Jaguar's Hybrid Jet-Powered Concept Car

An anonymous reader writes "Jaguar has developed a hybrid car that runs on gas turbines. The range extended vehicle usually uses four electric motors (one on each wheel) plus a lithium-ion battery pack for propulsion, but can achieve a performance boost from a pair of gas turbines mounted in the rear. Cnet UK reports the car can do 0-60 mph in 3.4 sec. (and 50-90 mph in 2.3 sec.) and reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius."

Comments

Should be reliable

[91degrees]

This thing has a dozen or so moving parts. Granted, the turbines move pretty damn fast but electric motors and generators are extremely reliable. Four indepenent motors and two turbines menas we have redundancy on top of that.

I'm a little suspicious of the emission claims though. How much of that is from plugin? I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Re:Should be reliable

[somersault]

I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Sounds way more efficient to me than a normal combustion engined and gearbox drive-train.

Then again, I'm not an engineer, but from the little I know it sounds very likely. I think normal petrol engines are less than 50% efficient, while turbines are very high.

Re:Should be reliable

[random string of num]

gas turbines are more efficient than petrol or diesel or engines, as the joule cycle is more thermodynamically ideal. The only problem is they prefer to operate at a continuous power output. Rover tried doing this in the 30's with Whittle's jet, but that was a disaster, the advances in electrical drive trains may have fixed this. still its pretty cool.

Re:Should be reliable

[somersault]

Ah. After some research I see that turbines seem to be around 40% efficient while diesel engines can be over 50%. I think the turbine efficiency was for converting heat to kinetic energy though which may not be a fair comparison for converting chemical energy to kinetic..

Re:Should be reliable

[Adrian Harvey]

I'm a little suspicious of the emission claims though. How much of that is from plugin? I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Turbo-electric (ie: turbine->electric->motors) are quite efficent, and commonly used in large equipment, like boats and trains (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-electric)

The difficulties here will be
1. how efficent the battery is, and how much the battery is used verses running in direct turbo-electric mode.
2. How well the turbine has been scaled down. Turbines get harder to make efficent the smaller they are - efficency is quite dependent on things like the ratio of the gap at the edge of the blades to the blade area. Small turbines need a lot more precision manufacturing to make properly efficent. A good single-cycle gas turbine such as this one: http://www.geoilandgas.com/businesses/ge_oilandgas/en/literature/en/downloads/LM6000.pdf can get 42% efficency, but small models often languish at 25% or so. [NB: combined cycle can get you as high as 60% but I will be *very* surprised if they've crammed that into a car... though they did say 2 turbines....]

All the same, I still want one!

Re:Should be reliable

[sadtrev]

The Rover gas-turbine car was almost ready for launch (in the mid-'60s). It was cleaner, quieter and potentially cheaper than cars with conventional reciprocating engine designs.
It did have two major disadvantages - unreliability due to brittleness of the heat exchanger, and
- the tendency to singe the paint off cars that approached too close to the exhaust.

Re:Should be reliable

[MichaelSmith]

Have you ever looked at a locomotive? They are diesel electric, and very efficient. Mechanical drivetrains have very high losses compared to batteries.

Locomotives don't have batteries, but the gas turbines could be made very efficient in this case if they are either stopped or run flat chat. The peaks would be smoothed out by the batteries.

Re:Should be reliable

[CyberDragon777]

the tendency to singe the paint off cars that approached too close to the exhaust.

A car that automatically enforces the proper following distance? I want one!

Re:Should be reliable

[AikonMGB]

It's a hell of a lot more efficient than piston->electric->battery->motors. Also, if designed well, then if the turbines were running, they would power the electric motor demand directly, and using any excess power generation to top up the batteries.

Aikon-

Re:Should be reliable

[91degrees]

Some older motorbikes could be made to fire flames out of their exhaust. Apparently a useful feature for exactly this reason.

Re:Should be reliable

[Gordonjcp]

Have you ever looked at a locomotive? They are diesel electric, and very efficient. Mechanical drivetrains have very high losses compared to batteries.

They're also designed to go for very long distances at a more-or-less constant speed, with the engine running at either full speed or idle. Not only that, but they require a very large, low-revving diesel engine (efficient) turning a very large generator (also efficient), in a vehicle that weighs around 80 tonnes. The principle doesn't really scale to cars, or even trucks.

Re:Should be reliable

[drinkypoo]

Ah. After some research I see that turbines seem to be around 40% efficient while diesel engines can be over 50%.

Can be over 50%? The most efficient ICE in the world is a container ship diesel engine which IS 50% efficient. It has cylinders so big you can walk around in them. In practice, you're not going to see any diesel ICE over about 30% that can be crammed into a car. Over 60% of cars offered in the US, anyway, are offered without a manual transmission option; indeed, my 1982 MBZ 300SD was only offered with an automatic, and it has a somewhat anemic 120hp/170ft-lb 3 liter turbo-diesel. It makes torque real low, so it still has better pickup than most full-size V6-powered sedans, and even some of the lame smog-challenged V8s of the 1980s.

Re:Should be reliable

[Pharmboy]

Automatic transmissions are not the power sappers of the past. Most modern cars get mileage ratings only 1mpg lower with an auto, and that is considering 'perfect' shifting with the manual. In practice, they are likely close to being on par for city driving, as the automatics are all computer controlled for efficiency now. Lots of automatics have locking transmissions for highway driving, which means the mpg should be pretty much the same. The differences are just very minimal nowadays, at least on an engine of any size (V6+)

Re:Should be reliable

[zippthorne]

So you want to cut me off, *and* melt my bumper? Isn't it enough that I try not to hit you when you slice between cars on the dashed line and push into the 3' gap(*) between my bumper and the car in front of me?

(*) Not my choice. I drive in Massachusetts, if you leave anything bigger than a half car-length, someone will squeeze in. Mass drivers are terrible, and it gets worse: I'm turning into one just to keep up.

I'm not looking forward to the texting ban, either. If there's one place where "paying more attention to the road" is not necessarily a good thing, it's Mass - they're just going to use the extra awareness to execute some retardedly dangerous maneuvers.

Re:Should be reliable

[somersault]

Ah, I was pretty sure that car engines were around 30-40%, should have paid more attention when I was reading that 50% figure as it does mention ships. I read "low speed" and just assumed it was for small cars, bleh.

The torque you get with diesel engines certainly is fun if you're only driving around town, but at the moment I prefer having the rev range for driving on country roads. My next car will either have a turbo or a larger displacement so that I can get both.. an electric vehicle would be even better, but they aren't at reasonable prices yet.

Re:Should be reliable

[drinkypoo]

The torque you get with diesel engines certainly is fun if you're only driving around town, but at the moment I prefer having the rev range for driving on country roads.

Well, my Mercedes redlines at 4700 and my Ford at 3500... so while they sure don't have the Rs of some dinky gas motor, they get well up there. The Mercedes has an inline five cylinder so it's butter smooth even at the limiter, and the slush box will run right up there with it, too. It turns out that with proper gearing, it's more fun to have a bunch of torque than a bunch of horsepower. My truck jumps up out of the hole as fast as the tires will permit. The Mercedes is slow but you get to whip it around the corners and if you whipped it a little too hard instead of going to hell it drifts gracefully, probably due to the positioning of the wheels, the long wheelbase, and the semi-trailing suspension. You can get W126 300SDs for a song these days, I highly recommend them for anyone who does at least some of their own wrenching. Parts are readily available on ebay, too.

I don't really hit the highway hard in my pickup, because it has all the aerodynamics of a cinder block, but the Mercedes doesn't even really settle down until you hit about 70. At the same time, it's a lot of fun around 35-45, because of the torque. Stomp the pedal and you hit a kickdown switch, and if there's any room in the next gear it takes off like a bat out of hell. If I could make only one change to the car I'd install a six speed. If I could make two changes I'd do that and intercool it.

Re:Should be reliable

[SharpFang]

My best bet is it can't reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius. It's either-or, nice clean drive switchable to "dirty" monster boost on demand.

Re:Should be reliable

[Chris Mattern]

I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Internal combustion engines have their own efficiency deficit turning reciprocating motion into rotating motion; an enormous amount of energy is wasted in at the crankshaft. Wankel-type engines attempted to solve this problem but were never able to overcome the difficulties in machining the odd shapes to a high enough precision at a low enough cost.

Re:Should be reliable

[drinkypoo]

Automatic transmissions are not the power sappers of the past. Most modern cars get mileage ratings only 1mpg lower with an auto, and that is considering 'perfect' shifting with the manual.

That is also considering 'perfect' driving with the auto transmission, which people do not do.

Lots of automatics have locking transmissions for highway driving, which means the mpg should be pretty much the same.

Locking torque converters have been standard since the 80s or 90s, some cars had them sooner. They unlock during acceleration and deceleration (beyond a certain point) and they don't lock at all at low speeds. EPA mileage estimates are just not interesting. I don't really want to know what they do on perfectly formulated fuel, in top condition, in laboratory conditions.

Re:Should be reliable

[L4t3r4lu5]

Average efficiency of the internal combustion engine averages 18%

Your lowest efficiency single cycle gas turbine is already a 72% improvement. That's pretty awesome.

Re:Should be reliable

[L4t3r4lu5]

Apologies, 28%. It's obvious what I got wrong.

Re:Should be reliable

[jollespm]

Industrial gas turbines hooked up to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) are barely 60% thermally efficient for the latest technology, most are in the 40-55% range. The turbine alone might be 30-35%. Micro gas turbines are between 25-35% and they are not hooked up to an HRSG.

What they do have going for them is a high power to weight ratio, comparable efficiency, and lower emissions because of the fuels they can run on. According to this other article, you're saving 220 lbs when comparing to a similarly powerful ICE.

The manufacturer of the turbines in this car is Bladon Jets.

Re:Should be reliable

[rschwa]

Well, considering the Prius would probably need a couple of JATO bottles to reach 205 mph, I bet this thing still wins.

Re:Should be reliable

[ptbarnett]

How well the turbine has been scaled down. Turbines get harder to make efficent the smaller they are - efficency is quite dependent on things like the ratio of the gap at the edge of the blades to the blade area. Small turbines need a lot more precision manufacturing to make properly efficent.

Looks like the gas turbines used by Jaguar were supplied by Bladon Jets:

http://www.bladonjets.com/news/jaguar-c-x75_-_electric-super-car-powered-by-jet-engines/

More information is available at the website. I haven't had a chance to read through all of it.

Re:Should be reliable

[somersault]

My little Fabia vRS has a 6 speed gearbox and an intercooler (though in a crappy position where it tends to heat up - you can get conversion kits to mount it on the front rather than the side), plus I had the ECU remapped for more aggressive use of the turbo.

My MR2 definitely edges it out in straight line speed because of the extra rev range and aerodynamics though, and it would even take it in the corners due to being much lower and having much stiffer suspension. Getting a V6 conversion isn't too expensive, and would pretty much make it perfect to drive, but insurers over here don't really like that kind of thing.. the insurance over a couple of years would probably cost more than the engine conversion unfortunately.

Re:Should be reliable

[Pharmboy]

They revamped the EPA methodology a few years ago, which pushed the ratings down for most cars, so it is a bit more accurate. And locking transmissions only affect highway mileage was my point. Yes, they have been around for two decades, but not on all cars. They are much more common now. The main point is that the difference in actual MPG between an automatic and a manual transmission, assuming the same driver and roads, is much smaller than it used to be two decades ago, and in some cases there is virtually no difference. Bank Rate has an article on it, and others do as well, showing the difference is usually minimal or non-existant.

Re:Should be reliable

[sleeping143]

Ah. After some research I see that turbines seem to be around 40% efficient while diesel engines can be over 50%. I think the turbine efficiency was for converting heat to kinetic energy though which may not be a fair comparison for converting chemical energy to kinetic..

