Build Your Own Hybrid-Electric Car?

BlueJay465 writes "On almost every news outlet, everyone is talking about the price of oil, both foreign and domestic. This sent me to do some research on what it would take to keep the investment in my current vehicle, while getting the added benefits of hybrid-electric technology at the lowest price. One company, Sigma Automotive, has already jumped on that bandwagon, and will soon be offering a kit for your car engine that will boost performance and increase fuel-economy by adding all the extra electronics, hardware and capacity (avail. Q3-Q4 2004). My question is, how much would it cost to really 'Do It Yourself' using off-the-shelf parts?"

Comments

Seems legit to me

[YankeeInExile]

I read through their site, and while I am vaguely skeptical of things like the lifespan of the Super Capacitor Battery Pack and I2R losses system wide the basic theory is sound.

It seems like the product right now is targetted at people who want an extra 35 b.h.p. "off the line". And if you do a lot of stop-and-go driving, that could help a lot.

In my gut, I think a fully electrical transmission would provide better systemic efficiency, but that would be nowhere near a bolt-on system. (I base that on: the specific consumption of any I.C. engine is lowest when it is near it's peak output. Any system that is predicated on running the engine at variable speed (i.e. using a traditional mechanical transmission) is going to, by necessity, run the engine most of the time away from it's peak efficiency. I would be willing to hear the argument that the gain of running the engine at peak efficiency would be offset by the losses in the motor-generator pair. (If so, why has it been the standard technology in railway traction for over fifty years?)

Re:Seems legit to me

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>I would be willing to hear the argument that the gain of running the engine at peak efficiency would be offset by the losses in the motor-generator pair. (If so, why has it been the standard technology in railway traction for over fifty years?)

Some data points, that could point either way: Toyota claims to be getting 40% efficiency from the Prius gas engine, which if true is dramatically superior to conventional designs and is a big enough win to make up for a lot of motor-generator-charge-discharge loss.

On the other hand, don't railroads use series hybrids because the size and cost of a transmission that could start a stationary freight train was infeasible?

What confused me about their website was that they kept talking about regenerative braking but didn't describe any interface to the car's brakes (and if they did it would make me nervous).

>I2R losses system wide
At only 48 volts that's something to worry about. There's a reason the Prius uses a nominal 288 volt drive system.

Re:Seems legit to me

[deathazre]

A good electric powertrain would probably roughly match the efficiency of a conventional automatic transmission and drivetrain. However, it would add a good deal of unsprung weight, which would be somewhat detrimental to handling. Alternator construction could be quite simple, as well--no need for an exciter, use a permanent magnet and simply adjust engine RPM to maintain voltage, therefore keeping the engine at roughly peak torque no matter what the load is (instead of having it run at 60hz at all times on a conventional AC generator), rectify to DC to allow for storage and speed control... keep voltages high to minimize I^2R losses, as well as to allow for a smaller storage medium (preferably capacitors) to hold the same amount of energy

Re:Seems legit to me

[AnotherBlackHat]

...why has it been the standard technology in railway traction for over fifty years

Because electric motors have maxium torque at minimum velocity.

I.e. it's much easier to get going from a dead start, a major problem for trains, but not such a big deal for cars.

-- less is better.

Re:Seems legit to me

[YankeeInExile]

On the other hand, don't railroads use series hybrids because the size and cost of a transmission that could start a stationary freight train was infeasible?

Ahhh, I had not considered that. You must be right.

What confused me about their website was that they kept talking about regenerative braking but didn't describe any interface to the car's brakes (and if they did it would make me nervous).

I figured that was what the MAP sensor was for ... during periods of low MAP (High vacuum) you must want to decellerate, so go ahead and kick up the charge current.

At only 48 volts that's something to worry about. There's a reason the Prius uses a nominal 288 volt drive system.

Agreed - - a much higher system voltage would seem better to me.

Re:Seems legit to me

[Waffle Iron]

I would be willing to hear the argument that the gain of running the engine at peak efficiency would be offset by the losses in the motor-generator pair. (If so, why has it been the standard technology in railway traction for over fifty years?)

I could hazard some guesses about why we don't currently see electrical transmissions in cars:

Weight: It seems to me that a motor/generator pair would probably weigh more than a mechanical transmission, which is just a few gears and/or hollow turbines. This isn't an issue on a locomotive, where heavier is better for creating traction (IIRC, some of the biggest steam locomotives weighed as much as a 747).

Power: A lot of people are used to having 300hp on tap. That's almost 1/4 of a megawatt. You'd need to have some serious power control circuits to handle that much juice. A locomotive is powerful, but pulling a train is really more about torque than raw horsepower. Electric drives do have excellent torque capabilities (and it's just about the only technology besides steam pistons with enough torque to start a freight train), but people in cars want neck-snapping acceleration. That would require a lot of copper and power controls.

CVT: Continuously variable mechanical transmissions have already been on the market for a few years. I would imagine that they can keep the engine running at a fairly constant rate. I think that they are somewhat more efficient than standard transmissions, but not by a huge factor. What makes hybrids special is that the engine produces almost constant power, not just speed, because it uses the batteries for power storage when it is generating a surplus. This allows for much more efficient operation than just a CVT. It's interesting that some of the hybrids use a mechanical transmission in addition to the electrical boost. I gather that that's because the mechanical drive was more cost-effective for transmitting that portion of the total power.

Re:Seems legit to me

[Smidge204]

In theory, any tie-in to the brake system will suffice. A simple splice into the brake light wire will tell you if the driver is hitting the brakes or not (though that's probably not a very reliable way to do it!).

The 48 volts could be because, well, the duty of the electric motor is nowhere near what it would be in a true hybrid. So a balance of cost, efficiency, safety and power was likely found at 48 volts.

(Just guessing, though)
=Smidge=

Re:Seems legit to me

[shigelojoe]

Ahhh, I had not considered that. You must be right.

Hey, this is Slashdot! You're not allowed to be civil!

Re:Seems legit to me

[YankeeInExile]

Good points, thanks for mostly agreeing with my gut :)

Although I disagree that it would have to necessarily add to unsprung weight -- think Jaguar inboard disc brakes ... now replace "brakes" with high efficiency PM pancake motors. Use last few decades improvements in materials science to solve problem of broken half-axles.

Of course that leaves unanswered the question, Well, now where do we put the brakes? Bah -- braking is for wusses. I'm in a hurry!

Well, they could easily be integrated with the traction motors - not that I'm suggesting braking by wire. I am sufficiently skeptical of all technology that I would like to see regular hydraulic brakes for the time being. (Yes, I know -- some very smart and adequately paranoid guys over at Saab disagree with me. I'll just crawl back into my grumbly cave with my Underwood #5 and continue writing my manifestos by candlelight! )

Re:Seems legit to me

[Andy Dodd]

Just an FYI - a few automotive manufacturers are planning on releasing vehicles with just such a system from the factory. (i.e. a "super alternator")

They would probably work better than a retrofit hybrid system like the one linked to, since the controls for regenerative braking would be better. (For example, causing the transmission to downshift, increasing engine and generator RPM.)

The suggestion of triggering on MAP is a good one though, although there are probably cases where the driver would want to coast rather than use regenerative braking.

Re:Seems legit to me

[Snorpus]

It's basically engine braking, using the vehicle's momentum to charge the battery thru the alternator.

Overall, while the concept sounds OK, the devil is in the details, and I have my doubts the energy savings would be worth the $$$ and effort.

Re:Seems legit to me

[merlin_jim]

electronic transmissions are by their nature lossy; you have to turn the motive force of the engine into electricity, then shunt that electricity to some heavy duty motors.

What you really want is a continuously variable transmission. Luckily, they have them. It looks like two inside-out yo-yos with a steel belt between them. A hydraulic piston pushes the drive train unit in and out, pushing the steel belt higher or lower inside the pulley, effectively changing the gear ratio through a continuous curve.

Run your IC engine at its peak efficiency (or peak power, selectable during drive time) and to accelerate, you decrease the gear ratio. To cruise, you increase the gear ratio. And with proper bearings, its a lot more efficient than converting to electrical and back again.

Why aren't there any bolt on c.v.t's? I would think the enthusiast people would be all over it...

Re:Seems legit to me

[merlin_jim]

I would be willing to hear the argument that the gain of running the engine at peak efficiency would be offset by the losses in the motor-generator pair. (If so, why has it been the standard technology in railway traction for over fifty years?)

Alternator efficiently is generally around 70%. Electric motor efficiency is about the same. Making for a 50% (okay, 49%) efficient conversion. Maybe they have really good tech to push that up to 60% or 70%, but thats still a lot of wasted energy.

Why would someone want to put up with that? What possible reason to use such a system? Wires are solid state. If you have a large powertrain, like a railcar driving 4, 8, or even 16 wheels, the power distribution axles, with the attendant gear chains to allow the wheels to spin at different speeds when going around curves in the track, can get to be quite complicated and difficult to maintain.

Wires have no moving parts; as long as they're properly sized for the power going through them you don't have to worry about them. They'll never break down.

Re:Seems legit to me

[Bobzibub]

No tranni is the way.... The motor is in the wheel hub.
http://www.e-traction.com/
-b

Re:Seems legit to me

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

The prius has an Atkinson cycle engine, basicly similar to otto that nearly all gasoline engines use, but differant valve timing. It results in the higher efficency, but looses lots of torque, which is then made up for with the electric motor.

Yes, trains are series, but they have no energy storage, but the reason for being series is as you stated, more so cause they don't want to have a multispeed transmission and clutches, plus you can start from zero with a motor, it just makes it way easier and reliable, you could do it with a conventional drive, it would just kinda suck.

Far as this system, well it's a joke. I'm curious how they are going to have any decent control, plus it's so small it won't much matter. To do regen you would have to have a manual transmission and once you push the clutch in say coming to a stop you loose the regen.

There is a lot of control involved with hybrids, and sizing of parts. A universal setup like this just isn't going to work good. It looks like a company hoping on the current trends to make a quick buck. If someone was to do it right they would pick a very common vehicle and develope a proper system for it. I know people who want to convert a vehicle to a hybrid, i'm one of them. But then we have also built them for years and know how to go about it. And one thing is for sure, your not going to do it on the cheap. If it's cheap, it's not going to be a very good design since proper batteries, controllers, drive motors/generators and interfacing hardware is not cheap. 10-20 grand to do one right. And see a real good end result.

Re:Seems legit to me

[joib]

Alternator efficiently is generally around 70%. Electric motor efficiency is about the same. Making for a 50% (okay, 49%) efficient conversion. Maybe they have really good tech to push that up to 60% or 70%, but thats still a lot of wasted energy.


Perhaps for the typical alternator found on a car engine, which is designed for low cost only. Dedicated alternators easily reach 90 % efficiency, with more advanced models at about 95 % efficiency. Same goes for electrical motors too, so total efficiency is in the 80 - 90 % range.


Why would someone want to put up with that? What possible reason to use such a system? Wires are solid state. If you have a large powertrain, like a railcar driving 4, 8, or even 16 wheels, the power distribution axles, with the attendant gear chains to allow the wheels to spin at different speeds when going around curves in the track, can get to be quite complicated and difficult to maintain.


Yes. A mechanical powertrain for a modern locomotive, with lots of traction wheels, independently turning boggies etc. would be hideously complicated, expensive and heavy. Wouldn't surprise me if all this complexity would reduce the efficiency to levels below the one for the electrical drive, especially considering that one of the big benefits of the electrical drive is that the engine can always turn at the optimum rpm.

Also consider the problem of getting the train going. With a mechanical powertrain you'd need some seriously big clutch capable of slipping for extended periods of time without overheating.

Re:Seems legit to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Power: A lot of people are used to having 300hp on tap. That's almost 1/4 of a megawatt. You'd need to have some serious power control circuits to handle that much juice. A locomotive is powerful, but pulling a train is really more about torque than raw horsepower. Electric drives do have excellent torque capabilities (and it's just about the only technology besides steam pistons with enough torque to start a freight train), but people in cars want neck-snapping acceleration. That would require a lot of copper and power controls.

IANAE(ngineer), but I wouldn't assume that it would necessarily have to all go through one controller/line. You could have four motors, one per wheel (AWD), and split the load so that each is only handling 75hp.

Re:Seems legit to me

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought about that too at one point, but it makes the wheel weigh a ton, and that would destroy any car's ability to handle. Also, I'm not sure if I'm converting correctly, but their site says that it weighs 185kg, which comes out to ~400lbs. On a ~3000lbs commuter car, that would add an additional 800lbs (or 1600, for busses and trucks).

Re:Seems legit to me

[syukton]

There's a company called TransRevolution which has produced an Infinitely Variable Transmission (IVT) using gears and not a belt system as is used by most CVTs (Continuously Variable Transmissions) on the market right now. They currently have a prototype functioning in a Dodge Ram and they're working on a second design presently.

Re:Seems legit to me

[SEWilco]

Of course that leaves unanswered the question, Well, now where do we put the brakes?

Use a three-inch-long shaft so the motor is behind the brake?

Re:Seems legit to me

[dasunt]

What confused me about their website was that they kept talking about regenerative braking but didn't describe any interface to the car's brakes (and if they did it would make me nervous).

Seeing how you are utterly confused on how an engine can slow down a car without being hooked up to the brakes, I think its safe to say that you have never learned how to (properly) drive a stick.

Re:Seems legit to me

[budgenator]

The site was Bandwith exceedes when I tried to look, but a way ago I was interested in the robo-wars thing and did some research on coontrolers and motors so I would say.

1. During periods of low intake pressure you would want to increase power into the motor to assist the engine; and as intake pressure increased reduce power. Electric motor always generate reverse EMF (Electro-Motive Force) and tend toward an equilibrium where
   EMFinputed = (reverseEMF + MechanicalOutput)/ motor effiency. When the cars velocity is greater than the motors equilibrium, it automaticaly provides regeneration a four diodes will send the power back into the battery battery.
2. while depending on the above for passive regeneration is helpful, there are times when a more active system would also be useful, for this an interface to the brake system is needed which could be
   1. a pressure sensor on the brake lines which would either work with the ABS or total FUBAR it
   2. a position sensor on the link between the brake peddle and the master cylinder which would totaly ignore the ABS and reqyire an interlock to disable regeneration durring ABS opperation
   
   
   
3. while using 288 V system is alot better for reducing IR losses, the 48 V system means there is a lot more off-the-shelf parts available from MOSSFET's to surplus starter motors from 747's

Re:Seems legit to me

[flyneye]

seems to me trashing the modern engine, computer garbage and electric crap in favor of at least a 350 chevy would be the lowest cost way to improve performance and reduce maintainence costs.too bad it wont fit in most FWD tinkertoy cars moron manufacturers make today.
just call me grumpy.

Re:Seems legit to me

[flaming-opus]

Everyone seems to be ignoring the obvious answer:cost.

A passanger car costs 15-50 thousand dollars. Most of that is things like the body, interior, air-bags, brakes, suspension, marketing costs, and (God forbid) profit margin. The engine and trnasmission can only cost a few thousand dollars. That and the cars generally only last twelve years or fewer, and might average 150,000 miles. Railroad engines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, last for decades, and travel millions of miles before they are discarded. Cars are categorized as "Durable goods", but are really half-way between that and "disposable goods". A railway engine is definately a major "capital investment".

Hybrid engines need more developing

[jamoan]

My question is, how much more effective will it be? Currently honda produces a hybrid civic, but for the higher price and dismal improvments in MPG its totally not worth it currently.

Re:Hybrid engines need more developing

[garwain]

I would disagree on that. I have driven a regular civic for a while and could average around 5.5-6L/100KM and just bought a civic hybrid last week, which was slightly used (less than 20000KM) I negotiated the price down to be not that much above the regular civic. I am really impressed with the hybrid technology and the other gas saving features like the econ stop. I spend a decent amount of my time driving in city conditions, with stop lights that don't seem to be syncronized in any way, so I'm constantly idling at them waiting for them to change. With my hybrid, the gas engine completely cuts out when you are at a stop.

Just a guess

[erick99]

I am guestimating about $2,500 for all the parts.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Just a guess

[YankeeInExile]

Not bad ... in their own site they suggest MSRP should be +/- 2800.

Q. How much does the Electrocharger(TM) cost?

A. Estimated retail is $2800.00 USD.

Re:Just a guess

[Osrin]

So at 2.09 a gallon (locally here in WA), and a guesstimate of 25 miles per gallon you will have made your money back in under 45k miles.

Re:Just a guess

[afidel]

Still way too expensive for the benifits (in terms of dollars and environmental impact). A Honda Civix LX 4-door with 4 speed automatic transmission only costs ~$16,700 vs ~$21,000 for a Civic Hybrid CVT. The difference in fuel economy? Less than 20% (38 vs 47 highway). The cost of all of those electronics, batteries, and other components both in terms of energy input as well as disposal hazards probably is not a huge net win for the environment. I would like to see a total environmental impact study done by a non-biased actuary to see how much impact hybrid technology really can provide. Btw the difference between the retail for this package and the difference in prices on the Civics is basically the labor for installation.

Re:Just a guess

[YankeeInExile]

So at 2.09 a gallon (locally here in WA), and a guesstimate of 25 miles per gallon you will have made your money back in under 45k miles.

I don't follow your math. For that to work out, you'd have to go from 25 mpg "before" to 98 mpg after to have a payback in 45000 miles (pretty unlikely!), or go from 14 mpg "before" to 25 mpg for the same effect ( a change in s.f.c of about 40% which would still be pretty amazing )

Re:Just a guess

[Anonymous Coward]

c'mon now! just because you can run a celeron 300 at 525 does not jack in terms of putting together a car! sheesh!

just remember: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

Re:Just a guess

[fakeplasticusername]

I wouldn't care if it took 100K miles to regain my investment.

This is a website for geeks. I personally would rather drive at 40mpg and pay 3000 to the engineers and company that designed a hybrid engine than drive at 35mpg and pay 1000 to the billionaire aristocrat oil tycoons.

Wouldn't you?

BUILD?

[icekillis]

I understand the hybrid part but missed on the "build your own" part. It's not like you can just plug it into a civic.

Re:BUILD?

