Electric Speedster - step by step build

Interesting - wonder what the weight of all those batteries is?  Especially since they had to raise the rear torsion bars.  I always thought a Porsche 914 would make an excellent electrical conversion vehicle as it looks somewhat futuristic.  Guess a hundred miles would be ok for a 3rd/4th vehicle for weekend rides - especially if it was fast! 

I'd have to put some 5 spoke Fuchs on it and some baseball cards so it made a kool sound when going down the road.

Who’s Speedster is it?

I still haven’t decided on a motor for my Coupe build...

Interesting video and the shop seems to know what they are doing. This conversation isn't for the average guy even with decent mechanical skills They didn't address total weigh or show it accelerating 0 - 60 with two people in the car.

$7600 for the DIY conversion kit, not including batteries.  If you want heat and/or A/C, that is gonna cost.  So, total is over $13,000 for 200 ft/lbs of torque?  The kit weighs 250 lb.  not including the batteries, so altogether, the new power plant and power source will weigh more than air or water cooled ICE.  Doesn't seem attractive to me.

Wonder how you apply for the $7500 Federal tax credit (drops to $3750 1 Jan)?  I'm guessing even the costly but compact Tesla batteries add another 4-500#  Now if it does 0-60 in under 5 seconds!

Ha - here's a 911 converted to look like a 959 and then converted to electric -

https://www.electric-cars-are-...tric-sports-car.html

I can't see why the ugly Chevy Volt doesn't sell more - especially in Calif/Hawaii/PR.  GM now moving production out of US - shame on them! I think its because it looks too much like a Chevy gas powered car - if it looked like the Pontiac Aztek it would sell like hot cakes.

I can't stand silent cars...where's the fun in that?

This looks great and miles ahead of where things stood 9 years ago when I considered going EV in Bridget.

Back then, it was going to cost me $9k or more to get 35 miles effective range. It would have been a DC rig with lead acid batteries and a NetGain WarP9 motor, the total weight of a 120-volt system around 800-1,000 pounds.

What was done here: 250 lbs of batteries from a Tesla distributed half in front and half in back. The motor they're using is like two Warp 9s for the weight of one. With the chargers and other gear, plus all the heavy cables I'll bet the full setup is under 450 pounds. 

So, like, 150 pounds more than a stock Type 1, or maybe 100 pounds more than a stripped Suby.

Probably 50 pounds more than a gussied-up Suby with air conditioning. 

If that thing can really do 100 miles on a charge it's completely viable. Trouble is, what do those batteries cost?

@WOLFGANG  Do the federal and state tax credits apply to conversions?

I doubt it but wonder if low volume manufacturers can get like Duke's Garage in Westminster CO.  They buy bodies from Beck and install the electrics.  They are at Carlisle sometimes.  They do a nice conversion.  I can't see going lead acid but lithium may change my aversion to an electric car ('cept they do catch fire - even production ones).

https://www.electric-cars-are-...car-conversions.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijLz7lcOisI

 When will electric car owners have to start paying road tax (since they don't pay it via gas taxes)?  Many of the quick charge stations are free too.  Glad to see the federal tax credits are going away.

*yawn*

Electric cars are the most complicated and least efficient method currently available to move a vehicle down the road by means of burning natural gas and coal. 

Solar and wind are gaining, Stan. You might just as well say "LED flashlights are the most complicated and least efficient method currently available to illuminate one's workspace by means of burning natural gas and coal." I mean, incandescents work OK too (if handled carefully and properly caged)...so do candles...but a nice lithium ion battery and a recharger might be considered "better," someday, by some. 

Apples and oranges, Ed. LED lighting is a breakthrough in consumption and efficiency and long life. Yes, still fed by the teat of carbon/petroleum. But a much better way than tungsten, halogen, or even the candle.....

I've got a bunch of bulbs in the house now. I can leave the outdoor floods on all night(I don't) for the same cost as an hour or two of the old bulbs. Most of my house bulbs are 8-12 wats and are the equivalent of 40 to 75 watt.

I'm with Stan on electric cars. Not ready just yet in my mind. Maybe once the entire grid is solar/wind/and water, with a little nuke sprinkled in. Get rid of coal, natural gas, and diesel powerplants and we can have this conversation again.

@edsnova is a smart enough guy to realize that his argument concerning LEDs has almost nothing to do with what we're talking about. When I say that "electric cars are the most complicated and least efficient method currently available to move a vehicle down the road by means of burning natural gas and coal," I'm talking about the electric grid, as it is now and will be configured in the foreseeable future. All "renwables" combined (after a decade of pushing hard to drive this) constitute about 3% of all power generated in the US. The world has no use for power that isn't always available, and wind and solar are by their very definition "variable". Coal and NG generate over 60% of the power in this country. Nuclear adds another 20%. Biomass is 6%, but it involves burning methane, so I'd argue it's really just NG by a different name. Hydo is 7% and is clean and constant, but we've dammed up every river we're going to-- there will never be another large-scale hydro project in this country.

I had a long explanation why I seem so down on electric cars (as they are presently configured), but I took it down. I'm not some foaming-at-the-mouth fascist mouthpiece, parroting Breitbart talking points, but the post sure made it seem like I was.

Electric cars, as they presently exist, are an interesting novelty. There's some aspects that are easy to love-- an electric motor is over 90% efficient, delivers 100% torque at 0 RPM, and batteries are better and cheaper than they ever have been. There are applications where an electric car makes sense-- a runabout for local errands, short commutes, etc.

A speedster is actually a fairly good application, assuming you don't want to use your car as a GT. Range is limited, but there are a lot of guys who think 100 mi in their clown cars is going to kill them. The cars generally sit for long periods of time, etc.

Where the idea starts to fall apart is if this is ever to be considered as a replacement for cars as we have known them-- vehicles ready to pick up the kids at viola practice, or drive across 2 time-zones to get to an aging parent, who isn't hip enough to live in a major city with good air connections.

The downfall of electric cars is not the grid (although breathless predictions of a renewable grid are just so much wishful thinking by people who understand nothing of how power delivery actually work), or any shotcoming in the drive systems in the cars themselves (the motors and controllers have come a long way). The problem is with the batteries. In short-- even as far as we've come, they're a terrible way to store potential energy.

They charge way too slowly. The don't store anywhere near enough power. They degrade with every cycle. They're an environmental disaster. China has the market for their raw materials cornered. We've been searching for a breakthrough since 1859-- and while the materials have gotten more efficient, there is actually zero that has occurred to fundamentally change the calculus that caused people to abandon electric as a viable option for automobiles in the early 1900s.

Wishing it were otherwise does not change the science. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. The facts as they stand stack the deck pretty heavily in favor of the ICE. Cities all over the world are banning the ICE, as if legislation can change science.

It can't.

@Stan Galat- As always, what you write is informative and well though out. Pardon my ignorance- what is "the ICE"?

Internal Combustion Engine

I'd sure like to know how Germany generates 6.9% of their energy from Solar (2016)?  UK is #6.  It is so rare to see a sunny day in either country. China is #1 so smog isn't a deterrent. 

I'm glad govt subsidies are finally disappearing for electric cars.  I suspect that gas taxes (and gas costs) will increase in US until they match the $6/gallon found in European countries.  This will again increase interest in electric vehicles.  Isn't it strange that large cities who would benefit from more electric transportation killed off electric trolley cars 50 years ago?

ALB posted:

@Stan Galat- As always, what you write is informative and well though out. Pardon my ignorance- what is "the ICE"?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

@Stan Galat - "... as if legislation can change science."  The folks I know who are pro electric and pro electric legislation don't claim that legislation can change science, (straw man).  They think, and accurately, that legislation can change behavior.

Framing the argument in that light (legislation driving behavior, rather than attempting to drive science) would make a bit more sense to me if what was being legislated was already a viable possibility. I suppose the crux of the argument boils down to one’s definition of a “viable possibility”, but I have a very hard time believing that current technology can meet the requirements of the legislation, at least not in a manner to support the transportation needs of a major (or even minor) city without bringing its citizens to economic ruin. It seems implausible that people will accept the options when the time comes.

I try pretty hard to see everybody’s  side of any given argument, but legislating that millions of people either ride public transit or buy wildly imperfect electric and grossly expensive electric (and they are both) automobiles seems “aspirational” at best.

I’m often wrong, but I would be willing to wager large sums of money that these timelines will never be met. I suppose time will tell, but governments don’t have a very good track record when they pick which technology will be the eventual winner. 

Lane Anderson posted:

Internal Combustion Engine

Of course. Thank you Lane!

@Stan Galat, nice to see you mention viola.  They don't get much attention.

@Stan Galat - Our government sometimes legislates specific behavior, but mostly it just taxes the behavior that the current majority think is "not good", and subsidizes the behavior that the majority think is "good."  An example would be the federal and state tax credits for electric vehicles and the ZEV credits.  I can only guess how many electric vehicles would not have been sold had it not been for the tax credits.

Normally I am against just about any government interference with supply and demand, which electric vehicle subsidies are.  But, I am on the fence and mostly leaning towards no government interference with one's choice of vehicle power.  The factor which keeps me from being 100% against government subsidies is my experience growing up in Southern California.

