Hello boys & girls.
I live in Lichfield just two miles from the Zytec factory where they produce the electric Smart Car. The other day I was stopped at the side of the road just down the lane from there, talking to a mate who had been coming the other way. A nice young man in a "green" Smart car stopped to ask if we were in trouble. We assured him that we were OK but I asked "is that electric?" he replied that it was & waxed lyrical about how good it was. I listened & then proudly told him that my Blingo sounded better in every way. He was astounded to find that my vehicle was electric & crawled all over it. (we did the same to his) The Smart uses a gearbox locked in second but utilises reverse. The motor is AC so there is a huge amount of electronic wizardry at work, (this is their current Achilles heel) Final consensus was that the Blingo is streets ahead & he didn't even know of it's existence. 50 miles range against 40! 6 hours charge against 9! Nasty chemical batteries against ni-cads! 65mph against 50 max! Special plug & socket against 3 pin 13amp. Three times the carrying capacity etc. etc. The parting shot was an invite to the works to show them what a real electric vehicle is all about. These are the experts & their factory looks like a luxury hotel!!! All in all a very interesting interlude. I shall keep you posted in due course. Chatwindows.
Blingo versus the rest!
-
chatwindows
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:20 pm
- Location: Isle of Wight
- Contact:
Re: Blingo versus the rest!
chatwindows wrote: Final consensus was that the Blingo is streets ahead
Pretty much what I've always thought, for all its problems theres still nothing around really that you can buy today that can match a Blingo
.............. and costs a hell of a lot less
ChrisB
I reject reality and substitute my own !!!!!!
Seems a bit odd for the electric Smart team not to know of other EVs and their capabilities.
However, I take issue with couple of points in your comparison (although I agree with much of it). I assume that the Smart uses lithium, rather than nickel, chemistry in its batteries. As an ex-chemist, I know that I'd very much rather have a bunch of lithium batteries around me than some really nasty wet nicads! The electrolyte used in wet nicads is truly evil stuff, plus nickel battery plates themselves are classed as toxic waste, unlike lithium batteries.
Secondly, AC motors, particularly multi phase brushless ones, are both more efficient and more reliable than brushed motors. They also never need any maintenance, other than, perhaps, a bearing change after many thousands of hours of running. Reading on here of the number of Berlingo motor problems (brushes, insulation issues, broken commutators) I'd have to conclude that brushless seems to be the way to go.
Jeremy
However, I take issue with couple of points in your comparison (although I agree with much of it). I assume that the Smart uses lithium, rather than nickel, chemistry in its batteries. As an ex-chemist, I know that I'd very much rather have a bunch of lithium batteries around me than some really nasty wet nicads! The electrolyte used in wet nicads is truly evil stuff, plus nickel battery plates themselves are classed as toxic waste, unlike lithium batteries.
Secondly, AC motors, particularly multi phase brushless ones, are both more efficient and more reliable than brushed motors. They also never need any maintenance, other than, perhaps, a bearing change after many thousands of hours of running. Reading on here of the number of Berlingo motor problems (brushes, insulation issues, broken commutators) I'd have to conclude that brushless seems to be the way to go.
Jeremy
I think that, in terms of toxicity, that the risks are quite small. Anyway, lead is pretty nasty, too, yet we put up with masses of the stuff in batteries. Wet electrolytes are a bit of an issue in vehicles, in my view, because of the risks from leakage or in a collision. I'm not at all sure that I like the idea of having significant quantities of strong acid or alkali electrolyte on-board. In that respect, absorbed electrolyte cells, of either chemistry, have to be a better bet. Better still would be lithium, where all the cell chemistry is fairly harmless (barring the common risk from all that stored energy that any battery presents).
I had a look at converting a Smart car, but it doesn't seem to be a good platform. Space for batteries is very limited and the car has precious little useful space inside already, so there's no easy way to stick a decent pack anywhere without seriously impacting the already limited usefulness of the car.
