This is Freddy Torres's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Freddy Torres's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Freddy Torres
Recent Activity
A solution in search of a problem. Just use two Yasa-750 electric motors: 150 kW of continuous power, 1600 Nm of torque for only 54 Kg of mass. Like I said, a solution in search of a problem.
The in wheel motor specs are far away from being the best in the market. Take for example an in-wheel Yasa-400, which has a lower weight of only 22 Kg, peak power output of 180 KW, continuous power of 85 KW, peak torque of 400 Nm. If you want more peak power, the Yasa-750 will tip the scales at only 27 Kg, 200 KW peak power, 75 KW of continuous power, 800 Nm of peak torque. Since the peak power density of the Yasa-750 is about 7.41 KW/Kg and the peak power density of the Protean in-wheel motor is only 2.21 KW/Kg, it is clear that Protean is very far from having the highest torque and power density of any leading electric propulsion system. Notice that the Yasa-750 has a peak torque density of 29.63 Nm/Kg while Protean offers 29.41 Nm/Kg. Yasa motors is clearly the golden standard for in-wheel motors because they are much lighter, much more powerful, and have a slightly higher torque.
Increases in efficiency are welcome no matter where they come from but I hope someday soon, all car companies realize that power has to come from the electric drivetrain while extreme efficiency must come from the internal combustion engine. Mazda found a winner with the skiactive technology since direct injection plus some other tricks have allowed this engines to have a 14:1 compression ratio while still using regular unleaded gasoline. Notice that the Toyota Prius has a compression ratio of 13:1 while the Prius C has a compression ratio of 13.4:1. This means that Mazda can easily increase the already high compression ratios of their skiactiv engines to more than 16:1 if they use their skiactiv technology in an Atkinson engine. This combination will produce an extremely high thermal efficiency at the expense of high power density and a decrease in torque. Keep in mind that an Atkinson engine with Skiactiv technology will be vastly superior in power density, thermal efficiency and torque when compared to a regular Atkinson engine. To maximize performance, Mazda needs to pick the most power dense electric motors and the most power dense electric batteries. A good start would be two Yasa-750 electric motors with a total combined weight of 54Kg and total peak output of 400 kW (537 hp)and 150 kW (201 hp) of continious power. Next we can pick A123Systems around 150 Kg of AHR 32113 cylindrical bateries (around 750 single batteries). These batteries have a peak specific output of 2.7W per kg for 10 seconds. This peak output for both motors and batteries will be enough to get exellent times for both 0 to 60 mph and for the quarter mile. Keep in mind that the ICE can be linked to the front wheels (mechanically and/or electrically) for an additional boost in acceleration. Lastly, all car companies must keep reducing the mass of their new cars. Replacing the 12V lead acid batteries with lithium ion technology can save up to 15 Kg of battery weight (roughly 1% of the total car weight).
Exactly the correct approach! Now VW can continue increasing the power output of the electric motor and battery while keeping the size of the diesel engine the same. Notice that at 214 mpg, the price of electricity and the diesel per mile travelled is nearly the same! This means you no longer feel restricted to use liquid fuel. Instead, you would only feel compelled to charge up when electricity is produced from clean sources.
Increases in efficiency are welcome no matter where they come from but I hope someday soon, all car companies realize that power has to come from the electric drivetrain while extreme efficiency must come from the internal combustion engine. How much longer do we have to wait for a 1.0L turbo charged directly injected ATKINSON engine? At least Lexus built the GS450h which has a similar drivetrain as the one I mentioned above except there is no turbo and it uses a big V6. Perhaps Lexus should buy the technology from Teslamotors for that powerful electric drivetrain for the rear wheels and then use a 1.0L turbo charged directly injected ATKINSON engine coupled to both a CVT for the front wheels and an electric generator to recharge the batteries.
The toyota prius will greatly benefit from having both batteries and ultracapacitors (unless the new lithium ion batteries can accept the 60 KW of regenerative power the electric motor can produce when operating in generator mode). Frequently, the amount of regenerative power when I drive my prius is insuficient. For those who have not figure it out yet, you get the maximum energy recovered when using your cruise control to slow down, not the standard brake. This is true only as long as you have enough distance to slow down the car using cruise control.
Peter, I rather see some of my taxes going to american car companies that probably do not need the money than to continue watching a huge amount of our money being given to oil countries that use the very money we pay them to wage war against us.
If Ford is serious about extreme fuel economy they should ecoboost a 1.6 L Atkinson cycle engine.
