Parallel Hybrids

[P-hack]

Lol, you only have to show your work, you havent, though you like to say you have. You cant be bothered to lay out your argument clearly. You continue to attack the messenger, just show your work already, you will need realistic efficiency maps for each loss and have to line up speed/rpm/volts and torque/amsp and whatnot at each operational point, not simply retrace an isobar and say "boy that was hard".

You are making the extra ordinary claim here, so pony up, It is not my job to prove or disprove it, or even believe it till it is proven. I have heard the speculation you have posed as evidence, but I would like to see you use actual data. But instead of doing that you will probably just continue to say you already did and nit pick over semantics.

Thing is I don't think you CAN prove my theory wrong, and as we iterate over the optimizations it will become more and more apparent. Show me you lining up the losses at every step and expose it to the light of day.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Lol, you only have to show your work, you havent, though you like to say you have. You cant be bothered to lay out your argument clearly. You continue to attack the messenger, just show your work already, you will need realistic efficiency maps for each loss and have to line up speed/rpm/volts and torque/amsp and whatnot at each operational point, not simply retrace an isobar and say "boy that was hard".

You are making the extra ordinary claim here, so pony up, It is not my job to prove or disprove it, or even believe it till it is proven. I have heard the speculation you have posed as evidence, but I would like to see you use actual data. But instead of doing that you will probably just continue to say you already did and nit pick over semantics.

Thing is I don't think you CAN prove my theory wrong, and as we iterate over the optimizations it will become more and more apparent. Show me you lining up the losses at every step and expose it to the light of day.

RED
Incorrect ... I have several times ... even tried to use different ways.

But ... before I do so again ... I want to know it won't be a waste of my time ... Sense I've been down this road already with you several times.

Showing 'the work' details ... makes for a long and more complicated post ... that is why I thought the summary of it shown with the red and blue on the BSFC was a far more concise and easy to grasp version.

So ... first confirm that it won't be another waste of my time ...

#1> You will read through 100% of it.

#2> If there are any parts of it you do not understand ... I'm not psychic ... you have the burden to explain what specific part you need additional explanation of... not general repeats of your opinion ... be specific.

#3> If you disagree with a piece of evidence itself , that I reference ... you will explain specifically why you disagree ... and give a counter reference ( of equal credibility ) to evidence supporting your disagreement ... your opinion of disagreement is inadequate to opposed referenced evidence... this applies to the evidence itself ... my use of any evidence I present falls under #2 above.

Agree/Confirm to that ... and I will try and walk you through it once again step by step, from the beginning.

If , you will not agree in advance , to do your part of it ... as I outlined above ... I'm not going to waste my time , again.

- - - - - -

Green

Incorrect.

I have not made extraordinary claims.

Perhaps you need to look up what it means for a claim to be ... an extraordinary claim ... that has not been any of my claims.

Several of your claims however ... have gone beyond extraordinary ... well into the absolute side of claims ... as was just recently explained to you ( see previous post ).

And , you've posted you just 'assume' this extraordinary is correct and true ... that is very bad methodology.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think anyone's going to prove you wrong until someone actually drops an aircooled drivetrain into a Prius.

Having said that, it's doubtful that an aircooled drivetrain will get better mileage than the Prius drivetrain because the BSFC of an aircooled engine is probably much worse than the BSFC of any modern engine, especially a low friction engine designed with a greater expansion ratio than most.

[P-hack]

I seem to recall 35mpg in a type III.


Ian, you don't need my permission to show your work, that is rediculous.

[freebeard]

I don't think anyone's going to prove you wrong until someone actually drops an aircooled drivetrain into a Prius.

That's the essence of my cunning plot: get someone else to do the work.

The theory is based on drag coefficient more than BSFC. The original Beetle is 0.41 and the Prius body is 0.26. That's 5/8ths of half of the total drag.

The challenge would not disallow crank-fired electronic ignition and fuel injection. I had trouble finding drivetrain weights when I wrote that. (100lb for the Prius battery? 400lb total?). To keep things simple it could be frontwheel drive


I was just trying to prompt some vigorous discussion.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The theory is based on drag coefficient more than BSFC. The original Beetle is 0.41 and the Prius body is 0.26. That's 5/8ths of half of the total drag.

But we shouldn't disconsider the Prius' body, in spite of the enhanced aerodynamics, is pretty much heavier than the Beetle even with the electric driveline ditched out. But well, getting a Prius body without the electric motor and batteries, fitting with either a manual transmission or a CVT, it could still have better highway mileage than a stock one. "Millerizing" its stock engine with a supercharger and retaining the idle shut-off, but without the electric motor and batteries, it could eventually also get a city mileage close to stock...

