View Single Post
Old 08-08-2010, 08:24 PM   #60 (permalink)
ShadeTreeMech
Basjoos Wannabe
 
ShadeTreeMech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 870

The Van - '97 Mercury Villager gs
90 day: 19.8 mpg (US)

Lyle the Kindly Viking - '99 Volvo V70
90 day: 25.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 32 Posts
i'm a fan of the pneumatic approach. Fit the car with air cylinders in the place of shock absorbers. With restricted outlets, it should provide more than sufficient shock absorption. (aren't some of the best shocks nitrogen charged? I think there is a lot of nitrogen in the atmoshpere...) Run lines from the outlet of the cylinder to a tank to store the compressed air. When you have an overabundance of air, bleed some off through a pneumatic motor attached to a secondary permanent magnet alternator, and you've got electricity.

The advantages of the pnuematic approach is the cheapness and ready availability of parts, as well as lightness and easy ability to store energy in the form of compressed air. A hydraulic system would be a bit heavier and expensive. And a leak in the system would be a big deal with hydraulic oil, not a issue with compressed air.
__________________
RIP Maxima 1997-2012


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which is that it's not rational to do either speed or fuel economy mods for economic reasons. You do it as a form of recreation, for the fun and for the challenge.
  Reply With Quote