Both are forms of heat engines, so both comparisons would be in converting thermal energy into kinetic energy.

Re:Should be reliable

[SharpFang]

Depends on metrics.

Prius was designed to be affordable, and there aren't not many roads where such speed is usable.

Also, -what- is the emission while running on the turbines directly? The electric drive may be more efficient but still carbon emission occurs while on "dirty drive" and I don't know which engine is more "dirty".

No wonder a newer, more expensive car "wins"...

Re:Should be reliable

[turbidostato]

"Some older motorbikes could be made to fire flames out of their exhaust"

Almost all sports motorbikes will exhaust flames when you aggresively reduce gear so the engine goes above the red line.

Re:Should be reliable

[s122604]

It makes torque real low, so it still has better pickup than most full-size V6-powered sedans

"Most"?.. Bull...
Any modern 220HP+ (which is virtually all of them) V6 powered sedan is going to blow it away 0-60 and in the quarter mile. You are fighting physics, i.e. (HP = (TQ*2.0*PI*RPM)/33000.0 TQ = (33000.0*HP)/(2.0*PI*RPM) , and modern engineering, and you are going to lose.

as has been said by people who actually aren't just repeating something they heard on the internet... "Torque feels fast, horsepower is fast.."

The point of this isn't to call your baby ugly. I'm sure its a fine automobile, and certainly diesel motors exhibit lots of good qualities, but the claims of IDFs (internet diesel fanbois) have gotten really hyperbolic...

Re:Should be reliable

[N Monkey]

The manufacturer of the turbines in this car is Bladon Jets.

From your link, I just noticed the pencil shown next to the turbine. OMG that is small! Presumably that's not what's in the car though... is it?

Re:Should be reliable

[robot256]

I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

You may be surprised, but electric transmissions are significantly more efficient than mechanical transmissions. You have to account for the torque-speed-efficiency curve of the gas engine--even if your peak efficiency is 30%, you will be operating at less than that a significant amount of the time. In the gas-electric configuration, however, the gas engine can run at full revs and peak efficiency the whole time, no matter what speed or torque output is needed. Large electric generators and motors can have >80% efficiency under a variety of conditions, and don't have frictional losses in gearboxes and extra bearings, so you lose relatively little power in the electric transmission. Railroad locomotives have been doing this for nearly a hundred years, but only recently have electric motors and generators become small enough to fit in automobiles. With the battery added in, you can even save the excess power it generates, and turn the gas engine off at times to save fuel.

Re:Should be reliable

[IndustrialComplex]

Four indepenent motors and two turbines menas we have redundancy on top of that.

Redundancy in a power system for a vehicle isn't that important from a consumer perspective.

We have redundancy in our brakes, or redundancy in our headlights, and even some newer engines can operate on 3/4 cylinders. However, I highly doubt you would want to drive a vehicle in which one of the motors wasn't functioning. Even if it let you continue, you would probably put uneven stresses on the vehicle and wear out the other engines at an accelerated rate.

Re:Should be reliable

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

There are also dual clutch transmissions, that have no torque converter at all. Depending on the engine, they can even give you a better milage than the same engine with manual transmission.

Re:Should be reliable

[TheLink]

Search for: Jay Leno jet bike.

Yep, he has a jet bike, and it can melt bumpers...

Re:Should be reliable

[Mastadex]

Speaking of exhaust, Why don't they use the heat generated by it to power a small generator that can regenerate the batteries.

Re:Should be reliable

[dubbreak]

Well, considering the Prius would probably need a couple of JATO bottles to reach 205 mph, I bet this thing still wins.

Exactly.. less CO2 than a prius when ...? When the prius is going 205mph? If that's the metric then it's vacuously true.

It's obviously not less than a prius idling as the prius generally doesn't idle (if it's sitting still the engine is off). So what is the prius doing that it creates more CO2? Running the tiny gas engine at top rpm as hard as it can?

Re:Should be reliable

[somersault]

The diesels I have driven drive nothing like the petrol cars I've driven, because the gearing is usually so much shorter. In the case of Landrovers and SUVs for example you want the lower gearing so that you can use the car for hauling some extra weight rather than gearing up for speed.

The only proper diesel sports car I know of is the Audi R8, and that's way out of my price range :(

Re:Should be reliable

[SilverEyes]

I'm not looking forward to the texting ban, either. If there's one place where "paying more attention to the road" is not necessarily a good thing, it's Mass - they're just going to use the extra awareness to execute some retardedly dangerous maneuvers.

Best thing I've read on /. today.

Re:Should be reliable

[wagnerrp]

I'm a little suspicious of the emission claims though. How much of that is from plugin? I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

Emissions have nothing to do with the drive train. Gas turbines are very 'clean' because they run at temperatures and pressures several times that of a standard reciprocating engine, and don't have cold cylinder walls that could hinder combustion. It allows for a more combustion. The trade off is that these higher temperatures also result in the production of much higher volumes of nitrous oxides.

Now for efficiency of the drive train, induction motors and generators both operate at well above 90% efficiency for most of their operating range. If you consider losses from the generator, storage device, and motor combined, you're still comparable or better to a mechanical transmission. In addition to that, heat engines all have an optimum speed that they operate at. Using an electrical transmission and a buffer allows you to keep that generator running at peak efficiency, rather than spooling it up and down.

Re:Should be reliable

[h4rr4r]

The big difference is you have to deal with a slushbox. It fails to shift before hills, it fails to shift down without the gas being floored for passing. It is like you driving and your mentally challenged uncle is shifting.

Re:Should be reliable

[wagnerrp]

Yes, that's about the size of what you would use as a generator in a car.

Re:Should be reliable

[wagnerrp]

You can either use a turbine to extract the thermal energy directly, or you can use a heat exchanger to warm the intake and lighten the load on the compressor. The first is the basic concept of gas turbine engine, and the second is heavy and costly such that it's only worth doing on big industrial generators. If you're referring to thermoelectric generators, those are of too low efficiency to even consider using.

Re:Should be reliable

[SilverEyes]

It's obviously not less than a prius idling as the prius generally doesn't idle (if it's sitting still the engine is off). So what is the prius doing that it creates more CO2? Running the tiny gas engine at top rpm as hard as it can?

Obviously, didn't you know Prius' get worse fuel efficiency than a Hummer? :P http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf

Re:Should be reliable

[PPH]

- the tendency to singe the paint off cars that approached too close to the exhaust

I'm having trouble imagining this as a disadvantage.

Re:Should be reliable

[gregben]

I nicknamed my '70 Porsche 911S the blue flame,
since, if you revved it in neutral and stood outside
at night, you could see a blue flame coming out of
the (stock) exhaust pipe.

Re:Should be reliable

[wagnerrp]

coast home using the tiny power from the turbine

You don't "coast" on 195hp. Gas turbines run most efficient at full speed, so you're either going to have 0kW, 73kW, or 145kW of generation capacity, depending on your consumption and battery levels. That's well over three times the capacity the Prius offers, and probably enough to go 150mph sustained.

Re:Should be reliable

[wagnerrp]

I suspect it is so they can just run electric cables to each wheel hub instead of a single electric motor with 4 drive shafts etc. More energy efficient.

But it produces terrible handling and ride quality. Unsprung weight, such as a 150hp motor sitting inside a wheel hub, is very bad. You're much more likely to see four independent axles, each with its own motor attached at the center-line of the car.

Re:Should be reliable

[gumbi west]

My auto shifts down when it will get more out of the gas by shifting down. At 45 (my speed before most passes where I drive) this is at about 1/3 of the way down. It also does a good job at doing the same on hills, though it does no detect the hill coming. But then again, when I drove a manual I worried more about clutch wear than MPG and I just left it in 5th on the gentle hills and only changed gear if I threw it down to 3rd... so I'm definitely much better off my my auto going for 4th to 3rd when it thinks it is a good idea.

In addition, if I really cared, I could just set the auto gear with D4, D3, 2, and 1 as options. 2 is nice for low torque starts too in slippery conditions.

Re:Should be reliable

[tinkerghost]

I'm a little suspicious of the emission claims though. How much of that is from plugin? I can't imagine turbine->electric->battery->motors is an efficient drive train.

I doubt very little of it is from plugin. The 28g CO2/Km rating is based on 560 miles. The battery range is 68 miles. So even adjusting for a full charge from an outlet, you're looking at 31.9g CO2/Km rating.

Gasoline engines are abysmal at energy efficiency - in the neighborhood of 18-20%. Gas Turbine engines usually fall in the range of 35-60% depending on size & design.

The energy loss between the rotary->motor stages is probably close to the same as lost in an automatic transmission.

Given the ability of an electric car to use regenerative breaking, any loss due to the battery's internal resistance is more than compensated for. Depending on the driving conditions, regenerative breaking can extend range by as much as 30%.

So, baseline, I would expect that the car should show about 1/2 the emissions of a gasoline car. This would be improved by:

• Turbines running at peak efficiency whenever they are on vs piston engines rarely running at peak power/g fuel.
• Excess from regenerative breaking.
• Minimal aerodynamic drag - this is designed as a "super-car" & appears to have a very minimal aerodynamic cross section.

Re:Should be reliable

[91degrees]

Yeah, but that's because you need a lot of torque at low revs and efficient running at high revs. Electric motors give you the torque. Cars use gearboxes, and these scale up to the power used by trucks well enough but get a bit unwieldy if you're dealing with the power needed by a railway locomotive.

Trucks use a direct transmission for a reason after all.

Re:Should be reliable

[91degrees]

It can't be that simple. The Prius uses a mechanical transmission , and all electric would appear to be a lot more obvious than the unusual setup in a Prius.

Re:Should be reliable

[Pharmboy]

Not exactly. At 45 and someone who gets a 'newer' car about every two years (ie: 1-2 years old) because I drive around 30k miles a year, so I have driven a lot of vehicles. My current car, a Hyundai Azera, has a 5 speed auto and 265 HP, and it shifts just fine. My 2005 Chevy 2500HD has a 6.0L V8 and a 4 speed and is much more jerky with downshifting but not slushy, just jerky. Wife just sold a 07 Mitsubishi Eclipse with a V6 and a 6speed auto, and you can't even tell when it is shifting if you drive normal, completely fluid. Even my old 98 Caddy Deville had a 4 speed and was very fluid unless you stomped it. Granted, all these are higher HP engines (the lowest is the current Hyundai) but the vehicles I have owned in the last 10 years, particularly with 5 or 6 speeds, tend to be quite fluid and capable of staying in the right RPM bands according to how you are driving.

Maybe on older cars, or on less expensive cars with lesser computer controls or smaller I4 engines, but the newer cars just are not 'slushy' anymore. Then, the problem isn't so much the transmission, but the weight/horsepower ratio.

Re:Should be reliable

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There were gas turbine locomotives, but they weren't so efficient. The Union Pacific gas turbines in the linked wiki page consumed a lot more fuel than equivalent amount of diesel power (such that they pulled their own fuel tenders), but they lived for a while when the fuel was a lot less expensive than diesel, but they still only served one route for most of their operation. They were extremely loud too, even more so than diesel. The TGV prototype was turbo electric, but fuel costs were prohibitive, so they switched to electric for commercial operation. I was given a tour on a gas turbine powered cruiser (navy ship) and those suckers were loud, so you stay away from it as much as you can, and kept those doors shut.

Re:Should be reliable

[kutuz_off]

If you can read this sign, your eyes are about to melt

Re:Should be reliable

[hellop2]

Why just older? You just have an SPDT switch to a secondary coil hooked to a sparkplug mounted in your exhaust. Cuts off your normal coil and unburned gas exists the exhaust to be ignited but the other plug. Should work on cars too.

