170 mpg hydraulic drive car
 

Valentin Technologies releases teaser images of 170 mpg IngoCar — Autoblog Green

PRESS RELEASE

Valentin Technologies releases first images of the IngoCar.

Elm Grove, WI, March 1, 2010. - Valentin Technologies has given the public its first glimpse of its IngoCar with the release of three teaser sketches. The five -seat, four door, sportwagen is brimming with innovation.

The company's founder Ingo Valentin has stated that "Finally outstanding performance and extremely high mileage are combined in a mid-size passenger car."

The vehicle's estimated mileage is 170 mpg based on a mix of city and rural driving. This extraordinary fuel efficiency is achieved by a revolutionary hydraulic-fluid drive. This hybrid gasoline/hydraulic drive system can deliver acceleration from 0-60 in 4 seconds. Using a small gasoline engine, fluid is pumped into an accumulator. The fluid then drives hydraulic wheel motors for shiftless acceleration. During braking, motors are reversed and pump the entire recuperated braking energy back into the accumulator. This innovative technology and the car's light weight give an estimated range of 1,000 miles for a full 6 gallon tank of fuel.

Hydraulics is also used to create an innovative protection system for occupants. Hydraulic bumpers embedded in the car's structure can absorb impacts up to 40 mph. The accumulator's central placement and low center of gravity provide excellent handling characteristics. The small size of the accumulator and drive system allows for a roomy passenger area and large trunks front and rear giving 24 cubic feet of cargo carrying capacity (8/16 front/rear).

Styling for the car was provided by Davide Tonizzo, of designD. "Ingo wanted an image that reflected the car's performance and its low emissions. The words athletic and friendly inspired the design." The designer opted for a two box design with aero driven features including front and rear diffusers and very soft front corners. However, the designer adds, "It was important to give the car appeal. While we wanted an efficient aero design we didn't want to overdo the aeronautical character and create an airplane for the road." The styling remains modern and pleasant with distinctive Venturi-inspired lines on the side panels that pay tribute to the aero efficiency and help define the IngoCar brand.

Mr. Valentin says, "We are proud to unveil our vision of an automobile that has the style, interior space, comfort and cost of a BMW 5 Series or Mercedes E-Class combined with unprecedented range and fuel economy."

Valentin Technologies is based in Elm Grove, Wisconsin USA .The company develops new hydrostatic power trains for vehicles. Technical expertise is based on more than 15 years of product development with leading manufacturers in this field. For additional information go to: www.valentintechnologies.com

Davide Tonizzo is a Toronto-based car designer with a diverse range of clients. His projects have received numerous awards and have been featured in international design publications. Find out more about Davide Tonizzo at www.designd-online.com.
************************************************** ******

Somehow affiliated with Pure Energy Systems??? Which if there was any truth in advertising should be called Pure BS Systems... :rolleyes:

Applied for X-Prize... not in the competition now? Way to throw away millions in easy money :rolleyes:

Every hydrostatic drive I've seen specs on is way more inefficient than a manual tranny. Also worse than an automatic with a locking converter.

Using an accumulator for regen braking isn't new, either- a Portland guy tried to get the postal service and busses to use his system way back in the mid-seventies. It worked OK but didn't have the ROI back in cheaper fuel days.

Brings back fond memories of the Dale.

http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblo...-site2-630.jpg
This is their idea of "images"? No. These are sketches. That means they still haven't built one, nor have they demonstrated a prototype of their drivetrain to support their extraordinary claims. Until I see less hype and more prototype, I think it's vaporware.

Don't you see? He needs $3B in order to progress... :rolleyes:

Speaking of progress, I wonder how Magic Trike guy is coming...

Back in 1977 there was a hydraulic Granada weighed 4120lbs 38.4 mpg city. In Mechanix Illustrated magazine.

Hydraulic drives are coming to the heavy truck market, I think it will be enivitable that it will find its way to smaller lines if they can get the economics in order.

Even if the hydraulic drive is less efficient than a manual or automatic transmission, it doesn't matter.

You can't consider a specific driveline part when the dynamics of the drive system are changed. With a hydraulic drive system, the fueled engine runs at it's most efficient RPM/load ALL THE TIME. Your car doesn't do that.

Even if the hydraulic setup were only 70% efficient, it would probably (most likely) still beat anything on the market currently, provided it would actually be built and work.

http://www.innas.com/Assets/files/Hydrid%20brochure.pdf

Similar system I posted before.

