|
First drawing of RIDE prototype vehicle
1 Attachment(s)
For your consideration. The drawing is 10 inches long, scale is 1/15th.
Length 12 feet 6 inches, width 5 feet. Should match the ideal shape almost perfectly. Sides will be vertical for the first 18 inches, then match the curvature of the drawing in the vertical. regards Mech |
Very elegant, very simple. Looks great! what kind of engine?
|
It is going to be a hydraulic hybrid, so the engine could be from a pressure washer.
The in wheel drive (rear wheel) is based on my US Patent #7677208. Using only the rear wheel on the first functional vehicle due to cost of scratch building the in wheel drive. Front suspension is a ball joint late VW bug, late 60s to early 70s. regards Mech |
nice. why hydraulic?
|
I guess the best answer is to prove the viability of my patented design. In essence a self hypermiling car. The drive allows for constant speeds while running on accumulator pressure alone, with the engine cycling on and off to replenish pressure in the accumulator. Deceleration forces also recharge the accumulator. What is achieved by expert hypermilers will now be incorporated into the basic design of the vehicle, automating what is now done by the driver without speed fluctuations normally associated with pulse and glide.
Fuel consuming engine on cycle percentage will depend on average demand, with the engine always running at peak efficiency. regards Mech |
Why not a tandem design to reduce FA?
|
Quote:
Radial rotary engine with energy storage - United States Patent 7677208 |
Yes on the patent.
I prefer the side by side seating. The front axle is 60 inches wide, and everything seems to fit well together with some room for side protection. The curves match the template perfectly for best aerodynamics, and the design of the VW axle gives you a decent amount of collision protection as well as the natural tendency of the trailing arms to deflect and offset impact to the side. Overall length of just over 12 feet is all I need to package everything. regards Mech |
Very cool. I think your concepts have much potential.
|
- So engine can run always at best point in BSFC map.
- You can drive steady speed and the engine can do the push and gliding. Pump the pressure when needed. -You can do engine braking by capturing pressure when you are braking? Sound clever system so far and the body looks very nice. Is this RIDE prototype system optimised for fuel economy or will you have how many "horsepower" and what is the top speed target? |
Been reading and speculating about these pneumatic/hydraulic hybrid motors for years. Here's the French inventor with a air-piston engine and his evolving vehicle prototypes. An Italian engineer's very light air-rotary piston engine used in many applications. And an enigmatic but very interesting hydraulic engine called Gigadron drive. Good luck on your next-gen project. It would be very interesting to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3KFihl8u6U Automotive - Gig high density thermo-hydraulic power for green, safe VTOL aircraft, land transport, electricity, air-con & atmospheric drinking water. |
Nice video.
|
Quote:
|
Jim, my plan is to register it as a motorcycle. I have 5 of which 2 will probably never be on the road. Either one can be titled and registered. I might look into the custom built avenue, but in either case it should pass Va motorcycle requirements.
Lets see if this works. http://www.youtube.com/user/Ride122609/videos This is the first functional prototype running on air. regards Mech |
Virginia Tech assigned the design to a class of 8 engineering students who calculated the stress points and potential power development. With 3 pistons and a piston surface area of 1 square inch, operating at 3000 PSI, they calculated the power at 35 HP per wheel at the wheel itself. The really interesting thing is the torque, 380 pounds feet at the first revolution! Similar to electric motors but with highest efficiency at the instant you start to move.
