 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General bicyclingRacingOff-road CyclingRidesTechnicalUnicyclesRecumbent CyclesCountry Specific Australian CyclingUK CyclingCyclingCrowd.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cycling Forum / Country Specific / Australian Cycling / July 2007Powered cycles
I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" The BFA is going to bat for an increase in the power of motor assisted bicyles. These rotten things are the antithesis of good cycling, they don't promote health, they spew out stinking inefficiently burnt gases and fly past you like a real motor bike. Why on earth would the BFA want to do such a thing? (being paid by the manufactures to do so?) When my blood stops boiling, I will send them a nastygram giving them my views. Then to add to the drivel of their section, they report that "each kilometer you ride saves the same amount of CO2 produced from running a 60 watt incadescent light globe for close to five hours" Well how much CO2 is that? They are getting worse that television Owen > The BFA is going to bat for an increase in the power of motor assisted bicyles. > > These rotten things are the antithesis of good cycling, they don't promote health, they spew out stinking inefficiently burnt gases and fly past you like a real motor bike. Are they referring to internal combustion engines, or electric motors, or both? My understanding is the power-assisted bikes cannot be rated at over 200W, so they should be comparable with a powerful conventional cyclist and shouldn't be flying past like a motorbike. > Why on earth would the BFA want to do such a thing? (being paid by the manufactures to do so?) Well, at least they aren't using a 3L engine to swing tonnes of steel around the place. That has to be an improvement. On Jul 2, 3:10 pm, bru...@eudoramail.com wrote: > > Why on earth would the BFA want to do such a thing? (being paid by the manufactures to do so?) > > Well, at least they aren't using a 3L engine to swing tonnes > of steel around the place. That has to be an improvement. True, but they should be coming from a position where they are promoting the use of "no engine" vehicles, so it's really a step backwards. Graeme Graeme Dods Wrote: > On Jul 2, 3:10 pm, bru...@eudoramail.com wrote: > > > Why on earth would the BFA want to do such a thing? (being paid by [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > GraemeNo, it is not a step backwards, it is a step forward though, clearly not a big enough step for your liking. As pointed out earlier. A 0.2 Kw motor is far better than a 100.Kw motor when you consider that in traffic, it will probably get you there in a similar timeframe. A case in point is a friend of mine. He is mildly disabled, he can walk (and ride a bike) but not too far. Any more than 100-200 metres becomes a problem (and a few ks on a bike). He drives his tonne of steel through Sydney traffic for 44kms each day (22kmsx2) and it takes hime about an hour each way. I have just about talked him into an electric assist bike. He is convinced that he could do it in the same (or less) time and it would cost him a few cents of electricity vs many dollars per day. Would you prefer him to be on his power assist bike or his tonne and a bit of steel? This applies to the less fit, old etc. or somply those who say that X km is just that bit too far or I'd do it except for that one great hill I'd have to climb etc. Whilst I don't know what the cut-off for power should be, even if it is 300w (international standard I believe), that is better than 100Kw - from all perspectives environmental, social, traffic etc. I hope that you can be convinced Scotty  Signaturescotty72 > No, it is not a step backwards, it is a step forward though, clearly not > a big enough step for your liking. <snip> > I hope that you can be convinced Oh go on then, you've won me over :-) I probably looked at it the wrong way, in terms of "human powered bike v. electric bike" instead of "car v. electic bike". I admit to using the car far more than I should but I'm making the effort to use the bike as much as I can (e.g. carting two 20kg sacks of tile adhesive home in my son's bike trailer at the weekend). The thought of any form of motor assist hadn't crossed my mind and it doesn't really appeal to me in the slightest though it certainly does seem to make sense in your example (and no doubt many others). In this case it looks like I was a sufferer of the condition I used to have to explain to my parents - "If you don't understand the advertising campaign, it wasn't aimed at you." Next thing you know I'll be complaining that you can't understand the words to current songs and the singers dress stupidly. Oops, I do that already! :-o Graeme > On Jul 2, 3:10 pm, bru...@eudoramail.com wrote: >> > Why on earth would the BFA want to do such a thing? (being paid by the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > promoting the use of "no engine" vehicles, so it's really a step > backwards. I'm just in the process of setting up a bike to use one of these: www.xtracycle.com to enable me to begin to use the car less for our shopping runs (we are a family of four, living in the suburbs). To make it more suitable to deal with a load of shopping and the hills around our area, we could use a StokeMonkey http://cleverchimp.com/products/stokemonkey/ but with it's power rating of up to 430W in the high power mode it would be illegal in Victoria. This is despite the fact that it only operates as a pedal-assist motor, and it would be used to assist keeping a heavily loaded bike riding at a reasonable speed (20-25kmh). Our other option is to continue to use the Commodore. So would this electric-assist bike be a step backwards? SignatureCheers Peter ~~~ ~ _@ ~~ ~ _- \, ~~ (*)/ (*) > Our other option is to continue to use the Commodore. So would this > electric-assist bike be a step backwards? And here's a great video, showing how you could use a Stokemonkey with a Christiana bakfiets to transprot the family http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pPIVST2r_Q SignatureCheers Peter ~~~ ~ _@ ~~ ~ _- \, ~~ (*)/ (*) > I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" > > The BFA is going to bat for an increase in the power of motor assisted bicyles. I suspect that it is electric assisted. >> I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" >> >> The BFA is going to bat for an increase in the power of motor >> assisted bicyles. > > I suspect that it is electric assisted. Surely that is worse than internal combustion. Current state of the art (and an electric bicycle isn't) electric