps closer to delivering their 2007 model year car to 400 customers who have already paid their hefty deposits. The company claims a zero to sixty time of less than 4 seconds and a 200 mile range. The company also claims that they are on track to sell 1,000 roadsters in 2008. Their publicized strategy is to start at the high end and work their way down into a mid range vehicle - a 4 door sedan codenamed Whitestar.

Zap! (whose company name stands for Zero Air Pollution) is branching into the "big leagues". This California company currently sells what can be best described as "funky" neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV). However they are currently publicizing the Zap X - a 5+2 passenger cross over vehicle, with the latest in-wheel electric motors it boasts a projected top speed of 155mph and a 0 to 60 time of 4.8 seconds. Numbers to rival the Tesla but with room for the family. However, they top the Tesla with a claim of a 350 mile range and a 10-minute recharge time. Although I can't find the reference - I believe they hope for a $60,000 price tag. All those numbers seem too good to be true - and like you I would probably dismiss them. However, the company is working with Lotus Engineering (the famous British automotive legend) - the same folks that worked with Tesla Motors. Furthermore the in-wheel electric motors have already been incorporated into a Mini (creating a claimed 600+hp!!). Time will tell. They expect to deliver it about the same time that Chevy deliver the Volt.

Numerous companies are announcing advancements in battery and quick-charging technologies. There's even a new Automotive X Prize - an equivalent to the Space X Prize from a few years back. It offers a multi-million dollar cash prize for the winning designs. So, there are certainly some glimmers of hope.

My belief is that a sweet spot for mass sales is 100/80/20. Working backwards that's $20,000 for a car that does 80mph (and accelerates there in around 10 seconds) and has a range of 100 miles. The car should be similar in capabilities and features to a mid-size gas car. Sure, a 200 mile range would be better - but I'm not sure my target price supports that. Furthermore - if someone actually tried to educate and market to car buyers effectively then many would see that a 100 mile range is sufficient for 95% of their needs. Heck, the way car companies throw around promotional dollars to increase sales they could easily throw in 2 or more weeks of free car rental a year for those longer trips.

Of course the car companies will never do that. I've come to the conclusion that we'd be crazy to ask them to. A pure battery electric vehicle (BEV) is a disruptive technology - one that has the potential to turn the traditional automobile industry on its head. Think about it - a BEV is simpler, requires less maintenance, no gas and will last far longer than a gasoline equivalent. All these things mean less money for the automobile and oil industries. Why on earth would they embrace that change? It's more expedient for them to lobby to protect their position. They will spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) - seeking to confuse and to scare the public. Already the lobbyists are first talking about the "infeasability" of the proposed CAFE standard increases only to replace that argument (which made them sound kind of lame!) with "possible reduction in safety". This is FUD at it's very best - Jane Doe to John Doe: "Well, I sure like my big SUV it makes me feel safe - I hear those newer more efficient cars are so light that they're not safe". John replies: "Right, the car industry says it's not even feasible". Of course the lobbyists can point to weasle words in their statements or later quietly retract them altogether. However the damage is done - the perception is introduced (or rather reinforced - they've been peddling these lines for a long time now!).

What about hybrids, bio-fuels, fuel-cells and hydrogen? Aren't they the way of the future? Aren't the car companies investing in those? Yes, and guess what - most of them are flawed. Hybrids increase fuel economy but they still contain complex, costly and inefficient internal combustion engines. Did you know that a gas engine is only about 25 to 35 percent efficient? To put it another way for every $4 of gas you put in the tank only $1 of it get turns into power for the wheels - the other $3 just gets turned into wasted heat. In my opinion bio-fuels are the biggest scam out there - a good idea on the small scale it just doesn't cut it for the US vehicle fleet. The amount of corn (or other crop) that would need to be grown to fuel cars would need to cover about 2/3rds of the US. The reason it gets so much support is twofold - the agriculture industry loves it and the car industry barely has to make any changes to make their engine designs "flex-fuel" friendly. Fuel-cells and Hydrogen are certainly new technologies that bear promise - but they are years, if not decades, away from production readiness whereas "good enough" batteries already exist today. Furthermore the amount of energy it takes to produce Hydrogen makes it less efficient than a battery electric vehicle.