Re:Should be reliable

[halltk1983]

The Audi R8 would like a word with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8_(race_car)

Re:Should be reliable

[s122604]

The post, that I actually replied to, would like a word with you

I know, at first glance they are completely identical, but upon further examination, I'm sure you'll find that that an Audi R8 and a 1982 Mercedes 300SD do not exhibit the same performance characteristics...

A step in a right direction

[elh_inny]

THe 'early adopters' in car's world, the afficcinados, like Jeremy Clarkson will not go for a boring hybrid unless it gives them better thrill than a conventional gas guzzling supercar.
If this car is really fun to drive, it will be in demand, the markup on luxury is usually quite high, which means there's budget to develop something more mainstream with similar tech...

Re:A step in a right direction

[RogueyWon]

It's funny how developments that reduce the environmental impact of cars often originate from the high-performance end of the spectrum. While I'm no expert, my understanding is that sports such as Formula 1 and Indycar have done massive amounts to improve the fuel efficiency of the cars you see on the roads every day. After all, there's a clear and direct incentive when you have a high performance car out on the track to design something that can carry a smaller (and lighter) fuel tank or get away with fewer refuelling stops. And once you've developed that technology, you might as well make good use of it on a commercial basis.

Re:A step in a right direction

[L4t3r4lu5]

Efficiency is the key. Further for less is what it's all about.

I especially like this "Can run on any hydrocarbon" design. Everything from LPG to Rapeseed are viable to power this thing.

Re:A step in a right direction

[julesh]

THe 'early adopters' in car's world, the afficcinados, like Jeremy Clarkson will not go for a boring hybrid unless it gives them better thrill than a conventional gas guzzling supercar.

It's well known that Clarkson will recommend any car Jaguar produces. He's like their biggest fan or something.

Re:A step in a right direction

[MichaelSmith]

Years ago my dad did something like that with a commer camper van in Yugoslavia. The commer has a hatch between the two front seats which you can lift up to work on the engine. The carby had a press on cap which you can lift off so you can pour fuel into the engine from the driving seat if you like.

Out of fuel and with no local currency left dad says Michael, get the tank from the stove, hose and all. Michael gets the tank and dad pokes the hose down down the carburettor. I open the tap on the tank and dive for a window because the smell is horrible. I can see the headlines already Australian tourists incinerated in freak explosion and you know what, the car started and ran pretty well. I doubt we had much oxygen to breathe towards the end though and we rolled the last 500 metres towards the frontier, cashed travellers cheques and bought proper fuel.

Re:A step in a right direction

[inode_buddha]

NASCAR (in the USA) has been doing this for decades. The factory engineers usually take an interest and sponsor the big-name teams. They then gain direct access to all of the little discoveries for improved longevity and easy manufacturing. The NASCAR teams get sponsorship in engineering advice. If you've driven any car with a GM engine in the last 10 years, you have already used some of this.

Re:A step in a right direction

[Joce640k]

Yep. That was the point of F1's new "no refuelling" rule this year - fuel efficiency suddenly went right up the list of priorities.

Re:A step in a right direction

[GameboyRMH]

Actually there's nothing "funny" or ironic about it at all (I hate it when people say things like that). In most cases technologies that can make a car perform better, often with no efficiency gain or even at the cost of efficiency, can make a car more efficient if applied differently. Even in areas like handling that would seem to have no application on the street. If you could take highway ramps at full highway speed you wouldn't have to waste a load of energy by slowing down - of course it wouldn't be comfortable for the passengers.

So the technologies that translate most quickly and directly from race cars to boring street sedans (even the slightly sporty-looking ones they still call "sports cars") are in the powertrain and aerodynamics areas.

Re:A step in a right direction

[GameboyRMH]

Your post is sort of like saying that no NASA technologies make it into everyday life because we don't have space shuttles in our driveways.

BTW some cars within a mere mortal's budget that have robotized manual gearboxes with auto rev matching include the Toyota MR-S and Mitsubishi Evo 10, just off the top of my head. Many Audis have it as well (Audi DSG system). The Nissan 370Z also has auto rev matching with a stick-shift manual.

Re:A step in a right direction

[atamido]

Awesome, although a bit dangerous to be doing (especially in Yugoslavia).

Re:A step in a right direction

[leonardluen]

so it is very much like computers isn't it? nothing you see in the desktop (the powerhouse equivalent of a racecar) makes it to a laptop (the consumer model)

that processor you see in the desktop? no, that takes too much power the battery in the laptop could never handle it. that awesome video card in the desktop? no, that runs too hot, the laptop would overheat. well how about that harddrive? too big, there isn't space to put it in the laptop.

Just because the parts aren't able to move directly from the desktop to the laptop doesn't mean that desktop technology doesn't contribute anything to a laptop, or in your example race car to commercial car. yes they do need to put extra work into it to convert some of the technologies, they need to extend the lifetime of the part, reduce the heat, or miniaturize it, but that doesn't mean that they didn't learn anything when they developed it for the high performance system first.

Re:A step in a right direction

[neosaurus]

The current spec Formula 1 engines are 2.4 liter V8 engines which have a typical life of about 2500 km on the race track. The efficiency of the engines is much better than that of a Prius but it burns about 150 kg of race fuel per race, not including qualifying and practice sessions. The engine rules are set to change for 2013 though to employ technology which can be transferred to road cars. Another energy saving measure introduced last year was KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) which stored energy generated from braking which could be used as addition bhp during the race.

Re:A step in a right direction

[tibman]

I've heard the same thing said for Gaming and the PC.

Re:A step in a right direction

[h4rr4r]

You can take many highway ramps at full speed or near it, even in an econobox if you buy good tires. I do it all the time, saves me gas and lets me get around all those damn SUVs.

Re:A step in a right direction

[Spectre]

Almost no race technology makes it into contemporary cars. Pretty much everything in racing is designed to last a race or two and then be replaced, so it's designed for minimum weight and maximum power output, and only enough longevity to make it through the necessary races

Nope, never. Except for:

Electronic ignition
Electronically-controlled fuel injection
Rack-and-pinion steering
Disk brakes
Electric radiator fans
Variable valve timing
Radial tires
And about everything else that is now considered "normal" on a car ...

Re:A step in a right direction

[wisdom_brewing]

I believe he hates the s-type...

Re:A step in a right direction

[wagnerrp]

KERS was a failure. They put such restrictions on the amount of energy you could store and release with it per lap, no one could justify the weight it took up.

Re:A step in a right direction

[sjames]

Much of the race TECHNOLOGY makes it into passenger cars, just not the implementation. That's to be expected, the requirements are different and so the trade-offs are different.

Re:A step in a right direction

[julesh]

I believe he hates the s-type...

Have you ever been in an S-type? It's basically a rebadged Ford Scorpio.

Re:A step in a right direction

[mrchaotica]

Most of the race car parts won't work well on the street for the average driver; carbon fiber rotors are great on the track but they don't stop you as short on the street, they just stop you more times in a short period. Indeed, even full-metallic pads have this problem and they also transmit more heat into the brake fluid, meaning you now have to run better fluid or cook it, but they don't fade AT ALL. Even those grooved rotors have less stopping power because of the reduced friction area.

You know, stopping power is irrelevant as long as you have enough of it to lock the wheels; in that case the limiting factor in stopping distance is the tire friction, not the brake friction.

Re:A step in a right direction

[drinkypoo]

Nope, never. Except for:

You have a reading comprehension problem. Race technology never makes it into contemporary cars. You and all the mods, apparently. All of that shit was already old in racing by the time it was adapted to the street. Also, disc brakes were invented for aviation use in WWII so you fail that one, and electric fans are not an automotive technology but thank you for playing.

Re:A step in a right direction

[drinkypoo]

You know, stopping power is irrelevant as long as you have enough of it to lock the wheels; in that case the limiting factor in stopping distance is the tire friction, not the brake friction.

Full-metallics in a stock size often will NOT provide enough power to lock the wheels until they are hot. Unless you are engaging in "spirited driving" they simply won't perform as well for street driving conditions as ye olde organic pads. I like KVR Kevlar-Carbon pads, or Axxis Metal Masters, depending on what vehicle I'm installing them into. Trucks get metal masters for towing without fade. Sports cars get them too. Everything else gets the KVRs or similar.

I've been driving for almost twenty years now, and I work on my own cars, so I have some idea of how they work. Gonna go out today and see if I can't figure out why my Ford is dying (besides being a Ford.)

Re:A step in a right direction

[wisdom_brewing]

Unfortunately I have, yes.

Not real specs in the summary

[scdeimos]

The summary left out the following important words before quoting performance figures: "Jaguar believes..."

Really...

[Cornwallis]

"Jaguar has developed a hybrid car that runs on gas turbines."

How many miles-per-gas-turbine does it get and how many gas turbines are needed to fill the tank?

Re:Really...

[Pranadevil2k]

Good laugh. For anyone actually looking for some answers though, the article doesn't say anything about its actual fuel efficiency. It has a ~16 gallon tank that runs on diesel, natural gas, biofuels, and liquid petroleum (o.o;;). I am not sold on it being particularly eco-friendly, despite the nice fuel compatibility.

Re:Really...

[Cornwallis]

Agreed! I remember when Chrysler tested a turbine car in the early 60s. It was VERY cool. I saw one drive into a parking garage in Detroit when I was little and thought that it was the future. Of course it was noisy as all get out, stunk, and according to the driver, not very efficient!

Re:Really...

[c6gunner]

For anyone actually looking for some answers though, the article doesn't say anything about its actual fuel efficiency.

Um, yes it does. It says it'll get something like 66 miles on electric, and has a combined range of about 560 miles. Leaving aside the electric bit, that means you're getting roughly 500 miles for 16 gallons, or 31.25 miles per gallon. Assuming their figures are correct.

Re:Really...

[Vectormatic]

considering this is a JAAGGGGG, if it is a saloon, it will be very civilized and quiet and small only of freshly cleaned leather. If it goes into an XK however, no amount of ear-protection will be enough :P

Re:Really...

[L4t3r4lu5]

My little 1.4 Hyundai does 41 mpg! That's rubbish!

Then again, my 1.4 Hyundai doesn't do 0-60 in 3.4 seconds, 205mph, or have twin gas turbine engines. That's pure awesome.

Re:Really...

[Dancindan84]

Well, if you do take into account the electric 66 miles is enough to get me to work and back. So my gas mileage would be infinity MPG with that car excepting longer trips. You can't really do an apples to apples comparison.

Re:Really...

[siwelwerd]

How many miles-per-gas-turbine does it get and how many gas turbines are needed to fill the tank?

That number is so misleading. We really want to be talking in gas-turbines-per-mile so we can make a meaningful comparison between vehicles.

Re:Really...

[catmistake]

"Jaguar has developed a hybrid car that runs on gas turbines."

How many miles-per-gas-turbine does it get and how many gas turbines are needed to fill the tank?

LOL

Except for the turbines, it reminds me of this hybrid mini, which was the first car I heard about that had an electric motor for each wheel. Also a British company... I wonder if there was some cross-pollination here, either by engineers moving to Jaguar, or by Jaguar realizing that 12MPG wasn't going to cut it anymore, no matter how elegant their classic design was.

Re:Really...

[L4t3r4lu5]

If you drive your Jaguar sports car like I drive my Hyundai, you absolutely can compare them.

Then again, you don't buy a twin-turbine 205mph sports car to drive 6 miles to your workplace and back every day. You buy a 1.4 Hyundai for that...

Re:Really...

[elvum]

Are those American ("English") gallons, or British ("Imperial") gallons? There's a 20% difference...

Re:Really...