vehicles are responsible for more pollution per km than internal combustion vehicles. That electric power comes from coal, don'tcha know. That's the coal burnt in power stations, responsible for more than 70% of our greenhouse gas output. Internal combustion engines in Australia are responsible for between 5 and 7% of our greenhouse gas emissions. The trouble is you see the cars every day, and the power station is out of sight. Theo Not sure of the electric Vs ICE argument but, I'm sure that you'd be fan of a 0.2 Kw motor compared to a 100 Kw version Theo Bekkers Wrote: > > Owen wrote > >> I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The -- scotty72 > Not sure of the electric Vs ICE argument but, I'm sure that you'd be a > fan of a 0.2 Kw motor compared to a 100 Kw version. Certainly. I was saying that a small ICE would likely be more environmentally friendly than an electric one. I was not suggesting you equip your bicycle with a 6 litre V8. Theo Maaaate, that would be the ultimate 'chicky-babe magnet' Theo Bekkers Wrote: > I was not suggesting yo > equip your bicycle with a 6 litre V8 > > The -- scotty72 > >> I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Theo The "long tailpipe" argument? That's pretty lame, you can do better. >> Surely that is worse than internal combustion. Current state of the >> art (and an electric bicycle isn't) electric vehicles are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> emissions. The trouble is you see the cars every day, and the power >> station is out of sight. > The "long tailpipe" argument? That's pretty lame, you can do better. Are you suggesting that an electric vehicle is more environmentally friendly than one with an ICE? Maybe you're right. Very small ICEs are considered to be a major problem in California. Because there are no regulations on things like lawnmowers and other powered garden implements, California says they are a much greater source of pollution than most people would think. Theo > lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote: > > The "long tailpipe" argument? That's pretty lame, you can do better. > > Are you suggesting that an electric vehicle is more environmentally friendly > than one with an ICE? Yes I am. > Maybe you're right. Very small ICEs are considered to > be a major problem in California. Because there are no regulations on things > like lawnmowers and other powered garden implements, California says they > are a much greater source of pollution than most people would think. A single source of pollution (eg even a disgusting coal fired power station) is easier to regulate and control than millions of independent sources (eg ICE powered vehicles). Of course this is subject to the government actually doing something about it. As for lawnmowers, I converted mine to cordless electric :-) There's nothing wrong with the venerable Victa two stroke that powered it (and I'm a bit partial to two strokes), I just don't like buying petrol. Performance is comparable to the two stroke motor, I feel it's got slightly more torque in the long grass (which would make sense considering how electric motors develop torque). Can't recall the longest amount of time I mowed with it for, but I was thoroughly bloody sick of mowing by the time I finished. It's easy to argue semantics about this stuff all day long, the pollution created by power generation vs pumping, refining and transporting petroleum. Manufacture and recycling of lead acid batteries (few EV enthusiasts can afford anything better) vs disposal of used engine oil. Etc, etc ad nausem. Ultimately a bicycle wins the environmental argument ;-) > Are you suggesting that an electric vehicle is more environmentally friendly > than one with an ICE? Maybe you're right. Very small ICEs are considered to > be a major problem in California. Because there are no regulations on things > like lawnmowers and other powered garden implements, California says they > are a much greater source of pollution than most people would think. 2 stroke engines are truly evil in just about everything they emit. SignatureTimC Chairman: I'm glad to see so many bright-eyed and bushy-tailed people here at this time of the morning. From the audience: Actually, most of us are rabid. -- From an astro talk > Theo Wrote >> . Because there >> are no regulations on things like lawnmowers and other powered >> garden implements, California says they are a much greater source of >> pollution than most people would think. > > 2 stroke engines are truly evil in just about everything they emit. Agreed. I would never have a two-smoke mower but, unless you can come up with a better power source for chainsaws... Theo > > Theo Wrote > >> . Because there [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Theo I've got a 1.8kW electric chainsaw, it's very, very good. I've felled some very large trees with it, not what it was designed for (so they'll tell you), but it performed flawlessly. No good for farmers etc unfortunately as it's not cordless, but sh.ts on 14" bar (guessing, I've never actually bothered to measure it) saws for yard work. >> Agreed. I would never have a two-smoke mower but, unless you can >> come up with a better power source for chainsaws... > I've got a 1.8kW electric chainsaw, it's very, very good. I've felled > some very large trees with it, not what it was designed for (so > they'll tell you), but it performed flawlessly. No good for farmers > etc unfortunately as it's not cordless, but sh.ts on 14" bar > (guessing, I've never actually bothered to measure it) saws for yard > work. I've got a McCulloch 12" electric and it is very handy for pruning etc. The Stihl 18" does a much better job for dead timber and firewood. In my yard I would need a 150 metre power cord. Theo >>> I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > greenhouse gas emissions. The trouble is you see the cars every day, and the > power station is out of sight. Actually, that's a disingenuous argument (apart from the fact that the vast majority of electric vehicles sold in .au are regenerative hybrids), although the result is roughly correct. That 70% of the total CO_2 emission is from electricity vs 7% coming from cars, is completely irrelevant to the hypothetical emissions from either of them -- cars represent a far smaller total energy consumption than our total electricity usage, too. What we are interested in is the energy efficiency which correlates to how much CO_2 emission you get per kWh (or km, for that matter) resulting from car travel of both types. Modern infernal combustion engines (damned things should never have been