Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Builds a Patent Thicket For Hybrid Cars
Lorien_the_first_one sends along a WSJ piece reporting on how Toyota is hoping to benefit from new Obama Administration regulations for automobiles here in the US. "Since it started developing the gas-electric Prius more than a decade ago, Toyota has kept its attorneys just as busy as its engineers, meticulously filing for patents on more than 2,000 systems and components for its best-selling hybrid. Its third-generation Prius, which hit showrooms in May, accounts for about half of those patents alone. Toyota's goal: to make it difficult for other auto makers to develop their own hybrids without seeking licensing from Toyota, as Ford Motor Co. already did to make its Escape hybrid and Nissan Motor Co. has for its Altima hybrid."
I'm just about to file for an anti-patent [insert swear of your choice] patent.
I don't really keep up with the whole hybrid gig, but isn't it basically the same as locomotives and mining haul trucks?
Ouch... there appears to be prior art.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
This is exactly what patents *should* be used for: secure rewards for innovators who take the risk of bringing out a future-leading product.
The US auto companies who had a product vision apparently inspired by Country & Western music unfortunately passed on the opportunity, and now they'll have to pay.
I believe this has been their plan from day one. While the Prius and their other hybrids have been good for the company both in terms of corporate image and moving vehicles, patent licensing is where the money is.
By cornering the market on hybrid system patents (many of which would also apply to hydrogen and other alternative-energy vehicles), they stand to make a lot more money than just selling their own cars. The Ford Escape hybrid is a perfect example, as Ford licensed Toyota's 1st generation hybrid drive system rather than developing their own (Toyota had already moved on to the newer hybrid system by that point in time).
Disclaimer: I own a Prius
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
They SHOULD be making volt-style plugin series hybrids instead of Prius style parallel hybrids that have a direct connection between the gasoline engine and the wheels
If patents are supposedly to encourage new technological developments, without knowing the details, it sounds like this might actually be a responsible use. After all, it gives Toyota a financial incentive to come up with more efficient cars. And the competition is actually licensing it. Unlike in the farmaceutical industry, where companies patent publicly-funded findings from NIH research so that they can be the only ones profiting from it. Or software, where people patent stuff to be able to sue their competitors out of a product space.
So it's a fact that Toyota's goal is to prevent any one else from making hybrids without licensing?
Or maybe their goal is to protect their hard earned IP that they spent ten years working on while the rest of the world laughed at them?
Good work , Toyota. you deserve those patents.
the prius ad's gush about how the '09 model accounts for a thousand patents alone. my '06 prius said the same stuff. these patents are a source of pride for them.
THL phish sticks
This is a common misconception, but Ford does not license their hybrid technology from Toyota. Related post at Autoblog where they explain: http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/
I hope that, like half-Japanese girls, half-Japanese hybrid cars look exotic and very sexy. I'm sick of the science-project or iMac-humped-a-toaster designs that most people seem to put novel drivetrains in.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
If you think Japanese companies were the only ones working on hybrids, take a look at this article from June 1994:
Formula Hybrid at Le Mans
The neat idea behind Chrysler's design is that the turbine must be de-coupled from the drive train. The electric engine is the thing that is moving the car. This way the turbine can run at the most efficient RPM.
The fact is that American car companies built cars that could actually make a profit on. Those vehicles were SUV's.
It's a bit of a mess, but at least there are some hybrid cars. As other companies do more of this stuff (like the Volt, the Fusion if it doesn't use the HSD, etc) it will get to the point no one will be able to produce a car without violating patents, so they'll just cross-license everything and things will be the same as they are now.
The purpose of patents is to prevent progress. It's no longer to permit an inventor to the exclusive use of his art, and perhaps it's never been. There will never be a mass market electric car because these competing companies would rather prevent the electric car than share the market that destroys the internal combustion engine with another carmaker.