Valentin has been pursuing this for two decades. His concept is sound but it seems to me like his marketing smacks of Paul Mollar and his aero car.

The critical component of an effective hydraulic hybrid is the in wheel drives. The reason for in wheel-drives is the lower RPM of in wheel drives allows efficiency to remain high at higher speeds. Hydraulic in wheel drives should approach 95%+ efficiency in the near future and I believe mine has advantages over all the other types.

Accumulators approach 99% efficiency and keeping the fluid passageways short and restriction free is necessary.

Current state of the art is approaching 80% from wheel to accumulator and back to wheel. Once 80% is reached then the sky is the limit as far as fuel mileage.

Christ is exactly right. Comparing any conventional drive to a IVT in wheel hydraulic is a false comparison.

Engine only running at highest BSFC double efficiency. Engines designed specifically for direct generation of hydraulic pressure have reached efficiencies of over 50%, which is triple the efficiency of current averages.

Combine this with 90% direct transmission of power to the wheels and 80%+ regeneration efficiency and you truly have a game changer.

Add better aero and lower rolling resistance tires, and the total KW/HR needs decline. while the system automatically compensates.

In comparison when you lower the aero drag under normal circumstances you need less power from the engine and efficiency is lower at lower load levels in a typical engine.

The linked design explains this precisely, take the time to read and understand it and you will better understand the advantages.

For those who advocate electric primary power, it's not an either or choice, just use the battery and electric motor in place of the IC engine, to restore accumulator reserves. This places less cycle stresses on the battery and eliminates the poor regeneration efficiency of electric hybrids which is less than 40%.

regards
Mech

Current Diesel electric trains could be replaced with hydraulic in wheel drives. Today a Diesel electric train uses the drive motors to heat a grid above the engine for braking. With the surge recovery capability of a hydraulic drive they could use an accumulator to recover that wasted heat energy.

Kind of like a giant electric stove.

Accumulator cars could be added for areas with steep grades, instead of adding engine units.

regards
Mech

the new design of hydrstatic motor that Innas shows might actually make a hydraulic drive feasible if they can make it inexpensively enough. high weight, low efficiency and high cost have been three strikes against hydraulic drive. Maybe they've overcome two of them anyway.

A 5.5 HP Honda pressure washer produces 2.2 gallons at 2700 PSI.

With an accumulator you could store energy and launch a 4000 pound car to 70 MPH.

Once.

It takes 20 revolutions of the wheels to go 0-60 in 5 seconds in a car the size of a Corolla. The same number of revolutions to stop the car in just over 120 Feet.

At 30% (typical electric regen) you get 3.3 revolutions out of 20 back. At 80% you get 16.
Hydraulic Hybrids were at 78% 4 years ago, according to sources at Next Energy when I went there in 2006.

Cost becomes an advantage when you eliminate the hundreds of parts that are used to transfer power to the wheels in a conventional power train. Transmission, clutch, differential, axles, brakes, all gone.

Cost per wheel unit (manufacturing cost) would be about $100. Like a smart bomb, the axle, hub and bearings are already there.

An accumulator is basically a tank with a balloon inside the tank. Cycle life expectancy is measured in the tens of thousands, and you rebuild it by replacing the balloon. Very mature technology.

Take a Pontiac Solstice, which has a hydro formed tubular frame and used the frame as the accumulator. Replace the conventional power train with 4 in wheel drives. Put a .9 liter electric supercharged engine in it and you have 0-60 in 4 seconds and 100 MPG with decent aero and low rolling resistance tires.

About 2000 pounds curb weight.

The limiting factor for acceleration is the max displacement of the in wheel drives and the tires traction. Reverse engineer the system to reach the limits of traction under ideal circumstances and use wheel slip indicators to reduce displacement for traction control and ABS.

Virginia Tech calculated the power of my design at 35 HP and 380 pounds feet of torque.

Per wheel.

Much like the electric motor that produces high torque relative to the horsepower.

Even in an electric configuration, consider this point. You do not need to control the current flow to the motor, since it is either charging the accumulator or not running.

Pulse and glide has been proven to be effective even in electric cars. This system makes P&G and integral part of the vehicle itself, while maintaining a constant speed, even while employing a P&G strategy.

If you use an IC engine you need no throttle control or fuel delivery control, just on or off accumulator charging.