[DaChesserCat]

Remove the main pulley on the engine, and replace it with a special toothed one for this rig. Remove the alternator. Hell, remove the starter while you're at it. Put the special bracket on the engine. Mount the Integrated Starter Generator (the term has been around long before this product was announced) on the bracket. Use the toothed belt to connect the ISG to the main pulley. Mount the electronics box and connect it to the whole thing. Congratulations: you now have what's known as a light hybrid vehicle. The ISG can provide regenerative braking and off-the-line torque. Technically, you can kill the engine while you're sitting at the light, and the ISG has enough horsepower to spin the engine to operating speed (roll-starting it, essentially) and get you started off the line.

Ford has been playing with a prototype system similar to this. They got about 15% improvement in fuel economy. Considering the increased costs involved, they decided it wasn't worth it. Not for a measly 3-4 MPG on an Escape. For an Excursion, you're talking 1-2 more MPG.

Don't get me wrong; this helps. Just not as much as you might hope. It's a good step in the right direction, in an attempt to help reduce the fuel consumption of existing vehicles. And, as they mention, since there are NO internal modifications to the engine, it's a bolt-on accessory which your typical shade-tree mechanic could probably install on a Saturday.

Re:BUILD?

[Temkin]

For an Excursion, you're talking 1-2 more MPG.

Don't count on that. Much of the fuel costs on a big vehicle like an Excursion are spent in starting it from a dead stop. I own a diesel Excursion, and it can get 22 mpg (usually more like 18.5) on the highway, but get into stop and go, and it plummets to 13.5. The gas ones are much worse.

Ford has a prototype transmission for the "SuperDuty" chassis (F-[250,350,450,550], and Excursion) that uses pressurized nitrogen to effect regenerative braking, and use the captured energy to get the rig rolling again. Apparently it makes quite a difference, but it's not in production. Personally, I'd like to see a full diesel electric traction system.

Re:BUILD?

[Caseyscrib]

You could also not slam on the gas every time you want to accelerate. Often, if I am approaching a stale green light with cars waiting to go I will just let off the gas and coast to the light way before I reach it. When approaching a red light that I know will soon turn green, I try to time it just right by braking early so that I will coast right through a green light by the time I reach it.

According to Autotrader.com, I am supposed to get around 25 MPG with my 4-cyl 1994 Honda Accord, however I generally get about 29 to 31. This means I'm spending 20% less at the pump each month. If you spend roughly $100 a month on gas, this is a good way to save $20 ($140 a year!).

Re:BUILD?

[Doppler00]

Don't count on that. Much of the fuel costs on a big vehicle like an Excursion are spent in starting it from a dead stop.

Right, isn't that where something like this retrofit system would help? It seems like it is designed to assist acceleration from cold stops. Maybe the fuel innefficiency is more relating to idling for long periods of time in city driving.

Re:BUILD?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess doing rolling stops at stop signs would work well too, though it would make Driver's Ed teachers cringe.

Re:BUILD?

[John Courtland]

The inefficiency really stems from accelerating a 6,000lb vehicle up to 25mph, stopping, accelerating, stopping, etc. At idle, most modern engines are not abysmally inefficient but continuously accelerating a heavy vehicle with a large engine is where you lose most of your mileage to. But you're right, this thing should help dead stop acceleration fuel consumption, so long as it isn't snake oil.

more conglomeration

[crtfdgk]

as soon as bush sees this he's gonna try to make a middle eastern country an "electricity conglomerate". soon electric prices will be right up there with the gas prices.

Regular: Arm
Premium: Leg
Electricty: First Born

I'm guessing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much.

News outlets

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

On almost every news outlet, everyone is talking about the price of oil, both foreign and domestic.

Do they mention that the US setting the middle-east ablaze causes this? I can understand the US economy going into recession as a result of oil price hikes due to *our* war, but it's causing nice recession episodes in many other countries as well. I bet those countries, supposedly our allies, must love the heck out of us too.

Oh well, if this is what it takes to finally entice the country to switch to something more ecological than SUVs and full-size 8-cylinder sedans, then I guess we'll have gotten a little something good out of all this mess...

Re:News outlets

[The Kow]

How is this 'interesting' when its a complete tangent towards a plenty-publicized political agenda? I agree with it in its entirety, but that just makes it a troll I agree with.

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this 'interesting' when its a complete tangent towards a plenty-publicized political agenda?

Perhaps because the issue of the price of oil and US wars abroad can't really be separated?

Perhaps because his point is that its sad that the US has to go to war to finally make Americans consider wasting the planet's resources less?

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to mod this offtopic, but then I saw it was anti-US, so now it's "interesting"

Re:News outlets

[The Kow]

Perhaps you can come up with something that somehow relates to a hybrid automobile without going on with some heavy-handed diatribe that has, as I said, already seen plenty of publicity in other mediums? That is what we call 'trolling', whether we agree or not on the point in question (which, obviously, we do)

Re:News outlets

[defishguy]

Yes, and my computer tends to run faster when I'm wearing a blue shirt too. Our "war" didn't do one thing either for or against our allies economies... they were tanking right along with ours because of a certain .com bubble a few years back. Oh and the oil prices? Speculators in the American market bid up the oil when it looked as though the S. Arabian monarchy was in political trouble. It was AMERICAN investors that caused our oil spike by creating an artificial demand for crude, by speculating on further price increases (which didn't happen). There isn't and hasn't been a decrease in world oil supplies, just an increase in those wishing to purchase some of it. If you want to have a political agenda please do so, but do not disguise your feelings about the war in Iraq by complaining about oil prices. They aren't connected.

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize hybrid cars getting sexier is a direct result of outrageous oil prices, which are a direct result of the US messing with oil-producing countries, right?

That's why it's on topic.

Re:News outlets

[The Kow]

And the drive for oil is a direct result of the human urge to consume. This urge is manifested by my desire to eat ice cream. Would ice cream therefore be 'on topic' too?

Ice Cream.. electric cars.. Chewbacca lives on Endor!

Re:News outlets

[warpSpeed]

Do they mention that the US setting the middle-east ablaze causes this? I can understand the US economy going into recession as a result of oil price hikes due to *our* war, but it's causing nice recession episodes in many other countries as well. I bet those countries, supposedly our allies, must love the heck out of us too.

How about this, the US economy requires less $ per $ of GDP. We are actually using less energy now (relativly speaking) then we were after the last gulf war.

One of the real reasons is that China and India are now coming into thier industrial age and are starting to consume larger quantities of oil to power there industries.

Also we also have a lack of investment in oil drilling, which is resulting in the current shortage. Seems the oil companies want a better garuntee on their investments. Problem is that is take many years to realize the investments they make now.

And one final reason to consider is the instability of the oil producing countries, Iraq, Venezula. Also Saudi Arabia, our long time buffer against oil shocks, is running into its limits for production.

Prices will go up, and investments in energy resources are more probable to yield better returns now. Welcome to the free market.

As for the gas guzzling non-ecological cars/trucks/vans the we drive, we would not drive them if we could not afford to put gas in them...Hint hint. Approach the problem from that perspective, and you will see results. As always, money talks.

Re:News outlets

[nurb432]

Strange how oil prices were artificially high before the war. But a nice try to bash the current
administration in stealth mode.

And its not you to judge how many cylinders I have in my car as being bad or good..

Re:News outlets

[MoralHazard]

Actually, the economic consensus (I know, I know, to the extent that their IS an economic consensus) is that the recent oil price spikes are NOT sending the economy reeling, and probably won't anytime soon. In past oil-induced recessions, the higher price of energy was coupled closely with high inflation rates. That's not happening right now, due to other factors in the economy:
- the US economy and GDP isn't nearly as dependent on oil as it was in the 1970s. MPG is up, more people use mass transit, and less of the population is employed in oil-needy industries (manufacturing) and more in oil-indifferent industries (office jobs, tech work).
- interest rates are stable and cool.
- the economy is otherwise healthy and stable.

On top of that, the oil price issues right now aren't entirely a result of US policies overseas. The oil market is highly sensitive to the political status of the Mideast generally, and to the House of Saud in particular. The troubles in Saudi Arabia are somewhat masked in the press by the war in Iraq and domestic terrorism, but things are far from happy in that country.

Al-Qaeda isn't just the sworn enemy of the US--they have serious problems with the Saudis, too. One of their stated goals is the overthrow of the current regime. So assuming that we weren't in Iraq, I would imagine that more Islamic fundamentalist terrorist resources would be hitting the US and the Saudis directly.

So maybe all the world's problems aren't caused by the Iraq war and GW Bush. I'll admit, the guy isn't doing a particularly good job of handling things, but he did get handed a live grenade when he took office.

Re:News outlets

[WarmBoota]

I was paying $1.40 max before the war. Now it's down to $1.83 after a high of $2.09. Somehow, I think that Bush and his oil buddies made a better-than-average profit on oil during this time. I'm too lazy at the current moment to research this, but I doubt that U.S. Oil companies patriotically kept their prices at pre-war levels. THIS IS NOT STEALTH MODE

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit, the guy isn't doing a particularly good job of handling things, but he did get handed a live grenade when he took office.

Just a tip in case anybody else finds themselves in this situation. When someone hands you a live grenade, you don't have to pull the pin.

Re:News outlets

[flacco]

As for the gas guzzling non-ecological cars/trucks/vans the we drive, we would not drive them if we could not afford to put gas in them...Hint hint.

i wouldn't drive one if i didn't need it to get up my fucken driveway in the winter.

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

What oil shortage? Have you heard President Bush ordered a buildup of the US oil reserve level, which is the real reason oil is up from $22/gal. to $40/gal.? American consumers are competing with the American government for oil. Simple supply/demand curve.

On the other hand, you're right, it has nothing to do with the war.

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

Ice Cream.. electric cars.. Chewbacca lives on Endor!

So you admit you aren't making sense.

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

1. US is expected to consume an average of average 20.43 million barrels per day this year.
2. A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons (159 liters) will yield between 19 - 20 gallons (75 liters) of gasoline.
3. Biodiesel yield = oil yield x 0.8 approx. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
4. Therefore the US would need to produce approximately 510 million gallons of biological oil to supply it's current demand. (Assuming all oil is used for cars. Which I know it's not)
5. Rice will produce almost twice as much oil per acre as soy beans (88 gallons to 48 gallons)
6. Rapeseed will produce 127 gallons of oil per acre.
7. The Oil Palm produces 635 gallons of oil per acre.
8. The US would need to havest 6283 square miles of rapeseed per day to supply it's current demands.
9. That translates to 2.3 million square miles of rapeseed per year.
10. That's the equivalent of planting and clear cutting Texas 10 times a year.

Re:News outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a tip in case anybody else finds themselves in this situation. When someone hands you a live grenade, you don't have to pull the pin.

Cute phrasing, but the situation was that the Clinton recession was under way, terrorists already had thrown live grenades in the room, and Saddam was playing games with the U.N. while shooting at our pilots. Abbu Abbas was also enjoying Iraq.

Re:News outlets

[warpSpeed]

What oil shortage? Have you heard President Bush ordered a buildup of the US oil reserve level, which is the real reason oil is up from $22/gal. to $40/gal.?

I agree, there is no oil shortage, as long as there is spare capacity. However the supply and demand curve is also a slave to the markets, which are a little jittery due to the reasons I posted earlier.

As for Bush's actions, I actually like that we are socking away oil in our reserves, it has two benifits: first it raises the cost of energy, which causes the economy to adjust slowly to higer prices rather then a sudden shock. And secondy, we are slightly better off if it really hits the fan in the middle east. At least we have a few months of energy to run on, rather then suddenly everything coming to a halt. That will give countries that want to mess with us something to think about, for a little while anyway.

Re:News outlets

[potat0man]

i wouldn't drive one if i didn't need it to get up my fucken driveway in the winter.

You wouldn't need to get up your driveway in the winter if you moved because you couldn't afford the only car that can drive up it. And the invisible hand keeps pushing...

Re:News outlets

[flacco]

You wouldn't need to get up your driveway in the winter if you moved because you couldn't afford the only car that can drive up it.

yes, but the person who moved into it after i left would need to get up the driveway, so evicting me wouldn't help.

Seems like -

[thewldisntenuff]

A performance part to me.....Hell, the website is devoted to such parts

$2800 MSRP (according to the FAQ) seems like a hell of a lot to me, considering the fact that it is not a true hybrid conversion, but rather, a bolt-on part.

But really, how many people will spend that much for what seems to be a little gain in performance? Maybe the tax break helps?

-thewldisntenuff

Re:Seems like -

[bconway]

And as with any performance part that adds a significant amount of power, you can kiss drivetrain warranty coverage goodbye. I'd rather have the ability to make a warranty claim on my engine or transmission, should one become necesssary, than get an extra 10 MPG.

Re:Seems like -

[windex]

If you can get 30HP out of it, $80-90/hp isin't too bad. :)

Re:Seems like -

[mrchaotica]

It seems to me that this is really a competitor to supercharging -- since it provides 30HP no matter what you hook it to, it seems good for small engines (i.e. Civics and such). Contrast this with superchargers/turbochargers, which increase power in proportion to the engine size (i.e. 30HP on a 100HP engine, but 100HP on a 300HP engine).

Devil in the system

[Billy the Mountain]

It may not be too prevalent in electric motors, but there's a demon that lives in power transmissions, especially where shafts are involved. It's called tortional vibration. It's a close relative to harmonic vibration of the type that tears poorly designed bridges down in heavy winds. Automotive companies are able to tweak a design until all or most of the tortional vibration is ironed out, then they mass produce. Building a one-off unit, you'll have to resolve these issues, as they may crop up, on your own.

BTM

Re:Devil in the system

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

How do you see torsional vibrations coming into a system like this one? I admit my ignorance of mechanical engineering but at first glance it looks like this takes a driveshaft that's known to work and adds a constant torque to it.

Re:Devil in the system

[deacon]

The vibrations come from using a toothed rubber belt (gimler belt, which is springy or elastic) to join two inertias or masses (the crankshaft and the new alternator/generator thingy.

Since the engine output is pulsed (a pulse happens with every power stroke) there is a ready supply of driving or excitation vibration which is just waiting to find the resonant frequency of the whole system.

And since the pulse frequency varies with the engine speed, you have a full range of driving frequencies to work with.

If the resonant frequency of the engine/gimler-belt/alternator system is outside the driving frequencies caused by the engine, everything is fine.

If not, the forces in the belt can become "Large"

:)

Re:Devil in the system

[ishmaelflood]

But that is no worse than a belt driven supercharger, or a belt driven hydraulic power pack, both of which can be installed with no particular drama, and have about the same power rating.

BTW I used to tune the TV dampers on cars.

Re:Devil in the system

[deacon]

That sounds right, and I hadn't considered the examples you give.

So someone should mod you up and me down.

;)

Re:Devil in the system

[aminorex]

What's will all this reasonableness and decency today? Didn't *any* of you people go to MIT?

Re:Devil in the system

[Anonymous Coward]

This shouldn't be a problem here, that I can tell. The system attaches to the crank through a rubber belt, and the harmonic balancer which already address torsional vibration issues. This part is like all of the other accessories with rotating shafts attached to the engine(as another poster pointed out).

Re:Devil in the system

[fucksl4shd0t]

What's will all this reasonableness and decency today? Didn't *any* of you people go to MIT?

Shut up, asshole. We don't need this bullshit around here. If you'd read the fucking post, you'd have seen that the guy doesn't really want to start a fight, and that he'd prefer to just exchange information.

If you've got a problem with it, you can kiss my happy white ass, shitmonger. Cumbubble.

Re:Devil in the system

[sopuli]

A friend of mine used to have an experimental Saab that ran on vegetable oil. When you drove behind him, it smelled like a barbeque.

Re:Devil in the system

[aminorex]

Ladies and gentlemen! I smell a brass rat;)

Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[screwedcork]

Grease Car offers conversion kits to run your diesel car off of vegetable oil for a mere $800. It may seem like a half-baked idea, but it's really not; also, most restaurants will give you their used oil for free, and after filtering you have a virtually unlimited fuel supply. Saves you money, saves the environment, and helps eliminate our oil dependancy.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

right.. and then there will be a high demand for vegetable oil and prices for vegetable oil will skyrocket..

your point?

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[screwedcork]

For the moment, it's free; plus, wouldn't you rather be filling your tank with a renewable fuel that can be produced here in the US??

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[achilstone]

Of course you can do this already in the UK, just don't forget to pay your fuel duty/tax to use it.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[tompaulco]

I think I will get confused when they start rating your fuel economy in miles per acre.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Concerned Onlooker]

Not that our national goal is actually to eliminate our dependancy on oil, but here is another site about turning your car into a bio-diesel burning rig. This one has the backing of Darryl Hannah, no less.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[screwedcork]

The GreaseCar system isn't biodiesel, its just straight vegetable oil - even easier. I love it in my car :-)

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Stevyn]

It's free and unlimited, but it's going to take a lot to motivate people to start messing around with smelly cooking oil in their garage. It also limits you to trips near your home. Last time I was on Route 80, I didn't see the sign that said "Last Vegetable Oil 20 Miles." It's still a cool idea though. This country needs to put more effort in energy alternatives that can actually be useful. A solar car will never cut it.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[screwedcork]

It leaves the main tank and the system intact, just adds another 15 gallon tank for veggie oil. You can switch between the two while you're in the car (even though belching out diesel fumes makes me feel like an ass)

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

So why doesn't anyone pair a diesel engine with a hybrid electric system? Diesel engines get better milage per gallon and I would think that a hybrid system would make that even better.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Smidge204]

It's only "free and unlimited" because relatively few people do it.