invented) have an energy efficiency (conversion of fuel's potential energy into kinetic energy) of about 20%. I absolutely fear the energy efficiency of our 30 year old 500kVA genset onsite here. Electricity, from generation, transmission over the electric grid to your house is about 30%[1]. Then you can start to factor in conversion losses to and from batteries and the motor. Yes, it works out worse than ICEs, but that 70% vs 7% figure is irrelevant, since they only deal in totals (and the electricity figures include that 99.99999something% of electricity usage in Australia that is not used to move a car about) rather than relative numbers of vehicles. [1] So hot water heaters, our most efficient electrical devices[2], are about 30% efficient. Sucky, eh? [2] The big whopping resistor inside your insulated hot water tank with pretty minimal losses is pretty close to 100% efficient by itself, if only the generation was as good[3]. [3] As opposed to gas powered hot water which is also pretty darn close to 100%, but with very small transmission losses[4] (dunno about generation. Gas is pretty easy to extract though). [4] I hear the way gas is distributed in Australia is by putting two redundant Rolls Royce jet turbines at the ports that run off a very tiny percentage of their own gas input. SignatureTimC Error: Furry Pointer Exception > [1] So hot water heaters, our most efficient electrical devices[2], > are about 30% efficient. Sucky, eh? > > [2] The big whopping resistor inside your insulated hot water tank > with pretty minimal losses is pretty close to 100% efficient by > itself, if only the generation was as good[3]. Energy -> heat is a very efficient process; it's very easy to do, since that's the ultimate form all energy ends up as anyway. Heat -> other energy forms, OTOH, is much harder to do; there's *nothing* that can do that job at near 100% efficiency. Heat *pumps*, however, can do better than 100% efficiency, because they move heat around - they don't actually generate new heat. They're not all that good, though, if you need an intensive heat (or cold) source. > [3] As opposed to gas powered hot water which is also pretty darn > close to 100%, but with very small transmission losses[4] (dunno about > generation. Gas is pretty easy to extract though). Any place that I buy absolutely has to have gas-powered heating and cooking. Burning gas for heat is much more efficient (and cheaper!) than burning coal to generate electricity to run through a resistor to generate heat. Off peak electricity be damned; pipe it to an aluminium smelter if you absolutely have to soak it up somehow. SignatureMy Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet". On Jul 3, 12:42 pm, TimC <tconn...@no.spam.accepted.here- astro.swin.edu.au> wrote: > What we are > interested in is the energy efficiency which correlates to how much > CO_2 emission you get per kWh (or km, for that matter) resulting from > car travel of both types. My 50cc ICE equivalent electric motor scooter[1] goes about 30km (all or nothing riding style, I'm sure it would go further with more care on the throttle and a few less hills) on a charge. The pack capacity is 2.4kWh, call it 3kWh consumed by the time you factor in Peukert's effect and minor charger inefficiency. So now all you need to know is how much CO2 is generated to produce 3kWh of electricity and compare that to however much CO2 a 50cc ICE scooter would produce on a 30km trip (start with a cold engine and catalytic converter for an accurate measure of the emissions). Actually most of my scooter trips are short, stop-start type riding where an ICE would cool down increasing emissions but let's not get too pedantic eh? Of course I *could* buy 3kW worth of PV panels (assuming money is no object). Then people can argue about the pollution generated by producing PV panels vs the amount of CO2 generated as I puff my way to work on my bicycle :-) [1] Not to be confused with any form of electric bicycle. It requires CTP greenslip and motorcycle registration. >> What we are >> interested in is the energy efficiency which correlates to how much >> CO_2 emission you get per kWh (or km, for that matter) resulting from >> car travel of both types. > So now all you need to know is how much CO2 is generated to produce > 3kWh of electricity and compare that to however much CO2 a 50cc ICE [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where an ICE would cool down increasing emissions but let's not get > too pedantic eh? According to the article in front of me "current electric plug-in cars require 0.25Kwh per km travelled. Electricity from a combination of gas and coal-fired stations in Australia produces 0.99Kg of CO2 equivalent per Kwh. Source: Sustainable Energy office of WA." "An electric car travelling 20,000 km a year indirectly produces 4950kg of CO2e a year". A Four cylinder Camry 4660 kg, Comodore V8 6600kg, VW Golf Diesel 2980kg (source: Australian Green house office). Interestingly the Toyota Prius does 2120kg. Doesn't say much for the efficiency of generating electricity for use in electric-only cars. Cheers Theo > "An electric car travelling 20,000 km a year indirectly produces 4950kg of > CO2e a year". A Four cylinder Camry 4660 kg, Comodore V8 6600kg, VW Golf > Diesel 2980kg (source: Australian Green house office). Interestingly the > Toyota Prius does 2120kg. Doesn't say much for the efficiency of generating > electricity for use in electric-only cars. Don't forget that the Prius does have regenerative brakes. I would like very much to know whether the electric car they're looking at does too; if not, that's likely to be a major part of the difference. Remember also that the Prius is geared towards city driving; its results are dramatically poorer when you take it out on the highway, unlike a regular car. SignatureMy Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet". >> "An electric car travelling 20,000 km a year indirectly produces >> 4950kg of CO2e a year". A Four cylinder Camry 4660 kg, Comodore V8 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > like very much to know whether the electric car they're looking at > does too; if not, that's likely to be a major part of the difference. Didn't say. I would think if they are talking about current technology electric cars, then yes. The point I, and the article quoted, were making is that even with the inefficiency of an ICE, and the inefficiency of producing small amounts of power at a single location for intermittent use, the Prius ICE manages to produce electricity much cleaner than a huge power station. > Remember also that the Prius is geared