[c6gunner]

Dunno. The article actually lists the figures in litres - I was just going with the gallon figure that he provided. If we go all metric it works out to 60 litres for 800 kilometres. That's 7.5 litres per 100km.

Re:Really...

[wagnerrp]

The Mini is German, while Jaguar is Indian... hardly both British companies. Besides which, independent electric motors for each wheel is not a new concept, and that Mini was not the first experimental vehicle to have them.

Re:Really...

[JesseL]

My 24 year old 0.6 Kawasaki gets 50+ MPG, and does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds.

Tops out at only 135, lacks turbines, and sucks in the rain though.

Re:Really...

[catmistake]

The Mini is German, while Jaguar is Indian... hardly both British companies. Besides which, independent electric motors for each wheel is not a new concept, and that Mini was not the first experimental vehicle to have them.

That Mini happens to be made by a British company. Yes, the shell comes from BMW, but that's about all. And Jags are still made by Brits despite being owned by Indians.

Re:Very Cool

[Psaakyrn]

Hm... will it also run on Nitromethane as well?

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[somersault]

You can already get turbo-prop jet packs, or at least you soon can, I'm not that bothered since if I had that kind of cash lying around I'd be putting it towards a house.

Re:Very Cool

[somersault]

Also, I wonder what happens if one or more of the electric motors goes bad or stop working for any reason.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm thinking you probably will need to get it fixed.

Steve Jackson's Car Wars comes to mind

[Shivetya]

now all we need are options for machine guns and spike throwers. Having each wheel with its own motor makes for some good safety enhancements but how are they handling the weight of motors at wheels?

Hopefully within three to five years more and more range extenders will become available, I just want it in a form other than sedan or sports car; read: cuv/suv

Re:Steve Jackson's Car Wars comes to mind

[xero314]

I thought I was the only one that had Car Wars memories when I saw the bit about four independent motors. I can't believe we haven't been doing this for years. Now they need to set it up with four wheel independent steering and I'll finally be able to pivot my car.

This is completely wrong

[Chrisq]

Cnet UK reports the car can do 0-60 mph in 3.4 sec. (and 50-90 mph in 2.3 sec.) and reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius."

After reading the article I think what it actually means is that it can be driven in electric only mode at slower speeds and emssions lower than the Prius or let the gas turbines kick in for a lot of power, but you won't be getting 28g/km when you do this. What we don't have is a figure for emissions in sustained normal driving, which are probably going to be similar or worse than the Prius

Re:This is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I quote:

"When you're being sensible with the accelerator pedal, it'll return a maximum range of 560 miles, while spewing a mere 28g/km of CO2"

That does not appear to be electric mode only, since 560 miles would not be possible on electric only.

Re:This is completely wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The mpg from the turbines seem to be:

560 range - 68 (electric) = ~ 500 mile range with a 60 litre tank = 8.3 miles per litre or around 40 mpg.

Re:This is completely wrong

[thijsh]

I've read that the C-X75 will drive 900 km on a 60 liter tank, that is 15 km/l (or 35 mpg) which is comparable to a normal European car.
The figures for the lower emissions are probably only applicable for some specific cherry-picked short drive done mostly on the battery. But what surprises me is that they have managed to create a turbine hybrid that gives a lot of performance without becoming a gas-guzzler as you would expect. So for long-distance drives the car consumes fuel like any normal car (already exceptional for a super car), but on short drives you can get closer to emission free (sacrificing the extra power).

This seems like a significant step forward in future car technology, muscle-power and low-power combined. Geek translation: It can be compared to a system like Nvidia Optimus for your car...

Re:This is completely wrong

[nOw2]

The bonus is that gas turbines might be quieter than a diesel.

Re:This is completely wrong

[wagnerrp]

After reading the article I think what it actually means is that it can be driven in electric only mode at slower speeds and emssions lower than the Prius or let the gas turbines kick in for a lot of power

It's actually completely the opposite. It runs 205mph on electric only, with the gas turbines as a completely detached electric generator. The gas turbines provide no propulsive power what so ever. This is how an electric vehicle should be produced, and not the abomination of a combined drive train like the Prius.

What about noise pollution?

[Lord Duran]

Is the jet engine going to sound like a jet engine? This may turn out to be a problem.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[Anonymous Coward]

You and I sir must have a different opinion of how freaking awesome a jet engine sounds.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[SpazmodeusG]

Jet engines are typically quieter per unit of power than internal combustion engines. eg. They call the turbine powered M1A1 whispering death because it is so silent compared to other tanks.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[CyberDragon777]

WHAT DID YOU SAY???
I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
IT'S THE BLIND PEDESTRIAN WARNING SYSTEM OF MY HYBRID!!!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
I want to yell, you stupid comment filter...

Re:What about noise pollution?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Having sat in a pub about 12 miles north of RAF Brize Norton while what I would guess as Tornado's few overhead fast enough to be difficult to track visually, I can tell you that jet engines sound awesome, even when trying to have a chat over a nice pint of good ale in a country pub.

Jet engines always sound awesome.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[mcgrew]

And you must never have worked on a flightline or have any idea how loud a B-52 or a C-5A is.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[name_already_taken]

And you must never have worked on a flightline or have any idea how loud a B-52 or a C-5A is.

I'm hoping the Jaguar car uses slightly smaller engines than those gargantuan military aircraft.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[WindBourne]

That is exactly what killed Chryslers car from early 60's

But, I would think that tech has changed in 50 years. Personally, I think that making the turbine spin the tires is a mistake. Just have 1-2 small turbines/generator sets for creating electricity, and then focus on getting electric motors to being better. Otherwise, you have to focus on a transmission for the rear.

Re:What about noise pollution?

[mcgrew]

Have you ever been next to a dash sixty electrical generator? Granted, the generator is (was? don't know if they still use 'em) the size of a small SUV, including its turbine and generator, but the damed things hurt your ears even if you were wearing ear protection. The engine was maybe three times the size of a automobile V-8, but it had to have topped out at well above 120 db.

The two loudest sounds I ever heard were an SR-71 a mile away, and a Space Shuttle five miles away. Imagine having an engine like that in your dragster!

Re:What about noise pollution?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

It's not actually a jet engine, it's a gas turbine. The car would be pushed along by the wheels not jet propulsion.

Gas turbines don't have high speed exhaust, so it's not going to be very noisy.

Agreed

[Errol backfiring]

Gas turbines are powerful for their weight, but not exactly economical in fuel use. The power-to-weight ratio makes them suitable for aircraft, but for cars they are just a thirsty show-off.

Re:Agreed

[Alioth]

Turbines have been improving steadily over the years in BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption, in other words, how much fuel needs to flow to provide each bhp). The other thing about turbines is they like to be just run at constant speed, and with electric transmission you can do that (which you can't with a normal automatic or manual gearbox, and most CVTs can't take the power).

TFA states:
When you're being sensible with the accelerator pedal, it'll return a maximum range of 560 miles, while spewing a mere 28g/km of CO2, which is pretty spectacular.

Re:Agreed

[drinkypoo]

Power is not the obstacle for the CVT or any other transmission, because you can just build it bigger. It's speed. Chrysler built turbine-powered cars in the 1960s but they did it with a mechanical powertrain rather than an electrical one and the gearboxes wouldn't take the strain. Had they gone with a series hybrid design in the first place, with the generator integrated into their lovely little regenerating turbine, they might have solved this problem entirely.

Re:Agreed

[slinches]

Gas turbines are powerful for their weight, but not exactly economical in fuel use. The power-to-weight ratio makes them suitable for aircraft, but for cars they are just a thirsty show-off.

Actually, turbine engines can be more efficient than most internal combustion engines. If you compare their ideal cycles (Otto for IC and Brayton for gas turbine), it may appear that the IC engine is more efficient, but this breaks down quickly when you factor in that the gas turbine processes are closer to isentropic and have virtually no mechanical losses. And that is without using the exhaust to preheat the compressed gas before combustion.

The most important reason that almost all cars have used ICEs instead of turbines is that the efficiency is not as dependent on operating speed. This allows the use of a simple gearbox instead of needing a more expensive CVT or hybrid electric system to transmit power to the wheels. Well, that and cost.

Simpsons

[Xarius]

But is it monkey navigated?!

Re:Very Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike an American V8, which continues to put out awesome amounts of power even after it breaks.

FAIL

[bazorg]

Chrome finish for the wheels = FAIL.

Re:FAIL

[atamido]

Why is that a fail? Should they be black so that they absorb every amount of heat possible?

Re:The downside...

[MichaelSmith]

Also after years of research Jaguar found a way to make a gas turbine leak oil.

Re:Very Cool

[Bert64]

You will most likely have reduced performance, especially if the rest of the car has to spin the defective motor, but it should still run...

When Jaguar were still producing V12 engines, it was quite common for people to not change the rear pair spark plugs (they are quite hard to reach because of the size of the v12 and the dimensions of the engine bay) so after a while they would be running on only 10 cylinders.

"I shit the bed"

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Gas turbines are powerful for their weight, but not exactly economical in fuel use.

A friend of mine was a tank commander in the US army. He complained about the reliability of the gas turbine engines in the M1 Abrams tanks. When they break down, oil gets into the turbine, and spews itself around.

Over the radio, when your tank breaks down, you say, "I shit the bed."

On the other hand, he was really impressed with the German Leopard tank. It just uses a turbo diesel engine, so it is not so sexy, but seems to get the job done.

Re:"I shit the bed"

[ArcherB]

Gas turbines are powerful for their weight, but not exactly economical in fuel use.

A friend of mine was a tank commander in the US army. He complained about the reliability of the gas turbine engines in the M1 Abrams tanks. When they break down, oil gets into the turbine, and spews itself around.

Over the radio, when your tank breaks down, you say, "I shit the bed."

On the other hand, he was really impressed with the German Leopard tank. It just uses a turbo diesel engine, so it is not so sexy, but seems to get the job done.

I was an armor crewman for the US Army on M1s also and I've never heard that expression. If there was ever oil in the engine well, it was from the transmission as the turbine engine uses no oil. I believe your friend was complaining about the tank's transmission, which has four forward and two reverse gears and has to transfer the power from the 1500 hp engine to the tracks independently (one track forward, one track backwards if need be) to move a 72-ton monster through deep mud. In other words, we asked from an awful lot from our transmissions that required some extreme engineering. I'm still amazed the damn things worked at all. I don't believe this car has a transmission as they are not really necessary for electric powered vehicles.

The M1's engines were solid. In my entire time in the service, I never saw a tank break down due to the engine itself. The problem was always somewhere else like transmission, batteries, hydraulics or air intakes.

My view of the tanks were the exact opposite of your friend's. I was in awe of the turbine engine and looked down on the diesel's that powered everything else.

Re:Very Cool

[somersault]

On a more serious note, I'm hoping/assuming they'd have safety mechanisms that allow a wheel to just free-wheel if its motor gives out.

Maybe they should have put in another engine then

[Errol backfiring]

rich people with money to burn.

One that runs on bank notes comes to mind.

makes me wonder...

[misfit815]

...if anything would've changed had Parnelli Jones not lost a ball bearing in 1967.

Re:makes me wonder...

[turbidostato]

"...if anything would've changed had Parnelli Jones not lost a ball bearing in 1967."

Probably. It's another instance of the old motto: History is written by winners (and he lost).

Re:Very Cool

[c6gunner]

Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or LP. I wonder if it can run on a combination, or if you can only have one type of fuel at a time.

It's a jet turbine - you could mix all 4 and throw in some Tang for good measure, and it'll still run. Of course, you'll get decreased performance and some funky looking exhaust, but it'll run.

Re:Very Cool

[Suki I]

Unlike an American V8, which continues to put out awesome amounts of power even after it breaks.

