The Zing!

[PatQ562]

Let's welcome Ken Fry who bravely dares to enter the shark filled waters of the riled up Aptera pool. Who else noticed the snappy looking 3 wheeler (?) standing in his picture?

A quick dip into Ken's profile and following the links reveals "yet another" brave attempt to launch a hyper-efficient personal vehicle. Specs are minimal so far, progress has barely begun. Stated performance goals are 330 mpge for the first 40 miles on battery charge, then 100mpg on the gas motor (yes, it's a hybrid). This translates to the 100 wh/mi often cited for the early Aptera, and now Edison2, so the electric and gas performances are not inherently unrealistic if everything is done right.

Assuming good LiPO batteries at 100wh/kg, the 40 mile battery pack ought to hold about 5kwh, (80% DOD we hope), thus weighing 50kg (110 lbs). It's hard to believe a gas engine, tank, etc etc would weigh any less - so why not offer a much simpler and easier version with double the battery, thus running 80-100 miles, like most of the mainstream EVs. The nice thing about a relatively small battery (10kwh) is that it could recharge in well under 2 hours on Level II service (240V/32A), making road trips somewhat conceivable.

Ken, I have some probing questions for you, all intended to lend credibility to what we all know is a challenging project.

Do you have a battery management system (BMS)?
What is the drive mechanism (chain, belt, shaft)?
Is it in fact a 3-wheel proposal?
What actual performance metrics can you present regarding your prototype?

Best regards and sincerely, best of luck. I think everyone here will be quite interested in your project, especially now that Aptera is gone.

Pat Q

[SEGsby]

I would disagree. Only Paul is gone.

The Aptera IP is in limbo, which is completely different...

And Welcome to the Forum, Mr. Fry.

[Ken Fry]

Let's welcome Ken Fry who bravely dares to enter the shark filled waters of the riled up Aptera pool. Who else noticed the snappy looking 3 wheeler (?) standing in his picture?

Pat Q

Hi Pat,
Thanks! I was surprised to see a Zing! thread already established.

You have some great questions both stated and implied.

Yes, it is a three-wheeler. It probably will feel a bit more like a motorcycle than the Aptera would have -- the Aptera seemed to be heading toward a softer more luxurious vehicle than I have in mind for the Zing!. I see the markets as being somewhat different. The Zing! front seat is the only seat intended to be routinely occupied. The rear seat will ordinarily hold a briefcase, a bag or two of groceries, etc. The 24 cu ft of cargo space that the Aptera might have ended up with is far more than I want on the Zing! Three wheelers are weight sensitive, and anything that pulls the CG out away from the center of the triangle formed by the three wheels causes handling changes that can be potentially dangerous. This includes the effects of side-by-side seating: a very light three wheeler corners differently from right to left when the driver is heavy and off center.

The styling of the two probably tells the story in some ways: the Zing! is harder-edged, leaner, lighter. The Aptera is more bulbous, bigger, softer, heavier and luxurious.

Yes, 100 WH per mile (10 miles per kWh) has been the target. The POC (proof-of-concept prototype) exceeds this in suburban/urban driving, but is lighter than the production vehicle (540 lbs including its 3kWh Li-X battery pack.) The limited production vehicles, which we will build in 2012 (we're doing the cockpit mockup now) will be heavier, but better streamlined. The engine in the POC peaks at 25% efficiency. The engines in the production vehicles will be about 32% efficient. So far testing suggests that the 100 mpg and 100 wH/mile figures are about right for the production vehicles. (I could be off by 10% but not 20%).

Your estimate of 5kWh pack size is a good one, but the production vehicle will actually have a 7.2 kWh pack, of which about 4 kWh will be used, in the interests of longer cycle life. (In many Li chemistries, 80% DOD nets 2000 cycles [product = 160,000] and 70% nets 3000 [product = 210000]).

You asked:
"It's hard to believe a gas engine, tank, etc etc would weigh any less - so why not offer a much simpler and easier version with double the battery, thus running 80-100 miles, like most of the mainstream EVs."

Good observation. In fact, using the POC numbers: The 30 mile range battery pack weights 90 lb. The engine and generator combined weigh 49 lb.
The tank weights about 3 lb, I'd guess. The eng/gen cost was less than $1000. Just doubling range to 60 miles would cost about $1600 in batteries and 90 lb in weight, but still, range would be unacceptable to many people. Even 90 miles range, at a $3200 / 180 lb premium is not enough range for many people. (It's fine for people who are knowledgeable about EV's, but the majority of people still believe that an EV needs 400-500 mile range, and are willing to wait until that happens... provided they don't have to pay any more than they would for a typical car!!??. For EVers, this sounds crazy, but if you want to see crazy in action just look at the cars going by during rush hour: huge SUVs occupied by one person.)

Battery charger weight and cost also increase with a larger battery pack. The POC charges in 6 hours from 120 vac, with no need for a charger outlet.
The production vehicle will take a little longer to charge, using a slightly bigger charger, but will not require 240 VAC service. Once the threashold is crossed into 2450 VAc, then the home installation costs more, the vehicle hardware cost more, etc.

So... the PHEV makes a lighter, more efficient vehicle that people can drive essentially all the time on electricity (14,600 miles per year) but in which range anxiety is eliminated. If efficiency is already very high, then the efficiency losses of a pure series arrangement (no direct connection to the wheels) are of little consequence. (With the Volt, the engine efficiency was already sub par, so they went to great lengths to milk out every last mile per gallon -- largely unsuccessfully, unfortunately: yes they got their 15% gain, but that's not enough to bring a 32 mpg vehicle up to Prius levels.)

Having said that... yes, of course I'll bring out a battery-only version, probably with 80 mile range. One of the four vehicles built this year may be along these lines.

Another respect in which the Aptera market and mine are different: I am aiming pretty squarely at cheapskates. That market is growing, I think as a result of the current economic times. There is some indication, at least, that Americans are toying with the idea of saving.

BMS?: Yes you can't do without one in my opinion.
Drive mechanism: The front wheels are driven through automotive half shafts.
3 Wheels: Yes
Performance: I am reluctant to quote performance of the POC, because it is quite different than the production vehicles. (For example in a most of my recent driving, when I have had the engine running, in typical urban/suburban traffic, I gain about 1% range per mile driven. For example in a recent trip to downtown Atlanta for an electric car show, I started out with 30% charge -- not enough for the 40 mile round trip. When I arrived downtown, I had 50% charge -- enough to make the return trip in silence.)