Unless we do away with patents. Then it's a race to market with the cleverest implementation of the newest technology you can get, because that's what sells, and every popular feature becomes common (commons?) in a very short time, requiring car makers to make continuous improvement in order to stay in business.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
They had been working half-assed on hybrids since 1993 and were more than happy to give all that up to take cash from the US government to show million dollar hydrogen prototype cars and trucks. Can you say dumb? Unfortunately, the US government is allowing them to continue operating and sticking US citizens with the bill. IMO, any of those three which couldn't continue operating should have been parted out and the remains crushed like GM did with the EV1. What a waste of money and it is their own fault Toyota is going to stomp on them with patent licensing costs as they should. After all, Toyota was the one who had to endure about 8 years of bashing by the US press and US auto makers for doing hybrid systems. They even had to endure a law suite by Mobile/Texaco when Toyota and Panasonic built prismatic NiMH batteries the oil company said were outside of the NiMH patent licenses which Mobile/Texaco purchased from GM. The large NiMH batteries used in the Rav4 EV had to be discontinued but at a cost of millions of dollars, they were allowed to continue making and using the prismatic design used in the Prius battery packs. Toyota deserves to be rewarded for what they've done with and for hybrid system designs.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I have a new word for you: aerodynamics.
Which is a major reason why the Prius and the Isight and the Volt get such good mileage. And look pretty much the same as well. Extremely low drag coefficients. Put a box on four wheels to hold four humans, some cargo, and an engine, and when you get right down to it there's only one optimum shape.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Yeah! Let's take away the patents of anything that might benefit someone someplace no matter what.
Sounds like the rantings of a freetard.
What do you do when companies refuse to put money into research since there's no return because anyone can simply rip it off? We'll be put into a new dark ages.
half-Japanese girls, half-Japanese hybrid cars
Stop giving them ideas!
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
So what did Toyota do that prevents competitors from innovating something better?
THL phish sticks
I'm all for patent reform, but this seems to me to be a classic case of the appropriate use of patents. The parent is just a moron. Toyota put a helluva lot of money and time into its hybrid technology, why shouldn't it reap the benefits of it, whether through the sale of its own hybrids or by licensing the technology?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Incorrect. GM *lost* money on many of it cars. I recall the number being around $1,000-$1,500 a vehicle. The SUV's were the only line where they actually made money per car.
Personally, I think GM should have just let the autoworkers pull a world-wide strike years ago. In the long run they would have been ahead even though the short term costs would have been very painful.
There is no conspiracy other than the will to survive. You can see why a company losing money on each car would *have* to fight against further regulation.
It seems to me the only organization that came out of this whole bailout was the UAW.
Given that Honda seems convinced that their tech doesn't conflict with any Toyota patents I'm curious as to how specific these patents are. If they're general enough for any automaker to run afoul of them just by making any sort of hybrid system then I'd imagine they could be invalidated through prior art. If they're much more specific to the Prius drivetrain then there are other questions, like how many patents deal directly with the drivetrain, vs control software, or other elements like battery tech? If it does get to that point then it can be debated if the public good of having more hybrids from different automakers outweighs the legitimate issue of rewarding Toyota for spending years and what was probably a fair sum of money in the development of their hybrid tech. I imagine that these patents cover a combination of the 2, and ford (and others) have decided that paying Toyota is cheaper than bringing a legitimate challange.
I'd guess that at least a few of these patents deal with the weird new "cvt" that only uses planetary gears instead of belts or chains, which is a pretty significant and original idea for a car. A simulation of the gear system can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/inachan/prius/planet_e.html
Then explain, pray tell, why the Mercedes E-Class looks pretty 'normal' and yet has a better Cd than the Prius or Insight?
Achievable Cd numbers are pretty close for a wide range of vehicles, so most of the difference in aerodynamic drag is due to the difference in frontal area. There's really no excuse to munt up a car's appearance just to eke out another 2% improvement in Cd when they can reduce actual drag by far more simply by making it a couple of inches narrower.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Ouch... there appears to be prior art.
Like that ever stopped anyone before.
Assuming you've got money and lawyers, press on...
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
It is common for tecnology companies to file patents for defensive purposes. The purpose is not specifically to prevent others to compete but rather to prevent patent trolls to extort money from them in the future. Having as many things related to your product patented create a body of prior arts that can be used to fight suits by these trolls. What happens in an industry where there are a few major players (car, printers, etc) is that they end up cross licensing each others' patents anyway. This way the can focus on producing and selling their products without having to deal with lawsuits from patent trolls all the time.
