My daily driver project is supposed to be a hybrid concept car. It has been stuck in an in-between, ugly duckling, state for a few years now because I am not real happy with what I see in the whole hybrid movement, and am debating whether or not to even finish it. I started with a 91 Honda Accord because I like them, they are pretty efficient, and because they are front-drive cars. My original goal was to build a gas-front-engine/electric-rear-engine hybrid. I wanted to leave the original gas engine alone and supplement it with a battery-powered electric engine and custom drivetrain/suspension system in back. So, in theory, I would have an all-wheel-drive vehicle with a lot of potential for future upgrades and tuning. With careful attention to design, it should have been possible to quickly set the car up for maximum performance, maximum efficiency, or any blend of the two.

My main problem is the batteries. I hate weight - period. I have always been nearly obsessed with making my vehicles as light as possible. With the composite parts, and chassis I had planned, I figured the car (without the electric setup) would weight in around 2500lbs - about 200-300lbs less than the original factory weight. The electric motor is around 250lbs, the battery pack would add at least another 500lbs, combined with the drivetrain, etc, would leave me with a 3500-4000lb PIG!!! That's with enough batteries for the economy mode. Add in enough to get a reasonable performance boost and the weight goes through the roof. I started thinking, "if that's the best it can be, I should just bail out now."

Then I read about he new Chevy Volt. It will run for up to 40 miles on the battery pack, then the electric motor runs off a generator. My "light bulb" went off again! If the electric motor runs completely off an ICE-driven generator the battery pack would be unecessary, saving a lot of weight. True the generator-only system would not be as efficient, would not produce the fuel-savings of a battery system, and could not take advantage of things like regenerative braking, but the end goal is not 100mpg - it's a performance-oriented hydrid. A 21st-century hybrid hot rod, if you will. Economy car type mileage, with sporting type performance.

My thinking is that, with some tuning, the system would be kind of transparent. The more you stick your foot in the pedal the faster the IC engine turns the generator, dumping more juice into the electric motor. Grossly oversimplified, it would seem to be more like having a big hairdryer (turbo), whereas a tradtional battery-driven hybrid would be more like having a small roots blower. Just running around town the generator wouldn't ask for much and wouldn't do much, meaning it would be pretty much like driving a "normal" Honda. Put some foot in it and as the R's build the generator starts transforming ICE energy into electricity and the big electric motor starts feeding some serious torque to the rear tires.

Imagine dumping the clutch at the dragstrip, or exiting a corner on a road course, with the tach needle swinging towards the red, the generator sending nearly full voltage to the electric motor, and the back tires getting full torque - now! Of course it would require some computer-led electronic intervention to tell the motor exactly when to apply said torque, but that's the gist of it.

Sounds so simple, so beside cost and interest why isn't anyone else doing this. What am I missing?

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 12-28-2008).]

Look up the Fisker Karma, it sounds like it uses the same principle your talking about and is supposed to be quite fast. Has one engine that functions only as a generator to power the electric motors and accessories, the car doesn't even have a transmission.

Just a sugesstion.

Why not compressed air instead of electric?

A small compressor could charge up a tank and a commpressed air engine could assist with acceleration.

Use the exhaust to heat up the compressed air for more pressure.

Tatra in India is researching this concept.

I might not be following you all he way, but from what I get that makes no sense. To use the electric motor just driven off the gas motor, you will be wasting a ton of power in he coversion that would not be lost in a conventional drive train. You can never make more power out of the electric than the gas engine puts in, and you get no advantage at crusing speeds either. Basicall it just puts in a lot of loss with no gain.

I can almost remember some University, maybe University of Florida that developed a plastic engine that used a freon type gas in a closed system. An electric pump would pump the gas into this plastic engine, and a small kerosene burner would heat the gas in the closed system causing the pistons to move and then the gas would circulate out the engine into a huge radiator network on top of the car to cool off and then back to the engine again.

This thing got something like 600 miles a gallon of kerosene.