Despite the lobbyists and the FUD I'm still hopeful that the all electric vehicle will blossom. There are companies with money and know-how in the game. But still I'm an impatient optimist and I can't afford a $60,000 automobile! So, I propose we ask Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to divert some of the funds of the Gates Foundation to form an electric car company. Make it privately held by the Foundation so that it won't suffer from the demands of Wall Street analysts and talking heads (and Bill and Melinda can keep the profits for their very noble fight against common diseases). Be warned though, they will need to fund it with big money - about a billion should do it. They can also use their clout to lobby for some real tax breaks (how come you can get around $20,000 of tax break on a Hummer but the $3,000 break on the Prius is no more because they've already "sold too many"?). Gates is apparently a car guy (and there's a famous story about how he said if the car industry progressed at the rate of the computer industry we'd already be at 100 miles per gallon). So let's let him and Buffet pick the best of the best to design, develop, produce, market and sell. I also hear that Bill Ford is a frustrated environmentalist - held back by his board. Perhaps a Bold Move (Ford's recent advertizing slogan) would be for Bill to join such a venture - you can't argue that cars aren't in his blood! With a winning team they can produce that 100/80/20 car and they can take profits and leadership away from Toyota and help reduce our oil dependency.

So, Bill, Warren and Bill - if you happen to be reading - what do you say? Feel free to drop me a line I've plenty more ideas for you all...

---

Since writing this I've been contacted several times by Bill, Warren and Bill - I've had to tell them to quit bugging me...

Also, since writing this I've found some references to certain bio-fuel crops that can be grown in the marginal agricultural land in poorer countries. That offsets some of my concern about bio-fuel. IMO, this makes bio-fuel a possible stop gap approach rather than an out and out boondoggle for the giant Agri businesses...

This article ran in the Ann Arbor News in January '07. I wrote it after reading an editorial by the business writer that dismissed the EV1 as impractical and praised the Volt as exciting...

---

I share Mr. Haglund's excitement over the new Chevy Volt - it's a great way for GM to play catch up after being ahead 10 years ago. I wish them luck and I'd like to buy one. I would have preferred to buy an EV1 - but alas I won't have that chance.

However, I take issue that your article perpetuates the perceived wisdom (given to us by those who wish to protect a market position) that a purely electric vehicle isn't practical today. It is, and the EV1 by GM was an extremely competent first-generation attempt. The three most pertinent questions for electric vehicles can be summed up as "how far", "how fast" and "how much"? The 10-year-old EV1 did a fine job at most all of those. Furthermore, who today doesn't see 10 years as a venerable antique when it comes to high tech? Just imagine where the 3rd, 4th or 5th generation EV1s might be if GM had committed its finest engineers and best business people to the challenge?

Why do I feel that the EV1 was such a worthwhile and exciting first step? Let's consider those three questions:
1) How far? The later EV1s with batteries invented and manufactured by Ovonics (a company based here in Michigan) gave a range of 100+ miles. Bear in mind that the Department of Transportation Bureau of Statistics states that Americans drive an average of only 29 miles per day.
2) How fast? In terms of acceleration the EV1 was "sports car fast". In terms of cruising speed it could hold it's own on the interstate and cruise comfortably in the 70mph - 80mph range that most seem to drive at today.
3) How much? According to wikipedia the lease price was $33,995 to $43,995. That's certainly expensive but it's not as stratospheric as people are lead to believe and many of us drive far more expensive vehicles. The "fuel costs" (i.e. the cost to charge it) have been cited as equivalent to 60 cents per gallon. The total cost of ownership is reduced further because servicing costs are a lot lower (not only no gas in the tank but no oil changes, or oil filters, or sparkplugs, fewer brake jobs, no clutch or automatic tranmission overhaul, etc.)

So from my perspective (and I hope others too) the EV1 was practical ten years ago - yet you dismiss it as impractical in one sentence. I also have a question for you - why was the EV1 only practical for driving in warm weather states? (I've not heard anything about this possible shortcoming and I would like to understand it more).

That's the technological side of your article that I take issue with. Let's start educating people about the real world benefits of pure electric vehicles and let's do it in a non-political fashion.

But wait, there's more. While not necessarily a political piece your column provides GM with a free pass when it comes to canning the EV1 program. Shouldn't we hold up the world's largest automaker to a higher standard of accountability? Quite frankly they dropped the ball on this one. They had the chance to be a leader, not a follower, and to consolidate on the real world gains that they had in their hands with the EV1. What did they do? They threw it away. Fast forward to today and they are stumbling in the marketplace and the Japanese automakers are further advanced in the field of hybrids (and one would imagine that will transfer to gains in plug in hybrid electric vehicles which will compete with the Volt).

Having waited to be a follower, the GM marketing machine (including Messrs. Wagner & Lutz at the top) now proclaim their excitement about electric vehicles as the wave of the future with the Volt just a possible 3 years away. Their behavior is not surprising - that's what they're supposed to do to ensure that their company looks smart (not dumb). What is sad is that we as a public accept their words at face value. It is especially sad that you as a member of the media with a mission to look beneath the surface and educate your readership seem content to put forth GM's company line.