Depends on what they patented and how willing or unwilling they are to license.
But it comes down to if you improve upon and existing patent you have to license the that patent. If .. you still have to license A. And if you create C that is an improvement on B.. you must license A and B to not be infringing.
B is an improvement on A
Considering Honda put the first hybrid on the road (that anyone could own), I don't think they have anything to worry about. That and the systems are quite different.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
So Toyota is just supposed to let a decade of R&D go out the window? I hate software patents as much as the next person, but Toyota had to invent physical items from scratch in anticipation of high gas prices. They were way ahead of the curve and deserve to be compensated by having their inventions protected for a period of time so they can recoup their costs and make a profit. You want to have a state-of-the-art hybrid? Buy a prius.
Toyota's goal: to make it difficult for other auto makers to develop their own hybrids without seeking licensing from Toyota
I would like to introduce to you the Ford Fusion Hybrid, which has been rated above the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima hybrids in numerous reviews.
And while Nissan did license Toyota's hybrid technology, Ford did not. The Ford Fusion Hybrid is the first automotive hybrid drive train to be developed in the US, by a US auto company, and built in North America for an American car. So if Toyota is trying to preemptively squash competition with their patents, they are too late.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I went to Toyota's UK site and looked at what's available. Most of the cars there are available with insanely efficient diesel engines, for some cars there's more than one option. And they're more environment friendly, since there's no battery to make and recycle, fuel efficiency is comparable, and the only harmful byproduct is soot, which settles on the ground.
I would LOVE to buy those cars here in the US. Thing is, they're not available here. My plan is to wait until they are, so if Toyota wants to sell me a car, they better offer a diesel one.
The typical patent troll is a (usually small) company that does not produce the product itself, but only tries to cash in on the patent. So the patent troll does not violate the defensive patent, and suing them back becomes useless.
Where it works is among companies that actually produce the product in question. Which often ends up in cross-licensing as you correctly observed, and in that context patents might as well not exist at all.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The Volt gets pretty good gas mileage because, it, uh, doesn't run on gas. I think it's hard to even compare the Volt and a "hybrid" or any car where locomotion is directly tied to an internal combustion engine. The Volt is a true EV that has a gasoline engine to watch over the battery. If you drive under a 40 mile "session", the gas engine won't need to start... ever. Imagine that, from a near dead American car company that also makes 400+ HP hot rods. What else? I don't think GM licenses hybrid technology from Toyota... They seem to be doing pretty well without Toyota's help. I am reasonably sure GM's 2 mode hybrid system is also more sophisticated, albeit different, from Toyota's "synergy drive". I saw my first Tahoe hybrid the other day. Sure strange listening to a big SUV "whine" quietly and drive off.
Sounds to me that a fix to the patent system is a compulsory licensing scheme similar to the copyright royalties board.
If you want everyone to build hybrids or other efficeint cars, you simply CAN NOT allow one company to have a stranglehold on the technology!
Quite right. As soon as Toyota uses their "mammoth" patent portfolio to keep GM or Ford from making hybrid cars, the government should step in... and institute mandatory licensing of Toyota's patents.
Toyota paid money to develop techology, and then TOLD US HOW THEY DID IT on the condition that they'd get control of who makes it for 15 years. Good for them. GM and Ford have done much the same thing, for a boondoggle more patents. If the private companies cannot find a way to get a profitable margin between their portfolios and Ford -- well, we don't need to disucss that, because it's in the vein of "if Microsoft can't find a way to convince people to upgrade to the next version of Windows."
El Scorcho!
They expended big bucks on the technology over the years when the rest of the automakers were building crap like giant SUVs and Hummers. This is Capitalism 101 at it's finest. You take a risk when the market niche is young, and benefit when the rest of the world catches up.
