Smurf-Fu, eh?

I saw a movie the other day called "Kung Fusion". It was kinda funny. I don't know what language it was originally in, but it was dubbed to Spanish (on Telemundo) and I didn't understand it...but it still managed to make me laugh.

Understand this which is most important. We are seeing the public reject current auto manufacturing products.

Read the EPA hydraulic hybrid documments. The improvements are not rocket science. Most of the projections are from 2004 and earlier.

Any car will get better mileage with a lower CD, less rolling resistance, and lowest possible frontal area.

My 94 VX's mileage dropped over 10% just from changing the tires.

Give that same car the aero of Basjoos design, and the equal of the original low rolling resistance tires. You have 60+ MPG, using 15 year old technology.

Add 15 years of refinement and where would it be, and thats a 5 passenger sedan.

I would even be willing to bet that with the current 10% ethanol mix of the fuel available here, the same Federal emissions VX would have passed the California specs that were fairly constant for almost 10 years. In other words one of the core emeissions issues was the fuel, not the car itself.

Now add an integral starter alternator, so it never has to idle. All my mileage was achieved without any engine off operation. That would improve mileage by at least 10 %.

Now add preheat and block heating to reduce winter mileage losses.

Now add a simple rear wheel only regenerative, in wheel drive, like my current design. The add a cruising engine on engine off replenishment of the accumulator to allow pulse and gliding of the engine while maintaining constant speeds up to 65 MPH.

I am not even talking about a series hybrid, when the powertrain system becomes a dedicated hydraulic hybrid, regardless of the engine or motor used for primary propulsion.

You have just built the fabled 100 MPG car, and it could be reality in 12 months ladies and gentlemen.

No brag, just fact.

regards
gary

I think all of that is quite common sense.

Stuck any 50-60 HP engine in any car and you will also see great MPG. That brings just to the human factor... general population dont like car that are slow as balls...and it gets worst as you put more people in it.

The whole point of hybrids is that you still have as much power (and torque) and good MPG, so it has broader appeal to everybody.

Thats the whole point, its all common sense, with one exception.

People equate hybrid with lackluster performance, expensive, and complicated.

That is all wrong.

With capacitive hydraulic storage you have 1000 horsepower seconds of energy, sitting still with the engine not running.

The instant you press on the accelerator pedal that energy is available at all 4 wheels, as well as any you might want to add by running the engine.

Now lets say your engine is capable of 120 HP seconds of sustained production. That gives you an additional 1200 horsepower every 10 seconds.

Now you have a total of 2200 horsepower for ten seconds available for acceleration.

You limiting factor for acceleration is the ability of all 4 wheels to maintain traction.

What do you think the 0-60 time of a 2200 pound sedan would be if you could apply 400 horsepower to all 4 wheels for 4 seconds?

regards
gary

wild guess, probably around 2.87635 seconds.

0-60 mph Calculator - 060calculator.com

Now consider this, the sedan is 25% lighter than another comparable sedan. Say a Nissan Maxima 1999 model, at 2800 pounds. Ride quality is the same. All accessories are available. It costs $19000 and averages 60 MPG.

Merry Christmas to all of you, and I hope you share my dream. Maybe it will come true in the next few years.

In fact I doubt it could accelerate to 60 quite that quickly unless you had some really good tires.

regards
gary

The realities of marketing won't let too much advancement enter the market that quickly. We're still waiting for plug in hybrids, fer crissake. Once we have plug in hybrids for a few years, maybe as long as one model cycle, then we'll see the next advancement, like the Chevy Volt. If demand is great enough to hasten advancement, then the next big thing will enter the market sooner, but at a higher cost. Then we wait for the new technology to trickly down to lower price levels.

To bypass all of that waiting, new tech can enter the market through small a independent company, similar to what Testla has done with their electric roadster. The Aptera comes to mind, too. Has a working prototype of the hydraulic hybrid been built yet?

The evolution of battery technology has been waiting for the breakthrough for over a century.

The best example is the NASA flywheel battery, 150,000 RPM, magnetic bearings, in a perfect vacuum. Fairly light, 10 KWH capacity, and exorbitantly expensive.

Even the lead acid battery of 100 years ago (and even longer) is still a contender.