Calculated losses were in the range of 5%. With accumulator and line flow friction it should still be higher than 90% total. Hopefully a full regeneration cycle will exceed 82%. As Vekke noticed, separating the engine (or motor if electric) operation from the actual vehicle propulsion function means the engine can operate completely independently from the speed of the vehicle, always within a few percentage of best BSFC. The engine-motor only acts to replenish accumulator pressure, unless you are climbing one heck of a grade. Larger displacement engines run for a lower percentage of the total time the vehicle is moving, while smaller engines would operate for a higher percentage of time. The accumulator acts as a load leveler, allowing for complete elimination of any idling or light load operation that is inefficient. You could even have two small engines, with one available for significant grade climbing. Since the engine is only connected to a fuel supply, as well as two hydraulic lines and a couple of electrical connections, changing the engine would take about 30 minutes. In an electric configuration you would only need to have the battery power on or off to accomplish pressure regeneration so there would be no need for any power controller. The vehicle could initially be propelled by a motorcycle engine. I'm thinking of the Honda CBR 250 since it already has fuel injection and a catalytic converter, as well as a feedback fuel system almost identical to current automobiles. Once the drive is finished and with an accumulator acceleration would be regulated to the maximum traction of the single drive wheel. It would be better to have all wheels driven since that would allow regeneration to occur down to 0 wheel speed regardless of the accumulator pressure level. Even with no engine in the vehicle acceleration with accumulator pressure alone would be very rapid. Ideally 0-60 times would be in the range of 30 revolutions of the single rear wheel. From a dead stop that is around 200 feet! regards Mech |
Quote:
|
I'm sorry, but what is the premise of this RIDE vehicle? Personal project? University project?
|
The University work proved the concept.
By building a practical vehicle capable of use for daily transportation, I will have absolute proof of the efficiency of the design. Lets look at the 5 types of vehicle operation: 1. Idling: Idling accounts for 13% of the total fuel consumption of the US vehicle population. RIDE eliminates idling altogether. 2. Acceleration: Acceleration is the only time during vehicle operation where the engine approaches maximum efficiency. RIDE utilizes deceleration forces to accomplish acceleration, When you slow down, for whatever reason the energy normally lost is recovered and reapplied for acceleration. 3. Constant speed driving: While best mileage can be obtained with constant speed driving, it is not very efficient since you have to throttle the engine to reduce power and maintain speed. RIDE will cycle the engine on and off, at peak BSFC, to maintain a constant speed using the accumulator and infinitely variable drive to apply the precise amount of power to the wheels to maintain any constant speed. 4. Coasting: This is where most cars are fairly efficient, but only if you turn the engine off. RIDE coasts automatically, using the neutral position in the drive, so it matches engine off coasting without any driver input whatsoever, other than choosing an accelerator position that makes the vehicle coast. 5. Deceleration: While deceleration can be accomplished by coasting, which is very efficient, engine braking, or friction brake braking both are terrible wastes of energy. RIDE recaptures the energy otherwise wasted in engine braking or friction braking, by using decelerative forces to replenish accumulator pressure, thus reliving the engine of the job. This is actually the most significant reversal of losses in the whole process, going from a negative energy state to a positive one. Too summarise: Idling-eliminated Acceleration-enhanced by using the prior decelerative act to reapply energy for acceleration. Constant speed-enhanced efficiency by cycling the engine on and off at max BSFC while applying only the amount of energy necessary to maintain a constant speed. This doubles the engines efficiency at providing power to the wheels, since no throttle restriction is used to control power to the wheels. Coasting-the only stage of operation where the conventional vehicle would match RIDE's efficiency, BUT only if you shut off the engine in the conventional vehicle. RIDE operates automatically with only an accelerator position input from the driver. Deceleration-This is the most significant improvement. Any deceleration by engine or friction braking wastes energy dearly paid for previously. Instead of throwing it away, RIDE recovers that same energy for future application. Now lets consider the other major factor, cost. RIDE eliminates many systems in a normal car. The power train consists of an accumulator, hydraulic lines, and in wheel drives. In a normal vehicle the parts that are necessary to accomplish the same function constitute close to 30% of the total vehicle parts count. Follow a schematic of your vehicle, from the flywheel to the wheels, including the friction brakes. Add to this the induction system controls necessary for controlling engine power output. Take all of that out and throw it away! Cheaper to build by a significant margin, while providing close to double the overall efficiency. The least expensive to manufacture vehicle on the planet, with the best efficiency, as well as the complete elimination of many systems that require