The only reason my kids do not have to experience the smog issues that I experienced is because of the SCAQMD, and the associated smog legislation.  As much as I despise the government trampling on my liberty, I thank with all my heart those people who thought they knew was best for the rest of us and enacted and enforced smog reducing legislation. 

Taxation is the one thing government is really good at.

Government drives behavior all the time with taxation, and I'm OK with that. Probably the best motivator for getting people to innovate is by taxing the behavior you are trying to discourage, and allowing clever people to figure out how to get around paying. It's a good rule to never bet against greed.

What I have an issue with is with government determining the best solution to getting to the desired outcome. They're generally pretty awful at it.

Exhibit "A" is the electric car. The stated goal is the reduction of greenhouse gases to arrest climate change. Let's lay aside debate of the science of global warming, and just agree for the sake of this discussion that it's settled science, and we need to get things under control.

Government on all levels has already picked the winner-- and it's the electric car. As a result, there are carrots (subsidies for buying an EV) and sticks (no ICE automobiles in Paris after 2030). The thing is-- an EV in and of itself does almost nothing to eliminate greenhouse gasses if the electric grid is powered by burning a fossil fuel. The only clean (non-greenhouse gas producing) constantly available power is from hydro-electric dams and nuclear plants. Nobody wants to hear it, but there it is. 

If we were serious about this, a FAR better approach would be a significant and hefty fossil fuel tax to drive innovation. Instead we are subsidizing wind and solar, which will never constitute more than 20% of the grid (because they are variable, and there is no good way to store electricity) and EVs, which are ridiculous in their present configuration (let's talk when you have 400 mi of range and a 30 minute recharge).

Subsidies freeze innovation. If I'm already getting money for my half-baked solution, why in the world would I perfect it? The government is effectively paying to stop the very innovation they say they'd like to foster.

I bought gas today for less than $2/gallon. Ford is shutting down car production, and switching to 100% trucks and SUVs. GM is not far behind, and Chrysler is pretty much already there (Hellcats and their ilk excepted). The reality on the ground is that the market is driving this in exactly the opposite direction from what the government says they'd like to see, even with incentives in place.

People are generally only concerned with the "greater good" if it's good for them personally-- and most people would rather have a huge, high-riding, 4WD, and safe people hauler that burns a gallon of gas every 20 miles than a $100,000 Tesla with a $6000 subsidy and a 200 mi range. Make that gas cost $5/gal, and watch everybody scamper to a better solution. Make it cost $10/gal and we'd have money for a high-speed intercontinental railroad, and light rail in every city.

I can fly to Denver for $39 and it takes 2 hrs, or I can take a train and pay $200 and have it take 22 hrs. This is exactly what happens when government incentivizes rather than taxes.

Taxation is the one thing government is really good at.

"I bought gas today for less than $2/gallon."

Sorry. I couldn't really concentrate on anything else after reading that.  Gas is close to $4 per gallon here in Southern California.

Todd M posted:

"I bought gas today for less than $2/gallon."

Sorry. I couldn't really concentrate on anything else after reading that.  Gas is close to $4 per gallon here in Southern California.

Yep- it's $1.72 in Bloomington, IL. 

Living in Shangra La has it's freight. $4/gal is the freight for living in paradise. 

Whether electric or gas-burning cars pollute more overall is not a question with a simple answer. Scientific American looks at some of the numbers and complicating factors in this article.

According to the USGS, there are approximately 1,500 active volcanos worldwide with 169 of those within the U.S.A.. Collectively theses volcanos spew millions of tons of toxic gases into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

Forget the ICE vs Electric Car debate, maybe we should legislate those volcanos out of existence? 

MusbJim posted:

maybe we should legislate those volcanos out of existence? 

Tax them.

Careful, they might become fountains for visitors to make a wish ... you know with coin toss. 

If the market were freer and governments were not funding the bill for charging stations then I think a low cost gaz car efficient would get you going for a lot cheaper than a Tesla.  Let alone the number of cars you could buy for say a model 3.  

Stan Galat posted:

MusbJim posted:

maybe we should legislate those volcanos out of existence? 

Tax them.

Ok, but who is going to collect?

Todd M posted:

Stan Galat posted:

MusbJim posted:

maybe we should legislate those volcanos out of existence? 

Tax them.

Ok, but who is going to collect?

Vulcan?

Regarding air quality, it is obvious to anyone that this was bad stewardship and policies to eliminate or give us better air quality could visibly be seen to change the air quality.  You could measure it... FYI, I drove through the Sudbury smoke stack which was the first phase of INCO, now Vale to clean up the sulphur in the air.  Today scrubbers have replace it and the tallest chimney is no longer. 

