In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
It's only defying the laws of physics if efficiency is over 100%
That would only be true (staying with electricity) if wires (or any other method of “moving” electricity) had zero resistance. As far as I know, the only easy to get copper (one of the materials with the least resistance) anywhere close to zero resistance, is in a lab cooled to temps. approaching zero deg. Kelvin. As long as there is resantance and other losses, numbers less than 100 could be.
Have you ever seen the generator that floats in the air and powers itself forever? I’ve seen it advertised. It’s a real thing. Just not what it is advertised as.
03Panther said:
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
It's only defying the laws of physics if efficiency is over 100%
That would only be true (staying with electricity) if wires (or any other method of “moving” electricity) had zero resistance. As far as I know, the only easy to get copper (one of the materials with the least resistance) anywhere close to zero resistance, is in a lab cooled to temps. approaching zero deg. Kelvin. As long as there is resantance and other losses, numbers less than 100 could be.
Have you ever seen the generator that floats in the air and powers itself forever? I’ve seen it advertised. It’s a real thing. Just not what plot is advertised as.
AH, I see, the goalposts are shifting from the motor's efficiency to the whole system's efficiency...
In reply to kb58 :
In efficiency discussions, we have not been able to get past if 90%is a realistic number for a motor or not. Lots are convinced, but “they said” needs a bit more time n he way of facts for me
And so far all attempts have brought up that they are better than engines (or internal combustion motors as some still call them) as their explanation. It does not explain anything about what happened to the very high losses from many years ago.
The losses from moving through transmission lines is still in question as well. A site that says only 5 % loss (there own numbers disagree with) does not mean 5% loss is accurate. Explaining how power plants work, while interesting, does not either.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Others did that. Not me. I’m only asking two questions.
1. An explanation of how electric motor can over come all the inefficiency’s inherent in changing electrical energy (measured in watts, or more appropriately joules - but that’s a had number for me to convert after all these years)
2. The losses in transmission lines (NOT a car transmission). It’s really only two parts of one question.
Not insulting any one , or their statements. Will disagree, if I don’t agree, but I try to be polite, as I expect people to be to me
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Btw. That picture of the Tesla drivetrain is fantastic. Lots I could do with that. Unfortunately, will never get to a price point I could afford!
03Panther said:
And so far all attempts have brought up that they are better than engines (or internal combustion motors as some still call them) as their explanation. It does not explain anything about what happened to the very high losses from many years ago.
You've said yourself in this thread that those very low efficiency numbers are half-remembered from classes 40 years ago. Are you sure they're accurate? If you look at table 3-3 (page 3-5) of this document, you'll see that while electric motors are more efficient than they used to be, they were never THAT inefficient. The chart bottoms out at 80%. Maybe what you're remembering is more like the percentage of a ton of coal that gets turned into power at the shaft of a motor, or something else using a different basis of calculation
Really, the efficiency range of motors is more of a constant than anything we can do anything about. Same with whatever the energy transmission losses are for electricity versus the cost of delivering any other source of power.
Old ICE cars are never going to be repowered with a quick and easy EV kit picked up at Walmart despite what it says in William Gibson books, so the idea of taking a high-emissions Camry and turning it into an EV of any level of competence for less than the cost (montary as well as time and cost to the environment) of just fixing the emissions system or taking the car off the road is a pipe dream. We're not going to save the world by modifying the existing ICE fleet.
So we'll be building retro-EVs for some other reason. Could be because it's fun. Could be because they have a specific performance characteristic we want. It may even be to keep some weird car on the road without putting an off-brand ICE in it. But it's not likely to be to save money, engine swaps have never ever been about saving money :)
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Thanks for the link. I’ll have to look at it when I have access to a better screen than my phone!
yes, half remembered, that’s why I’m asking for evidence in addition to anything provided so far. Your link may help!
def. NOT remembering anything as complicated as your thought there. 
just simple Watts in, mechanical power out, relation. If the super high numbers turn out to be real, and not just promotional fluff, it’s no fault except my memory!
thanks for bearing with me
i do know that there is not any 100% conversion of one form of energy into another except in a lab controlled environment, and maybe not then!