I think that the problem with developing any EV commercially has to be the high development cost and the consequent high initial selling price this creates. Until we get some sort of battery/energy storage breakthrough that allows a practical range that's comparable with other types of car, and gives short recharge times, then EVs are going to remain a niche product, only really suited for short range commuting.
Although most people would find (if they took the time to do the analysis) that they could manage perfectly well with a car that had a 50 mile range and a charge time of several hours, the general perception is that they need to go hundreds of miles and recharge in a few minutes. I've often thought that the ideal way to break into the consumer market with an EV is to do what Toyota did with the RAV4 EV. This would surely appeal to the "Chelsea Tractor" school run brigade. It had the advantages of being big enough to be practical, the right sort of market appeal, and was capable of carrying a fairly big battery pack (the cause of its demise, when an oil company blocked the manufacture of large capacity nicads).
Jeremy
I had a look at converting a Smart car, but it doesn't seem to be a good platform. Space for batteries is very limited and the car has precious little useful space inside already, so there's no easy way to stick a decent pack anywhere without seriously impacting the already limited usefulness of the car.
I think that the problem with developing any EV commercially has to be the high development cost and the consequent high initial selling price this creates. Until we get some sort of battery/energy storage breakthrough that allows a practical range that's comparable with other types of car, and gives short recharge times, then EVs are going to remain a niche product, only really suited for short range commuting.
Although most people would find (if they took the time to do the analysis) that they could manage perfectly well with a car that had a 50 mile range and a charge time of several hours, the general perception is that they need to go hundreds of miles and recharge in a few minutes. I've often thought that the ideal way to break into the consumer market with an EV is to do what Toyota did with the RAV4 EV. This would surely appeal to the "Chelsea Tractor" school run brigade. It had the advantages of being big enough to be practical, the right sort of market appeal, and was capable of carrying a fairly big battery pack (the cause of its demise, when an oil company blocked the manufacture of large capacity nicads).
Jeremy
have you got any further info on this Jeremy
The patent rights on large capacity (greater than about 8 - 10 Ah, I believe) NiMH cells are owned by Chevron; they inherited them from Texaco/GM. The RAV4 EV used 95Ah NiMh cells ("dry" ones) that turned out to be extremely durable (greater than 100,000 mile life was pretty common, some users topped 150,000 miles). Once Chevron realised that this battery chemistry looked like being viable for EVs, they stopped production of the cells and dismantled the production line, leaving Toyota (and other manufacturers) with no access to large capacity cells.
Toyota was using the RAV4 EV as a way of consumer testing technology that would go into their hybrid range and had planned on having a larger capacity, lower voltage, battery pack. The forced withdrawal from the world market of all large capacity NiMH cells, by the simple expedient of refusing to licence manufacture of them, forced Toyota to change to using smaller capacity cells, in a longer, higher voltage, chain, for their future hybrid vehicles.
"Wet" nickel chemistry cells aren't covered by the patents that Chevron hold, so weren't affected by this. However, "wet" nickel cells have safety and maintenance issues that make them less well suited for an everyday consumer vehicle. The advantages of the big EV-95 batteries in the RAV4 EV are their ability to last a long time with no maintenance, their ability to take a fast charge (the RAV4 EV charged from flat in about 5 hours) and their relative compactness and low weight (compared to lead acid).
This story runs in parallel to that of the EV1 depicted in "Who killed the electric car", the film that tried to blow the lid off the suppression of viable EV technology by the oil companies and US motor manufacturers. It was, I believe, a last ditch attempt by the US oil industry to try and fend off the domination of Japanese high efficiency cars, primarily Toyota's hybrid range. I've no doubt that Chevron had the support of the then US government in doing this, especially as many of the key politicians at that time had strong connections to the oil or automotive industry.
Chevron still control the worldwide patents on NiMH cells, which is why you still can't buy large capacity ones. Luckily, the Chinese seem to be developing large capacity lithium cells at a fair pace, so once their reliability improves they seem set to give the US companies the kicking they deserve for behaving like Luddites.
