Ford pickup hydraulic hybrid (univ of idaho project)
 

Searching here I didn't see this one listed so i'm sharing it...

https://seniordesign.engr.uidaho.edu...%20may2005.pdf

Apparently about a decade ago, some university of idaho engineering students turned a 1988 Ford F350 into a hydraulic hybrid, gaining both improved acceleration and apparently 25% fuel mileage increases as well as reduced wear expected on the brakes and such.

I scanread the above and don't understand it all but i'm intrigued. I would be curious how hard it would be to replicate such a project just on a smaller vehicle. I would like to use secondhand parts (maybe forklift parts which I thought used accumulators?) as much as possible to keep the budget down even cheaper... apparently one potential benefit of hydraulics vs electrics is much lower cost even brand new (I see this quoted elsewhere but I don't have any offhand examples).

It could also be possible for a 'hydraulic hybrid' to charge the accumulator while maintaining a steady speed, then engine-off-coast while bleeding off pressure to maintain some speed I should think... giving a constant speed pulse and glide effect.

From what i've read elsewhere electrics cant recover more than 30-40% of the energy of regenerative braking end-to-end, but hydraulics are much more efficient at it. (though they lack the power density, storing seconds of energy not minutes) With no battery pack to die 100,000 miles in it's possible the overall total cost savings would be superior as well, what do you think?

If it stores seconds of energy then its only going to give that 25% boost in city driving. Then be limited exactly like electric hybrids on the highway with both likely see reduced fuel economy.

If it stores seconds of energy it would make a good postal delivery vehicle hybrid system.

Used hydraulics are cheap if you can find what you need but used electronics are widely available and dirt cheap.

How much do you know about hydraulics?
I find hydraulics to be incredibly expensive new and what you do find out there used is very limited and often leaky warn out junk. Just maintaining the hydraulic systems I work with is usually fairly difficult.
To get any amount of useable fluid quickly moved from an accumulator to a hydraulic motor you are going to need pretty large lines.
Anyone referring to hydraulics as being cheap or easy, well that is just an alien concept to me.

Also a hydraulic hybrid sounds like it would need a good amount of electronic controls and instrumentation to make it all cooperate as any kind of useable system. That is a whole entire other ball game. So now you have fluid power systems plus electronics If some one could put something like this together, chances are they wouldn't know squat about how to install and program all the controls with associated instrumentation. To me that would be the hard part.

I don't really see how hydraulics could be that much cheaper new. A hydrostatic motor about the size you would want to use to move a full size vehicle with any useable quickness would start at several thousand dollars. The ones I have experience with were diesel engine driven and moved munitions handling trucks weighing between 3600 to 8000 pounds empty, both used the same hydrostatic drive and these hydrostatic motors just by them selves cost over $5,000.

I think the University proved that building a hydraulic hybrid makes for a great academic exercise and not much else.
That is why you don't see all kinds of hobbies and experimenters building them, they almost all go electric.

There are actually a number of real-world HH vehicles out there. UPS has a number of delivery trucks, Waste Management has garbage trucks, Caterpillar makes a hydraulic hybrid excavator, &c. As noted, most of them are in applications where there's frequent start/stop cycles,

Ford once presented a hydraulic hybrid F-350 prototype in 2001 or 2002, Chrysler announced in 2007 that it would release some hydraulic hybrid setup for its minivans, Peugeot did some experiences with hydraulic hybrid setups for the Peugeot 208 and the Citroën C3 but, apart from trucks, buses and special machinery, the only vehicles commercially-available with a hydraulic hybrid setup were some Yamaha motorcycles with an auxiliary hydrostatic drive for the front wheel.

They are waiting for my patent to expire.

regards
mech

;)

Aside from (likely) UPS , all these vehicles already use hydraulics extensively ... so they are already one step closer to using it for energy recovery .
If you need to add an hydraulic system and all its additional cost, weight, complexity, just for energy recovery you're likely not going to gain very much.