Sometimes engine swaps have been done on shoe string budgets, so I don’t thing that applies. An electric swap is always going to be more. But I could have bought a “factory” s10 conversion motor/trans/controller for $600, bolt in operation in a GM rwd application, and add batteries. I would call that pretty cheap. Not the most effective combo, but interesting, and a bunch cheaper than that cool azz compact Tesla package.
In the 90’s I read about an old dodge colt with an electric motor turning 9 sec. 1/4’s. I was really getting into the car, till the owner was quoted as bragging about the car requiring no power to run. “You just plug it in to charge the battery, so there is zero impact on the environment “. Uh, no.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
DaewooOfDeath said:
Would I convert an ICE car that I liked to run on bio-fuel? Absolutley. I plan to do exactly this to my next project for reasons of lower combustion temperatures and less toxicity.
So you know, many bio fuels act almost exactly the same as the original fuel does. And on the TP, post catalyst the differences are even less. Oh, and the harmful chemicals they make are worse in some aspects. But that's for a totally different thread.
You seem to think I was virtue signaling, sir. ;)
Less toxic to me, a little less toxic to the people around me and generally cheaper. Lower combustion temperatures are the big one.
03Panther said:
Sometimes engine swaps have been done on shoe string budgets, so I don’t thing that applies. An electric swap is always going to be more. But I could have bought a “factory” s10 conversion motor/trans/controller for $600, bolt in operation in a GM rwd application, and add batteries. I would call that pretty cheap. Not the most effective combo, but interesting, and a bunch cheaper than that cool azz compact Tesla package.
What package is that? You can't even buy an LS3 control unit and loom for that, never mind the actual power plant!
In reply to Keith Tanner :
It was on local C. L for a year or so... don’t know if it ever sold, or if he just quit trying. It was early 90’s conversion to a s10. I assume by the sellers wording it was done to the truck while still brand new. In the early 90’s. For a fleet - I don’t remember who he said.
I don’t know what a ls3 control unit is. I’m not trying to compare 1990 electric conversion to a Tesla!!!
sorry my post didn’t mention year.
DaewooOfDeath said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
DaewooOfDeath said:
Would I convert an ICE car that I liked to run on bio-fuel? Absolutley. I plan to do exactly this to my next project for reasons of lower combustion temperatures and less toxicity.
So you know, many bio fuels act almost exactly the same as the original fuel does. And on the TP, post catalyst the differences are even less. Oh, and the harmful chemicals they make are worse in some aspects. But that's for a totally different thread.
You seem to think I was virtue signaling, sir. ;)
Less toxic to me, a little less toxic to the people around me and generally cheaper. Lower combustion temperatures are the big one.
What I'm trying to say is that the lower combustion temps don't translate all that great to the tailpipe emissions. It helps one constituent, but normally at the expense of another, especially when the engine is starting the first time of the day.
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
DaewooOfDeath said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
DaewooOfDeath said:
Would I convert an ICE car that I liked to run on bio-fuel? Absolutley. I plan to do exactly this to my next project for reasons of lower combustion temperatures and less toxicity.
So you know, many bio fuels act almost exactly the same as the original fuel does. And on the TP, post catalyst the differences are even less. Oh, and the harmful chemicals they make are worse in some aspects. But that's for a totally different thread.
You seem to think I was virtue signaling, sir. ;)
Less toxic to me, a little less toxic to the people around me and generally cheaper. Lower combustion temperatures are the big one.
What I'm trying to say is that the lower combustion temps don't translate all that great to the tailpipe emissions. It helps one constituent, but normally at the expense of another, especially when the engine is starting the first time of the day.
Understood and agreed.
While I am all for lowering emissions, the biggest reason I want lower combustion temperatures is because it will help me NOT melt stuff when I'm mercilessly beating my car for an hour at a time.
03Panther said:
I don’t know what a ls3 control unit is. I’m not trying to compare 1990 electric conversion to a Tesla!!!
sorry my post didn’t mention year.
An LS3 control unit is the computer you need to run a gasoline LS3 V8 :) GM sells them along with crate engines. I thought you were talking about something actually available from a dealer for that price.
