Zoleco: custom aerodynamic car, 1.0L Suzuki drivetrain

[zoltanbod]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

I took the time to watch the videos. They left me wanting to hear more technical details. Specifically, what is the drag coefficient and frontal area of the car? You can't tell from the first two videos, but the top half looks very low drag. I can't see the bottom half very clearly, nor do we know where the wheels go yet.

The Suzuki 1.0L 3cyl is not a bad power plant, but I absolutely love Honda's lean-burn capable 1.0L 3 cylinder, which comes with regenerative braking and electric assist. A donor Insight will also provide you with dozens of lightweight components you can use, breathable seats, electric power steering, LRR tires, a futuristic gauge cluster, and maybe some ideas about how to improve efficiency.

I like the location of the taillights. As long as the leading surfaces follow streamlines, they should contribute only a little drag. You could eliminate the leading surfaces for better aero at the expense of aesthetics. I wonder if narrow rear wheels on outriggers, with lights mounted on them, would be a viable solution for a car with a narrow body and a wide track.

I share Frank's cynicism regarding the fuel economy of the car. I completely doubt you will double the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine where Suzuki's engineering teams failed to do so.

The problem of achieving maximum engine output per unit fuel is one completely seperate from that of building an efficient body. If you have a cost-effective design with amazing efficiency, prove it on a bench dyno and sell it for tens of millions.

As for the amount of energy required to move the car a mile, well, as Frank said, tell us your CdA and Crr, and I'll tell you your mpg @ any given BSFC. Let's see some numbers and measurements to back up those wild claims!

Hello,the frontal area caculations i did were done using a front view photo of the car place onto some graph paper and scaled to size.I know this might have some inaccuracies associated with it so i will make a pattern that fits the frontal cross section of the body and count the square inches out for you guys so you can do the math.I am busy with work this weekend so i will go out to the car once i am caught up with my work . I used the Suzuki 3 cyl because it has the turbo on it.I wanted to be able to play around with the pressurized intake track.Once the car is built and driving with an established baseline and the efficiency boosted as much as we can.Then the goal will be to improve on those numbers with whatever drive system shows promise in obsoleting the Suzuki.This is a multiphase project . I must first build the car .I feel the Suzuki 3 cyl is a good starting point.If you look closely the front wheels are on the car in the videos.The body gradually swells out around them in the front,while the rear tire is placed up under the rear most portion of the body.The lower portion of the body from the front of the doors and rearward is a reverse boat hull shape.The underbody pan will be formed when i can mount the whole car to my rotisory and flip the thing over.I don't care for the outrigger idea ,in my mind it interferes with aesthetics and the flowing lines of the body.I believe the wings are necessary for the look i want the car to deliver.I will try to keep the drag to a minimum ,as there is a design adjustment in that area.Fuel economy of this car will be the best i can get it to be.That aspect of the car won't happen til the car is completed and baseline tested with a fresh engine.Then i will throw the engine mods at it.Then i will address the thermal efficiency improvements.As far as body efficiency goes ,i started with a perfect tear drop and then made contour changes for fit and appearance.This thing needs to be practical with as much efficiency as that will allow.The standard ICE is 20% thermally efficient,or 80% of the energy in the fuel is lost, to exhaust heat38%,water heating36% and 6% to friction.With 20% efficiency it nets 57mpg.If we can recover another 20% of that lost 80% don't you believe the mileage would double? We still have 60% lost to the enviroment at that.Aero mods are a huge contibuter to the mileage.I read a study done by a university in the Netherlands on bicycles. They compared the energy required to pedal a standard upright bike at 40 kmh (622 watts) to a recumbent bike with a full hard fairing (75 watts).That is a huge reduction in energy required.Some of these aero modded cars i have seen are claiming a 38% improvement in fuel economy.So i estimate with a 20% thermal energy recovery and this 38% aero related gain the mileage would be 157mpg.But i feel the three wheeler will net more than that.I could be totally wrong but i am going to build this car and find out.Proof is in the pudding the rest is all just theory and speculation.Thanks Zoltan.