Now consider the sum total of parts you no longer need to offset the cost of the in wheel drives and the accumulator. The true cost would be offset by the brake components and the power train and induction system components no longer needed.

Overall you should see a 25% reduction in total parts count per vehicle, and a 15% reduction in per vehicle manufacturing cost.

I can build a system that would work on a bicycle, motorcycle, car, truck, train, ships, or even airplanes. Anything with wheels can be capable or regeneration.

Start-stop is simply reversing the flow of pressure from accumulator to engine, with only the controls necessary for reversing the flow.

regards
Mech

The same statement applies to all electric vehicles as well as IC electric hybrids equally, at least that's my opinion.

regards
Mech

I hold electric regen round-trip efficiency to be about 70%, excluding losses in the tires. Page 33 of this document shows motor*inverter efficiency (which needs to be squared for round-trip) was measured at >0.9 across the most usable part of its range of operating speeds. Losses in the battery are very small.

I looked through the document you provided Robert. While the average of motor and inverter efficiencies looks like it is about 70%, that does not cover the wheel to wheel efficiencies.

The example you provided (Honda Accord) also has a CVT transmission which has its own losses, as well as the battery which also has losses. Manuals have losses as well in both directions (application and recovery).

Consider the Insight you and I drive, which can only recover half of the energy it can generate electrically. Also consider that it is generally accepted that best efficiency is achieved by minimizing the battery use in the Insight.

That puts the Insight at 50% recovery, with additional losses in reapplication that further reduce the efficiency to close to the percentage I provided.

That's wheel to wheel. including all of the cumulative losses. While we can debate the percentage of cumulative losses, you can not debate the fact that batteries will not accept energy input at the same rate as they will output the same level of energy.

That's a non issue with hydraulics.

In your provided example, the energy pathway is wheel, to axle, to differential, to transmission, to motor, to controller, to cables, to battery. Each component compounds to totality of cumulative losses as you know. The same pathway is duplicated in reapplying the power which effective doubles the cumulative losses. In any process where the steps in energy conversion are many, even the smallest losses are compounded.

Another disadvantage of the Accord configuration is the motor can only spin with the engine, which is solvable by placing another clutch between the IMA and engine.

Electric motor efficiencies are best in a certain range of speed, while in-wheel drives are most efficient at the lower speeds of the wheels. In the referenced photos the bent axis pump is spinning at the same speed as the propeller shaft, which kills its efficiency. In- wheel drives at all 4 wheels suffer from no such issue and can recover energy to the last revolution of the wheel itself and at efficiencies that are their highest when fluid flow rates are lowest.

Compare the cycle life expectancy of any battery to an accumulator. There is no comparison and rebuilding an accumulator is a simple process that is very inexpensive compared to rebuilding or replacing a battery.

The cumulative losses of electric configurations do not allow P&G operation of the system.

The INNAS link clearly states that engine to accumulator P&G is an essential part of the operational strategy.

The bent axis pump used in the comparison (photos provided) is not designed specifically for the application. The rest of the components are also off the shelf.

My design was from the very beginning conceived for the specific purpose of replacing the power train in vehicles, at a cost that makes an inexpensive basic vehicle possible at $10K newly produced. That amount wont cover the cost of the battery in the Nissan Leaf, with a 100 mile range.

Even in the Leaf a launch assist rear axle with my in-wheel drives and an accumulator of two gallons capacity would extend the range by possible 50%.

That's a prediction I can not back up with concrete data, but I must emphasize this point. If you can P&G any vehicle in its current configuration, you can improve its mileage by incorporating P&G into the vehicle itself.

Some may consider that an over simplistic statement, but I maintain it as a fact that seems to be largely misunderstood today.

I hope our conscientious debate contributes to the knowledge base of everyone who reads this thread, my friend.

regards
Mech

The problem is that while hydraulic has a good cycle efficiency - that is, you get back a lot of the braking energy - there's not that much stored energy. The storage tends to be heavy, too, because it's stored by compressing gas to high pressure. That's why you see the hydraulic hybrids used in UPS delivery vans, garbage trucks, and other places with a frequent start-stop cycle.

For a car to be practical (around here, anyway), you need a powerplant plus storage that can power it up 5000 vertical feet of 7% grade at highway speed.

Very true James, but how much of your range in a Nissan Leaf will you loose in the same climb.