If everyone hit up the restaurants for used oil, then I doubt it would remain free for long and it certaintly would not be unlimited!
=Smidge=

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

There are companies that buy used cooking oil.
These companies clean up the used oil and resell it to cosmetic companies among other.
I really doubt that the used oil is free.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[Madd_Hatter]

I highly recommend greasecar.com. I got and installed the kit after reading a /. article about them two years ago. I've got thousands of miles on my greasecar and it still runs great.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[aminorex]

It's free in the sense that burning it doesn't put any net carbon into the air. It's unlimited in the sense that using it as fuel for a few generations doesn't extinct all life on the planet.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[HermanAB]

Diesels are already cheap enough - diminishing returns. Most diesels are better than equivalent sized petrol/electric hybrids. That is one reason why petrol/electric hybrids are not popular - just buy a diesel. Hybrid == needless application of complex technology.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[fucksl4shd0t]

Last time I drove cross-country (the end of last month), I couldn't help but notice all the restaurants along the way. ;) Since I had to stop about as often as anybody ever needs to stop (thanks to my really old, gas-guzzling pickup heavily loaded and towing a trailer), approximately every 50-75 miles, for *gas*, I had plenty of opportunity to observe that there was always a fast food joint on/near the gas station. I also drove through SW Wyoming, an area somewhat notorious for a lack of people and gas stations, and I drove through the Continental Divide Basin and almost ran out of gas. Jesus, what a place to run out of gas! No opportunity to even MacGyver your way to survival without crossing the mountains, all the water there is stale and really really nasty! Not even a cactus to be seen, I don't think. I didn't see any, anyway.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[grolschie]

But I already have a car that smells of fast-food.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[john_smith_45678]

Good point - it's not like we can create more of it, like regular oil. Oh wait...

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[john_smith_45678]

Wow, Darryl Hannah is an EXPERT in this field???

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[john_smith_45678]

How much?

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[ahfoo]

Not only is second-hand fat a major market that is already well controlled by major publicly held corporations like Laidlaw and WMI among others, but the big companies that specialize in rendering services spoil their customers by allowing them to mix various fats together in giant vats along with high quantities of solids that require extensive handling to separate out.
Indeed, these steel vats themseves are already the foundation of a huge industry. Consolidated Fabricators Inc is one example of a major corporation with a division specializing in containers for the collection of fats. These containers are tightly regulated by various jurisdictions and their proper use is encoded in regulations that govern the licenses of businesses that use them. Violating those regulations could easily cost a restaurant their license.
So, in the US anyway, it's never going to be as simple as just going down to Mickie D's and filling up the tank.
That isn't to say that biodiesel is a bad idea or that it can't be done. But the idea of using restaurant grease tanks as a replacement for gas stations isn't as simple as it sounds. A more realistic alternative is to allow vegetable oil producers to market a non-edible product for vehicle use. The cost of oil in the grocery store is partly the product of processing it under conditions that guarantee its safety for human ingestion which is unnecessary for its use as a diesel fuel substitute. And of course re-processed food service oils could be a part of this mixure. Its just that getting the oil directly from a fast food joint isn't how it will work at any sort of scale.

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[achilstone]

Tax around 30p per liter, I think it's classed as biodiesel hence is discounted from the usual rate of over 50p pl duty. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,878122,0 0.html http://www.channel4.com/4car/buying-guide/faq/biof uels/biofuels-4.html

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[FusionDragon2099]

Tweak the engines to run on body fat. The United States has a near-unlimited supply, doesn't it?

Re:Avoid oil (almost) entirely

[myov]

IIRC (I haven't read the link), these systems actually require 2 tanks - one with vegetable oil, one with regular diesel. In colder climates especially, the car won't start from vegetable oil, and you need to switch it over after the car has been started from diesel. It might be an issue if you have a small trunk.

I wonder if a blend of vegetable oil and diesel would work as biodiesel is basically just that, and my tdi ran just fine on it (actually, it ran even better than on regular diesel - it felt very close to gas)

Re:Linux: This Man's Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the relevance. Were you installing Linux on your Hybrid-electric car?

PS if you want to jump on the Linux bandwagon (Why? so you can say how cool you are that you don't use Windows? Who cares?) perhaps you should try Linux for Lusers, i.e., Lindows or whatever they're calling it these days.

Re:Build Your Own Rectum Fister

[nbert]

extemely insightful - I used to have doubts about the mod system, but you just proved (to me) that it perfectly makes sense after all.

Transmission woes.

[Pyro226]

The transmission would be one of the hardest things to deal with. You want the gasoline engine to be at a peak efficiency RPM as much as possible. The best way to do this in a hybrid car is to have the electric motor generate electricity when spinning the engine at an efficient RPM would provide too much acceleration, and use electricity when an efficient engine RPM isn't enough acceleration.

The toyata prius has a very special system that deals with this, as this page shows. Especially with hybrid SUV's coming out soon, building your own hybrid seems like it would be way too much work.

Also keep in mind, that right now making a hybrid car (for a major automanufacturer) costs several thousand dollars more than making an equivalent conventional car mostly because they don't have enough mass production on the hybrid parts, and they are making thousands and thousands of cars. Buying the parts individually, the price would be outragous.

Re:Transmission woes.

[celeritas_2]

How easy/possible would it be to use a hydraulic system [motor > hydraulic pump > hoses > hydraulic motors at wheels] as a transmission for your car. If I understnad it correctly, you could have (nearly) any gear ratio you wanted while controlling power to each wheel. Just a thought.

Re:Transmission woes.

[deacon]

This is done on construction equipment, where you need a lot of force at low speeds, such as for front end loaders.

The efficiency is very, very poor, due to losses in pumping the oil around.

On a front end loader, efficiency is not really a major customer need, though.

Re:Transmission woes.

[YankeeInExile]

How easy/possible would it be to use a hydraulic system [motor > hydraulic pump > hoses > hydraulic motors at wheels] as a transmission for your car.

Weight and cost. You think the electric transmissions are heavy and expensive, go check out hydraulic motors.

Re:Transmission woes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do americans need SUVs?

Re:Transmission woes.

[SEWilco]

Why do americans need SUVs?

Why do europeans need Land Rovers and Shoguns?

Other types of kits?

[The Kow]

Having looked recently at the state of California's DMV website that there are a number of ILEV (compressed natural gas, electricity, etc.) equivalents of current vehicles (Dodge Caravan, etc.). Are these just normal cars, made to fit ILEV standards by use of kits as well? If you're in California this may interest you, since ILEV vehicles (assuming they pass SULEV standards, which most ILEV *and* hybrid cars do) can drive in the HOV lanes w/o meeting HOV passenger standards.

Unfortunately, though I've heard some debate on this regarding current events, the state of California does not allow hybrid cars in the HOV lanes w/o a second passenger. This seems funny, since my Toyota Prius gets ~50 MPG, meaning its consuming less than half that - and often closer to a third - of most large SUVs. One person using gas in a 50 mpg vehicle still means less consumption than 2 using a 15-20, and the whole point of the HOV lane was to promote conservation. :/

Re:Other types of kits?

[tompaulco]

>the whole point of the HOV lane was to promote conservation.
Close. It was to promote conversation.

Re:Other types of kits?

[CheeseTroll]

I don't mean to detract from your point about mileage, since it's a good one, but HOV lanes are also designed to reduce congestion on the roadway. A Prius may weigh a fraction of an Escalade, but its footprint is somewhat more comparable, especially when you factor in the space between the cars.

Re:Other types of kits?

[Desert Raven]

and the whole point of the HOV lane was to promote conservation.

Actually, no, that's not the point of the HOV lane. The point of the HOV lane is to reduce traffic congestion by providing an incentive to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Lower pollution is a significant bonus, which they felt was valuable enough to grant exceptions for alt-fuel vehicles

Re:Other types of kits?

[The Kow]

Disregard then. I'd still like to know if anyone knows whether or not they've changed the laws to allow SULEV/non-ILEV vehicles onto the HOV lanes in California, though.

Re:Other types of kits?

[ryturner]

I think HOV was originally designed to reduce traffic congestion, not promote conservation. Not that it doesn't promote conservation, it just wasn't the reason for it.

Re:Other types of kits?

[evilviper]

and the whole point of the HOV lane was to promote conservation. :/

Okay, but where do you think the line should be drawn?

First of all, I doubt you are getting 50MPG in the real world, and even if you are, I'm getting 40+MPG with my normal 4-cyl small car. Should everyone with a small car be allowed to drive in the HOV lanes? Takes away the whole point, doesn't it?

Personally, I happen to dislike the idea of HOV lanes in the first place.

Re:Other types of kits?

[The Kow]

Actually, driving home today I got 55 mpg. The other point here was that hybrid vehicles are also SULEV, which your small car may not be. In fact, I've read in two places now that the Prius actually meets all of the specifications listed for ILEV standards (which I find surprising, and am not putting much faith in at this point), but there is a specific caveat that the CA DMV is enforcing that hybrid vehicles *CANNOT* apply for an ILEV sticker.

Supposedly there is legislation in the works to rescind that, so my concern would seem to have at least some veracity, but given our governator here I'm not terribly hopeful for any sort of progress on the green front anytime soon.

Re:Other types of kits?

[julesh]

This seems funny, since my Toyota Prius gets ~50 MPG

My Citroen XM got 45, before I scrapped it. That's on diesel, not hybrid. A work colleague drives a Range Rover and gets better than 25.

Just because some people drive ridiculously uneconomical vehicles doesn't mean driving something that is slightly better than you could have got traditionally makes you saviour of the Earth. A true electric vehicle probably still consumes less than half the amount of fossil fuel you're using.

Re:Other types of kits?

[The Kow]

A true electric vehicle would presumably consume *no* fossil fuel, but otherwise you did an excellent job of missing the point.

The fundamental concept was conservation. Your car got 45 on *diesel*. Stop and think about that. Your colleague's Range Rover gets 25.. so what?

And you're right, my car does not make me savior of the Earth. The holes in my hands and my ability to walk on water does. Now, please, pass the fish, I've got mouthes to feed.

Don't try this on your leased car.

[huchida]

I'm not sure, but something tells me this will void the warranty.

Re:Don't try this on your leased car.

[Stevyn]

I'd say this would be equally stupid.

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=snowtow.w mv

ive got a hybrid

[the_bellman]

i get about 5 litres for a hundred kms, which is good, but driving in it is offputting cause it makes virtually no noise. the first few times were too wierd, and when you stop at lights it turns off completely as if you'd stalled (but hadn't).

Re:ive got a hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

reminds me of a computer(apricot?) form many years ago that was well designed but didnt sell cause it didnt make a noise and everyone knows that computers are meant to make noise (unless they are G4 cubes)

Re:ive got a hybrid

[isny]

I would be concerned about the long term effects of this: does all the starting and stopping of the engine cause additional wear and tear? Do you have to change the oil more often?

$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

Dixie College in St. George, Utah offers a class where you provide your own pickup truck, and make the truck completely electric.

You use a pickup truck because the allows you to fill the bed with batteries (1 layer deep) and then build a nice looking cover for it and still use the bed of the truck.

It is all electric, not hybrid.

The cost is $8,000, not including the vehicle.

What I really want to know is if hybrids built using Toyota's hybrid engine, which is a FULL hybrid (meaning it can operate on electricity only, using no gas), can be "filled" with electricity?

For instance, if fully charged it can go 50 miles on electricity only, can I plug it in every night and go 50 miles a day and never use gas?

Then, maybe you could build a small trailer like they pull behind Goldwing motorcycles and extend your range...

Re:$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

great dipshit
where does the power come from?
got a non-polluting fuck shit dipshit enema fucking

fucking to hell with this post.

you're not even worth replying to, fucking electricity powered cars, sheesh.

dipshit.

Re:$8,000

[madbrain]

The Toyota Prius and other hybrids on the market don't have a charger outlet, so, no, they cannot be "filled" with electricity.

While the Prius can go on electric only, the decision of which engine to use is made electronically by the onboard computer depending on battery state but also other load such as speedm, A/C, heating.

The electric engine isn't big enough to go by itself at more than about 25 miles per hour, with A/C and heater off, for a few minutes. Basically it will work that way in parking lots most of the time, or in the city if you are a really slow driver (just observing all the 25 MPH speed limits will do it !).

a Prius driver

Re:$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested, someone please answer.

Re:$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the slight tendency for electric chargers to start garages on fire on rare occasions I think Toyota has probably decided that a charger is bad idea at this time. http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/mota_gem.html

Re:$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called an outlet. Those of use who live somewhere other than an outhouse (judging from your clearly superior intellect and vocabulary) have them in every room.

It's great, you can use them for things like blenders, televisions (a box with moving pictures in it), and even to charge things.

Re:$8,000

[belg4mit]

You wouldn't want to. Deep discharge dramatically
decreases the lifetime of rechargeable batteries,
and those used in hybrids are not cheap. For that
matter, neither is a bank of lead-acid.

Re:$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

You said yourself that it requires filling a pickup truck bed with dozens of car batteries. Do you really think a Prius' tiny (in comparison) battery is going to get you past the next block?

aQazaQa

Re:$8,000

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I made the comment about a small trailer that could hold more batteries. Many people only drive 10 or 15 miles a day, every day.

For them, they could go months without using a drop of gas.

Another poster mentioned the Prius can only go for a few minutes under it's own power. That being the case, a small trailer storing additional power could make a short commute gas free.

Re:$8,000

[BiggerIsBetter]

Yeh, about those trailers...
http://www.acpropulsion.com/Products/Range_extendi ng_trailers.htm

Re:$8,000

[garignak]

You use a pickup truck because the allows you to fill the bed with batteries (1 layer deep) and then build a nice looking cover for it and still use the bed of the truck. It is all electric, not hybrid. The cost is $8,000, not including the vehicle.

Why would you want to? For $1k to $2k more, you can buy a use Insight and have a range somewhere around 400 to 500 miles, and be able to refill anywhere. I might be willing to give up the carry capacity of my truck bed, but I'm not willing to give up the range, I can go 380 miles or so on a tank of gas. So, my next car will probably be a hybrid.

How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[Tehrasha]

Local boy here tried that route. Was making all of his own bio-deisel by recycling/converting waste deep-frier oil from the local resturaunt chains. Made the newspaper, was praised up and down for being thinking outside the box, was really cool....

Now the state govt. has stepped in and want him to pay state fuel tax on the fuel what he makes and uses himself....

If he were making it and selling it to others, I could see their point...but jeez!

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[Anonymous Coward]

My uncle in the hill country was also recycling/converting biomass, but he was mainly using a fungal digestion, evaporation and condensation process.

For some reason, the government really came down hard on his ass.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[Zackbass]

And how is this different from using home heating oil in your car to avoid taxes? The tax isn't about selling gas, it's about charging people for the services provided by the government.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[silentbozo]

Which state is this? In some places, you can actually get a tax credit on using alternative fuels...

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[silentbozo]

The tax isn't about selling gas, it's about charging people for the services provided by the government.

Isn't that the same argument the established telecos are using to "encourage" state governments to tax VOIP?

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[/dev/trash]

And why shouldn't he? Those fuel taxes build roads, ya know.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[transient]

You aren't entitled to drive on public roads if you don't pay fuel taxes. Where I live, state and federal taxes on gasoline amount to 36.4 cents per gallon -- hardly a ripoff. (Find your state here.) If they were making him pay sales tax, that would be insane, but "fuel tax" is a misnomer. It's really road tax.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[garroo]

That's just wrong. People paying tax on something people normally PAY to have taken away?

Egads! What's next, charge you a tax on power generated by your wind/solar/hydro home system?

Sheesh. That's so evil, it feels Canadian.

Here's the place to find out how to do it for your own vehicle.

http://www.greasel.com/

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[duffahtolla]

So what happens when you're driving an all electric vehicle?

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[hashwolf]

By any chance... is the state Texas?

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[Tehrasha]

My guess? You will have a seperate 'meter' in you garage, and you will pay an extra tax on the electricity your car consumes.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[Tehrasha]

No, suprisingly it is the alternative fuel (ethanol) producing state of Iowa.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[Joe Tie.]

Out of curiosity, did this intervention by the state government make the papers as well? I'm guessing so by the fact that you know about it, but this being slashdot I don't think it's a totally safe assumption that you might not personally know him. I ask because I'm always a little annoyed when papers bring something like this to the public attention, then abandon the fellows when that attention winds up bringing negitive consiquences - themselves often interesting.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[radiotalent]

More likely everyone will be paying a road tax on all our electic usage even if we're still using the good 'ole IC engine. Would hate for any potential revenue to slip through the cracks.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[syukton]

They're not trying to steal from him. It's just that certain operating funds are generated by taxes on fuel. If you make your own fuel and you don't pay the tax (even if the tax is all you pay, 20-40 cents a gallon is NOT a bad price for fuel!) then you're not paying into the collective coffer for, say, new bridges, new roads, less potholes, possibly more sidewalks, guardrails, etc. It's PERFECTLY reasonable for the government to try and recoup some money from him--he's using the system, he should pay for it like the rest of us.

If you use all of your fuel at home and not on the roads, then you wouldn't have to pay as many taxes. There may be some sort of emission tax on "industrial equipment" (any generator over 5KW would probably fall into this category) which you might still be asked to pay.

It's one of those laws (like those regarding adultery) that get kind of ignored, unless a really big fuss is made over the "wrongdoer." This fella you speak of got his name in the papers and that was his mistake. He could've gotten away with it had he not been recognized. Boo-hoo. Pay your forty cents a gallon and have an out of pocket cost 1/4 what everyone else is dreaming of paying, and be happy about it.

If he makes a fuss, he's just a goddamned whiner.

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[icekillis]

I'm trying to find online articles on that case. Did government officals threaten him? Do you have any links?

Re:How about brew-your-own alternative fuel?

[michael_cain]

Isn't that the same argument the established telecos are using to "encourage" state governments to tax VOIP?

To some extent, they have a point. So long as VOIP is people using their computers and the Internet to talk to each other, I agree with what I think you're saying, and taxes are not appropriate. Once the VOIP providers start saying "We want numbers out of the North American numbering plan (or its equivalent elsewhere in the world)" and "We want to interconnect with the public phone networks" it becomes a different issue. Now they are providing telephone service, which is much more than just transport and all the existing players in that space are regulated and taxed. I can understand the telcos complaining if the new entrants are held to different standards than the existing providers and given tax breaks too.

Personally, I would be more interested in seeing whether or not the VOIP providers could meet the very tough reliability/availability standards that the local wireline companies are held to. Residential phone service could be substantially cheaper if it was not held to "four 9s" availability levels by state regulation.

Back in the seventies

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought plans to build a hybrid car back in the seventies. (I didn't build it.) It had a body created by carving urethane and covering it with fiberglass. (Burt Rutan build airplanes this way) It had a generator to charge batteries and was totally driven by an electric motor. I seem to recall that the cheapest way to build it was to buy a 'wrecker' and harvest it for parts.

In theory, you could build a car very cheaply but of course the amount of labor involved is huge.

