Where is the Apple Car Conversion?

>>1216473
I'm no expert in this, but that sounds incredibly retarded. You want to take something that operates off a drivetrain, and is designed around it, and convert it to a direct motor drive? I could be wrong, but I think that is why there is no market.

>let's just gut literally everything that makes the car good, and replace it with some motors

way to ruin a car, also electric cars still aren't green

the batteries use dangerous chemicals, and the power used to charge the car almost always comes from either coal, or oil based power plants

nuclear in some regions

>>1216477
The combustion engine takes up a specific compartment and has a particular torque/RPM tuning with the gearbox, apart from this it is a source of rotation force, not some magical doohickey. Surely an electric motor would handle turning those gears at the speeds and torques required? I see no argument here.


>>1216481
Green doesn't mean "free as in air" or "no fossil energy cost". Who gave you that impression? Anyways, I would disagree that ripping out the crappy engines of old-ish cars and replacing them with more powerful electric engines is bad. You seem to think I wish to force this on anyone, while I simply stated that I don't understand why the public hasn't adopted it.

>TL;DR I expected these responses, don't be basic.

>>1216600
so combustion motors are also much more efficient and energy dense than electric motors are. The only way to get similar performance is to get rid of transmission losses by eliminating the drivetrain and going direct drive. Also, regenerative braking to recharge batteries is a huge part of electric car efficiency.
Also also, electric cars tend to be built lighter.

>>1216600
Also, the point of electric cars is that they're green, the only reason they make commercial sense is that tax subsidies/credits offset the higher initial cost along with the expectation that fossil fuel costs will rise and electricity wont.
And not green as in currently the non-sustainable manufacturing + running costs of an electric car are higher than a standard, reasonably efficient gas car. The battery lifespan is less and it's more dangerous that gasoline for explosions/fires etc.
not green = lower running costs but higher total costs to both you and the environment.

>>1216473
>>1216477
In-wheel electric motors/wheel hub motors.

You just replace the motor with batteries and electronics. Replace the wheels with electric motors. You don't even need anything you normally had at all. Just gut the rest of it out.

File: Wheel-hub-motor-retrofit-kit.jpg (68KB, 610x407px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 610x407px

>>1216618

>>1216622
Interesting.

>>1216622
Well shit, that would solve a lot of problems.

This is by far the dummest thread I've ever read.

>implying an engine is a motor
>implying motors and engines have the same torque and speed curve that you could just bolt up to a transmittion.
>implying combustion engines are "more efficient and just as energy dense as an electric motor". I'm pretty sure you have no clue what that even means.
>implying that Ev power trains are even remotely close to their gas guzzling brethren (like regenerative braking which is fucking impossible with an automatic transmittion and a motor without alot of instrumentation and cost.

Are you for real anon? Did you just watch a documentary and now think your enabled to actually discuss this with a kernel of intelligence?

Let me answer your question simply: because the two concepts aren't even remotely the same and all the components of each are simply incompatible.

>battery storage
>body panels
>controllers
>cabling
>heating/ac
>steering
>braking

All not compatible when you convert to electric.

Where do you get vacuum from (brake boost) ?
Where do you get heat or ac? (pumps and coolant)
How do you fit the batteries?
List goes on and on. And the problem repeats with every model.

Maybe you could convert a 1950s non uni body car... But you may as well get a whole new car. I can't immagine doing this on a modern car.

Everything is unique.

Those rotor motors are hardly a solution. It's just a start. Also their mener motors so I'd give it a few thousand miles and you're fucked. Otherwise everyone would be using them.

>>1216654
Pardon me, I meant permanent magnet motors

>>1216622
Heavy af and it's not really a good idea to have this much magnets and high power electrics this close to the road with water and all kinds of debris, magnetic or not.

>>1216727
>high power electrics this close to the road with water and all kinds of debris, magnetic or not
Sure, that's a shitty splice, but otherwise, why not?

>>1216614
>higher than a standard, reasonably efficient gas car
Are you being paid to forget about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on stirring the shit in oil-producing countries as a necessary condition of our access to cheap, plentiful crude, or are you doing that for free?

>>1216473
Former mechanic, currently R&D for an auto manufacturer, ur a moron. Shet up u stupid idiot. Kill urself stoopid.