5000 feet in a 3300 pound car is 6 HP seconds per foot of elevation, or 42 HP per second per 100 feet traveled on a 7% grade.

5000/7=714 seconds of 42 HP above what it takes for you to travel the same speed on level ground.

3600/714=12 minutes at 42 HP above the level ground demand.

Level ground sustained demand at that speed is probably 7 HP give or take.

Say 37 kilowatts sustained for 12 minutes, or 6.6 kwh of battery capacity just to make the grade in your example, assuming it is 7% consistently for 5000 vertical feet.

You would have travelled 71400 feet distance or 13.5 miles.

Now double your example, or even triple it.

How much battery do you need with a 30% usable reserve capacity, and how long will it last being subjected to that kind of discharge stress on a daily basis?

The example of sustained grade climbing applies to both vehicles. If I need only a 75 HP gas engine to make the same grade, that engine is running at its peak efficiency. In fact you can size the engine to make it operate at peak efficiency on that grade and it won't change the overall mileage of the vehicle. The larger the engine the less time it needs to maintain accumulator reserves, so the only penalty for a larger engine is the weight of the engine itself.

The UPS trucks gross weight is 26000 pounds based on its class size. We are talking about a car that weighs 2000-2200 pounds. The INNAS (linked in my first post) thread clearly states "no weight penalty".

The in-wheel drives weight the same as the brake components they replace (weight neutral).

The cross members that support the suspension could do double duty as the accumulators, so their additional weight would be negligible if any.

On the other hand you need a 400 pound battery pack, a fairly heavy motor, some form of transmission and power train and you still need brakes for when your speed is so low regeneration can not be effectively accomplished.

How bad is the wear on your brakes when you are going down the same grade beyond your regenerative capacity?

Please correct me if my math is seriously flawed.

regards
Mech

How do they come up with a mileage number like this -- if the car is just a sketch?

Sure. It also says that it's got images of the car, when all I see are some sketches that any moderately competent artist could whip out in a few hours.

As for using the frame members as pressure storage vessels... Well, I'd want to see a real good engineering analysis of that. What happens when a member holding say 4000 psi is subject to road shocks? I don't know, but I think the stresses would add...

Any sort of hybrid is always going to be a trade-off between efficiency, emissions, engine wear, and performance like any other car. W/ a hydraulic hybrid based on a typical car, the engine would have to cycle on and off much more because the accumulator would have to be relatively small or w/ a smaller engine performance would be sub-par compared to a hybrid. If the accumulator is as large as a battery pack in terms of energy storage then the car would weigh a half ton more than a comparable hybrid and performance would suffer. It's all about trade-offs and HHs just don't offer the same characteristics that HEVs do and consumers want for whatever price.

Maybe its watching a frame machine twist a full sized pickup frame like it was a plastic straw.

Or a 4 ton hand pumped hydraulic ram twist a truck frame 3 to 4 inches with the power of your arm.

Or a Kansas Jack ripping a uni body apart like a piece of paper.

Hydraulics is a very mature technology.

The pelton wheel hit 90% 120 years ago.

Even a water wheel easily topped 60%, 2000 years ago in Roman times.

An accumulator can get as close to 0 loss as you can get at 99% efficiency.

A 500 hp hydraulic motor is light enough to hold in one hand.

Designed to reach the maximum torque capability of the tire to road surface interface, you have the ability to provide 100% of the traction capability of every wheel on the vehicle, it you want to do a 1/4 mile as fast as any dragster on the planet.

Without any engine whatsoever.

The 5 states of vehicle operation.

Idling
Accelerating
Coasting
Decelerating
Braking

With a 5 gallon accumulator weighing as much as one passenger you can accelerate a car to 60 MPH in 20 revolutions of the wheels, and stop it in the same distance and recover over 80 % of the energy, minus of course the aero and rolling resistance losses.

Your rate of acceleration and deceleration is not relevant to the efficiency of the energy recovery. Panic stops and full accelerations make no difference in the efficiency of the energy recovery.

The engine can be operated at only its maximum efficiency regardless of vehicle speed or rate of acceleration or deceleration.

Idling does not exist.

Acceleration is merely choosing the rate at which you choose, the energy requirements are not relevant to economy.

Coasting is truly coasting with no power train losses, no gears pumping fluid from the gear teeth, even more efficient than neutral in a manual transmission because many of the gears and differential gears are still pumping fluid away from the gear teeth, no u joints, CV axles, no spinning parts to use energy to accelerate and decelerate.