They said the only draw back is the engine was shot at around 35K of use, but they said a replacement engine would cost around $800 if mass produced.

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: I might not be following you all he way, but from what I get that makes no sense. To use the electric motor just driven off the gas motor, you will be wasting a ton of power in he coversion that would not be lost in a conventional drive train. You can never make more power out of the electric than the gas engine puts in, and you get no advantage at crusing speeds either. Basicall it just puts in a lot of loss with no gain.

I thought the same thing before I saw how the Volt works. A business associate suggested I try something similar to this last year and I told him it wouldn't work, because you can't get something for nothing. Then, along comes the Volt. The claim that started my mind whirling is that there is no range limit. If you want to drive a Volt across the country you just have to keep stopping at gas stations, IIRC they claim it gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 100mpg "on gas".

quote Originally posted by D_sensitized: Look up the Fisker Karma, it sounds like it uses the same principle your talking about and is supposed to be quite fast. Has one engine that functions only as a generator to power the electric motors and accessories, the car doesn't even have a transmission.

I just took a quick look at their site but it appears that they are using the exact same format as Chevy. Obviously electric generator technology must have improved because they are generating enough electricity with a small ICE/generator combo to get better efficiency than the gas motor coupld on its own. Remember, the gas motors in these cars do not power the wheels at all. They simply turn the generator, so it is definitely possible to make enough power for an electric motor this way.

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 12-28-2008).]

The idea behind the Volts gas engine is that it is an emergency backup of sorts. Since people refuse to buy something soley on the premise that "maybe one time, just possibly I might need to think about driving 201 miles" when the car has a range of 200 miles, they put that in. So the gas engine is really not intended to be used, thus why they have the large battery bank. The idea is not to drive the car using the gas engine to power an electric traction motor, its a just in case deal.

You cannot drive an electric car on a gasoline engine that is smaller than what it would take to power the car with a normal gas engine. You have 2 options.

1:Have a gas engine that is half the size of the normal gas engine, then it can only run as long as the batterys can keep up with the %50 loss, after that point you are only getting half power, minus losses

2: Have a gas engine driving a generator that is the same size as what it would normally take to run the gas engine. When the batteries run dead, then you run on the same size gas engine.

Both of those scenarios completely eliminate any advantage of being electric when you are running the gas engine, and both would require a sizeable battery bank.

There is at least %20 loss when converting from mechanical to electric and back to mechanical, not just in the transistion, but also losses in the controlling circuitry. There will always be less loss in a conventional drivetrain. The advantage of electric comes form the fact that %80 efficiency is much better than the %20 efficiency of an ICE. So really, you are running about %15 efficiency at best using and ICE to drive a traction motor in a conventional car.

Physics can be a Beatch sometimes...

quote Originally posted by mike-ohio: Just a sugesstion. Why not compressed air instead of electric? A small compressor could charge up a tank and a commpressed air engine could assist with acceleration. Use the exhaust to heat up the compressed air for more pressure. Tatra in India is researching this concept.

I've done math on this before, and it's a lot more sinister than it seems on the surface. For example, the tank in those air powered cars is stored at around 4500psi in order to hold the volume of air necessary for decent power and range. Even a large conventional tank at normal (~90psi) pressures won't do much good for more than a short distance (I ran a 12a wankel on compressed air at low rpms for about 15 seconds on a decent sized tank before the compressor had to kick on, for a reference point).

I just glossed over this thread, so forgive me if it's already mentioned, but most trains run the way you propose. They use a deisel engine to power the electric motors. It's actually a very efficient system, and an efficient use of fuel.

Diesel electric locomotives work this way because it was much more reliable than a clutch and mechanical system. They evolved over the specific needs of trains, which dont really apply to automotive cars.

quote Originally posted by 86fierofun: I just glossed over this thread, so forgive me if it's already mentioned, but most trains run the way you propose. They use a deisel engine to power the electric motors. It's actually a very efficient system, and an efficient use of fuel.