repair and maintenance. You want electric, just use a motor and battery. You want liquid fueled, just use an IC engine. You could easily swap one for the other depending on your trip length, or even carry both. Without the peak energy demands of acceleration engine size would be determined by the maximum sustained loads encountered, but regardless of the engines size, the power producing cycle would use the same total amount of power, achieved at only best BSFC, regardless of the engines size. Big engines would run less time, small engines would run longer, but both would produce the same amount of power to match the average total demand of the vehicle. The only penalty with the larger engine would be its weight. Build a better aerodynamic body and the RIDE power train automatically compensates for the reduced overall energy demand. The purpose of the vehicle is to clearly demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the rotary hydraulic in wheel drive, by allowing a passenger to monitor fuel consumption by the ounce (128 per gallon) as you operate the vehicle. |
Quote:
regards Mech |
Quote:
Ofcourse, the disadvantage would be double the frontal area. If you plan on driving around with a passenger 100% of the time, then fine. But is that ever the case with all of us? I'm in my car by myself more than 90% of the time I'm driving it. The right half of my car is completely unnecessary at that point. You could make an open wheeled tandem design, much like the HyperRocket, and still have the same usable interior space as your design. Hell, you could also design the space behind the driver's seat to have a removable rear seat for extra cargo space. If it were me building this project (which i wish i could do, not enough free time), I would build a reverse tadpole tandem just like the HyperRocket, except it would have a trunk space behind the rear passenger seat, and have a removable rear seat for added cargo space. That way, regardless if i have a passenger in the car or not, I would always have the most efficient design for FE without any wasted space. Just throwing my thoughts out there. Good luck on your project! |
When alone, weather permitting I ride one of my bikes, probably like you Brian. The decision to build it side by side was based on the template for optimal aerodynamics as well as a Wife who wants to ride shotgun.
Another consideration is the center of mass being positioned close to equally between the three wheels. In any collision the longer more narrow tandem configuration would be subjected to increased forces in a side impact when the vehicle is longer. While it may not be the best choice of some, I believe it is the best choice for me. It also allows the utilization of the complete front suspension assembly from an early air cooled VW bug, something which makes sense economically. I also want a setup that will spin instead of flip in a severe emergency maneuver. Another point in favor of the overall length of just 12.5 feet is the ability to park virtually anywhere. My intention is for this to be may daily driver. I also don't care for the open front wheel configuration where a slight impact might result in severe front suspension damage and potential loss of steering control. Believe me I seriously considered both configurations, but the real deciding factor is, will my wife actually be willing to ride in this thing! If the MPG works out to be better than my CBR250R, then I might just sell off all the bikes and my Maxima and we can use her Sorento when necessary. regards Mech |
Quote:
I really enjoyed reading your post 18 above. I think you might well be onto something worthwhile. At the least, it is an extreemly interesting project! |
LOL Jim I broke her in (the wife) riding in my Insight. She is used to the weird factor now, at least to the point where SHE drove the Insight for a week when her Rogue got bumped and needed bodywork. Bless her heart, she even managed 56 MPG driving the Insight for a week, while my average was 67 for close to 30k miles.
regards Mech |
Okay, it sounds good. I have a few more questions though :)
Do you have any more sketches, or even a side view orthographic drawing? It's interesting but I'm a very visual person and am trying to imagine what it looks like. Second, will you be "filling up" on compressed air before a journey like a BEV charges, or will it be a self-contained system like a hybrid? Last, what will the wheelbase be? It looks like it'll be too short for a really stable, non bouncy ride. My parents won't ride in my '81 Rabbit because of its loud exhaust and stiff suspension. Hopefully your prototype avoids these! Thanks! |
How do you deal with reaching the maximum pressure of the accumulator? Presumably you'd vent to a low-pressure supply, but I think your ability to slow would be affected. I would consider keeping friction brakes (perhaps just on the front wheels) as a backup.
Neat ideas. I'm looking forward to seeing how they work in the real world!! Major major kudos for having the ideas, and then following through by building something based on them!!! -soD |
Mech, I very much support your build. I've built a number of cars with the VW front end, and it is a great solution. I recommend the balljoint over the kingpin - pay attention - the beams have different center to center distances.
I kind of wish my car was side by side, and I thought long and hard about it, but it has mostly ended up a tandem project. We mocked up our body, and we are laying fiberglass this week. |
The front suspension will retain the original braking system. Later I will add a rear disc braking system as a backup in case of hydraulic failure.