Or a European V12 that generates massive repair bills, running or not.

The problem with safety systems like that

[CFD339]

...tends to be that by definition, they only kick in when something is broken.

I used to climb a little bit. We'd be up on a thousand feet of exposure with just a thin nylon harness and some carefully tied rope. Now I'm a firefighter and have done some rope rescue classes. We don't even go on a steep hill without a far more complex (and heavy) harness system. It seemed ridiculous to me, but it was explained that if the usual way of doing things had worked then we wouldn't have been called in. Something has gone wrong, and we can't always know what it was.

The same problem exists, to us, for cars like the Prius. Lots of very high voltage cables running through parts of the car we would usually cut through to get someone out. In theory, there are safety systems that will cut power to those cables after an accident. In practice, what if the accident affected those cut-off systems? There's a manual cut-off -- I'd have to check the reference material we have, but I think it's under the back seat. If I could get to something under the back seat, I wouldn't need to cut the car apart.

When things are broken, they're ...well....broken. The safety systems may or may not be affected. I think the issue in this case is that broken at 65 miles per hour is one thing, and broken at 205 miles per hour is something else entirely.

I think if a car that was moving that fast being propelled by four independent motors suddenly found itself being propelled by thrust that was no longer balanced and centered -- I wouldn't want to be down range for quite some distance.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[ciderbrew]

I didn't think about the new dangers when cutting people out of a wreck. This gets a +1 interesting from me.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[dave420]

Because right now cars don't have anything dangerous in them, running for the length of the car... :) I'd hazard a guess that wearing thick rubber gloves and an insulating suit (which fire fighters already do, as they deal with lots of dangerous stuff all the time) would offer pretty decent protection, unless the fire fighter in question is chewing on an exposed cable while simultaneously rubbing his dick on the road...

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[leuk_he]

You did see with the Tesla car, when it ran hot, it goes into low power (emergency) mode, you can only drive at very slow speed so you can move you car out of the dangerous area, and wait to cool your your car down or until replace the defective sensor.

If something goes wrong at 205 mph? well, in that case you don't have to worry how to cut open the car, because the driver is probably very dead. solves that problem.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[thegarbz]

There is a very VERY big difference between cloths protective equipment rated for heat and wear and protective equipment rated for power. The materials are very different, have a different rated maximum safe voltage and are inspected differently. If you wore on a construction site while doing live low voltage power work you'll likely find yourself escorted off site.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[roman_mir]

unless the fire fighter in question is chewing on an exposed cable while simultaneously rubbing his dick on the road...

- for some reason I actually pictured it in my head and now I am having a day-time nightmare! WTF did you do that for?

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[PopeRatzo]

If something goes wrong at 205 mph?

I know it makes me sound like a pussy, but I really don't want anyone doing 205mph at least until they fix the potholes.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[dfghjk]

"I think if a car that was moving that fast being propelled by four independent motors suddenly found itself being propelled by thrust that was no longer balanced and centered -- I wouldn't want to be down range for quite some distance."

How is that different than having one motor and computer-controlled multi-wheel drive and braking systems?

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[tvsjr]

It's frightening that someone modded you insightful.

Vehicle extrications are death-traps for firefighters. Just to name a few issues:
Shocks in bumpers, prone to send the bumper flying off the car at knee height
Rollover bars, prone to release at the wrong time and pummel anything in its path (already killed more than one FF)
Chemical airbags, which can cause injury or burns
Stored-gas airbags and their cylinders and tubing - not good to cut into a ~3Kpsi cylinder
High-voltage cables in hybrids
Magnesium and springs in steering columns
Hood and tailgate struts, prone to overheating and exploding
Fuel tank, fuel lines, etc.
And more...

Our bunker gear is insulating... from HEAT, not electricity. I carry a few different types of gloves (structural, extrication, work gloves for hose rolling) - none of them are rubber or insulating from electricity either. There is nothing in a firefighter's typical equipment that will provide any significant protection from electricity. Cutting a high-voltage cable in a hybrid will result in significant injury at best... death at worst.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[afidel]

If something goes wrong at 205 mph? well, in that case you don't have to worry how to cut open the car, because the driver is probably very dead. solves that problem.

Why do people assume all or even a majority of accidents at tripple digits are fatal? NASCAR has several crashes at near 200mph every year and yet it's been a decade since they've killed a driver or even seriously injured one. Granted they have the advantage of designing the obstacles the car can hit, but as an accident earlier this year showed they still end up with some unprotected surfaces that can end with sudden deceleration.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[LWATCDR]

Well at 205 MPH nothing that isn't an airplane is really all that safe.
Imagine on any car at 205 MPH having a bearing go or a tire?
Having one electric motor fail? Actually probably not that bad of problem. Once you detect a motor failure then have the computer shut down on of the motors on the other side. You would also probably want to increase the drag as well so you would raise the spoiler. Of all the failures at speed that seems like a pretty tame and easy to deal issue.
Of course at 205 MPH you better be on a track or closed circuit of some kind or else you will end up jail for a while or at the very least having to pay massive fines or bribes.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[Anarki2004]

Do realize how many safety systems are in place in a NASCAR vehicle? A typical car doesn't have a roll cage, a 5 point safety harness, roof flaps, a window net, seats bolted directly to the frame, built in fire suppression, etc.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

As a firefighter as well, I totally agree with you that there are significant challenges associated with extrication from hybrid vehicles. But most of them can be mitigated with the right training and resources. Check out some of the stuff published by Holmatro, they have tech sheets with locations of cables and sensors etc. and at least in my area they offer training courses where we can spend a night reviewing the locations and techniques on actual cars. The cables shouldn't move too far from the original locations in a crash.

Also agreed about the difference in speed. But what really scares me about these cars is the turbine. Most of the time the engine is no longer running when we show up but a turbine could still be spinning at a high rate of speed and securing the battery could get a whole lot more interesting. Not to mention what happens if the turbine fractures and exits the housing.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[Mitchell314]

Potholes are part of the fun. What challenge would it be if you didn't have to dodge them?

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[leuk_he]

But then ..

I still do not see them cutting open the car. So that problem is solved anyway.

But you are right that such speeds should only be reached at racetracks that are designed to have survivable obstacles.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[msi]

Because the diff or the drive shaft breaking at speed is somthing that never happens, let alone a puncture. Why is it that when ever somthin cool and new is mentioned on /. we have to hate it? Of course a Jaguar jet turbine/electric concept car is not ready for the mainstream but why can't we be excited?

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[MikeBabcock]

You do realize there are countries in the world without American speed limits, right?

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[dave420]

So they just give fire fighters those suits. Problem solved. They're going to have to anyway, as there is no way in hell electric cars are going away. Lots of fire fighters have those suits anyway, as sometimes fire is in the same place as shit-loads of electricity.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[dave420]

You guys don't have suits for working near high-voltage? Wow.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[jpmorgan]

And a HANS device.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[afidel]

Your typical car doesn't go 200+...
Exotic's that can go that fast typically do have an internal structure like a roll cage, 5 point harness's are common, and they have airbags which racecars don't have. As an example of survivability only about half of these severe accidents with exotics were fatal.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[Technician]

"The same problem exists, to us, for cars like the Prius. Lots of very high voltage cables running through parts of the car we would usually cut through to get someone out."

I see you missed the Prius training film on the HV system. I have never seen a firefighter cut through the center of the floor of the car to ever get anyone out. The HV cable goes under the center of the floor of the car in place of the driveline from between the rear wheels (battery pack) and the inverter in the engine compartment. The battery cutout usually has the power cut off before the air bags deploy.

Unless you do rescues through the trunk and seat backs, the center of the floor, or through the engine, your chance of contact is slim.

Cutting the pillars, roof, doors, fenders, etc are all away from the battery circuit. Do some research. Seldom does a firefighter ever need to pull the battery service plug. It is never under the seat. Only one Honda has the switch behind the rear seat back requiring the removal of the seat back cushion. Many models simply require removal of the 12 volt battery negative lead. This disables the relay at the battery disconnecting it.

http://www.aa1car.com/library/hybrid_hazards.htm

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[tvsjr]

No. Why would we?

One of the key components to any fire department is mutual aid - we help each other out. We do similar things with external entities. I need high voltage cut off? I call the power company. I know of no specialized "high voltage" unit or response team in any FD anywhere in the world, save for some industrial fire departments working at large power generation facilities.

We will strip a meter out of a box as a last resort, but we prefer letting the power company handle it. They're trained for it, they have the equipment (which they know how to inspect properly), etc. If we have an electrical hazard, we make a risk/reward decision and try to work around it. If the structure is fully involved and we either know everyone has been evacuated (per the homeowner) or we see that the conditions are not compatible with life, then we won't take a big chance. If we know there are three kids trapped in a bedroom, we'll work around the hazard as best we can to effect the rescue. Firefighting is a series of these decisions - is the amount of potential "good" worth a given amount of peril to my life and the lives of my crew?

Now, think about a crunched-up car, especially a little microbox like a Prius. The guys who work on HV for a living don't have "suits" - they have proper clothing, long insulating gloves, insulating boots, etc., along with tools that do their best to keep them away from the high voltage where possible. Ever tried a set of lineman's gloves on? You can forget any fine motor control. Now, think about what happens when you have no fine motor control and you need to mount an effective rescue on a car that's been crunched badly, while people sit inside bleeding to death. As it is, we are issued additional equipment for vehicle extrication and wildland firefighting (dual certified gear) - jumpsuit, gloves, lightweight helmet. The typical structural firefighting PPE is simply too big and bulky, and it impairs movement to the point that working with hand tools, rescue tools, etc. becomes very difficult. Lineman's gear would be even more of a problem.

Plus, how much gear do you carry? As it is, for my personal gear (this is what's in my locker, not counting what lives on the apparatus), I have:
Full set of structural PPE (coat, pants, suspenders, boots, helmet with light/band/wedges, 2 pairs of gloves, medical gloves, hand tools, rope bag, search loop, additional flashlight, etc.)
Full set of extrication/wildland PPE (jumpsuit, gloves, helmet, hand tools, flashlight, medical gloves, rope bag)
Handheld radio, another flashlight or two, more tools, etc.

I carry all of this every time we get a call (about 700 calls a year, I average 50-60%, all volunteer). Add too much more and we'll need a second truck to carry all of the gear!

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[slinches]

How is that different than having one motor and computer-controlled multi-wheel drive and braking systems?

The difference is that it would be much easier to control in software and probably less prone to simultaneous mechanical failure of more than one drive wheel.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[thegarbz]

Suits, then put them through stringent testing, then also add a shitload of additional training to the firefighters. It can be managed but it is another hassle which can't simply be written off to wearing a set of gloves.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[CFD339]

sorry. You couldn't be more wrong. None of the PPE that wear will do frack-all about high voltage electricity.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[mangu]

I don't know what voltage you have in a Prius, but I'm an electrical engineer and I'm pretty certain that any sort of rubber gloves, even those very thin ones worn by surgeons, will keep you safe from the voltages found in an electric car.

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[couchslug]

"unless the fire fighter in question is chewing on an exposed cable while simultaneously rubbing his dick on the road..."

This thread is worthless without pics!

Re:The problem with safety systems like that

[thegarbz]

I am EE too, LV gloves go way beyond being made of any type of rubber. As soon as the voltage is above 50V your gloves need to capable of withstanding 500V. Beyond that they are manufactured to stringent standards typically EN60903 and IEC903 for many countries. Your basic 500V gloves have a certain requirement for puncture, abrasion, and tear resistance. They need to be carefully inspected every 6 months at a minimum including a leak-test by a licensed electrical worker and have a service live no longer than 3 years.

Now imagine a set of these for every fire fighter. It would be a logistical nightmare.