Why not build a 1.0 ecoboost Atkinson engine instead? We truly need to start moving toward an electric dominant drivetrain with a very small ICE with maximum thermal efficiency. Ecoboosting an Atkinson engine will increase its torque to levels similar to Otto cycle engines.
Ford has clearly outdone the prius on the electric side of the drivetrain. What I can't understand is why ford decided not to use their ecoboost technology (direct injection) in their atkinson cycle engine. Using direct injection in an atkinson cycle engine will allow a further increase in compression ratio which will increase the engine's peak thermal efficiency and it will also increase the power output which will allow the use of an even smaller engine, also increasing overall average thermal efficiency. Perhaps the next generation c-max will use direct injection
Mr. Ziv, "5C" in this report does not mean a temperature of 5 degrees Celcius. It means the rate of charging (or discharging). A rate of charge/discharge of 5C means you can charge/discharge the battery in question in approximately 60min/5 = 12 minutes.
Now, my question is what is Ford waiting for to combine an Atkinson engine with the EcoBoost technology. It is a well documented fact that the Atkinson engine has a very high thermal efficiency (due to the high compression ratio, i.e. 13:1 in the Prius), but is has a very low torque and power density. It seems like adding EcoBoost technology to the Atkinson engine will greatly increase the thermal efficiency, the power density and the torque. All three for the price of one.
4 miles per KW-hr is extremely efficient considering the coeffient of drag of an SUV. The Tesla roadster is a lot lighter than this SUV and it is still below 5 miles per KW-hr. The frictional losses must be extremely low.
If the goal is to build the lightest possible car, the Aixro XR50 Rotary Kart engine is only 17 Kg of weight (less than 40 lbs) and has 48 horsepower. This means more batteries (and therefore longer range) or a higher power to weight ratio and therefore even higher acceleration.
160 KW in 43 Kg! This is only second to the Tesla Roadster power density. I can just imagine what a Prius would drive like with one of these motors and some A123 Systems lithium batteries. The more competition the better!
I am sure the kingdom of Abu Dhabi are more than glad to sponsor this slightly less fuel hungry than a Hummer vehicle. After all, they need to maintain oil suppy slightly above demand so that the entire planet can pay for their exhuberant and irresponsible spending habits. What a pity that direct injection is now being used to prolong the reign of large displacement high power vehicles instead of developing a fuel efficient 3-cylinder Atkinson engine for a new generation of hybrids.
Joookes, I went to the Kelly Blue Book website and found that the 2010 Ford Edge has a curb weight of 4078 lbs. I seriously doubt that future models will reach 7000+ lbs.
Mr. Toppa Tom: There is no such thing as low gas prices in the US. We the taxpayers have to spend half a trillion dollas per year to keep our forces in the Middle East in a futile attempt to secure oil resources. On top of that, we are paying an average of $2.70/gallon of liquid fuel for the 200 billion gallons of combined gas/diesel we burn in this country. The only reason big cars are profitable is because we don't pay the true cost of fuel. The only reason small cars are not profitable is because we don't want to pay for sustained incentives for fuel efficient cars. The power of the UAW was greatly diminished once GM went into bankrupcy and Chrysler was sold to Fiat. Excuses are running out...
The winds of freemarket are blowing...HARD! I hope all our car companies are taking notice: Either you meet the new 2016 CAFE standards or someone else will! I really hope GM is not expecting the Volt to raise the fleet average all the way all by itself to 35.5 mpg because as long as they are selling 15 mpg SUVs they will have a hard time meeting the goal. I do have a major concern about how the 2016 fleet average will be calculated and this is why: Let's assume the public buys 100 cars rated at 35.5 mpg from a car company. After driving 15,000 miles each, you would have burned around 1,500,000 miles driven/35.5 mpg = 42,254 gallons of fuel. Now look at what GM is most likely to do: If the Volt is rated at 100 mpg, GM could sell 36 Volts for every 64 SUVs rated at 15 mpg and still meet the 2016 CAFE standard with 0.5 mpg to spare (36 cars * 100 mpg + 64 cars * 15 mpg)/100 cars = 36 mpg!. If you calculate the effective fleet mpg however, this is what you get: if all cars are driven 15,000 miles, 36 Volts (100 mpg) will consume 5,400 gallons while the 64 SUVs (15 mpg) will consume 64,000 gallons. Then the effective fleet mpg average is = (15,000 miles/car * 100 cars)/(64,000 gallons + 5,400 gallons) = 21.61 mpg! This loophole could be the size of a barnyard. I hope the federal government clarifies the calculation so that we don't have to endure lawsuits from car companies because they won't be able to meet the 2016 CAFE standards when calculated the right way.