Wheel base is calculated at 92 inches not very different from n=many small cars today. The is no air in this design used for power, it's hydraulic fluid driven. I have not drawn anything else yet, but will post any further drawings here when they are completed. The outside shape was precisely the same as the aero template used on this forum to show where shapes do or do not allow air flow to not be separated from the body. It was actually designed from the outer shape inwards. Another benefit from the shorter wider shape is less surface friction between the air and the body, an potentially less effected by crosswinds. A side view drawing is next. It will be basically flat from the lowest portion up 18 inches, with 6 inches of ground clearance for a total of 2 feet from the ground up to the point where you arm rest would normally be in your car (about parallel with the top of the front tires). After that the shape will be identical to the shape of the sides in the drawing. The 18 inches of vertical body side will be two horizontal parallel tubes with fairly heavy sheet metal welded to the parallel tubes and will look just like a NASCAR frame. All tubing will be of similar strength to race car tube chassis, in the main area of the passenger compartment. In front of the front axle the tubing will be much lighter and the nose cone will be filled with foam to provide a collapsible nose cone. The rear top tubes will be smaller and thinner. I have a 2001 Yamaha R1 donor motorcycle for the rear suspension. Most likely the doors will be of a gull wing configuration. The shop I am working with builds race cars so they have much experience in the process, including bending tubing as well as a superb welder whose work is absolutely beautiful. I am fairly good as a welder but their man is a real artist. I may use the interior of the tubing for storing low pressure fluid. If there is an overpressure situation SOD, then the high pressure fluid will be bypassed through a restriction, to the low pressure circuit to provide braking energy in the drive wheel, of course with backup in the front suspension. The front wheels will either be configured similar to the early Insight, or have skirts that are controlled by the steering rack to move out for clearing the front tires. Thanks for the support drmiller. I understand the frustration when dealing with "tail gunners" in your build thread and have experienced many similar responses to my idea. I invite constructive criticism from anyone interested here and truly hope everyone tries to learn and understand what I am trying to do with this design. Maybe one day it will be accepted by the manufacturers but it will probably take a lot of time, possibly more than I have left on this earth, who knows. The history of auto manufacturers has been unkind to real innovation. In 2006 I read the EPA's hydraulic hybrid research documents and they were begging for a "clean sheet of paper" design for a drive. I believe this is that design and the Tech students agreed with that assumption. They looked at it for almost a year and did considerable research, far beyond my capabilities. Thanks to this site and many members here who have helped me to learn how to best utilize aero design in this vehicle and maybe by this time next year it will actually be on the road. God only knows how many miles I would drive it if it does, but my first passenger will be my 90 year old Father, so he can see the Kid done good. From start to finish (if it ends in the next year) the whole process will have taken over a decade and over $50,000. Wish me luck. regards Mech |
I don't fully understand how your engine works, but I'm definitely going to follow your build thread closely.
Off topic, but what holds more energy per weight and/or per volume, a battery or a compressed air tank? |
Quote:
According to wikipedia NiMH batteries are about 75 wh/kg and 300 wh/l Litium Ion batteries are 200 wh/kg and 400 wh/l An air tank at 300 bar is about 140 wh/kg and 55 wh/l I couldn't find comparable numbers for commercial accumulators. Experimental hydraulic automotive systems only claim about 3 wh/l. The experimental UPS hydraulic hybrid claimed 2.5 wh/l at 7000 psi. (480 bar = 48 Mpa)) Gasoline has about 13000 wh/kg and 9400 wh/l -mort |
i know very little about hyd. any way i really don't know the internals of a "pressure washer" pump. but i guess it has some type of fixed displacement that relieves itself back to suction or has some type of varible displacement? i was wondering if varible pumps would help or do you need a constant displacement? i've done a little work with some multi-piston pumps with a swash (spelling?) plate and they are amazingly effecient (i thought). just stickin' my nose in :)
|
Accumulators reach efficiencies of 99%.