Suffice to say that its performance indicates that the production vehicles will meet the targets. I am hoping to do the first four production versions in several flavors re the details of specific motors.

[PatQ562]

The engine and generator combined weigh 49 lb.

This is most impressive, along with your stated efficiencies. I have glanced at commercial gensets (ie Honda) and it appears that a 5-6kW unit weighs 100-200 lbs and doesn't get the gas mileage you cite. We went thru this discussion a while back because someone wanted to "stick in" a small genset to extend the range of the battery Aptera as we knew it. The problem, even at 100wh/mi, is meeting the 6kW drain at 60mph; this usually takes a "2 man lift" genset suitable for construction sites etc, burning about a gallon an hour which is only 60mpg, ignoring various series losses. And who wants a droning genset in their nice clean car?

I for one am totally behind your "cheapskate" mentality, although we have had extensive discussions about amenities, their real cost, the potential benefits, etc. In my opinion, having developed professional power amps for 40 years, every feature you add sort of doubles the development effort, because it has to be qualified in itself, and shown not to degrade anything else you've already done. Even though it seems possible to reach out and snag say, electric window motors off of someone's shelf, you have to: find them, sample them, design them in, add to the wiring harness, place the control switch, deal with running changes at the mfrs end, and grapple with the whole temptation to tie them into a larger computer framework like CANBus. All of this takes TIME AND STAFF. The Cheapskate solution is a polycarbonate window that slides or swings open - something you can get made cheaply under your own control.

There are a few people who think cars have gotten way too complex and unmanageable. Such people prefer simple, visible solutions to the basic problems of entrance, ventilation, seating etc. The percentage may be small (any 3-wheeler is inherently a niche vehicle anyway), but may well amount to a market for thousands if not tens of thousands of vehicles. Figuring out how to address this market with a targeted, minimalist solution is still a lot of work but a somewhat conceivable dream.

It is my personal opinion that the only way to make a "nice, cheap car" must use electric propulsion. The classic econo-boxes had small, noisy motors with limited performance and not that much more efficiency compared to larger vehicles (gas motors don't scale down that well). Even basic electric propulsion is sprightly and silent, taking a whole lot of strain off of quieting the rest of the vehicle. And electric efficiencies remain high across the entire applicable spectrum of performance.

As I am sure you know, the main barrier to EV's is cost, which can only be fundamentally reduced by using less material. Smaller, lighter, less drag adds up to a smaller cheaper powertrain. What the mainstream market is missing is that the REST of the car can be much cheaper if you have smooth electric propulsion. Even Aptera failed to get this, with high ambitions to make a "fully featured car" from the outset. Work up to that in time, but get some units on the road showing what's possible.

Can't wait to hear more details.

Again, may your work go well.

Pat Q

[Ken Fry]

Hi Pat,

Re smaller and lighter: The Honda CEO was poo-pooed to some extent in the EV community for focusing first on very small cars. But in fact, given limited resources, this makes sense. The Zero motorcycle people have shown that you can make a pretty snazzy electric motorcycle for $7995, half the price of many motorcycles. At the other end of the spectrum is the Karma -- incredibly heavy, slower than a Camry, worse liquid fuel efficiency than a
Camry, the highest electrical consumption of any car I've ever seen, etc, and hideously expensive to boot.

Nissan can hit a home run in the EV world with the ESFlow, I think. Light, affordable, fast, fun.

It might have been Burt Rutan who talked about vicious cycles versus friendly cycles. As you add features it is remarkable how quickly things get out of hand.

"Work up to that in time, but get some units on the road showing what's possible."

Absolutely!

I wrote a 10,000 unit/yr biz plan for the X Prize, just like everyone else did. Some people actually started to believe it though! I'd like to think that I can have an effect on fundamentally changing what people think they need in a car, but will admit that that is an ambitious dream. There is no better time in history for going to smaller more efficient cars, but people continue to buy big cars and huge houses, as if there is nothing to worry about: energy security, climate change, the environmental damage from generally consuming too much in all ways, huge oil spills -- people sometimes give this stuff lip service, but we continue to increase the rate at which we consume everything.

People were thrilled with the very first Honda Accords, with many people paying over full retail. Now the Accord is a large car and very nearly twice the weight of the original and several times the HP. I've had a couple, (including the very first) but they lost my business with the transition to large.

Re the generator -- it cannot be a production (contractor's) unit, which are singularly inefficient at both the engine and (especially) electrical level. 6kW with a 90% efficient generator, however, is 8.8 hp engine output. .4 lb per hp-hour (about 32% efficiency) is not too hard to achieve: 3.55 lb/hr: .54 gph @ 60mph. Rounding down a little, you get about 100 mpg.

[PatQ562]

Ken -

You're preaching words most of us love to hear on this forum!

Re the generator -- it cannot be a production (contractor's) unit, which are singularly inefficient at both the engine and (especially) electrical level. 6kW with a 90% efficient generator, however, is 8.8 hp engine output. .4 lb per hp-hour (about 32% efficiency) is not too hard to achieve: 3.55 lb/hr: .54 gph @ 60mph. Rounding down a little, you get about 100 mpg.

Granted this possibility, but do you actually HAVE such a machine? This is a huge game-changer in the series-hybrid realm.

Pat Q

[aptera1213]

The Zero motorcycle people have shown that you can make a pretty snazzy electric motorcycle for $7995

Not to over correct small things, but I think it is the Brammo Enertia that is is 7,995. Zero hasn't made a bike at that low of a price point yet (though the XU coming in spring will actually be 7,695).

Gavin

[Ken Fry]

Granted this possibility, but do you actually HAVE such a machine? This is a huge game-changer in the series-hybrid realm.

Pat Q

I have a couple 91% efficient generators. I have had (but do not now have sitting in my shop) 32-34% efficient engines of this general size. They are not strictly production units but do not incorporate anything that can not be easily found in automotive technology. The Prius engine is 38% at peak, but it has to run at a wide range of RPMs -- it is a bit easier and cheaper to make a fixed-speed engine efficient.

In a larger vehicle, a Prius engine and 50 kw AC generator, such as the one in the Volt (which could be 90+% efficient if it is not -- I haven't seen any real data) would make a somewhat more efficient combo than the unit in the production Zing! (but would be of far to big for the Zing!).

[Ken Fry]

Not to over correct small things, but I think it is the Brammo Enertia that is is 7,995. Zero hasn't made a bike at that low of a price point yet (though the XU coming in spring will actually be 7,695).

Gavin

Funny, I was thinking of the XU... but had the Enertia price stuck in my mind, apparently. Both pretty neat products.

[NeilBlanchard]

Ken,

I'm curious if you have done tuft testing? The trailing tapers look to be on the steep side; especially on the underside. Phil Knox has a ideal template and the underside is limited to about 4 degrees (if I recall correctly) whereas the top and sides can taper more steeply, because the air can flow in more quickly without the ground restricting it.

Of course, the template is only a 2D ideal, and in 3D there are many vehicles that are able to exceed the slopes because the flow is doing things that are different than you'd expect.

[Ken Fry]

ARRRGH my post disappeared. And it was beautiful, the language fluid yet crisp, nice mix of poignancy and humor... I'll just have to replace it with my usually drivel!

The gist of it was:

Hi Neil. Great observations! The limited and crude (on road, observer two lanes over) tufting I've done indicates that you are right on the money re the lower side. The top side probably looks steeper than it is.

An alternative to tufting which you may find helpful is the stethoscope approach. I have not used it but have talked with people who have (and once worked down the hall from a company that used accoustics for things like ice detection on aircraft).

I have not thought of the Zing! as being "styled" but there are a couple compromises that favor styling over aero. The production version was planned to look and function (aerodynamically) differently from the POC, but so many people like the looks of the POC so much that I've decided to effectively just enlarge it for the production version.

As they say, there's no accounting for taste, but people have expressed strong preferences for the hard edges of the POC.

[NeilBlanchard]

I've had my posts disappear more times than I care to think about... My trick is to do one of two things: open another tab on this forum and click on New Posts and use the Reload Every plugin for Firefox set to every minute or five, (or reload that tab manually) -- or right before I post Copy the entire thing to the clipboard, and then I can post it after it "evaporates".

I know what you mean on styling -- it's got to be form follows function, but then styling is "surface graphics" as opposed to body shape. The main problem is the difference between what most people *think* good aerodynamics looks like, and what really *is* good aerodynamics.

The challenge with the Morelli shape that the Aptera starts with is you have to add the wheels and the ground itself having a major affect on the air flow. Edison2 also is based on an ideal shape with the wheels added to it. I'm wondering if there isn't some interaction between the various forms?

The other type of approach is how the Quest velomobile and Dave Cloud's Dolphin work -- starting with a shape that encloses the wheels within it, with one form and less possible interactions. Here's the Dolphin if you have not seen it before:

http://www.apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=4322

The front wheels on the Dolphin are the biggest drag area, I think? They need some leading strakes and smooth covers at least. Fully covered is probably better. But the overall shape is stunningly good, and the performance bears this out -- he drove about 200 miles on 60 (used) lead acid batteries and DC drive.

[Ken Fry]

The main problem is the difference between what most people *think* good aerodynamics looks like, and what really *is* good aerodynamics....

The front wheels on the Dolphin are the biggest drag area, I think? They need some leading strakes and smooth covers at least.

The early XKE, which looked beautiful and sleek, had a Cd of about .44. The Volkswagon Bus of the same era had a Cd of .42 or some such (albeit with much more frontal area). The first Lamborghini Countach (the LP400) was cleaner than later ones, but had a Cd of .42. I'd think the early one could be cleaned up , preserving the basic lines but ditching the scoops, wide tires, the vertical rear window, etc. The later ones, with some wing downforce cranked in could get up to .6... .7 who knows.

I had a Citroen SM, renown for its aero at the time. Something I did not do is experiment with ride height (it had perhaps 4 drivable levels, and then a jacking position and a fully down position) and its effect of fuel consumption.* Some of the basics were taken pretty far in the SM -- the rear track was about 10" narrower than the front. The windshield was too steep, but the entire front headlight area was faired in with glass. (Mine was the US version in which this was screwed up completely: gone were the center steering and leveling lights, gone were the fairings over the outer lights -- none of that stuff met us lighting standards! Probably the world's most advanced lighting system, but squelched by antiquated US laws.)

(Completely off-topic tale of woe: I bought the SM used for $7,300. This would have been in about 1976 -- the car was about $13,000 new, and was maybe 4 years old. I loved all the hydraulics and weirdness, and the Maserati engine with its gaping Webers. At the same time, at the same dealership, there was a Lamborghini Miura for $9,900. The Cit was a financial stretch, and the Miura would have been just too much of a stretch. The SMs have never gone for more than $15,000 -- I sold mine maybe 6 years later for what I paid for it. Miuras, on the other hand, have gone for over a million at times. I think the Miura would have provided slightly better ROI. http://apteraforum.com/images/smilies/character0029.gif )

Another random thought: If you look at the Lamborghini Countach page on Wikipedia, you'll find that the LP 400 did 0-62 in 5.9 seconds. A 2012 Toyota Camry V6 will do 0-60 in 5.8, per Car and Driver test. Enthusiast magazines went on endlessly (in the late 70s and well into the 80s about how emission controls would end performance cars forever.)

Re front wheels on the Dolphin, I agree, it would be the next place to focus. Covers like on your Avatar would work well. But of course its one of those complexity/convenience/cost vs aero issues. Or you can give up some handling prowess and move the wheels far enough inboard that movable skirts are not required.

Something I have not considered in any depth: A fixed skirt over the top of a front wheel could be an option, maybe. The top of the wheel is going twice road speed -- so has a much larger effect on drag than the bottom. A spanner in the works re all this wheel faring stuff is that the wheel inside the fairing is continuing to spin relative the the surrounding air inside the fairing. CFD often ignores this, and wind tunnels must have a moving floor to take this into account.

Re this sort of thing (weighing the options), I think that being a one man show can be a huge advantage. Just developing the algorithm to sort though tangible cost-benefit vs perceived cost benefit... vs giving in for the sake of the designer's ego... etc... would take months, even excluding the time spent in meetings to brainstorm actually solutions. Sometimes being a benevolent dictator is a good approach.

Of course, there are the offsetting 54 disavantages to being a one man show, unless you live in one of those areas where money rains from the sky.

* the Cit was self-leveling, but that could have been easily defeated to make not just height but also angle-of-attack variable as well. With some modern instrumentation, you'd have a mobile aero lab.

[NeilBlanchard]

The best example of a wider front fender to provide space for the turned front wheels is the 1938 Schlörwagen:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/th_Schlor-FrontView.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/?action=view&current=Schlor-FrontView.jpg)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/th_Schlr-SideProfile-Large.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/?action=view&current=Schlr-SideProfile-Large.jpg)

The actual car had a Cd of ~0.18 though it was ~2.1m wide. The rear engine as sleek body made it ill-handling, but as an EV with the battery in the floor, and the lack of need for much drivetrain cooling would fix those issues.

My CarBEN EV5 design (in my avatar) is based mostly on the early Mercedes Boxfish/Bionic clay model:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/th_Bionic-Car-Body-lg.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/?action=view&current=Bionic-Car-Body-lg.jpg)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/th_Screenshot2010-09-04at83217PM.png (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/?action=view&current=Screenshot2010-09-04at83217PM.png)

...combined with a couple of features of the Schlörwagen. The blue Mercedes model supposedly has a Cd of 0.095, so it is a great place to start the design of the CarBEN EV5. I am just starting to build the chassis: http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/2011/03/carben-ev-open-source-project-part-4.html

[TruthSeeker]

The best example of a wider front fender to provide space for the turned front wheels is the 1938 Schlörwagen:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/th_Schlor-FrontView.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/?action=view&current=Schlor-FrontView.jpg)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/th_Schlr-SideProfile-Large.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/Schlor%20Pillbug/?action=view&current=Schlr-SideProfile-Large.jpg)

The actual car had a Cd of ~0.18 though it was ~2.1m wide. The rear engine as sleek body made it ill-handling, but as an EV with the battery in the floor, and the lack of need for much drivetrain cooling would fix those issues.

My CarBEN EV5 design (in my avatar) is based mostly on the early Mercedes Boxfish/Bionic clay model:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/th_Bionic-Car-Body-lg.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/?action=view&current=Bionic-Car-Body-lg.jpg)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/th_Screenshot2010-09-04at83217PM.png (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/CarBEN%20EV%20Concept/?action=view&current=Screenshot2010-09-04at83217PM.png)

...combined with a couple of features of the Schlörwagen. The blue Mercedes model supposedly has a Cd of 0.095, so it is a great place to start the design of the CarBEN EV5. I am just starting to build the chassis: http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/2011/03/carben-ev-open-source-project-part-4.html

Why was it so cheap to build a VW Beetle during World War Two? Thanks.

[SEGsby]

Didn't we talk about editing long quotations in replies, to make getting to new posts / information, easier for everyone?

:character0008:

VW beetles were very small back then, and used tiny, air-cooled motors. So the materials cost, was low. There were also reports of slave labor used during WWII to create them in great numbers:
http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980918/volks.shtml

These 1940's era vehicles had a minimum of safety features and would never pass certification today in the US. The New Beetle should give you and idea of what the company thought it had to do, to bring the car up to date for today's market / standards. They also are not electric, and thus, don't require expensive battery packs.

For a company to survive, it has to charge more than the total cost of creating the vehicle-- so don't expect an Aptera to go for much less than $30,000, IMHO.

[dfbvt]

PatQ562

The Zing!

Let's welcome Ken Fry who bravely dares to enter the shark filled waters of the riled up Aptera pool. Who else noticed the snappy looking 3 wheeler (?) standing in his picture?

Wow! An interesting concept and some fresh, new, out of the box ideas!! I like your thinking Ken and I find all of your posts refreshing after all the weird things that have consumed this forum for much to long.

Welcome aboard Ken.

I do have a question. I find it interesting that you have found that people have a preference to your POC hard edged design as apposed to your more rounded design. If you do go into production are you planing on sticking with plywood construction?

I have designed a couple of hard chine Kayaks my self and I managed to get a bit of compounded curves into them. They do look pretty nice. Maybe I shouldn't worry to much about a fully flowing body design for my project. I'm sure the aerodynamic hit is minimal if done right. And building a mold becomes way simpler. Humm....

Dave Bowles

[TruthSeeker]

Didn't we talk about editing long quotations in replies, to make getting to new posts / information, easier for everyone?

:character0008:

VW beetles were very small back then, and used tiny, air-cooled motors. So the materials cost, was low. There were also reports of slave labor used during WWII to create them in great numbers:
http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980918/volks.shtml

These 1940's era vehicles had a minimum of safety features and would never pass certification today in the US. The New Beetle should give you and idea of what the company thought it had to do, to bring the car up to date for today's market / standards. They also are not electric, and thus, don't require expensive battery packs.

For a company to survive, it has to charge more than the total cost of creating the vehicle-- so don't expect an Aptera to go for much less than $30,000, IMHO.

There is a car called the Tata Nano Europa. The Tata Nano Europa Car passes all the European Union safety and emission standards. A Brand New Tata Nano Europa Car costs only $6,000 USD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano

[SEGsby]

You're comparing completely different vehicles, so I don't understand your point:

1. The Tata would need to be redesigned SPECIFICALLY to meet US Standards for sale here. The US version with improved safety features and construction (Improved Bumpers, etc), would then cost more than the $6000 USD you quoted.

2. The Tata Europa is built in India, with lower labor costs then those in the US; i.e. you can't build an Aptera here for the price of a Tata, over there.

3. The Tata is not built with composites like the Aptera. These Composites are typically labor intensive to layup and finish. They are more flexible for lightweight, organic shapes than traditional automotive materials, but cost more. Aptera developed unique composite technology to address some of these issues.

4. The Tata Europa is an ultra cheap 2 cyl ICE, and is not an electric. This explains why it has no expensive battery pack, like the Aptera.

You seem to be having some basic issues understanding why the Aptera is more costly to build. Again, I implore you to do some further research before hastily posting in threads that are specifically discussing other vehicles.

This thread is about the Zing!, not the Tata Europa. Thanks.

There is a car called the Tata Nano Europa. The Tata Nano Europa Car passes all the European Union safety and emission standards. A Brand New Tata Nano Europa Car costs only $6,000 USD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano

[TruthSeeker]

You're comparing completely different vehicles, so I don't understand your point...

You said a car like the VW Beetle could not be build today. That vehicle is called the Tata Nano.

I am sorry that I do not know as much as you but at least I am trying to figure it out.

[SEGsby]

You misunderstood the context of what I was saying. Which was, you can't build an Aptera for the cost of a 1940's era VW Beetle. VW updated the Beetle for today's standards, and if you researched the differences between them, you'll find the cost went way up along with the weight, and the fuel efficiency dropped. Does that help clarify what I tried to communicate, any better to you?

I have taken the liberty of shortening the quotation in your post for you, as you appeared to have some problem with it.

I'm rather concerned by the way you overly focus and repeat specific things, while losing grasp of broader general concepts, using somewhat awkward patterns of speech and social interaction. I don't mean this in a negative way, but it does make me wonder if you are exhibiting a mild form of Asperger syndrome?

Again, this thread is a discussion of the Zing!, not the Tata.

Feel free to private message me if you need to talk further. I don't know what else I can do to assist you, while allowing everyone else to communicate freely here, without undo distraction. *shrugs*

[Ken Fry]

Wow! An interesting concept and some fresh, new, out of the box ideas!! I like your thinking Ken and I find all of your posts refreshing after all the weird things that have consumed this forum for much to long.

Welcome aboard Ken...

If you do go into production are you planing on sticking with plywood construction?

Dave Bowles

Hi Dave,

Thanks for all the kind words.

Re: Plywood: No, that's only for the POC. The first four production vehicles (which will differ a little from one to the next) will have Lexan bodies over an aluminum frame. (These first four are effectively prototypes, but in the same sense that all the choppers that are built by places like Orange County Choppers are prototypes... there is nothing in them that makes me say "Hmmm, I wonder if this might work?)

Building stitch-and-glue, kayak style (as you have seen) can produce quite light, strong structures. But it is also quite labor intensive.

I love to build one in wood, finished bright, with copper rivets, like a Hispano Suisa.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wV2CstikK1s/SWwYL6EleZI/AAAAAAAAADU/oGnwq1en8cY/s400/suiza_hispano1a.jpg

[palmer_md]

Here is an interview and some video shots of the Proof of Concept vehicle.

QObVpXgr92E

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks for posting the video -- Ken do you have higher resolution still images you can post?

There is a reverse trike built with laminated wood strips; I think it has been posted here. It has a diesel engine, if I recall correctly.

[steve]

Right!
http://home.clara.net/peterfrost/tryaneii.html

And let us not forget the plywood marcos sportscars that raced at LeMans and the plywood Vortex three wheeler.

[dfbvt]

Ken Fry

Hi Dave,

Thanks for all the kind words.

Re: Plywood: No, that's only for the POC. The first four production vehicles (which will differ a little from one to the next) will have Lexan bodies over an aluminum frame.> snip

I have to admit that I've never seen a picture of a Hispano Suisa. Wow! My legs are all wobbly and I think I'm drooling on my key board just looking at it. Its beautiful!!!

I love working with wood ( Re: Kayaks and now restoring my Dads Piel Emeraude home built all wood airplane ). Fiberglass ( which I hate working with ) or other fibers like Hemp, Elephant grass, etc is the way I was thinking of going with. But I must admit that I've never thought of building totally out of Lexan. Sure, its bullet proof ( if it is thick enough ) and probably would not break in a accident. I assume you would affix it to the aluminum frame some how and let the frame absorb and dissipate the energy from the impact. I would be interested in what your approach and thoughts are on this if your willing to share ideas and have the time to do so.

Steve. I was just going to bring up the Tryane series of cars made by Friend Wood but you took the words right out of my keyboard :biggrin: . The II was pretty awesome and took him about 600 hours with the aid of 20,000 staples to build. Oh well, so much for a production version.....

Thanks for all your posts Ken. Its great having you on board.

Dave Bowles




Tryane II

[Ken Fry]

Thanks for posting the video -- Ken do you have higher resolution still images you can post?

There is a reverse trike built with laminated wood strips; I think it has been posted here. It has a diesel engine, if I recall correctly.

The Dirago is strip-built, and the TyraneII is cold-molded. Both processes are use to build modern wooden boats, and both take plenty of time. (If you have the time they are both fun to do.) Probably the strip built boats are prettier, but the cold molded ones look nice too (although most are painted). Both techniques have been used for custom racing sailboats, and both can compete with fairly advanced cored composites in terms of strength-to-weight ratios.

The Dirago:
http://www.dirigocar.com/images/stories/project/IMG_3126.jpg

Strip built kayaks by Nick Schade:
http://64.19.142.10/gearpatrol.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Guillemot-Kayaks-by-Nick-Schade-Gear-Patrol.jpg

I haven't been taking a lot of Zing! pictures, but I'll dig around to see what I have.

Here's a pic of a boat I built a while ago. The hull is stitch-and-glue Okume plywood (covered in very thin fiberglass in epoxy). The wing is surfaced with 1/8" foam core with vacuum bagged fiberglass skins on each side. The wing spar was also foam core with bidirectional fiberglass in epoxy for the shear web. The caps of the wing spar were carbon fiber pultrusions, which are incredibly strong and stiff, and pretty easy to work with where they can be used. (Properties are about twice as good as hand-laid carbon fiber done to aircraft standards and vacuum bagged.) The floats were also stitch and glue plywood, but tortured -- forced into a compound curve. Most of the crossbeam (the roughly horizontal wing-like thing connecting the floats) was fiberglass in epoxy with foam core.

Sailing it ranged from fun to terrifying.
http://64.19.142.10/cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200910/windrocket_pic_40BF99AA-C3B8-AE58-3302D660BA2063CF.jpg

[Ken Fry]

Right!
http://home.clara.net/peterfrost/tryaneii.html

And let us not forget the plywood marcos sportscars that raced at LeMans and the plywood Vortex three wheeler.