If you're not a troll, functionally you could replace an engine with a strong enough motor and make it drive. That's the easy part, you'll have much more fun getting enough battery capacity to go anywhere, removing or rerouting anything belt driven, reducing as much weight as possible, and getting frustrated when your 18 year old shitbox was probably not the ideal choice. The only things standard in cars is the sizing for hoses, tubing, tires and fasteners. There have been instances in the past where manufactures have changed parts mid production year(including things like transmission/engine bolt patterns).

There will never be a pre made kit for an electric car conversion, it would cost too much money and take too much research to come up with an option for every car made in the last 20 years and keep them available. Only kit could be something like this >>1216622 >>1216618, and even that couldn't be made into a direct fit for any car.

There's is a really cool thread I came across ages ago about and old guy converting a ford range to electric and daily driving it to work. He had a bed full of old lead acid batteries. Actually inspired me to start learning more about cars other than history, trivia and fixing them.

>>1216473
As others have said, electric cars do not benefit from drivetrain.

Also it is not nearly that simple. You need a brake booster pump that can be driven and controlled electronically. You need very sophisticated electronics to make lithium cells safe to use. You need special venting for failure on those cells.

Ignoring the complexity of the electronics. You want AC or heat, or vacuum system to vent it towards cabin? Now you need a set of electrical systems separate from the drive system. Same with radio etc. Don't forget, there's a reason cars have pulleys and an alternator for that. it takes an impressive amount of power to run accessories and peripherals. You aren't gonna run headlights on the same relay as the motor, after all.

There's a reason Tesla got big selling cars and not kits, after all.

>>1216754
There are several companies that have wheels like that. All have different designs of course. Being heavy isn't much of a problem since they replace the motor. The problem as always is the batteries/supercaps. I just wish that tech could advance faster.

>>1216773
>there's a reason Tessa got big
Yeah, he was really good at sucking political dick with a green product

Come to California, you can get fifteen thousand dollars off a new realm! I mean luxury electric car

>>1216473
just buy a used nissan leaf for 9k and then destroy that car so you can tear the engine out of your car and replace it with an electric motor and a battery pack.

The problem is that you are not going to find a kit that costs less with the battery included. Its the same reason that wrightspeed doesn't make turbine electric kits for anything but giant trucks. It just doesn't make financial sense; for you, or for them to design such a thing.

>>1216796
>Being heavy isn't much of a problem
Unsprung mass is always a problem

>>1216473
1) said kit would cost at least $20k to have any decent mileage
2) an ICE powered car has been heavily tailored for this kind of drivetrain. Look at all the "skateboard platforms" programs various car manufacturers had and look at how Teslas drivetrain layout looks.
The giant fucking battery is a single piece on the bottom and is an integral part of the frame. You can't do this with a car that was made with an ICE, at least not without ripping up the chassis, at which point you might as well start from scratch.

The body of old school cars with separate frames could be "dropped" onto a fairly versatile "skateboard" undercarrige, but that would involve lots od $hekel$ and a lot of hate from classics lovers.

>>1216622
>"unsprung weight"

>>1216895
>The nissan leaf project
>YouTube's greatest excercise in expensive futility

>>1216473
>Why is there no huge namebrand gas-to-electric conversion kit?

Why don't you learn more about cars instead of posting dumbfuck questions which prove you are too stupid to breathe?

You don't deserve a respectful reply. This is not /spoonfeed/ and you being too wilfully ignorant to instantly get why your question is retarded is no excuse. Fucking set your crotch on fire then put it out with a shotgun so you don't reproduce.

>>1216754
Thank you for your considerate reply, your knowledge is appreciated.

>>1217072
You need to calm down.

File: 1487994628129.jpg (5KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x187px

>>1217087
No he doesn't. I'm also tired of retards that can't connect the dots that would easily answer their question or run a simple search for the information they need. I'll admit this board was never great but god damn have we had a massive increase of threads with topics that belong on the qtddtot or on another board.
We have at least three threads about living in a van. Whole bunch of other threads that open with a one liner or "hur dur ameritards" like on /pol/ bait threads. Where the fuck are the janitors for diy?