towards city driving; its > results are dramatically poorer when you take it out on the highway, > unlike a regular car. Which gets much more efficient, mostly because it is moving, not stopped.Yes, it gets to be more like a Camry. I would think that electric-only cars are not really designed for sustained highway use either. Theo > I would think that > electric-only cars are not really designed for sustained highway use either. http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ >> I would think that >> electric-only cars are not really designed for sustained highway use >> either. > > http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way they say "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in almost the same sentence. Theo > lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote: > >> I would think that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Theo It's a US firm, they've got a few of these feeding their grid http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/amazing_solar_t.php >> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ > > There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way they say > "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in almost the same > sentence. Yes it's an issue. Especially with SUV-sized electric cars that can accelerate from 0-60mph (0-100kmh) in 10 seconds and cruise at 95mph (150kmh)!!! Electric or not, that's going to be very energy-intensive transport. Surely it's better to ride a bike, or catch a train, or drive a smaller car eg. Smart Car. SignatureCheers Peter ~~~ ~ _@ ~~ ~ _- \, ~~ (*)/ (*) >>> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > transport. Surely it's better to ride a bike, or catch a train, or drive a > smaller car eg. Smart Car. The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that. But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a hill sometime. You get that energy back. If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of the velocity, or so. SignatureTimC The prolonged application of polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression, rendering the ultimate tendancy apocryphal. --unknown >>>> http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of > the velocity, or so. The square I believe, but that still means 2¼ times as much power needed for 50% more speed. >> The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of >> torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The square I believe, but that still means 2¼ times as much power needed for > 50% more speed. It's actually quite variable. No doubt depends on things such as if you have an aero car with little turbulence vs a non aero car with eddies everywhere (where's Eddie?). I wonder what typical proportion of losses happen through the tires vs the wind? SignatureTimC "Eddies in the space time continuum" "Oh. Is he?" -- Douglas Adams >>> The accelaration is irrelevant in an electric car. So it has a lot of >>> torque. And a lot of force is necessary to be able to produce that. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > eddies everywhere (where's Eddie?). I wonder what typical proportion > of losses happen through the tires vs the wind? Fair enough. I discounting rolling drag and just assuming air resistance as that seems to be overwhelmingly the thing that slows virtually any kind of vehicle down once you get over about 10-20 kph, even if they are nicely aerodynamic. I'm fairly sure that air resistance is a straight square of velocity. > (where's Eddie?). Eddie cat (pronounced "etiquette") always knows the correct place to be, and is right in front of the fire at the moment :) John > PeteSig (wrote >>> There's always got to be at least one exception. I love the way >>> they say "Power from the electric grid" and "Zero emission" in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But once up to speed, you're going to have to slow down or climb a > hill sometime. You get that energy back. Ya what? Once you're doing over about 40 km/h in any car, regardless of how aerodynamic it is, the main drag is air resistance. You constantly lose that, even when you're going down hill. You never get that energy back. Theo >> PeteSig (wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > aerodynamic it is, the main drag is air resistance. You constantly lose > that, even when you're going down hill. You never get that energy back. Yes, but the rate of accelaration is irrelevant. Well, the small difference in time you spend sub 40km/h between a fast and slow accelaration will make a minute difference in how much energy you lose to wind in that time. Once you're doing a static speed > 40km/h, you're going to be putting out a constant amount of power to offset losses. You'll then slow down eventually, and then you'll recover a portion of the amount you used to get up to speed in the first place. Don't brake too quickly though, otherwise the mechanical brakes will have to be phased in, because you won't be able to recover the energy quick enough otherwise. But the larger amount of power you put into accelerating quickly is offset by the decreased time you do this for. Electric motors are pretty linear about this, unlike ICEs who become increasingly innefficient the harder the throttle is pushed. SignatureTimC You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat. -- Albie E. on radios. > But the larger amount of power you put into accelerating quickly is > offset by the decreased time you do this for. Electric motors are > pretty linear about this, unlike ICEs who become increasingly > innefficient the harder the throttle is pushed. Ok just to prove I am awake. ICEs become increasingly efficient "at the same rpm" the harder the throttle is pushed. > You get that energy back. So why does the battery run flat? Regeneration basically sucks badly. > If you go around in a non aerodynamic car at 150km/h though, yes, that > is energy intensive, but that's because losses go up as the cube of > the velocity, or so. And you do nopt get the energy used to push air around back. >> "An electric car travelling 20,000 km a year indirectly produces 4950kg of >> CO2e a year". A Four cylinder Camry 4660 kg, Comodore V8 6600kg, VW Golf [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > very much to know whether the electric car they're looking at does too; > if not, that's likely to be a major part of the difference. Of course it does; it comes almost for free once you have the motor controller already in place. > Remember also that the Prius is geared towards city driving; its results > are dramatically poorer when you take it out on the highway, unlike a > regular car. A worker here only gets about 4km down the road from the bottom of the mountain before the engine kicks in to prop up the electric motor -- that happens once the battery charge gets down to 85%. In other words, only 15% of the battery is used as a potential energy store which means most of the way down this mountain, he's going to be bleeding that excess energy off as heat in his brakes, or perhaps a bank of resistors if the prius has the same as a diesel loco. It doesn't let them drain below 85% otherwise the life expectancy of your battery decreases so rapidly. SignatureTimC Shame on you! Don't you love her? Girls don't want Kmart specials, they want carbon - either as diamonds or as CF bikes! -- Tamyka in aus.bicycle On Jul 3, 4:28 pm, TimC <tconn...