Please note that Design News Magazine has had a leadership position in its electric race tech reports, and has followed electric drag racing developments even earlier than 2007. There was an article on the "Bad Amplitude" dragster developed by Net Gain Technologies, a racer in the style of a top fuel "rail job," back in 2002. I am pleased to note that as a consultant to Warfield Electric Co., Inc., the motor manufacturer, I participated in the development of the high-performance, direct-current motors used in Bad Amplitude. Design News had a nice write-up in the October 07, 2002 issue. Please see the complete article at: http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=216569 This dragster had been retired for some time, but with battery technology advances since that time, Net Gain plans to reactivate the dragster project.
Back in 1968 we were working on the design of an electric dragster that would have a separate motor driving each of the four wheels. We had a source of motors that could deliver about 400HP "for a short time". We also had the battery problem solved, as our plaan was to have two copper strips, one on each side of the track, and use two large pickups. This would satisfy the track operators that the vehicle would lose power if it left the track. The power would have been from a large diesel powered generator parked well behind the pits area. the 4800 volts would drive the four motors in series, 1200 volts each, and around 200 amps. This car would probably have set many new records for any quater-mile car. The project ended when we determined that it was well beyond our financial capabilities. Also, some of the group got drafted. But it certainly would haave been quite a show to run it.
I'm not in the drag racing part but have known them, moslyt online EV groups and some in person, mostly on the EVDL EV discussion list which has more EV experts and people who actually build, drive more EVs than anywhere else for over 20 yrs and help others who are trying to build good EV's. To Find more info on EV drag racing and EV links, just google EV Racing and follow the links.
As for me I design and build lightweight EV's with 2 to 4 wheels, composites, boats, wind/tidal generators . I do it because it's the only way to get reasonable priced EV's that are very cost effective. For instance I drive a Harley size 700lb EV MC trike with 60 mile range and lead batteries.
Now done in composites such a unit seating 2 with an aero cabin with an 80 mph top speed could easily be built for under $10k. Such a vehicle would cost about $.01/mile for electric US average and battery costs. Such a vehicle would pay for itself just in gas savings over 5 yrs. And done with the right looks, ad campaign could be very cool.
Another future EV will be an aero cabin composite body 2wh MC that will go 100 mph for 150-200 miles. These and other lightweight, aerodynamic EV's only need 25% of the battery pack, EV drive thus far cheaper to build. Likely in just 2-3 yrs they will cost less to build than ICE versions.
I've long studied the battery cost issue and there is no reason lithium batteries OEM sould cost over $200kwhr in 2 yrs. Why is you can buy cells now for under $250/kwhr in 3 amp sizes like Tesla, Toyota. Mostly this is because huge numbers of battery manufacturers and chemical/suppliers fighting for a fairly small market with only 100,000EV's or less next yr and those are sewn up but a few players. My bet is GM, Nissan are getting Battery Packs with BMS for about $450/kwhr, mostly because of low production. As they get experience, automate more and material prices drop to about $125/kwhr, packed prices should be under $250kwhr.
So to conclude, EV's need to be built as low drag thus aero and lightweight so good performance can be had from smaller, less costly EV drives, batteries is the future in EV's. And they will be, as my EV's are, very cost effective.
The Zombie effortlessly posted three nearly identicla 10.2 @ 123 mph 1/4 mile passes - this, with self imposed restrictions on max motor volts and max motor rpm, both of which were hit on all three runs - hence the same ETs and trap speeds. Those limits are now raised, and, a taller 3:25 gear set is going in over the out-going 3:50 ratio. With 1250 ft. lbs. on tap, going 'taller' in gear ratio doesn't seem to hurt the car's incredible 1.33 60 ft., and though we may slow that part down to say, 1.55, the top end will be much more aggressive. We expect the Zombie to be soildy in the 9s in three weeks when we return to the track to find out.
I seldom take myself 100% seriously - life is too short. But I do have this 'anal thing' about publicly published data. I think that the disorder comes from years of dealing with 'requirements issues', 'he said', 'she said', 'that is not what I meant', etc.
I expect to be held accountable for anything that I 'say' publicly.
Ed, are you this charming, misleading, and obstinate at home and work when you are wrong?? Or do you reserve it for use only online??
The first post that I saw challenged a nonexistent quote about 'faster'.
The second post has a phrase "car nuts ALWAYS look at quarter mile times, not just the 0-60 times" that clearly "justifies" 0-60 as a "valid" measurement. [I would, however, challenge the use of the word 'ALWAYS'.]
1. We agree that the WZ out accelerates the Veyron 0-60.
2. The exact original quote was "we have acceleration that's better than the Bugatti Veyron".
3. The original purpose of the quote was likely to make the simple point "This used car that has cost a few $K is powered by batteries through electric motors can out accelerate the Veyron that cost $M."
4. No matter how you slice it "The WZ can out accelerate the Veyron".
5. Yes, if you put the 1/4 distance constraint on the rate of change measurement, you can honestly say that you have successfully created a scenario in which the $2,400,000 car can out accelerate the home built, used Datsun. But even then, #4 will still be true - "The WZ can out accelerate the Veyron".
The article talks about drag racing (normally a quarter-mile affair) and quotes only a quarter-mile time. And car nuts ALWAYS look at quarter mile times, not just the 0-60 times. Does the Zombie out-accelerate the Veyron in the quarter mile?
In terms of 'acceleration', for street legal cars, it's 0-60 mph that's the comparison point. The Veyron does 0-60 in 2.4 seconds .... the Zombie does it in 1.8 seconds. My quote was "out-accelerates the Veyron" - never said the Zombie was 'faster' ... you made that part up . The Zombie does indeed. out-accelerate the Veyron in the 0-60 contest.
Not to diminish Mr. Wayland's accomplishments with the the White Zombie, but being "street legal" is a lot different from "daily driver". All "street legal" means is that it has lights, a horn and windshield wipers. Last time I saw it, it had only a driver's racing bucket seat and very little else for an interior. It's a one of a kind, purpose-built machine to test and refine high performance electric drivelines, controllers and batteries, not so much for practical transportation
...............The car has never, ever been without both front seats.. you're posting incorrect information. Datsun 1200s did not come with carpeting - yet the Zombie has full carpets, front and rear. It 'is' in fact, a daily driver, and recently traveled hundreds of miles on trips from Portland to Seattle. It is not 'stripped', other than the back seat no longer fits due to the NHRA required roll bar system. It does not run on slicks, rather, it uses DOT street legal tires. It gets driven to and from the race track where ti soundly spanks many gutted, hollow-shell muscle cars that do have only a driver's seat and have to be trailered to the track.
In his keynote address at the RAPID 2015 conference last week, Made In Space CTO Jason Dunn gave an update on how far his company and co-development partner NASA have come in their quest to bring 3D printing to the space station -- and beyond.
On Memorial Day, Americans remember the sacrifices the US armed forces have made, and continue to make, in service to the country. All of us should also consider the developments in technological capabilities and equipment over the years that contribute to the success of our military operations.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.