Deceleration is regeneration

Braking is regeneration

In both cases you are recovering energy at all 4 wheels up to their maximum traction capability, down to 0 wheel speed.

The free piston direct hydraulic engine pump had a theoretical efficiency of 58% ten years ago. Today they are approaching 50% and with super critical direct injection at 30k PSI you will see engines make 60% energy conversion efficiencies, if they haven't down so already in a lab.

Is 170 MPG possible?

At what speed?

Average speeds of the EPA city cycle are about 27 MPH. At those speeds 170 is possible if the whole vehicle system is optimized for efficiency.

At highway speeds where aerodynamics become the dominant energy drain the mileage would be closer to the 80-100 range, totally depending on aero and rolling resistance optimization.

This is possible right now. Valentin, INNAS, Lightning, and several other organizations are working very hard to get us there. A military HUMMER averaged 22 MPG with a hydraulic drive conversion.

Every developer admits the most important component is the drive motor, which needs to be incorporated within the wheel, so there are no necessary mechanical connections.

You want to use a battery and an electric motor to drive this platform?

It changes nothing, just a different power source that consumes a different form of energy.

This week I started receiving junk mail from companies soliciting me to represent my patent. Its been published and it will be issued. Hopefully by the end of this year the system will be in a bicycle. A human hydraulic hybrid, that is fairly lightweight and refutes every assumption that it has to weigh to much to be practical.

0-60 as fast as a sport bike, pulse a glide capable with no engine other than human power. Spend 30 minutes completely charging the accumulator and you have 3 times the available human power for 15 minutes at 50 MPH.

On a bike with no engine requiring no fuel or electricity.

If you don't want to spend 30 minutes on your exercise machine plug it in the wall and charge the accumulator.

Fully enclosed and all weather capable, the vehicle itself will weigh about 200 pounds total or even less. That makes it just over 400 pounds with me included.

regards
Mech

Old Mechanic, a lot of what you are purposing sounds great and makes sense. But, then you throw in a claim that seems totally unrealistic. I'm not saying you're wrong, it just sounds unbelievable. I've worked with hydrostats in heavy equipment for years, and any motor capable of 500Hp weighs hundreds of pounds and they don't cost $100, they are thousands. Even small 50hp motors are $1000 or more. Also, most piston motors don't have the good low speed torque you are claiming and would need gear reduction in the wheels. You talk about direct drive motors for regeneration, then talk about coasting with no drivetrain losses, even though hyd. motors have a lot of frictional loss in neutral. Accumulators are very efficient, but a 5gal. accum. operating at 400 bar, would have to be built very heavy to take the pressure. I know there is lot's of new technology that I'm not familiar with, like the motor that Innas was describing. I guess I'm just asking for an example or specs. of a production pump and motor that does what your claiming, or is this still theoretical? I'm just tring to understand this better and I really hope you can make it work.

The 500 hp motor you can hold in your hand is a direct quote from John Kargul, head of the EPA HH program. He also stated that the implementation of a practical HH would be as revolutionary to the auto industry as the assembly line!

If you want I can provide a link. I have spent enough time on this to have gone from high school grad to a PHD degree over the last decade.

The cost per unit I quoted is reasonable, when you consider it in a manufacturing context with mass production, which is exactly how it will be produced for public consumption.

I think we all understand that there is a huge difference between mass produced cost per unit and what it sells for as a replacement component. You would be better off to buy the whole Prius than to buy the electric motor, battery, and planetary gear set differential as replacement parts.

3 parts cost more than the whole assembled car, about 5,000 parts. That's a perfect example of why you can't fairly compare the cost of the sum of the components to a manufactured assembly. A 2010 Prius would cost you close to $200,000 if you bought the parts individually, and you would still have to put it together.

The patent application has been published and approved. It has been thoroughly investigated by a group of students and a MIT PHD professor. They concluded it was capable of 35 HP and 380 pounds feet of torque from 0wheel speed in application and recovery. That's power at the wheel for 4 wheels direct to the tire without any gearing whatsoever. Stress analysis of the design showed no potential wear issues that would keep it from functioning for thousands of hours, and overhaul procedures that would allow a complete rebuild in less than 1.5 hours labor, per wheel.