Every university seems to be building solar cars these days. That may be a good place to get information.

Another resource for that kind of construction might be the local experimental aircraft association. The reason for this is that you want your car to be light and aircraft are light and strong.

illegal for NHRA racing

[doorbender]

The Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Dragsters may not have an electric motor configured to add power to the wheels.

Re:illegal for NHRA racing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but there is an NHRA sanctioned body named the National Electric Drag Racing Association which drag races EV's

See: http://www.nedra.com/

Can someone give me the gist of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

My eyes are still bleeding from thier website's javascript tricks.

This is not really new

[spidergoat2]

There were plans for hybrid cars in the 70's. Plans were available in the back of every Popular Science magazine. You started with an old Pinto or Vega, put in a Briggs & Stratton lawnmower engine, and some kind of big electric motor. I was ready to build one till I figured out I'd have to pop the hood every morning and crank up the engine with a pull cord.

Popular Mechanics

[jeffmock]

Wasn't that the cover story of every issue of Popular Mechanics during the 80's? It's nice to see /. appealing to my aging tastes.

jeff

35 bhp through a rubber belt

[TooTechy]

I don't think so!

3 secs of your 5 sec 0-60 time.

I don't think so!

Re:35 bhp through a rubber belt

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked on a hybrid vehicle conversion project before. We used a belt just slightly larger than that which handled 60hp just fine. Most belts that size are not simply made from rubber--there's a lot of reinforcement buried inside.

Re:35 bhp through a rubber belt

[deacon]

Gates makes the final drive belt to replace the chain on Harley motorcycles

Thats more than 35 Hp

Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[955301]

You would think that a car is sufficiently complicated at this point to keep an after-market conversion of that magnitude from being anything but a disaster or let-down.

Didn't the US auto industry try this with Diesel back in the seventies and learn this lesson for us? Are we doomed to repeat that mistake too?

Re:Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[deacon]

Diesel got a bad rap because of the Oldsmobile Diesel engine, which was just a gasoline engine block that was "converted" to be a diesel engine.

The block and crank and bearings were not strong enough for the much higher forces in a diesel engine, and the Olds diesel had poor reliability.

People who bought a Mercedes diesel did fine, but the money they spent on the car was never recovered in fuel savings.

People who bought a diesel volksvagen rabbit did fine too, but that car had poor acceleration, I've driven one, and merging onto the highway is not pleasant. Also, when replacing the oil filter, renember to torque it to 65 foot-lbs (or whatever it says in the service manual) or the gasket will blow out.

8^0

Re:Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to try one of today's diesel engines (European diesels, not the big 3 truck diesel crap). You'll find your previous perceptions blown out of the water. I can blow about 70% - 80% of todays vehicles away off the line with my diesel Passat.

Matter of fact, if you put a diesel engine in the Toyota Prius you would get better mileage than you do with that hybrid.

Really, the best hybrid out there is Ford's escape, the rest are just posers. A good diesel engine can still get better mileage than any of those lousy hybrids. Within 4 years the diesel engine will pollute less than the gasoline engine.

Re:Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[MtViewGuy]

You might want to try one of today's diesel engines (European diesels, not the big 3 truck diesel crap).

Actually, GM's Duramax turbodiesel engine (jointly developed with Isuzu) is a superb engine. It's been quite popular for light truck applications in the last few years and I'm hoping GM will make the Duramax engine available on their SUV line soon.

I do agree that the current generation of diesel engines sold in Europe are excellent engines. They rarely produce the clattering sound common with older diesel engines, and thanks to the application of the latest the fuel-delivery systems and exhaust emission controls, offer superb performance and very low emissions. With the phasing in of low-sulfur diesel fuel in the USA starting next year, we'll see these engines in the US market by the fall of 2006 at latest.

Re:Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[Doppler00]

I don't think it would have been possible to produce this type of device in the 70's. I don't think the type of supercapacitors this device relies simply didn't exist back then.

I remember even reading in the 90's that a 1 Farad capacitor would be extremely impracticle, now they are quite common. That is the reason this device can exist now.

Re:Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[955301]

Hmmm, who said anything about developing hybrids during the seventies? I was suggesting that this hybrid retro-fit was comparable to the half-hearted attempts to convert a gasoline engine into a diesel back then. And that the outcome would be the same - a turn-off.

Re:Isn't this how Diesel got a bad rap?

[SEWilco]

You would think that a car is sufficiently complicated at this point to keep an after-market conversion of that magnitude from being anything but a disaster or let-down.

There used to be a lot of room under the hood. I'd probably have to mount this thing on the hood, with 3-4 pulleys to route the toothed belt around stuff.

correction...

[warpSpeed]

less $ per $ of GDP

sorry, that should be "less energy per $ of GDP."

Pretty foolish

[duffbeer703]

The return seems pretty slim for the amount of hassle and cost that you will put yourself through. Making huge powertrain and weight modifications to your car will likely have unexpected and bad consequences, which you will be on your own to fix.

IMHO, if you are truly economically sensitive to gas prices, I suggest that you buy a '94 or '95 Toyota Tercel/Corolla, Ford Escort or Honda Civic. You'll easily get 35-45mpg with these cars and spend a grand total of $3-5k for the whole vehicle.

If you want to make a statement about "saving" the environment, move closer to work.

Re:Pretty foolish

[Stevyn]

Buying a used car is a tough decision these days. Repairs will happen on a car 10 years old and they'll bleed you dry. People lease because they don't have to pay repairs. Yeah, it costs more, but you also get a new car. I'm leasing a 2004 corolla and it gets good mileage. The best part is I know it will start in the morning and if it doesn't, Toyota will fix it.

Re:Pretty foolish

[logic hack]

Don't forget to add a 6 foot aluminum spoiler, and blue neon lights under the chasis though; it makes the civics go faster ;)

Re:Pretty foolish

[john_smith_45678]

IMHO, if you are truly economically sensitive to gas prices, I suggest that you buy a '94 or '95 Toyota Tercel/Corolla, Ford Escort or Honda Civic. You'll easily get 35-45mpg with these cars and spend a grand total of $3-5k for the whole vehicle.

He also mentioned he's interested in performance. I don't think 35-45mph will cut it.

Re:Pretty foolish

[toddestan]

Comparing the costs of your monthly payment to how much more you would spend on repairs to keep an older car going, the monthly payments are going to bleed you dry a lot faster. Unless you decide to buy an old Ford Probe or something equally shoddy. I always thought leasing was dumb myself - make all these payments for 3-4 years, and at the end of it you own nothing. Best bet is to buy a lease return, something that is 2-3 years old with low miles (since you are limited with how many miles you can put on a leased car) - you get a newer, reliable car that oftentimes still has some warrenty left that some other sucker has already paid most of the depreciation on.

Re:Pretty foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but then you would only have the power of a Toyota Tercel.

Hybrids are really about three things -- (1) using regnerative braking to reclaim power lost during deceleration, (2) using the hybrid system to optimize the load on the engine so that it runs as close as possible to maximum efficiency, or not at all when it is not needed, and (3) getting more power out of a given size engine by supplementing it with the electric motor(s).

On the third point, as I understand it, Prius has the same ICE as an Echo. I don't know the 0-60 acceleration times of the two, but my money would be on the Prius.

Thanks for your suggestion about moving closer to work, I never thought of that! Unfortunately, if I had always followed this advice I would have moved 3 times in the last 10 years (forcing me to either rent or to pay huge real estate commissions, escrow fees, and loan fees -- probably the cost of two or three Prii). For part of those 10 years my wife and I would have been living in separate locations if she had also followed your suggestion.

Re:Pretty foolish

[duffbeer703]

If you want performance, you are going to pay for it, either through gas, acqusition cost, or the installation and upkeep of some bizarro custom hybrid kit.

Even the Prius is a waste of money. You end up spending $20,000+ for an economy car, that gets around 45mpg. (The 60mpg claims are flawed due to the EPA testing model)

Plus, after your warranty runs out, your stuck with massive repair bills since you'll have to go to a Toyota dealer to have your electric motor and/or batteries replaced.

If you want an economy car with good performance, look at a Golf GTI or a mid 90's Toyota or Honda.

Re:Pretty foolish

[fred fleenblat]

The tough part is, even if 4 environmentally sensitive people all switch to corollas or priuses, they are outnumbered consumption-wise by a single Ford Excursion or Chevy Suburban.

At some point, it's not enough to be good and environmentally responsible. Making a statement by getting a Prius has a value in and of itself, and it makes a statement that an SUV owner might notice next time he's at the gas station spending $75 on a tankful.

They won't notice the '94 Corolla, and it won't make them think.

Re:Pretty foolish

[duffbeer703]

The only statement being made is the statement that you'll be getting every month from Toyota Credit.

Transportation is an economic activity. When gas becomes more expensive for extended periods of time or the government stops building "free" roads, the market will respond.

Re:Pretty foolish

[fred fleenblat]

The only statement being made is the statement that you'll be getting every month from Toyota Credit.

You say that as if you wouldn't be getting a numerically larger statement from GMAC after buying a hummer or suburban...

Re:Pretty foolish

[duffbeer703]

You have plenty of car buying choices, not a stark choice between a Prius and a Hummer.

Fortunately, there are enough suckers out there buying new cars so that people like me can buy them at the end of the lease.

Re:Pretty foolish

[fred fleenblat]

This is kind of fun. we can have our own little conversation several days after the moderators have lost interest. wheee, i feel so free!

err, okay, back to the topic. by way of example, here's my car buying history, so far:

1971 mercury montego station wagon: 11 mpg
1977 pontiac trans am: 15 mpg
1978 mercedes 240D: 29 mpg
1983 mitsubishi starion: 22 mpg
1989 chevrolet corvette: 18 mpg
1992 kawasaki 250: 50 mpg
1994 MR2 turbo: 20 mpg
1994 honda 750: 40 mpg
2002 subaru outback: 20 mpg

[gas mileage as i actually observed, not EPA estimates.]

The 1st and 3d vehicles were hand-me downs but if you factor those (and the motorcycles) out and average the rest, 19 mpg seems to be my "comfort zone" for cars. Not very prius-like, but not Hummer-like either. I know a few people that just always buy 3/4 ton pickups/suburbans and other people that always buy civics. I'm thinking other people just have different mpg comfort zones and won't change until gas hits $3 or $4 a gallon and stays there.

And i'm with you on buying slightly used. only 2 of the vehicles above were purchased new. even the hand-me-downs were from my parents who bought them used. actually, one of the new ones (the 2002 outback) I got in 2003 as a year-end close out and got 15% off plus an generous trade-in so maybe that should count.

Re:Pretty foolish

[duffbeer703]

Haha

i agree... it is pretty cool to not be subject to the wrath of moderation.

I'm younger than you, but my comfort zone is similar (if not my car preference)

1981 Chevy Citation - 27mpg
1991 Dodge Spirit - 25
1993 Pontiac Bonneville - 20 city / 27 highway
1997 Cadillav DeVille - 18 City / 29 highway

Small cars left a poor taste in my mouth :)

The big GM highway crusiers work for me. I'm a big guy, so they have the room that I need to sit comfortably. I have a 10 mile commute so the mileage is fine; plus the highway mileage rocks for road trips.

My dad used to commute 300 miles daily and swore by Ford Escorts, which usually deliverd 40mpg on the highway for less money than Japanese cars.

Personally, I believe that fuel efficiency is purely a economic choice. I resent people who try to convert it into a moral crusade.

I know people who live in the city or close suburbs who drive big SUVs or full-size pickups. While it may seem wasteful, they don't really spend much more on gas because they aren't really driving alot! Plus, they get lots of room for cargo, which comes in handy as they work on their houses or yards.

Basically, if some people are foolish enough to spend $4 for a Starbucks coffee or half-gallon of organic milk, it should be fine to foolishly pump $200/week into an Expedition for a 70 mile commute.

Re:Pretty foolish

[fred fleenblat]

I resent people who try to convert it into a moral crusade.

Your examples, coffee and milk, come from renewable biological sources whereas oil is a finite resource and it is being used up. It just seems like it would be better to use it up somewhat more slowly than we are, so that (a) it lasts longer and (b) the shock of running out is less severe near the end.

That's not on the level of "though shalt not kill" or pro/anti choice in terms of moral crusades, but if there is no alternate source of cheap, portable energy by then, the economic impact will be devastating. Of course, this may not happen for another 50+ years so it's easy to ignore it.

if some people are foolish enough to spend $4 for a Starbucks coffee...

Agreed. And the winner for foolish consumer overpaying has to be bottled water. I've seen $5 for 1/2 liter bottle in a mini-mart/retail situation. That's almost $40 a gallon for something almost identical to what comes out of the tap for a fraction of a cent. Amazing.

25MPG???

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell do you drive?

i'm sittin pretty at 37 MPG (U.S. gallon, no less, that is over 40 in UK) in a 2L Protege5.

eat it, my bitch.

convert a used electric car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I see used VW rabbit conversions for sale (they were done to full electric).

I wonder if I could pull, say, 1/2 the batteries, and replace that half the bank with a small, used electric start motorcyle engine and a generator.

tune it to run well/efficient at a certain rpm, then charge the batteries on demand...this meets the definition of a hybrid, eh?

"decreases your 0-60 time by a min. of 3 seconds"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL yeah right..

Q. Is the Electrocharger(TM) a performance upgrade?
A. Yes, it decreases your 0-60 time by a minimum of 3 seconds and sheds at least 3 seconds off your 1/4 mile time, over stock vehicle performance.

Also one critical question seems to be missing.. HOW MUCH MPG BENEFIT DOES THIS DEVICE GIVE ME?

"decreases your 0-60 time by a min of 3 seconds?!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. Is the Electrocharger(TM) a performance upgrade?
A. Yes, it decreases your 0-60 time by a minimum of 3 seconds and sheds at least 3 seconds off your 1/4 mile time, over stock vehicle performance.

YEAH RIGHT.

Screw Hybrid electric, go hybrid hydrogen

[derf23]

I have been watching and waiting on this package for a few months now. doesn't attempt to run off of electricity, use hydrogen to directly power your engine. Looks good so far, with problems being spelled out as to can be expeacted.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm/

Fred

Re:Screw Hybrid electric, go hybrid hydrogen

[SteakandcheeseUm]

You must mean http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm

dammit

[enrico_suave]

now I'm going to have to register:

byoHC.com

=(

e.

I don't think so

[smchris]

An optional stand-alone charger is available if your [sic] into drag racing

Not that I'm that much of a stickler for grammar or anything, but, yeah, I'm going to trust these guys.

Can it be as simple as replacing your alternator with a belt-driven motor and battery pack? (How big is that battery pack, by-the-way, compared to "real" hybrids?

you guys see the compressed air car?

[enrico_suave]

red nova article on AU compressed air car

(ok it's closer to a tractor or golf cart but still novel idea)

I hear if you get 5 friends to sign up at the article's site you get a free hybrid electric car =)

e.

ultracapacitors, FFVs and regen braking

[Tekmage]

Here is an interesting related interview. Also check out the specs for these ultracapacitors. The key benefit of capacitors over batteries is in deep discharge, near instantaneous bursts of current. It takes the load off your bulk storage supply, allowing them to operate more efficiently.

I still can't buy a hybrid flexible fuel vehicle, so I can shift my usage over to a more renewable source. This system opens up some options though. I like!

Aside: The regenerative braking aspect of all hybrids is a hidden bonus for the wear on the mechanical systems too. I've had my hybrid for almost two years now and the brake pads aren't anywhere near their first 10% worn-down state.

Re:ultracapacitors, FFVs and regen braking

[TWX]

"I still can't buy a hybrid flexible fuel vehicle, so I can shift my usage over to a more renewable source (ethanol). This system opens up some options though. I like!"

Yeah, you'll be literally drunk with power!

Re:ultracapacitors, FFVs and regen braking

[mshurpik]

I still can't buy a hybrid flexible fuel vehicle, so I can shift my usage over to a more renewable source.

Ethanol isn't renewable. The average American farm uses 10x as much energy as it produces.

Re:ultracapacitors, FFVs and regen braking

[Tekmage]

Now there's a statement devoid of context or references! ;-)
The average American farm probably isn't devoted primarily to the production of ethanol, so that could very well be true.

Got any relevant links?

The numbers vary, but current research indicates there is a net energy gain in the production of grown ethanol sources. There are a few related articles of interest up at this site.

Re:ultracapacitors, FFVs and regen braking

[dclydew]

If the Farm is producing Corn for its biomass, the ethanol conversion gives only a minor net gain of energy (usually single digit percentages). However, if a crop is grown that is a better biomass, we could see ethanol become a useful renewable resource.

Currently, the best biomass crop is hemp, it requires much less maintainence than Corn since it is similar to a weed in its nutritional needs (care and feeding of hemp is only useful when dealing with hemps psychedelic cousin, marijuana).

In early tests in Canada, an acre of Hemp produced 1000 gallons of Ethanol fuel in 4 months. that is a gain of nearly 30% over corn. It also doesn't include the seed oil which is useful as a biofuel as well.

Now, if only our Puritanical government would look at the benefits of the crop....

Full electric is wrong approach

[Bhrian]

It seems like the only reasonable approach is to use a small diesel generator engine to generate electricity. That is used to charge a small bank of batteries (i.e. 3 to 6 of them) and provide extra power to an electric motor that drives the transmission and moves the car. A few people have converted their car with this approach and end up with around 130mpg.

This allows the generator to run at optimimun efficiency (rpm) and not waste energy like conventional vehicles. Add regenerative brakes to make it even better. The only hard part of this approach is connecting the electric motor to the car's current transmission.

Re:Full electric is wrong approach

[kylector]

Got any links for the "130mpg" part? I've thought about this idea before, but 130mpg??

Car

[Luigi30]

So, there was this car, that ran on electricity, man...

ultracaps are US$25 in small quantities

[Tekmage]

Before I forget, you can buy small quantities of ultracapacitors directly from Maxwell for US$25/each. Discounts kick in for quantities of 100 or more. Just fill out their form if you're interested. I've been playing around with a few as battery replacements in toys around the house. :-)

DIY Hybrid Electric Car

[lydic]

It depends on how much DIY you are willing to tackle. I had to do a little googling but I located information on a DIY Hybrid that appeared in The Mother Earth News some years ago. Actually in 1979 with a followup in 1993. I purchased the plans and although I didn't get one completely finished, it's still a viable project. Actually applying an additional 10+ years of technology might make it easier &/or better. Try the following links as a starting point. The original article at: http://www.motherearthnews.com/index.php?page=arc& id=2263 and the followup at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1279/is _n138/ai_13817084. A google search for ["mother earth news" hybrid electric car] yields about 350 links. Good luck.

