|
The principle benefits I see in a HH vehicle is weight (overall) cost, simplicity and reliability.
Number one is cost. If no one can afford it then it fails before it is ever made. If any driver of reasonable means can afford it, then it will replace the worlds vehicle population in a decade.
An operational vehicle would improve in mileage from refinements in engines, aero, and rolling resistance. Specific design refinements in those areas would enhance efficiency overall. The EPA projected this in their 2006 research papers. Pic added below.
Reliability. According to the research by Va tech and the fact that many conventional parts no longer would exist, it would be reasonable to expect the powertrain to outlast the body structure. Engine longevity would also increase due to lower power on operational hours total. Engines would also not need any throttle contorl, just like a pressure washer pump, just sized for the application. Eevn much larger engines for climbing severe grades would still maintain high mileage levels since they wooul just have lower duty cycles. The INNAS design ran the IC engine only 11% when testing on the European cycle, compared to 100% in a conventional application.
Ease of service, each in wheel drive could easily be rebuilt, on the vehicle, in about 1 hour per wheel, compared to designs that have much more complex drivetrains. If one drive failed, for any reason, as long as it could still freewheel, then the vehicle could limp home on the other 3 wheels, or 2, or 1. Since the highest percentage of regeneration requires it at all wheels, all wheel drive owuld be the most practical application, but not essential, expecially if the driver is familiar with hypermiling.
I may have co mingled the two answers, but incremental improvements would be in accumulator construction and design, particularly if they could be incorporated into the vehicle structure itself. Current world cup racing sailboats use accumulators with 12k PSI pressure capabilities which would mean less weight and smaller displacement drives, with a multiplying effect as weight dropped overall and drives became smaller.
All improvements outside the drives themselves would immediately reduce fuel consumption. Sadly in current vehicles if you make the aero better, then the load and efficiency of the engine is also reduced. This design would have the opposite effect.
Va Tech did a lot of work looking at stresses and stress points. The found nothing significant which is the basis of the relaibility claim.
I think I have their final report on this cpu if you are interested. Its about 82 pages of information.
regards
Mech
|