240 General: New (to me) 1980 Volvo 244

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Good call, Alan. I first used Redex in a '51 8HP SV Ford (my first car) in the mid sixties. At the time, it cost one (old) penny a 'shot', when 'regular' fuel was 4s11d per gallon. Four gallons plus four 'shots' cost exactly £1, which, as an apprentice on less than a fiver, represented my motoring for the week! That, and half a gallon of 2T in my NSU Quickly for riding to and from work and 'tech when it was fine - happy days!

Regards, John.

Excellent John,
What a brilliant memory you have - far better than mine.
See my post above for a possible solution to expensive motoring in the RB (maybe in 10 year's time!).
Alan

[Othen]

I was just thinking about whether the Meiden engine I found would produce enough torque to run the RB with about the same performance as the current B21a (which has 125 ft.lbf @3,000 RMP).

I found some details for a NetGain HyPer9 AC motor (88kW, 8000 RPM and 173 ft.lbf, but costs over $4,000) that allowed me to calculate a constant (it would be in some odd mixed metric and imperial units, so don't worry about that, only the numbers matter):

C=6.35 x 10^-5

where C = max power (in kW)/((max speed (in RMP) * torque (in ft.lbf))

so for the Meiden:

torque = 60/(9300 * 6.35 x 10^-5) = 101 ft.lbf

... but of course torque will be constant (more or less) throughout the range from 0 to 9,300 RPM.

I was thinking about the RB, at 3,000 RMP in top it will be doing around 60 MPH. If the Meiden had the same gearing it would be producing about 20 kw (a little less than 30 HP) at that speed - probably the same as the RB now (so my guess its torque would be sufficient to do that). At top engine speed the Meiden would therefore be geared to propel the RB at 180 MPH, which would obviously be far more that 60 kW could manage.

At a rough guess I'd say a fixed 3:2 reduction gear between the Meiden motor and the prop shaft would make things about right - top speed would (theoretically) be 120 MPH, but once hindered by those pesky air molecules perhaps 90-100 MPH.

One way of achieving the gear reduction would be to fit a manual gearbox (perhaps M45) and drive the car in third gear. That is probably the way the garage on Vintage Voltage would do it, but I think would be very sloppy engineering. It would mean carting around an otherwise redundant 50 kg, the Meiden motor could no longer fit in the transmission tunnel and it would be another thing to break. A better solution might be to find a small 3:2(ish) reduction box that fitted (maybe from a boat or a plant machine ... or somewhere else) instead.

... I know: I should get out more.

Alan

[Laird Scooby]

Interesting stuff Alan! I found the manufacturers website and they also offer a 14000rpm version of the same motor :

https://www.secondlife-evbatteries.c...placement.html

Seems a lot cheaper than the ebay listing as well.

The 14000rpm unit might be a better otion for another reason, a simple 2:1 reduction output gearbox would give you a 0-7000rpm range which would be the same as in top gear but with double the output torque from the motor. This would mean the motor would only have to work half as hard to get you up to speed. Longer motor and battery life!

They don't sell a motor controller yet for this range of motors but hint in their blurb they are looking at releasing one in the near future. I would hope that they include a reversing function in the controller or you could end up in Reliant Robin territory but with something 2-3 times the weight to push backwards!

[john.wigley]

As part of a long-term plan of ownership, your proposals for the Royal Barge have obvious merits, Alan, especially given the likely demise of the internal combustion engine. They would also seriously compromise the vehicle's originality - something which you have said that you are keen to preserve.

I think that petrol will continue to be available (at a price) for a considerable period after production of i/c engines has ceased. Even now, 20 years after it stopped being widely available, it is still possible to purchase leaded fuel in the UK from licenced garages who are members of the FBHVC.. At a guess, I would say that ULP will continue to be available until at least 2040, probably longer.

If the R.B. were mine (which it isn't ), I think that I would continue to enjoy it in the form that Mr. Volvo intended. If I wished to salve my conscience, I would put the cost of conversion towards the price of a modern EV for use as a daily driver. They should be both cheaper and have an improved range by 2030. The amount that you use the R.B. - two to three thousand miles per year, perhaps? - will have little financial or environmental impact in the grand scheme of things.

Just my musings. Regards, John.

[Othen]

Hi John and Dave,

I don't suppose I was really serious about converting the RB to an EV, I was just whiling away a drizzly Sunday morn with a thought experiment to see what would be possible. It was interesting to see that a chap in Denmark went as far as almost ordering the components from a supplier in the USA.

John is right, I do like the RB the way it is (well, it may well have a few subtle improvements yet), and with some careful husbandry might see it well beyond its 50th birthday.

The EV bugbear would always be cost - even if batteries halved in price the cost of a conversion would still be something over £10,000 (at today's rates), which is always going to be much more than the RB will ever be worth. I was intrigued to see that an electric motor of similar power would fit into the space occupied by the BW55 gearbox - but that is only part of the solution to an EV of course, the other bit is where to put 400 kgs of batteries.