AFAIK, the HH system in the trucks is entirely separate from the trash loading/compacting. I think the HH system is designed to replace the normal transmission on a truck chassis, which would then have the trash apparatus (or whatever) added on. So it could be used on any truck, it's just that the very frequent start/stop cycle of garbage trucks (or UPS delivery trucks) makes them the low-hanging fruit.

In many urban operations, that kinetic energy recovery is actually worth the cost, complexity and weight.

Yes I agree. The more extreme, pervasive and continuous the stop, start routine the more a hydraulic hybrid makes sense.
A garbage collection truck would be perfect.

"You need to add extra parts"
Wrong.
"It only works in stop and go"
Wrong
"It will leak oil all over the place'
Wrong

http://archive.epa.gov/otaq/technolo.../420r04002.pdf

It might help to read some information on the development over a decade ago, but the doubters won't.

It might help to read about water based hydraulic fluid development that you can actually drink (that's right doubters, bio degradable and non toxic), but then again the same old tired rubbish will dilute anyone's search for real information.

I'm surprised after being here for over 5 years that there is still so much lack of knowledge being posted in this forum on this topic. It's depressing when the real opportunities are dismissed by ignorance.

I'll just quote a statement by Charles Gray, the EPA's head man about the effect on the auto industry of properly developed hydraulic hybrids.

"The adoption of this technology will have an effect as significant as the Fords implementation of the assembly line".

regards
mech

They were at 78% wheel to wheel a decade ago. Under the same test parameter a gas electric hybrid was at less than 33 %.

Documented, tested, proven.

The weakest link in the system was the use of a bent axes pump, a design going back to WW2. The call was made for a "clean sheet of paper" design for the basic pump-motor capable of much higher efficiencies that the bent axes driving through a standard type differential where pump speeds of 3k rpm were necessary.

Dumping the differential and driving the wheels directly was the solution, with individual drive efficiency approaching 97%.

Accumulators at 99%

This thread will die like many others, overwhelmed by the noise of lack of knowledge.

Test mules were built, 3800 pound 5 passenger vehicles with a 1.9 liter diesel engine producing 80 mpg combined on epa cycles.

Passenger vehicles, not garbage trucks.

regards
mech

I have 2 questions.

How are you going to make a vehicle a hydraulic hybrid with out adding more parts?
How is the hydraulic hybrid going to increase fuel economy on the highway?

I have built hydraulic systems that use water. Only problem is everything has to be plastic, stainless steel or brass.

Anything said by anyone at the EPA should be viewed with skepticism.
All the years I worked for the government the only constant I observed was incompetence and stupidity at all ranks, all levels and in all departments.

How many parts are there in your complete powertrain, complete induction system, and complete braking system? Every single part.

Now throw them away, especially that leaking sieve of a hydraulic braking system, oh yes also that other leaking sieve of a power steering system, as well as the starter.

Lets just guess, 25-30% of the total vehicle parts count, eliminated. 1000, 1500, 2000 individually manufactured parts?

Complete power train means, from the flywheel or flex plate to the wheel. Flywheel, clutch assembly with all control linkages, transmission, propshaft, differential, half shafts, every single part gone.

And actually READ the linked document that I read at least twice a decade ago.

regards
mech

Then it would be a totally hydrostatic drive instead of a hydraulic hybrid setup. Well, would be nice to try it with a mini gas turbine arranged in a turboshaft layout to drive the hydraulic pump, as gas turbines also usually have fewer moving parts.

Originally conceived as an engine that became a flywheel then back to an engine, storing energy in it's own mass. Like the old toy flywheel cars in some aspects, but a self energizing flywheel. Also no reciprocating parts like a turbine but with the advantage of a sealed combustion chamber with low rpms.

Maybe it needs a "NEW" name

regards
mech

The only thing that comes across my mind when you mention no reciprocating parts and a sealed combustion chamber are Wankel engines.