Toyota makes fine automobiles and the American big 3 deserve to go bankrupt for the shit vehicles they have been producing up 'til now.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
On the highway, aerodynamics do play a part. However, I think the engines and their management play a greater role. The Prius uses Atkinson-ized cam timings. That means greater efficiency at the cost of power. Honda, on the other hand, also uses lean-burn and somehow got around the resulting higher NOx production too. And, of course, there's the electric drive which can capture, store, and release kinetic energy in the city.
From everything I've read, Ford independently developed their hybrid technology, then discovered that it was close enough to Toyota's that they had to license Toyota's patents.
Nissan, on the other hand, is using Toyota technology itself, purchased directly from Toyota, the only major difference being that the gasoline engine part is a Nissan engine as opposed to a Toyota. The electrical bits are 100% Toyota.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I don't see hybrids like the Prius going anywhere. Serial hybrids and electric cars are the future.
Then I thought about it some more and I began to be angered at the idea of 1K+ patents. That is just unreal.
Just think of the cost to research for prior art on that many patents if you were to do a good faith effort. No large corp spends the money/time to do a real search!
Either they are doing this as a reward to employees (some companies give bonus for patents) or they are building a war chest for patent/legal wars, or they are trying to control the market.
None of the above fits with the intent of the patent system. Perhaps, big companies should be fined if they file patents covered by prior art.
I own a Prius.
I don't really care about the gas mileage.
I bought it because it is simply the best $25,000 car you can get (at least according to my needs). Integrated bluetooth, love not having to take my keys out of my pocket to get in and out, drives well, flexible interior, seats 4 comfortably, interior well laid out, etc, etc. I did almost buy an SUV for more carrying space, but to get the tech I wanted I would have had to spend another $12,000, and that just didn't make financial sense.
Even if Prius's had half the gas mileage, they would still be competitive cars. The gas mileage just makes them even better.
paintball
you are 20 years too late
GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Why is it OK for an automotive company to protect it's hard work but evil for a software company to do the same?
No one expects Toyota to give it's cars away for free and live only off the repair work.
Slashdot seems bipolar on the patent issue.
I keep resolving to not be taken aback by weird shit from Japan.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now the U.S. can push back efforts in being "green" for another 20 years! Aren't patents lovely? I bet anyone my life's savings that without patents, Toyota would not have produced the Prius. Not because they wouldn't have had any motivation to, because motivation will still very much be there due to the fact consumers need cars (unfortunately), but because full electric cars would have been a reality ~30 years ago.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
...is to research and develop products for the future, not the present. It's called having "vision" and being able to (correctly) see where the industry was heading, and having products available when they're wanted.
Toyota's understanding of what buyers will value in the future enabled it to identify low emissions as a key selling feature as early as 1992, in the first version of its Earth Charter. Unlike US automakers, who likely would send this announcement (if it existed at all) to their PR firm to be published and forgotten, this program was acted upon by Toyota's R&D organization, as a bet on how the industry would change in the future.
One of the most frustrating parts of US auto companies is their apparently ingrained belief that their industry doesn't change. You hear it from their laid-off workers all the time -- "I thought I would always have a job here. My father worked at this plant, and his father, and ...." The fundamental reasons for Toyota's success are that they expect the market to change, they have a good vision of where that change is going, and they act on that vision, by investing in R&D on the products of the future.
Selling those chinese or whatever products in the US however would not be allowed unless they pay their license fees...
Since when does Japan care about US Intellectual Property law? Sorry for sounding so harsh, but part of the reason the American semiconductor industry died is the Japanese companies didn't pay licensing on the patents for RAM. It's no wonder they could build it cheaper.
Even today, I have several friends who design stearing columns for most of the major automakers. Toyota buys the minimum run of columns, then takes the shipment and reverse engineers it to build them on their own. No licensing or anything, so my friend's company just barely breaks even (the minimum order is just enough to cover the engineering costs).
So now they're going to use the system that they ignore because they'll make money off of it? Fuck. That. Shit.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
The Japanese never really respect intellectual property laws unless it benefits them. They copied everybody elses stuff for decades to drag themselves out of post bombing ruin, and now suddenly they can claim patent king?
Get real.
This is my sig.
Isn't the Ford Fusion hybrid the most fuel efficient hybrid now?