>>1216473
There isn't one because nobody's yet made the proposal to an influential government to get it subsidised. Otherwise getting their efficiency to match up to a petrol car is impossible, and undesirable from a consumer standpoint.

>>1217237
Maybe we should post sinks

File: Tesla_Motors_Model_S_base.jpg (823KB, 2153x1431px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 2153x1431px

Ok, here's a thought:
>half ton pickup truck (f250, 2500s)
>4wd, live axles front and rear
>modify axle housings to fit electric motors/transmissions, tesla style (pic related)
>battery pack under bed/in between frame rails
>program the front and rear motorsets synchronize wheel speeds

Let's take a 2017 F250, 6.7 diesel, 4wd. Aluminum body and shit, a little lighter than before. 6500 lbs curb weight
Remove diesel engine, belt drive components and trans, plus fluids, radiator, battery, driveshaft, that's 1700 pounds.
Add 100 lbs per electric motor, 4 motors. The Tesla motors weigh about 75 a piece, let's bulk them up because muh truck durability.
The Tesla's battery pack weighs 1200 lbs, make it bigger for our truck, 1500 to account for the extra weight.

6700 lbs curb weight, 780 hp, 820 lb-ft of torque. Really not that far off from a normal F-250 other than the horsepower.

>>1217441
Another thought: the Tesla P90D weighs almost 5k lbs.

>>1217441
If I were building a snow plow truck, I'd much rather have my torque at the stall end than the no-load end, and I'd much rather not have a transmission in the mix at all.

>>1217441
Do you know how much diesel trucks use? In what universe do you willingly give up probably more than 90% of your energy density for the sake of "running an EV"?

>>1217583
>inb4 put a diesel genset in the bed

>>1217595
Ew no, you stick with one kind of transmission or you go home, I don't want to be telling someone to make a 10 year old's perpetual motion machine or Porsche Tiger.

File: Sssssalty.jpg (61KB, 800x314px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x314px

>>1217237
>slow board, tons of waste threads and mister hobo dome
>complains about original questions that don't concern crab meat
Pls stap :^) You're obviously tired. Take a nap, you'll feel better.

>>1217629
>not knowing that diesel-electric drives have been around for literally decades and constitutes the vast majority of locomotive engines
Do go on, purist.

>>1217843
This.

You're better off diesel electric than pure electric on a diesel truck. This trick has been done for decades because there is no transmittion for a locomotive. Plus you gain back all those mechanical losses.

>>1217843
>>1217866
I was talking about cars. When it comes to trains, it's probably better to have a bunch off cables going everywhere plus some generator/motor losses than having a CV joint at all of the drive wheels. Hydraulic direct-mechanical transmission is still probably better once the tech catches up, but the torque at 0rmp from an electric engine is pretty nice when to comes to having a small thrust:mass ratio.

I don't want electric cars because they're "green", I want electric cars because electricity is a more versatile form of energy and can be created pretty much anywhere in the universe. If the market for electric cars was bigger and the oil and gas companies didn't have a monopoly electric cars would be dirt cheap.

>>1218174
>electric cars would be dirt cheap
Petrol prices are usually better than electricity prices, petrol tank prices are far better than battery prices, petrol motor prices are typically better than equivalent electric motor prices, petrol mileage is better than electric mileage, you are deluding yourself. Chemical batteries are the main problem with electric cars, everything else can be made bearable with current technology.

>>1218024
As long as it don't have a fluid coupling your idea could work.

Putting the motor at the differential can be a toss up from putting at the wheels. A transmission will lose way more. But nothing beats direct drive when it comes to efficiency

>>1218300
I wonder why trains need multiple sets of drive wheels in the first place, its not like they accelerate very quickly. Do they really not have enough friction, or is it a stress distribution thing?

>>1218557
Both. They use smooth steel wheels and 2 motors aren't enough for the load.

I see trains here that require 3 locomotives to push the line.

Rail car Track limit gross weight is 258000 lbs, each, and I've watched them string toghether about 100 cars in a line after filling them to that.

That's alot of load. I'd want to have as many powered wheels as possible, especially on an incline.

>>1216473

Even conversions to cng are hard to turn into diy style kits.