The real revolutionary change in vehicles will be more similar to the Model T or the original Volkswagen. Both were vehicles that focused on simplicity, ease of manufacture, cost and reliability.

The simplicity of a series hydraulic hybrid design will parallel that of the two previously mentioned milestone vehicles. Inexpensive, totally reliable, easy to manufacture vehicles, that will dramatically change the World's utilization of transportation.

In doing so, the hydraulic hybrid will also go a long way towards addressing many of the green issues we face today.

It may also become fact that batteries and electric motors will provide the non reversible power source for hydraulic hybrids in the future. For the present and forseeable future that will not be the case, since we are still waiting for the breakthrough battery technology that will solve the energy density situation.

It may be that a combination of battery electric and hydraulic powertrain actually becomes the standard at some future date, however in the interim the hydraulic powertrain platform allows such evolution to compete without waiting for any breakthrough.

A charged acumulator adds power capacity on initial operation, with battery-electric replenishment of accumulator storage, to prevent the high loads associated with acceleration as well as the high charge rates in regeneration.

regards
gary

Hmm....so maybe an accumulator that can be pre-charged (by hooking up to a hydraulic pressure hose or just driving onto a powered dyno-like roller to wind up the car), with batteries for portable supplemental power. Interesting.

The HH platform allows any fuel consuming energy conversion power source to be added to the system.

A plug in electric unit for local PHEV operation, as well as a liquid fuel consuming power unit for extended range operation. Power modules would be interchngeable, which makes a lot more sense than carrying both around all the time.

Separating the powertrain platform from the non reversible power source, makes direct comparison of various power sources easy. It also allows for individual development of various power source configurations to be commpared directly, with improvements in any power source to be incorporated into the existing vehicle without the necessity to replace the whole vehicle.

Even to the point where if you are one who believes in exercise, you could charge the accumulator with human power. Why not make the effort expended in exercise actually provide some useful purpose. It would also make running out of fuel a thing of the past.

I know when I was young I could push a car up to about half the speed I could run. Imagine how fast you could "push" a car if you were riding in the vehicle and adding energy to the system, with the vehicle already in motion.

I am not trying to say you could replace the engine, but you could certainly supplement the engines power, as well as make sure the vehicle was never stranded due to lack of fuel.

The list of imaginitive vehicles becomes an interesting exercise in thought, when you consider that very lightweight vehicles could be built with reasonable creature conforts, for countries that have no means of financial resources for current designs.

Accumulator capacities are now in the range of 50 KW per gallon, with better containment vessels doubling that capacity.

Exercising at a .10 HP rate for 5 minutes would give you 30 HP of accumulator energy. Imagine what that would do in a fairly lightweight bicycle when you can continuously add power. No electrical outlet or external charging necessary.

Just the tip of the iceberg.

regards
gary

Gary, have you seen this site?

https://www.greencarcongress.com/hydr...rid/index.html

The Virginia Tech entry is my design. Tech will have a functional prototype built by late spring 2009. Alan Kornhauser was born one month after myself (11-22-50).

I first posted on GCC in the summer of 2006. The original engine design was the topic of my first post.

My design has also been published in the August 2008 edition of the Journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Dr. Kornhauser told me that the design we are working on has 3 distinct advantages over anything he has seen previously.

Few people I have ever met have the insight into the systematic approach I have dedicated the last 8 years to perfecting. One of them is Dr. Kornhauser.

The second one is an engineer at NASA who has a Doctorate in Theoretical Engineering from MIT. he is probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met in my lifetime.

I knew I was heading in the right direction when he told me the potential for mileage improvement would be dramatic.

I don't want to build garbage trucks, my design is focused on providing transportation for the whole planet, for those who have never been able to affort the priviledge of being in a position to transport themselves tens of miles to places where employment is available that could change their lives, while at the same time having no impact of the environment.

The interest Tech has demonstrated has been the result of years of rejection, hundreds of attempts to communicate this concept to virtually every entity you could imagine. Every excuse possible has been presented as the grounds for rejection.

Sometimes in a persons life opportunities arise to really make a difference in the way we as humans interact with the ecology of the planet we were so fortunate to inherit from out ancestors. This idea is far beyond my means of presentation or interpretation.