I'm still not all that convinced that EVs make all that much sense (financially or environmentally) yet. I saw an ad for replacement Nissan Leaf batteries the other day - £4950 plus about 3 hours workshop time to fit. They seem to last 10 years (they don't stop completely, the original 80 mile range just becomes much less until the car isn't practical), but by the time the car is 10 years old it is only worth £5000, and I can't see many third or fourth owners shelling out what the car is worth to fit new batteries - so they will mostly be scrapped at that point.

Anyway, the weather has cheered up, so I think I'll get my Triumph (bike) out and turn some dinosaurs into noise :-)

Alan

PS. Dave: I'd rather assumed the electric motors could to be made to run in reverse - I hadn't looked into that detail. Good point!

[john.wigley]

I've long argued that 'our' cars are 'greener' than most, Alan, on account of their longevity. This means that depreciation is negligible and manufacturing and EOL costs may be amortised over a much longer period than most. Take my last 740 for example, which I bought for £1750 at 11 years and 98,000 miles, and ran largely trouble free for a further 18 years.

There is much more to the cost of motoring than the cost of fuel. People will also argue that an EV is cleaner environmentally than it's petrol engined counterpart, but that only applies to emissions produced at the tail pipe. They conveniently 'forget' about all those produced at the power station in generating the electricity that charges their batteries!

The 'Holy Grail' of buying ever more complex and costly motor cars in order to squeeze the last mile out of a gallon of fuel is heavily flawed in my book. That only addresses one small part of the problem (at huge cost) and is more politically motivated than environmentally. If we are really serious about this, we need a much more extensive and far-reaching programme than simply targeting personal transportation.

Sorry - it's a personal 'hobby-horse'! Anyway, enjoy your ride on your nice, environmentally friendly, motor-cycle - you're probably doing more for the environment than most EV drivers do!

Regards, John.

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

I've long argued that 'our' cars are 'greener' than most, Alan, on account of their longevity. This means that depreciation is negligible and manufacturing and EOL costs may be amortised over a much longer period than most. Take my last 740 for example, which I bought for £1750 at 11 years and 98,000 miles, and ran largely trouble free for a further 18 years.

There is much more to the cost of motoring than the cost of fuel. People will also argue that an EV is cleaner environmentally than it's petrol engined counterpart, but that only applies to emissions produced at the tail pipe. They conveniently 'forget' about all those produced at the power station in generating the electricity that charges their batteries!

The 'Holy Grail' of buying ever more complex and costly motor cars in order to squeeze the last mile out of a gallon of fuel is heavily flawed in my book. That only addresses one small part of the problem (at huge cost) and is more politically motivated than environmentally. If we are really serious about this, we need a much more extensive and far-reaching programme than simply targeting personal transportation.

Sorry - it's a personal 'hobby-horse'!

Regards, John.

You are so right John. Just yesterday I was reading an article in the Telegraph about a new EV (the Polestar 2 - seems to be a sort of Saab, currently built in China). The 'Well to wheels' CO2 emissions are 37.2g/km, so this is no free lunch. On top of that, the whole life environmental effects of production, maintenance and disposal will be far higher.

I can't help thinking the real problem is that we keep throwing things away - often in the name of efficiency and environmental protection. The Royal Barge might be something of a leviathan that only does 25 MPG, but it was only manufactured once and its lifetime has been five or six times as long as many other cars (so far...).

This constant change in the name of progress is madness. The only real way to preserve this earth of ours is to stop the inexorable rise in the human population, both in our country and globally - but that is politically unpalatable :-)

Ho hum, my view doesn't matter much.

Alan

[Othen]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Anyway, enjoy your ride on your nice, environmentally friendly, motor-cycle - you're probably doing more for the environment than most EV drivers do!

Regards, John.

I did take a motorbike out John, but I couldn't be bothered to get dressed up for the Triumph (a 900cc bike that demands proper riding attire) because it has turned out to be such a warm afternoon. Instead I got the Bloop (a 1976 Suzuki 2 stroke) out of the bike shed, and took it for a spin wearing a 1970's style Nolan open face helmet with my shorts and a tee shirt. The Suzuki started second kick, and by the time I'd got to Morrisons the battery had enough charge for the indicators to work (6v system).

The Bloop produces as much smoke as the rest of Corby put together, but it is sort of cool to leave a faint blue trail. I'd forgotten how much fun the little 2 stroke is to ride, it can still do over 60 on the flat and was holding 50 MPH up a hill on the way back home. It reminds me of the way things were back in the day even more so than does the Royal Barge.

I didn't do much for the environment, and will probably have Swampy living in a tree outside the bike shed in protest for a few weeks, but I can't still can't stop smiling after half an hour on the Bloop.

:-)

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by Othen

You are so right John. Just yesterday I was reading an article in the Telegraph about a new EV (the Polestar 2 - seems to be a sort of Saab, currently built in China).
Alan

The Polestar 2 is the same sort of Saab as the RB is Alan - it's a Volvo!

Originally Posted by Othen

I didn't do much for the environment, and will probably have Swampy living in a tree outside the bike shed in protest for a few weeks, but I can't still can't stop smiling after half an hour on the Bloop.

:-)

You're fairly safe there Alan, Swampy needed a triple bypass but all his mates protested!

[Othen]

Originally Posted by Laird Scooby

The Polestar 2 is the same sort of Saab as the RB is Alan - it's a Volvo!

So it is! I must have mis-read that bit.