Parallel Hybrids

[freebeard]

BarelyAWake -- I was trying reeeaallly hard to not go there, but now that that door is opened...

I like the stock body for it's ergonomics (seat position and ingress/egress); but otherwise, instead of a steel tube foundation, I'd want a carbon-fiber tub shaped something like this:

only with Bridgstone tires like these:

and a plexiglass bubble top to replace the canvas top, sort of like this:


Hydraulic brakes in the rear, but the fronts converted to in-wheel electric motors feeding supercapacitors for the 4WD necessary for amphibious operation. And an inboard/outboard hydrojet to replace the awkward Schwimmwagen arrangement.

The VW engine could be converted to Scuderi Split-cycle for diesel-level performance and 1/5th the NOx from the stock dual-port 1600.

I haven't hyperlinked all that and I'm sorry. I can't remember the name of the kabinenroller, I think it's Spanish.

It doesn't have to fly (that was Bucky's dream). I just want amphibious with Porsche-level road manners.

[UFO]

You are blowing my mind Freebeard.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Same car, gas vs electric+generator, 103-129mpg vs 44 mpg. We enable/encourage laziness with the generator so I have no clue what to tell you about difference in driving style. It's a mash the pedal and go car first and foremost. The car takes 5hp at sdc cruise, you would have to be trying to only get 44mpg.

Without knowing more information about the situations that yielded even 129 MPG vs those that yielded 44 MPG ... it is at best , guessing , or wishful thinking ... to jump to conclusions about the cause ... I'm not comfortable with that ... I'd rather admit that I need more data to be able to accurately know one way of the other.

For example ... With identical design and equipment ... people have gotten bellow 50MPG to over 160MPG ... from the Gen-1 Honda Insight ... that is a 110 MPG variation that has absolutely nothing to do with the design , or the components part of the situation ... because none of those things changed.

From 129 to 44 is a 85 MPG gap ... people have gotten larger MPG gaps than that in other vehicles ... larger MPG gaps even with identical design and components.

Thus to me ... assuming the gap has to have come from design or components ... is just not yet supported ... as long as other details and data about the situations (components , operation, etc.) remain missing.

If we got enough other data ... then we might be able to better reconstruct things like the two different joules/miles , and such ... which would give us a much better idea about the actual significance of the ~85 MPG gap... it might be massive significance ... or it might be minor.

[P-hack]

We have data, we know how efficient driving the wheels directly can be (and an electric motor still has to do that as well), we know how to keep the ICE happy and how not to use it when it isn't happy. We know that series starts off behind based on peak efficiency, and no reason to think that it will ever catch up to an equally optimized pusher. Everything else is speculation as to why we should think series is going to be more efficient under some loads/speeds. The default assumption here is that parallel starts out ahead and thus stays ahead. And if it isn't, well it is more than fair to say I will believe it when I see it.

I do not lord over empiracal evidence. I do not see things in absolute terms, but I don't see the rationale for the belief without the evidence, yet I see a lot of believers. I am comfortable with probability myself.

I don't know how series can close the efficiency gap with all the conversions, what do I have to even speculate about it? More speculation? No thanks, I've considered much speculation already. We have a few data points, and it doesn't look so good.

Even the fvt aero didn't do so great well to wheels, since mpge largely compares electricity (which is basically temporary storage for far less efficently burnt coal) vs gasoline based on energy equivelant. A big part of the reason to keep these variables separate instead of mushing into one meaningless number. There is literally no good comparison from an ICE car to an ev, until you attach an ICE to your ev, in which case there is a pretty direct comparison. Ask any hypermiler how to get good mpg with an ICE, plenty of data there.

Maybe something like fuel line magnets, only little pouches of fuel that you tie around the generator leads would help?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

We have data,

See above about this ... nothing you posted changes or effects what I already posted about the limitations of the data currently at hand.

Originally Posted by P-hack

We know that series starts off behind based on peak efficiency, and no reason to think that it will ever catch up to an equally optimized pusher.

( This Again )

Bold Added.

Incorrect , absolute type of claim.

I've explained this error to you several times now.

Originally Posted by P-hack

Everything else is speculation as to why we should think series is going to be more efficient under some loads/speeds. The default assumption here is that parallel starts out ahead and thus stays ahead. And if it isn't, well it is more than fair to say I will believe it when I see it.

Bold Added

That is your default assumption ... and I've explained to you several times the errors of making such an assumption ... especially without haveing sufficient data about the whole situation at hand.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I do not lord over empiracal evidence.

I don't know about 'lord over'.

But I'll take evidence ... especially empirical evidence ... over opinion any day.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I do not see things in absolute terms,

Then stop making absolute claims.

Originally Posted by P-hack

but I don't see the rationale for the belief without the evidence, yet I see a lot of believers.

Your response so far to evidence that disagrees with your belief about the pusher and generator ... Disagrees with this claim you make about yourself.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I don't know how series can close the efficiency gap with all the conversions, what do I have to even speculate about it?

You don't have to know or speculate ... I already explained it to you several times.

- - - - - -

I've posted it before ... here it is again.

The summary of references and math previously shown in long posts ... lead to the easier to interrupt red and blue lines on the BSFC bellow... a BSFC that you picked.

Inside Red:
When the situation allows the pusher to dominantly operate it's ICE inside the red line area of the BSFC it is more efficient than the the generator.

Between Red and Blue:
When the situation and finite limits of the transmission force the pusher to dominantly operate its ICE outside the red ... but inside the blue ... has two options:
#1> Any Joules from the generator not cycled through the battery are more efficient from the generator than the pusher.