[luvit]

some things i want to highlight for Zoltan is what he implies multiple times.
he acknowledges the ICE and body and other parts are a starting point.

the body is meant to create a mold. therefore the materials used in the final body will be very different, but the exterior aesthetics of the shell will be identical.

i don't know if the Suzuki ICE in this car is still mass-produced, but the engine could be a very different one, but still utilize many concepts for improved efficiency. -- he said the suzuki was "a good starting point".

so, reading between the lines. there are many things that can change within the first actual car extracted from the mold, but utilize the FE concepts that the other mousetraps are not using.

what i just wrote could be over-gerneralized, but i think some of these discussions are too much focused on what was only visualized in the video.
i'm just writing a summary so Zoltan doesn't have to repeat himself so much.

Zoltan, i do expect you to correct me if I'm wrong.

[zoltanbod]

Originally Posted by theycallmeebryan

Here are two points that i'd like to enter into this discussion:

1. I'd like to know why we need to have 2+2 designs? Why cant we have a 1 row of passengers to keep frontal area to a minimum? Having a passenger sitting next to you is just a distraction anyway. I think this is one aspect of automobile design we need to reevaluate.

2. Why are new concepts using old propulsion technologies that are relatively inefficient?! I think its a slap in the face to everything we stand for to try to introduce a new concept using an ICE. Electric motors are pretty much the most efficient way to move a vehicle under its own power. Combine it with a low CdA vehicle, and you wont need so many batteries (and their weight) to travel long distances.

Here is my answer to your questions. 1. I feel tandem seating in a car is impractical.I also don't believe that having a canopy around you without any roll up windows is very comfortable.Most tandem cars use canopies.What is wrong with two tall guys sitting up front and two sets of golf clubs or a bunch of groceries in the back? 2. It is way too early to throw away the ICE.Once the efficiency is improved to the point where there is no more to be had then we can look at changing our entire global infrastructure to meet the needs of future technology that is still to be discovered .What i have learnt about electric motors for powering cars is, the idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may soud good,until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered .It is estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home it is 33% efficient.In other words,67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient,and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only about 6% better than ICE.About 65% of the fuel used to make electricity in north america is fossil.Energy density of the battery is dismal compared to gasoline and fill up time is long.

[zoltanbod]

Originally Posted by luvit

some things i want to highlight for Zoltan is what he implies multiple times.
he acknowledges the ICE and body and other parts are a starting point.

the body is meant to create a mold. therefore the materials used in the final body will be very different, but the exterior aesthetics of the shell will be identical.

i don't know if the Suzuki ICE in this car is still mass-produced, but the engine could be a very different one, but still utilize many concepts for improved efficiency. -- he said the suzuki was "a good starting point".

so, reading between the lines. there are many things that can change within the first actual car extracted from the mold, but utilize the FE concepts that the other mousetraps are not using.

what i just wrote could be over-gerneralized, but i think some of these discussions are too much focused on what was only visualized in the video.
i'm just writing a summary so Zoltan doesn't have to repeat himself so much.

Zoltan, i do expect you to correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes i believe you about summed it up.Thanks!

[RobertSmalls]

Hello,the frontal area caculations i did were done using a front view photo of the car place onto some graph paper and scaled to size.

What was the result of this calculation? Even [overall height]*[overall width]*[0.85 packing factor] would do for now.

You point out that for a 20% efficient engine, 80% of the energy of the gasoline is lost. True, but very few of us on the forum run 20% efficient engines. Read this article for info on how to convert BSFC to % efficiency and some insight into what is possible in the efficiency department.

The Wikipedia article mentions 25% efficiency - 327g/kWh - as a typical "cycle average". That would be the average operating conditions during some driving cycle, perhaps the EPA's. Ecomodders' engines as a group do much better than this. See the BSFC maps. Neglecting lean burn, my engine peaks at 215g/kWh, and if you can keep it below 4000RPM, you can keep it below 250g/kWh all day. Still, the car only delivers 57mpg according to the EPA. 37% thermodynamic efficiency does not get you to 100mpg, it gets you to 57 EPA mpg = 70mpg in careful hands.

And no, I do not believe that waste heat recovery can recover 20% of what was lost the first time around. If you can get 10% (for a 30% fuel economy boost), you're doing amazingly well. You should pursue it, and discuss your methods and results here, but do not expect miracles.

[user removed]

This is from 6 years and over $30,000 in cash spent to get a single patent.

Approved but still waiting for the actual document.

Two thresholds you must pass to be approved.

"Novelty"

"Not obvious to someone educated in the art"

Basically these two stipulations make it damn near impossible for anyone to obtain a patent on mechanical devices unless they are truly something new and not an obvious evolutionary development of an already existing design.

The second stipulation being somewhat subject to the examiners opinion makes them have a propensity to reject the application as being obvious to someone educated in the art.

Now you have to go through a grueling appeals process that pile up hours of attorney fees and still can result in an ultimate rejection of your patent application.

While I applaud anyone who thinks they have a novel idea driven by inspiration and perspiration the reality is there is very little novelty in most vehicle designs. To succeed you must realize that any similar design dating back to the ancient wheel and axle precedes your idea.

I have been down this road zoltanbod, for the better part of the last decade, so my experience is first hand, which makes it credible as evidence in court. Most people who have been granted patents (talk to one if you know them) will tell you it is one of the most frustrating experiences you will ever deal with.

Automotive engines are not 20% efficient. The real figures are closer to 35% if you run them at best efficiency only. The way cars are operated today is about 15% efficient, but the difference is in the way power is applied to the wheels. The best efficiency for an IC engine is close to 53% today, and much research is being done to get that to 60%and above.

The real efficiency improvement is in the power train and that power train must have the ability to store engine power and apply it to the wheels at extremely high efficiencies, as well as recover the inertial energy of the vehicle when deceleration is required.

Co generation of wasted heat energy is another way of increasing engine efficiency. This is done in large scale power application and even in smaller scale fixed applications, but it tends to be expensive.

Not sure if you know this, but revealing any idea to the public domain without first submitting a provisional patent application destroys any chance of success in a patent application. A provisional application costs $100 (or it did a few years ago) and it gives you a 1 year time period to file a complete application, so anything disclosed here can never be patented. You are required by law to disclose any relevant information that would void your patent application. That's right. the law requires you to prove to the PO that your idea is actually not novel, or obvious.

It's not my objective to destroy your dream, but you should be aware of the extraordinary thresholds you must pass in order to succeed in protecting your ideas, if indeed they constitute novelty and are not rejected for being obvious to an educated person.

Until October of 2009, I did not know whether my dream of getting a patent would actually come true, and that was after spending the above mentioned amount of money. If you have no patent protection it will be practically impossible to get investors interested in your concept, since it would be easily duplicated, but others with more significant funding sources.

Efficiency in vehicles is a combination of drive train improvements, engine improvements, as well as improvements outside of the engine-power train portion of the vehicle which reduce the power necessary to maintain speed. The overall vehicle most be capable of movement with least energy expense while satisfying the requirements of the customer for the modern conveniences they demand.

Good luck on your pursuit. I truly wish you success. You will find that most people with the necessary funding to be very skeptical of any claims made without complete unbiased documentation of your claims.

Do I believe it is possible to build a car that gets 180 MPG?

Absolutely.

The problem with any conventional engine power train combination, is that while aero improvements will increase your mileage, the real issue is to completely eliminate all inefficient operation of the engine as well as utilizing exhaust heat for supplemental power generation to run accessories. Also you need extremely highly efficient recovery of necessary deceleration forces.