OT: sig

[pavon]

NO THANK YOU. I DO NOT WANT A FREE IPOD!

Would you like one in your house?
Would you like it with a one button mouse?

how about...

[leon.gandalf]

better stronger batteries and those wheel motors I keep hearing about...

Wheelman!

[ttroutma]

Screw the hybrid car stuff, did you see that wheelman?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but...

[ChiralSoftware]

Hybrid cars are pointless from an economic point of view. You won't save money. That includes if you buy a ready-made hybrid car, which was built that way at the factory. It is cheaper in every way (time and money) to get a hybrid built that way at the factory. If a factory-built hybrid is pointless, a home-made hybrid is even more pointless.

If you want to really save money and do something cool, go for an all-electric car. With lithium battery chemistries, the range is good. There are plenty of companies that offer help in retrofitting old ICE cars to be electric. The big problem here is that automotive-scale lithium batteries are not in mass-production yet so they are very expensive. The battery pack on a lithium-powered electric could cost in the tens of thousands. This is not because the materials that make up a lithium battery are inherently expensive; they just aren't mass-produced in large enough sizes and quantities yet.

As a further advantage, all-electric cars have much less maintenance. Hybrid cars should have more maintenance than regular ICE cars because hybrids have everything a regular ICE car has, plus all the electric stuff, plus a complicated way to interface the two of them.

Maybe if you do almost all stop-and-go city driving, hybrids have some advantage, but I think they are just a boondoggle. If you don't want to buy gas, then go 100% electric, but don't think that bolting on a bunch of electric parts to your current ICE is going to do much more than have you pay a hefty up-front fee to save a trickle of gas over the next decade.

Re:Sorry to rain on your parade, but...

[belg4mit]

Just because Fords car sucks (but I repeat myself) does not mean hybrids are pointless. Besides which, money isn't everything.

Re:Sorry to rain on your parade, but...

[wantedman]

A economical 100% gas car can get better MPG than a hybrid. While I agree hybrids are not pointless, from both in an economical sense AND in an environmental sense, it's better to go with a gas efficient car which gets 40 ~ 50 MPG, rather than a hybrid, which typically get around 30 ~ 35 MPG.

Re:Sorry to rain on your parade, but...

[Ogerman]

Correct. Today's hybrids are crap. Only the most extreme hybrids (45/55mpg) can break even on the cost of replacement NiMH cells every 60k miles or so -- and only if you drive them correctly and are heavy on stop-and-go. Then you consider the upfront cost of a Hybrid vs. used economy car (32/40mpg) and it's no competition. (and don't forget interest since it takes longer to pay off!) You might be able to barely break even over the total life of the car if you get tax credits, are a perfect driver, and don't have maintenance issues with the added complexity..

What we need are all-electric personal commuter vehicles in the $5k price range (so most people can afford both) and high sales taxes on heavy vehicles that make the roads unsafe for everyone. (with exception of large vehicles actually used for their utility, of course)

Re:Sorry to rain on your parade, but...

[Paul Neubauer]

One real problem with all-electrics, even if recharging and battery weight issues are taken care of, is the lack of engine heat. That might not seem important - until you get up and the temperature is -30 F. Electric heat? That's expensive even batteries aren't involved.

Re:Sorry to rain on your parade, but...

[belg4mit]

Umm, you're not likely too see to many 40-50 ICEs in the US, other than maybe a Geo
Metro. And the Prius is 60/51/55 not the paltry 30-35 you speak of. The Insight
boasts a 60/66 MPG.

Thess guys silverlining.greatnow.com, www.mv.com/ipusers/lsg/Prius/PriusMileage.html
ev en share their own experience and the EPA estimates seem to be reasonably accurate.

I agree...

[Andy Dodd]

Shaving 3 seconds off of your 1/4 is pretty tough... 3 seconds off of your 0-60 is even tougher, unless you have a car that's REALLY underpowered to begin with.

Especially since the main advantage of electric motors is low-speed torque (good for rice rockets, not nearly as much improvement for monster V8s) - While an electric motor can make a HUGE difference at the very low end, that is also where traction is a large problem, nullifying much of the motor's advantage.

Re:I agree...

[LakeSolon]

To give you a better idea of how hard it is to reduce your 1/4 mile times. The fastest quarter mile time tested by Car and Driver under $100,000 is the Dodge Viper in 12.1 seconds ($85k). And that doesn't even cut 3 seconds off of the Nissan Altima's 14.6 seconds ($23k).

For what it's worth, a Toyota Prius ($23k) has a poor 18 second quarter mile, and an absolutely abhorrent 11 seconds to 60mph. Even a Chevy Aveo at under $15k (base price of $10k) beats each of those by a second.

~Lake

Re:I agree...

[SEWilco]

It converts the 1/4 mile to metric.

Guaranteed easiest way to make your car hybrid

[britneys 9th husband]

1. Remove the gas cap.
2. Move remainder of car off the driveway.
3. Attach a Toyota Prius or Civic Hybrid to the gas cap.

Seriously, it seems like it would be very difficult and expensive to make this work, and even if you did somehow succeed, most states would require you to get the car smogged or otherwise inspected, which could prove difficult after such extensive modifications. If you want an inexpensive hybrid, I suggest a 2001 or 2002 model Prius. They're cheap because everyone wants the 2004 model.

Re:Guaranteed easiest way to make your car hybrid

[Technician]

1. Remove the gas cap.
2. Move remainder of car off the driveway.
3. Attach a Toyota Prius or Civic Hybrid to the gas cap.

I tried that. I got rid of my Mustang and got a Prius. The gas cap wouldn't fit. I hate propritary hardware.

Good thing the Prius came with a gas cap. As a bonus, it's attached to the car so it won't get lost at the pump.

Re:Guaranteed easiest way to make your car hybrid

[poot_rootbeer]

I suggest a 2001 or 2002 model Prius. They're cheap because everyone wants the 2004 model.

They're not THAT cheap, even used. A gently used 2001 Prius will still cost you more than a brand-new 2004 Toyota Echo, which is a fully-gasoline engine model based on the same basic frame as the classic Prius

The Echo can get up to 40mpg, making it nearly as efficient as comparable hybrids. If your primary reason for choosing a hybrid is fuel cost, it may be worthwhile to consider some non-hybrid economy cars instead.

Telecommute already!

[Anonymous Writer]

Broadband is gaining widespread acceptance- if your job is a desk job, then you should theoretically be able to do it through videoconferencing and online collaboration, if the right software was there. Then again, if your job could be done from a distance, then it will probably end up being outsourced to another country, and you'll only be able to find jobs that need you to be there physically anyway. :/

Re:"decreases your 0-60 time by a min of 3 seconds

[POTSandPANS]

3 whole seconds off your 1/4 mile? anybody who has ever built any sortof street drag car would know that 3 seconds is alot to shave off a 1/4 mile...

for example:

2004 Lamborghini Gallardo 1/4 mile time is 12.40 seconds

1999 Honda Civic Si 1/4 mile time is 15.70

Imagine, with just this one device installed on a totally stock Honda, you can bring it into the same league as a Lamborghini...

Made of Unobtainium --

[Anna Merikin]

The electric motor/generator part is listed as becoming available in the fall/winter of 2004. This makes it vaporware, as far as I'm concerned.

Now give me a hand while I try to keep my tinfoil hat on while installing this little fan under my carburetor that will supermix the gas, giving me 25 per cent more power....

Regenerative breaking...

[the_rajah]

has nothing to do with the mechanical brakes other than that it takes some of the load off them.

Remember that any DC motor can work equally well as a generator. In regenerative braking, the motor becomes a generator providing mechanical resistance to slow the vehicle and the energy produced is fed to the energy storage device, either batteries or super capacitor where it can later be recovered and used over.

Actually this is fairly common practice in certain types of traction (cabled) elevators where the motion of the elevator car, say, up in the case of an empty cab with counter-weights heavier than the cab, actually pushes power back into the 3 phase power lines. There are no big resistors needed to consume the energy produced when the drive motor becomes a generator. This is efficient in terms of energy consumption.

Mechanical brakes on elevators are normally set only after the cab is electrically stopped and held at floor level.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[SidV]

"In regenerative braking, the motor becomes a generator providing mechanical resistance to slow the vehicle and the energy produced is fed to the energy storage device, either batteries or super capacitor where it can later be recovered and used over."

Actually no. in regenerative braking, the motor that is attached to the wheels no longer provides power, and reverse energizes the coils, the spinning wheels then have to overcome the engine, basically running in reverse, done right this creates a net gain after system loses (Engines work better as engines than generators, and generators work better as generators then engines. Try appling voltage to your alternator and see if it spins)

to do regenrative braking as you describe, with this system is impossible, and if it were possible would damage the engine.

to continue:

Take your foot off the gas, engine slows, slows tranny, slows car, output of alternator drops. Due to the fact that engine rpm is slowing. Engine compression is MUCH higher than the resistance of the generator/engine you got strapped on the front. Net gain would most likely be negative #s
Place load on engine at crank, slowing engine more. Lets forget for just a second that at best you are going to get only 1/2 to 1/4 of that power, since only one or two wheels are connected to the engine (forgetting AWD $WD for a moment, talking about most cars). In an automatic the clutch packs will intentionally slip (remember engine can run or stop and have minimal effect on wheels, as autos are designed to only engage at accelertion speeds, and at steady state, torque converters are one way) In a manual you will be creating undue strain on the clutch. Hello unintentional slippage, glazing, loss of clutch. Not to mention that the crank is not designed to have power applied in that way. Low engine RPM's compared to wheel speed leads to broken cranksafts. A very not fun way to drive down the road.

As to a slight boost of power at acceleration. You might as well just kick the starter in, theres only so much power in the battery, if it's driving a motor, why not one you already have, why add the weight of a second motor. Regardless, the power gains are minimal here.

Particularly since after your momentary burst of accelration there will be a higher load on the alternator, sucking engine power in an attempt to fill the battery up of all the juice it just lost.

Of course I hope you have a collection of flywheels, running the starter while the engine is running is never a good thing.

Any belt drive type system, which this appears to be, cannot hope to match the powers needed to put that kind of load on the motor. Damn belt would slip like mad. Well until it snapped anyways. And that's not even considering modern serpintine systems, No way you can transfer that much power.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[SidV]

PS

My current car already has enough braking power via compression to lock up the back tires, what headroom does this device have for sucking more juice out.
Oh yeah, as far as fuel economy.
If the motor is spinning the motor, just increasing rpm's faster than normal, the pist-ons will move up and down faster, the intake valves will open more often and let more gas in, how does that improve economy?

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Remember that any DC motor can work equally well as a generator.

Ok, this is a rule of thumb, how about some hard numbers? I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking because...

I've been looking into converting my truck into an electric truck, and the power source is the real holdup there (well, the practical holdup is money, but for the purposes of 'looking into', I'm assuming money is no object). I can get just about any electric motor I want, and the truck is so old that there's so much room that space isn't an issue either.

So I hatched a scheme to stick in a two-stroke or four-stroke generator and an array of batteries. The batteries would be used to power the motor from a standstill and the generator would kick on when the batteries needed to be charged (thus making it safe to park my truck in the garage attached to my house).

The real problem I've encountered is that while I can turn wrenches all day, soup up IC engines, and fix electrical motors, I don't actually know anything else. ;)

So the question is, in order to power a DC motor of a given size, is it *required* to have another DC motor of the same size or higher acting as a generator (assuming I have a way to turn the thing)? Or is there some configuration that will allow me to use one of those neato camping generators to power a DC motor installed in place of my 307? (I'm willing to remove the transmission and the engine and replace them with a motor if necessary, but one of the reasons my truck is sooooo cool is that it's a column shift, and I would like to keep that)

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[Almost-Retired]

This is true for most electrical motors with the singular exception of the most commonly used 'induction' motor used in everything from your can opener to your airconditioners multiple fans and compressors. Because of its simple construction and lack of life reducing brushes and such, this is the motor used in probably 99% of the 'over 1/50th horse' category if power hand tools aren't counted in the overall.

Even that type could possibly function as a poor generator if the overspeed was no more than the normal 'slip angles' associated with its normal load. But 95% of the time they will be nothing more than a brakeing loss if turned at a speed above the applied frequency/number of poles.

All other motors can be used either as motors or generators. This includes even the motor in the form of a loudspeaker as they have been used as the signal generating microphone in millions of intercom systems over the last 65 years.

That doesn't mean that some types might need supporting electrical stuff to work, and others don't, to achieve a practical level of efficiency in the dual role...

Cheers, Gene

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

you are building a series hybrid, if your original plan was an EV, now you see you are making a range extending EV, which basicly is a series vehicle with a real small APU.

Your generator doesn't need to be the size of your drive motor, thats the whole idea. You only need a generator that would meet the continuous power requirements for your vehicle. The batteries are there to supply lots of power for accelerations, and to put power on regen.

For your motor, keap in mind the speed it runs and what kind of reduction you can get and and have a ok top end speed, you will find you will have lots of torque. Your problem comes with if you use your truck as a truck, if your going to tow, or hual stuff, you will need high continous power, and at that point you are better off with sticking with the gas engine. This is the problem for Hybrid SUVs and trucks, is getting the gains from hybrids, but keaping the continous power levels there.

Also DC motors just arnt well suited for this kind of thing. Good EVs and hybrids used AC motors for size, control, and power. Also you have to use motors ment for such things, your regular industrial motors out there arn't going to cut it. You need stuff from solectria, brusa, AC propulsion.

oh, and yeah, you could mount a motor you your stock tranny.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ok, I'm following all that. Now, how do I read the specs on an AC motor and a generator so that I can determine this sort of thing? I have the specs on the tranny (gear ratios, anyway), and I have the specs on the differential (gear ratio, again), so I can do the math to figure out how much RPM I need off an electric motor. What I'm having the most trouble doing is reading the specs on the available electric motors and generators to figure out what the motor requires.

Obviously step one is to find an electric motor that meets my requirements. Step two is to figure out how many batteries I'll need to provide power from a stop (simple math, really), and step three is to figure out what generator I'll need to recharge the whole system and provide power for the electric motor.

I do intend to use the truck as a truck, tow shit and so forth, but my requirements are only that it perform as it does now, which isn't very well. The 307 in it had a stock HP rating of 200 (I think that was measured at the wheels, but I could be wrong on that), and it's over 30 years old now, so it's obviously not getting it's new performance specs. I only need the thing to perform practically as well as it does now, and any additional performance I get is just a bonus.

When all this is done, I intend to try to calculate mpg for the system, and hopefully that will provide the justification (and up-front costs) for doing the deed. Then I have to raise money, but if I can show a workable system I might be able to raise at least some of it from family, since it's a family heirloom of sorts, and I'm like the fourth owner within the family.

In the long run, the benefit of having a power supply that can be replaced as new technology appears practical without having to do thousands of dollars in upgrading the drivetrain is worth a lot more than any cost savings. The truck has a lot of sentimental value in my family. ;)

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[fucksl4shd0t]

I forgot to mention, this is all intended to be compared to just sticking a diesel in there, since there are plenty of diesels that'll bolt right up to the tranny. ;)

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[bhima]

A couple of months ago, while my car was being repaired, I read an article comparing regular diesels to the Gas-Electric hybrids. In summary the Diesels were more powerful, more efficient and more reliable. But this test was done with European Diesels (VW) and a low sulfur diesel fuel (it's called "eco-diesel" around here). These new turbo diesels are great

I use Bio-Diesel, for about 10 months out of the year, in my Skoda (essentially a VW these days). My fuel economy is the same as with the eco-diesel, the exhaust smells better and my mechanic tells me I should expect longer engine life with regular use. I assume that they have problems pumping it when it's really cold and that's why it's not available for the part of the winter, but I haven't asked. All in all I'd say the car is a little faster and lot more efficient than the Toyota I drove in the US in 2002.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[budgenator]

(Engines work better as engines than generators, and generators work better as generators then engine I'll give you that one, an electric motor might be 85% efficent as a motor vs. 75% as a generator but compare that to a gassoline engine which is 30% efficent as a engine and not able to generate at all (roll it down hill and the gas tank doesn't fill).
Try appling voltage to your alternator and see if it spins As is, it will turn a bit and lock into position when fed electricity, take out the diode recitfiers, and feed alternating current to the alternator's rotor windinds and recify the current to the field windings and it'll run like a champ. Change the wiring a little more and you can make one king-kong stepper motor out of a car alternator.

As for belt slippage, the big super-chargers on top-fuel, funny cars and some street rods are capable of transferring in excess of 1500 horse-power. As for Not to mention that the crank is not designed to have power applied in that way, the crankshaft forces to take power out, aren't different from the forces to put power in (see above). The biggest difference between the front and back of the cranksaft is the attachment to the front of the crankshaft has a key and keyway, the key is made from a softer steel than the crankshaft so that it will shear before the crank is dammaged, the rear has a flange that doesn't.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[budgenator]

I read somewhere that the starter motor for a 747 engine could be used for an electric vehicle, 3600 rpm is enough for most realistic apllications and their voltage requirements are resonable as well.

a little googling on robot wars related terms, will give you tons of sites about motor controllers, and re-wiring starter motors ect. I'll leave extrapolating from toy to locomotive controllers, and Ford Fiesta starters to 747's to you but the principals are the same.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[SidV]

But you puilled those numbers out of your nether region, I don't knwo what they are, but I suspect the disparity is higher than that.

Yeah, and do all that changing to the alternator, and do you know what it won't do anymore. Charge the batteries. See comment about motors.