Jeremy
Toyota was using the RAV4 EV as a way of consumer testing technology that would go into their hybrid range and had planned on having a larger capacity, lower voltage, battery pack. The forced withdrawal from the world market of all large capacity NiMH cells, by the simple expedient of refusing to licence manufacture of them, forced Toyota to change to using smaller capacity cells, in a longer, higher voltage, chain, for their future hybrid vehicles.
"Wet" nickel chemistry cells aren't covered by the patents that Chevron hold, so weren't affected by this. However, "wet" nickel cells have safety and maintenance issues that make them less well suited for an everyday consumer vehicle. The advantages of the big EV-95 batteries in the RAV4 EV are their ability to last a long time with no maintenance, their ability to take a fast charge (the RAV4 EV charged from flat in about 5 hours) and their relative compactness and low weight (compared to lead acid).
This story runs in parallel to that of the EV1 depicted in "Who killed the electric car", the film that tried to blow the lid off the suppression of viable EV technology by the oil companies and US motor manufacturers. It was, I believe, a last ditch attempt by the US oil industry to try and fend off the domination of Japanese high efficiency cars, primarily Toyota's hybrid range. I've no doubt that Chevron had the support of the then US government in doing this, especially as many of the key politicians at that time had strong connections to the oil or automotive industry.
Chevron still control the worldwide patents on NiMH cells, which is why you still can't buy large capacity ones. Luckily, the Chinese seem to be developing large capacity lithium cells at a fair pace, so once their reliability improves they seem set to give the US companies the kicking they deserve for behaving like Luddites.
Jeremy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Seems Chevron no long has control over the NiMh patent.
At the time of the 2009 Cobasys sale, control of NiMH battery technology transferred back to ECD Ovonics
Seems Chevron no long has control over the NiMh patent.
Sounds like good news; just a shame that they managed to cause such a lot of hassle with their pointless attempt to suppress the market for EVs.
Although it would be great to see batteries like the EV-95 back in production, I suspect that it won't happen, as technology has moved on and lithium cells are looking a better bet for the future.
In some ways this is a shame, as I'm sure that many would prefer the proven reliability and life of the older NiMH cells, even if they were heavier and bigger than the newer lithium cells.
Jeremy
Although it would be great to see batteries like the EV-95 back in production, I suspect that it won't happen, as technology has moved on and lithium cells are looking a better bet for the future.
In some ways this is a shame, as I'm sure that many would prefer the proven reliability and life of the older NiMH cells, even if they were heavier and bigger than the newer lithium cells.
Jeremy
Wow, what a convoluted tale. I'm still not clear who owns ECD-Ovonics now, after reading that.
I was lead to this PDF, which seems quite encouraging:
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Batteries200 ... erence.pdf
Mike Fetcenko 2009 Battery Presentation "Ovonic NiMH – Strong Now, Room for Growth”
I believe there is room in the market for competing chemistries to be developed for production. Calendar life of lithium cells is still a big problem, which car owners have never had to consider before. If NiMH is immune to this problem, and also if they are more robust regarding deep discharge, then the disadvantage of lower specific energy capacity might not be such a commercial hammer-blow. Not to mention cost. Did I mention cost?
Room for both NiMH and LiFePO4, I think. And ZEBRA. And NiFe. And Pb-acid, too
I was lead to this PDF, which seems quite encouraging:
http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Batteries200 ... erence.pdf
Mike Fetcenko 2009 Battery Presentation "Ovonic NiMH – Strong Now, Room for Growth”
I believe there is room in the market for competing chemistries to be developed for production. Calendar life of lithium cells is still a big problem, which car owners have never had to consider before. If NiMH is immune to this problem, and also if they are more robust regarding deep discharge, then the disadvantage of lower specific energy capacity might not be such a commercial hammer-blow. Not to mention cost. Did I mention cost?
Room for both NiMH and LiFePO4, I think. And ZEBRA. And NiFe. And Pb-acid, too
Tim Crumpton
Return to “Cars,Vans and other road vehicles”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests