Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic
Charles Gray one of the heads of the EPA HH program stated he could hold a 500 HP hydraulic motor in my hand.
Easily light enough for an in wheel drive.
A Virginia Tech Engineering school group that studied my design for one year, concluded that an in wheel drive would generate 35 HP per wheel (at the wheel itself) and 380 pounds feet of torque from 0 wheel speed, per wheel.
Thats energy density and high torque from 0 wheel speed with no large battery (read expensive) for storage.
Ths INNAS configuration (previously linked) used engine on operation less than 12% of the test cycle.
Same 0-60 in 8 seconds performance.
Half the fuel consumption
better than 50% reduction in emissions.
Now if you addressed engine design and optimized it for efficiency in the narrow range of BSFC, you could reduce the weight of the pistons and connecting rods, eliminate any throttle control or fuel delivery control, add a heat racovery system to the exhaust to operate the accessories and increase the efficiency. In fact you could use a smaller engine to further increase efficiency.
Reduce the fuel tank capacity to reduce weight.
While electrics could apply that same torque to each wheel, either system could reach the limits of the traction of the tires themselves, so performance becomes a function of actual traction.
Next time you feel like wasting some fuel, do a single panic stop from 60 MPH and measure the distance your car travels.
That same distance (and time) is exactly the same distance you would need to accelerate in a HH to 60 MPH, and only 20% of the energy would be from fuel consumption. The rest would be from the energy you accumulated in the previous stop.
regards
Mech
|
And since hydraulic fluid has no mass it doesn't effect efficiency like the weight of the battery?
And no, I'm not talking about the weight you save or nullify by removing components made redundant by the hydraulic transmission system... I'm talking about the accumulator tank... It's probably atleast similar in weight to a superconductor? and since that does the exact same thing in this instance, regen brake feeding it to use it for take off and acceleration... I'm not going to quote figures but in a pure EV I think the numbers are fairly close as to the 20% from the traction pack vs superconductor...
Why would the electric car apply the same torque to both (all) wheels if it where using wheel motors with a decent controller?
An traditional ICE would... And a EV converted from an ICE would... But there is no reason a pure EV would...
You keep comparing to a traditional ICE car... The HH or B-EV will both beat that, that's mostly a given... I'm trying to ask you why you couldn't use an electric motor to create the pressure needed for the HH ?
If the INNAS is efficent enough to only use the ICE on 12% of the test cycle, and a very small one is sufficient, why not replace it with an electric motor? Stick an decent sized battery in there and it should be getting the same range as the ICE version? since now the battery is only used 12% of the time...