Hydraulic rams are very close to the same. Green Car Congress: Innas and NOAX to Show Hydraulic Series Hybrid Drivetrain at Hannover Messe Here is a similar system, but mine needs no transformers since the stroke on the in wheel drives is variable and reversible. If you are really interested read the whole article and remember it was published 3 years ago. We're still waiting for the miracle battery breakthrough. The First generation Honda Insight is still the mileage champion among cars ever sold in the US, even though it has not been built since 2006. The battery in the Insight was not powerful and only provided assist and regeneration of a small portion of the acceleration and braking forces. Even today to get the best mileage from an Insight you minimise battery usage. Pulse and glide is not better for fuel economy in any gas electric hybrid due to the sum of losses involved in energy conversion. I know from driving my Insight for over 30 k miles what works and what doesn't work, having average 67 MPG for that distance. I could have achieved better mileage with an accumulator and a hydraulic drive like I am describing here and my Insight had a dead battery at 45k miles, replaced by Honda under warranty. Cost out of warranty would have been close to 1000 gallons of fuel. The drive in this discussion has a life expectancy of 500k miles, and the accumulator would be close to the same. Most people here understand the massive increase in fuel economy of pulse and engine off glides. This design allows you to do exactly the same thing, with on huge exception. In the pulse you store energy in the mass of the vehicle itself, energy you recover in the glide with no fuel consumption with the engine shut off. The vehicle I am going to build will do exactly the same thing with one difference. You pulse the engine to restore the pressure in the accumulator and use the energy in the accumulator to continue at exactly the same speed, using no additional fuel, until the accumulator pressure has dropped by 66%. Then the engine turns back on and you repeat the process. In conventional pulse and glide you encounter exponential increases in total aero drag as you speed climbs in your pulse. My system has no such issue since the pulse is directed to increasing accumulator pressure, while the infinitely variable drive continues to apply the exact same power to the wheel, by constantly changing the stroke position and the resulting displacement. When the accumulator pressure is depleted the engine starts and re pressurizes the accumulator while the stroke position of the drive is reduced as that pressure rises in the accumulator. Pressure drops, stroke increases. Pressure rises, stroke decreases. The engine or any other fuel supplied power source you choose, is the servant of the accumulator. It is not directly connected to the wheels, unless you eliminated the accumulator. This allows the engine to either run at best BSFC or shut down and use no fuel. It doesn't matter what speed you are going, what grade you are climbing, or what you average speed is, the only difference is the time the engine is running. Stuck in crawling stop and go traffic and it might only run 5% of the time. Climbing Pikes Peak it would run 100% of the time. The engine needs no throttle plate, so pumping losses are reduced and throttle control is eliminated altogether. The whole system is configured and designed from the principle of the lest amount of parts for the greatest benefit, which means a vehicle that cost less to build than anything current available. Not $100k, $50k, or even $20k vehicles. The cheapest new car today in the US market is the Nissan Versa at $10,900. This vehicle would cost less, because it would use 25 to 30% fewer parts. Parts that cost a lot to repair and replace would simply not exist. My reason for building this myself, is the claims I have just made are, quite frankly, hard to believe. Only when companies actually experience first hand the demonstration of the technology and it meets expectations will they begin to consider building vehicles. I went through a Nissan factory shop manual for a 1983 280ZX and what I am describing would eliminate over half of the parts and repair procedures in the shop manual. All manifold throttle controls. Clutch or torque converter, including controls and clutch hydraulics. transmission differential prop shafts brake system (except for emergency brakes) The engine can be redesigned for producing power at a precise RPM and load range, with reduced strength in connecting rods, bearings, pistons, as well as many other components that must handle much higher stresses involved in high speed operation. Max engine speed would be about 3500 RPM, and this allows applications of current HCCI (homogeneous charge compression ignition). This is currently under development by Argonne labs with thermal efficiencies approaching 60%, compared to your vehicles average thermal efficiency at 17%. My goal is to build a vehicle that can travel a mile on one ounce of gasoline at speeds averaging 40+ MPH. I have the funds,technology, and the machine shop working for me today. Battery-electric power could also provide accumulator pressure, so don't think for a second that this design does not include that configuration. In fact as previously mentioned, since the motor has few connections to the vehicle, you could use either batteries and electric motors gasoling engine (or diesel) or a combination of those power sources. regards Mech |
Do you have any examples in running vehicles, or a rough estimate of when you'll be ready to showcase your product?
|
Ecky, the linked utube video is of the only example in existence at this time. I would like to see the whole vehicle in operation before the end of 2012, but most people understand predictions that depend on other people to finish the stages in construction are mostly guesses.
regards Mech |
Pardons for being another speculative tailgunner, but our curiosity is peaked by your project. Good luck.
http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/q...romechanic.jpg |
How do you plan to get around the low power density of the accumulator? What kind of power storage are you looking for the accumulator to hold?