Some people will legitimately claim that what I propose is not even a hybrid by definition.
The argument has some merit.

I don't care what you call it if it works. Are you trying to defeat inspiration with a definition of the machine?

That's the most ludicrous rejection criteria I think I have ever heard.

If you want to get into a theoretical debate about the evolution of battery technology and propose that the "miracle" battery is just a few years away, then you have missed the whole point.

Don't even consider what the miracle battery will cost, or it's potential catastrophic failure scenario in a 200G impact, something like the Peterbilt that t-boned the S10 at the intersection on TV.

You could use water as a hydraulic fluid as long as you provided some anti freeze to the water for low temp function.

What happens to your miracle battery at 50 below?

Agendas are driven by arguments that disintegrate with unbiased consideration of all the failure potential of components.

Current Americas cup racers use accumulators with operating pressures of 12k PSI. An 1/8th inch wall thickness seamless tubing can handle 300 PSI. The perfect place for the high pressure accumulator is inside the low pressure accumulator, located in the transmission tunnel where only the most catastrophic accident scenarios would cause a loss of integrity. Failures of high pressure inert gas charged accumulators would result in expulsion of the inert gas which could actually provide some protection from fire of combustible fuel.

My design contains the high pressure circuit within the low pressure return containment vessel, so high pressure leaks dump fluid into the low pressure circuit, with overpressure protection of the same circuit.

High pressure water is used to slice through steel like a butter knife.

Ingo Valentin was right 25 years ago when he started his pursuit of the HH. He certainly was not the first person to advocate hydraulic energy absorbing systems. Aircraft have been using then for over 50 years. The designs are ancient.

If a hypermiled 1970 Opel that is basically stock can get 124 MPG 40 years ago, for the love of whatever deity you prefer, just think of how different the world would be today if the resources we dedicated to battery development had be devoted to a practical HH vehicle that employed the exact same operational tactic that proved that it's not just how efficient the engine is.

The power train can be improved as proposed by Valentin, INNAS, and many others and double the mileage with the same engine. The engine can be improved to almost double its current peak efficiency which for gas IC engines is currently in the mid 30% range.

Take my VX which had averaged 55 MPG. Double that with power train improvements, then double it again with engine improvements.

Reduce the CD to Basjoos levels and the proposed system automatically compensates for the lower sustained average energy demand.

That's basically what Valentin is using in his calculations and his claim for 170 MPG has been done already with a manual transmission 1st gen Insight.

The difference is the Insight requires perfect hypermiling techniques, while the HH does it without any driver input other than the attention of a soccer mom with 4 kids on her way to a game, with a cell phone ringing, and two of them fighting in the back seat.

That's the real world, and people will never dedicate themselves to the amount of intelligence and attention to detail it takes to do it the hard way, as we try to do it every day.

regards
Mech

Since a >100g collision will kill all the occupants anyway, catastrophic failure of chemical or hydraulic energy storage systems in those collisions isn't very important. But if there are any frame-distorting collisions that the occupants can survive, I wouldn't want the pressure vessel to be part of the frame.

Here's a tough question: If Ingo Valentin has been pursuing hydraulic hybrids for 25 years, where are his results? Has he built a 130mpg prototype or even a 50mpg one? Even a 20mpg prototype would be better than what we've seen so far.

His 1996 New York Times ad reports that as of 1996 he's recieved $750,000 in funding and needs $2.8m to complete a prototype. That just does not seem reasonable.

From where I'm sitting, Mr. Valentin appears to be more interested in funding and publicity than in completing the project. I have to question whether he's a reliable source of information.

His theory is sound, in theory, but can it be put in to practice?

See why I asked Miracle Trike Boy the "tough" questions?

Mech, you did answer some of my questions, but, I assume from your response that the drive components that you are purposing are still at the theoretical level. Since you say you are planning to fit a small system to a bike this year, what type of pump motor combo are you planing to use for that? You must be planning to use off the shelf parts for a proof of concept project aren't you? A human powered/hyd. hybrid actually sounds very interesting. Good Luck with it and Yes, I would like that link.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ride122609

Robert, this is scratch built and cost over $10,000, so Ingo's request for money doesn't surprise me.

Compare it to the 40 some billion spent on battery development in the last 40-50 years.