Some final food for thought:
- the billions of dollars that market to the current trends perpetuate the myth that people don't want an electric vehicle
- the Bush administration policies are pro-oil and indeed it was the under the Bush administration that the federal government sued California over the zero-emmission regulation
- when GM canned the EV1 they sold their controlling share in the battery maker to Chevron who locked down the patent and won't license the technology to be used in a pure electric passenger vehicle

Mod: Moving the battery around
Benefit: More under seat storage
Cost: $0*
Complexity: Easy

* cost based on materials I had to hand

---

Well I completed my first simple modification. The original layout of batteries in the XM-2000 is "weird" to put it politely. My guess is that this layout was the cheapest way of taking their 48V model and making it 60V (even down to the point of minimum impact on the original wiring). The way the extra battery is installed puts it slap bang in the middle of the under seat storage and so they just put a "false floor" over the top of it - giving you just enough room for carrying the charger and not much else.

The original battery layout is, well, weird!

By simply rotating that top battery through 90 degrees and shifting it back so that it sits over the top of the last battery frees up about 2/3rds of the original under seat storage. I also changed the order of the batteries in the string - the new order lets me reuse all the original wiring with the new battery positions and to me it makes the wiring of the battery string much more logical.

My new battery layout suggestion - it also re-orders the batteries in the string

Step 1: remove the bodywork and expose the batteries - see Kringle's XM-2000 Battery/Body Panel Access (I'm getting good at this process now!)

Step 2: unwire all five batteries

Step 3: cut a length of wood to act as a spacer between the bottom back battery and the newly positioned top battery. I used a piece of scrap wood (4 by 1 or something similar). Affix the wooden spacer to the bottom battery with industrial Velcro - and then affix the top battery to the top of the spacer with more Velcro (I used a couple of two inch wide strips on each).

Battery spacer in place on top of what is now battery #3 awaiting battery #5 to sit on top of it

Step 4: Rewire all five batteries as shown in the new layout above. You can reuse the wires and you should find that they're plenty long enough (in fact the 2 -ve to 3 +ve lead is really too long - a bus bar would be better).

Step 5: You can test your work at this point - check that the voltage between battery 1 +ve terminal and battery 5 -ve is 63.x volts. If it's not then check your wiring.

Now it's time to cut bits off your XM-2000. Remember measure twice and cut once. I didn't - and I overdid it a bit. No great problem though.

Step 6: Cut out the back and sides of the under seat storage unit. This is where I overdid things and cut away too much of the side wall.

The "hacked" battery compartment - don't cut as much of the side wall away as I did

Step 7: Cut out the lip that sits around the hole where the top battery used to live - this will give a flatter floor for the new floor of your under seat storage compartment.

Note that I've cut away the lip to give a flatter floor for the new compartment

Step 8: Reassemble (reverse of disassembly)

Step 9: Take the original false floor of the battery compartment and cut it into two sections. The back section will cover the top of the newly positioned battery, the front section will go at the bottom of the battery compartment. The back part is roughly 1/3rd and the front 2/3rds. You will need to trim the front piece to get it to sit all the way down at the bottom of the storage area (the sides angle in and there are some parts of the frame you need to clear).

The old false floor cut in pieces to make a new false floor - but mine's split level - very 70's home design chic!

You could stop at this point (I did).

The (almost) finished project - see that honking great gap I created? I did it on purpose, improved airflow, honest...

Step 10: Strap the new top battery to the back of the bike. This will help stop the battery shifting during heavy braking. The Velcro is probably enough and is similar to how the top battery was originally secured. However, I recommend the strap. I plan on using an old tie down strap that had frayed through (see, I knew I didn't throw it away for a reason!)

Step 11: Make a back wall for the new battery compartment. I'd suggest using a plastic of some description or plywood. I wouldn't use cardboard - it needs to be reasonably weatherproof for splashes from the back wheel. This back wall isn't structural - it just stops crap from rolling back into the battery compartment (and if it's metal crap then you definitely need to keep it away from those batteries - right?)

All done. OK, so none of this was rocket science but it does give you more usable space - enough for a small bag of groceries.

Constructive criticism welcome.

Next Up

---

1) reinstalling my PowerCheqs with the new battery layout (plus I made a real hash of my first attempt at installing these)
2) installing my PakTrakr
3) installing a couple of 12V power sockets
4) installing my XM receiver and speakers for some much needed tunes (so I'll have XM on my XM!)