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
I have a new word for you: marketing.
The Prius is a package deal in the marketing department. From it's unnecessarily obtuse (but "futuristic") controls to it's ridiculous shape. If it were about aerodynamics, there are all sorts of improvements they could have made. Other posts in this thread have already explained some, and given examples of more aerodynamic cars that look less ridiculous.
In the '90's, the US govt gave the automakers a $billion a piece to do R&D for fuel-efficient/electric/whatever vehicles. GM did come out with the EV1, but we know "Who Killed the Electric Car". Toyota develops and successfully markets the Prius -- more power to 'em.
I'm sure the GM patented many things, as well.
I don't fear the patents .. back in the day, GM developed the best catalytic converter, and was basically given no option but to license it to everyone under reasonable terms. I'm sure "reasonable terms" means that GM made money, as Toyota will with these patents.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
They just change the stuff a bit and then resubmit it to get a few more years. Repeat ad nauseam.
The patent system is broken.
1) Trivial stuff get patented because there is no way the examiners can keep up with everything.
2) It doesn't really speed up progress.
For example: AMD comes up with something, but they infringe on Intel and vice versa so they have to spend resources cross licensing.
Now, if you're some small company that comes up with something new in the same field, and you don't have as much "patent ammo" as AMD or Intel, you can't build anything without infringing. BUT what you can do however is sit "twiddling your thumbs" while waiting to sue AMD, Intel, VIA if they infringe.
Heck in practice you don't even have to come up with something really new, you just have to patent obvious "next step" stuff - stuff as inventive as "100 methods of cracking eggs to make an omelette", and then sue people who try to make omelettes.
Whoopee, that sure encourages progress eh? Not.
It's fucked up.
If you want to encourage innovation and progress, it's better to give out Prizes for Innovation. A bit like Nobel Prizes. You could have many prizes a year and different categories of prizes - maybe one where "experts in the field" are judges and another with "members of the public" as judges (a bit like the Hugo Awards and Nebula awards). To be eligible for the prize you have to apply (pay a fee) to have your invention registered. If there's prior art, it's rejected. If only later they realize there's prior art that the examiners didn't know of at the time, that just makes you ineligible for the prize (whether you should get a partial refund or not, I'll leave that to others to work out).
As they say hindsight is 20/20:
1) It's easier in _hindsight_ to see that an invention was good, than for someone to see that a patent application deserves to be approved (instead of just rubberstamping stuff).
2) If the invention was indeed good, but just way ahead of it's time (only becomes amazingly useful 30 years later), the inventor could still get a Prize 30 years later. That's not true for patents (of course as mentioned you could constantly tweak your patents though and thus "refresh" them - but only the rich can afford to do that).
You just suggested making cars narrower (which makes them less comfortable) rather than making aerodynamic (which makes them ugly).
Is form really more important than function for you?
"Except that few of the European diesel cars can pass the tough relatively new US emission standards at a price point that competes with gasoline."
Is that still true if you use Bio-diesel instead of petroleum-diesel, or even a mix like 30/70 or 50/50?
I believe you're looking for the historical period referred to as "The Renaissance". I think it may have a wikipedia article.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is an easy one. Fear of consequences.
Taking property from a "small" landowner has very few consequences to the elected leaders of a government.
Taking patents from a large company (esp a large multi-national congolmerate) can have large consequences to the same elected leader. That's why you don't see the government taking land from large multi-national conglomerates (without paying them large sums of money).
Perhaps you weren't aware that the land is not taken when it is condemned (at least in the US), but traded for something of value (either money or other land). Sometimes larger companies can actually negociate with the elected leaders of a government to have their land condemned voluntarily (making them a larger net profit as they trade the land for some other land that is actually more commercially valuable to them). This sometimes fools the voters into thinking the government isn't really paying for the land, but the company profits from this ignorance.