What budget?

[tygerstripes]

"Basically, all the normal concept car goodies are here, which is a good thing because Jaguar has no plans to build this car."

Re:What budget?

[dave420]

The car != the powertrain. I'm sure we've not heard the last of this sort of thing in a car.

Re:What budget?

[tygerstripes]

I really hope you're right - I love the concept and would love to see widespread, affordable implementation.

If it does make it out of the performance/concept arena, the first place we're likely to see this technology is in Land Rovers (same company) especially given the simplicity & robustness of the design, and that it can essentially use any fuel - perfect for wilderness vehicles.

Re:Very Cool

[Suki I]

You will most likely have reduced performance, especially if the rest of the car has to spin the defective motor, but it should still run...

When Jaguar were still producing V12 engines, it was quite common for people to not change the rear pair spark plugs (they are quite hard to reach because of the size of the v12 and the dimensions of the engine bay) so after a while they would be running on only 10 cylinders.

What if the failure is the braking voltage going to the motor instead of the "going" voltage? Something like a mechanical brake locking up or worse?

Re:Very Cool

[SpiceInvaders]

Hope the electrical parts aren't made by Lucas...

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[ciderbrew]

Erm. I'm not too sure what your fantasy budget limit is; but mine kind of covers a house and a jet pack.

Looks like...

[zmaragdus]

Looks like a Lambo and a Lotus had a baby, then added turbines.

I will admit, having an electric motor dedicated to each wheel allows for some great control. With the physics of how electric motors typically work, you can also get crazy-huge horsepower & torque across nearly the whole range of the motor (assuming it's an induction motor). I can't imagine what the maintenance requirements/costs would be.

However, if this car actually makes it into production, I'd bet it will go the way of the Tesla Roadster: few made, high price (but that's a given), and hard to own/operate. It might also get butchered (visually speaking) between concept and production (remember the Chevy Volt concept car?).

Re:Looks like...

[julesh]

However, if this car actually makes it into production [...] it might also get butchered (visually speaking) between concept and production (remember the Chevy Volt concept car?).

I dunno, Jaguar produce some very nice looking cars. I don't see them going for a design that isn't truly beautiful if they do release a hybrid sports car.

Other turbine-powered cars

[drinkypoo]

In the 1960s Chrysler developed a turbine engine and drove a car across the country on it. They also had a test program with a limited group. Driving it was similar to a diesel, in that it had a startup procedure one had to follow, but it otherwise operated normally. It got significantly better mileage than cars of the day with excellent performance, but it killed gearboxes rapidly.

More recently and more similarly to this project, Langford Performance Engineering of Wellingborough England modified the Ford S-Max seven seat crossover vehicle into a series hybrid plug in vehicle with a [capstone] C30 turbine, achieving over 80 mpg equivalent in early test driving. This made it a series hybrid like the upcoming Chevy Volt, but more efficient.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[dpilot]

I remember hearing about some of the problems with this, and another. A turbine also happens to be wonderful gyroscope, so Chrysler's Turbine Car (I remember seeing the TV commercials as a kid.) had an embedded gyroscope which interfered somewhat with steering. Obviously arranging the axis of the turbine correctly can take care of this, but might make it more difficult to extract power from the engine. When I heard that this new car had 2 turbines, especially after reading about the difficulty of scaling turbines downward, I thought "counter-rotating" to mitigate the gyroscopic effects.

I also have an old high-school friend that has the gearbox problem. He travels to tractor-pull competitions with his jet-powered tractor. Last I talked to him, his #1 maintenance item was the gearbox. No matter what you did, high power plus high RPMs just makes for a tough problem. I also saw the engine room of the battleship Massachusetts at Fall River, Ma. It was steam turbine powered, and the gearbox was several times the size of the turbine.

Using the turbine to drive a generator instead of trying to directly extract mechanical power out of it solves a lot of problems. But from some other reading, I get the impression that they still gear the turbines down, preferring to generate electricity at about 1800 rpm instead of the direct 30-40 krpm. Makes me wonder about the difficulties of high-rpm electrical generation, and how tough that would be to solve.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[scharkalvin]

You could build a single turbine with counter rotating blades geared together to a single shaft which would counteract the gyro effect. When the turbine drives a generator (which could be build on the same shaft as the turbine so no gear box is needed) things get simple since the turbine can now run at a constant speed (something it can't do when connected to a tranny to drive the wheels directly). Also the high temperatures reached in the combustion in a turbine allow the fuel to always be completly burned resulting in little if any CO in the exhaust, though NO2 compounds might have to be filtered out with a cat' converter. Good news is CC's work better at higher exhaust temperatures.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

A plain gas turbine driving a land vehicle is impractical due to turbo lag. Gas turbines respond too slowly for throttle settings. Everyone knows about the turbo lag in the turbo-supercharged gas/diesel engines. Jay Leno has a motorcycle made from an Airforce surplus helicopter gas turbine engine. That thing runs so smoothly with nary a vibration, you would not know the machine is running unless you stand on the exhaust path. But he was saying, "There is a 0.5 sec turbo lag. You twist the throttle, the machine thinks you have suggested a speed increase, and a committee decides to approve of it and then it starts accelerating rapidly. And remember the lag is on the other end too. You shut the throttle off, and the machine produces power for another half a second before decelerating" (paraphrased. not exact words of Jay).

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[Gordonjcp]

Driving it was similar to a diesel, in that it had a startup procedure one had to follow

Diesels don't have any particular "starting procedure" beyond "turn key, drive car".

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[imbaczek]

if you're living on the equator.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[mangu]

if you're living on the equator.

DO you mean diesels run in the opposite direction south of the equator?

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[ArcherB]

Driving it was similar to a diesel, in that it had a startup procedure one had to follow, but it otherwise operated normally

I don't know what the procedure was for this car, but the M1's startup procedure involved turning on the main power with a switch and pushing the "Start" button. The only problem with starting a turbine was that it took several seconds to spin up and ignite. Not a problem in a hybrid as a hybrid can run just fine on battery while the engine spins up.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[Gordonjcp]

What's the equator got to do with it?

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[h4rr4r]

Or after 1990, I live in western NY you know north of parts of canada. We turn key to start it.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[drinkypoo]

It's called starting temperature, and glow time. I have two diesels and neither starts worth a shit if you don't turn key, wait, turn key some more to start, until they are already quite warm. They can both be started without glowing but neither likes it.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[JavaNPerl]

I believe you may be mistaken about the mileage of the 1960s Chrysler turbines...

"However, the firm never divulged mileage figures, which were apparently embarrassing."

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[Gordonjcp]

They must be quite old. I haven't seen glow plugs on anything more than about 15 years old, or at least with a suitably old engine design.

My Mercedes van has no glow plugs, and starts within the first revolution even down to about -20C.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[mrchaotica]

I haven't seen glow plugs on anything more than about 15 years old

Are you sure you didn't mean to say less than about 15 years old?

My 12-year-old VW TDI (which has the same engine as 7-year-old VW TDIs) has glow plugs, although I don't need to use them unless it's nearly freezing (and that's on an engine with nearly 200K miles, too).

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[Gordonjcp]

Yes, sorry, I meant *less* than 15 years old. VW do an interesting thing though, at least on early 90s cars - the glow plug relay is wired to the driver's door interior light switch, so when you open the door the glow plugs are triggered. By the time you've sat down and put the key in, it's ready to start. The engine design they used until common-rail came in is now about 30 years old.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[drinkypoo]

Yes, sorry, I meant *less* than 15 years old. VW do an interesting thing though, at least on early 90s cars - the glow plug relay is wired to the driver's door interior light switch, so when you open the door the glow plugs are triggered.

That might work for VW drivers with tiny engines. A three liter with a massive casting needs more glow power and I don't want to be killing my battery opening the door. My pickup's door is open all the time when it's not running (that's what work trucks are like) so the driver's door switch is disconnected.

The engine design they used until common-rail came in is now about 30 years old.

None of those puny diesels have the longevity of the massive-casting Mercedes motors or a big ol' Cummins. Even my 7.3 liter international-navistar motor doesn't, it has thin cylinder walls with a cavitation problem and you need a coolant additive to prevent cylinder wall damage. (I went with a precharged cooling filter to further extend engine life.) Still better than the GM/Allison 6.5 though.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[Gordonjcp]

No, a three-litre diesel won't need glow plugs that are any bigger than the ones in a 1500cc Peugeot. You clearly don't know how they work. Furthermore, they won't be activated every time you open the door, only if the engine is cold.

The glow plugs in my old Citroën CX 25DTR (which is a very heavy old truck engine) has large glow plugs - larger than the glow plugs in the six-litre straight-six Cummins in my truck. It only ever needed them on extremely cold mornings if it hadn't been run for a few days. The truck hasn't ever really needed more than a second or two before the light goes out.

Anyway, glow plugs are obsolete. Nothing modern uses them. They're like carburettors, or contact-breaker ignition. Gone, and not really missed.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[drinkypoo]

Anyway, glow plugs are obsolete. Nothing modern uses them. They're like carburettors, or contact-breaker ignition. Gone, and not really missed.

In a car I agree. In a truck I want an antique with fresh parts. I want something I can meaningfully wrench on by the side of the road without a scan tool. (Antique is a bit hyperbolic; but I would prefer not to need electricity to continue running, as in my MBZ; ideally I would additionally have the option to bump start.) The choice is realistically between driving a computer down the road or having glow plugs.

Glow plugs are used in different ways in different engines. Sometimes they are just a hotspot. Sometimes they also preheat the cylinder meaningfully. Some of them retain heat meaningfully, some don't. Some are run only for starting, others for a predefined period thereafter, some only when it's cold, or some only with extended period when cold.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[Gordonjcp]

I want something I can meaningfully wrench on by the side of the road without a scan tool.

Really? Why would you want something that doesn't tell you anything about the fault, unless you like guessing games?

With a few dozen engines to maintain you really will want something that doesn't need maintenance, and can tell you what's up at the touch of a button. Now what's really cool is the CANBus-to-radio stuff I'm looking at, where the mechanics don't even need to pull a lorry into the workshop - they just log into a webpage (intranet, VPN in from outside) and can spot where the vehicle is, what it's doing, how much fuel it has on, how much load it's carrying and what (if any) fault codes are stored.

Re:Other turbine-powered cars

[drinkypoo]

Really? Why would you want something that doesn't tell you anything about the fault, unless you like guessing games?

Because it's just additional points of failure, when the truck does tell you about the fault, once you know what the signs look like. Reading Diesel Stop forums has been a fantastic education and if I keep reading and regurgitating (answer the easy questions so the old hands don't have to) then I get to learn what they are without having the faults myself.

With a few dozen engines to maintain you really will want something that doesn't need maintenance, and can tell you what's up at the touch of a button.

So, electric then? I only have two engines to maintain and they are similar in operation though very different in function and performance. It's not so important to have the computer's guess as to the fault that I want the amazing price differential for the new stuff. An injection pump for a PSD costs four times what mine costs and lasts only twice as long, and then there's all kinds of other parts I don't need. I have one cheap mechanical lift pump that works fine, a PSD with two tanks (as my IDI has) has two electric pumps in the tanks. If I had a fleet I would want all that fancy shit, but I don't. I have a Sedan and a 3/4 ton Pickup, both with IDI turbo-diesels, I have all the service manuals and the whole vehicle is perfectly comprehensible and given time I can fix anything that goes wrong. None of the tools necessary for the work are particularly expensive and I have done many of the involved jobs at various times already on other vehicles (or on these) :)

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[somersault]

I'm not talking about fantasy limit, was just talking real money. I don't think having a jetpack is a fantasy. If I properly wanted one I would get one, but if I'm going to be either spending a windfall or getting into debt, then it goes house, car, jetpack.

TURBINE does not equal JET

[BubbaDave]

Dammit!

That is all.

Dave

Re:TURBINE does not equal JET

[agw]

You have something to say against my M1 Abrams "jet"?

Re:TURBINE does not equal JET

[BubbaDave]

How fast does it go on afterburner?

Dave

Re:TURBINE does not equal JET

[agw]

9.81 m/s^2 if it falls out of the cargo hold of a transport plane during flight.

Re:Very Cool

[Vectormatic]

now where is the +1 awesome mod when i need it?

i can just imagine, blitzing across the german autobahn at 120mph in your Britisch Racing Green JJAAAGGGGG with psychedelic orange/green/yellow/pink smoke billowing out the back :P

and around we come, back to ...

[bball99]

a Chrysler!

How's it compare to the jet VW Beetle though?

[thegarbz]

Really Jaguar is just copying this guy here with his jet turbine powered VW Beetle

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not too sure what your fantasy budget limit is; but mine kind of covers a house and a jet pack.

So "a six-pack and a pack of smokes" is thinking too small?

Re:Very Cool

[turbidostato]

"Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or *LP*"

Yes, I indeed find awesome that it can run on old farted vinyls.

Re:Very Cool

[sleeping143]

In the US, at least, the traditional braking system still has to be powerful enough to slow down the car without any concerns of failure, so a loss of electrical motor braking may be noticeable, but would only be likely to be catastrophic if you were pushing the limit and counting on that extra force to be there. And those situations already happen with traditional ICE cars when something in the driveline fails.

Synergy Tata Nano!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Jaguar was bought by the Indian company TATA, famous for its Tata-Nano car, also known as a scooter with a sheet metal bubble! May be they will merge these two technologies and attach the gas turbine to Nano! Or they can just pack a TataNano in the trunk (boot for you Brits) as a spare vehicle instead of a spare tire. The possibilities are endless!

Re:Very Cool

[ari_j]

A Lamborghini can run the quarter mile in 10 seconds, but the full mile takes 9 weeks because you have to hire a team of specialists to replace the clutch halfway through and, let's face it, they're Italian so they're not going to work too fast on the job.

Re:A Prius can do 205 mph?

[Gordonjcp]

I didn't know a Prius could do 205 mph.

It can do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds if you find a high enough cliff.

Re:Very Cool

[WCguru42]

Unlike an American V8, which continues to put out awesome amounts of power even after it breaks.

Or a European V12 that generates massive repair bills, running or not.

V12, V8, hah! If it ain't W16 what's the point?

Re:Very Cool

[catmistake]

Also, I wonder what happens if one or more of the electric motors goes bad or stop working for any reason.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I'm thinking you probably will need to get it fixed.

I believe the point that was being made is that it won't be repaired by the capable mechanics at the K-mart garage, or even the local import guy that used to work for BMW for 20 years and can fix anything... because this isn't like anything and the repair infrastructure which was geared toward fixing the regular combustion engine (already getting more complex in recent past years with new crazy efficient designs--"Where the heck is the battery on this thing... I need a jump and I can't find it anywhere!") won't be equipped to be able to do anything for you. If this car breaks, it sits. But I guess that isn't all that new of a concept for Jaguar owners.

Re:Very Cool

[WCguru42]

In the US, at least, the traditional braking system still has to be powerful enough to slow down the car without any concerns of failure, so a loss of electrical motor braking may be noticeable, but would only be likely to be catastrophic if you were pushing the limit and counting on that extra force to be there. And those situations already happen with traditional ICE cars when something in the driveline fails.

If the electrical motors themselves are used as brakes (which seems like a rather intelligent thing to do) there could be real problems if somehow the motor got shorted out while the car was moving. The amount of torque, and braking power, of an electric engine can be outrageously high. If you applied that much braking power at full speed you'd go into a skid, lots of fun at 200+.

Sweet

[UncleWilly]

Does anyone else this these wheels would look sweet on my 2001 Saturn?

This is such old news....

[XB-70]

This is no big deal.

GM had jet cars in the 50's: 50's Jet Car

Chrysler had one in the 60's: 60's Jet Car

...and Ford had the Mustang 429 Super Cobra Jet!

The only big difference between those cars and this Jag seems to be mileage - but, what would you expect 40-50 years later?

Re:This is such old news....

[PPH]

Actually, the big difference is that the turbine no longer needs to throttle up and down to put out the peak power required for acceleration. Turbines don't do that very well.

Chrysler was working on a turbine-electric concept race car that used a flywheel to store energy for peak demand.

Re:Very Cool

[somersault]

I thought the point being made was what happens if it breaks at speed.

You think simply replacing an electric motor is going to be more difficult than trying to diagnose problems on a combustion engine? I'd expect it wouldn't be much more difficult or complex than fitting a new alternator or brake discs for example. At very worst it would be like fitting a new gearbox.

The drive-trains in electric cars are amazingly simple compared to those in a combustion engine, and the rest is pretty much the same as a regular car.

Re:Very Cool

[N Monkey]

tractor != sports car ...do I have to spell it out for you, you stupid idiot?

What a polite gentleman you are.

FWIW there's some cross-pollination between tractors and performance cars. IIRC, Maserati made (make?) tractors and JCB hold the land speed record for a diesel vehicle.

I think I know the first customer

[jandrese]

Jet Jaguar approves of this vehicle.

Abrams A1 Tank

[DarthVain]

I believe it actually runs off a gas-turbine.

From the TV show, it said it has 4 disadvantages.

1) It uses gas. (and everything else uses diesel, so you have to carry another thing around logistically)
2) It uses a lot of gas. (See above)
3) It generates a LOT of heat. (thus things like heat seeking whatever, can see it on a hot day in a desert...)
4) It is really LOUD. (considering its a tank, that's sayin' something!)

From my perspective, so that does help (if reported accurately) with emissions, however your still dependent on oil, so I see this as a complicated confusing step backwards.

Re:Abrams A1 Tank

[jgtg32a]

Actually the engine can run off of diesel but the USA uses JP-8 (Jet fuel)to simplify logistics, however the Australians use diesel because of their logistical needs. Apparently it is also quieter than a diesel of the same output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Tactical_mobility

Re:Abrams A1 Tank

[wagnerrp]

1) It uses gas. (and everything else uses diesel, so you have to carry another thing around logistically)

Completely wrong. Like most other gas turbine engines, it can run on just about anything. It can run on gasoline, diesel, or any blend of kerosene. The US Army runs theirs on JP-8, jet fuel, as that simplifies their logistics. The Australian Army runs theirs on diesel, as that simplifies their logistics.

4) It is really LOUD. (considering its a tank, that's sayin' something!)

From what I've heard, it's actually surprisingly quiet. The loudest thing you hear is the noise of its tracks, rather than the diesel engines of traditional armored vehicles.

however you're still dependent on oil, so I see this as a complicated confusing step backwards.

No, you are dependent on combustible fuel. You can run a gas turbine on just about anything that is fluid and burns. This can be traditional petroleum based fuels, methane, coal gas. The only thing you have to worry about is fuel with hard particulate, as that will tear up the hot section.

Re:Abrams A1 Tank

[DarthVain]

I guess the TV show had it wrong. And here I thought that TV never lies!

Noise?

[wcrowe]

All other issues aside, I wonder how noisy these gas turbine engines are.

Re:Noise?

[PPH]

What!?

Re:Finally, we can make a Batmobile!

[bigrockpeltr]

yup we can make a batmobile when we go back to the future!!

Re:Very Cool

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

IIRC, Maserati made (make?) tractors and JCB hold the land speed record for a diesel vehicle.

Don't think Maserati ever did historically (but could be wrong) although maybe they do know as part of Fiat with Fiatagri (or does Ford own that now?).

Lamborghini were a tractor firm and allegedly started making cars when the boss was annoyed with something on his Ferrari.

And David Brown (tractor company) ran Aston Martin for many years (it's what the DB in e.g. DB5 stands for).

Better Coverage

[pavon]

Top Speed has much more information that the article that slashdot linked, as well as an official video from Jaguar.

Re:Better Coverage

[Whorhay]

Thanks for the link. The video was a good summary for the very lengthy article.

Re:Very Cool

[Danieljury3]

Its an electrical problem. The Italians invented electricity as we know. ~James may

Not just oil leaks and electrics...

[name_already_taken]

Also after years of research Jaguar found a way to make a gas turbine leak oil.

No joke.

Jaguar couldn't even engineer a convertible top that doesn't end up hosing down the car's occupants with hydraulic fluid, what chance do they have with a turboshaft engine?

Apparently they designed a really complicated electrohydraulic system to operate the convertible top, including hoses that run to the front of the top to operate, of all things, a hydraulic-driven latch, but they never instrumented the prototype systems to see if the fluid pressure exceeds the working pressure of the hoses during the top-up cycle. It does.

Re:Not just oil leaks and electrics...

[Hieronymus Howard]

Jaguars are very reliable these days. In last years JD Power owners satisfaction survey, they came joint 6th (out of 29 manufacturers), above Porsche, BMW, Volvo, Audi and Volkswagen.

http://www.whatcar.com/NonCar/AC/19699419442.jpg

Re:The downside...

[LWATCDR]

And think about it and electric English car! Did Lucas do the electrics? If so wow!
Or as Peter Egan once said.
"One day in when I was serving in Viet Nam the jeep I and just parked got hit by a mortar round. It was the only car I ever had that spontaneously exploded what wasn't English."

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[MrNaz]

Only a Slashdotter can use the word "fantasy" followed by a list of items that does not include a girl.

Homemade possible

[JustABlitheringIdiot]

I attended the Make Faire in NYC last weekend and there was a dune buggy that was turbine powered on display. It was basically a stock frame where he had removed the engine and drive train. The engine was replaced with a small turbine from a military power generator and in this particular case he used a PTO to go to a hydraulic pump and the 4 wheels were hydraulically driven. The thing was pretty sweet and was definitely something a good mechanical person could build at home. Glad to see a major manufacturer going the same route and doing it up as electric instead. This is the way to go in the future, more power, more efficient.

Different Safety concern

[LowerTheBar]

There was a company in the United states that tried rear mounted turbine engines for power mayber 10 years ago - the company was called Rosin motors (or something like that) - they developed increadible power and gas mileage for the time - their only problem was rear impact testing. If a sufficient enough rear impact happened, then all those "spinning blades" in the turbine became hurling blades - because of this, they never produced a streetable car. They tried many techniques to fix this, but any time they had a concept that would contain the turbines, it was too heavy and the gas mileage was degraded to much. I wounder how Jaguar has gotten around this

Re:Different Safety concern

[PPH]

Perhaps they don't intend on selling them in the USA.

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[somersault]

Seems more like it would be the other way round? Only a Slashdotter could consider girls a fantasy?

And besides, like I said this isn't fantasy stuff for me. Fantasy stuff would involve anti-gravity devices, personal spacecraft, immortality, chi fireballs, etc, but stuff like buying a house, an expensive car or a jetpack are all real possibilities, if I was actually set on them.

As for girls, I've had a few girlfriends and there's potential for another in the immediate future, so again that doesn't fall into the realm of fantasy in my book :p

Sorry to spoil the joke a little.

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[Silfax]

but mine kind of covers a house and a jet pack

I would like a jet pack for my house, this way I can jet myself along with all of my stuff to whichever fantasy property I feel like being at.
Shore today, mountains tomorrow, the city sometime next week....

Re:Very Cool

[Creepy]

It's an electric hybrid, so I'm sure it can go for a bit if the motor gave out. Actually, I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner, but probably because GM failed at it once. The reality is the gas turbine is the most efficient engine out there as long as it is at max power output, which is ideal for charging batteries. Turbines are rather loud, but with sufficient sound insulation it could work.

Funny thing is, I was just thinking of how inefficient the internal combustion engine is yesterday and wondering why it hasn't been replaced...

Re:Very Cool

[somersault]

We were more talking about one of the electric motors giving out rather than the turbine, but I agree it's about time we got rid of ICEs in cars.

Rosen Motors already did it, tho, right?

[ninjagin]

Reminds me of the Rosen Motors concept. They had a flywheel that was used to store enough of a charge to actually start the thing, but it was pretty efficient. I really like the idea, and hope it takes hold.

Re:The downside...

[SenseiLeNoir]

I think you mean Rover! (hence why they dont exist!)

But laughs asaide, pretty much all jaguars made in the last 10 years or so were excellent. I owned a Janguar X-Type, Diesel, and it was a very nice car, and very reliable. Economical when you wanted it to be, and fast/powerfull enough when you needed it.

Re:Very Cool

[ninjagin]

It probably has something to do with the sizable reduction in moving parts. A turbine only really has one moving part. Granted, there's a whole host of other gizmos and whatnots that are part of a car, like compressors and brakes and fans and the steeping system and other stuff, but from a powerplant perspective, you'd have to find a way to make money on something that's a lot more simple, and yet also taps into a whole new type of engine expertise for those times when repair and service are required. The infrastructure around IC engines is mature and ubiquitous. The same cannot be said for turbine engines. That would be my guess, as to why it hasn't been replaced with the turbine engine. I have a feeling that it's all about the benjamins.

Atomic Batteries to Power...

[cstacy]

...Turbines to speed!

Obligatory Batman quote

[gv250]

Am I the only one?
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed.
Wikiquote
YouTube

Re:Obligatory Batman quote

[akeeneye]

Nope that's the _very first_ thing I thought of too. But you caught me sleeping here at Stately Wayne Mansion. Bunch of Jokers.

Re:Looks like a fish, moves like a fish...

[SilverEyes]

No no no..., you don't say 'looks like a fish, moves like a fish', you'd say:

"You drive like a dairy farmer"

Then I'd say

"How appropriate, you steer like a cow"

It's about time

[kimvette]

It's about time someone builds a hybrid car with gas turbines. I've been wondering for years when a car manufacturer will do it. Turbines burn very cleanly, are very efficient when used for appropriate applications, and let's face it: there are few things that sound as cool as a turbine spooling up. :)

Bladon Jets turbine

[Animats]

Here's the turbine from Bladon Jets (Isle of Man).

This is the interesting part. Turbine cars have been built before, but the turbine usually cost too much. Bradon claims "low manufacturing costs", but no numbers are given. Here's a video of the engine, and an interview with the designer. It only cost the company a million pounds to get to this point, which is impressive for a startup.

The turbine wheel is made in one piece, by electric discharge machining in an oil bath. That helps to keep the cost down.

Re:Bladon Jets turbine

[gregben]

It's worth taking the time to watch the video.
The individual cowering in the corner of the room
with fingers in ears gives you a good idea of how
loud it is.

Rather than complex rules..

[dmgxmichael]

I've always thought that NASCAR in particular could reduce the thickness of their rulebook considerably by putting the teams on a fuel allowance for the race. If the cars start going too fast to be safe, pull back the fuel they are allowed to get.

Seen it

[whitroth]

This vigilante in Gotham City has had one for decades.

                    mark

Re:Very Cool

[michael_cain]

Its awesome that it can run on diesel, biofuel, natural gas, or LP. I wonder if it can run on a combination, or if you can only have one type of fuel at a time.

I would guess that getting multiple fuels into the single tank simultaneously would be the biggest problem (the turbine probably doesn't care a lot). Standard diesel fueling methods assume that you can simply pour the fuel into the tank and vent the displaced air out the same opening. LPG and CNG assume a sealed system with the fuel introduced under pressure. I would assume that switching between CNG/LPG operation and diesel/biodiesel operation would require at least a controlled purging of the tank. It might also require some mechanical changes to make sure that the opening normally used for diesel fueling is strong enough to withstand the 3,000 PSI or greater pressure that CNG will be stored at. Even mixing CNG and LPG might be problematic, as normal LPG filling equipment work at much lower pressures than CNG.

Finally they're reading my posts!

[iamhassi]

Finally someone is paying attention to me: "series hybrids means we can finally use turbines: gas turbines are the most efficient engine. [wikipedia.org] While a gasoline engine is only 20-30% efficient, [wikipedia.org] a gas turbine is over 80% efficient. [wikipedia.org] In 1999 GM made a EV1 Series hybrid using a turbine generator. The vehicle achieved up to 100mpg while charging the battery [wikipedia.org] using 90s technology and a 220 lbs turbine (modern turbines are much smaller [wikipedia.org]) "

Now I really am +5, Interesting

Just Compensation

[hduff]

FTA: Cnet UK reports the car can do 0-60 mph in 3.4 sec. (and 50-90 mph in 2.3 sec.) and reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius.

And thus provides the owner with a larger penis.

At 205 MPH it doesn't matter if it's IC or Thrust

[RedDrake]

When things are broken, they're ...well....broken. The safety systems may or may not be affected. I think the issue in this case is that broken at 65 miles per hour is one thing, and broken at 205 miles per hour is something else entirely.

I think if a car that was moving that fast being propelled by four independent motors suddenly found itself being propelled by thrust that was no longer balanced and centered -- I wouldn't want to be down range for quite some distance.

If your going to have a failure at 205 mph, I don't think it matters if your being propelled by unbalanced thrust or a traditional Internal Combustion engine. It's going to be bad.

Re:Very Cool

[Amouth]

not sure about that.. I've got a 302 V8 that has 2 idle issues - technically it is broken.. but will still pull shit just fine. One of these days when i have a lot more time i'll pull the heads and fix it.. till then it works well enough

Re:Very Cool

[mobets]

Turbines will run on just about anything that burns.

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[NotBornYesterday]

[Lands house on golf course; sticks head out front door] GET OFF MY LAWN!

Re:Very Cool

[arivanov]

Probably not. Using a fuel with built-in oxidiser is probably outside the design limits of the turbine. It is also pointless as the turbine has excess oxidiser through natural "air breathing".

Re:Very Cool

[somersault]

To me that sounds more like it's in need of a good clean and service than "broken". It maybe doesn't work in the intended manner right now, but it's not broken like my Prelude engine where the big end seized up and it just wouldn't turn at all. Idle issues sounds more like you just need to clean it out, bleed the radiator system, check sensors etc. As you say you can still use the car fine, so if it was a limb it would have more of a bruise than a break.

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[jbengt]

turbine != jet
stupid fuckin headlines

Re:Very Cool

[Amouth]

not so much a clean out as replacing a couple of values & an injector.. right now it runs on 7 cylinders until ~2500 rpm - that is broken.. take a car i used to have - was a straight 6.. when 1 of the 6 power packs died it couldn't/wouldn't start.

my comment was to the fact that the american small block v8 is known to be a hard to kill compared to others. In fact i bought that truck specifically because it is one of the ones you can drive into the ground and then drive home.

Almost fast as a Pagani! Does it run Linux?

[linuxiac]

It might be as fast as a Pagani, but, does it run Linux for the on-board computer? That would make it most efficient! Remember the Linux Motorcycle? E-motorcycle TTX02 from Mavizen.

Re:Very Cool

[instagib]

Sounds funny, but at that speed uptight Germans in Passat Diesels will pass you on your left, while nervously trying to explain through signs that your engine is kaputt.

Re:Very Cool

[turgid]

W16? Give me a Wankel rotary engine any day. Reciprocating piston engines are for Victorians.

205 mph, eh?

[Bloody Peasant]

Jaguar has developed a hybrid car that runs on gas turbines... Cnet UK reports the car can... reach 205 mph while emitting less CO2 than a Toyota Prius.

I didn't know a Prius could go 205 mph :-P

Lambos actually

[DABANSHEE]

Lambo was a tractor manufacturer. Then one day Mr Lambo bought a Ferrari & wasn't impressed & took it back, Mr Ferrari refused to improve the Ferrari as Mr Lambo requested, so Mr Lambo stormed off in a huff yelling 'bugger you, I can do a better job building supercars myself'

Re:Very Cool

[sjames]

Typically for independent wheel motors, direct drive is used, so it probably will freewheel if the motor fails.

Nope.

[CFD339]

You know happens if an electrical substation is on fire? It burns. Firefighters do not attempt to put it out.

How do I know this? I AM a firefighter.

That's helpful

[CFD339]

There are many cars, and I certainly don't study them all. The hybrids have been (and remain) a concern for us. If your description is true -- and I hope it is, than that's one less.

I don't think it changes my point any, but it's good information.

Re:That's helpful

[Technician]

I should mention that with side curtain and seat installed airbags, your big hazard is airbags. Normal cutting locations by window posts may place your cut right through an airbag charge. They pose a much higher risk then a hybrid battery pack and wiring simply due to the locations.

Re:Why not a jet pack?

[mangu]

I'm not too sure what your fantasy budget limit is; but mine kind of covers a house and a jet pack.

So "a six-pack and a pack of smokes" is thinking too small?

Definitely. I recommend putting a few hookers on top of that.

Re:Very Cool

[Mista2]

No, I think you meant "Smoke" not "Power"

Re:Very Cool

[catmistake]

The point, I really thought, was the common infrastructure of car repair. Most big repair places charge via some standard they get out of a book... it may only take the mechanic such and such a time to do your breaks or replace a bad head gasket, but the book says it takes some other amount of time, and that's what they charge. This isn't going to be in their charge standard books... it's not like other cars. I'm sure you can find someone to fix it... however, it isn't every single mechanic, like can do your breaks or replace a head gasket. Mechanics are wonderful individuals, but the less like most other problems they see, the less choice you will have in who will repair it, the more time consuming and expensive it will be.

No, I don't believe so.

[CFD339]

You'd be mistaken. Hybrid cars produce as much as 300 volts.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hybrid-car-voltage.htm/printable

I believe it tends to be low amperage, but I'm not certain. It's the voltage that will let the charge get across those thin gloves though.

Re:A Prius can do 205 mph?

[ari_j]

Actually, it can't, unless you give it a bit of a push. Assuming no air resistance, after 2 seconds from a stationary start it will be falling at 19.6m/s, which is about 44mph. I don't post to be a pedant, but to point out that 0-60 in 2.6 seconds is better than 1G of forward acceleration, which is pretty cool.

Serious misreading

[WindShadow]

Don't confuse "jet engines" (thrust) with gas turbines (rotary power). It certainly sounds as if the turbines deliver power to the generator(s?) and possibly the wheels. As far as I can tell this is not "jet" tech, but "turbo-prop" engineering, using the spinning turbine to drive something via gears.

Note that Chrysler built about 50 turbine cars in the 60's but buyers didn't like the engine noise.

yeah, that one we watch for....

[CFD339]

Airbags are everywhere now.

First thing we do in a powered extrication is secure the battery cables. After 60 seconds the airbags at least shouldn't deploy as a result of a broken or shorted sensor wire. That doesn't completely make them safe - those charges can still be dangerous as hell if you cut into them. When we can take the time (and usually we can) we have reference material available for most cars, otherwise, we count on our padded gear, hardhats, eye protection, and good karma.

At the end of the day, it's just not a safe thing to do. If I forget, I just have to look at the inside pocket of my turnout gear. On it, a patch says quite clearly "Firefighting is an inherently dangerous activity and cannot be made safe."

We have a saying in the fire service....God hates cowards.

Re:Very Cool

[c6gunner]

According to wikipedia, the average speed driven on the autobahn is 134 km/h (83.75 mph).