"As for belt slippage, the big super-chargers on top-fuel, funny cars and some street rods are capable of transferring in excess of 1500 horse-power"

You are absolutely 100% Correct. However more usefull information might be that it also has about 500X the surface area as the teeny tiny one on that hokey hybrid setup, made of different materials and replaced after every 10 seconds of use (not incluiding idle). What you also don't factor in is that it is not used to brake the car. The HP potential of the brakes in your car far exceeds the horespower potential of the engine in our car, placing a large differential strain on a belt like that (Superchargers have a fairly flat resistance curve) will snap that puny belt faster than you can say "hybrid vehicles suck" The difference in the mounting points of the crank are not what I was discussing here. The crank is not a shaft, it's a series of leverage arms, designed to have power applied to them, not from them. The crank isn't going to shear at the mounting point, either the crankshaft arms are going to snap, or you'll snap a connecting rod. That's if you can apply a signfigant enough load on the front end to draw some energy out, which you can't so it's irrelevant.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[MegaHamsterX]

Actually most traction elevators today use a VVVF direct drive system where the motor is directly coupled to the "ropes".
VVVF is variable voltage variable frequency which is coupled to a poly-phase motor.
What we could call a stepper motor.
Sans the batteries it is very similar to what's being used in the next gen electric cars.
From my understanding, and it's been some time, the only thing required to slow an elevator is a change in the frequency and voltage applied to the motor.
They have for the most part stopped using the old system, that used a motor generator set, which used an ac motor turning a dc generator which allowed control of the speed of the car. In that system they could simply shunt the motor to reduce speed while the generator is doing nothing and that was sufficent.
The power company would be pissed if you were pushing out of phase current back to them. Not to mention eveyone else in the local vicinity, it would likely cause all sorts of really bad things to happen.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[Marqis]

Just had an idea after reading some of these comments. Why not use the starter motor (or a bigger and beefier drop in replacement) for the first 5-15 km/h. Or since I drive a manual transmission, use the battery and starter for 1st gear? (with a big switch on the dash to run everything 'normally')

The biggest gas savings would be getting my uber heavy Pathfinder rolling from a dead stop. Shouldn't be very complicated, only some extra electronics but no mechanical difference to a stock engine.

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[.milfox]

You know what a better idea would be would be a retrofit that replaced the rear axle/rear tire hubs/brakes with a ~30-50HP RWD electrical motor unit, which would provide primary power in city cycles and regeneratively power itself. Then add some ultracapacitors into your body panels for energy storage. Maybe even replace the spare tire. Or a thin battery pack. Or make it options. (that way, you can say you have a megawatt energy storage system, etc. Basically just an 'energy sponge'. Perhaps have it tap in the 12V line to charge to, say 75% ..

The front end could still be the same, which in my case is a VW Jetta Wagon Turbodiesel (~50mpg highway depending on my driving, faster driving reduces milage) running bio (B100 blend when possible) as well.

All you need would be to somehow add an extra inch of play to the brakes/accelerator, where the extra would be 'regeneratively brake' / 'electrically accelerate' or something, right?

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[tzanger]

I don't understand why everyone wants to use DC motors. Brushes, commutators and maintenance hassles, the lot of 'em. :-)

A 75-125HP plain old AC induction motor would be far less maintenance and the VFD to drive it would not introduce much loss (4% I imagine) to the system. Use a decent drive and you get sensorless vector control (i.e. decent low-speed torque without voltage boost) and regeneration. Not to mention that a 125HP motor is cheap and would be far, far more powerful than an equivalent IC. (i.e. you can produce full torque at any speed, not just within the narrow power band that an IC has). AC motor + VFD is far more practical than DC motor, IMO.

Disclaimer: I am a power electronics field applications engineer. I deal with these things every day. :-)

Re:Regenerative breaking...

[bhima]

I understand that it's long distance driving where the diesel realy has the advantage. And in stop and go traffic the hybrid does. So you have a good idea, sort of the best of both worlds.

We converted one, and built a few.

[dexterpexter]

The University of Tulsa Hurricane Motor Works converted a Geo Metro as well as built several one-off concept cars from ground-up.

A look at the converted Geo is here. It was retitled the "Paradyne."

A much cooler looking HEV, though, is the Proxima, which was built ground-up. I was on the team that built and designed the car. The design and material cost for this car, being built from ground up (I kid you not. I remember nights out there with a heat gun, hot glue, and pipe making the frame and shaping the body) is way out there.

I don't remember the costs of the conversion for the Metro, since I wasn't involved, but someone interested in the numbers could certainly write and ask. Contact information is on our webpage, or you could IM me, and I could ask next time I am around the HMW.

We need more Open-Source Automotive

[unfortunateson]

I'm all in favor of this, and let's mass produce it to get the costs down. I'm sick of the price of auto parts and labor. Recent repairs have involved $200 to replace door hinges that were sticking, and $380 to replace a computerized security module that would decide not to recognize my key on damp mornings.

You can't diagnose a car without closed-source software, specific to the brand. You can't get parts from just anybody.

Build cars like we build PC's and they'll be cheaper to repair, more efficient, and full of cruft in 6 months, eh?

Re:We need more Open-Source Automotive

[BlueJay465]

I agree with you. Too many people so far have been quick to dismiss on the whole idea: too difficult, prohibitively expensive, too complicated, impossible to match the efficiency (I2R) of a factory built unit, I really can't be bothered with it right now (must h4x0r & m4k3 xeyes ub3r 1337 v2.0).

Think about this. The resources are already staring you in the face. The /. community has all the knowledge on how to make something like this work, in the OSS fashion.

The reason I submitted the whole question, is that there is an untapped market for Hybrid-Electric retrofits for existing cars. I am no automotive physicist, but a relatively simple pulley/drive for an electric motor hybrid system, would seem like a concept akin to a bicycle freewheel. When torque/power is not being supplied like when you are pedalling or laying on the gas, the downhill coasting energy (conveniently managed by the cruise control) and braking action would be spinning the dynamo and recharging the capacitor/battery.

True, the auto companies are the ones designing the engines built around the dynamo, and setting the standards for hybrid vehicles. They know what they are doing and have been in this game a LOT longer than any 'aftermarket' outfit. but we as a society really should be developing the external technology for cars on the road today. True, the cost of the supply is higher than I had hoped, but wouldn't creating a demand and stimulating the economy by creating a market for hybrids fix the cost issue? Hell, I may not be able to get 70mpg in my 1995 Accord, but the tax break and ANY modest increase in fuel efficiency and less need for pricy gas is incentive enough for me...

...maybe then I won't have to use my car to deliver pizzas and maybe get a real job and whine about outsourcing and unemployment.

Tom Bearden

[hayduke]

Why stop at hybrid or bio-disel? Why not go all the way! Check out Tom Bearden's site.

Looks kind of sketchy to me

[scott9676]

As the owner of a hybrid (Honda Insight), this looks a bit suspicious 1) I would think you would need a motor/generator bigger than an alternator to generate a reasonable amount of power. 2) If they are talking 35 HP, that's a LOT of power. That's the equivilent of 26 kW, At 200 volts, that is 130 amps of current needed. Not cheap to do or maintain. 3) How do they implement regenerative breaking with this? On the Insight, it actually cuts the fuel off to the engine during full brake regen. Plus it doesn't initially apply the brakes, just regen. 4) That seems like a lot of stress on the belt. Are they using something like a timing belt to drive it? It would have to have teeth or it would just slip like crazy. If you want more power off the line, get a supercharger. If you want better gas mileage, get a smaller engine.

Braking.... Oh, the humanity, Oh, the misspelling.

[the_rajah]

It's late, I'm up past my bedtime here at the rest home and I had beer with my supper. I can't believe I did that.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Railroad locomotives

[isny]

Yes, locomotives use a hybrid power system, but it's (usually) all based on electric conversion: The engine drives an alternator, and the power from the alternator drives traction motors (avoiding batteries). Dynamic regeneration is usually not used: when dynamic braking, all power from the traction motors are radiated out the dynamic braking grids as heat.

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[germansausage]

Right you are lad. A transmission that will let you move a 16,000 ton unit train from a dead stop is way beyond infeasible.

To put it another way, electric motors can produce torque at zero RPM, internal combustion engines can not.

To an insight owner (O/T)

[spectral]

Hey, someone who actually OWNS an Insight and would have answers for me..

First, do you have the automatic or the manual? I'm looking at a manual..

second, what kind of mileage are you ACTUALLY getting? I've heard too many people say that it isn't near what it's rated.

And finally.. how does it really do power wise? I figure it'd be hard pressed to suck more than my current car, but do you ever find hills that you can't climb at the same speed everyone else is going? I drive about 70 on the highways (I realize this is going to kill my gas mileage, but I much prefer my gas mileage being killed than my person being killed when some jackass rams my backend), and often times there's climbing lanes for trucks and stuff. Ever had to use them?

And finally, since the dealer and myself can't seem to agree: does the damned thing have cruise control? He insists it does (he said all Honda hybrids have cruise control). I tend to doubt it, since it's not mentioned on Honda's page. I wonder if he's ever even seen an Insight.

I've test driven the insight, and it didn't seem too bad power wise.. but I was going downhill at the time. I have yet to try the prius.. have tried the civic hybrid.. I'm about to make a decision, and would like some advice :)

Re:To an insight owner (O/T)

[Tekmage]

If you have a more aggressive driving style then I suspect you'll find the civic hybrid (automatic; has cruise control by default) a little underpowered. I drive a 2003 though, so the 2004/2005 models may have been tweaked in favour of more power. I've never had any problems with maintaining climbing speed though. It's just a little weak in the acceleration department.

Check out the latest Toyota Prius too. I haven't so I can't help, but I've read that acceleration performance is better than previous years.

Only one way to find out for sure if they satisfy your driving appetites and that's to take them out for a spin! Make sure you get some passing tests in to a get a feel for the responsiveness; a matter of personal taste.

With respect to real mileage numbers, check out http://greenhybrid.com/.

Re:To an insight owner (O/T)

[scott9676]

I have a 2001 5 speed with air conditioning. I live in the Atlanta area, which is a part of the country with a lot of rolling hills and lots of stop and go driving. The mileage I get is typically 48-55 mpg with the air conditioner on, and 55-65 mpg with it off. I have had stretches on roads where it is flat and have gotten over 80 mpg with it. Power wise it is a tad underpowered, though if you need to accellerate you can downshift and get plenty of power (though that hurts mpg). The handling gets kind of sketchy above 80 mph. I've drive from Atlanta to Asheville, NC, and when the battery ran out going up the big hills, I put it in 3rd gear and it was fine. Even at 90 mph, if it is flat it still gets about 50 mpg. It does NOT have cruise control, though there are people that have put 3rd party cruise control on it. If you are interested in high mileage, you want to get the 5 speed, as it has 'lean burn mode' which allows it to cruise at 100 mpg+. The Civic hybrid is too heavy for the Honda IMA system IMHO. If you want a lot more information, take a look at www.insightcentral.net, and check out the forums. Or, if you want to email me, my gmail account name is sdhall.

Re:To an insight owner (O/T)

[faring]

I've test driven the insight, and it didn't seem too bad power wise.. but I was going downhill at the time.

Downhill for the entire test drive, yet you managed to return the car? Did M.C. Escher design the roads around there by any chance?

Re:To an insight owner (O/T)

[spectral]

I realize you prolly won't even see this comment, but I"ll reply anyway..

I was going downhill on the onramp to the highway, which is when I honestly care most about getting up to speed quickly.. since if I don't I'm going to need to test those brakes at the end of the on ramp and have to stop. I've had to do this several times in my current car, because it doesn't have the power to get up to speed, and the merge lane was short to non-existant..

The way back was rural traffic with a very low slope. Constantly climbing, but nothing really noticeable :)

Who Needs A Hybrid....

[codyman]

The hybrid technology is in its infancy. The only time I personally will ever buy into it will be when the following happens: 1. HP Rating is ~ 250 HP + 2. Battery Technology Better so I don't have to replace batteries every few years which costs thousands 3. The cars actually look cool: to me the prius looks like a tree hugger mobile. Give it some class! Till then, a 1967 Yellow Camaro RS 454 Big Block is my dream... its my dream car but hell in my dreams gas ain't $2.00 a gallon.... till then my 4 cylinder car that gets 25 mpg is fine for me...

Oh please

[SidV]

Brought to you by the makers of http://www.tornado-fuelsaver.tv/?source=gg&camp=tf &grp=name&term=tornado%20fuel%20saver If it sounds to good to be true, guess what. And for regenerative braking you need an actual motor attached to the wheels.

Re:Oh please

[niktesla]

And for regenerative braking you need an actual motor attached to the wheels.

I think they were refering to slowing the engine by electrically loading the generator. Basically, instead of recovering power from the wheels themselves, you take power from the engine as you deaccelerate by increasing the electrical load on the generator - i.e. charging the supercap pack. Its an interesting spin on the concept of regenerative braking.

By the way, it was developed in conjuction with my alma mater, and possibly one of my proffs.

Re:Oh please

[SidV]

See my post on page one (which I made after this one). I go into more detail there. Suffice to say that loading the crank on that side is a very very bad thing to do.

Do a search on $WD and you'll find it.

Here's better way to improve fuel mileage....

[MtViewGuy]

Redesign the engine for better fuel efficiency.

Thanks to the phasing in of low-sulfur gasoline (petrol) and diesel fuel here in the USA starting in 2005, we can apply the latest in fuel-delivery systems and exhaust emission controls to improve fuel efficiency AND reduce harmful exhaust emissions.

In the case of gasoline engines, the switch to direct fuel injection (where fuel is directly injected into the combustion chamber) could improve fuel efficiency in the range of 15 to 20 percent! :-) Thanks to the arrival of low-sulfur fuels, it means we can use the latest in ceramic catalytic converters that will also reduce exhaust emissions to Super Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle (SULEV) levels without worries about sulfur compounds ruining the catalytic converter.

In the case of diesel engines, the arrival of low-sulfur diesel fuel means we can use common-rail direct fuel injection for very precise fuel delivery and also use the latest in diesel engine catalytic converters that will remove diesel exhaust particulates in addition to dramatically reducing other harmful exhaust gases. By switching minivans, SUV's and light trucks to these new cleaner diesel engines it means these class of vehicles can get 35-50 percent improvements in fuel efficiency compared to the current gasoline engines being used.

Re:Here's better way to improve fuel mileage....

[syukton]

I think that Internal Combustion needs to be cast aside in favor of gas turbine engines like those used in helicopters. The power to weight ratio available with a gas turbine is generally much better than that of an internal combustion engine. Mass produced parts made of ceramics and possibly plated with amorphous metals could withstand the high heat and a lengthy undercarriage exhaust system could dissipate the heat to currently accepted levels.

The problem with this idea is that a gas turbine runs at a certain optimal RPM defined by its shape and general design. So you'd need an infinitely variable transmission in order to maintain the gas turbine at its optimal RPM. You'd also need a strong enough turbine to climb a 40% grade with 2000 pounds of car, 800 pounds of passengers and 400 pounds of cargo. The important thing to remember is that it's the rotational action of the shaft which is tapped for kinetic motion and not the forced-air exhaust.

I posted about this in another comment, but: TransRevolution has a prototype IVT in a Dodge Ram, and it supposedly demonstrates an infinite number of positive and negative (reverse) gear ratios including neutral, using a gear mechanism and not a belt mechanism as is used by most CVTs (Continuously Variable Transmission) on the market right now. So it would seem ideal to be paired with a gas turbine engine. The trick will be getting enough air to the combustion chamber at the proper pressure, without sucking small children into the blender-like engines of their mom's minivan.

Continuous-burn engines burn much more cleanly than the intermittent-burn of internal combustion engines. Here's a demonstration of the dirtyness of intermittent burns: Strike a match, watch it. It smokes initially when you strike it and for a moment while it gets up to temperature. Let it burn. No smoke, right? It just burns, nicely and cleanly. Well, blow it out. Smokes again, right? That middle stage where everything is burning nicely and cleanly never happens in an internal combustion engine, which makes the exhaust byproducts very dirty. To clean this dirtyness (as it were), all modern vehicles use a catalytic converter. Catalytic converters are usually just plates of platinum which react with many of the dirty particles left over from the incomplete combustion of the fuel in an internal combustion engine. The "dirt" sticks to these platinum plates, and doesn't get emitted into the air. A continuous burn engine won't encourage us to waste precious metals because the exhaust will be clean and pure.

Compression ratios inside of gas turbine engines allow them to be fed by fuels such as kerosene and even paraffin, not to mention diesel fuel which is even thinner than either of those. So how about a diesel-powered gas turbine engine (electric starter/drive assist for extra horsepower) running on soy or hemp biodiesel or straight vegetable oil?

The key challenges in gas turbine engines are the heat, the rotational speeds involved, and the fuel/oil delivery system.

At over 100K RPM and stainless steel parts will start to expand, but this is overcome by using ceramics and/or amorphous metals to make your parts. Amorphous metal and ceramic parts also stand up to repeated heat cycling and a wide range of heat conditions. Fuel and oil delivery near the combustion chamber will have to be high-temperature tubing of some kind, but preferrably with clear (or translucent) tubing at a safe distance so you can monitor fluid supply.

Say, I don't suppose you know how to write a grant proposal?

Screw this, anyone got a rich uncle?

[Anonymous Coward]

A biodiesel dirt/street bike is so freakin close to hitting the market it's painful. Already being sold to the military, a civilian version is only lacking various paperwork / safety testing, etc. Unfortunately this runs somewhere around the $2M mark for commercially available vehicles meant to be driven on public roadways. Anyone with a deep pocket looking for something to invest in while simultaneously elating me and any other ecologically conscious people tired of boring ass prius/insight style vehicles to choose from. Yes, this is my second time mentioning these guys. F1 engineering, www.f1engineering.com, check the civilian bike link...

I want a grease car

[HangingChad]

And some day I want to run it on algae oil. This article was on /. not long ago.

We could grow almost all the oil we need, certainly enough to make a huge dent in imports, on a couple hundred square miles of the Senora Desert. I know it's ecologically sensitive but I think for oil independence the scorpions, mice and other critters can just deal with it.

Why aren't we doing this now? Guess it couldn't be because we have an oil family with connections to the Saudi Royal family in office? Or big oil companies with too much influence over elected officials? Nah, must be some other really good reason.

I've talked to these people, I think they could really do it. Probably could've built the whole project for about half of what we've spent on Iraq. So, which would get us farther? Invading Iraq or cutting back on our oil imports?