Obsolete EV setups don't have a lot of residual value - they were always a bit marginal, and the tech has taken massive leaps of late. I don't think we're quite at the point where it's matured to the point where retrofits are quite ready, mostly due to a lack of good modular modern battery options. I'm hoping GM will be the savior there, as they've got a new line of power train bits coming towards production and they're investing big right now. But it'll take a while for used prices to fall to the $600 level. Heck, you can't even buy the manual transmission from a 20 year old Camaro for that little.
Rich Rebuilds is doing a 5K EV Build right now from a basic Brushed DC motor and salvaged parts bought second hand; he's trying for the Lemons rally EV rule now. He's showed that most his parts came from secondhard EV builders who've had the stuff literally for years that were bought for pennies versus what they went for originally.
03Panther said:
What I am actually asking is an explaination of how numbers could be that high, without defying the laws of physics. My study’s were years ago, so things have improved some... I just have trouble believing it could be that much. “Because it is” isn’t really answering my question.
Oh! So you're asking for whole system efficiency? Like, how much power in --> X amount of power out kind of deal?
I can say- only as a hobbyist- that all copper busbars I've ripped out of packs have been extremely short. Hell come to think of it, each pack i've ripped apart used the batteries themselves to take up as much space as possible from it's destination (inverter and motor) to genesis (Charge port). That also aligns with the Tesla inverter placement and the Leaf's- their inverters are RIGHT next to the motors, and in both cases actually share coolant circuts to keep direct connections short. Maybe that's part of how their efficiency is so great?
DaewooOfDeath said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
DaewooOfDeath said:
alfadriver (Forum Supporter) said:
DaewooOfDeath said:
Would I convert an ICE car that I liked to run on bio-fuel? Absolutley. I plan to do exactly this to my next project for reasons of lower combustion temperatures and less toxicity.
So you know, many bio fuels act almost exactly the same as the original fuel does. And on the TP, post catalyst the differences are even less. Oh, and the harmful chemicals they make are worse in some aspects. But that's for a totally different thread.
You seem to think I was virtue signaling, sir. ;)
Less toxic to me, a little less toxic to the people around me and generally cheaper. Lower combustion temperatures are the big one.
What I'm trying to say is that the lower combustion temps don't translate all that great to the tailpipe emissions. It helps one constituent, but normally at the expense of another, especially when the engine is starting the first time of the day.
Understood and agreed.
While I am all for lowering emissions, the biggest reason I want lower combustion temperatures is because it will help me NOT melt stuff when I'm mercilessly beating my car for an hour at a time.
That's inefficient, though. Better to invest in better materials and cooling. Or better materials and hotter engine temperatures.
NASCAR runs in the 240F+ range coolant temperature wise, because that allows them to make more power ("we are using 2400hp of fuel and air to make 900hp, so we are focusing on getting back that lost 1500hp") and I dunno what WRC does nowadays but they didn't seem to get concerned ten years ago until coolant temps got to 145C.
What does that mean for people who don't have a few hundred thousand dollars to spend on R&D? Better cooling to keep within the limits of what your hardware can handle, and every little bit you can do to maximize your ability to handle heat. For my 10v Audi engine, I have Inconel exhaust valves because the stock sodium-cooled valves lose their heads when EGT gets over a certain point, and rerouted part of the cooling system to make the combustion chamber temps more even from front to rear.
Jeez, talking about keeping internal combustion engines alive feels so quaint. Like the best way to shoe a horse.
No, because I am not talented enough to do it myself.
No, because I am not wealthy enough to pay someone else to build it.
Yes, I'd love to own and drive an electric powered classic sports car.
GIRTHQUAKE said:
Oh! So you're asking for whole system efficiency? Like, how much power in --> X amount of power out kind of deal?
I can say- only as a hobbyist- that all copper busbars I've ripped out of packs have been extremely short. Hell come to think of it, each pack i've ripped apart used the batteries themselves to take up as much space as possible from it's destination (inverter and motor) to genesis (Charge port). That also aligns with the Tesla inverter placement and the Leaf's- their inverters are RIGHT next to the motors, and in both cases actually share coolant circuts to keep direct connections short. Maybe that's part of how their efficiency is so great?