Once you have these requirements, then your aero improvements will definitely make a huge difference in overall efficiency since the power conversion system will be self compensating, but that same system must have enough power capability to climb Pike's Peak, as the ultimate test of its practicality.

regards
Mech

[Christopher Jordan]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Cuz if I want to go to Grandma's house an electric won't make it.

LOL! Must agree, and I have an electric 3-wheel. At times after a hill or sitting a few hours- mine was not ready to move.

Electrics have come a very long way, but if Grandma lived 35 miles away on a hill- with my trike; I had better prepare my hitchhiking talents

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by luvit

sorry, i;m not gonna write a book on all the possibilities of patents for this car.
i;m surprised you;re gonna stay in the shallow water on this one.
your library has books on inventions and patents.

Just start with one then

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by luvit

some things i want to highlight for Zoltan is what he implies multiple times.
he acknowledges the ICE and body and other parts are a starting point.

the body is meant to create a mold. therefore the materials used in the final body will be very different, but the exterior aesthetics of the shell will be identical.

i don't know if the Suzuki ICE in this car is still mass-produced, but the engine could be a very different one, but still utilize many concepts for improved efficiency. -- he said the suzuki was "a good starting point".

so, reading between the lines. there are many things that can change within the first actual car extracted from the mold, but utilize the FE concepts that the other mousetraps are not using.

what i just wrote could be over-gerneralized, but i think some of these discussions are too much focused on what was only visualized in the video.
i'm just writing a summary so Zoltan doesn't have to repeat himself so much.

Zoltan, i do expect you to correct me if I'm wrong.

x xxxxxxxx xxxxx? xxxxxxxxx?

xxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxx?

xxx xxxx, x'x xxx xxx x x.x xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx. xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxx.



A Bonneville/porting vet calls it an intake "track"?

You kids have fun now.

[theycallmeebryan]

Originally Posted by zoltanbod

Here is my answer to your questions. 1. I feel tandem seating in a car is impractical.I also don't believe that having a canopy around you without any roll up windows is very comfortable.Most tandem cars use canopies.What is wrong with two tall guys sitting up front and two sets of golf clubs or a bunch of groceries in the back?

2. It is way too early to throw away the ICE.Once the efficiency is improved to the point where there is no more to be had then we can look at changing our entire global infrastructure to meet the needs of future technology that is still to be discovered .What i have learnt about electric motors for powering cars is, the idea of using electric motors that are 90% efficient may soud good,until the issue of generating electricity and distributing it is considered .It is estimated that by the time electricity arrives at your home it is 33% efficient.In other words,67% of the original fuel energy has been lost. So even if you assume battery charging is 90% efficient,and the electric motor is 90% efficient, the overall energy efficiency suddenly drops to 26.73%, only about 6% better than ICE.About 65% of the fuel used to make electricity in north america is fossil.Energy density of the battery is dismal compared to gasoline and fill up time is long.

1. Why is tandem seating impractical? I'll tell you what is wrong with two tall guys sitting up front next to eachother...... FRONTAL AREA. How much of your driving will all of the seats in the vehicle be occupied? What about the times when you are simply driving yourself to work? All the unoccupied seats are WASTED SPACE (wasted frontal area). You'd cut the width of the car nearly in half by moving the passenger behind the driver, AND would have the same NEEDED frontal area whether you have 1 person in the car or 2 or 3. Catch my drift?

2. Your argument about overall efficiency of retrieving electricity from our wall outlets is somewhat valid. Sadly our country uses fossil fuels as our primary source of energy in our power plants. Fossil fuel power plants are anywhere from 30-35% efficient with coal, and up to 50% efficient with waste heat recovery systems. This is all the reason to venture into more efficient sources of energy, mainly nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Electric motors as a power source themselves are much more efficient than an ICE will ever ever ever be, and there is no arguing that. The problem we face is how to hold the electrical fuel... a problem we've had since the first cars were produced (which happened to be electric).