Different duty cycle. Trains run the majority of their time at almost a constant speed, and therefore you're actually only producing enough power to overcome rolling to prevent deceleration. Acceleration takes much more power than constant speed operation.

The fact remains that IC engines are only about 30% efficient. Electric motors can be up to 98% efficient. You're not losing much, but you are losing some. Why not use a turbine?

quote Originally posted by 86GT3.4DOHC: The idea behind the Volts gas engine is that it is an emergency backup of sorts. Since people refuse to buy something soley on the premise that "maybe one time, just possibly I might need to think about driving 201 miles" when the car has a range of 200 miles, they put that in. So the gas engine is really not intended to be used, thus why they have the large battery bank. The idea is not to drive the car using the gas engine to power an electric traction motor, its a just in case deal... Physics can be a Beatch sometimes...

So, they were basically giving a hyped up sales pitch - again. IIRC I heard all this during an interview with some GM big wig at the Lordstown plant, which produces the Cobalt/G5 and is slated to produce the new Cruze, as well as the Volt.

I had my doubts - that's why I posted here to discuss the merits before doing any serious planning or spending a nickel on the idea.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Different duty cycle. Trains run the majority of their time at almost a constant speed, and therefore you're actually only producing enough power to overcome rolling to prevent deceleration. Acceleration takes much more power than constant speed operation.

True, but, not complete. Diesel electric motors are used on more than just trains. They are common in the oil and gas well drilling industry. Where many high torque loads are put on the system frequently.

quote Originally posted by kwagner: I've done math on this before, and it's a lot more sinister than it seems on the surface. For example, the tank in those air powered cars is stored at around 4500psi in order to hold the volume of air necessary for decent power and range. Even a large conventional tank at normal (~90psi) pressures won't do much good for more than a short distance (I ran a 12a wankel on compressed air at low rpms for about 15 seconds on a decent sized tank before the compressor had to kick on, for a reference point).

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/
http://www.mdi.lu/english/
Already designed and working. Oh yeah cars running on compressed air is not new it was originally done in 1920 before the wide spread usage of gasoline.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: True, but, not complete. Diesel electric motors are used on more than just trains. They are common in the oil and gas well drilling industry. Where many high torque loads are put on the system frequently.

Also in the earth moving industry. The HUGE dump trucks are diesel electric "hybrids."

Given that any time you change the state of energy, there will be losses, I'm not certain that ICE-Electic-Mechanical is the way to go. HOWEVER, one of the things that really keeps the ICE from being more efficient and less polluting, is the fact that the average engine has to be tuned to run over a fairly wide range of RPM's and loads. Now, make it a diesel, and tune the thing to run at a constant RPM, you can probably get the efficiency significantly higher. Since generators prefer to run at a constant speed, this scenario might just yield an overall higher efficiency than straight ICE power. Couple a reasonably sized pack of Lithium Polymer (very light weight, high capacity), to allow for some regenerative braking, and you push it higher.

But the next question, I suppose, is what is the cost? I can already buy a 'clean diesel' car that gets very good mileage, and is 50 state clean. Are you going to be able to have a reasonable pay-back on the hybrid model? Since you are still using an ICE to power it, there will still be some emissions, although they would be arguably cleaner than the straight ICE, due to running at a fixed speed. Therefore, the only reason to do this is for raw efficiency, and the only reason for raw efficiency is to save fuel (both amount and $). So, even if the overall efficiency was raised 10 to 15 percent higher than the 'regular' diesel, what is the payback? What of the negatives of batteries, and increased complexities of the drivetrain?

quote Originally posted by dsnover: ...But the next question, I suppose, is what is the cost?... what is the payback? What of the negatives of batteries, and increased complexities of the drivetrain?

That's where I am right now. I am starting to think whole whole hybrid idea is more smoke and mirrors than real benefit. It makes the automakers look like they're really making significant progress, but none of the current concepts really pay off in the long run.

I'll just stick with my old-fashioned, gas-burining, internal-combustion, dinosaur motor for now. I am satisfied with the mileae I get, I was looking for increased performance without sacrificing it.