[Frank Lee]

There must be, oh, 1,000 engine choices out there that would be more efficient than the old air-cooled VW.

[freebeard]

You do understand about Robert Anton Wilson and his 'reality tunnels', right? It's kind of like a filter that colors everything you experience. Everybody is in one. Those whose align somewhat can communicate. Those at an obtuse angle cannot. I'm sort on on the edge, out there in VWlandia.

A more reasonable person might have suggested the closest Toyoyo drivetrain, which I believe would be a Corolla. Then you're comparing apples to apples, but I think the irony goes away.

I concede the weight challenge, that's why I didn't claim equal performance.

BSFC of an aircooled engine is probably much worse than the BSFC of any modern engine

Don't know much beyond the definition. Is BSFC a fundamental characteristic, or is it tunable? I picked the flat-4 boxer because IMHO it is a better candidate to convert to Scuderi Split-Cycle. Subaru?

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Ian, you don't need my permission to show your work, that is rediculous.

You misunderstood , At no point did I ask for your permission ... I know I don't need your permission.

And I already have tried to explain and show this to you multiple times ... that's why I want you to agree to these terms for your part ... before I put the effort into trying to walk you through this yet again step by step... I want you to agree to the terms that YOU will be bound by.

I requested your agreement to the terms ... of the exchange ... so that there is less of a chance of it being another waste of my time.

I think the 3 things I asked you to agree to are simple / fair / and easy.

You either will agree to do your part ... ie the 3 terms I outlined ... or you will not.

If you won't even agree to do your part ... that tells me from the beginning it is just another waste of my time.... ie ... No reason for me to do the work ... again for you ... ie ... you can go back and re-read what was already posted previously.

- - - - - - -

These are the 3 things I think are fair , and reasonable ... that I want you to agree to ... in advance ... if you do ... then I will try ... again ... to walk you through it step by step.

Originally Posted by IamIan

#1> You will read through 100% of it.

#2> If there are any parts of it you do not understand ... I'm not psychic ... you have the burden to explain what specific part you need additional explanation of... not general repeats of your opinion ... be specific.

#3> If you disagree with a piece of evidence itself , that I reference ... you will explain specifically why you disagree ... and give a counter reference ( of equal credibility ) to evidence supporting your disagreement ... your opinion of disagreement is inadequate to opposed referenced evidence... this applies to the evidence itself ... my use of any evidence I present falls under #2 above.

I think ... Each is fairly obvious ... and I think a easy and fair thing to agree to.

So either ... you will agree to do your part ... as per those 3 items ... or you won't.

If you will not agree to do your part ... than it would be a waste of my time.

- - - - - -

Of course ... if you will not agree to do your part ... per those 3 items ... it would also beg the question why you would not agree to such reasonable , fair , and simple things?

[P-hack]

Ian, you have spent all your time and energy arguing semantics, over technology that is a moving target. You are here, waiting for my approval/permission/whatever to try to make a non-subjective/non-speculative/driver enabling series-as-most-efficient-more-than-2-percent-of-the-time point.

Asking me to correct all your errors sounds like a lot of work actually, more work than the analysis itself, not only because of all the mistakes you have made already (and evidence that you already ignore), but because the conclusion leads the analysis so it is bound to be biased and untrustworthy.

Here are my assumptions (because I have control over them)
1. Smart driver and/or automation, can target peak bsfc closely under acceleration, and best economy when cruising, and can glide.

2. More efficient gearbox and driveline, I think computer controlled sliding mesh is doable, not too much of a reach, far simpler mechanically, and more efficient. My job is to figure out the efficiency map for this component.

3. An efficient engine like the tdi, with broad rpm range in each efficiency band.

4. Some measure of onboard generation (this is f*cking obvious!!) as it has a battery and probably restarts frequently, the onboard generation can be increased to support climate controls and lights in the EV if regen is deemed too inefficient, but it is not meant to turn fuel into battery charge (until someone actually demonstrates the value of that proposition non-speculatively).

5. Similiar sized engine, though the pusher can be smaller since the EV still functions as an EV. It can be of sufficient size and ratios to get you home if you kill the battery, though at reduced performance as compared with battery assist. But since we are assuming a smart driver, it is conceivable that they would pick a smaller pusher that gives them just enough assist over their route that they get there with a mostly empty battery on purpose.

6. Conditions will be consistent with deliberate range extension (you have reason to hook up the "trailer" for this trip), and the driver has due influence over micro-conditions. Priority given to common usage.

7. EV can coast efficiently, and allows some coordination with pusher.

8. "luxuries", like imperceptable shifting, are not requirements.

Are you in a position to list your assumptions at least?

And some homage to costs is always appropriate, i.e. I am not going to make impossibly thin gears out of unobtanium and/or associated unobtainable manufacturing processes.