#2>Any Joules from the generator cycled through the battery are less efficient from the generator than the pusher.

Outside the Blue:
When the situation and finite limits of the transmission force the pusher to dominantly operate its ICE outside the blue ... the pusher is less efficient than the generator.

[freebeard]

UFO -- Mission accomplished. Did you notice that, being a parallel hybrid, it would be on-topic?

I maintain, and I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong, that a 36hp VW engine and transaxle swapped into a Prius body, replacing the drivetrain and batteries completely, would get 45mpg.

[P-hack]

The ironic thing Ian is that you are making absolute claims yourself about blue lines ant etc

I'm NOT making absolute claims, I am making practical claims and, just saying "I don't see it", big difference. So nyah.

But anyway you decided that a typical unoptimized drivetrain had %28 losses, well that isn't what we are going to measure up against is it? Meanwhile you ignored drivetrain losses on the EV, and the effect that unloading has on the generator/engine as well as the ICE.

But even using this arbitrarily small gap, it should be obvious that a smart driver and/or smart controller can push the car all the way from idle RPM to near redline without ever dropping into the blue area.

But as speed levels off both the generator and the ice BOTH see less load (unless you charge batteries which is a big unknown and both vehicles can do it anyway so that is a moot point). So while the ICE is moving down the map, the series is too, and the series has a good head start, plus it has dropping generator and motor/controller/charger efficiency maps to consider as well (plus something of a driveline of its own).

So, I still don't see it. I can't prove the king is wearing any clothes because I don't see any on him.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I maintain, and I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong, that a 36hp VW engine and transaxle swapped into a Prius body, replacing the drivetrain and batteries completely, would get 45mpg.

Suddently you made me want to get an old Volkswagen with a rusted body to be replaced with a fiberglass Prius replica

But considering a VW driveline into a regular Prius body without any electrical auxiliary power, I'd have my doubts about this setup in city traffic, but might be not so difficult to achieve 38MPG on highway.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

The ironic thing Ian is that you are making absolute claims yourself about blue lines ant etc

I'm NOT making absolute claims, I am making practical claims and, just saying "I don't see it", big difference. So nyah.

Incorrect.

If you did not intend to make absolute claims then stopping written it that way ... and correct the claims you have made such as ... and I quote ... you again:

Originally Posted by P-hack

We know that series starts off behind based on peak efficiency, and no reason to think that it will ever catch up to an equally optimized pusher.

You incorrectly make two incorrect absolute claims here ... and you have been repeating this same incorrect absolute kind of claim over and over again ... after the reasons / evidence / etc ... have been shown to you several times.

- - - -

#1>
The first incorrect absolute claim you make ... "no reason":

Not few reasons ... not some reasons ... you claim "no reason"... which is an absolute claim.

It is incorrect ... because reasons , based on evidence have been shown to you several times.

- - - - -

#2>
The 2nd incorrect absolute claim make ... "ever"

Not less often ... not rarely ... you claim "ever" ... which is an absolute claim.

It is incorrect ... because evidence has been shown to you that there are situations that exist ... thus the absolute "ever" is incorrect.

- - - - -

Your claim that you are not making absolute claims ... is dis-proven by your own posts , where you make absolute claims ... your refusal to accept ANY situation that the pusher is less efficient ... is in violation of the evidence presented to you.

- - - - - -

I am not making absolute claims ... your false unjustified accusation of such ... is incorrect.

I have consistently claimed different situations will give different results ... some situations the pusher is more efficient ... in other situations the generator is more efficient.

In one type of situation it yielded the red and blue lines on the BSFC ... in a different situation ... different design , and components ... different transition points would result ... the red and blue lines.

It can't be an absolute claim when my claim is itself pointing out that there are exceptions .. and different results... that is the opposite of an absolute claim.

- - - - - -

The evidence for it has been shown to you several times ... over and over again ... to date ... you've just intentionally and willfully refused , to see it ... Like someone looking right at the pyramids , still claiming there have never been any pyramids.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

But anyway you decided that a typical unoptimized drivetrain had %28 losses, well that isn't what we are going to measure up against is it? Meanwhile you ignored drivetrain losses on the EV, and the effect that unloading has on the generator/engine as well as the ICE.

Incorrect.
That is not what I did... and I've explained this to you several times.

I did not ignore them ... I have included them , which is what gave the red and blue lines ... as I've explained to you several times.

Originally Posted by P-hack

But even using this arbitrarily small gap, it should be obvious that a smart driver and/or smart controller can push the car all the way from idle RPM to near redline without ever dropping into the blue area.

And ... IF ... that is the situation ... I have already several times claimed the same thing will happen.

But ... it is not and absolute... there are areas outside the red line on the BSFC ... and there are situations where it would dominantly operate there.

Originally Posted by P-hack

But as speed levels off both the generator and the ice BOTH see less load (unless you charge batteries which is a big unknown and both vehicles can do it anyway so that is a moot point).

This error has already been explained to you before several times... the battery charging is not the same for both the pusher and the generator.

And electrochemistry is a well established science ... what will happen when the batteries are involved ... can be determined to a very high level of precision ... when one knows the situation.

Originally Posted by P-hack

So while the ICE is moving down the map, the series is too,

This error has been explained to you several times.

Originally Posted by P-hack

So, I still don't see it.

Only because you have intentionally and willfully chosen not to.

The evidence and logic have been explained and presented to you several times.

You must be one of those against the evidence , "beleiver's " you wrote about.