@no.spam.accepted.here- astro.swin.edu.au> wrote: > A worker here only gets about 4km down the road from the bottom of the > mountain before the engine kicks in to prop up the electric motor -- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doesn't let them drain below 85% otherwise the life expectancy of your > battery decreases so rapidly. Toyota are being exceptionally conservitave in their protection of the batteries. The Prius runs NiMH batteries and they can take much more than a wimpy 15% depth of discharge without damage or decreased cycles. If your co-worker is really cashed up (well they *did* buy a Prius) they could buy a plug in kit and turn it into a proper battery electric vehicle. http://www.hymotion.com/products.htm > A worker here only gets about 4km down the road from the bottom of the > mountain before the engine kicks in to prop up the electric motor -- The Prius and allthe other common hybrids are basically expensive toys designed to suck money out of rich "green" people. The IC motor does not top up the battery. It is the main motor. If you want a real hybrid car, then you get an electric vehicle and add a IC powered generator. That will double your milage. This hapens becuase the IC is set to run at its most efficent speed. And if you are prepared to trade off acceleration, you will get even better fuel economy. If you are prepared to trade off money in NiMh batteries and reduce battery weight, then you can get even better economy, but the vehicle had better be earning a good packet for every kilometre. > bank of resistors if the prius has the same as a diesel loco. Hmm, turbo diesel powered generator. Should get excellent economy. > doesn't let them drain below 85% otherwise the life expectancy of your > battery decreases so rapidly. sh.t house batteries or faulty knowledge? Even deep discharge lead acid are okay to 50%, provided you do not exceed C/10. C/20 gives really long life, but the weight. I was unde the impression that the denominator for NiMh is much smaller; i.e. higher charge and discharge rates. but we all know the effect of that[1], even with temperatre control. [1] think laptop batteries. > If you want a real hybrid car, then you get an electric vehicle and add > a IC powered generator. That will double your milage. This hapens > becuase the IC is set to run at its most efficent speed. Yep: http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy/1979-07-01/An-Amazing-75-MPG-H ybrid-Electic-Car.aspx >> If you want a real hybrid car, then you get an electric vehicle and >> add a IC powered generator. That will double your milage. This hapens >> becuase the IC is set to run at its most efficent speed. > > Yep: > http://www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy/1979-07-01/An-Amazing-75-MPG-H ybrid-Electic-Car.aspx Wow, 2800 watts will propel a one tonne Opel at 80 km/h.Why does a standard Opel have 100,000 watts? Hmm, I've got one of those B&S 5 hp jobbies on the mulcher.. , and another on the cultivator. How fast can I go if I take the 14.5HP B&S out of the ride-on mower? Theo > lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote: > >> If you want a real hybrid car, then you get an electric vehicle and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Theo Probably because electric motors are rated at their continuous output, while ICE's are rated at their peak. Electric motors can produce 2 to 3 times their rated output for sustained bursts without modification or damage, care to try that with your mighty B&S? :-) >> Wow, 2800 watts will propel a one tonne Opel at 80 km/h.Why does a >> standard Opel have 100,000 watts? Hmm, I've got one of those B&S 5 >> hp jobbies on the mulcher.. , and another on the cultivator. How >> fast can I go if I take the >> 14.5HP B&S out of the ride-on mower? > Probably because electric motors are rated at their continuous output, > while ICE's are rated at their peak. Electric motors can produce 2 to > 3 times their rated output for sustained bursts without modification > or damage, care to try that with your mighty B&S? :-) Err, the point I was trying to make is that I'm dubious that (as the website claims) a 5hp B&S driving a generator can continuously propel an Opel (presumably an Astra) at 80 km/h. Is it fair to assume that the generator will not produce more constant power than the ICE? I think (from memory) that the 5hp B&S is about 200cc, I know the 14.5hp in the ride on mower is 495cc. Do you think a 200cc Low-tech engine such as a B&S will propel an Astra at a constant 80 km/h? Theo Theo > lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Wow, 2800 watts will propel a one tonne Opel at 80 km/h.Why does a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 495cc. Do you think a 200cc Low-tech engine such as a B&S will propel an > Astra at a constant 80 km/h? No I don't think it could when used as the tractive force. I don't believe the claim that the generator powers the drive motor directly up to 50mph either, I think a more likely scenario is that the generator feeds the batteries to extend their range and the drive motor pulls current from them. The drive motor is rated at 400A, and the system voltage is 48V so he's got 19.2kW (rated) to play with. It doesn't mention things like current limits in his controller (perhaps there are none), but if the motor is rated for 400A, it can handle 8-1200A on acceleration (38.4-57.6kW) provided his batteries can deliver. That all doesn't sound like much in the ICE world, but consider this http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/whitezombie.php car which has "only" 240Hp, yet 772 ft. lbs of torque. If your 14.5Hp B&S could develop the same torque as the electric motor driving the Opel it could hurtle your mower along at 80kph no worries. > That all doesn't sound like