Thanks for letting me borrow your minds

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: http://zeropollutionmotors.us/ http://www.mdi.lu/english/ Already designed and working. Oh yeah cars running on compressed air is not new it was originally done in 1920 before the wide spread usage of gasoline.

You didn't read my post. Yes, it works, with tanks holding pressures of thousands of psi. You can't just put a small tank and compressor in a vehicle. That was my point. Also, MDI's air car made its public debut in 2002. They have yet to go into production.

This just popped into my head, say you somehow are out of air in the air powered car, you can still push it to a gas station and fill 'er up with the tire air!

Actually maybe not unless you just need 100 psi or so to kick on your cars compressor.

quote Originally posted by kwagner: You didn't read my post. Yes, it works, with tanks holding pressures of thousands of psi. You can't just put a small tank and compressor in a vehicle. That was my point. Also, MDI's air car made its public debut in 2002. They have yet to go into production.

2009-2010 is when they are scheduled to start shipping vehicles.
Actually MDI is more interested in selling the rights to produce the cars to others so they can focus on technology design. Part of their production model calls for small manufacturing/service/sales centers in different areas depending on area population. So an area like LA would have say 6-8 different centers around the city where someplace like Tampa, FL might have 2-4 centers. When you pay them for the technology rights you get everything to manufacture/service the vehicles for your money. This includes the complete building plans for the manufacturing/service/sales center, all the equipment necessary and they will train the workforce you hire. I learned all this because the place I worked at until the beginning of this year was looking for "Green" products to look into investing in and this is what I found that looked like a possible good investment.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: This just popped into my head, say you somehow are out of air in the air powered car, you can still push it to a gas station and fill 'er up with the tire air! Actually maybe not unless you just need 100 psi or so to kick on your cars compressor.

http://www.mdi.lu/english/remplissage.php
I don't think it would be to easy to run completely out of air.

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: 2009-2010 is when they are scheduled to start shipping vehicles.

As was every year since they first announced 'scheduled for production'.

quote In 1991 Négre formed Moteur Developpment International to develop the technology and manufacture the cars.

http://www.wired.com/cars/e...y/news/2003/09/60427

quote Despite the skepticism, Mr. Negre and his partners seem confident as they sign up investors by offering shares in regional manufacturing operations (for a minimum of $10,000). Mr. Vencat said the company had no immediate plans for a public offering in the United States, but would solicit individual investors once it filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Vencat said the company had raised $5 million in investor capital, mostly in France, but would need about $160 million to build the 20 plants it is planning. Still, Mr. Negre said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that sales would begin in France in the second half of 2001 and in the United States ''not before 2002.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gs...=&spon=&pagewanted=2

quote The first models are due to be rolled out by the end of 2004.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004...ience/01/22/air.car/
It's the "Moller skycar" business model.

quote Originally posted by kwagner: http://edition.cnn.com/2004...ience/01/22/air.car/ It's the "Moller skycar" business model.

Believe what you want to believe. The 2009-2010 time frame is the only time I have every heard they were going to have production cars done not prototypes. Either way still looks like a more reasonably more environmentaly friendly technology than electric cars will ever be. So maybe if more people talked and got interested in these they would start showing up in larger quantities. Instead of just betting on one type of hybrid or alternative vehicle.

quote Originally posted by mike-ohio: Just a sugesstion. Why not compressed air instead of electric? A small compressor could charge up a tank and a commpressed air engine could assist with acceleration. Use the exhaust to heat up the compressed air for more pressure. Tatra in India is researching this concept.

How about have a compresser that runs both the car and another compresser. The air motor would run both the car and the compresser.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: How about have a compresser that runs both the car and another compresser. The air motor would run both the car and the compresser.

Isn't that like hooking an alternator up to an electric motor?

quote Originally posted by FieroJam: Believe what you want to believe. The 2009-2010 time frame is the only time I have every heard they were going to have production cars done not prototypes.

