Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-01-2009, 01:09 AM   #51 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
To be perfectly honest, it's a blame session. The basic idea is about how GM and other makers removed their EV's from production in the early 90's, though there are points where it is somewhat educational.

The doc explains in light detail the protests that went on over the EV1's lease endings, the waiting lists that were signed to "resurrect" it, etc... also about the CAFE standards that hadn't (until recently) been raised since like 1988 or so by any notable amount.

There was a semi-interesting piece about how CARB was sued by automakers to remove their restrictions that would have required all car makers to introduce zero emissions (tail pipe emissions) vehicles in order to keep selling cars in Cali. Of course, there are differing opinions and speculations on this, as well.

I should probably call it more of an expose than a doc, but I guess that's what the director/filmmaker called it.

__________________
"┐ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Christ For This Useful Post:
user removed (11-01-2009)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 11-01-2009, 07:24 AM   #52 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
I watched some of it last night.

It certainly seems like certain groups have an agenda that is very short sighted to say the least.

One lone of my trips to Virginia Tech I saw an EV1 at their school of engineering. One of the students involved in investigating my idea told me it was a piece of junk.

I was leaving and had a schedule to keep with a one day 577 mile drive, so I did not have a lot of time to ask why he thought it was junk, but he was a pretty smart fellow and I had been around him enough to know he had no agenda in his statement.

Even in the thread I started on this forum about hydraulic hybrids, there seems to be a most basic misunderstanding about what is necessary to actually build a better mousetrap, as far as vehicles go.

Maybe I have fallen into the agenda trap like everyone else, but.

To me the missing link is short term high energy capacitive storage, that allows engine operation to be limited to highest BSFC levels.

It's also the capability of having a very high efficiency in power conversion into wheel torque, while maintaining that short term high capacity storage.

In that respect batteries will not do the job, because they can not recover energy as fast as they can apply energy. Maybe if you add capacitors you could build a system, but the problem there is every transformation of the state of energy invokes losses.

The ultimate bean counter is physics. Even when you build a system that is functional, it HAS to be highly efficient and competitive with the best single directional systems.
Power train efficiencies must be close to 90% for direct transmission of energy and better than 83% on regeneration of energy to make the Pulse and Glide as well as regeneration strategies effective enough to allow limiting engine operation to best BSFC.

That assumes you are using some form of IC.

Here is where I think many do not understand the most basic issue.

You must think of two separate systems in vehicles.

First is the system that consumes energy to provide motion. That is basically a one way street and typical of all non hybrid cars. Once your fuel is gone you never get it back.

The second is the system that recovers energy lost in deceleration when you have no choice, such as forced stops or steep downhill runs. In this respect electric drives fail miserably, returning only about 30% of the energy to the wheels.

Hydraulics are at 78% right now, with the threshold of success only about 5% better at 83%. It's not really engineering unless it passes the test of energy accounting. You have to get almost every bean (unit of energy) back to achieve the threshold of a truly efficient vehicle.

When you reach that threshold with SHORT term capacitive storage of energy, then you have a vehicle that will accomplish a revolutionary improvement in mileage. This is because you can Pulse and Glide the first system and use the second system to apply energy to the wheels regardless of the source of energy used in the first system.

To clarify. We use P&G to make our vehicles more efficient, but it's a lot of additional work load that is boring, repetitive, and IN MY OPINION unnecessary.

Energy accounting demands that P&G is incorporated into the vehicles operational systems, NOT IN THE DRIVERS EFFORTS.

This requires and INFINITELY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION, as well as short term capacitive storage to allow engine operation to be limited to either best BSFC or not running at all, and it does not exclude electrical operation. It's sad to see those who advocate electrical drives opposing hydraulic power trains, when the combination of both systems may actually make electric drives practical.

The simplicity of a regenerative in wheel hydraulic drive, and the resulting weight savings would allow more battery capacity and may actually be the solution to electric vehicles with the power train accomplishing regeneration above and beyond the battery as well as incorporating the battery to the extent it can absorb regeneration energy.

Electric vehicle advocates try to tell you you do not need a transmission. This is like saying just put a 1000 hp engine in your car and you don't need a transmission either.
Both statements are true in a most basic sense, but transmissions are necessary in either vehicle type to allow for reasonable acceleration without a giant gasoline engine or electric motor.

Now you may want to argue the last statement, but it does seem to be where the electric car is evolving, where some form of gearing will allow engine size to be reduced.

With the number of energy conversions in recovering linear inertia in an electric vehicle, it is doubtful it will ever reach the 83% threshold of effective P&G operation. Simply downsizing the engine or motor will not accomplish this because you must have the ability to climb sustained grades in any practical vehicle. This requires a larger engine or motor to be capable of providing a fairly high level of sustained power output.

Sadly it seems to not be well understood that that same requirement does not condemn us to driving grossly inefficient vehicles forever.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 12:43 PM   #53 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Hmm. People want little trucks? Full sized trucks aren't even "big enough"! Look at how many solo commuters you see in F250s, Super Doodies, and Duallies???
Different set of people there! Around here the most common truck model is probably the small Toyota. Lots of '80s models still running (I have an '88 myself). The neighbor's getting some tree-trimming done this week, and the one of the people's driving one of the '70s 2WD models.