That's just common sense packaging because copper is expensive and heavy. Sure you get slightly less resistance by keeping the runs short, but 1 vs 2 feet of copper is a trivial amount.
Comparing "whole system" efficiencies you need to include the power plant. If that power plant is burning hydrocarbons for fuel, then what you're asking is if the improved efficiency of a large scale, stationary plant is enough to outweigh the losses involved in generating electricity, transferring it over the power grid, charging a battery, and running an electric motor using that battery. The answer is probably a little bit, but it's missing the point.
The real point to EVs (at least from an emissions perspective) isn't that it's a marginally more efficient way to burn hydrocarbons, it's that making the cars electric means you can run them off any kind of power source, not just hydrocarbons. This is how you run a car off a hydroelectric dam, a solar power plant, or a nuclear reactor.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
My home electricity comes from splitting atoms, so....
Personally, IDGAF where the electricity comes from. I want that flat horsepower curve. To get that in an ICE you need a turbocharger with reliability-killing antilag shenanigans to get 40psi at low RPM just to taper down to 7psi at the top end. And even then, you still have to muck about with waggling levers and stomping pedals instead of actually driving. I want to keep my head outside the car when I am driving, so to speak.
I WOULD consider an electric plug-n-play package in a classic wrapper, and do not care if it is a sports car or not:
Electric hot rod truck article
Looks like GM (and others) are very close to electric "crate" motor options which will bolt to existing drivetrains. 450 horsepower, 0-60 in the 5.0-second range, and a quarter-mile time of approximately 13 seconds. What's not to love? This is something I would VERY much consider doing at the right price (although I would never loose the bed- there is plenty of space UNDER the bed for batteries)
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
Personally, IDGAF where the electricity comes from. I want that flat horsepower curve. To get that in an ICE you need a turbocharger with reliability-killing antilag shenanigans to get 40psi at low RPM just to taper down to 7psi at the top end. And even then, you still have to muck about with waggling levers and stomping pedals instead of actually driving. I want to keep my head outside the car when I am driving, so to speak.
I actually find flat power curves to be kind of disappointing because you can feel the acceleration dropping as the car goes faster. At least, that's true in the lower end EVs out there, Fiat 500es or Leafs or the like. Teslas have enough power that it's not as obvious.
For a sports car I prefer a flat or even rising torque (not power) curve, where the noise and drama of winding it out gives you a visceral feeling of reward, a sense that it's actually accomplishing something.
In reply to Girthquake:
I like that Rich Rebuilds guy, but gosh darnit, there is a high noise to signal ratio. 30 minute video for 2 minutes of content. I am clearly not young/hip enough to hang.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:
Pete. (l33t FS) said:
Personally, IDGAF where the electricity comes from. I want that flat horsepower curve. To get that in an ICE you need a turbocharger with reliability-killing antilag shenanigans to get 40psi at low RPM just to taper down to 7psi at the top end. And even then, you still have to muck about with waggling levers and stomping pedals instead of actually driving. I want to keep my head outside the car when I am driving, so to speak.
I actually find flat power curves to be kind of disappointing because you can feel the acceleration dropping as the car goes faster. At least, that's true in the lower end EVs out there, Fiat 500es or Leafs or the like. Teslas have enough power that it's not as obvious.
For a sports car I prefer a flat or even rising torque (not power) curve, where the noise and drama of winding it out gives you a visceral feeling of reward, a sense that it's actually accomplishing something.
That's fine, if that is what you want. I want to cover ground in the lowest amount of time, any bullE36 M3 like having to shift or thinking about the engine's powerband just gets in the way of that.
The current engine in my RX-7 has a constantly-rising torque curve. I have not dyno tested it, nor will I ever bother to, but it feels like the torque curve is constantly ascending, all the way up to and including 10,000rpm. You know what? IT SUCKS. I miss my old bridge ported engine that had grunt in the midrange. I miss not having to downshift for slow corners because the engine could pick it up. On the highway, I miss being able to run taller gears so I didn't have to make sure 2nd gear didn't max out no higher than 45mph so that I could actually pull out of corners.
Mostly, I see having to shift as a sign that the engine has an insufficiently wide powerband, and that is a fault that needs to be rectified with technology.