I'll let history speak for me. From this very forum:
from 2003
Note that the second article mentioned in the thread (which I quote in part here) is from October 2000. Here's a link to it.

quote Helen Brown who heads "Zero Pollution Motors", the company which has the rights to manufacture the car locally, says it will be ideal for urban transport. ... There are currently two factories in France, with the first models expected on the streets later this year. There are five factories planned for Mexico and Spain, with three in Australia. ... But South Africa will be the second country after France to open a factory and begin production. Helen Brown says her company aims to set up a production line in the province of Gauteng by next year, with the first cars off the production line and onto the salesroom floor by early 2002.

And an observation from Scott-wa, back in 2006:

quote What really sucks is that for years, MDI had been going into production in about 6 months... for years and years.

This isn't the first time MDI has been brought up on the forum, and every time the story is the same.

quote Originally posted by kwagner: This isn't the first time MDI has been brought up on the forum, and every time the story is the same.

In Theory once it starts running the second Compressor would keep filling the tank while the First is runnig off the compressed air off the tank. Just like running differant pulleys on your
engine on a car why not have one drive a compressor. If anything it would extend the range. Thats what I cant figure about electric cars.
On the truck we have a APU that drives a Generator that produces 110 volts in which I can run any house hold appliance on.
With an electric car one could drive the Generator off the Axles geard to run faseer and in charge the batteries while your moving. I would suggest making an AC system instead of DC.

http://www.rigmasterpower.com/

[This message has been edited by 88_Fiero_2M4 (edited 12-31-2008).]

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: In Theory once ...

Read the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and get back to me.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Read the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and get back to me.

I could never Understand the language of such laws They write it so you have to have a PHD to understand what they are saying. They could right it more simple so those of us who
dont have a PHD could understand it.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: I could never Understand the language of such laws They write it so you have to have a PHD to understand what they are saying. They could right it more simple so those of us who dont have a PHD could understand it.

Well there's your problem right there. You need new muffler bearings! Maybe some blinker fluid and...well...maybe not.

It's pretty damn simple. Every real process has some irreversibility that causes a loss. Meaning you can never get 100% efficiency out of any system.

quote Originally posted by AntiKev: Read the 2nd law of Thermodynamics and get back to me.

I am not talking of tying the system togeather like that anway. An air motor runs a crank shaft that runs a flywheel. You would tie the wheels to the fly wheel and drive the car off that. but I am saying that you could also drive compressor off it as well
and recharge the tank. maby not to fill it but at least to extend its range. Same could be said and done on an electric car.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: I am not talking of tying the system togeather like that anway. An air motor runs a crank shaft that runs a flywheel. You would tie the wheels to the fly wheel and drive the car off that. but I am saying that you could also drive compressor off it as well and recharge the tank. maby not to fill it but at least to extend its range. Same could be said and done on an electric car.

Energy doesn't work that way. There's only SO MUCH energy in a system. If you're taking some to run a second compressor, you're going to lose some at the drive wheels.

Some but not all

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: Some but not all

More than you would gain in compressed air. In other words if it took 10 cu feet of compressed air to drive the second air compressor you would only get 9 cu ft back a loss of 1 cu ft.

[This message has been edited by Fiero STS (edited 12-31-2008).]

I am only talking about extending the range not making it indefinate.

quote Originally posted by 88_Fiero_2M4: I am only talking about extending the range not making it indefinate.

You'd actually end up shortening the range at the end of the day.

So its give up without even trying?

You guys keep saving fuel, I need all I can get my hands on.

Here is a way to prove this to yourself. Get a battery a motor and a generator. Hook up the motor to the battery and see how many amps it takes to run. Now hook up the generator to the motor see how many amps it takes to run the motor turnig the generator charging the battery. Now see how many amps the generator is putting into the battery.

What you will find is that the battery will last longer just running the motor.

It will take alot more amps to turn the motor and generator than you will get out of the generator to charge the battery.

[This message has been edited by Fiero STS (edited 12-31-2008).]