If you want to replace your transmission with a much less efficient hydrostatic drive be my guest.
Only problem is these pumps and motors are also full of moving parts.
A fixed displacement pump could be used at the cost of efficiency.
A varrible displacement multiple piston pump that could put out around 100 horse power worth of fluid power costs at least $32,000 and weighs at least 300 pounds. I know because I have replaced a few over the years.
Then take an equally large and heavy hydraulic motor that costs, I am going to guess around $10,000 and let me know how much money this new less efficient hydraulic drive line is saving.

http://www.ups.com/content/sg/en/abo...hicles_sg.html

UPS has ordered more in 2012. Do you think that means dead end technology?

http://www.wired.com/2012/10/ups-hydraulic-hybrids/

Why would any idiot continue adopting useless technology?

And don't give me the garbage truck analogy, it's crap.

Do you know the gross weight of a ups truck? Compared to a 1 ton passenger vehicle.

Consider that ups has one of the most efficient package delivery vehicles in existence, when you start to denigrate a 30+% improvement in economy.

And for those with "green" agendas, a 40% reduction in pollution.

regards
mech

Nah, I'll take 97% efficiency motor in the powertrain hydraulic drive and one of these 55% efficient direct combustion to hydraulic pressure engines, which you can't touch with anything smaller than the largest diesel engine on the planet.

Chiron Free Piston Engine

More reading material, if anyone here even bothers.

http://www.innas.com/home.html

And if you want to even try harder.

US# 7677208
Here is a link for those who are cpu challenged

http://www.google.com/patents/US7677208


regards
mech

A hydroelectric dam is fluid powered, about 93% efficient, maybe your machines need upgrading, but probably not in the current era of cheap fuel.

Pumped storage allows peak demands to be met at much lower cost and also allows the elimination of obsolete plants as well as avoiding construction of new ones altogether.

Hydraulic motors approach manual transmission efficiency when they operate at below 1000 rpm, which coincidentally are right at wheel speed at 70 mph.

The ups trucks where the pump-motor drives the differential at prop shaft speed drop to 75% efficiency at highway speeds.

The next gen will drive the wheels directly, with 325 pounds feet of torque, per wheel, in a Mercedes Sprinter sized vehicle, with one motor per wheel.

Want to complain about the weight of the suspension? Mount the motors inboard with half shafts connecting them to the wheel-hub and dump the mass of your conventional friction (god help us all) brakes.

Or you can continue driving your direct global warming device.

Jesus, even electric cars still have friction brakes.

regards
mech

The powertrain of a current vehicle would put a lot of rube goldberg's contraptions to shame.
How many parts in that powertrain does the "power" actually move through?

regards
mech

From the cranksahft.

Flywheel, clutch disc pressure plate, throughout bearing. transmission imput shaft, imput shaft gear to countershaft gear, back through the selectable gears, to the output shaft, with half a dozen supporting bearings, propshaft, u joints, differential imput shaft, pinion gear, ring gear, axle shaft, wheel, tire, to say nothing about the numerous supporting bearings and all that lubricating oil that is pushed out between the gears and bearing balls or rollers. Also include every piece of the control linkages for the clutch, gear selection, and throttle controloif the engine that should never be throttled in the first place.

Intentionally removed all but comma punctuation.

regards
mech

Now replace all that crap with.

Accumulator. supply and return hydraulic conduits (could be mostly tubular frame components), control circuit for stroke position, and my patented drive (prior post for those who actually ready anything I post or link).

Remember throw away the complete induction control system on the engine and throw away the complete hydraulic brake system, master cylinder, all lines, all calipers, rotors or drums, friction material, attachment hardware, backing plates, fluid, reservoirs for fluid.

My design works completely submerged.

25% FEWER PARTS PER VEHICLE, NEGATIVE PAYBACK PERIOD. COSTS LESS TO BEGIN WITH.

regards
mech

I'd probably never buy a vehicle which didn't have friction brakes at least as an emergency feature.

A true emergency brake is a completely independent system. A hydraulic drive could be valved to block any flow and a cable operated completely separate emergency brake is another option. In the old days they braked the prop shaft.

USA requires an emergency brake, but not completely independent of the regular system, although it should be.

regards
mech

Sounds like you should build a few demo models..