And the Morgans:
http://www.lifesmotors.com/cmsfiles/New%20Folder/Used%20Morgans/used-morgan-pic.jpg

And a little bit (the floor) of my old MGA was wood:
http://64.19.142.10/farm5.staticflickr.com/4093/4873674288_c2e02b9fc7_z.jpg

[Ken Fry]

I love working with wood ( Re: Kayaks and now restoring my Dads Piel Emeraude home built all wood airplane ). Fiberglass ( which I hate working with ) or other fibers like Hemp, Elephant grass, etc is the way I was thinking of going with. But I must admit that I've never thought of building totally out of Lexan. Sure, its bullet proof ( if it is thick enough ) and probably would not break in a accident. I assume you would affix it to the aluminum frame some how and let the frame absorb and dissipate the energy from the impact. I would be interested in what your approach and thoughts are on this if your willing to share ideas and have the time to do so.



I'm not all that fond of working with fiberglass either.

You are essentially correct re the Lexan being supported by an energy absorbing framework. I can't provide details now but should be able to by March or so.

A boring video:

b2TIfp0teac

There was a you tube video of it on the road, taken by someone I was passing, but alas, it has been removed by the person who put it up. Too bad cuz they really liked it, and you could hear them talking about it, etc.

[NeilBlanchard]

Thanks Ken -- that's the car I was thinking of. Here's a screen capture from the above video that shows the all important back of The Zing!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/NeilBlanchard/TheZing.png

[SEGsby]

Awesome video, Ken. Thanks for posting.

[NeilBlanchard]

Yes, the videos are very helpful to see; thanks Ken. Images of The Zing! are a little hard to find on the Internets but I found a couple:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/zing_side_shop_DD03D7E1-A6A3-DE0D-783EE507D6F3F1D7.JPG (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/69993/Zing-Crash-Test-Dummy-Survives)
(click on image for link)

Edit: found your old web page via your new one:

http://www.gaiatransport.com/id3.html

Ken, you need to post some here and on your web page, to boost your Google presence! I'd love to hear more about your current drivetrain, too.

[c0mp13x]

...A boring video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2TIfp0teac
You are way too hard on yourself... Ha. To those of us around here, a working prototype is far from boring. At least you have something to drive around... rather than another dreamy CAD rendering of a vehicle that we'll never actually see.

Looking forward to seeing your production vehicle of aluminum and lexan, as described here: http://www.gaiatransport.com/id3.html

I live in SoCal where it's steamy hot in the summer; I understand that A/C in a 'Simplicate' vehicle would be over the top (and out of budget), so have you considered any type of ventilation (even passive) for the cockpit?

Thanks Ken...

:thumbsup:

[SlowSRT4]

At least you have something to drive around... rather than another dreamy CAD rendering of a vehicle that we'll never actually see.
Oh boy....

[Ken Fry]

Awesome video, Ken. Thanks for posting.

You're welcome, glad you liked it!

In the video, I say that it goes 60 miles on a charge, which is completely wrong! I'd just switched batteries from PbA to lithiumX, and and evidently had 60 Ah on my mind. (The pack is 3kWh: 50V, 60Ah) In the POC, the range has been 36 miles or so, if I push it a little harder than I would expect to do in routine usage. The production version will have a 7.2 kWh battery pack, which could provide about 70 miles if pushed, but will provide an actual range of about 40 miles per day, in conservative usage (this provides both a little better efficiency and also longer total battery life -- both in terms of mileage and years).

[Ken Fry]

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/zing_side_shop_DD03D7E1-A6A3-DE0D-783EE507D6F3F1D7.JPG (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/69993/Zing-Crash-Test-Dummy-Survives)
(click on image for link)



Thanks Neil. When I saw this, I noticed the strip of tape at the rear end of the Zing! -- which is the way it looked for few days after getting hit. As you know, if you click on the photo, you get to a CR4 thread that describes my first (unintentional) crash test. It was a very nice guy who ran into me -- so I gave him a few fliers to hand out and we called it square. (I had not yet done any of the surface finishing [nor have I now, for that matter] so it's not as if he hit a Hispano Suisa, which would have to cause the owner to cry inconsolably.)

The closeup from that thread:
http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/crunch_DD05EFA6-9650-01EF-90400773EAC989DB.JPG

[Ken Fry]

It was a very nice guy who ran into me -- so I gave him a few fliers to hand out and we called it square.

Oh... interesting related story:

I needed to find some tape after the crash, so the vehicle would be driveable. The crunched area included a sort of hook that is part of the fairing. The fairing slides on from behind, and is supported at the back by this hook, and at the front by resting on the wings beside the cockpit. (There 4 wingnuts that then secure it from inside the cockpit.) The crash rendered this hook ineffective.

So I checked the restaurant where I'd parked. No luck. Walked over to a boutique with cool dresses, jewelry, etc. Struck up a conversation about my need for tape, which the owner supplied. At one point, she said: "Oh.. an electric car! I have a Citicar." She was pretty knowledgeable re EVs and offered her space out in front of the shop to use for display of the Zing! Happy coincidence.

[Ken Fry]

I live in SoCal where it's steamy hot in the summer; I understand that A/C in a 'Simplicate' vehicle would be over the top (and out of budget), so have you considered any type of ventilation (even passive) for the cockpit?

Thanks Ken...

:thumbsup:

Actually, AC has become a necessity for market acceptance. Although the batteries have shown no propensity for getting hot (in the POC, in which they are not actively cooled), in the production version, cabin air will be exhausted through the battery pack, so that they are kept warm in winter (and can be preconditioned) and cool in summer. So AC is standard. Batteries and humans both prefer comfortable temperatures.

For ventilation, the POC just has a few very small muffin fans. On the POC there is no insulation between the engine and the cockpit (other than the "firewall", which is, ironically, wood) The noise and heat are designed-in to make you shut the blasted thing off anytime you don't really need it. (Actually the production ones will be less crude and less unsafe in this respect.)

[Sheepdog 44]

This is my uninformed opinion on your prototype:

First, i thinks it's completely awesome-batmobile-can i get mine in cop proof radar absorbent paint? Sorry officer wheres your evidence i was speeding?

I would suggest aeroing out your car as much as possible and doing some flow simulations for the optimal design. You have a small frontal area but the great cd could be improved.

Yes, it is a pretty aerodynamic design to begin with, but if your going for efficiency why not just go all out? Get rid of the open wheel fairings with the those alloy rims that chop into the wind. Lengthen it so the wings become like an arrowhead and provide even more crushspace. Bring the fishtail down over the rear wheel, and do something about those wings. The little relics of traditional car design are holding back the performance and range of your car.