You might be under the assumption that the elected leaders of a government are operating under a principle where they do things that benefit the public good, when in reality, they often operate under a principle where they do things primarily to benefit their re-election.
they have a cross-licensing agreement with toyota on hybrid patents.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
This is a good example of patent trolling/creation at its worse. The day comes when one company controls this kind of tech is a sad day for Americans. We need fuel efficient cars that drive well. Toyota has been at the forefront with that. It is time the ole American tech gets going creating our own technology for hybrid as well as electric and maybe hydrogen cars. We have to invent or get left behind. In this day and age most automobile companies are now owned in part by the federal government (except Ford at this time). Until we get Uncle Sam out of the car business this is unlikely to happen. Investments in tech is never a top priority with our government. It is always social programs and ripping off the tax payer as well as padding their own pockets. Maybe in this century this will change but it might take a revolution to do it.
> Toyota's goal: to make it difficult for other auto makers to develop their own hybrids without seeking licensing from Toyota
Oh well. I guess it's back to conventional cars, then.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Not sufficient though. As an exercise try inventing a new technology and then talk to investors about getting a funding for it and tell them your argument on how you don't want any patents because the cachet and the first mover will be enough, and see what they tell you after they laugh their ass off first.
Remember, the inventor starts out at an initial disadvantage since in order to break even they have to recoup the cost of developing the technology (which these days in case of advanced new technologies can be astronomical) whereas the copier doesn't have to do that. Copier's price for the same product is therefore by definition lower. Depending on the product, the costs of reverse engineering might be high or low or non-existent, but surely in every case they are much less than the costs of developing the technology in the first place. As for cachet, well in case of some products it might matter, but having a lower cost product is still a huge advantage for the copier, and it comes at the expense of the inventor.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Oh my. A post trolling for people who actually know something about patents. And moderated 4, insightful, as well. My, oh my. I believe, for the most part, in the purposes of the US Constitution, which says in part: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Now, there are MANY implementation details we can debate, but I challenge your assertion that we should do away with patents. That is a bad idea. For society, and for inventors. But, maybe not for you. So, how about some facts to back up your position that we should do away with patents, rather than fix the system that is exploited by fat cats at the expense of society? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause Regards, James
mod parent (by Jimmy_Slimmy) up!
This story pisses me right off. Have we not come to a point in our history where we realise that preserving our home planet is more important than individual wealth? Inventions and progress regarding ways to better life here on Earth should be exempt from patent law. It should be part of science and geopreservation, which should get international grants and funding. It needs to be like open source.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Most of this technology wasn't developed by Toyota, it was developed by research labs in the US and by college grad students, sadly, companies take advantage of these less fortunate and steel what others have created and claim it as their own.
If that's demonstrably true, then for the cost of a good lawyer or two (expensive, but probably less than actual R&D), it should be straightforward to get around any patent restrictions by showing the research as evidence of prior art.
Tweet, tweet.
I don't understand why the natural evolution of the hybrid doesn't include plug-in capacity already.
Because batteries expensive and heavy.
"His name was James Damore."
Toyota's goal is not to become rich because the public demands these cars, making it worthwhile for Ford & Co. to rent the patents, but rather to get in the way for impending US legislation that requires auto makers selling into the US to have this or that fuel efficiency standard, or this many or percent of alternative fuel vehicles sold.
It's the opposite of what patents help with: driving innovation to spur economic growth.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
i was gonna say: there has to be more than one way to build a hybrid or other efficient engine. just because Toyota has patents on one system, that doesn't mean that someone else can't invent a new one. (i'm totally ignorant of car mechanics and mechanics in general, so take that with a grain of salt)
"To stop the terrorists."
The new 2010-model-year Mercedes E-class base model coupe (C207) delivers a Cd of 0.24, the sedan (W212) delivers a Cd of 0.25. The new 2010-model-year Prius (shipping since May) delivers a Cd of 0.25. Not much difference here, but sure, if you want bragging rights (assuming you have one of these, of course). The Mercedes looks to have more frontal area than a Prius, so I wouldn't expect better mileage based on this tiny difference (and the new high mileage, 4-cylinder versions get 44MPG according to Mercedes, but they may not show up on this side of the pond). The old Insight had a Cd of 0.25 since back in 1999 (with a tiny Cd x A of 5.10 ftÂ)... they decided to clone the look of the Prius for this year's all new model, but didn't get it quite right... they're all the way up there at 0.28. Typical passenger vehicles range up to about 0.45.. the Hummer H2 has a Cd of 0.57 (and a Cd x A of 26.3 ftÂ).