I am only the messenger, focus on the message. It is far more important than my short time on this planet.

regards
gary

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss garbage trucks. They are a great way to bring the technology to fruition more quickly.

Motive: Garbage trucks must use HUGE amounts of fuel doing exactly the stuff that the hydraulic hybrid system excels at. These trucks weighing 40,000 pounds or more stop at every driveway of every house in every suburb, then accelerate to the next house. They need regeneration but can't afford to drag around batteries to store energy.

Ease of investment: Because garbage trucks are so expensive, the expense to invest in a new drive technology isn't as large of a burden compared to the rest of the vehicle. Also, it might be possible to integrate the existing hydraulic systems with the new one, reducing cost and perhaps improving performance.

Ease of maintenance: They also have fleet-style maintenance, necessary for supporting new technology...and their mechanics are already comfortable with hydraulic systems. I know that you insist that it's a low-maintenance system, but I have to believe that a new technology in its first real-world application will present some maintenance challenges.

More motive: They are fleet vehicles owned by large companies with a big environmental image problem; people see waste removal companies as terrible for the environment, while the companies struggle to be environmentally friendly and to make that effort visible. They need something like that and will pour money and effort into making the world know that they're using it.

I can totally see garbage trucks as a market entrance vector (if that phrase makes sense). It starts with garbage trucks and spreads from there, thanks to proof of real-world application and lots of marketing by waste disposal companies eager to shed their trashy image.

There are thousands of bicycles on the planet for every garbage truck. That being said Waste Management is watching the development closely.

Most current efforts are directed towards large vehicles with high start-stop cycles. The EPA basically wrote off small vehicles as impractical.

Its also a lot easier to build small vehicles.

It's not so much that I am writing off any vehicle, more that my focus is on smaller much more compact and inexpensive designs that can be rapidly implemented.

Then the auto manufacturers can always do what they have done before, make it larger, longer, wider, and more powerful.

I just feel like it will be easier to develop a market where they can not compete, by their own admission.

regards
gary

yup! they're gettin bigger...

this accord could pass for a civic in today's sizes:

https://orlando.craigslist.org/cto/978473395.html

The models get bigger, then they get replaced by new models the size of the old model's original size. Civic grows, Fit replaces it. Corolla grows, Yaris replaces it. Sentra grows, Versa replaces it. Cobalt (or its previous name, Cavalier) grows, Aveo replaces it.

Looks like Ford is bringing out the Fiesta for MY 2011. I don't know what Chrysler has for particularly small cars.

The nice thing about Gary's ideas is that they will work fine on larger vehicles, evidenced by the EPA's 3800 pound pickup truck gettin 80mpg. Making vehicles smaller, like making engines smaller, is effective but not necessarily the only way.

Re: The amazing gas mileage blunder
 

As for the Civic HX and subsequent vehicles that were fuel economy minded yet received worse marks in fuel economy, I think the primary reason they get worse mileage is simply because of its transmission. Emissions can be a factor but obviously weren't if you consider that the '92 VX gets the same mileage as the '95 VX despite emissions becoming much more stringent in 1994. The final drive on the CRX HF is 3.25 for California/High Altitude or 2.95 for the FED which received the higher marks in fuel economy. The final drive in the Civic VX is 3.25 and the final drive in the '96-'00 Civic HX is 3.722 and 3.842 in the '01-'05 Civic HX. However, one thing you may be surprised to see is that in the vanilla civics (DX,LX,EX), the fuel economy has remained the same or slightly improved whilst the final drives INCREASED! The primary factor for why these vehicles aren't getting the mileage that we expect comes down to manufacturer's anticipating consumer preference.

In the Americas, there is an expectation of small cars being "zippy" and zippy cars tend to not weigh a portly 2800lbs compared to the anemic 2100lbs the Civic VX weighs. So, to be quick, despite good engine designs, they get worse mileage than we feel they should. I feel Honda should add as a simple option to change out the final drives in their transmissions of these vehicles to let them get the mileage they deserve. If people saw the mileage these vehicles could get, maybe some would reconsider purchasing these vehicles for the sole purpose of a practical gas sipper.