This was a stewardship issue. 

My issue with the Carbon footprint, Global warning argument, is the simple fact that it has now become akin to a religion.  You can't question it, your called a denier, and the left feel the right has lost it's marbles to be denying GW.     ...

The other thing is that it is no an exact science it is too complicated to provide a real cause and effect solution.  

 The supporters of CC, produce studies that cannot be supported by statistics.  

Well ok, they are collecting data but there are so many models for each data collecting stream or agency.  They then apply the data  to produce projections.  When you compare the models against The actual values of the last 15 years of heat of the planet the models are proven to be grossly at error.  No medical study would survive the test using these models.  Any medical scientist would be ostracized for suggesting such stuyot. (silliness)   I mean you can't cure what you cannot measure objectively. 

Worse thing is if anyone even suggest that in theory they think, but have no proof that maybe man and animals might be a factor... They say ah ha, we need to cut our CO2 footprint.   Even if the same scientist says we won't even know for 50 years if man has any effect at all and if so to what extent. 

If anyone watched some of the senate committee meetings it was laughable.  

The Senators would grandstand for their position and the scientist as well would try to be diplomatic carefully chosing their words most times and all the denying scientist could hardly make a point without being acused of being bad scientists.  At one point a ney saying witness made a comment on the issue with measurements and one senator claims that NASA is the authority and they say it is getting warmer, and finally another senator stands up and says this ney saying scientist, is a man who worked for NASA for 20 years and was their lead scientist on satellite temperature measurements. It was such a farce.  

My question is why, are we so intent as a society to go after GW, we would do better to inject more funds to help developping nations save their children and raise the standard of living everywhere.  

When you have more finances you can be a better steward of our earth. 

IaM-Ray posted:

Careful, they might become fountains for visitors to make a wish ... you know with coin toss. 

Don't you mean a "bitcoin" toss?

So, what is the next breakthrough in batteries?    What about a capacitor array with some sort of controlled slow discharge?   It could probably charge quicker than filling a tank with gas.  And if you could get 300-400 miles on a charge.... hmmm.

But I have no clue if something like that is feasible.

I've heard of experiments with "supercapacitors" that supposedly showed promise, but I have yet to hear of any about to enter the market.

I love the overall simplicity available with an electric drive-train, as well as the instant torque, and I think that he idea of an electric car is very attractive when viewed in a vacuum.  However, when the whole production, disposal, and energy supply infrastructure is included the picture gets uglier.  I keep hoping that fuel cells or hydrogen will get some momentum going, but you still have some of the infrastructure issues.  At least for now I will keep burning dino-juice.

Where are the nuclear-powered cars we were promised in the 50's?  Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

WRT to the current Global Warming argument, here is an interesting video that uses 'distance' to put the history of the Earth into perspective.

Taking the demonstration of the video at face value, and in the context of the Global Warming 'the-sky-is-falling' scenario, I have a hard time believing that an incident in the last 2 inches of a 2,500 mile journey can be considered a 'trend'. 

...I'm just saying... 

Maybe not a trend, but perhaps a tipping point.  

Jethro posted:

So, what is the next breakthrough in batteries?    What about a capacitor array with some sort of controlled slow discharge?   It could probably charge quicker than filling a tank with gas.  And if you could get 300-400 miles on a charge.... hmmm.

But I have no clue if something like that is feasible.

Lane Anderson posted:

I've heard of experiments with "supercapacitors" that supposedly showed promise, but I have yet to hear of any about to enter the market.

I love the overall simplicity available with an electric drive-train, as well as the instant torque, and I think that he idea of an electric car is very attractive when viewed in a vacuum.  However, when the whole production, disposal, and energy supply infrastructure is included the picture gets uglier.  I keep hoping that fuel cells or hydrogen will get some momentum going, but you still have some of the infrastructure issues.  At least for now I will keep burning dino-juice.

Where are the nuclear-powered cars we were promised in the 50's?  Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.

I agree with both of these posts. Supercapacitors are way more interesting that what we've got right now.

Just to reemphasize-- I have zero issue with electric cars. My issue is with battery cars because batteries are just a terrible way to store the kind of power needed for long-range transportation. There isn't going to be a "breakthrough", as we've been promised for years and years. Really, really smart people have been working on perfecting the idea since 1859. "Breakthroughs" happen when everybody is looking at things like batteries, and somebody on the margins thinks of something way out on the horizon.

I've heard of an experimental process whereby power is "beamed" from towers to a receiver, without the use of wires-- supposedly, enough power to turn on an electric motor. This kind of electric car is something I could get excited about, even if the technology was still incubating.

Batteries?

*yawn*