Garbage trucks are also very expensive to begin with, over $250,000 for a new cab and new compactor/lift. A new delivery step van for UPS or FedEx is less then $60,000. If the hybrid system costs $10,000 it easier to sell it as a 4% increase compared to a 18% increase.

Ohio Town Welcomes First Hydraulic Hybrid Garbage Trucks | Waste Management content from Hydraulics & Pneumatics
They say saving 4,000 gallons of diesel per year per truck. That's pretty good. They also mention it's a heavy system, probably another reason you don't see it on a 2 ton step van (payload) but you might on a 20 ton garbage truck.

In garbage trucks it also saves huge money in brake work, I've heard $10k+ annually.

regards
mech

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

You mean like this one 12/26/09.

regards
mech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwXmsCowWlA

Another one, apparently they don't need very expensive components, epa 38 city in a ford ranger.

regards
mech

I would bet that almost every hydraulic component in those trucks is standard industrial hydraulics. Industrial hydraulics are designed to run 24/7 for 30 years with only an occasional filter change. Size and weight are not a priority.

A hydraulic system designed for commercial vehicle use would have, say, a 20 year design life running 2000 hours per year. Size and weight would be a priority. It would be an entirely different system.

But who drives a Ford Ranger exclusively in the city?

The problem with hydraulic hybrids is that you need strong (that is, heavy) pressure vessels to store energy, which means you can't store all that much. Which makes it a good match for anything that has frequent start/stop cycles, like garbage & delivery trucks, or the repetitive swinging of Cat's HH excavator, but not so great for general use.

And how far will your Insight go on the stored energy alone? Maybe a mile?
It would be a slow trip with the 10 hp of which much would be used just spinning the engine over without fuel.

Doubling or more the replenishment capacity of that energy reserve, without a battery, and eliminating the rest of the powertrain, would allow significant improvement over it's capabilities, while producing a profitable product for the manufacturer anda much more reliable product for the consumer.

What's not there to break down is the best, you don't have to pay for it initially AND you don't have to repair or maintain it later.

I'm not talking incremental crap. Think 30% fewer parts per vehicle (and I am one of the few here who has had their hands on most of the 5k or so parts a car needs). That is huge. A car like you have never imagined.

regards
mech

Where is the rest of the vehicle?

Actually the Insight won't go any distance at all on the stored energy alone (barring some IMHO stupid tricks), because it's not designed to do that. But how far will some hybrid, like a Volt, that is designed to run on the electric system alone, go? (About 50 miles, per Google.) How much would a hydraulic system to store that much energy weigh? And how much complexity is added if you want to replenish that stored energy from say your home PV system?

Except you're running up against the laws of physics when you try to store energy in compressed gas. You can only store just so much (the equations are easy to find), and that amount is much less than can be stored as chemical energy. You also need a strong container if you're going to work at high pressures (think scuba tanks), and a volume of hydraulic fluid equal to that of the uncompressed gas. And unless you have well-insulated pressure vessels, you're going to lose a significant fraction of your energy as heat.

The long-term problem is that hydraulic storage is pretty close to those physical limits already, while electrochemical storage has a great deal of room for improvement.

I have the same complaint about the linked video. Also, none of them show how it works. Is air compressed by the fluid to store the energy?

I don't see this as catching on for passenger vehicles, mostly because we are at the tail end of ICE in this application. With EVs becoming more popular, they will eventually eliminate even the modest mechanical complexity of hydraulics.

This seems more suited to garbage trucks and delivery vehicles as others have commented.

There are several hydraulic hybrid systems available. The one that has come closest to mass production was Peugeot-Citroen's Air Car. The system was slated for production this year, but they needed a partner to fund the tooling, estimated to cost 500,000,000 Euros. Unfortunately, the economic downturn, combined with a change in corporate leadership, has shelved the project (mortally wounded with the exit of the project's leader and the gutting of the engineering staff as the new CEO is abandoning Citroen's decades long experience and leadership in hydropneumatics).

It took 30 years for electronic hybrids to get through the corporate, regulatory and marketing maze. Hydraulic hybrid is a viable option that will find its way through the maze, eventually. In the meantime, the technology will continue to improve.