Re:I want a grease car

[kleinux]

Only on /.

And some day I want to run it on algae oil. This article was on /. not long ago.
...
Why aren't we doing this now? Guess it couldn't be because we have an oil family with connections to the Saudi Royal family in office? Or big oil companies with too much influence over elected officials? Nah, must be some other really good reason.

In other words ``I heard about a concept technology the other week. Why isn't in mass use or production already? Must be the President with an evil agenda.'' Get over yourself.

Re:I want a grease car

[HangingChad]

``I heard about a concept technology the other week. Why isn't in mass use or production already? Must be the President with an evil agenda.'' Get over yourself.

RTFA twitless. The research was sponsored by this off the wall organization called the Dept. of Energy and has been around almost 20 years. Many interesting alternative fuel research projects were started in the wake of the '74 oil crisis. We have a lot of options we're not exercising, but the algae oil is one of the few that has the potential to replace all our transportation energy.

It may not be an evil agenda but he's definitely not putting a lot of thinking into what he does. Which makes you two a perfect match.

Re:I want a grease car

[kleinux]

RTFA twitless. The research was sponsored by this off the wall organization called the Dept. of Energy and has been around almost 20 years. Many interesting alternative fuel research projects were started in the wake of the '74 oil crisis. We have a lot of options we're not exercising, but the algae oil is one of the few that has the potential to replace all our transportation energy.
It may not be an evil agenda but he's definitely not putting a lot of thinking into what he does. Which makes you two a perfect match.

Well, twitless, maybe you should learn how to think in complete thoughts. If this technology has been around since the 1970's why is it George W.'s fault that is is not wide spread in use? I am not sure if you know this, but he has only been President since 2000. I know, he must have used his ``magic powers'' to stop all the other world leaders and corporations from implementing this. It really is a conspiracy. Run, get your tin hat and hide!
So when you think W. isn't putting a lot of though into what he does it is actually him just living in reality. That is something you should work on.

Corollas

[Ghostgate]

I second your comments on the Corollas. Even the later 90s models are quite good. I have a '97 Corolla and have always gotten over 35mpg. I don't know what the newer ones can manage, but those mid to late 90s models are excellent. Not to mention the thing still runs like it did when it was new, and it's closing in on 90k miles now. And I've never had a single problem with it, beyond a flat tire once. Corollas = good.

Best of both worlds then?

[totoanihilation]

Now what if you had a hybrid car that you could plug in at night to charge it up for the next work day? Can this be done with current hybrids? For short distances, it might be able to run without ever turning on the engine.

In places such as Quebec where close to 100% of our power comes from hydroelectricity, this might turn out to be cheaper to the customer, and better for the environment, while still allowing us to fill up at a gas station for a long cross-country trip.

Re:Best of both worlds then?

[ChiralSoftware]

None of the current hybrids on the market have this. I think it would violate some kind of auto-industry tabboo. If people start getting used to plugging in their cars, then they would be more open to buying a 100% electric car for their next vehicle. And if that happens... the auto industry is in a lot of trouble.

Why are all-electric cars a huge threat to the auto industry? Because the barrier to entry to creating electric vehicles is vastly lower than the barrier to entry to creating ICE cars. The barrier to entry for ICE cars is in turn lower than the barrier for hybrids and hydrogen cars. I'm sure that's a lot of why the auto industry is so excited about hybrids and hydrogen. It protects them.

With 100% electric cars, anyone can buy the components (batteries, motors) and start building cars. That's a big problem for the existing manufacturers.

I realize that some of the big manufacturers have produced 100% electric cars (EV-1, RV4ev, etc) but they were all on lease programs. It just didn't seem like the manufacturers wanted people to switch to these.

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[Duhavid]

An automatic transmission ( really, the torque converter ) can produce torque at zero RPM. Note, the zero RPM is on the *output* side, not the input side.

Fuel economy is just a bonus...

[vacantskies]

The increase in fuel economy (15% ain't bad if they can consistenly get that) does impress me, it kind of seems like a sidenote about the product from these guys.

My meaning: I have a 1993 Civic SI. It is a 4-cylinder 1.6L that gets roughly 25-30MPG on the street and puts out around 125HP. If I want to increase power/ mileage, my best option is a turbo kit from GReddy. $2500 + _HOURS_ or labor for "everything you need" for a power boost.

While this is technically true, anyone experienced with building a good engine (at least most Japanese 4-cyl engines) will know that the "bolt-on" turbo kit will greatly affect your system's stability without building up your block. I.E. new pistons with stronger wrist pins, maybe even sleeving the block, reducing the compression ratio, etc...

For about the same price as a decent turbo kit and all the modifications it will require to run nicely, I would rather have a system that I can literally bolt on in a couple hours, and see a DIRECT INCREASE in both mileage and performance.

This system is aimed more to someone who wants the extra power without too much work or sacrificing stability or has already done a forced-induction job already and still sees room for improvement, and less at your save-the-environment and stop-america's-dependence-on-foreign-oil camp.

Just my 00000010

i read some replies....

[hot_Karls_bad_cavern]

i gotta ask what state is this? (State? i meant, where are you located? Not all folks on /. are stateside)

While the point was made that one might not be able to cruise the highways and byways without paying a fuel tax, i must ask those that pointed that out: have you asked your congresspersons why a person not using fossil fuels might not be gifted the pleasure of being exempted from said taxes? After all, they are making an effort to move from them, why punish them for it? Where will that revenue come from if everyone jumps on this boat? You tax me on my car, that i own, already, tack on a "right to drive the roads" tax and keep the fuel tax for those willing to keep using the fossil fuels (in addition to the RTD tax). i know, i know, outrage, riots, blah, blah, blah, you and i both know Americans won't take notice of....well, anything until it hits that pocketbook. We should not be so dependant on the fossil fuels as it is, so tax the folks using it, enter the "right to drive the road" tax, and give a small break to those making the effort to break from the norm. The roads will be paid for in some way (hell or high water), so why not start "helping" folks convert by punishing those that still refuse to buy a hybrid?

Oh but not everyone can afford a hybrid or biodesiel!!! Tell ya what, subsidize that them, give tax breaks for buying them. Not that hard to imagine....unless you own an oil company, or distributor, or refiner, or get campaign bank from them.

Poor guy shouldn't be picked on, perhaps made to help pay for the roads he drives on, but not singled out or made an example of (a bad one). :-)

Radiant Floorboard Heating

[Dr. Mu]

Let's see now. That Super Capacitor Battery Pack resides in the trunk, a good 15 feet or more from the electric booster motor. And yet, that selfsame Battery Pack can provide "up to 600 amps at 48 volts to the electric motor for acceleration durations". The maximum ampacity (i.e. the maximum current that can be safely carried without overheating) of 4/0 AWG wire (about 1/2" diameter) is 360 amps for copper. Just what were they planning to connect the two with? A superconducting bus bar?

Re:Radiant Floorboard Heating

[Anonymous Coward]

Great stuff for powering high powered stereo :)

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[iamacat]

Wait just a second here. Gas mixed with air explodes in a closed chamber and creates pressure. Wouldn't it accelerate your train just a bit, provided that the force generated is greater than the rolling friction? The existance of steam locomotives seams to confirm it's possible. Of course, the chamber needs to contract back without wheels of the train moving much, so the mechanical design may need to be modified compared to a car that accelerates quickly.

But if modern train use generator-motor coupling even once they start moving and get some RPM, either all engineers are incredibly stupid, or that is really more efficient than mechanical transmission.

Straight Veggie Oil

[bhima]

Man, if I was going to do all that work I'd do a SVO conversion on my car.

Don't bother, build a plain electric

[ecloud]

Yes with batteries you may only get 50 miles range but that is enough for most commuting purposes. Never visit a gas pump again or care what the prices are up to - you can refill at home or any outlet anywhere. (Of course keep an old SUV or pickup around for the longer trips, hauling stuff etc.)

Here's the idea for a hybrid on the other hand - take all the complexities, idiosyncracies, maintenance woes, hazards etc. of both gas-powered and electric cars and combine them into a single design. Sounds like a recipe for a nightmare to me if not well-executed.

Just in case you think electric cars cannot be quick or powerful enough check this out:

National Electric Drag Racing Association

And you can get a lot of help to build such a car yourself here. Disclaimer: I'm not following my own advice yet, due to lack of time; but I plan to.

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[psetzer]

Well, let's take a look at what we're talking about. Suppose we're trying to push an SD70MAC, which produces 6000 hp at around 1800 RPM. First things first, if you want a manual transmission, this involves the mother of all clutches. Otherwise, it involves the mother of all torque converters and a truly massive set of planetary gears. Neither is very pretty. Next up, you have to get the power to what can be at least sixteen drive wheels. Oh, and they're on pivoting bogies in some cases, which makes drive shafts much more fun. Finally, you have to have an engine with a wide powerband, and the engine won't spend most of its time running most efficiently. This is because in a manual transmission, the wheels rotate at a constant multiple of the rotation rate of the engine. If the wheels are stopped, so is the engine, unless you're depressing the clutch.

The reason for having electric drive is simple once you realize the previous facts. First, there's simply a direct shaft from the engine to the alternator or generator (Trains can be both AC and DC). That means no gears at all, and no clutch or torque converter. The wires from our generator can run to the drive motors in any manner that they wish. Finally, they connect to the wheels directly, with no gearing. Note that the speed that the engine is turning is completely independent of the speed of the wheels. This allows improved efficiency, and it lets you have any torque at zero velocity. Furthermore, note that we also have maximum torque starting out, and trains really need it when someone decides to save money by putting fewer engines on a larger consist. Even though it suffers from all the inefficiency of the two conversions, it can always run at the engine's sweet spot. However, the fuel efficiency isn't as big of a problem as it seems. Once a train is rolling, they need very little power to keep it going. The fuel that is used in the engines is also not the kind of stuff that you would put in your car, or your tractor for that matter. It's like high-sulfur 30 weight, and it costs less than any other petroleum product short of road tar.

interesting possibilities comming out.

[tmortn]

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosinsider/0308/12/b 02-242629.htm/

I wonder if you could eliminate the transmission and do this with 2-4 Hub motors.

100kw would move most cars quite smartly with the low end capabilities of electric motors.

Use

http://www.freedom-motors.com/

in one of the 75 HP configurations weiging in at 80 pounds driving a DC generator with essentially a bigger battery/capacitor pack where the capacitors handle the heavy loads and acceleration. The motor provides LD sustained crusing capacity and keeps a minimal battery pack charaged up for a sustained power expenditure ( like climbing a mountain ).

Figure a battery pack would need to be able to sustain say 50kw ( in addition to the motor energy generation) for 5-10 minutes without going under 50% charge. Capacitors capable of sustainting max for 1-2 minutes similar to this device. Not that you would accelerate this long but that would allow for numerous stop and go cycles before you could deplete the charge.. esspecially with regenetarive breaking.

You eliminate the transmission and transaxel. Might be able to break even on weight and your connections (exception of steering most likely) becomes cabling rather than mechanical linkages.

Toss in the magnetic suspension from the other story on here and you could make a very interesting car.

Re:interesting possibilities comming out.

[leon.gandalf]

Now that would make a hella nice 4X4 upgrade to any vehicle!!!

Digital tuning

[myg]

Digital tuning on traditional engines can increase MPG (as well as horsepower). Lots of companies make tools that allow you to re-flash the ECU and transmission controller of your current vehicle. In addition to added horsepower, configuration of your vehicle to more specific operating conditions (altitude, temperature, etc) can improve MPG.

For Ford and GM trucks Diablosport makes a tuning tool.

Bunk!!! Bunk I say!!! Re:Seems legit to me

[kf6nux]

Judge the company on some of their other products.

http://www.sigmaautomotive.com/IRD/superfuelmax. ph p

Last I knew, superconductors need to be really cold. How do you think they keep the "superconductors" in this snap on package so cold?

This company is obviously targeting gullible people. As someone else pointed out, their "system" mentions regenerative breaking but meantions no installation of a new braking system. In addition, their system runs on a measly 48 volts.

If BlueJay465 and micheal lived in my country, they'd both be flogged for posting this. (Totalitarianism sucks if you're not the totalitarian. =)

This concludes:
Bunk!!! Bunk I say!!!

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[joib]

Gas mixed with air explodes in a closed chamber and creates pressure. Wouldn't it accelerate your train just a bit, provided that the force generated is greater than the rolling friction?


If you're talking about starting from a standstill, then practically speaking, you'd either break your tranny or bend the crankshaft. Sure, it's possible to make an engine or transmission strong enough, but they'd be big as a house.


The existance of steam locomotives seams to confirm it's possible.


Steam locomotives work slightly differently. They have a continous steam pressure pushing at the pistons in the cylinders. That produces a smooth torque even at zero rpm. Also, if the train is too heavy, the piston won't move but nothing will break. For an internal combustion engine the situation is different, either the axle turns or something breaks.


But if modern train use generator-motor coupling even once they start moving and get some RPM, either all engineers are incredibly stupid, or that is really more efficient than mechanical transmission.


Yes, modern diesel locomotives have an electrical drivetrain all the way, no mechanical coupling. See the answer psetzer gave for more details.

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[Gordonjcp]

Not very much torque, though. Most of the energy is lost as heat - this is why automatic gearboxes often require large oil coolers. You're not talking about some underpowered cast-iron V8 here, kicking out 150hp on a good day. Some of these locomotive engines produce several thousand brake horsepower at full chat, and often you find that there are two or more per locomotive.

Not really a proper hybrid...

[Gordonjcp]

A "proper" hybrid will allow you to run the car *just* using the motor, or *just* using the engine, or both. This just seems to spin the engine when it kicks in.

You mean IP bubble.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't an Internet Bubble. Just drop that false attempt at blame already. The Internet is alive and well. The fact is, the bubble was and still is an IP bubble created by the Republicans in the eighties and it hasn't finished popping at all. It's still in the long, slow process of deflating. Ten years from now you'll be able to speak of pops. It hasn't even started yet.

Other ways to get good mileage

[jlnance]

The kit looks interesting.

However, with a little outside the box thinking, there are other ways to get good mileage. I'm getting 70 mpg, and the vehicle cost less than $4000 brand new:

http://www.buell.com/en_us/bikes_gear/blast/

Its fun to drive too!

Prius electric-only performance

[dtmos]

The electric system alone will drive the Prius at 42 miles per hour or less, when the battery is at a nominal to high state of charge. Range in this mode is one to two miles, depending on driving conditions and other internal loads on the electrical system, as the parent states.

Note also that, while it still does not have an external charger, the Prius sold in Europe has an "EV-only" switch that enables the car to be operated as an electric-only vehicle. Prius sold in the US do not have this switch, and are hybrid only.

Don Garlits

[dtmos]

In Don Garlits' Museum of Drag Racing there's a top fuel dragster he developed that used a large tank of compressed air to drive the engine blower (supercharger). The idea was that driving the supercharger was actually a large load on the engine, and that if he could power the supercharger from something else, more power would be available to the rear wheels.

Unfortunately, the design wasn't successful; IIRC Don doesn't say exactly why, but I suspect a problem would be regulation of the compressed air power to drive the supercharger; most power is available from the air tank at the start of the run, while most power is needed to drive the blower at the end of the run.

Plus, I suspect the NHRA would have some regulatory comment on the whole affair.

Convert to LPG

[Jasa]

Here in the Land Down Under.
Unleaded Petrol (or what people in the US call Gasoline) is retailing for about AUD$1.105 per Litre
Where as LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) is retailing for about AUD$0.365 per Litre
Any of the modern conversions don't suffer any power loss and give the same fuel economy as Petrol.
At only arround AUD$2000 it pays back pretty quickly. Plus it is much cleaner on the emissions than Petrol.

Nah

[ishmaelflood]

Not me, and the parent seems reasonable as well.

I wish I had gone to MIT, but I've learned to be an arrogant asshole anyway.

I disagree

[dtmos]

Hybrid cars do not have more maintenance than regular ICE cars. Check the suggested maintenance schedules of the Prius vs. that of, say, a Camry. Hybrids have some more "electric stuff," but since it's electric and electronic, it needs little or no maintenance. Also keep in mind that the Prius' ICE and electric motor interface replaces the conventional transmission, so the interface can hardly be considered extra.

I agree that the economics are about a wash, so the real point is, why not get a hybrid--especially since you get other nice features, like a tax deduction, driving in HOV lanes when you're alone, silence at stoplights, plus the knowledge that you're producing far less pollution (at least in the case of the Prius) than almost everything else on the road? Why wait for your economic all-electric car that isn't here?

(n.b.: As a matter of discourse, to convince others of the validity of your economic argument it would be best if, after saying that you can save money with an all-electric car, don't say in the same paragraph that the big problem with them is their batteries are very expensive.)

so

[Anonymous Coward]

you generate the electricity that you use in these "wall outlets" from small self contained non-polluting generators you keep in your basement? or

does the electricity come from a big coal burning power plant?

Re:so

[toddestan]

What do you suppose is cleaner for the environment? Lots and lots of small internal combustion engines running around, which may or may not be in good running condition - or a few large coal-fired power plants that are undoubtably well maintained?

What do you suppose is better, being dependent on oil that mostly comes from the middle east for gasoline, or coal that can be mined in the US?

Re:so

[Anonymous Coward]

does the electricity come from a big coal burning power plant?

No, a nuclear power plant. A nice clean thing that stores a bunch of uranium that someone took out of the environment and locked up in a concrete box.

Re:CVT

[tcgroat]

The Subaru Justy was available with a Van Doorne CVT in the early '90s. This transmission did hold constant RPM: 2500 for standard economy/cruise operation, or 4000 in the "sport" mode/passing gear. This set-up was so effective you would never know the car had a tiny (1.2L?) 3-cyliner engine.

Brushed Aside

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about people use the most efficient mode of transport ever invented. The bicyle!
I've always had the romantic idea of
dedicated covered bicyle pathways running through the main corridors of a city. And bikes are so cheap you could have little bike depots around the city where people just leave their bikes because everyone owns them and there would be no locks cause there were so many bikes and people could get paid to round them up like supermarket trolley wranglers and people would smile at you in the street and everyone would spend their days doing a couple of hours in their local community garden then go for a picnic and a sleep under a tree in a park and then you would go home and surf the web on an internet made of little overlapping umbrellas of wireless networks while your eggplant casserole bubbled in the oven and after tea you would meet your friends at a local pub and listen to a band fom 3 towns away and as you place your locally batch-brewed organic beer back on the table after a particular satisfying swig you lean back into your chair, utterly content.

it's also illegal for NEDRA racing

[doorbender]

there can be no ICE engine in a vehical that adheres to NEDRA rules

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[Duhavid]

Quite. I was not proposing that locomotives switch to automatic transmissions, the diesel electric system seems quite optimal, especially when you consider how many wheels they have.

I was just pointing out that there were other options besides the manual transmission the original (to our conversation) post seemed to be assuming.

I get 60 mpg

[codepunk]

I own a honda motorcycle that gets 60 mpg, save energy ride a motorcycle.

Re:I get 60 mpg

[Technician]

I'd rather save a life, mine.

I have side impact beams, air bags, seatbelts, side air bags, can carry 4 passangers and their luggage or groceries, enjoy the stereo, use the navigation system, has heat and AC, and still get 48-52 MPG. I also don't need to get dressed special to run to work.

I love my Prius.

Re:I get 60 mpg

[Chris Cook]

I also don't need to get dressed special to run to work. You work in you PJs then? Glad I don't work with you.

Re:I get 60 mpg

[Technician]

You work in you PJs then? Glad I don't work with you.


I was thinking most people would understand things like helmet and something to keep your skin on when you slide along the pavement, and something to keep you dry in the rain, warm in the snow, and keep bugs out of your eyes and teeth.

Workplace dress code does not require the above items. I only work in my PJ's when I telecommute. Then dressing for travel is not an issue.

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded.

[hivbus]

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

Apache/1.3.31 Server at www.sigmaautomotive.com Port 80

DC motors..

[the_rajah]

I wasn't referring to AC motors in my original post, but rather DC motors. I apologize for not making that clear.

The use of AC motors in elevator applications is increasing with the advent of cost-effective AC vector drives, but the majority of presently installed traction (cable driven) elevators use large DC motors (up to as much as 150 H.P.) which definitely function as generators virtually as well as they function as motors. At least that's what I was taught when I took my motors course in Electrical Engineering school back in the 60's.

In our shop we have a test setup for our solid state DC motor drives that has two 40 H.P. DC motors connected back to back with one of them being a generator with its armature connected to a resistor bank serving as a load for the motor being driven. We adjust the mechanical load by selecting different configurations of the load resistor.

BTW, I'm an Engineer with an elevator manufacturer.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Re:DC motors..

[Almost-Retired]

Well, congress has screwed with a lot of laws in my time so far, but fortunately for us, they haven't tried to repeal any of the laws of physics. Occasionally wiser minds have usually prevailed.

Cheers, Gene

Re:DC motors..

[tzanger]

In our shop we have a test setup for our solid state DC motor drives that has two 40 H.P. DC motors connected back to back with one of them being a generator with its armature connected to a resistor bank serving as a load for the motor being driven. We adjust the mechanical load by selecting different configurations of the load resistor.

We do the same thing with a pair of AC motors -- the motor connected to the unit under test is mechanically coupled to a second AC motor connected to a VFD with a regenerative braking system -- spin up the test motor and then bring the drive up -- the difference in speed between the systems equates to your test load. Typically you run the VFD under 60Hz so you are regenerating like a crazy man. :-)

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[Gordonjcp]

Well, early diesel locomotives did use Rolls-Royce gearboxes that were very similar in principle to conventional Borg-Warner autobox. The basic design of epicyclic brake-band gearboxes is just too weak for the massive amounts of torque these engines produce.

Also, bear in mind that some locomotive engines may top out at just over 1,000rpm and idle at 400rpm. That's not a lot of rev range - you'd need a ridiculous number of gear ratios to cover all speeds from crawling away from a halt up to flat out at 140mph.

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[budgenator]

A transmission that will let you move a 16,000 ton unit train from a dead stop is way beyond infeasible.
Well the Space Shuttle Weight at end of mission: 104,326 kg (230,000 pounds) and is pulled arround by a modified semi-truck tractor so it's probably easier than you'd imagine. A hydro-static drive can give you nearly infinite gear ratios. Also in a train, there is a gap in each coupling, so the engine only has to pull one car from dead-stop, for about a half inch, then one from dead-stop and one that's already rolling, then one stopped and two rolling ect.(just don't stop on a hill)

Elevators today...

[the_rajah]

If you are talking about brand new elevator installations, it may be true that VVVF is in the majority, I don't have actual data for that, but if one looks at the whole current installed base, DC still rules for traction. The lifetime of an elevator motor and machine combination is extremely long, especially if it gets even basic routine maintenance on the bearings and brushes. I have installed modern regenerative solid-state DC drives on elevator motor/machine setups that were originally installed before the great depression of 1929. Within the past 5 years I have seen elevators that were installed before 1900 that are still being used in their original configuration with the original motors and controls. No, they don't meet current safety code and are not allowed for passsenger use, just moving materials.

While powering a DC motor from a motor-generator set seems archaic, there are still lots and lots of them in use. I know about this as the company that I work for is in the elevator business and maintains a great many such elevators here in the MidWest.

Back to the subject of regeneration - The power company doesn't get pissed since the regenerated energy is returned in phase, both through the motor-generator sets and the solid state drives. We certainly don't want to have large resistor banks to dissipate excess energy and it's definitely more energy/cost efficient to do regeneration. Those elevator machine rooms are hot enough in the Summer without having an electric heater in them.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Re:Elevators today...

[MegaHamsterX]

Err, I didn't think they did, I thought it was just shunted, I believe you since you're in the business, I happen to know some of this stuff as I grew up around it, and learned basic logic playing with those cube relays and learning to read relay logic prints.

In FL it seems that all are VVVF if they are maintined by a major, I'm sure they're not all, but as they need major work done the old units are replaced. Relay logic is disappearing as well as most people today just don't get it, and can't fix it.

My dad does it for a living, mainly the finish work prior to inspection. When he retires I'll get him further into computers, heh, he carries a laptop on him now as it is.

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[budgenator]

Steam locomotives work slightly differently. They have a continous steam pressure pushing at the pistons in the cylinders. That produces a smooth torque even at zero rpm. Unless they were unfortunate enogh to stop at TDC, Top Dead Center. Also, if the train is too heavy, the piston won't move but nothing will break. Normaly the drive wheels would spin long before the connecting rods would break, which would wear a depression in the track, that would usualy be under the water tower or the coal shoot. If the wheel spin to long, the tire would heat and could be thrown off the wheel, usualy a steel tire was pressed on to a cast wheel for service.

The "Cyclopedia of Engineering", American Technical Society Vol. IV (c) 1912 has a lot on the subject as well as electric motors, generator and electric locomatives and trollies

Re:Seems legit to me - railroads

[jeephistorian]

So true....however....

In an SD70MAC, there are 12 wheels, which are still geared to the electric motors.

What makes the AC engine so neat is that they first generate AC power (all of them do) which is then converted to DC for control (don't know why they do this) and then converted back to AC. They do this because an AC motor can handle a stall without burning up, something HEAVY freights tend to have happen.

An SD70M (SD stands for "Special Duty", 70 was once the engine designation though I doubt that still applies, and the M is for widecab), uses DC motors, but still has AC alternators that are then converted to DC. The large radiator fans on the roof are resister grids to dissipate the excess power as well as cool the prime mover. When using regenerative braking (dynamics for railroaders), there motors are acting as generators, but the power has nowhere to go, so they go into a second set of resisters. When the DC motors stall, they heat up very quickly which can damage the windings.

Rolling resistance may be small, but the locomotove still have a huge job moving the trains along. They don't "just get moving", the have to deal with grades and curves which sap forward movement. If you have ever paced a heavy freight through hilly country, you would know how powerful these machine really are. There are few things as exciting as 24,000 hp throttling up to climb a grade.

Fritz

___________

Why turbines didn't work before...

[Dr. Zowie]

In the 1960s, several automotive companies looked into turbine power -- in fact, a semi truck powered with a turbine power plant traveled coast-to-coast to demonstrate the technology. The problem is that turbines are only efficient in a particular, even narrower range of power outputs than infernal combustion engines.

That made turbine engines impractical for the last four decades -- but a turbine might be just the ticket for a series hybrid car. The batteries then become a power conditioner / load leveler that isolates the turbine from the wheels better than any transmission could...

In fact, for a while I considered doing exactly what the article suggests -- making my existing car (a VW microbus) into a series hybrid. My idea was to pull the engine (but not transaxle) and adapt a series-wound DC motor to the transaxle. Then put a small deck on top of the motor (about where the normal shrouding goes) and stick either a commercial generator or a small aviation APU on top of it (where the carburetors and other ancillary crap for the VW engine would normally live). There's enough room on either side of the engine comparement to hold about a dozen car batteries, with a custom rack mount (I was planning on UniStrut, the Erector set for grown-ups). Supporting all that weight was an issue -- but you can buy heavy-duty torsion bars that would support it all.

Then I gave my van to a starving artist and bought a Prius. Haven't looked back.

Re:Why turbines didn't work before...

[syukton]

Turbine power is only more reasonable today than it was in the 60's because of advances in materials science as well as fuel science. The notion that you can get diesel fuel from plants is something that you would have been laughed out of the board room for proposing in the 1960's. But today, you can not only do it, but it's worth doing to reduce dependence on foreign oil. If amateurs are building 85 horsepower gas turbine engines to put on model remote control aircraft, I don't see why there's nobody attaching one to an automobile. I mean, hell, you could use a secondary turbojet air intake driven by the action of the primary driveshaft, but use the secondary air intake solely to mix with and therefore cool the exhaust from the main engine.

Also, re: hybrid conversions... I read a great series on doing an EV conversion of a Mazda 626. Full EV, not a hybrid but an actual remove-the-engine-and-replace-with-a-DC-motor conversion. You can read about it here: http://jerryrig.com/convert/proto.html -- the whole tale of construction is some forty pages long but worth the read if you're even considering something like this in passing.

Even better than turbines though are magnetic motors (zero emissions, lifespan >400 years); but there's still great controversy over whether or not such a device is even possible. It's still on the drawing board right now, and the only people with a working device haven't yet started selling them (Perendev Power). A Mr. Kohei Minato of Japan has an interesting magnetic motor as well, although his requires timed electromagnets in order to ensure operation. A true magnetic motor would not require anything other than the magnets properly oriented to spin the wheel. This is a bleeding edge idea though, and it is to be met by much criticism from the scientific community even as a simple idea. If a magnetic motor were ever created, the absolute notion that magnets cannot "do work" would be challenged, prompting a possible divergence of thought in modern physics.

I think diesel-powered gas turbine engines would be the best. You can use the existing fuel distribution infrastructure for diesel fuel; unlike hydrogen or electric cars you wouldn't need to heavily modify the fuel distribution infrastructure in order to get wide acceptance. People would probably be more comfortable with an engine that makes noise and burns a fuel than they would be with a super-experimental magnetic motor that would be virtually silent. Also, with advances in ceramics and amorphous metal alloys, I believe that manufacturing a turbine (mass-producing) can be done cheaply.

I say again: grantwriting, anyone know how?

Re:Why turbines didn't work before...

[Dan B.]

I have but one word for you.

Noise.

Re:Why turbines didn't work before...

[syukton]

Turbines are less noisy than piston engines, and the noise they make is constant and invariable, whereas a piston engine's noise varies quite a bit depending on how hard the engine is working. Also, mufflers? And if the noise is constant and predictable, noise-cancellation technology?

Re:Why turbines didn't work before...

[Dan B.]

From memory, and I left uni 10 years ago, muffling a gt engine seriously ruins it's performence. Then again, we were interested in them pushing 300,000 tonne aircraft along at 500mph...

Re:Why turbines didn't work before...

[Dr. Zowie]

``Magnetic motors'' - bah. They don't conserve energy, so most rational people don't believe in them. I've analyzed a few designs myself, for fun when I was a gradual student. There's always some little mistake the inventor made, where the power gets lost. Then, when you point it out, they get angry at you for spoiling their perfect idea.

I've done some elevator work in FL..

[the_rajah]

Over in the Tampa / St. Pete area and have done both kinds of drives. We put in a couple of very nice German-made AC drives at one of the big hotels in St. Pete Beach, but renovated the service elevator and kept the existing DC motor, replacing the MG set with our own SCR drive. I did renovation DC drives at the VA hospital there, too. We're out of that market now, though.

I agree that the major elevator companies (Kone, Schindler, Otis and ThyssenKrupp) are doing a lot more AC drives now on new construction and on jobs where the whole installation is replaced. The smaller regional company that I work for does a LOT of renovations where the existing DC motors and machines are perfectly useable with a new controller and SCR drive.

Regarding the shunting of excess energy, we put in an AC vector drive last week on an old freight elevator in a department store building. The previous setup was using the two-speed, 8-pole, high-slip, AC motor and gave a pretty rough stop since it was levelling at 50 Feet per minute whild full speed was 100 FPM. With the vector drive on the high speed windings of the old motor it's as smooth as a baby's bottom, BUT when going down with a full load, there are dynamic braking resistors that are dissipating about 1KW and thus making a lot of heat. It's actually less efficient than if it was a full regenerative DC drive with a DC motor where almost all the excess energy is returned to the power line. At least that's how the DC drive that we manufacture from the ground up works.

Give my regards to your dad. In our company his job is called an adjuster and the guys who do that are the top mechanics. Everyone of them I've worked with are very sharp and a pleasure to be associated with.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

What about driving AS work?

[Mal-2]

I'm currently working as a bank courier for my "day job". I drive 80 to 120 miles a day, 5 days a week. I'm driving a 1991 Celica GT, and getting 24 mpg, which is not too bad for city driving in an old car. But the most important point is that I paid the princely sum of $800 for the car, and about $300 more in maintenance (tires, brakes, alternator, the usual stuff), in over a year and a half. When (not if) the engine gives out, I'll be looking for another sub-$1000 car to replace it. Even with the lesser efficiency, you just can't beat cars like this from a TCO perspective. I can nurse these $600 to $1000 cars for a year or two, and when they become unreasonable to maintain or have a serious breakdown, I dump them.

There's even the possibility I may be able to sell this car, still running, when I decide to get another. That would be a first, since I usually get end-of-life vehicles, or in the one case I had a reasonably solid car, I ended up crashing it. (I suppose that was technically still running, since it could still move under its own power, but since it went straight to the scrapyard I file it under "salvage".)

Another thought is -- would I really want to put all these miles on a relatively new, relatively expensive car? So what if I drive the $800 car into the ground, I'll make a lot more than that and get another one. So it looks like I won't be getting a hybrid or electric vehicle until they appear on the used market for a couple grand or less, by which point they're going to need battery replacement. Not an attractive option.

Mal-2

Dual fuel pumps?

[newpath4com]

Why not put a second fuel pump online so that when a car gets to running down the interstate -needs less gas banging- that several (5 on an 8 cylinder) of the cylinder's gasoline supply could be cranked back? Everyone knows the horsepower drops once a car reaches cruising speed.

Hoboy! Clean coal!

[instarx]

What do you suppose is cleaner for the environment? Lots and lots of small internal combustion engines running around, which may or may not be in good running condition - or a few large coal-fired power plants that are undoubtably well maintained?

Funny you should ask - the small engines. If you are concerned that almost all lakes and streams (and fish) in the US are contaminated with mercury (recent EPA report) that mostly comes from coal-fired power plants, or by acid rain, or by heavy-metal ash, or by mountain-top removal strip mining, or by mine tailing sulfuric acid runoff then lots of small engines using gasoline are better.

Coal fired power plants are the most polluting source of energy used today in the US. Your so called 'well-maintained' coal power plants are not maintained to reduce emissions - they are maintained to maximize profits for the owners. Since Bush has gutted the New Source Review Rule coal-powered plants no longer even have to upgrade their air pollution control technology when they upgrade their plants. We now have ultra-large generating plants with 1950's pollution controls. On the other hand, vehicle emission controls are state of the art AND use a fuel that is much cleaner than coal to begin with.

Although today more air pollution is generated by point sources (cars) than from coal-fired power plants, that is simply because there are so many cars. If, however, you were to start powering all those cars with electricity from coal-powered generating plants the pollution and environmental destruction would be unbearable.

The bottom line is this: if you live in an area with hydro, nuclear, natural gas or even oil-fired power plants then a hybrid or electric car will reduce air pollution. However, if you live in an area that gets it energy from coal-fired power plants you will INCREASE air pollution by using an electric car powered by the grid.

As for your national independence argument, the solution is to develop CLEAN power sources - not destroy the environment with coal. Don't be fooled by the coal industry's ad campaign about the "new" clean coal - it is still the most polluting fuel we have and the most damaging to the environment - from mountin-top removal mining to heavy-metal ash disposal.

Electric cars

[Dabido]

In the 1980's I read a book on building your own Electric car, which basically cost US$1000 at the time. In the late 80's (or was it early '90s) I remembered GM said they couldn't build an electric car for less than US$100,000, which made me laugh. They used it as an excuse for scraping an electric car they were planning on building. (The good old, "We tried, but we can't do it for your own good" excuse most companies give when they really don't want to do something).

Well, the other excuse I've heard about Hydrogen fueled cars, is there isn't anywhere to build places to buy hydrogen from ... when I suggested to ppl that maybe the good old petrol station shoudl branch into hydrogen, they said it costs to much to install somewhere to store the hydrogen. How weird I thought, considering they had no problems when they wanted to sell LPG or needed to sell Unleaded Petrol.

Personally, I am getting tired of car manufactureres, and petrol companies always finding excuses why we need to stick to petroleum based products when peopl ehave made alternative fueled vehicles for ages without the high costs or problems obtaining the fuel. It only becomes 'difficult' or 'a problem' when the current incumbants of the industry find they need to do something about it. Nanni-mo hoshii mono-ga nai!!!

Something's wrong there

[Andy Dodd]

Considering it's possible for a Plymouth Reliant to break into the 10s for under $20k (and probably under $10k...)

But still, 3sec off the 1/4 is VERY tough without significant HP increases (100-200+ additional HP at least) and significant traction improvements.

BMW X5 hybrid

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like a simpler version of this:

http://priusonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=586/