For safety, i would widen the cockpit for easier egress in case of accident as well as widen headroom for sidewhiplash and add side padding like a commercial car form of an f-1 race car. Only minimal widening of the cockpit would be necessary and would marginally affect the frontal area. Put the headlights and turn lights in the wings so a driver at night has a good idea about the size of your car. Theres really nothing to tell a driver that the wings are there and your not just just a motorcycle. A row of vertical led brake lights would be good too. Windshield wiper?

[SEGsby]

Excellent suggestions, Sheepdog. The overall effect of Ken's design makes me think of "Star Wars". And that's not a bad thing, IMHO. :)

[Ken Fry]

This is my uninformed opinion on your prototype:

First, i thinks it's completely awesome-batmobile-can i get mine in cop proof radar absorbent paint? Sorry officer wheres your evidence i was speeding?

I would suggest aeroing out your car as much as possible and doing some flow simulations for the optimal design. You have a small frontal area but the great cd could be improved.



We are painting your's now! We'll ship tomorrow.

Interestingly, the first four production cars incorporate almost all of your ideas! I'm on my way out the door, so will elaborate later.

[Ken Fry]

Hi Sheepdog,
More details:

The production version will have the headlights and taillights enclosed in the fenders. The cockpit will be wider and longer, and the whole car will be two feet longer (about the length of a Corvette). (The cockpit layout will be very similar to the Lit C1, with the passenger overlapping the driver. There are a couple reasons for this: 1. In a light three wheeler, CG needs to be kept well inside the triangle formed by the wheels, and moving people either forward or backward or side to side can change handling more than is desirable. 2. Keeping the vehicle compact means that both bending and torsion loads on the chassis are more effectively dealt with, so the vehicle can be lighter.)

The fenders will also be about two feet longer, and entry will involve standing on the aft end of the wing between fuselage and fender, as you do when getting into a low-wing general aviation airplane.

The hornet shape of the “fuselage” and rear fairing will disappear. The POC has lots of stuff stuffed into the back end, whereas the production vehicle will not. The slight widening of the cockpit will mean that no greater width is required behind the cockpit. This will be cleaner aerodynamically, and I think better looking.

The front wheels will certainly be smooth, but probably not enclosed, at least for the first four.

Windshield wiper – yes. I've considered a laminar flow blower, but the noise would be hard to silence.

[NeilBlanchard]

Ken,

I started a thread on another forum that I frequent, where I know there are a lot of people who will be interested in the The Zing!

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/zing-19843.html#post275592

[Ken Fry]

Ken,

I started a thread on another forum that I frequent, where I know there are a lot of people who will be interested in the The Zing!

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/zing-19843.html#post275592

Thanks, Neil. It's been fun chatting with the ecomodder folks.

[Dreamer]

Excited about the Zing! Anxious to see the production design, more anxious to drive one, even more anxious to crawl around one.

[Dreamer]

Hello...?....kinda quiet......kinda..spooky

[Ken Fry]

Hello...?....kinda quiet......kinda..spooky

It has been quiet, hasn't it? :)

I've been lost in ecomodder land, doing some political stuff for the state*, formalizing corporate legal stuff, doing a radio show interview, etc. All tangential to, rather than directly involved with, the build of the first production car, which by a happy turn of events, we will retain to use for promotion, running in things like the Vetter Challenge, taking out west for a planned PR event, and driving to places like your home state. I'd been planning to sell it (in the spirit of bootstrapping) and the customer would be happy to do some PR events, but driving the wheels off it seems like a bit too much to ask.

* I'd have to say that, while I am not averse to paying taxes, I don't like the incredible complexity in the tax code. I am as likely as anyone else to complain about "special interests." So there I was, at the state capitol, as a representative of the eletric vehicle industry, and pressing for good treatment. Big conference room, with 15 or so lawmakers at the front, maybe 100 in the audience, and there are a bunch of these. I imagined each filled with people pushing for their special interests, just as I was pushing for mine. There I was, actively involved in making the tax code more complicated.

Regarding tax credits for EVs, I overheard part of a conversation: "No, very few have been used. If it gets to the point that it actually costs the state any real money, they will be stopped." The lawmaker saying that chuckled a little, with full appreciation of the irony. "We want to fully support the adoption of EV's... unless it actually costs something to do so.

[NeilBlanchard]

Nothing "spooky" -- Ken is posting on the EcoModder thread. And I'm sure he's still working on the Zing!

Edit: wow that was a coincidence! Ken posted as I was typing...

[Dreamer]

Since you posted simultaneously, I'll respond to you both in kind. Thanks for chirping. I've been following the Zing! and Miller threads on EM, but I prefer the company here. Some others may agree. Great info wherever it shows! Ken, if you get near here, please let me know. As I said, I'd really like to see, hear, and feel the production version. Easier to spread the word if I know what I'm talking about. Meanwhile, a current rendering would be helpful.

Regarding the irony: Sadly predictable.

[Dreamer]

Ken, we are of like mind re: taxes, code, & special interests, but building momentum toward reduced oil use is too important to put off. I applaud you for taking the mound & throwing a pitch!

[Ken Fry]

Many thanks, Dreamer. I appreciate the support.

[PatQ562]

As long as we're "dreaming", I wish the politicians would support desirable technology not with subsidies, which complicate the tax code and turn into lobbying prizes, but by removing hurdles. Imagine where we would be today if electric car companies could simply put vehicles on the market without all the arduous federal safety testing. "Zero emissions" is inherent in the concept; what if full crash testing could be deferred until selling some reasonable number of vehicles per year? We'd see a host of innovations, at a wide range of prices.

All that said, if I was the tax czar, I would put a high tax on products that damage the environment (carbon, incandescent light bulbs, etc) and apply the proceeds to clean-tech research, plus subsidies to reduce the initial cost of efficient solutions. But one can only imagine the lobbying onslaught to get the favorable treatment.

Pat Q

[Dreamer]

Hear-hear & hear-hear & yes, imagine! Will you run?

[Dreamer]

Of course, we may be mourning a few deaths & maimings, but life is a risk, isn't it?

[Schrodinger]

As long as we're "dreaming", I wish the politicians would... [remove] hurdles...
put a high tax on products that damage the environment (carbon, incandescent light bulbs, etc) and apply the proceeds to clean-tech research...

Pat Q

I'm with you on the second point, "Sticks are free" as they say. Moving resources from the problem to the solution seems to be sound policy.

