This link shows a similar system where a BMW was converted to a hydraulic hybrid configuration and fuel mileage was doubled. The system is similar but there are some differences. The neat thing about the Innas design was it was two basically identical vehicles with one using a conventional power train, and the other using a hydraulic hybrid power train.
The Innas design uses fixed displacement in wheel drive motors and hydraulic transformers to control the pressure and flow of the working fluid.
R.I.D.E. differs from the Innas design significantly. In RIDE the individual wheel motors are each infinitely variable drives, and require no transformers to control the pressure and flow to the wheel drives. In Innas system's wheel drives circulate a specific amount of fluid regardless on the state of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle. RIDE controls these functions through a simple stroke adjustment in each wheel independently of the other wheels. This allows for each wheel to be adjusted for traction control or Anti-lock braking functions. RIDE could even distribute more power to certain wheels individually for enhanced cornering ability.
The Patent has passed the "Novelty" test in the first review. This means it will be patented as long as some of the details of the application are corrected. This is a "cross the t and dot the I type of process" where certain corrections are necessary in the application itself. It also requires the first claim, of 6 total claims, to be rewritten. The first claim was rejected, while the last 5 were approved. My attorney thinks the first claim is unnecessary.
I would like to get all the claims approved, but if there is no real benefit, then the additional cost is hard to justify.
I remain skeptical about the Patent actually being issued, but the Attorney congratulated me on the initial approval, so I think I am almost to the finish line, but I remain skeptical. It has taken 5 years to get to this point.
Virginia Tech is supposed to continue their work on the prototype in the next year, and is still hoping to see some form of grant funding from the govt.Their review of the design was positive, but they did not have the time and resources necessary to complete a prototype that could be realistically tested.
On the separate topic;
Argonne Laboratories has been funded with the goal of researching engine designs that would approach efficiencies of 60%. This was the object of the original RIDE patent, which I chose to abandon, after the current power train configuration progressed to the point where it became obvious that any chance of commercialization and income would be much more realistic with a power train design which would be much less difficult to implement than any engine design.
Power trains do not have emission issues and do not require multi billion dollar financial commitments. That is not because the engine design is not practical or could not pass emissions tests. It's more a matter of cost and financial commitment.
The conclusion was to get the power train up and running and then focus on the engine.
The George Mason group that developed a business plan, listed the three critical components to achieve success.
1. Patent-almost there
2. Prototype-in the garage, but needs some more development
3.Corporation-just a matter of paying the fees, but not necessary until 1&2 are ready.