The winds of freemarket are blowing...HARD! I hope all our car companies are taking notice: Either you meet the new 2016 CAFE standards or someone else will! I really hope GM is not expecting the Volt to raise the fleet average all the way all by itself to 35.5 mpg because as long as they are selling 15 mpg SUVs they will have a hard time meeting the goal. I do have a major concern about how the 2016 fleet average will be calculated and this is why: Let's assume the public buys 100 cars rated at 35.5 mpg from a car company. After driving 15,000 miles each, you would have burned around 1,500,000 miles driven/35.5 mpg = 42,254 gallons of fuel. Now look at what GM is most likely to do: If the Volt is rated at 100 mpg, GM could sell 36 Volts for every 64 SUVs rated at 15 mpg and still meet the 2016 CAFE standard with 0.5 mpg to spare (36 cars * 100 mpg + 64 cars * 15 mpg)/100 cars = 36 mpg!. If you calculate the effective fleet mpg however, this is what you get: if all cars are driven 15,000 miles, 36 Volts (100 mpg) will consume 5,400 gallons while the 64 SUVs (15 mpg) will consume 64,000 gallons. Then the effective fleet mpg average is = (15,000 miles/car * 100 cars)/(64,000 gallons + 5,400 gallons) = 21.61 mpg! This loophole could be the size of a barnyard. I hope the federal government clarifies the calculation so that we don't have to endure lawsuits from car companies because they won't be able to meet the 2016 CAFE standards when calculated the right way.
OK, so Ford finally is taking full advantage of direct injection which allows for a higher compression ratio and therefore higher thermal efficiency. Ford has also used the Atkinson engine in the Ford Escape hybrid which in the front wheel drive beats my 2007 Toyota Yaris sedan with automatic transmission. I wonder how long it will take Ford to figure out that they can combine the Atkinson engine with direct injection and either turbocharging for non-hybrids or energy recovery for hybrids. Combining the Atkinson engine with direct injection and turbocharging has the potential to further increase the effective compression ratio which will furter increase thermal efficiency, it will also increase the engine power density, but more importantly, there could be a significant increase in low end torque which is the biggest weakness of the Atkinson engine. The low end torque of the Atkinson engine has prevented the widespread use of this wonderful engine from being used in non-hybrid vehicles. For hybrid vehicles, I suspect it would be better to recover energy from the exhaust and convert it to electricity and then release it every time you go down hill while the gas engine is turned off and the car is set to neutral.
I am glad that at least this foreign company is dead serious about the implemetation of lithium batteries. The only thing I don't like is that american companies seem to lag further and further behind.
All these great technological advances to propel a vehicle that will be well below of the 35.5 mpg mandate of 2016. I can already see Mercedez Benz joining the ranks of other car makers begging the federal government for an extention of the 2016 mandate. Just wait for the "We too are just to big to fail" song to play in Washington DC.
I am afraid this technology will have too little to offer in the long run and this is why: a Ford Escape hybrid which is basically a box with wheels (very high drag coefficient), it is very heavy (3669 lbs), it has a high compression ratio (12.3) Atkinson engine and it is rated at 34 mpg city/ 31 mpg highway (32.5 mpg combined), still beats my 2007 Toyota Yaris which is only 2346 lbs, has a fairly low drag coefficient, has an Otto cycle engine with a compression ratio of 10.5 and 29 mpg city/35 mpg highway (32 mpg combined). Ford has not started to used direct injection on the Escape's Atkinson engine but once they do, the compression ratio will easily go north of 15:1. Such high compression ratio, will make the thermal efficiency increase dramatically. An engine with a compression ratio of 15:1 will have an exhaust temperature below 800 degrees Celcius which means a small turbine can be used to convert some of the exhaust into additional electrical energy that can charge a battery. Such low exhaust temperature will eliminate the need of using heat resistant exotic materials to build the turbine. In short, ethanol boosting will only offer a very small increase of compression ratio to an engine that is already using direct injection.
This is great news. However, Panasonic seems to have the most energy dense lithium ion battery on the market (well over 200 Whr per kilogram). Why not make a final push for the transition from nickel metal hydride to lithium ion.