Green Car Congress: EPA to Award Up to $1.35M to Projects to Advance Hydraulic Hybrid, Engine and Fuel Technology

Hydraulic Hybrid Cars: No Batteries Required - 2008-04-28 00:00:00 | Design News

Transonic Combustion | Our Technology | TSCi Technology - Fuel Injection Systems

Take my civic VX, add the super critical fuel injection system.

Then aero it like Basjoos.

There is 100 MPG

The toss out the whole power train, brakes, throttle control, clutch, flywheel, starter motor, axles. Reduce the fuel tank to 3 gallons instead of 10 to offset the weight of the hydraulic fluid.

Then add 4 in wheel drives weighing no more than the brake components you no longer need.

A high pressure accumulator where the transmission used to be 3-5 gallons capacity.

Make the front cross member the low pressure reservoir.

The in wheel drives look like the running example on the first u tube link.

80-100 highway
120-160 city

no special driver input necessary.

Game set match, could be done in 12 months with enough funding.

I don't need to solicit it here, so you don't need to call it a spam sales pitch.

Scratch built prototypes are extraordinarily expensive, but we are moving to mutual development with other entities and other financial sources.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this will happen, and very soon. If not in the US somewhere on the planet, because it is a cheap and effective option. Are we going to wait for the Chinese to build it?

Robert, I can't tell you absolutely why Ingo has not succeeded, but I can sit here and rattle off hundreds of examples of the stupidity of mankind, that have cost millions of lives.

One example. In the American Civil War, trench warfare was developed to a state of the art degree, but in spite of that known, the idiots in Europe repeated that same stupidity, with modern weapons with exponentially greater killing capabilities than those of only 50 years earlier.

Britain considered a million casualties a year as normal attrition in warfare.

20 years later they almost repeated the same scenario.

Has stupidity disappeared in the recent decades.

I went to my US senators office and had an interview, when I explained the benefits, I was told that eliminating all of those components in a vehicle would eliminate all the jobs necessary to build those components.

I guess that is too high a price to pay for energy independence, and the creation of 3 trillion in wealth every year in the US.

Stupidity is alive and well and thriving today.

regards
Mech

Automakers charge high prices for model-specific replacement parts because they can. If you look at generic parts like 12-volt batteries, shock absorbers, and tires, the prices are more reasonable. Then consider that hydraulic motors aren't specialized components used in one line of automobiles, they're generic parts used in all sorts of industrial equipment. You just go to an industrial parts catalog - or do a search on "industrial hydraulic motor" - and order.

So it seems that there would be a lot of applications for lightweight, efficient hydraulic motors (and other parts) without building them specifically for cars. So I'd think that someone with a better motor design could sell it without having to start a car company, while anyone wanting to build a HH car ought to be able to buy all the components for a prototype drive train off the shelf for not too many thousands of dollars, install them in say a Metro chassis, and have a working demo model to show investors.

Thinking along the same lines James.

I can buy an off the shelf Honda 5.5 HP pressure washer with a pump capable of 2700 PSI and 2.2 gallons per minute.

A small motorcycle frame, don't need the engine or anything from the engine to the rear wheel, except possibly the rim and tire.

Then you don't have to deal with integration of the existing brakes and any other specially built parts except the rear hub which would be the regenerative hydraulic IVT.

I bought some aluminum and bearings and seals for the rear hub, which will have to be basically scratch built. The ball bearing inner diameters are 100 MM. which gives me plenty of room for the offset adjustable journal.

So far I have $200 in the project. Guess it would be best to start another thread since this is getting off topic.

Should have it finished by the end of this year and it will provide a perfect proof of concept.

regards
Mech

Frank I have been answering "tough" questions for the better part of a decade.

Not sure what other Trike you are referring to, but all I ask is keep an open mind, tempered with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Plenty of highly qualified engineers have looked this over thoroughly and every question was answered to their satisfaction.

At that level of education they have the background of knowledge, and sometimes experience, to quickly determine if my claims are inflated.

Plenty of engineers on this site. I don't mind answering questions as long as they have some thought behind them. Otherwise the question is based on a prejudicial assumption that I don't have the mental capacity to conceive an innovation.

Never been told that was the case.

Personally I believe we all start on a basically level field of mental capacity, the difference is how much we exercise that capacity, just like staying in shape physically.

regards
Mech

I meant the guy that has all these ethereal magic tricks for efficiency, only hold-up is he needs vast piles of cash to be donated to him before anyone will find out what they are. :rolleyes:

Frank -

I have *no* problem with zoltanbod. He said up front that he wants to solicit money from rich celebrities, which leaves most of us out (unless you are the voice actor of Homer Simpson posting incognito, ;) ). I think this is different from the scam-plan of the tornado's and blades and such.