much in the ICE world, but consider this > http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/whitezombie.php car which has "only" > 240Hp, yet 772 ft. lbs of torque. If your 14.5Hp B&S could develop > the same torque as the electric motor driving the Opel it could hurtle > your mower along at 80kph no worries. Well, if I could store the torque in a battery for future use then maybe it could. The problem is that it is not constant as claimed and the torque battery is going to run low eventually, probably sooner, and I'll be back to whatever the ICE can put out. I do have a working understanding of series-wound AC and DC motors. The company I used to work for invented them back in 191x something. A fellow named Charles Kettering. The old max torque at zero revs, just like a steam engine. :-) Theo > Wow, 2800 watts will propel a one tonne Opel at 80 km/h.Why does a standard > Opel have 100,000 watts? Hmm, I've got one of those B&S 5 hp jobbies on the > mulcher.. , and another on the cultivator. How fast can I go if I take the > 14.5HP B&S out of the ride-on mower? I must admit I blinked when I saw that. But, you lose the weight of the engine, clutch and gear box and associated accesories, so that would be a great weight in cast metal removed. Plus, there didn't seem to be that much battery capacity added in. >> Wow, 2800 watts will propel a one tonne Opel at 80 km/h.Why does a >> standard Opel have 100,000 watts? Hmm, I've got one of those B&S 5 >> hp jobbies on the mulcher.. , and another on the cultivator. How >> fast can I go if I take the 14.5HP B&S out of the ride-on mower? > I must admit I blinked when I saw that. But, you lose the weight of > the engine, clutch and gear box and associated accesories, so that > would be a great weight in cast metal removed. Plus, there didn't > seem to be that much battery capacity added in. Hehe, when you blinked you must have missed the part where it said the modifications only _added_ 50kg to the original weight of the vehicle. The 200cc B&S generator producing 2800w is not going to propel that at a steady 80 klicks as he claims. And that severely taxes my 'believe-it' meter for the rest of his claims. Theo > Hehe, when you blinked you must have missed the part where it said the > modifications only _added_ 50kg to the original weight of the vehicle. The > 200cc B&S generator producing 2800w is not going to propel that at a steady > 80 klicks as he claims. And that severely taxes my 'believe-it' meter for > the rest of his claims. Yep, pass the salt. > Surely that is worse than internal combustion. Current state > of the art (and an electric bicycle isn't) electric vehicles > are responsible for more pollution per km than internal > combustion vehicles. That electric power comes from coal, > don'tcha know. Only if you're not using electricy from renewable sources. That's widely available now, and not much more expensive. http://www.jackgreen.com.au/ for example sells nothing else. John >> Surely that is worse than internal combustion. Current state >> of the art (and an electric bicycle isn't) electric vehicles [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's widely available now, and not much more expensive. > http://www.jackgreen.com.au/ for example sells nothing else. Come on. You know that's just creative accounting. Tell me what makes your lights glow when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing. The answer is mostly coal. Theo >> Only if you're not using electricy from renewable sources. >> That's widely available now, and not much more expensive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lights glow when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing. The > answer is mostly coal. True enough. It's rather like having a pool of money, a large proportion of which comes from gambling[1], and saying that you want *your* share of money to come from non-gambling sources, and you're willing to take a smaller cut of the pool in return for that. The government gets involved, and checks the sources of the money coming into the pool; they make sure[2] that for every dollar that the group demands come from non-gambling sources, at least one dollar into the pool comes from those non-gambling sources. So if the total demand for non-gambling money is (say) $20 million, the government audits to ensure that at least $20 million coming into the pool is from a source other than gambling. So yes, it's creative accounting, but it *is* helping to push demand for "green" energy sources. If enough households jumped on this bandwagon (which I don't see happening, but that's another story), we'd eventually reach saturation point, where the system could no longer absorb more wind/solar capacity; at that point, there would (presumably) be enough money floating around to allow construction of geothermal plants, or energy storage systems. [1] Just as a "for example". [2] In theory, anyway. SignatureMy Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet". >> Come on. You know that's just creative accounting. Tell me what >> makes your lights glow when the sun's not shining and the wind's not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > *your* share of money to come from non-gambling sources, and you're > willing to take a smaller cut of the pool in return for that. <snip> > [2] In theory, anyway. I understand the theory but, I find it difficult to believe it will be executed that way. I try to minimise my power use during peak periods and utilise what I can during off-peak. e.g. My bore only works at night. We don't turn on the dishwasher till 9 pm (No, no, not that dishwasher). We use gas (bottled unfortunately) for hot water and cooking top. We use an evap cooler for the hot days and burn wood for the cold nights. The wood all comes from my back yard, we don't cut any live trees down, and leave the hollow logs for the local fauna. We've planted another 250-300 trees, probably 8-900 now, not counting the 750 grass-trees. I have an echidna in my backyard but I only see it every second year. Theo > Come on. You know that's just creative accounting. Tell me what makes your > lights glow when the sun's not shining and the wind's not blowing. The > answer is mostly coal. > > Theo I think it's disappointing there's not more hydro. Especially since (around here at least) they're always letting water out for irrigation. Though I think solar thermal technology has a lot of promise. It's essentially a coal fired power station with the coal burning bit replaced by solar troughs. They claim heat storage for about 24hrs without sun. It's another Aussie driven overseas by government and industry indifference. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20070416_energy/energy_hi.asx 31:55 for the Aussie, but the whole thing is well worth watching. > Come on. You know that's just creative accounting. Tell me > what makes your lights glow when the sun's not shining and the > wind's not blowing. The answer is mostly coal. I'll mention that to the people complaining about wind turbine noise near wind farms. "That's just the noise accountants make these days" :) Seriously, there's landfill methane powered generators. There's hydroelectric. Wind turbines produce useful output more often than not. It all helps. And then there's other technology going into commercial production like this: http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/ John > Seriously, there's landfill methane powered generators. There's > hydroelectric. Wind turbines produce useful output more often > than not. It all helps. > And then there's other technology going into commercial > production like this: http://www.wind-hydrogen.com/ That may be interesting. Not happening yet though. At the moment all they want is your money. Theo Professional cynic. >> Seriously, there's landfill methane powered generators. >> There's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That may be interesting. Not happening yet though. At the > moment all they want is your money. The funds are for building commercial plants - not for the R&D, which is already done. In any case, using "green power" doesn't always mean the generating capacity is there /every/ single time I want to use that power. At worst it means that the equivalent amount of energy in /not/ produced from coal in the medium to long term. It gets balanced out, and that very important aspect is a far cry from just creative accounting. John > In any case, using "green power" doesn't always mean the > generating capacity is there /every/ single time I want to use > that power. lol, if you are going to criticise "green" power on this aspect, then you really need to understand your existing electrical power generation technologies. Do you have any idea how long it takes the following to come on line; coal powered? gas powered? hydro powered? You are aware that traditional power generation only looks good (your instantaneous demand) because it has hundred of kilowatts spinning in idle. You might also like to talk to a few of the big users and find out how they get on with "instantaneous" supply. "Green" energy is currently the main researcher behind new forms of energy storage and recovery. > I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Owen *sniff* *sniff* Is this a troll? Oh well, anyway, I don't read "Australian Cyclist" nor do I know who or what BFA is, but it varies from state to state. For example in NSW the current limit is 200W *peak* power output for motor assisted bicycles (see VSI27 on the RTA website). This is regardless of motive power, i.e electric or internal combustion, 200W peak power output is it. Most countries allow a 500W limit, even the ones with an oil man in charge like the USA. I think the EU is 250W, but 500W is a more realistic target. As for the old "it doesn't promote cycling, blah blah blah" argument, I'm afraid it doesn't hold water anymore than the "long tailpipe" theory for electric cars. Speaking as a (currently) fat bastard who cycled *everywhere* as a kid but had the normal 15 year lay off once I got my licence, I can tell you that not only do electric bikes promote cycling, but when used correctly they will build one's fitness to the point where one can retire the electric bike and "graduate" to a non powered bike completely pain free. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar as the old saying goes (though precisely why anyone would want to waste honey catching flies remains a mystery to me). So promoting the use of zero emission electric bicycles which will encourage folks to leave their smog boxes in the garage is going to net a lot more cyclists than attempting to shame them once a year into a ride to work day or somesuch where they sweat and gasp their way to work all the while remembering why they normally leave the bike hanging on the garage wall. I'm not a huge fan of internal combustion powered bicycles, though many people favour them over electric bikes due to their greater range. Personally I hate ICE powered bikes, and truth be told I seriously doubt any of them are less than 1kW. I built more than a few electric bikes but eventually settled on a $400 job from Kmart. My bike is also available overseas and is shunned due to it's low power output, but I liked it because I enjoy pedalling. In addition to higher speed and range, the pedalling relieves boredom, is great exercise and the motor is there to fall back on when you run out of puff. There are some insanely priced kits available, but although the components on the Kmart bikes would make most here cringe in horror, they're still better value by far IMO. I haven't ridden my electric bike for a very long time and I doubt I will ride it again except for laughs, I've long since "graduated" (in fact I'm as fast or faster on a regular bicycle these days) so it's done it's job. Would you rather share the road with a 4WD or a cheap electric bike? Mind you, the fat slob on the electric bike will probably beat you up the hill, still better than sucking in fumes though ;-) BTW, when I say electric bike, I'm talking about something like this: http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/7860/kmartebikeql4.jpg not an abomination like this: http://i16.ebayimg.com/05/i/000/a6/b9/fd67_12.JPG These are real beauties, if somewhat expensive: http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/bikes_category.php?id=109 Though if pitched as a car replacement it's a different story. My personal favourite: http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/bikes_detail.php?id=889 >Oh well, anyway, I don't read "Australian Cyclist" nor do I know who >or what BFA is, but it varies from state to state. For example in NSW >the current limit is 200W *peak* power output for motor assisted >bicycles (see VSI27 on the RTA website). This is regardless of motive >power, i.e electric or internal combustion, 200W peak power output is >it. Nice reply. Well written and informative. Thanks Andrew ----- Churchlands, Western Australia Giant CRX 1; Giant Boulder SE http://aushiker.com http://backpackgeartest.org http://geocaching.com.au >>Oh well, anyway, I don't read "Australian Cyclist" nor do I know who >>or what BFA is, but it varies from state to state. For example in NSW [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nice reply. Well written and informative. Apart from the "zero emissions" part. Not unless you subscribe to 100% green power, and even then, that's only an accounting trick. SignatureTimC Anyone seeking the "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" soft option course, may wish to leave now. -- Peter Robinson -- Intro lecture to RQM On Jul 3, 12:45 pm, TimC <tconn...