Can't say I'm a fan of stripping (useful and effective) regulation to benefit pet projects (even those I happen to support). If the regulations are neither useful nor effective than I'd suggest stripping them for all applicable cases.

[Ken Fry]

As long as we're "dreaming", I wish the politicians would support desirable technology not with subsidies, which complicate the tax code and turn into lobbying prizes, but by removing hurdles. Imagine where we would be today if electric car companies could simply put vehicles on the market without all the arduous federal safety testing. "Zero emissions" is inherent in the concept; what if full crash testing could be deferred until selling some reasonable number of vehicles per year? We'd see a host of innovations, at a wide range of prices.

All that said, if I was the tax czar, I would put a high tax on products that damage the environment (carbon, incandescent light bulbs, etc) and apply the proceeds to clean-tech research, plus subsidies to reduce the initial cost of efficient solutions. But one can only imagine the lobbying onslaught to get the favorable treatment.

Pat Q

Please provide full legal name, so that I can write in your name in November!
:happy0005:

Mike Jackson (who runs Auto Nation, the largest group of car dealers in the country) has long advocated taxing gas to bring its price up to to $4.00 /gallon. His point being that until gas costs a lot, people will continue to buy too-big cars, and fail to buy electric cars. His figure is now probably too low, however: I'd think $6.00 might be more realistic. (It seems that to change behavior, a shock is required.) Some of the revenue generated could go to funding the military, reducing income taxes on people who are struggling, etc. His idea is to keep the plan revenue-neutral... although I don't know that we can cut expenses enough to reduce the deficit, without increasing overall revenue.

This stuff can become incredibly complicated: A butterfly beats its wings in Mexico, causing a storm in Finland.

[Ken Fry]

I'm with you on the second point, "Sticks are free" as they say. Moving resources from the problem to the solution seems to be sound policy.

Can't say I'm a fan of stripping (useful and effective) regulation to benefit pet projects (even those I happen to support). If the regulations are neither useful nor effective than I'd suggest stripping them for all applicable cases.

I suppose there is a middle ground, where the regulation is useful and effective, for the most part, but presents a barrier to entry for new technology. Then, perhaps a company showing an intention to comply, and evidence that their approach will work (but without, for example crashing a bunch of cars) could be granted a waiver.

Actually, this is more or less how things are now structured. Tesla, for example, has a waiver for airbags in the roadster that was recently extended.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think that this is where the X-Prize was flawed -- they should have just had the economy goals, and then leave the safety considerations for later development. Some of the things like CANbus as well, made the smaller builders spend a whole lot of time getting that to work, and less time testing and getting their vehicles road worthy.

I know that in addition to Ken Fry that Dave Cloud would have had his Dolphin (http://apteraforum.com/showthread.php?t=4322) at the X-Prize if it wasn't for the paper work and other requirements.

[smilingcat]

Indonesia or Malaysia has an interesting tax structure for vehicles. In US, the vehicle registration and tax goes down with the age of the vehicle. We view this way because the vehicle is losing value and to be equitable, the registration and tax should go down accordingly.

In one of these two countries, the registration goes up with the age of the vehicle so that after 5 to 10 years, it becomes more of a liability to own one with the sky high tax and registration. Owners are "forced"/"coerced" into junking the vehicle and buying a more fuel efficient and safer car. This approach would help considerably here in US. 99% of the cars on the road are reasonably clean. The pollution they produce is not much different than when it was brand new. The 1%, it turns out, are smog generators. They produce far more pollution than the 99%. I have to search to give you a reference. I recall the study was done in Berkley Calif.

If we can get rid of the 1% gross polluters, we would be better off in pollution.

As for gas hogs, either impose higher use fee tax instead of giving credit, and increase the price of gas to be equitable to the Europeans. And charge the fuel in liter instead of gallons. Oh $2.00/liter doesn't sound bad. No??

[PatQ562]

I've delivered this rant before, but it's scandalous that the gas tax is about the same in (depreciated) pennies per gallon while the underlying product cost has increased immensely. As a result mpg isn't valued properly, road construction is starved so we sit in traffic idling those big motors, and OPEC is getting rich. I'd funnel some of the higher taxes to fixing roads and bridges, some to local transit, and some to lowering the cost of high-mpg vehicles. What if the Prius cost $10K "after rebates" instead of $25K? Since fuel tax is an almost perfect "user fee" I'd like to keep it separate from general-fund budgets, but there are other pollution taxes that could be applied to other common consumer items such as a carbon tax (showing up in the cost of electricity, giving renewables a boost), etc.

Pat Q

[Dreamer]

Keeenn?!?.....
Drawings? Interior details? Progress update?

[Ken Fry]

Keeenn?!?.....
Drawings? Interior details? Progress update?

I've been moving as if through molasses (albeit making significant progress on several fronts, such as paperwork, legal stuff, a few IP issues). I am accumulating pieces and probably won't be sticking stuff together until mid-March. Not a lot to report or show for right now.

[Ken Fry]

Still plugging along. Not too much going on this month that will take me away from building stuff... so perhaps I will have a picture or two by the end of April.

[kerbe]

Ok, Ken - where have you been hiding - and why are you hiding there?

[Dreamer]

The boys are jonesin' for a Zing! fix.

[NeilBlanchard]

Ken,

Do you have any news, progress, and/or pictures to share? Curious folks want to know!

[Ken Fry]

Very little news, really. The engine for the pre-production prototype is modified, reassembled, fuel injected, etc. but I have not yet started it or done test runs.

I've spent a lot of time supporting my dad recently, who died on November 10, his 93rd birthday. Many sad moments but many beautiful ones as well -- he was certainly ready. He'd planned things very well, but the estate issues still take a lot of time. For a while, it will be a near full-time job.

I hope that by February I'll be devoting time almost exclusively to the Zing project.

[kerbe]

So sorry for your loss, Ken, but grateful for the update!

[randyd]

Condolences from ours to yours as well.

Let's all look forward new progress and new updates in February.

[Dreamer]

I'm worried about the absence of news on the Zing! project. Has anyone heard from Ken Fry this year?

[NeilBlanchard]

I have not heard from him recently. Last word was that he was very busy with logistics and design etc.

A small update would be great, Ken! ;)

[BryanSR]

If I still lived in GA. I would go by & look in on him...