Sounds like it has promise as a liquid fueled vehicle. Honestly it doesn't make any sense to power it with electricity as it would be more efficient and cheaper to just use the electric motor for propulsion. |
My energy density is in the liquid fuel, where your 400 pound battery equals one gallon of fuel at 6.5 pounds.
The accumulator is a capacitive storage device which can recover the energy of a one 70-0 stop in 25 revolutions of the wheels at 80+% efficiency, wheel to wheel. How efficient is your electric car in the exact same regeneration scenario? About 30%. If you believe it is more please provide documentation to support your position. This is especially significant if you do not have some form of transmission to spin the generating motor at high enough speeds to actually recover more energy, to say nothing of the controller or battery you need to accept energy at 100+ KW per second. Don't use the position that we are hypermilers and do not have to stop that quickly. Hypermilers are a minuscule percentage of the driving population. Even the best hypermiler gets caught by red lights at precisely the wrong time. The accumulator is better compared to a very high power capacitor. To compare it to a battery is a fallacious argument. It serves as a super high capacity recovery and reapplication energy storage device, without the cost, or deterioration involved with a battery. Lets at least compare apples to apples. This drive will make electric cars more efficient, but that is the topic of a separate post where certain information must be understood and applied to realize the potential. It's commonly called a launch assist rear axle in the front wheel drive vehicle like the leaf. On a deserted country road with no traffic or traffic lights it would not help, but that is not the real world in which most of us actually drive. The source of energy can be fuel or electricity as I said before, but for the purpose of this discussion just consider the liquid fueled example. Now lets get into the more theoretical. How much has battery technology improved in the last 5 years? I keep hearing about the breakthrough, but I see no breakthrough, even at a cost of $100,000 unless you want to use something like the NASA flywheel battery. Combine this drive with a constant load HCCI engine, like the one Argonne Labs is running today, at efficiencies approaching 60%, then you have today's technology and 150-200 MPG on renewable liquid fuels that can be custom engineered for the engine and requiring no after treatment for emissions because they are that clean to begin with. regards Mech |
I'm quite aware that the efficiency of regen on electric hybrids is relatively low, 30% sounds about right.
I also realize that an accumulator is similar to a capacitor. My questions were due to the fact that an accumulator is so similar to a capacitor and for your application it would seem that it would be better if it were a bit more battery like to decrease the on/off cycling of the engine. I'm thinking that your engine is going to have to cycle on and off quite a bit to keep that accumulator in its designed pressure range, unless the accumulator is quite large. That is where the energy density question came in. So, I guess my real question is how do you plan on minimizing the cycling? |
Good question. The duty cycle would definitely depend on the accumulator size as well as the engines size. My brothers Prius cycles the engine of and on frequently and before actually seeing that I had concerns about cycling frequency.
Back to a direct answer. The cycling would be a function of the average of energy demands. In the INNAS link in my earlier posts they stated an 11% average of engine on cycling. Much lower at low average speeds and higher at greater average speeds. My best guess would be about every .6 miles at 55 MPH and on for probably 20 seconds while powering the vehicle and charging the accumulator. That would make it close to 50% on and 50% off at 60 MPH. That does not factor in the aero efficiency of the body which would reduce the cycling percentage. I have to guess again at probably 50-50 at 70 MPH. This would also depend on the size of the engine which would reduce the 50-50 to 40-60 or more. It's hard to nail down any absolute figure but the overall 11% of the INNAS configuration through the whole European cycle is probably fairly close, but the percentage would definitely change depending on your average speed. I would guess at 45 MPH average it would be 45 seconds off and 15 seconds on. Probably about the same as the P&G ratio which is 2to3 to 1 ideally. Even the weight of the vehicle would affect the percentage. regards Mech |
I would try to size the engine so the vehicle would be capable of sustained speed on a grade. Something like 70 MPH up an 8% grade would probably cover just about anything.
regards Mech |
Quote:
regards Mech |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com