@no.spam.accepted.here- astro.swin.edu.au> wrote: > Apart from the "zero emissions" part. Semantics, unless you count when I farted while riding it (not that often). My bicycle is 288Wh capacity, so I could actually afford the PV panels to recharge that. It's only 24V so cut out the charger and hook up the batteries to the panels/charge controller direct. Still not zero emissions if you consider the production of the PV panels. Or the production of the bicycle. Or the production of the food I eat. Or the clothes I wear. Or the water I drink (unless you have a gravity fed water system, but then there's the pipes unless you're drinking out of the creek). Even walking isn't zero emissions unless you go barefoot, naked and only eat things growing wild, not cultivated. How pedantic do you want to get? On Jul 3, 9:40 am, lemmiwinks...@gmail.com wrote: > Most countries allow a 500W limit, even the ones with an oil man in > charge like the USA. I think the EU is 250W, but 500W is a more > realistic target. Acutally IIRC the USA allows 750W (yep, 1HP) and Canada has 500W. BTW Can anyone point me to a few places where on can get one of these bike (sorry - the Kmart ones don't do it for me) at a reasonable price Preferably in the greater Syd regio Thank -- scotty72 On Jul 3, 11:09 am, scotty72 <scotty72.2t4...@no- mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote: > BTW, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > scotty72 Kmart bikes are about the best value for money turn-key solutions available in Australia at the moment AFAIK. Expect to be spat upon if you enquire at most LBS, though ours did have one, an Avanti Electra IIRC http://preview.tinyurl.com/26krd6 Aprillia used to make one too, but I think it was short lived. Other than that, you can kit out any bicycle with a hub motor (available from various places). There's also a few variations on the Cyclone kit which drive through the cranks using a stoker crankset so you don't have to pedal while the motor is being used. They're frankly quite expensive (particularly for what they are, I built one sans stoker gear for about $100) and there's one which prides itself on having been on the new inventors (how is it an invention since it's a copy?!) but the bloke is an arrogant f.ck so steer well clear. Here's a mob in Melbourne: http://www.evehicles.com.au/ that do kits and bikes. In aus.bicycle on Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:26:06 -0700 > On Jul 3, 11:09 am, scotty72 <scotty72.2t4...@no- > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > IIRC http://preview.tinyurl.com/26krd6 Aprillia used to make one too, > but I think it was short lived. Aitkens Motorcycles in Liverpool have one on the floor. Bet you could get it at les than RRP, it's been there for ages. Zebee On Jul 3, 9:09 am, scotty72 <scotty72.2t4...@no- mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote: > Can anyone point me to a few places where on can get one of these bikes > (sorry - the Kmart ones don't do it for me) at a reasonable price. I recently ordered one of these: http://www.urbanrevolution.com.au/europed66.htm They had a special deal for $199 + $139 del = $338. Unfortunately it has been about 6 weeks now and no bike. Last week I got a letter saying they had been issued a stop-sale for an unnapproved device, and say it may be early August before they can refund my money. I am a bit sad now. I was really looking forward to my new toy. I think it was a good price for a folding bike anyway, even without the electric assist. > On Jul 3, 9:09 am, scotty72 <scotty72.2t4...@no- > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > stop-sale for an unnapproved device, and say it may be > early August before they can refund my money. This country is screwed in its priorities. I'm moving to NZ. SignatureTimC "I often hear people claim they perform skills better slightly drunk if they learned that skill drunk. I wonder if that applies to Perl. Get good and liquored up, dash off a few scripts, see how you like it." -Rob Chanter Owen <rcook@pcug.org.au> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake thusly: > I accidentally read the BFA section of the 'Australian Cyclist" > > The BFA is going to bat for an increase in the power of motor assisted bicyles. I looooooove my electric bike. (I don't think you'll find too many people seriously advocating mass adoption of two-stroke petrol bikes). As a car-replacement it's great when carrying a boxload of cargo, and trust me, a wimpy 200W motor combined with the intertia of weighty bike leaves /plenty/ of "health promoting" exercise. > These rotten things are the antithesis of good cycling, they don't > promote health, they spew out stinking inefficiently burnt gases and > fly past you like a real motor bike. yawhat? My 200W bike is the slowest thing on the bikeway. The motor tops out at 20kph and the pedal gearing is such that about 35 is absolute top speed. The newer hub-motor electric bikes are phenomenal---you don't even notice they're electric, they're so quiet and unobtrusive. The current 200W peak power limit is inadequate for hills if you have any kind of load (eg. kid(s)!). A 400-500W motor with the same size batteries would do me fine, 'cos I only need that peak power for a brief section of my commute. As I see it the major advantages of electric assist cycles are 1/ easy intro to cycling - its up to the rider how many calories to burn. Commuters can slack off in the morning, and get a workout in the evening---lessening that "sod it, I'll ride tomorrow" temptation that seems so enticing at 6am. 2/ casual car replacement - short cargo-carrying errands are more conveniently accomplished than by car. For example, in Brisbane using the bikeways I can make a lunchtime errand of 5-20km in less time than car or bus, and get back to work fresh. --chris >> These rotten things are the antithesis of good cycling, they don't >> promote health, they spew out stinking inefficiently burnt gases and >> fly past you like a real motor bike. > > yawhat? You need to order replacement EFI firmware from one of those revhead websites. SignatureHome page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.