Quote:
Howcome Ford is having to close the Ranger plant in MN? Hint: lack of sales. Some whine about it being "dated"... I don't know, I have a '97 and it's a perfectly fine little truck, what is so bad about it that it's not a saleable item???
'Cause it's a Ford? Toyota seems to still sell lots of their Tacoma model, even though it's been putting on a bit of weight. And of course part of Toyota's problem is that they sort of killed their market for repeat business, especially with people like me for whom the truck's a second vehicle used for hauling &c. When you can buy a 20 year old vehicle that still runs perfectly for about $3K, why spend money on new?
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 02:50 PM   #54 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
OLD MECHANIC -- forgive me, I'm from electronics background, but it seems the answer(s) to your statements would logically be:

INFINITY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION = electric motor

HIGH EFFICIENCY POWER PLANT (BSFC) = electric motor, with PW engine control of the DC-voltage.

HIGH ENERGY STORAGE DENSITY = rechargable cell augmented by ULTRA-CAPACITORS

EMISSIONS = no HC or CO2 only OZONE on rare occassions (such as waking Frankenstein up from a 100 year slumber, etc.)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 10:13 PM   #55 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man View Post
OLD MECHANIC -- forgive me, I'm from electronics background, but it seems the answer(s) to your statements would logically be:

INFINITY VARIABLE TRANSMISSION = electric motor

HIGH EFFICIENCY POWER PLANT (BSFC) = electric motor, with PW engine control of the DC-voltage.

HIGH ENERGY STORAGE DENSITY = rechargable cell augmented by ULTRA-CAPACITORS

EMISSIONS = no HC or CO2 only OZONE on rare occassions (such as waking Frankenstein up from a 100 year slumber, etc.)
This is kind of a smart ass question, really, but since CFC's destroyed the Ozone layer, why hasn't anyone come up with a catalyst that will create Ozone emissions from the exhaust gasses of cars? I mean, that would replenish it, right?

And, once you get used to it, Ozone doesn't even smell that bad. Certainly it's much better than, say, normal tailpipe emissions?
__________________
"┐ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 10:37 PM   #56 (permalink)
PokÚmoderator
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,864

1999 Saturn SW2 - '99 Saturn SW2 Wagon
Team Saturn
90 day: 40.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 439
Thanked 530 Times in 356 Posts
Christ -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christ View Post
This is kind of a smart ass question, really, but since CFC's destroyed the Ozone layer, why hasn't anyone come up with a catalyst that will create Ozone emissions from the exhaust gasses of cars? I mean, that would replenish it, right?

And, once you get used to it, Ozone doesn't even smell that bad. Certainly it's much better than, say, normal tailpipe emissions?
Plenty of Ozone at ground level in LA (just add UV!), .

CarloSW2
__________________

What's your EPA MPG? Go Here and find out!
American Solar Energy Society
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 10:44 PM   #57 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
I'm not really sure how to get Ozone from down here to way up there...

Anyone?
__________________
"┐ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 11:07 PM   #58 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
Green Car Congress: New Two-Speed Electric Vehicle Transmission For Improved Performance, Range and Battery Life

There seems to be a benefit to having a transmission in an electric vehicle. There is definitely an advantage to having short term high capacity regenerative energy storage.
Combine that with the elimination of conventional friction brakes and you have three good reasons to give a IVT power train reasonable consideration in an electric vehicle.

Also consider you could downsize the size and output of the electric motor, as well as cost. Adding a capacitor adds cost and increases complexity.

Also consider the cost of a high capacity capacitor, battery pack and you still need conventional brakes.

I would say (just my opinion) that there is a good combination of reasons to consider the combination of hydraulic IVTs and electric replenishment of accumulator reserves.

Then add in the ability to quickly change from pure electric to IC for long trips beyond the range of electric power alone.

As battery capacity and range, as well as the cost factor and reliability of batteries improve, then the IC power pack option would be rendered obsolete.

How long have we been chasing the battery configuration that changes the game and renders the IC option to the scrap heap?

Close to two centuries.

Instead of an "either or" attitude we should adopt a "what works now" attitude and improve the efficiency which will address the emissions issue with improved efficiency. At some point in the future the battery may replace the IC engine, but can we afford to put all of our efforts into a single solution.

Should solutions be exclusive or inclusive?

regards Mech
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
some_other_dave (11-03-2009)
Old 11-01-2009, 11:38 PM   #59 (permalink)
Wannabe greenie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 1,098

The Clunker (retired) - '90 Honda Accord EX sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 29.49 mpg (US)

Mountain Goat - '96 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 SuperCab
90 day: 18 mpg (US)

Zippy - '10 Kymco Agility 125
90 day: 65.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 53 Times in 40 Posts
For the real story, borrow "The Car That Could" from your local library. A description of the design and construction of the EV1, the issues they ran up against, and GM's reaction to the EV1 and to CARB's subsequent movements are described in detail, taken directly from interviews with the actual people involved. Very interesting story.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Clev For This Useful Post:
cfg83 (11-02-2009)
Old 11-03-2009, 02:14 PM   #60 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,479
Thanks: 201
Thanked 262 Times in 199 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
...Power train efficiencies must be close to 90% for direct transmission of energy and better than 83% on regeneration of energy...
Where do you get those numbers from?

-soD

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GM admits the Volt concept car's aerodynamics suck MetroMPG Aerodynamics 16 12-13-2008 01:16 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com