Why does the Mercedes look better than the Prius? Well, some of that's certainly personal taste. But I would suggest the rest of is it money: US$48,925 for the base model Mercedes versus $21,000 for the base model Prius. At more than twice the price, it had better look pretty. I think it may have to do my laundry and cook my dinner for me, too.
It shouldn't be surprising to note that many performance cars could have similar coefficients of drag... it's not usual for designers to increase this (some of those whale tails and other tail end aerodynamics) in order to decrease lift. It shouldn't be surprising either that, 10 years after the Prius first hit the streets, other companies might be thinking seriously about green car technology. Mercedes is one of them, and they're claiming they'll hit 0.20 within the five years.
-Dave Haynie
Actually, GM's hybrid system is simpler than Toyota's... Toyota's is the first that can run as either a series or parallel hybrid system, which is exactly what you want for relatively small battery systems. It's extremely clever... no shifting, two electric motors and one ICE that meet at a set of fixed gears, yet allow either the ICE, the big motor, or both to drive the final drive of the car. The small motor adds drag or push in order to deliver the effect of a CVT, but without the problems (eg, weird pulleys and belts that break).
GM's is a pure series hybrid design... that's an electric car with an on-board gas powered charger, if you want to think about it that way. This is inherently less efficient than Toyota's design when you need the ICE, since the ICE can't directly drive the vehicle's wheel... it's permanently driving a generator, which in turn feeds power to the primary drive motor. I'm sure they optimize the ICE for this, but is only somewhat reasonable as a design given the relatively large battery in the vehicle. It remains to be seen what kind of mileage the Volt will get after the traction battery hits its 30%-charge minimum and the ICE has to kick in. They're saying "around 50MPG", but that's not yet a hard claim.
It may be good enough... I'm really going to be in the market for a plug-in hybrid, once my daughter claims my 2003 Prius in 2011 or so. The Volt is right in there... I have been following it was much as possible since they first spoke publicly about it. Even if they had to die and come back, it's good to see a US company getting serious about technology, not just silly marketing tricks. GM should have been here a decade ago... they could have produced something practical out of the EV1 experiment. Too many politics, at least at the old GM... it wouldn't suck if that was something lost in their re-invention.
-Dave Haynie
No, the Fusion hybrid is larger than the Prius or the Insight. The 2010 model has an EPA rating of 41 city / 36 highway, versus the 2010 Prius rating of 51 city / 48 highway... both are based on the new tests that attempt to produce a more real-world rating for hybrid cars. The Fusion is equipped with a 2.5L Atkinson-Cycle ICE, versus the 1.8L Atkinson-Cycle ICE in the Prius, and I think it's got a slightly larger/heavier battery pack. The Fusion's hybrid system IS based on a license of Toyota's technology.
My 2003 Prius was rated 51 city / 45 highway under the old EPA system. I typically get around 45MPG in warm weather, mixed city, country, and highway driving. The best long trip (full tank) ever averaged at just under 52MPG, but that was not typical driving. In winter, I'm usually hovering just above 40MPG (a combination of winter fuel formulations, cold's effect on the battery, and the ICE being run more by the computer to keep things warm).
The new Insight gets a rating of 40 city / 43 highway. It's actually a bit smaller than the Prius, but it's using Honda's "mild" hybrid technology... this is a much smaller electric motor that's essentially acting as a booster to the small 1.3L ICE. You can't run in "stealth mode" (electric-only, ICE shut off) in a Honda. And you're stuck with a conventional transmission (they used to offer a dual-pulley CVT or a stick, not sure about the new version). One of the best things about the Toyota design: it's more reliable than a typical ICE car (no alternator, no starter, no transmission, and the engine is revved up to 1000rpm by one of the AC motors before ignition, so there's less wear on the engine this way).
-Dave Haynie
GM should have been here a decade ago... they could have produced something practical out of the EV1 experiment.