CarloSW2

If Zoltan completes his body and finds that he has attached flow and a Cd < 0.20, as I expect he will, I will be envious. The rest of his plan (engine, business plan) seem pie-in-the-sky, but not dishonest.

Still, a Geo Metro with an aero rebody will be among the top ten most efficient cars on the forum.

One of the key, and generally not quantified, components of any comparison of mileage between any two vehicles is average speed when moving.

I guess I could putt around at 32 MPH if I wanted to win that contest, but I prefer the attitude of Basjoos where I get on the road and go at least 60 MPH. I think he prefers 70-75. The posted speed limit on divided rural highways in NC is 70.

What about an inflatable boat tail that is attached by velcro.

regards
Mech

How it works of the INGOCAR.','WinName',460,440,true,true);

above is video.

All i know of hydraulic drive is electric pumps creating a charge for some serious 3000psi braking on a potentially 100 ton airplane.
it is cool to apply brakes after the whine is silent...and they just simply work stopping the behemoth.

I can't judge anything, no knowledge at all. the pressure is a frightening thought... those bumpers won;t stop much...
and if it is not at least 60 F outside... one will be losing alot of pwer, in alot of waiting for accumulators to build again...but ya know every ricer comes from the tropics, they don't care about manly vehicles needed either.

ICE is hanging on for more than barbaric reasons..god is the barbarian. :eek:

Frank is refering to the Zoleco . I introduced it to Ecomodder awhile back when i joined. I am busy building the car so i don't have alot of time to spend on this site.Just thought i would check in.Nice to see mention of my "pie in the sky concept". Hydraulic drive/regen is an interesting idea to consider,i will be keeping it in mind for future reference.

Oh boy just what I want. Another car loaded to the hilt with more hydraulic fluids just waiting to leak all over my driveway. Oh wait, at 3000 PSI or more I suppose it wouldn't leak at all.............it would explode.:eek:

Fortunately, hydraulic fluid is nearly incompressible. What this means is, the sudden transition from 3000psi to 15psi results in only a minuscule increase in volume. That means it won't explode any more than your brake system does when you blow a line at a few thousand PSI.

Liquid water is relatively very compressible, and it WILL explode from a hydraulic system. That's one of the reasons never to substitute water for hydraulic oil.

Why waste the time it takes to respond.

Millions of feet of hydraulic lines and hundreds of thousands of cylinders doing nasty work every day. Construction, mining, even 0 turn lawn mowers, body shops that bend your car like a piece of spaghetti. This world would be much different without the existing, very mature, and utterly dependable use of hydraulics for hundreds, even thousands of different operations.

Got an single example of an explosion in the last 20 years.

Try some research into the subject before you make such statements that have absolutely no basis in any factual evidence.

In fact some hydraulic systems even operate on non petroloeukm based fuids, like glycol, or water. Spill some on the ground (water) and it just evaporates.

Use the same logic on your 400 pound battery that just got spread all over a major intersection.

Do you ride around on a mtorcycle with an engine hitting 11k RPM. OH GOD! It's going to explode and cut you in half!

How about the 20 pound flywheel in you sidewainder FWD car at say 8 k RPM. Ought to slice you in half.

How about the energy content in 15 gallons of gasoline you are carrying around with you in a metal can?

Name a single injury or death directly attributable directly to escaping hydraulic fluids.

geezus, do some research.

Sorry Robert I posted this reply without seeing yours just prior to mine.

It just burns me up to have to read some of the rubbish I see about hydraulics, while people fall all over themselves raving about electric drives and high capacity electrical energy sources, like their is no risk involved in having a 100 million electric cars running down our roads, with 400 pound barrteies in each one.

regards
Mech

Intro to Water Hydraulics

regards
Mech

Geezus relax for christ sake. I was only half joking. Personally I work in a warehouse around forklifts that use hydraulic systems. I hate it when it blows a line and you wind up with an oil slick all over the damned place. Personally I like the electrics because you can work on them without getting messy.
Take it easy I was only joking about an explosion. Get a sense of humor for gods sake already.
Besides if it where a viable alternative, why is nobody else researching it?