[user removed]

I appreciate the support bushi.

I hope all who read this understand the most important point.

My design as well as several other similar designs are for a power train that allows for precise application of engine or electric motor power to the vehicle, with the additional advantage of highly efficient recovery and reapplication of energy normally lost in deceleration and braking.

It also allows for pulse and glide operation of the engine, or electric motor, in cruising speeds.

It does not compete with battery electric vehicles. Quite the opposite, it compliments the efficiency of any primary drive system.

Even the Tesla responds to pulse and glide operation as a range extending tactic.

As long as pulse and glide improves the range of any vehicle regardless of its configuration, a power train design that allows pulse and glide operation to be incorporated into the power train itself, will reduce the amount of energy required to travel a specific distance.

There are many other advantages beyond this.

Current battery technology requires a control device to regulate the power from the battery to the electric motor for regulation of vehicle speed. This is not necessary with an on-off strategy that operates the electric motor at peak efficiency with the power produced applied to the vehicle and the accumulator depending on the acceleration required. It also allows for higher regeneration efficiencies in electric vehicles by allowing the surge of energy in higher deceleration events to be applies to the battery over a longer period of time.

This design replaces the brakes completely, eliminating that vehicle component completely. The exception is an emergency brake similar to what is used in vehicles today as a backup system, although thsi could be accomplished with a simple hydraulic lock.

Cost has been called a factor. I completely disagree with that assumption. Consider the cost of the Prius transmission and differential. Replacement cost is $8000 for that component alone.

Each in wheel drive that replaces the brakes, would only cost the manufacturer about the same to build as the brake system parts replaced. Other than that there is no "transmission". I am not trying to debate whether the Prius has a transmission or not in the traditional sense. It certainly does have a method of transmitting the power of the electric motor and gasoline engine to the driven wheels, so by that definition it has a "transmission".

Many electric vehicle advocates state that BEVs need no transmission as a means of supporting their belief that EVs are the better choice. I disagree with that belief and most EV builders realize that some form of gearing is necessary unless you want to compromise with a huge electric motor (read expensive).

The original post by dcb expressed his concerns about the cumulative losses in hybrid electric and electric vehicles. Another consideration is the extra components, beyond a conventional vehicle and their considerable cost to produce, as well as life expectancies.

Sealed unit in wheel IVT's have a cycle life measured in hundreds of thousands of cycles, possibly millions or cycles. Hybrid components in the Prius and any other vehicle that uses a battery as a prime mover can make no such claims. Gears, batteries, electric motors, DC to Ac converters, and computer controls, are all very expensive and have definite life expectancies. Many hydraulic components currently produced have life expectancies close to 10,000 hours of operational time. That's 600k miles at 60 MPH.

Modern hybrids are very complicated systems, and their complexity and cost of repair will only grow dramatically compared to conventional vehicles. 60,000 hours of working on cars has taught me one lesson. If you want to drive it into the ground and 500k miles, you need something simple. The fewer frills the better from that perspective.
That is the reason I own a Civic VX. My Insight has required $7000 in warranty repairs in the last year, before it reached 55k miles. That is twice the cost of the VX, which has been trouble free and does not even have the components that were replaced under warranty in the Insight.

Even compared to conventional vehicles the design I advocate has significantly fewer parts, and eliminates whole systems altogether. I estimated the parts content per vehicle as 25% less, and the manufacturers cost to produce as 20% less than any conventional vehicle.

You can only prove those types of claims with a lot of independent, unbiased research, or a produced example. I have neither, although that is my immediate goal.

The transition should be incremental, with a Launch assist rear axle option on an otherwise conventional small inexpensive FWD car. This would allow a significant economy benefit with a minuscule increase in cost. That is low hanging fruit, that would provide income for the future integration of the design into a dedicated hydraulic power train and regenerative storage system.

This could be done in less than two years, from today, to available on a showroom floor. The mileage improvement would be significant, in the range of 25-40%.

This could be a retro fit on something like my 94 VX, and that may be the way I go in the near future. Even the simple launch assist would allow pulse and glide when cruising at highway speeds, and the mileage improvement would be in spite of the fact that you actually have two separate power trains.

The same system would also serve as a stop start system for engine off when stopped mileage improvements, with no additional components beyond the launch assist additions.
An engine driven pump could easily serve as the starter by simply reversing the high pressure pathway valving.

We all have agendas of one type or the other. Mine is driven by many thousands of hours of research, and close to a half a century of experience driven by a love of cars that began before I could ever drive a car legally.

To this day not a single person has provided any evidence to refute my beliefs. Some of those people are highly educated with Doctorates in Engineering from nationally recognized colleges and universities, from West Point, to MIT, to Virginia Tech.

This design does not exclude or compete with the development of the electric vehicle in any way. We wait for the battery of the future today. Many researchers are also working on developing IC engines that approach 60% efficiency.

I don't know what the future holds as far as battery technology, and I don't think anyone can accurately predict the energy density, reliability, and cost of batteries in 20 years.

That's not the point. The point is this is available today for further development. It exists today, not some time in the future. It can make any currently produced vehicle less costly to produce and much more efficient.

Right now, Today, it has reached that point.

I believe in the future you will see a similar power train design applied to every vehicle on the planet. The first manufacturer that controls the patent and the rights to produce such a power train system will have a huge head start on the rest of the industry.

I hope to see it happen in my lifetime. It could improve the quality of life for billions of people who could improve their lives with simple inexpensive efficient transportation.

regards
Mech