Not really. The necessary battery technology wasn't there yet, and simply continuing to produce a mediocre electric car wasn't going to change that. Battery tech is hardly something that's under-researched, and GM throwing a few additional million dollars at the problem would have been a meanigless drop in the bucket. What the EV-1 represents is a state (California) thinking it could make technology advance by passing a law.WHen battery technology reaches the point where electric cars are truly useful, people will be all over them.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
If making a car 2 inches narrower makes it less comfortable, then the problem most likely involves burger consumption rather than fuel efficiency. Making cars aerodynamic doesn't necessarily make them ugly (see the point about the E-Class Mercedes). Where form truly follows function, and the function is well implemented and elegant, then the form is beautiful. The problem here is that the people designing electric cars up to now have (again with the exception of the Tesla Roadster) produced cars that look "exciting" or "futuristic" instead of making cars that actually look good.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Tesla is already doing it. Aptera and others soon (hopefully!) will go regional or national with practical, electric-only cars. Battery tech is only going to get better (electron bottles, anyone?) Bypass the "hybrid" patent thicket; do away with dirty, parts-heavy ICEs entirely and just get the maximum well-to-wheel efficiency possible, short of having a Mr. Fusion retrofit.
Read what I said, not what you expect based on every single EV-1 wacko out there claiming "they should have sold the EV-1". Of course not... who would spend $120,000 on an electric car that goes 100 miles, if you're lucky, and needs its batteries replaced every three years.
What I said... they should have continued development, toward a practical vehicle. It probably would have been some kind of hybrid... they were quitting just as Toyota was getting into the game.
As for California, they were in essence correct... you can HELP advance technology with the right legislation. Their problem was thinking they already new the answer before any of the real technical questions got asked. So they mandated "electric car"... what they should have mandated was a level of pollution, even based perhaps on what an EV running from typical electric power would generate (oddly enough, California's own SULEV standard is just that... you're as clean, or cleaner, than an EV powered from whatever the average power source was when they passed that law). So sure, it was not just a bad law, but an impossible one. With that said, lots of money went in, good technology was developed, and they basically just left there. Even the mechanicals... lighter body, aerodynamics that make a Prius or the new Mercedes E-type look downright boxy, etc. GM did what GM always does... the same bad habits that helped make them go bankrupt.
-Dave Haynie
Actually, you could buy the "Generation 0" Prius before Honda shipped their first Insight... but only in Japan.
Honda's system basically just parallels an electric motor with a conventional ICE engine, and allows that motor to drive the engine up to speed for quick starts. That lets the Honda system shut down the engine at stops, and provide a bit of electric boost for quicker starts with smaller engines... but there's still an otherwise conventional drivetrain, including transmission (Honda has typically offered your choice of stick or pulleys-and-belts CVT, they certainly could offer a conventional automatic as well).
Toyota replaces the conventional transmission with a fixed-gear set... a planetary set with small motor/generator, ICE, and large motor/generator coupled in a permanently fixed gearing. By clever use of software, they can run only the big motor, or the ICE and small motor/generator. Changing behavoir of the small motor/generator (on the "sun" gear in the gearbox) between generator and motor, the effective gear ratio between the ICE and the large motor (and final drivetrain) is varied. But there is no actual shifting of any sort. It's cool, and that's certainly the cornerstone of Toyota's patents. So any car built along a similar design would need to licence from Toyota, but I don't believe they cover all possible hybrids.
Of course, you never know.. there are dozens of little details in designs that get patented, some pretty cool, some downright stupid and, IMHO, obvious. You might have a hard time building a hybrid without running into either Toyota or Honda patents... not that I've tried. But I've seen similar things.. something as stupid and obvious as an electric program guide (as seen on every cable/satellite/TiVo/Replay/etc. set-top box) is a landmine of stupid patents (many if not most from the TV Guide people). Like one-click recording... that's why more systems pop up a "are you sure" or "hey, check these settings" menu before letting you record.
-Dave Haynie
I have to dig up the article that I read in the last 1week (autoblog or jdpower?), but it was claiming the Ford Fusion hybrid is the most fuel efficient car available on the market now.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck